Talk:Baby sign language

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Natsisa. Peer reviewers: Catgurr.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2020 and 15 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mo.tanner.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tulsa01, Sarah.Monk, Kcarlson2. Peer reviewers: Amandafoort, Care.hail, JessicaRJ.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

errors
The statement "topic/comment [is] the grammar of spoken languages which lack a written form" is completely false. Lots of languages with clear grammatical subjects are unwritten, and conversely written languages such as Chinese have been claimed to be topic-comment. The adaptation of writing to a language does not radically restructure its grammatical system!

Also, "Look! Squirrel!" is not a topic-comment construction (unless you consider the pointing to be the topic, in which case "[point] Squirrel!" is a better example), and "There is a squirrel roughly to the north-east of us, approximately 20 feet away." does not have a grammatical subject or object, so it does not at all illustrate a subject-verb-object construction. --kwami 08:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Non-pay external links?
Most all of the sites I seem to find on the Internet are pay-sites. This makes me a little dubious. Does anyone have any good free sites? Thanks! Ewlyahoocom 18:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's a whole lot to it. The books I've seen are mostly testimonials to convince you to try it. There's maybe half a chapter of useful info such as at what age you might see results, the importance of repetition and reinforcement (you know, general pedagogy), reduction in temper tantrums, greater eloquence once speech is learned, and children passing sign on to their younger sibs after they've ceased to use it with their parents. Then there's the debate over ASL vs. true baby sign; for the former, you can get a regular ASL dictionary; in the case of the latter, the book will give suggestions for useful words and ways to sign them, but in the end will tell you that the best signs are the ones you and your child come up with together. So other than a feel-good exercise, 90% of the text is useless once you've decided to go this route. I doubt the pay sites offer anything more than the books. kwami 19:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I just reversed an addition of a pay site (http://www.babysign.co.uk/) as spam. Should I not have done it? --Phelan 06:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Another pay site was added. This time I just moved it down and marked it as a commercial site. Phelan 13:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"Does anyone have any good free sites? Thanks! Ewlyahoocom 18:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)" Yes, please see this learning module from the University of Michigan Dept. of Family Medicine: https://sites.google.com/a/umich.edu/fammed-modules/parenting/sign-with-your-baby --Dmalicke (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Cons
I'm most interested in the cons. There seems to be lots of sites saying how wonderful it is, but what research contradicts or supports the claims.
 * I actually haven't heard of any yet. I've got a friend who's been studying ASL/interpreting for many years now and has studied baby signs from a professional point of view, and she only had positive things to say about it as well. The biggest "con" claim seems to be that it will discourage kids from learning to talk, and that's been refuted by most professionals that've actually studied the situation. I'm looking forward to trying this once my baby's born. --Maelwys 20:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Another possible con could be that it would be more difficult to learn normal sign language after learning the simplified one. However, I don't think that children that young can be imprinted to such a degree.  I'd ask a developmental psychologist (or a psycholinguist) for more information about possible cons. - Tom Tolnam, 167.128.45.97 20:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I would refute the "con" that using ASL signs delays speech. I have used ASL with my own children, as well as children in my childcare that weren't speaking yet, to encourage early communication. As long as signing doesn't become a substitute for spoken language (meaning that the caregiver verbalizes the word accompanying the sign, the child will not be discouraged from speaking. Also, I am an advocate of teaching ASL-accurate signs to babies, not a made-up sign language, in order to create a natural foundation for learning more advanced ASL in later childhood. Amirussell (talk) 02:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources!/Cleanup
I made an attempt to remove some of the howto-like statements and the bulk of the language that was written in the second-person. Further edits and wikification are probably necessary, however. There are also several unverified claims in this article for which sources should be cited. This one in particular is bugging me: "However, all available research shows that hearing children who sign as infants go on to develop particularly rich spoken vocabularies"

If "all available research" shows it, then would it really be that hard for the author to back up their claim? Explaining the origins of terminology like "highly motivating" and "need based" would also be helpful. MrZaius talk  05:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello - I wanted to join the discussion here. In my book on baby sign, I use the terms "need based" and "high impact" when talking about different types and motivations for babies who are learning to sign. I don't want to edit the main article because I don't know how, but here is a brief paragraph:

"Need-Based Signs are those signs that reflect a baby's needs. Anything dealing with sustenance, comfort, warmth, sleep, and safety would fall in this category. High-Impact Signs are signs connected with objects, activities, or situations that you know your own baby finds highly interesting or extremely fun." Beyer, Monica. Baby Talk. 1st ed. New York City: Tarcher, 2006. 19.

I agree with you here. As soon as I get back to town and have steady access again to the computer, I'll definitely put in the research that backs this up, as well as the nay-sayers. Be on the lookout!

This is information makes no sence at all. You have just wasted like an hour of your time!

This isn't an article, it's an advertisement
This article is written from a decidedly advocatory point of view. It doesn't give objective information about baby sign language. It's an abuse of Wikipedia's open forum policy. 66.236.15.114 15:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been worse: If it could use further cleanup, or if you have the sources needed to point to objective analysis of the topic, then you too can help. MrZaius talk  16:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried to fix some of the non-objective information in my edit today, but I'm pretty new to Wikipedia's NPOV, and I couldn't find any sources who criticized Baby Sign (either as a detrimental or even ineffective practice), so I'm not sure if I helped or hurt the objectivity of the article with my edits. The former, I hope.


 * Can anyone find some peer-reviewed articles that show negligible benefit to baby sign language? I'm not saying there *s* a negligible benefit, only that the existence of such a study would show that there was evidence on both sides (as opposed to singular endorsement).

Unexplained Move
The undiscussed move with unclear rationale introduced a title that seems to imply coverage of sign language in disabled children as well. Please explain or revert. MrZaius talk  20:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "Baby Sign" seems to be a brand name. This article isn't about one particular business model, it's about the entire practice of teaching sign to infants and small children.  I can't find any rationale for always referring to it as "Baby Sign", that proper noun is not what should be used.  Photouploaded 02:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Suitability
I came here looking for the recommended starting age for Baby Sign but, alas, I could not find this information. I treat Wikipedia as my second brain so I was most disappointed that I was let down. Indeed I am reconsidering a formal request for a refund. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.70.152.142 (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know if there have been any studies looking at optimum starting age. I think it might be difficult to find one. Doherty-Sneddon certainly doesn't refer to any. But I think there is a tacit assumption that for signing with infants to have most benefit it should be done before vocal language starts to emerge. I don't see that there can be much negative impact of signing from birth, although a more sensible start time might be when the baby can recognise hand gestures as being different. My guess is that's going to be some time in the first few months, as soon as the focus of attention starts to open out from just faces and facial expressions. For hearing babies I suppose there may be a pre-adaptation to mother's voice even pre-birth, so vocal communication gets a head start. With non-hearing babies maybe gesture will have greater significance ealier. But not being a practionner, it's hard to say. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Marilyn Daniels, PHd
Someone, and not me, should discuss the research of Dr. Marilyn Daniels into this discussion. 'Dancing with Words: Signing for Hearing Children's Literacy' is a wonderful reference on the benefits of signing with hearing children.

68.106.23.211 (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Marilyn C. Prevatte

Wikibook
I suggest a wikibook about teach sign language in infants and toddlers by the parents.--Mac (talk) 09:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Review systems
There seem to be two distinct systems of baby sign language in use: the ASL-based system promoted by Garcia, and the "Baby Signs" system of Acredolo and Goodwyn. The article should discuss this, and ideally should compare the two systems, their merits and disadvantages, etc.--Srleffler (talk) 05:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Systems of Baby Signing
ASL based is the way to go. Using the "Baby Signs" system, using made up signs, only creates confusion. I should know, I've taught ASL for 20+ years, and have seen the results of children (both Deaf and hearing) who were taught made up signs - wasn't pretty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SignmomMJ (talk • contribs) 23:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * “You should know,” because you say so, and cite anecdotal evidence. Awesome! —Wiki Wikardo 20:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This whole articleis so ridiculous. For a start it conflates pre-linguistic symbolic communication with LANGUAGE acquisition. If you don't know the difference between communication and language you really should not be promoting ideas about language acquisition. Teaching ASL to a child with no sense of self and grammar is not different to teaching the child any old random symbols... unless ofcourse the child is being raised in an ASL L1 environment. Language acquisition simply requires meaniful linguistic input in their environment: i.e. TALKING to kids is all tehy need to flourish. 11:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.158 (talk)
 * Would you mind providing a reliable source or two in addition to ranting? Cresix (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Can Cresix write a question without an ad hominen contained? Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langauge_acquisition It'll give you an overview of current understand of L1 LA. Read this which will show also that ASL morphology is highly divergent to spoken English, so there is no logical advantage to teaching ASL for personal development if the child is not in an ASL community- though I would argue aside that teaching _SL to all children would promote inclusion, but that it speaks nothing to the boasts of Baby Sign. In fact, in terms of prelinguistic communication any sign would be as good as another because there is no inherent magic in one grammar-free sign over the other to mind that doesn'y yet have any grammatical capacity. And just to be as non-ranty as possible, I'm going to assume that you are unaware of what distinguishes langae from communication and will direct your good 'ad hominem' self to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar.

Thus in summary teaching ASL to kids who are not yet capable of grammatical understanding is like teaching an elephant to play piano... The bits the kids will get right are not actually going to anymore than rudiments, much as a would be expceted from a chimp. Children do not need to be taught language, children only need read and personal linguitic input from adults. An accessible place to start reading might be Steven Pinker on the subject. 92.40.253.93 (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Anon 92, thanks for enlightening me about the difference between language and communication. I thought about going back and re-reading my notes from my Master's from Gallaudet University and subsequent Ph.D. from Yale, but then I realized . . . hey . . . anon92 knows more than any of my professors or the writers of any of the books or journal articles I read, so what's the point. I'll just read this talk page and let you get me up to speed. And thanks for linking a couple of Wikipedia articles. That was so helpful. By the way, I never claimed that it was a good idea to teach ASL to kids. I asked for a source to back up your ideas; that's only been done, uh, let's say about ten millions times on Wikipedia. But now I realize, you don't need a source. You are the only source that anyone needs. How could I have been so stupid?? Cresix (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I do understand what you are saying, but you'd still need reliable sources (and less POV) if you wanted to add any of this to the article. Teaching signs without grammar or syntax is not giving a language, and it's a different concept than the language acquisition of ASL (or other SLs) in infants and toddlers. That doesn't mean teaching Hearing infants SL or even just signs is useless (particularly if you continue to teach, as some do), as there are studies showing a correlation between SL and other second languages and certain benefits.


 * Perhaps the different topics of baby sign and SL acquisition could warrant a split? - Purplewowies (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree there should be a clear split between the sign langauge acquisition and the gestural communication. The waters are unfortunately obviously muddied outside teh scope of the article to those who don't know teh very big distinction.

I'm not making any suggestions for additions. I'm just pointing out a massive flaw in teh premise of the article. I notice also further up there has been a call for peer-reviewed work... wihout which the article could validly be deemed an advertising piece for new age hokum.

I have no special interest, but came upon this article by chance and spotted the gaping chasm between its position and what even any undergraduate liguist should know about LA. I'm not 'hep' to wiki 'jive', but it needs to be flagged up as somthing that is dubious credibility. 09:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.111 (talk)


 * 1) Oh and i'm not going respond to anyone who begisn an argument with their own credentials, especially after failing to address any points and reaching for ad hominem. Pointless ego tripping. Get a life! 94.197.127.111 (talk) 09:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No one will hold it against you that you don't want to go up against someone with real world credentials. I've edited Wikipedia as a registered user for four years and two years unregistered before that. Because core principles such as ability to back up your statements with reliable sources are more important on Wikipedia than having credentials, in those six years, I've only mentioned my credentials twice. I reserve those rare occasions for the times that I see someone (in both cases someone editing anonymously) who beats his chest declaring an article ridiculous without bothering to back up their claims; or, on the other hand, someone who pronounces an article as beyond criticism. It doesn't matter to me which side they're on or whether I might agree with part of what they say. It's the weaseling or the peacocking (either is just as bad) without substance (i.e., sources) that catches my eye. Cresix (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow! How could anyone go up against Ad-hominem man and his appeals to authority. Paper cuts stone? 94.197.127.205 (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree that not many Wikipedians desire to interact with you, except I would leave out the "appeals to authority" part since you have none. Cresix (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I was a bit confused reading that it "isn't real sign language" because the course I took used our country's equivalent of ASL, although of course reduced to simple nouns or verbs. I assume the article conflates the general concept with specific commercial products as none of the signs indicated in any of the illustrations in the article match what we were taught. -- 2001:16B8:1891:FC00:B13F:ED73:A200:C266 (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There are different systems used to sign with babies, from constructed gesture systems that have nothing to do with sign language, to the local sign language (but generally without regard to sign language's grammar or syntax), to actually just straight-up using sign language itself (complete with the grammar and syntax). This article could probably, if it doesn't already (it's been awhile since I skimmed), clarify something to that effect. - Purplewowies (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Content
I would like to start off by saying that this article seems a bit of a wreck. For a start, it seems to promote and largely comprise the opinions of the researchers mentioned in the article. This is fine, but the article goes about it the wrong way. It gives tremendous weight to two of these researchers by stating that they were the pioneers of teaching infants and toddlers sign language, completely uncited. It also states that a given researcher is a leading proponent, uncited as well. The whole "Research" section seems to be a hastily conglomerated section of studies. However, this seems to be more about the presentation rather than the content. This article certainly needs to be more concluded on hard facts rather than a few expert opinions- while I do not dispute the majority of the article is undoubtedly true, the information given is just conclusions of people, as opposed to some bare statistics that can be concluded by a reader or the article. I also fear that this gives a bit too much weight to ASL- there are other sign languages, as I can attest. Some of the article is a few isolated biographies, and once even mentions a researchers intentions for study! Anyway, I expressly apologise for spamming the top of the page, and I just wanted to highlight what was wrong with the article for future improvement. I fear that I won't be able to improve it without brutalising the most of the article. If you feel a given tag is excessive or wrong, feel free to reduce it. In retrospect, I think a cleanup tag would have sufficed. En-AU  Speaker  (T)  (C)  (E) 10:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Much of the "Research" section is verbatim text from. It is often unclear where the wikipedia article ends and the quotes begin. Badly needs cleanup in my view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.130.6.72 (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the research section needs some work. I think with expansion of the development and practice sections to include their own relevant research information, the research section could be done away with. CPev (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Edits to Case study on bilingual exposure
With regard to the "Case study on bilingual exposure" section, I have some issues... The first sentence states "Case studies have also been done to see what the effects of bilingual exposure can do to help in language acquisition and progress.". The remainder of the section goes on to deeply quote a single study, and only ever references that study. In fact, the second sentence states: "This specific case study was done with Marco, an Italian hearing child of deaf parents.". That second sentence sites three references. The first reference is to a wikipedia page which doesn't exist, which is referenced two earlier times in this article. The second and third references are both malformed. In addition, the first paragraph reiterates material in the quotations below. The first sentence is also biased in favor, but the study is not shown to have set out with that intention ("...what the effects of bilingual exposure can do to help..."). I will remove the first paragraph, and merge the broken footnotes/references into the first line of the second paragraph, along with some explanation. It currently says "Hearing Children Exposed to Spoken & Signed Input (Capirci et al. 1998) 2002 investigated the transition from gesture to sign in a case study of Italian, hearing, bimodal, bilingual child.". I assume that both the study and the book are about this subject since they are both referenced here, and so I will note them as such, but this could be wrong. Lastly, I changed "Interesting Points:" to "The study concluded these points as interesting:". Tacticus (talk) 03:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite In popular culture?
Part of the "In popular culture" section includes this, with very few links, citations, etc. If these programs are so popular, shouldn't they have pages of their own? The entire paragraph does not appear to be impartial, and starts out feeling like ad copy. It states currently: "In today's society many parents are interested in learning how to sign in order to communicate with their infants. By signing it will reduce frustration for both the caregiver and child because the infant will now be able to communicate their needs through signing which will given parents the opportunity to understand. There are numerous ways to learn how to sign. For example, there are sit and play workshops that teach parents and children how to sign through play. Parents can also use a program called Baby Signs that help parents develop signs based on gestures babies already make. A popular program Sign with your Baby uses the basics of American Sign Language to teach simple signs such as milk and more. Through these programs it makes it possible for hearing parents to teach their infants how to sign." In short, IMO there are useful potential references in this, but it needs to be reworked by someone who can hunt down the media in question, and remove the sales language. Tacticus (talk) 04:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Baby sign language vs. sign language acquisition
The main sign language article has a link "sign language in infants and toddlers" that redirects to this page. Given that much of the research about signed languages deals with their acquisition, and given the complaints about the quality of this page, perhaps a "redesign" of the page could be beneficial. What I have in mind is focusing the page onto sign language acquisition, perhaps with a smaller section on specialized baby sign languages. Some of the information already here is applicable, so it might not require a totally new article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CPev (talk • contribs) 23:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions
Hello,

I wanted to make some suggestions for improvement on the article. I believe it would be nice to have more links that are more specific on the page. I noticed one link went to a magazine and not the article. I feel like some of the sub-sections are about specific researchers and have information about only their research. It would be nice if someone could find more sources and it would make the page stronger. Also, some of the sub-sections seemed "wordy" it would be nice to be able to get more to the point and then be able to reference what was found. Some of the research that is referenced is quite dated (1987), I believe there has been much more research on the subject since then. Personally, I find "baby sign language" and its relation to language development and the research on bilingual exposure much more interesting than some of the sub-sections that are placed higher up on the page. Maybe some of the sections can be shifted.

Thanks,

75.157.139.171 (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Constructive Feedback
The idea behind this article, Baby sign language, is one which can be further expanded on. I found that the topics were redundant perhaps having a "Research" section with the different types, behavioural and developmental as the subsection, would be better suited. As well I found that as I clicked on the links for the references, which there are many, they do not appear to be peer-reviewed and I do not consider them reliable. Also touching on the discussion of referencing different research experiments it would be good to summarize the experiments better in terms of the methods, data collected and the results and including visuals such as tables, graphs and charts. On a concluding note I think that there is more to this topic than just a few research experiments, its use in a movie and the fact that it is currently trendy with parents.

Kerrkelsey (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Constructive Feedback and Suggestions
The article can be cleaned up with a less persuasive tone so it can display a more neutral point of view. Language used contains unsourced opinions. For example, saying “The most interesting point seems to be…” shows personal opinion. In many sections of the article, the information shows support towards the idea that baby signing helps/ improves development. However, there is a lack of information and sources in the article that display other points of view. Providing information on research that has perhaps not supported the claim that baby signing aids in child development, can reduce the feeling of persuasiveness in the article.

Veegu (talk) 03:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Intention to Delete
I would like to propose that the following excerpt is deleted from the behavioural research section:

In a discussion section entitled "Implications for Parents", the authors summarize the results of the study by saying "By the 36 month comparisons, the [symbolic training] children were ahead of the controls, but not significantly so... significant positive effects do not appear to last."

This information is already summarized in the preceding sentence: "By the age of 36 months, there was no continued advantage in the group that had been taught by symbolic gestures when compared to the non-trained control group."

CRHeck (talk) 05:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to be made by Students in AUPSY 471
Proposed changes to be made include explaining what baby sign consists of and how baby sign is neither beneficial nor harmful to children’s language development. In order to explain this we will provide evidence and numerous perspectives regarding the positive effects that baby sign can have and the neutral perspective that shows no benefit or harm as a result of baby sign. In expressing positive effects we will bring in research associated with gesture and the tactile skills, vocal interactions, and accelerated speech that have been associated with gesture and thus with signing. Tactile skills involve the development of children’s gross and fine motor skills which allow them to use signing to communicate their needs and wants. Furthermore, we will provide evidence that supports the active participation of infants in baby sign which can encourage a more contingent relationship with the parent resulting in greater vocal language exposure for the infant. In support of a neutral position we will explain the discrepancies present on popular websites and the lack of empirical evidence supporting the website claims of increased IQ, decreased tantrums, greater child-parent bonding, and increased infant self-esteem. In this we will explain the advertisement of baby sign and how it is commercialized in media to attract parents attention without being supported by empirical evidence. Sarah.Monk (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks good. I commented in Tulsa01's sandbox talk page. Don't forget to see if there are other useful suggestions on this talk page. Veegu and CRHeck have good observations above. Paula Marentette (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Baby sign language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090813044507/http://www.signingtime.com:80/forums/showpost.php?p=20499&postcount=117 to http://www.signingtime.com/forums/showpost.php?p=20499&postcount=117

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Edits to In Popular Culture
I changed this heading to apply more directly to what is being discussed. I added information backed up by research and removed uncited information Sarah.Monk (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I created a section headed "What is Baby Sign Language?". It provides a description of what baby sign is and also discusses the clear distinctions between baby sign and ASL as well as baby sign and symbolic gesturing since there is often misconceptions between them. Tulsa01 (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Modifications
I reorganized and modified the research section of the page to layout a more neutral outlook. I also added some supportive information as well as reorganized and added to the existing supportive research. I have yet to check the reliability of the previously existing research sources. Tulsa01 (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Recent Edits
I created an intro that encompasses what the page is aiming to inform people of. Added information into the Practice of baby sign section to support how parents help their children learn sign, where sign originates from, and provide research to support the claims. I have not yet evaluated the last paragraph in this section that refers to the test in Texas.Sarah.Monk (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hi everyone,

I am editing the introduction, what is baby sign, supportive and developmental research sections.
 * In 'what is baby sign' you say " The main purpose of implementing baby..." - this sounds a little bit scholarly rather than wiky. Possibly try "the main reason parents use baby sign..."
 * what do you mean by " All-ASL" - adult ASL?
 * changed " Both All-ASL and baby-friendly approaches have been taught in baby sign training programs though it is the parents preference as to which method to adhere to" to " Both All-ASL and baby-friendly approaches have been taught in baby sign training programs, nevertheless, it is the parents preference as to which method to adhere to"
 * changed " It is also common for the clear difference between symbolic gestures and baby sign language to be mistaken." to " It is common for the difference between symbolic gestures and baby sign language to be mistaken." - because it may not be 'clear' to everyone.
 * consider "..11-month-old children whose speech and language development was monitored until the age of three." instead of " 11-month-old children who up until the age of three their speech and language development was monitored."
 * consider "Results showed that children baby sign language group were found have higher scores than the non-training control group." instead of " Results showed that the average scores of children in the study that were in the group that used baby sign language were found to be higher than the non-training control group. " - as maybe less wordy and easier to follow.
 * " More specifically language development is enhanced by advancing comprehension, and promotes literacy and the fact that it successfully allows the infant to express their needs the parent becomes more responsive and observant of their baby" - this sentence is hard to follow, maybe " More specifically language development is enhanced by advancing comprehension, and promoting literacy. It successfully allows the infant to express their needs which allows the parent to become more responsive and observant of their baby"
 * "Doherty-Sneddon concludes by arguing there are three different levels of support for the benefits of baby signing of which include; indicative evidence from baby signing research, related evidence from deaf sign and hearing gesture/language research, and compelling anecdotal support from families who have embraced the approach." and continuing into the last paragraph- quite scholarly.. how would a parent understand this/what implications does this have to parents or other readers.


 * Overall good sections. I'm not sure of the plan for this page however the one 'issue' I see is that of what I read the majority was very scholarly rather than what I would consider 'wiki-y'. Care.hail (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review
I have peer reviewed the Contrasting Research, Controversy, and Practice of Learning Baby Sign section (not including Case Study). I have also made some very minor punctuation edits throughout. Here are a few suggestions I had when reviewing:

Contrasting Research section:

•	In the sentence: "Kirk and colleagues have found that the results of their study with healthy infants provided no evidence to support that through learning baby sign, a child's language development would benefit." - I would suggest modifying this sentence so that it is more straightforward, such as “provided no evidence to support that a child’s language development would benefit from learning baby sign.”

•	“It is possible that baby sign is working in support of infant vocalization, but was not found to facilitate their later spoken development.” - For clarification in this sentence, I would maybe specify/ mention how baby sign supports infant vocalization, because it is being mentioned in this section for the first time.

•	“The results of multiple studies regarding baby sign have found that linguistic advantage does not proceed children over the age of two years old.” I found this particular sentence to be a little confusing. I think the use of the verb proceed requires a little more clarification in the sentence. I also would simplify “over the age of two years old” to “past two years of age” or “over age two”.

•	“Teaching baby sign in the absence of researchers, where the parent does not have the opportunity to raise questions or concerns, in contrast with Mueller and Supulveda's study, may heighten stress levels”. – This sentence does contain a citation, so for ease of reading, and integration, I would suggest omitting “in contrast with Mueller and Supulveda’s study”. However, I find it a little confusing where this information is coming from, because it is the Mueller and Supulveda study that is cited, although it is this article that the sentence is disputing? I would suggest checking this source to see whether this is an appropriate citation for what this sentence is conveying, or whether a citation disputing the claim is needed.

Overall I found this to be a really good section with a wide range of sources and information integrated really well.

Controvery section:

This section is very good! The only suggestion I would have here is that the Unitary Timing Mechanism explanation is very scholarly, and would be very difficult to understand for the average reader, especially concerning the vocabulary used.

The Practice of Learning Baby Sign Section:

•	For this sentence: “Infants will learn to associate the general motion that they execute when using an object-such as throwing a ball-with the motion alone-a throwing gesture.” - I think that the examples used in this sentence are great for enhancing understanding, but I would suggest exchanging the multiple dashes in this sentence with brackets.

•	In the final paragraph regarding the case study in Texas, I found it to be a little confusing, particularly the sentence “These ideologies value early communication with infants and promote the adaptation of the physical, social, and linguistic environment to their perceived needs.” It’s unclear which ideologies this sentence is referring to. The next sentence: “In this study it showed that baby-signing families used signs to socialize their children into particular interaction rituals” is also difficult to determine the significance of this study to the topic. -I see on the talk page that you haven’t had a chance to review this study yet, just wanted to mention it.

Overall, this section was really great. There is a vast amount of research, it is summarized and integrated very well, and it is written in a very clear way and doesn’t appear too scholarly! JessicaRJ (talk) 05:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review #3
I have reviewed the subsection "Case Study on Bilingual Exposure" as well as the section titled "Media and Internet Influence".

CASE STUDY understanding of Baby Sign. MEDIA/INTERNET PROMOTIONAL MATERIAL Amandafoort (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This section has an annotated bibliography vibe to it. I think it could use a bit of an introduction to explain why this particular study is crucial to the average person's
 * The sentence that begins "Marco is" has a lengthy quotation which doesn't seem to be necessary. It also isn't cited.
 * If you only use the abbreviation LIS a few times, it might be easier to just write out the term.
 * The sentence "Gesture is" could be clarified. Maybe "any hand motion or movement" instead of "anything".
 * The use of quotation marks seems a little excessive. Maybe clean this up by linking to relevant wiki pages.
 * Citations should follow each claim and not only exist in the first sentence.
 * The section that identifies points the study noted seems dense. Most people probably don't care what the researchers thought was important unless it will change their opinion of the topic in a meaningful way. In general, these points could use some further explanation and 'wiki-fying".
 * 1)  Which criteria? Are these criteria relevant to a reader? If so, Include them explicitly.
 * 2)  "deictic and representational gestures" needs to be explained or linked.
 * 3)  This entire point is a quote. Needs explanation and citation.
 * 4)  explain "representational gesture" or link to gesture page. Quotation could be removed an rephrased for clarity. "Manual modality"? Always explain specific terms.
 * 5)  should read "his" peers instead of "the peers"... How did he differ? "Whereas his peers used ...?"
 * Maybe a closing paragraph that explains this study's relevance to "normal" parents interested in baby sign.
 * This section could use an introduction as well. Perhaps something general about ways in which media has both positively and negatively influenced the public opinion surrounding baby sign.
 * This second point "Due to..." answers my first question. Maybe it should go first.
 * Third point First sentence is passive voice. Active voice is easier to follow.
 * Great job explaining multiple perspectives and emphasizing balance!!
 * This is very interesting. I think it has a very academic style to it. Maybe simplifying sentences will help to clear this up for the average parent.
 * This section could benefit from some sources of "good" information about baby sign. Perhaps some accredited Baby Sign programs (If they exist) or links to more information for concerned parents.

More review
Great work here - you have added good information, removed parts that were not strong, and added more citations. Great start. I do think you held back on some of the more aggressive changes that could/should be made.
 * a key example: Case study Why should anyone considering learning 10 signs to use with their paper care deeply about a case study of a bilingual child growing up in a signing/speaking home? Ditch most of the stuff quoted directly from the article, remove most of the "points of interest" in the study and focus on why this material might be of interest give the issues about baby sign raised earlier in the article. Note that this child is NOT learning baby sign, but two languages. Does it belong here at all? The only way I see it as relevant is to follow Doherty-Sneddon's organizing principle which you bothered to report, but don't use. It may be important to add a point of clarification to the lead, indicating that the whole page is about hearing children whose parents use a small set of signs in conjunction with speech. It is not a page of acquisition of sign language.
 * as your peers suggest - this is MUCH too scholarly. Consider your audience. Do not imply meaning, be specific and direct. There are still assertions and assumptions not supported by citations or evidence. There is too much focus on who did the research and not enough on why a parent might care. I would suggest considering what a parent might want to know about baby sign, and then addressing your use of the literature to those specific points.
 * This may require more reorg than you have done so far. I can't tell the difference between supportive research and developmental research. What does contrasting research contrast with - I can figure that out but it is opaque rather than clear. Let's talk about headings for this article as that might help put the relevant info together.
 * Consider carefully the distinction between sign language and baby sign. I see that there was an edit to use baby sign language in a heading - Personally I prefer baby sign, seeing as it is NOT a language. Also, do not focus on ASL as if it were the only sign language. Minimally some of the baby sign research is done in the UK where BSL is likely to be used as the base. Perhaps more description of the differences between baby sign and sign language if you can find a source. Or perhaps just a bald statement such as this: baby sign is a series of gesture or altered signs for concepts, usually produced in conjunction with spoken words. There is no grammar.
 * Add more links to other Wiki pages, including the pages your peers are working on. Consider what directs you to this page also. [I'm waiting to find out how to find that info...]
 * Is it possible to find a neutral source indicating that there is a developmental difference in maturation between hands and mouth so that it makes sense that gestures/signs might show up earlier. Citing Garcia and Acredolo & Goodwyn doesn't convince me given their vested interest.
 * I do not see enough clear distinction between the Garcia and Acredolo & Goodwyn books for parents, which are not peer-reviewed and the research literature. Why would these books show up under Supportive Research? There should only be research here, not commercial material.
 * for the contrasting research section, is it possible to find a neutral source supporting the claim that maternal sensitivity is beneficial to child development. That would strengthen the argument. At the end of this section there are concerns about how baby sign could disrupt development, but who cares if they are only theoretical concerns. Is there any evidence that they do?
 * Some of the info in the Practice of learning baby sign section contradicts the research review sections (advanced verbal development)
 * I like the section at the end on Promotional material. I second Amandafoort's suggestion to include links to various accredited program. Could you possibly include the links to sites associated with the Garcia and A&G books here. I found the "research studies have not been found to be comparable in quality" to be opaque -- one could interpret this that the research products are worse than the commercial sites. Is that the intention?
 * the Refs are often missing key information. Is someone on that? Can we separate out the peer-reviewed scientific studies versus the magazine articles and books in some way?
 * I've got a page of minor suggestions that I'll give you in class...

Marentette (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Edits
I have removed information regarding Mr. Garcia due to no legitimate citation being provided. Citations in the first half of the paper have been evaluated for authenticity and information filled in. They are now part of a divided reference page that I am getting help on creating. Information was removed regarding a study about deaf children learning sign language. This information will be relocated to an appropriate page or placed on this page in a correct heading if deemed necessary. Reorganized a few paragraphs for better clarity. Sarah.Monk (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Edits By Student
I removed information that was not cited or was cited but the citation could not be found or was not relevant to the article. Removed information dealing with sign language in deaf children. Tried to make citations uniform and go into a split reference list.Sarah.Monk (talk) 04:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Student Edit
Removed information regarding bilingual speaking child signing to deaf parents and placed on Sign language talk page. Fixed citations, removed information that could no longer be found online or the citation was not accurate. Sarah.Monk (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * (Please see the beginning of the following discussion at Talk:Sign language.):
 * For any sources that were removed as inaccessible that haven't been replaced with other sources, I'll ask you to restore the removed citations to dead links and place after link to mark it as a dead link. Then someone may be able to find the appropriate link or a reasonable substitute. If that doesn't happen, then replace  with  to alert editors that a citation is needed. That is standard procedure on Wikipedia rather than removing the citation. See WP:DEADREF. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk)

I am confused about why it would be advantageous for student editors to place notes that a citation is needed -- for other editors to respond to at some point in the future? The student editors working on this article searched extensively for appropriate sources. In some cases they found that the citations needed to support the claims do not exist. In this case, why is it better to leave an unfounded claim in the article than to remove the claim? The header on the article itself notes that the article is not neutral and contains misleading claims. Please let me know if we are missing a Wikipedia process to notify the community about these intentions? The talk page has a banner saying students are working on the page. They have identified their intentions on the talk page. Thanks, Paula Marentette (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * First let me repeat something from my message above: "For any sources that were removed as inaccessible that haven't been replaced with other sources" (italics added). I have not asked that citations that were removed and replaced with other citations should be restored. Now, for your comment: "why it would be advantageous for student editors to place notes that a citation is needed . . . In some cases they found that the citations needed to support the claims do not exist." Did you actually click and read WP:DEADREF that I linked above? Is there something about being a student editor that makes that editor omniscient or superior in definitively ruling out that a source exists to support a statement? Look around. Every day "citation needed" or "dead link" tags are added to Wikipedia. Sometimes, believe or not, other editors actually find a source that supports the information. That is the very purpose of "citation needed" or "dead link" tags. It happens hundreds if not thousands of times every day on Wikipedia. Are you suggesting that somehow this article is different because it's being edited by students and because it has a "not-neutral" banner? My request still stands. Sundayclose (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes I did actually click and read the DEADREF link that you provided. My question was genuine. Why should we leave in material that is not neutral, has been flagged for years, and many people have looked for and not found relevant sources? We are not trying to start an edit war, we are trying to improve the quality of the article. To that end, we will look again at what we have done. Thank you for your support as we work to improve the quality of information on this article. Paula Marentette (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't state that your question was not genuine. I questioned your reasoning. "Not neutral" is an opinion, which is fine, but do I have to actually state that everyone has an opinion, and one editor's opinion on Wikipedia is not inherently better than another one? Is there something about being a student editor that makes that editor's opinion superior? Differences of opinion on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by how long the "not-neutral" banner is at the top of the article. And consensus is determined by discussion, not removing or changing information without discussion. I did not state that you were trying to start an edit war. I think it's great that there are student editors (or any editors) trying to improve articles. But your first post above seems to suggest that being a student editor (or one of their professors) somehow makes them better at editing than the rest of us. And maybe these editors are really, really good, but all of us, no matter how skilled or knowledgeable we are, are required to follow the same policies on Wikipedia. If sources were removed and not replaced, or if unsourced information was removed without discussion, please restore the sources and add or  tags, or otherwise discuss here. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Edits
I am attempting to split the reference page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah.Monk (talk • contribs) 02:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I changed some of the headings as well as reorganized and revised the "To Sign or Not to Sign" section. I specifically added valuable sources and modified existing information in the 'suggested benefits' section. All of the Acredolo and Goodwyn studies were transferred beneath 'Promotional Material'. I also made changes to the 'What is Baby Sign' section and made clear that it is not a language unlike standardized sign languages and made it less specific to ASL. Tulsa01 (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Reinstated Reference List
Thank you to those who tried to help me with the reference list dilemma I was experiencing. I have consulted with my Ed Wiki Editor and have reverted the reference page back to the original template. I edited the first half of to sign or not to sign for punctuation and public readability.Sarah.Monk (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Mid revision comments
I realize that you might be in the middle of revisions. Sorry if I pick out things you are actively working on. A reminder to use clear, direct, not jargon-based language.
 * the lead is a solid summary

What is baby sign

 * "are a standardized communicative approach". I think it is more accurate to say sign languages are languages. But the whole sentence is awkward as you are both defining sign and using that definition as a reason for interest in baby sign.
 * is it possible to streamline the part about sign language? The link to sign language appears twice, examples of sign language (such as ASL) appears twice. The critical thing is that baby sign uses signs, likely borrowed or altered from the local sign language to support the child's communication. The goal is not to teach the sign language in all its linguistic complexity [among other reasons, because no one teaches a 10 month old grammar for any language].
 * "easier for the infant to form" easier than what?

To sign or not to sign

 * great first paragraph, second paragraph is good.
 * description of Mueller & Sepulveda is quite complex. Can you be more direct? What is the core finding. I would cut at least half of it out. Go for the central results. The supporting findings in Porpora - is that her original research - do we know if it is part of the scientific literature? It looks to me like a commercial product.
 * the rest of the section reads as a lit review for an essay. Can you summarize the results by topic and cite the appropriate sources rather than provide a kind of chronological review of the research history? I would include at least these three: earlier expressive language, effects on receptive language, and reduction of child or parental frustration.
 * watch the very strong use of passive "has been suggested" in the final paragraph of the neither beneficial nor harmful section. Is there evidence that these harms are real or are these authors speculating about theoretical harms (which other authors provide evidence against)? It sounds very speculative as currently presented.

Baby sign outside the home

 * I find this new section odd. Why is this report from a university's public relations document important enough to add to the article? If the topic is interesting Acredolo and Goodwyn have been running a daycare using baby sign for decades. I suspect others do the same. Why this source?

Practice of learning baby sign

 * this should link to your peers' article on gesture in language acquisition somewhere.
 * "children evolve to associate words with other gestures, known as signing." Somewhere in there I lost the plot. Gestures are not signs. Baby sign is not about teaching sign language as was clarified above.
 * is there any evidence at all that signs are easier to remember than words? IF so, cite it.
 * what do you mean by "non-speaking individuals"? do you mean babies?
 * Iverson and Goldin-Meadow do not make the link to baby sign. You must be clear what claim they are making. Also you can't synthesize work here yourself. No original research. If you are arguing that gesture gesture facilitates speech, say so, because that is what I&GM say and they provide evidence for what is a widely accepted link. If someone else points out why this supports the use of baby sign, cite them. But here on Wikipedia you can't take I&GM's work and use it as a justification for baby sign on your own logic. I agree with you, it is, but that is your link, and it can't be used here.
 * can you direct the sign to the infant, or do you need to direct the infant to the sign?
 * I didn't come out of this section with the idea that I would know how to use baby sign with my child. It needs to be said in very plain language. The information is there, but I think it is still couched in very academic language.
 * I would remove the comment "such as ASL" as there is no need to pick out this one language. There is enough information about sign language elsewhere on the page that I think this is unnecessarily restricting a person's interpretation at this point in the article.

Commercial influences

 * If this section only has one paragraph it doesn't also need a subheading. I'd remove promotional material.
 * passive tense is interfering with comprehension. "have not been found" how about "are not"? It is suggested could read "Parents should be cautious". Be direct and clear.
 * Why highlight Acredolo and Goodwyn's book? Cite a source other than their own book that they greatly influenced the movement. It is true that they have conducted and published research on the topic. I am concerned about how neutral presenting only their book is. There are other books for parents. Are these the not-so-good commercial products to which you are referring?

Media and internet

 * should this section be put together with the books bit above? Books are also a form of media.

Edit
I edited the Practice of learning baby sign section for clarity and added some more information to achieve that clarity.Sarah.Monk (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Edits
Reorganized information in the Learning Baby Sign section. Added external links, added information and citations to the media section. Sarah.Monk (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Edits
Reorganized the Suggested Benefits section and made it less scholarly. Added external links, and added important info to citations. Tulsa01 (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Removed multiple issues banner
I have removed the multiple issues banner that was on the article front page. Extensive revisions addressing the need for neutrality and increased use of citations have been made. Marentette (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Babbling without gesturing
The sentence "They will not however, during infancy, babble without making a gesture" seems confusing. If this is trying to suggest that infants always accompany babbling with gesturing, then it is plainly wrong to anyone who has observed the common occurrence of this. If it is trying to say that normally-developing infants develop the capacity to gesture along with babbling, that's not clear in the wording. Perhaps it should be clarified what claim this sentence is trying to make. Backfromquadrangle (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree it's confusing. Perhaps someone can find the source that is cited and check the details. Sundayclose (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I dont believe it either. I'd go a little further ... it's not just confusing, it's false. Delete. I am not willing to pay $15 just to get access to the PDF, though .... and it's been four years since this thread started, so I suspect few people are reading these messages.  I may end up removing those sentences on my own if nobody replies soon.  — Soap — 17:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's questionable enough that it should be removed, especially considering that this issue was raised in this section four years ago with no changes in the article. The source appears to be a journal article based on one study, which is not sufficient to reach such a sweeping generalization. Many parents can confirm that children can babble without gestures. It is true that children who are exposed to sign language often learn some signing before they learn speech; it may be true that some of those children always gesture with babbling, but that doesn't apply to children in general. Sundayclose (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I removed those two sentences. Besides the issues you raise, I wonder if the authors were even using the term babbling correctly, as they seem to equate it with meaningful linguistic communication ... i.e. the child's native language.  This is a common mistake.  But perhaps it was us who made the error, if we misinterpreted the results of the study.  In either  case, I have removed the sentences and will check back at least once in a while to see if anything new develops.  Thank you,  — Soap — 11:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)