« More Things The World Should Know About Early Parenting | Main | For the 8 year old in your life... »
May 05, 2004
Flicking Vs isn't technically Language
Fascinating Metafilter discussion about the pros and cons of teaching your baby sign language. The thread has an interesting hiccup into whether it really counts as 'language' at that point - for example:
It seems to me that if you're keen on helping a child aquire language at the earliest possible age, they should be exposed to speech by native speakers of that language. For whatever reasons, children can learn Sign earlier than they can a spoken language.
If you just want to provide a mechanism for clearly communicating some basic needs, then it doesn't really matter what you choose, as long as it is within the child's capability.
In no case, excepting in the case of something a linguist might do, would what the parents make up be a "language".
But it also contains this little bubble-puncturing gem:
I want to teach my baby to IM. That way it can reach me when I'm at work.
Thanks to Katy for finding that when she should have been working.
Posted by Tom Dolan at May 5, 2004 11:46 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.sparklefluff.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/602
Comments
I spoke normally to both my girls right from birth (I saved the kootchie koo stuff for when they were old enough to roll their eyes at me). My firstborn came up with a coherent word at 5 months. My second took a little longer (such a grumpy baby was she) but was spelling ridiculously long words at less than 2 years. Then again, it was probably inherent talent.
Posted by: Madolyn at August 29, 2004 12:36 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
