Alison Mackonochie

This book will not teach you to use signs with your infant that anyone, other than the two of you, will understand. "These signs" (says the author) "have been chosen for their simplicity" (they are in no way simpler or intuitive than actual ASL signs) "and are based on a mixture of 'official' symbols" (author's quotation marks, and what an arrogant way to express it) "and made-up signs. You can use them as they are portrayed or simply as a basis for creating your own... Go with your child's version." Would they suggest that you do this with English? Linguistic research suggests that the best way to encourage language acquisition is to acknowledge that you understand the baby, but to model proper language usage when replying. You don't imitate a toddler who substitutes F for the initial cluster in TRUCK, you say "Yes! That's a TRuck!". I'm not going to change the sign for "more" (one of the signs this book gets right) to the ASL for "hurt" because my grandson hasn't grasped how many fingers to tap together. This book, incidentally, instead of the actual sign for "hurt", substitutes something that a toddler would have difficulty distinguishing from the sign for "happy" -- but they've changed "happy" too. This would make me "angry", but (strange for such a useful word in the world of toddlers and tantrums) that word is not in this book.

The baby whose parents rely on this book won't have the positive experience of a two-year-old friend of a friend whose daycare staff enthused after his first day about how well the child communicated with his signs. I suggest finding a book with actual signs that you can rely upon other people understanding.… (plus d'informations)