Universal Baby Language---WooWoo

[joobz]

Ok, I was just assaulted by my mom about a recent discovery she learned on Oprah. Babies have a universal language. http://www.dunstanbaby.com/

They make sounds to tell you exactly how they feel.And if you don't buy this book and believe it, then you must be a bad parent. Because if you loved your child, you'd be able to tell the difference between "Neh, eh, heh." These mean different things.

Ok, beyond the fact that this just reeks of parenting woo, it also contains trace elements of audiophile woo as well. Seriously, go there and listen to the "neh" sounds the babies make. I hardly heard the "n" in any of them.
and the site talks about how great of an ear this lady has.

I just wanted to get the opinions of others on this. Maybe I'm being a bit harsh. please let me know.
Thanks

[fishbait]

When my kids were infants I thought they spoke some Eskimo langauge. They had 37 different words for saying, "Hey Dad! I've got gas!"

Their sales pitch isn't about the baby's needs. It's about the parents needs.

You can feel like a successful parent with an increase in self-esteem

a belief in your abilities to care for your baby.

You will feel less stress

New Mothers and Fathers alike feel more in control


ease the pressure and stress felt by parents.


Dunstan Baby Language system has changed their lives

[Schneibster]

Hell, my cats have different cries for different wants. I can tell if it's "pick me up," or "feed me," or "the litter box is dirty," or "I made a mess, please go clean it up," or any of several other things they'd like to communicate to me. The difference between "pick me up" and "feed me" is very obvious; pick me up is a medium-pitched vocalization combined with a purr, and feed me is their best imitation of the high-pitched cries of a kitten.

I have little doubt that babies are capable of five vocalizations, and little doubt that they are preprogrammed for them. Crying is, after all, inborn. So is suckling. So is language, for which they are preprogrammed at a particular point in their development. It's been shown that if, at the correct point in their development, children (babies!) are exposed to several different languages, they will learn them all- and if they do, they will retain an ability to pick up new languages throughout their lives. And that's not woo- it's research. If we can do something that complex, five words of baby talk is nothing.

Now, all of that said, this is not real research, published in a peer-reviewed journal. And frankly, having listened to the sounds, I'm unconvinced- and I'm a musician, so I think if there was something there that seemed common to me, I'd be picking it up. Do I think babies can do something other than cry to communicate their wants? Sure. Do I think Priscilla Dunstan knows what that is? Well, no, not really. I think Priscilla would like to make some bucks, and be able to justify it by thinking she's helping people deal with their babies.

I'd like to see some serious research on this- I think it's worthwhile from the point of view of parents of young children. The better they understand their wants, the more secure they make them feel, and the less criminals we wind up with. Think of it as evolution in action. ;)

[Madalch]

Ok, I was just assaulted by my mom about a recent discovery she learned on Oprah. Babies have a universal language. http://www.dunstanbaby.com/

Did they get that from a Simpsons episode?

[joobz]

Hell, my cats have different cries for different wants. I can tell if it's "pick me up," or "feed me," or "the litter box is dirty," or "I made a mess, please go clean it up," or any of several other things they'd like to communicate to me. The difference between "pick me up" and "feed me" is very obvious; pick me up is a medium-pitched vocalization combined with a purr, and feed me is their best imitation of the high-pitched cries of a kitten.

I have little doubt that babies are capable of five vocalizations, and little doubt that they are preprogrammed for them. Crying is, after all, inborn. So is suckling. So is language, for which they are preprogrammed at a particular point in their development. It's been shown that if, at the correct point in their development, children (babies!) are exposed to several different languages, they will learn them all- and if they do, they will retain an ability to pick up new languages throughout their lives. And that's not woo- it's research. If we can do something that complex, five words of baby talk is nothing.

Now, all of that said, this is not real research, published in a peer-reviewed journal. And frankly, having listened to the sounds, I'm unconvinced- and I'm a musician, so I think if there was something there that seemed common to me, I'd be picking it up. Do I think babies can do something other than cry to communicate their wants? Sure. Do I think Priscilla Dunstan knows what that is? Well, no, not really. I think Priscilla would like to make some bucks, and be able to justify it by thinking she's helping people deal with their babies.

I'd like to see some serious research on this- I think it's worthwhile from the point of view of parents of young children. The better they understand their wants, the more secure they make them feel, and the less criminals we wind up with. Think of it as evolution in action. ;)
Very nice, tempered reply. Thank you. I think your assessment it correct. Although I do not think that the ability to pick up languages in toddlers is an indication for innate language ability in infants. The brain is still adapting and growing.

[Dark Jaguar]

Yeah this sounds like nonsense, which is a statement I will retract the moment they do some testing. Somehow I doubt they'll ever get around to that either.

However, is this even new at all? Somehow I'm reminded of times I've heard of this before, often as a joke. Now they expect us to take it seriously? Really, I think that Oprah just isn't equipped on how to actually analyze a scientific claim. Too bad people hang onto her every word...

[Schneibster]

Really, I think that Oprah just isn't equipped on how to actually analyze a scientific claim. Heh, I guess I'd have to agree with that one. I don't think so either. I'd say this (http://horoscopes.aol.com/astrology/karma-oprah-winfrey) ought to put any doubters on that score to rest. Clues to her "past lives" from her "astrology?" :hypnotize

[Schneibster]

Although I do not think that the ability to pick up languages in toddlers is an indication for innate language ability in infants.Just for clarity's sake, I wasn't saying it is; I was demonstrating that far more complex behaviors are apparently preprogrammed in, and meant it as an example to go along with crying and suckling. Just so I don't get crosswise with a language development specialist, of which I believe there are some around here. ;)

[AK-Dave]

It's been shown that if, at the correct point in their development, children (babies!) are exposed to several different languages, they will learn them all- and if they do, they will retain an ability to pick up new languages throughout their lives.

When I was young (age 2-5), I lived in Papua New Guinea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papua_New_Guinea) (in the town of Aitape at about 3° 8'51.00"S, 142°20'60.00"E). I spoke several languages, since each village pretty much had it's own language (there are over 850 languages among the almost 6 million people in the country). I do not remember any of them, except for English (and that one, just barely). I had to learn the languages in order to play with the kids from each village. One major factor in my ability to pick up languages, even English, there was that the adults there talked to the children the same way they talked to other adults. No "baby-talk". I'm sure that observing adults interacting using the same language (pronunciation and sentence structure) that they use when talking to the kids allows the kids to learn the proper use of that language a lot faster. I know several people who continue to talk baby-talk to their kids at almost 5 years old, and these kids can't even speak one language well. As far as picking up other languages, I have not tried any, so I can't offer any insight into my ability to pick up new languages, but I did seem to pick up computer programming languages rather easily in high school. When I finally get around to getting married and having kids, I plan on finding playmates that are from families where English is a second language. I am of the opinion that learning multiple languages as a child helps with mental development.

[boooeee]

However, is this even new at all? Somehow I'm reminded of times I've heard of this before, often as a joke. Now they expect us to take it seriously? Really, I think that Oprah just isn't equipped on how to actually analyze a scientific claim. Too bad people hang onto her every word...There was the Simpsons' episode where Homer's long lost brother invents a baby translator. It's one of the best in the series.

"I have soiled myself. How embarassing."

[Dark Jaguar]

I'm still waiting for phrenology to come back with a bang...

[Zygar]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Oprah is the end of civilization.

[LawnOven]

Wow, that looks like utter crap. Think about it, if there was a universal baby language, we would have known about it by now. Babies weren't invented 50 years ago.

[bruto]

When I was young (age 2-5), I lived in Papua New Guinea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papua_New_Guinea) (in the town of Aitape at about 3° 8'51.00"S, 142°20'60.00"E). I spoke several languages, since each village pretty much had it's own language (there are over 850 languages among the almost 6 million people in the country). I do not remember any of them, except for English (and that one, just barely). I had to learn the languages in order to play with the kids from each village. One major factor in my ability to pick up languages, even English, there was that the adults there talked to the children the same way they talked to other adults. No "baby-talk". I'm sure that observing adults interacting using the same language (pronunciation and sentence structure) that they use when talking to the kids allows the kids to learn the proper use of that language a lot faster. I know several people who continue to talk baby-talk to their kids at almost 5 years old, and these kids can't even speak one language well. As far as picking up other languages, I have not tried any, so I can't offer any insight into my ability to pick up new languages, but I did seem to pick up computer programming languages rather easily in high school. When I finally get around to getting married and having kids, I plan on finding playmates that are from families where English is a second language. I am of the opinion that learning multiple languages as a child helps with mental development.

You've touched on a pet peeve of mine. I have never understood why parents feel the necessity to speak to their kids in defective language while expecting them to learn it right from someplace else. One thing I find really infuriating is people who refer to themselves in the third person whenever they address a child. "Mommy doesn't want you to do that, honey." Silly and condescending at the same time. Sheesh. They already know who the **** you are!

[Zygar]

You've touched on a pet peeve of mine. I have never understood why parents feel the necessity to speak to their kids in defective language while expecting them to learn it right from someplace else. One thing I find really infuriating is people who refer to themselves in the third person whenever they address a child. "Mommy doesn't want you to do that, honey." Silly and condescending at the same time. Sheesh. They already know who the **** you are!

I agree completely. My six-year-old daughter has consistently astounded people with her command of the English language since she was able to speak on any level. I attribute this to the fact that my ex-wife and I agreed that we would speak English to her, and not some stupid half-language like "Baby Talk".

[Yahzi]

Ok, I was just assaulted by my mom about a recent discovery she learned on Oprah.I just wanted to get the opinions of others on this. Maybe I'm being a bit harsh. please let me know.
WAT R U SUM KIND BABY HATER?!?!?!??

babiez takl guder then u. dont you cee the movie??? bazies is smart and good and JeZuZ luvs them mostest.

i hatorz u and hopez u die in freeky car bombing ice cream accident.

Yes, that's my opinion. No, I'm not on drugs. Why do you ask?

[Yahzi]

and not some stupid half-language like "Baby Talk".
I thought there was some documented evidence that baby-talk - in the first year or so - encouraged verbalization.

I suspect the point is that talking to your children is beneficial, regardless of how you do it. If baby-talk gets parents to verbalize more, then it's probably better than proper English but less of it.

But that's just my guess.

[Schneibster]

I am of the opinion that learning multiple languages as a child helps with mental development.You're not alone. Quite a few universities require that candidates demonstrate multi-lingual capabilities as an entrance requirement.

[rjh01]

I have heard of the idea of universal language of babies idea before. I think it was in the novel Peter Pan.

[Schneibster]

i hatorz u and hopez u die in freeky car bombing ice cream accident.I think I might have favored "car bombing ice cream incident." Or perhaps even "ritual." Nevertheless, amusing. ;)

[Dave1001]

I thought there was some documented evidence that baby-talk - in the first year or so - encouraged verbalization.

I suspect the point is that talking to your children is beneficial, regardless of how you do it. If baby-talk gets parents to verbalize more, then it's probably better than proper English but less of it.

But that's just my guess.

I remember reading the same thing, that research indicated that it was better to speak with babies in baby talk than with "grown up talk".

[joobz]

Ok, I went home last night and objectively studied my 1 month old son.

The words I heard him say include
"Gaack"
"wealcheaacah"
"gnnnnnngnnnn"
"ooooo"

While I have yet to determine what he means by these words, I'm left with a few possible conclusions.
1.) He speaks a different baby dialect than what was studied.
2.) He's possessed by aliens.
3.) I misstook his pronunciations due to his strong accent (we moved to Kentucky)
4.) I'm a horrible father
5.) He's already behind the curve....Oh, god. Help! Somebody. I'll pay a bunch of money to someone who can help me make sure he's not "behind the curve" oh god NO NO!!!!!!!

or,
6. )Dunstan is full of it.

[Orangutan]

You've touched on a pet peeve of mine. I have never understood why parents feel the necessity to speak to their kids in defective language while expecting them to learn it right from someplace else. One thing I find really infuriating is people who refer to themselves in the third person whenever they address a child. "Mommy doesn't want you to do that, honey." Silly and condescending at the same time. Sheesh. They already know who the **** you are!

Not trying to derail here but:

Maybe, Baby talk 'could speed development', :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/351381.stm

[bruto]

Not trying to derail here but:

Maybe, Baby talk 'could speed development', :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/351381.stm

My own observation was more of a derail, I think. I have no doubt that cheery bubbly baby talk is a great thing when you're dealing with a little baby who has no language at all. My problem is with the tendency of adults to continue either baby talk or some child-specific dialect when speaking to children who are at the stage of trying to master language. I would be worried if my kids could not use pronouns in their own speech by the time the get to kindergarten (or I should say grandkids if I ever have them, since all mine grew up), but surprisingly large numbers of adults cannot use pronouns correctly whenever a kid comes into the room! It's not only confusing, but incredibly condescending to think that a child cannot understand normal speech.

OK,enough of that derail.

I was, of course, a perfect parent, which is why I can make these observations with confidence. :rolleyes:

[Cuddles]

Wow, that looks like utter crap. Think about it, if there was a universal baby language, we would have known about it by now. Babies weren't invented 50 years ago.

Babies weren't born yesterday. But apparently their parents were.

[AK-Dave]

I thought there was some documented evidence that baby-talk - in the first year or so - encouraged verbalization.

I suspect the point is that talking to your children is beneficial, regardless of how you do it. If baby-talk gets parents to verbalize more, then it's probably better than proper English but less of it.

But that's just my guess.

I don't have a problem with someone using simplified english with their baby, but they need to understand that a developmentally normal two year old child is not a baby. So I pretty much agree with the that first statement.

[Zygar]

I thought there was some documented evidence that baby-talk - in the first year or so - encouraged verbalization.

I suspect the point is that talking to your children is beneficial, regardless of how you do it. If baby-talk gets parents to verbalize more, then it's probably better than proper English but less of it.

But that's just my guess.

Perhaps. But the issue is that it often persists for years after the child can talk. That damned sing-song speaking pattern using invalid grammar that people use to talk to toddlers drives me batty. To me, that's "Baby Talk" because you are talking to kids like they are babies. Give them some credit, toddlers are smarter than people seem to think.

[joobz]

Babies weren't born yesterday. But apparently their parents were.
Actually, some babies were born yesterday. :)

[bluess]

We have been getting all sorts of flack from people for requiring Blue2 to speak grammatically correct English with the standard accent of our area - mid-east coast USA. And then they express astonishment when a seven-yr old who has only been in the US for 1 year says "I was frustrated when I couldn't finish my homework by myself" or otherwise clearly expresses her thoughts and feelings. Where do they think language skills come from? :rolleyes:

[Zygar]

We have been getting all sorts of flack from people for requiring Blue2 to speak grammatically correct English with the standard accent of our area - mid-east coast USA. And then they express astonishment when a seven-yr old who has only been in the US for 1 year says "I was frustrated when I couldn't finish my homework by myself" or otherwise clearly expresses her thoughts and feelings. Where do they think language skills come from? :rolleyes:

God, obviously.

[magicharm]

Although I do not think that the ability to pick up languages in toddlers is an indication for innate language ability in infants. The brain is still adapting and growing.

First, I just want to say that I have no idea who this woman on Oprah was, so I'm certainly not going to back up anything she said (and I do have my doubts about the sounds that infants are actually producing). However, infants DO, in a sense, have innate language abilities.

Habituation/dishabituation studies have shown that infants as young as 3 days old can differentiate between someone speaking the language that their mother speaks and a different language. There are also studies out there demonstrating that infants can tell the difference between many more phoenomes than adults. Somewhere during the process of language acquisition kids hone in on the distinct phoenomes that are used in the language they are learning, and lose the ability to differentiate between the others. So, while I'm not arguing that the abilities don't change over time, infants do start out with some innate mechanisms for learning language.

[Zep]

First, I just want to say that I have no idea who this woman on Oprah was, so I'm certainly not going to back up anything she said (and I do have my doubts about the sounds that infants are actually producing). However, infants DO, in a sense, have innate language abilities.

Habituation/dishabituation studies have shown that infants as young as 3 days old can differentiate between someone speaking the language that their mother speaks and a different language. There are also studies out there demonstrating that infants can tell the difference between many more phoenomes than adults. Somewhere during the process of language acquisition kids hone in on the distinct phoenomes that are used in the language they are learning, and lose the ability to differentiate between the others. So, while I'm not arguing that the abilities don't change over time, infants do start out with some innate mechanisms for learning language.They certainly understand you from birth, starting with very basic sounds (and also sight and smell), and working on up from there as they grow. I posted in another thread about the development and use of "Baby Talk".

But Dunstan is claiming that babies also have some sort of complex language capability going that parents should learn (and thus benefit themselves with). Which is patent crap. As noted above, and recorded not only in the human species, infants start out with a very basic set of communication skills, and have to learn and build on them. There is no "universal baby language", beyond the obvious crying, laughing, etc.

[JoeTheJuggler]

This reminds me of a novel by my one-time linguistics prof David Carkeet called "Double Negative". The hero is a linguist named Jeremy Cook who solves a murder mystery utilizing his latest research in language acquisition among infants.

I won't spoil it (in case anyone here likes an off-beat mystery). The part the plot hinges on is similar to this baby-language nonsense, but the rest of the book does show plenty of legitimate linguistic theory.

[ponderingturtle]

When I was young (age 2-5), I lived in Papua New Guinea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papua_New_Guinea) (in the town of Aitape at about 3° 8'51.00"S, 142°20'60.00"E). I spoke several languages, since each village pretty much had it's own language (there are over 850 languages among the almost 6 million people in the country). I do not remember any of them, except for English (and that one, just barely). I had to learn the languages in order to play with the kids from each village. One major factor in my ability to pick up languages, even English, there was that the adults there talked to the children the same way they talked to other adults. No "baby-talk". I'm sure that observing adults interacting using the same language (pronunciation and sentence structure) that they use when talking to the kids allows the kids to learn the proper use of that language a lot faster. I know several people who continue to talk baby-talk to their kids at almost 5 years old, and these kids can't even speak one language well. As far as picking up other languages, I have not tried any, so I can't offer any insight into my ability to pick up new languages, but I did seem to pick up computer programming languages rather easily in high school. When I finally get around to getting married and having kids, I plan on finding playmates that are from families where English is a second language. I am of the opinion that learning multiple languages as a child helps with mental development.

Some of that might well be from language disabilities. I know that I had problems with the gramatical concept of I and it took me a while to figure it out, compaired to other children. Of course I also had a large vocabulary at the same time.

Just because someone is not learning at the same speed as someone else does not mean it has anything to do with the teaching.

[Foster Zygote]

I'm still waiting for phrenology to come back with a bang...

You clearly have the brain-pan of a stagecoach tilter.

[ponderingturtle]

I have heard of the idea of universal language of babies idea before. I think it was in the novel Peter Pan.

I have heard about while acquiring language that all people use the same grammar to start with before they learn the grammar of the language who's vocabulary they are using. Not sure how much study there has been of that.

[joobz]

First, I just want to say that I have no idea who this woman on Oprah was, so I'm certainly not going to back up anything she said (and I do have my doubts about the sounds that infants are actually producing). However, infants DO, in a sense, have innate language abilities.

Habituation/dishabituation studies have shown that infants as young as 3 days old can differentiate between someone speaking the language that their mother speaks and a different language. There are also studies out there demonstrating that infants can tell the difference between many more phoenomes than adults. Somewhere during the process of language acquisition kids hone in on the distinct phoenomes that are used in the language they are learning, and lose the ability to differentiate between the others. So, while I'm not arguing that the abilities don't change over time, infants do start out with some innate mechanisms for learning language.
thanks for the info. that's cool.

Although being able to differentiate phoenomes isn't the same as having preprogrammed words that they say, is it?

To me, Julian's face and whole body actions are much more of a clue to what he's feeling/thinking then just the sounds coming out of his mouth.

[Loss Leader]

They make sounds to tell you exactly how they feel.And if you don't buy this book and believe it, then you must be a bad parent. Because if you loved your child, you'd be able to tell the difference between "Neh, eh, heh." These mean different things.

Nothing made me feel worse as a parent than when my wife would listen to the baby and proclaim that he was hungry or tired or wanted to watch the Baby Einstein video or whatever. Then I made a huge breakthrough. I realized she was just guessing. After that, I did the same thing, amazing family and friends when I would pronounce confidently, "He wants the Mickey Mouse rattle."

I've been considering writing a childcare book called, "What's Up With My Baby?" and then every single page would have the same sentence: He's probably tired.

[fuelair]

Ok, I was just assaulted by my mom about a recent discovery she learned on Oprah. Babies have a universal language. http://www.dunstanbaby.com/

They make sounds to tell you exactly how they feel.And if you don't buy this book and believe it, then you must be a bad parent. Because if you loved your child, you'd be able to tell the difference between "Neh, eh, heh." These mean different things.

Ok, beyond the fact that this just reeks of parenting woo, it also contains trace elements of audiophile woo as well. Seriously, go there and listen to the "neh" sounds the babies make. I hardly heard the "n" in any of them.
and the site talks about how great of an ear this lady has.

I just wanted to get the opinions of others on this. Maybe I'm being a bit harsh. please let me know.
Thanks

You might want to pass this to Daves' little world - he seems to be interested:D

[TheChadd]

They did an interview with her here on australian tv a while back... Most of it was just a whitewash praising her ideas etc. It was (as I psychically predicted to my mother) full of anecdotal evidence - "Oh after learning these words we feel we understand our childrens wants SO much better now!"....

Anyway, for about 2 minutes one of the scientists in the audience asked "I was just wondering what sort of research you have backing this up?" to which she replied "My studies have shown that parents report up to a 90% improvement in how they can look after their baby after learning these words" to which he responded "I'm sorry but that's just not proper evidence, I'm wondering if you've actually got any proof that there is a language here"...

Her response was the usual "Oh well that's for scientists to debate, but several universities are looking into it".

I have an easy way to test her words: Make a child full, if it makes her sound for "I'm hungry" even once - She's wrong. Make a child uncomfortable, if it doesn't make the uncomfortable sound - She's wrong.

I know there's problems with such tests (including huge ethical issues) but it's a step in the right direction rather than just more anecdotal claims.

[bruto]

They did an interview with her here on australian tv a while back... Most of it was just a whitewash praising her ideas etc. It was (as I psychically predicted to my mother) full of anecdotal evidence - "Oh after learning these words we feel we understand our childrens wants SO much better now!"....

Anyway, for about 2 minutes one of the scientists in the audience asked "I was just wondering what sort of research you have backing this up?" to which she replied "My studies have shown that parents report up to a 90% improvement in how they can look after their baby after learning these words" to which he responded "I'm sorry but that's just not proper evidence, I'm wondering if you've actually got any proof that there is a language here"...

Her response was the usual "Oh well that's for scientists to debate, but several universities are looking into it".

I have an easy way to test her words: Make a child full, if it makes her sound for "I'm hungry" even once - She's wrong. Make a child uncomfortable, if it doesn't make the uncomfortable sound - She's wrong.

I know there's problems with such tests (including huge ethical issues) but it's a step in the right direction rather than just more anecdotal claims.


I don't think it's usually considered unethical to make a baby full, assuming you fill it with the right stuff. And since they have very efficient systems for emptying out again, not only can this be done repeatedly with the same baby, but the "uncomfortable" part follows pretty routinely too. You really don't have to introduce discomfort into a baby's life. They're miserable a lot of the time without help. I think a bit of objective observation and data gathering would probably be possible without damaging any babies in the process. Unfortunately, no matter what it came up with, it probably wouldn't harm the language theory either, since such theories are usually pretty impervious to inconvenient evidence.