According to science: Is it better to speak to babies with baby talk? or adult talk?

[Dave1001]

According to science: Is it better to speak to babies with baby talk? Or adult talk? Do babies learn language better and more effectively when we talk to them using high pitched vocalizations, and sounds such as "ga ga goo goo?" Or when we speak proper (or at least normal) adult sentences using normal, deeper vocal tones, such as "Hello, Johnny. Did you have a good sleep last night?"

Please respond not with your opinion, but with reference to actual, published, (ideally peer reviewed) scientific research.

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

Great question! As a father of a 6 month old, I am also interested in replies to this topic.

[Lisa Simpson]

I have no idea what science says, but I never spoke baby (goo goo ga ga) talk to my children, although I do recall speaking in a higher pitched voice when they were infants. But we always spoke in adult sentences and never used euphemisms for body parts.

[Dave1001]

I have no idea what science says, but I never spoke baby (goo goo ga ga) talk to my children, although I do recall speaking in a higher pitched voice when they were infants. But we always spoke in adult sentences and never used euphemisms for body parts.

science please (rather than personal anecdotes).;)

[andyandy]

this rings a discovery channel bell....

only a faint one though :)

there's some benefit to using baby talk....i think it was due to higher frequencies being more perceptible (?) than lower ones for ickle baby ears....

interesting question....let's see what the web will bring....:)

[andyandy]

here's wiki....with a few cites worth looking into

One basic reason for baby talk is that it catches an infant's attention more readily than regular speech does. Some researchers, including Rima Shore (1997) believe that baby talk is an important part of the emotional bonding process.

Shore and other researchers also believe that baby talk contributes to mental development. They say it plays a role in teaching the child the basic function and structure of language. Studies have found that even replying to babble with meaningless babble aids language acquisition, because even though the babble itself conveys no logical meaning, the interaction teaches infants that speech is bidirectional communication. Some experts advise that parents should not talk to infants and young children solely in baby talk, but include some normal adult speech as well. The high pitch of motherese gives it special acoustic properties which may be appealing to the infant (Goodluck 1991). Motherese may also serve to aid a child in the acquisition and/or comprehension of language-particular rules which are otherwise unpredictable utilizing principles of universal grammar (Goodluck 1991).

Other researchers have pointed out that motherese is not universal among the world's cultures, and argue its role in "helping children learn grammar" has been overestimated. In some societies (such as certain Samoan tribes; see first reference) adults do not speak to their children at all until they have reached a certain age. In others, it is more usual to speak to children as one would speak to anyone else, with some vocabulary simplifications. Furthermore, even where baby-talk is used, sometimes the parent simplifies words making it full of complicated grammatical constructs, mispronounced or non-existent words. Often parents will tend to refer only to objects and events in the immediate vicinity. Baby-talk often has the parent repeating the child's utterances back to him/her, and since children employ a wide variety of phonological and morphological simplifications (mostly distance assimilation or reduplication) in learning to speak, this results in "classic" baby-words like na-na for grandmother or din-din for dinner, where the child has seized on a stressed syllable of the input and then repeated it to make a word.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_talk

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

Here's another study which finds that Baby Talk is more effective than Adult Talk:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050329143741.htm

Most adults speak to infants using so-called infant-directed speech: short, simple sentences coupled with higher pitch and exaggerated intonation. Researchers have long known that babies prefer to be spoken to in this manner. But Thiessen's research has revealed that infant-directed speech also helps infants learn words more quickly than normal adult speech.

[Cuddles]

It's not clear why baby talk is better than adult talk, but it may be that since babies seem to pick up on emotional content more than the actual words (as do animals), baby talk is easier to extract emotions from, while the actual content doesn't really matter. It does seem that women are better (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3357-dads-coochycoos-leave-babies-guessing.html) at it than men.

[Lisa Simpson]

science please (rather than personal anecdotes).;)

Well excuse me for posting. :mad:

[Kaylee]

Interesting thread -- so baby talk is like training wheels for speech! :)

[Orangutan]

As this thread was started before my post in the other thread I feel justified in re posting this here.

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

[Orangutan]

As this thread was started before my post in the other thread I feel justified in re posting this here.

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

more stuff:

Talk to your baby

By doing this throughout the day, you are providing a clear model of speech for your child. You don’t even need to use real words: have some fun with sounds! Your baby may not copy these sounds straight away but will enjoy watching your mouth and face and hearing the sounds you make. For example:

* make silly sounds;
* change the loudness and pitch of your voice;
* pull funny faces and make exaggerated facial expressions for your baby to watch.

From
http://www.ich.ucl.ac.uk/factsheets/families/F050219/#talk

oops I meant to edit not quote myself, Sorry! My ego isn't that big .. yet.

[Ben Tilly]

According to science: Is it better to speak to babies with baby talk? Or adult talk? Do babies learn language better and more effectively when we talk to them using high pitched vocalizations, and sounds such as "ga ga goo goo?" Or when we speak proper (or at least normal) adult sentences using normal, deeper vocal tones, such as "Hello, Johnny. Did you have a good sleep last night?"

Please respond not with your opinion, but with reference to actual, published, (ideally peer reviewed) scientific research.

Baby talk is better. It is significantly easier for small babies to hear and make sense of baby talk. Furthermore research indicates that deliberately talking to babies in a way that is slightly more advanced than what they are currently capable of has been shown to speed language development and has a long-lasting impact on IQ.

You'll find the research cited and explained in http://www.amazon.com/What-Going-There-Develop-Years/dp/0553378252 (which I highly recommend for any parents who want to understand what is going on in that little person).

Cheers,
Ben

[Zygar]

Bolding mine.
Baby talk is better. It is significantly easier for small babies to hear and make sense of baby talk. Furthermore research indicates that deliberately talking to babies in a way that is slightly more advanced than what they are currently capable of has been shown to speed language development and has a long-lasting impact on IQ.

I don't understand this at all. If you are speaking in Baby Talk, you are speaking to children in a consistently underdeveloped language, which is somehow better. But then you say that speaking to them at a level that is greater than their current understanding helps them.

Given this, how is Baby Talk better than speaking in proper English?

I think we need to define what is Baby Talk? I don't think anyone has clearly defined the parameters of it.

Then we can begin the discussion of at what developmental stages are differing versions of this underdeveloped language appropriate?

For example, we used three stages of Baby Talk with our baby. Playful noises and little actual language until about 4-6 months. English with strong sing-song qualities, proper grammar, and simple words until about 18 months when she was forming her own sentences. Proper English with mild sing-song qualities and no adjustment of language or grammar until about 3 1/2 years. Then we pretty much were speaking to her like an adult, and she was speaking to us like an adult.

[drkitten]

Bolding mine.


I don't understand this at all. If you are speaking in Baby Talk, you are speaking to children in a consistently underdeveloped language, which is somehow better. But then you say that speaking to them at a level that is greater than their current understanding helps them.

Given this, how is Baby Talk better than speaking in proper English?

You missed the word "slightly." "Deliberately talking to babies in a way that is slightly more advanced than what they are currently capable of has been shown to speed language development."

For example, if children are currently capable of producing and understanding two-word utterances (a well-recognized developmental stage, by the way), then using three- and four- word sentences is slightly beyond what they are capable of. Using eight, nine, and twenty-seven word sentences will simply overload their ability to structure word sequences.



I think we need to define what is Baby Talk? I don't think anyone has clearly defined the parameters of it.

There are some standard definitions -- the usual term that is used in the literature is "motherese," because it's not actually "baby talk. The babies aren't the ones talking, the mothers are. Some of the chacteristics are a high F0 (fundamental frequency), extreme prosodic contrasts, simplified grammar, and much repetition. For more characteristics, see (handwaves vaguely at the past 30 years of linguistics literature....)

[Ben Tilly]

I don't understand this at all. If you are speaking in Baby Talk, you are speaking to children in a consistently underdeveloped language, which is somehow better. But then you say that speaking to them at a level that is greater than their current understanding helps them.

The key word, as everyone's favorite cat pointed out, is slightly. In other words talk to them in a way which is a bit out of reach, but not so far that they can't aim for it. That way they have concrete goals to aim for, and then hit those milestones faster than they would on their own. The result is faster language aquisition, and research indicates that the edge provided becomes permanent.

If you need more detail, read the book that I suggested. It goes into more detail than I remember, and I can't find my copy right now. And points at research that goes into more detail still.

Given this, how is Baby Talk better than speaking in proper English?

It is easier for babies to hear and try to understand.

I think we need to define what is Baby Talk? I don't think anyone has clearly defined the parameters of it.

Then we can begin the discussion of at what developmental stages are differing versions of this underdeveloped language appropriate?

The book that I referenced is several steps ahead of you. If you're truly interested, then I suggest reading it.

For example, we used three stages of Baby Talk with our baby. Playful noises and little actual language until about 4-6 months. English with strong sing-song qualities, proper grammar, and simple words until about 18 months when she was forming her own sentences. Proper English with mild sing-song qualities and no adjustment of language or grammar until about 3 1/2 years. Then we pretty much were speaking to her like an adult, and she was speaking to us like an adult.

In a few years she'll become a teenager and stop speaking to you. ;)

She is beyond the age referenced in the book that I brought up. The book that I've seen recommended for that age is http://www.amazon.com/How-Talk-Kids-Will-Listen/dp/0380811960.

Cheers,
Ben

[Zygar]

You missed the word "slightly."

The key word, as everyone's favorite cat pointed out, is slightly.

I caught the word "slightly" but I wanted better clarification on what it meant. Obviously my daughter is well passed this whole language acquisition phase, but I'm quite certain that other people can benefit from the clarification that my questions evoked.

Thank you both!

In a few years she'll become a teenager and stop speaking to you. ;)

I am in the fortunate/unfortunate position of being the non-custodial parent. So I have the upper hand in becoming the one that she does talk to as a teenager, if she talks to either of us.

[joobz]

I have no idea what science says, but I never spoke baby (goo goo ga ga) talk to my children, although I do recall speaking in a higher pitched voice when they were infants. But we always spoke in adult sentences and never used euphemisms for body parts.
I've already gotten in trouble with my wife for asking Julian, "Are you hungry? do you want some boob?"
which would lead me to signing "boobies" over and over again.

I don't know why she was so annoyed with that?:rolleyes:

[Iamme]

this rings a discovery channel bell....

only a faint one though :)

there's some benefit to using baby talk....i think it was due to higher frequencies being more perceptible (?) than lower ones for ickle baby ears....

interesting question....let's see what the web will bring....:)

Maybe falsetto would be good, then.
"Tip toeeeeee...thru the tulippppps...falala...:)

[athon]

It depends on what you mean by 'baby' talk and how old the child is.

Using onamatapeic words such as 'choo-choo' for train, etc., simplifies language down, and can help babies develop basic language skills as they are learning to form sounds. Mind you, they have the capacity to understand vastly more complicated sounds than they can produce, so to think an infant can understand 'choo-choo' better than 'train' is wrong.

After some time, these simpler words must be replaced so the infant can see that there are different terms for the same thing in different situations. After all, you hardly want your fifteen year old boy calling you 'Mummy' in front of his friends (fast track to humiliation that one).

So, the question is, is it better to offer simplified terms when verbal language is being learned? It's mostly personal choice, as there's little decent evidence to show that using words such as 'mummy' or 'doggy' over 'mum' or 'dog' helps the child to speak sooner or more efficiently. Some children will struggle with more complicated words, and produce a modified version in an attempt (my brother used to call an ambulance an ambiance, for instance). Simplifying it with them -- even if it's cute -- will not help them adjust their language, in which case it is a bad idea. It's not advisable that they are always corrected, but rather when you use the word, just use it yourself in its right capacity.

Mirroring what the infant says is a good way to have them reinforce their skills. Even if it's gibberish while they are extremely young, repeating it helps them see it is good (it's akin to praise), and encourages them to do it again. Gibberish, while in code form is meaningless, helps them practice what they are learning as emotional language skills and verbal communication structure.

Speaking in a high pitched voice does attract an infant's attention more than a low pitched voice, while speaking with a smile is a form of praise associated with the entire communication procedure.

In short, baby talk is a good thing to do, as long as you remain mindful that the child's skills are developing faster than you probably realise, and that your language should get progressively more adult in the first couple of years.

Athon

[supercorgi]

I've never had a baby or young child, but if I did, I think I'd talk to it like I talk to my pets. Full sentences but delivered in a high pitch voice and very enthusiastic. That gets their attention and more of a response. Of course when I'm discipling them, I talk in a deeper more forceful voice. Babies are sort of like animals as far as their cognitive development.

[supercorgi]

So, the question is, is it better to offer simplified terms when verbal language is being learned? It's mostly personal choice, as there's little decent evidence to show that using words such as 'mummy' or 'doggy' over 'mum' or 'dog' helps the child to speak sooner or more efficiently. Some children will struggle with more complicated words, and produce a modified version in an attempt (my brother used to call an ambulance an ambiance, for instance). Simplifying it with them -- even if it's cute -- will not help them adjust their language, in which case it is a bad idea. It's not advisable that they are always corrected, but rather when you use the word, just use it yourself in its right capacity.

Again, my experience is with training animals. Words that end in a higher pitched syllable, with an "ie" or a "y", seem to catch their attention better. Also the use of words that are 2 syllables or 3 syllables seem to be easier to process for them. I'm continually amazed at the words my dog has picked up. If I say "do you want to take a shower" he picks up the word "shower" and trots into the bathroom. I really think babies and small children probably have the same processing power.

[magicharm]

If this helps anyone, the new "politically correct" term for motherese is "infant-directed speech".

There's not much research out there that shows that infants learn language any "better" when infant-directed speech is used... and it's a completely cultural thing. The studies that have been done predominatly involved white middle class populations in the US, so even if you take a look at the literature there's not much going on in terms of comparing infant-directed speech to anything else.

As has already been pointed out, in many cultures adults don't speak to children at all until the child learns how to talk, so clearly any type of infant-directed speech is not necessary for the learning of language. Might it, in theoty, speed up the learning process? I suppose the possibility is there, since it hasn't been confirmed or disproven yet, but as with most other factors involving language acquisition I would bet that any noticible effects would completely dissipate with time and in a short while all children would be back on the same page.

[Zep]

Why "motherese"? What's wrong with "parentese"?

Children learn to make the sounds of speech, then the form of speech, before they learn to make actual comprehendible speech. The starting point for this is very basic stuff - squeals, bubbles, cries, etc - simple basic communication. From there, it's on to babbling - basic phonemes and the pitch control of language, etc, although not recognisable words. Then the patterns are put together to make more recognisable sounds that we recognise as language words, and they start to tie them to objects and actions. And finally there is the grasp of basic language - multiple words to express both concrete facts and concepts (this is a fun time in language development too).

When Zeplette was young, we did talk exaggerated, simple, and slow "baby talk" to her, but usually not goo-goo stuff. This helped her recognise the basic language constructs, and it was just plain fun too. She liked to hold up whatever it was she was playing with at the time, and launch into a burble about it to us that usually sounded like someone talking down a scrambler-phone. Incomprehensible, but VERY earnest about it, she was! :D

[kellyb]

There's not any solid research out there that I could find.
It's one of those things where there's a few competing theories, and some evidence to back them all up.
When my baby was little, I would usually repeat things...one time in "simplified form" (Mommy's going bye-bye to the store, but I'll be riiiight baaaack) and then again in "regular language", after the look of understanding swept across his face. (I'm going to the store, but I'll be coming right back. See you in a few minutes).

It's hard to explain, but I think most parents can just sort of tell how to communicate complex ideas to their tiny ones.

I wish there was more solid evidence in the world of child development. There's a lot of what I'm pretty sure is going to be proven woo in time being taken as fact now. But I guess that's an issue for another thread. :)

[Katana]

I've never had a baby or young child, but if I did, I think I'd talk to it like I talk to my pets. Full sentences but delivered in a high pitch voice and very enthusiastic. That gets their attention and more of a response. Of course when I'm discipling them, I talk in a deeper more forceful voice. Babies are sort of like animals as far as their cognitive development.

But babies aren't nearly as cute.

:duck:

[fuelair]

According to science: Is it better to speak to babies with baby talk? Or adult talk? Do babies learn language better and more effectively when we talk to them using high pitched vocalizations, and sounds such as "ga ga goo goo?" Or when we speak proper (or at least normal) adult sentences using normal, deeper vocal tones, such as "Hello, Johnny. Did you have a good sleep last night?"

Please respond not with your opinion, but with reference to actual, published, (ideally peer reviewed) scientific research.www.dogpile.com

enter search term(s) , click fetch. choose items you want to read, read them. it's called research (I do it all the time - you can too).:)

[Dave1001]

It depends on what you mean by 'baby' talk and how old the child is.

Using onamatapeic words such as 'choo-choo' for train, etc., simplifies language down, and can help babies develop basic language skills as they are learning to form sounds. Mind you, they have the capacity to understand vastly more complicated sounds than they can produce, so to think an infant can understand 'choo-choo' better than 'train' is wrong.

So, the question is, is it better to offer simplified terms when verbal language is being learned? It's mostly personal choice, as there's little decent evidence to show that using words such as 'mummy' or 'doggy' over 'mum' or 'dog' helps the child to speak sooner or more efficiently. Some children will struggle with more complicated words, and produce a modified version in an attempt (my brother used to call an ambulance an ambiance, for instance). Simplifying it with them -- even if it's cute -- will not help them adjust their language, in which case it is a bad idea. It's not advisable that they are always corrected, but rather when you use the word, just use it yourself in its right capacity.

Athon

This part of your post looks like it might contradict what others have posted, and you aren't providing links to any scientific literature to back up what seems to be a contrarian post. Can you provide links to literature that supports specifically what I've bolded in your post?

The rest of your post, however, seems to be affirming what others have posted (also without reference to specific scientific literature, though).

[fuelair]

Well excuse me for posting. :mad:

That's why I told him to look it up himself - obviously he has access to computer - not our job to do his research - and it's not like this is an obscure topic.

[Dave1001]

Edit

[Dave1001]

That's why I told him to look it up himself - obviously he has access to computer - not our job to do his research - and it's not like this is an obscure topic.

Please don't hijack this thread or spam it by making the same point repeatedly. But feel free to start your own thread complaining about people that don't do their own research on dogpile for non-obscure topics.

[Katana]

Dave1001,

I read the OP that asked people for references to scientific publications, I saw your chiding of Lisa Simpson for not providing research, and then I went through posts by people who looked up the topic and provided you with information that they found.

Your first statement in the OP is, "According to science..." What science? What citations can you provide?

So I have to say that I was thinking along the same lines as fuelair. Had you supplied even one link yourself, I might have had a different reaction.

[Dave1001]

Your first statement in the OP is, "According to science..." What science? What citations can you provide?

So I have to say that I was thinking along the same lines as fuelair. Had you supplied even one link yourself, I might have had a different reaction.

I haven't expressed an opinion. I'm curious to know, and other posters have expressed the same curiosity. As I find scientific literature that impacts on the discussion of the thread, I'll post it along with my comments.

P.S. Instead of cluttering the thread with the exact same criticism, especially when we have multiple posters who seem to be fine with the parameters of the thread, please create a fresh thread to voice redundant criticism for those interested in reading it, or alternately, please just pm it to me directly.

[Katana]

I haven't expressed an opinion. I'm curious to know, and other posters have expressed the same curiosity. As I find scientific literature that impacts on the discussion of the thread, I'll post it along with my comments.

P.S. Instead of cluttering the thread with the exact same criticism, especially when we have multiple posters who seem to be fine with the parameters of the thread, please create a fresh thread to voice redundant criticism for those interested in reading it, or alternately, please just pm it to me directly.

Since when does one post represent "cluttering"?

:rolleyes:

Never mind. I wouldn't want you to sully your thread with a reply.

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

Since when does one post represent "cluttering"?

:rolleyes:

Never mind. I wouldn't want you to sully your thread with a reply.
I think you just did.
:duck:

[Katana]

I think you just did.
:duck:

:D

[fuelair]

:D

Dave, like many others you have missed a little point - you cannot control what others post. You are free to not like it, you are free to comment on it, you are free to not post because it annoys you - and you are free to do your own research. You are even free to expect others to follow your orders - but that's where it ends.:)

[Dave1001]

Dave, like many others you have missed a little point - you cannot control what others post. You are free to not like it, you are free to comment on it, you are free to not post because it annoys you - and you are free to do your own research. You are even free to expect others to follow your orders - but that's where it ends.:)

Please oblige:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70527

[Katana]

Please oblige:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70527

:seerrrr:

Spamming?

[joobz]

:seerrrr:

Spamming?
Can someone tell me what words I shouldn't say to my son? Is boobies acceptable?
What about the poop song?
poop poop poop poop
poop poop poop poop
poop poop poop poop
poop poop poop poop
:p

[drkitten]

Why "motherese"? What's wrong with "parentese"?

Nothing, except that mothers (almost universally) to do the bulk of the parenting work, and the child's language acquisition is generally driven by interaction with the mother and not the father or grandparent or others. (This is well-documented).

For the people who really get into this stuff, they have actually distinguished three separate sub-types of child-directed speech, "motherese," "fatherese," and "otherese," depending upon who's doing the speaking, and these categories do have sllightly different linguistic properties. But by far the greatest amount of speech that is directed to infants is "motherese."

Satisfied?

[NeilC]

Anyone with kids will know that babytalk works. You pick up on what limited sounds the baby can make and emulate them back to the baby who enjoys it. You then change it a bit towards where you want to go ("Dadda" in my case) and a few months later the baby is saying Dadda. You can see and hear it work. It's obvious.

As an aside: when it comes to bringing up my children I make a point to ignore all most all "studies" telling me X or Y is best for my children since they are usually as flakey as hell and often politically motivated.

[pgwenthold]

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the amount that you speak to your child is far more important in terms of how you do it. I can't imagine that those Samoan kids whose parents never speak to them (see one of the early posts in this thread) are learning to speak as early as American kids, for example.

In the end, I still like the lesson of Captain Kangaroo: "Parents, spend some time with your young person today." (and look out for falling ping pong balls)

I love the way he always called us "young people."

[NeilC]

I have some personal experience of speech therapy for my oldest child who developed a stammer. The treatment consisted of us, the parents, speaking more slowly, in a simpler grammatical structure, asking less open ended questions, repeating back what was being said and only adding to it incrementally. It seems to work. They call it "turtle talk". He says "I-I-I-I-I want my c-c--c-c-car daddy" and I then say "You want you car. You want your black car. Here is your car" or similar. It demonstrates proper speech, sentence construction and shows his communication has been effective.

The idea is that the child has a lot to deal with in thinking of an answer and then constructing the sentences and producing the right sounds and it can be overwhelming and cause problems.

So I can see that using simplified speech could well be a good strategy for helping a child learn and increasing it's confidence it those abilities. You might term this talking "down" to the child but it isn't.

[Kaylee]

There's also the theory that parents should jumpstart communicating with their baby in baby signs modified from American Sign Language (ASL) -- even if everyone in the family has good hearing.

The idea behind this is that babies can understand much more than they are capable of saying because of the physical immaturity of their mouths, lack of teeth, etc. If they learn a few signs such as milk, wet (re diapers), good bye, etc. they can start communicating instead of screaming at about 8 months (some report even as early as 3 months!) vs. waiting until they can verbally say a few words at 12 or 14 months.

This is suppose to cut down on the frustration levels and make everyone happier. I don't have kids so I've never tried it. I have heard third hand or so reports of people being very satisfied that they started off using a few signs with their babies before they learned to speak.

A reference for Dave :) --

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-themd7aug07,1,310586.column?coll=la-headlines-health
A study funded by the National Institutes of Health and reported in 2000 endorsed the contention that signing yielded verbal benefits. "The study showed signing facilitates learning to talk," says Linda Acredolo, a professor emeritus of psychology at UC Davis and the report's coauthor. Until age 3, children who had been instructed in signing had an advantage over nonsigning children in language development.

"The study also found that signing offers an intellectual advantage," says Acredolo. At 8 years, children who were taught to sign were found to have IQs 12 points higher than their nonsigning counterparts.

The study's authors offer a variety of theories for this apparent benefit. They suggest that the observed IQ advantage associated with signing might be the result of "jump-starting" a baby's intellectual development. They also speculate that the social and emotional benefits of signing, such as higher self-confidence, can have long-term effects on IQ.

However, the author of the LA article did go on to note:

But the study involved too few children to definitively prove the concept and justify sweeping conclusions. Researchers studied the language development of only 32 children who were taught sign language during infancy (comparing it with the development of a similar group of children who were not exposed to signing) and tested the IQ of only 19 of the children at age 8.

Even those with a commercial interest in signing are cautious about their claims. "Anecdotally we hear a lot of things about signing," says Vince Kiteley, director of sales and marketing at Sign2Me, a Seattle-based company that markets baby sign language products. "But there aren't a lot of long-term studies that really identify how it affects children."

Although more studies will likely be conducted, it may be difficult to prove what some advocates consider to be the most valuable benefits. "The most important benefits are the emotional ones," Acredolo says. "It allows families a richer connection because they're better able to communicate. It also allows babies to share their world with their parents."

[malbui]

For the people who really get into this stuff, they have actually distinguished three separate sub-types of child-directed speech, "motherese," "fatherese," and "otherese," depending upon who's doing the speaking, and these categories do have sllightly different linguistic properties. But by far the greatest amount of speech that is directed to infants is "motherese."
Not directly related but this whole subject really interests me as my little Malbuinette, just pushing four, is trilingual. She's learned English from me, Italian from her mother, and French from the environment. Is there any literature on what differences, if any, there should typically be in the way she uses each of these languages as a result of how she's learned them? I notice that she prefers to speak Italian when she's tired or upset and French to describe what she's been doing, but I can't really identify any qualitative differences in her use of language - her accuracy levels and complexity of structures seem to be about the same in each.

[drkitten]

This really interests me as my little Malbuinette, just pushing four, is trilingual. She's learned English from me, Italian from her mother, and French from the environment. Is there any literature on what differences, if any, there should typically be in the way she uses each of these languages as a result of how she's learned them?

I'm sure there is, but I've got too much on my plate right now to dig it up. Sorry.

I notice that she prefers to speak Italian when she's tired or upset

This doesn't surprise me. Her mother's language is Italian, and I would assume from cultural norms that her mother is the primary caretaker. If she needs/wants care (e.g. is tired and upset), she will use her mother's language.....

I can't really identify any qualitative differences in her use of language - her accuracy levels and complexity of structures seem to be about the same in each.

Without reference to the literature, this is in line with my intuitions. I also rather expect that at some point in the next five years or so she will lose interest in speaking at least one of the home languages (do you speak English or Italian with your wife?) and drop down to functionally bi- or mono-lingual, just 'cause it's too much cogntive effort to maintain proficiency in all three.

[malbui]

I'm sure there is, but I've got too much on my plate right now to dig it up. Sorry.
No problems!

This doesn't surprise me. Her mother's language is Italian, and I would assume from cultural norms that her mother is the primary caretaker. If she needs/wants care (e.g. is tired and upset), she will use her mother's language.....
Well, because of our circumstances that's not entirely the case but there is an underlying understanding that mummy knows best, so Italian it is.


Without reference to the literature, this is in line with my intuitions. I also rather expect that at some point in the next five years or so she will lose interest in speaking at least one of the home languages (do you speak English or Italian with your wife?) and drop down to functionally bi- or mono-lingual, just 'cause it's too much cogntive effort to maintain proficiency in all three.
We're interesting in that we speak a real mixture at home. French is our native shared language but since Malbuinette came along we've tended only to speak our other mother tongue around the house so that she gets to hear both of those as well - and be able to understand our dispersed family members. I've heard from other sources too that she's likely to drop one language and I fear that it will be English - her school will be French-speaking and she sees far more of her Italian family than the few English speakers on my side, so that could well get squeezed. Which would be a pity as it'll be useful later on.

[Dave1001]

Anyone with kids will know that babytalk works.

I've seen people with kids on opposing sides on this issue. That's one reason I'm interested in what the best science seems to indicate.

[Dave1001]

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the amount that you speak to your child is far more important in terms of how you do it. I can't imagine that those Samoan kids whose parents never speak to them (see one of the early posts in this thread) are learning to speak as early as American kids, for example.

In the end, I still like the lesson of Captain Kangaroo: "Parents, spend some time with your young person today." (and look out for falling ping pong balls)

I love the way he always called us "young people."

Well you bring up 2 interesting points.
1. Is it true that the amount of speaking you do with your kids is far more important than how you speak to them in terms of building their long term linguistic and mental ability?
2. Is how you speak to your kids (particularly baby talk vs. adult tonality, vocabulary, and grammar talk) still important, even if you spend the maximally beneficially amount of time talking with your kids, in terms of building their long term linguistic and mental ability?

What does the scientific literature say about this?

[Dave1001]

There's also the theory that parents should jumpstart communicating with their baby in baby signs modified from American Sign Language (ASL) -- even if everyone in the family has good hearing.

The idea behind this is that babies can understand much more than they are capable of saying because of the physical immaturity of their mouths, lack of teeth, etc. If they learn a few signs such as milk, wet (re diapers), good bye, etc. they can start communicating instead of screaming at about 8 months (some report even as early as 3 months!) vs. waiting until they can verbally say a few words at 12 or 14 months.

This is suppose to cut down on the frustration levels and make everyone happier. I don't have kids so I've never tried it. I have heard third hand or so reports of people being very satisfied that they started off using a few signs with their babies before they learned to speak.

A reference for Dave :) --

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-themd7aug07,1,310586.column?coll=la-headlines-health


However, the author of the LA article did go on to note:

Fascinating. Quality post! ;)

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

There's also the theory that parents should jumpstart communicating with their baby in baby signs modified from American Sign Language (ASL) -- even if everyone in the family has good hearing.

The idea behind this is that babies can understand much more than they are capable of saying because of the physical immaturity of their mouths, lack of teeth, etc. If they learn a few signs such as milk, wet (re diapers), good bye, etc. they can start communicating instead of screaming at about 8 months (some report even as early as 3 months!) vs. waiting until they can verbally say a few words at 12 or 14 months.

This is suppose to cut down on the frustration levels and make everyone happier. I don't have kids so I've never tried it. I have heard third hand or so reports of people being very satisfied that they started off using a few signs with their babies before they learned to speak.

A reference for Dave :) --

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-themd7aug07,1,310586.column?coll=la-headlines-health


However, the author of the LA article did go on to note:
My wife and I are starting this with our 5 1/2 month old. We know of two other couples that have done this with their children, and the results certainly seem to be positive. Both children have been rated at a 6-7 year old level of speech at age 4.

Anecdotal evidence of course; but it also stands to reason that any parent who is willing to invest the time/effort into signing would find infant education to be very important, so the signing aspect of it could just be a red herring as to why these children are so advanced.

[dogguy]

What does the scientific literature say about this?

Dave1001:
You have posted this exact same question several times in response to several different posts. Why don't YOU research the scientific literature yourself?

[Dave1001]

Dave1001:
You have posted this exact same question several times in response to several different posts. Why don't YOU research the scientific literature yourself?

Someone might already know, and be happy to volunteer the links or cites and their analysis of it. Members including DrKitten and BenTilly frequently provide links to scientific research on a topic and their analysis on it. It would take me several hours at the least to discover and digest myself, if not for their generous sharing of what they either already sifted through and analyzed, or what they were able to do much quicker than I.

[Dave1001]

<snip>

it also stands to reason that any parent who is willing to invest the time/effort into signing would find infant education to be very important, so the signing aspect of it could just be a red herring as to why these children are so advanced.

the la times article implied that they had corrected for that to a degree by comparing similar population that had signed vs. not signed.

[LostAngeles]

Someone might already know, and be happy to volunteer the links or cites and their analysis of it. Members including DrKitten and BenTilly frequently provide links to scientific research on a topic and their analysis on it. It would take me several hours at the least to discover and digest myself, if not for their generous sharing of what they either already sifted through and analyzed, or what they were able to do much quicker than I.

IOW: I'm too lazy to read something and think about so I have to ask others to do it for me and give me their digested versions.

Which, of course, is then colored by the teller's own personal viewpoints and biases which compounds the original author's own coloring of the research and hey, who know what you're really getting? (No offense to Dr. Kitten and co. Just trying to point out the flaws here.)

Didn't you say elsewhere you were a law student? Shouldn't you also have access to the huge and numerous databases that I, a mere undergrad, have access to?

Frankly, if you want to learn about a topic, I would consider taking a few hours to read about it and digest it incredibly worthwhile.

But then, I also think that if one wants something, one should put in the work necessary for it.

[Dave1001]

IOW: I'm too lazy to read something and think about so I have to ask others to do it for me and give me their digested versions.

Which, of course, is then colored by the teller's own personal viewpoints and biases which compounds the original author's own coloring of the research and hey, who know what you're really getting? (No offense to Dr. Kitten and co. Just trying to point out the flaws here.)

Didn't you say elsewhere you were a law student? Shouldn't you also have access to the huge and numerous databases that I, a mere undergrad, have access to?

Frankly, if you want to learn about a topic, I would consider taking a few hours to read about it and digest it incredibly worthwhile.

But then, I also think that if one wants something, one should put in the work necessary for it.

If you have more to say along these lines, please post them here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70527

[Katana]

:popcorn1

[drkitten]

What does the scientific literature say about this?

Quite a bit. You should look at it sometime.

[drkitten]

the la times article implied that they had corrected for that to a degree by comparing similar population that had signed vs. not signed.

"Similar" covers a multitude of sins. It might just mean that they were age-matched, for instance.

[Kaylee]

<snip>

it also stands to reason that any parent who is willing to invest the time/effort into signing would find infant education to be very important, so the signing aspect of it could just be a red herring as to why these children are so advanced.
the la times article implied that they had corrected for that to a degree by comparing similar population that had signed vs. not signed.

I imagine that comparing children and families is a very subjective exercise and that there is room for difference of opinions as to how accurately this can be done. I think some methods of teaching are superior, but it surely is impossilbe to attribute to only one thing why and how well a child succeeds in speaking. So I think Ripley 29's comment is fair.

FWIW, I also think the amount of time that parents spend speaking directly to their babies and, later, the way they speak to their children are also strong indicators of both the children's genetic and other environmental influences.

Baby talk to a 1 year old? Sure, and for all the reasons already stated. Baby talk to a 3 or 4 year old? Probably a good indication that the parents don't have high expectation for that child. I think it's basically accepted that most children are strongly affected by their parents', and other authority figures in their lives, expectations.

ETA: Dr. Kitten -- you write really fast!

[LostAngeles]

If you have more to say along these lines, please post them here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70527

Oh my, you're right. Let me actually be helpful here. Finals must be getting to me.

As I said, law student right? If you go to your school's library's website, they very likely have a link to the article databases. These tend to contain at least the cites for thousands upon thousands of articles, some peer-reviewed, some not. For example, Gale Group's Expanded Academic ASAP carries both, but allows you to restrict your search to peer-reviewed journals. That particular database is very popular as it contains articles from a wide variety of disciplines. There's also the Anthropology Plus database that we have access to here that you might consider looking into as linguistics is considered a subfield of anthropology. If they don't have the whole article on line, your school might be able to tell you if it's in their catalog with the proper call numbers to go look it up.

If that's overloaded right now as we all seem to be in finals or going into them, you can always try www.pubmed.com to try and find a few articles there. Even better, there's always your local library. A lot of librarians, if not all, have a Master's in Library Sciences, and that doesn't mean that their Shhh-fu is strong. They'd probably be delighted to help you find what you're looking for. If you're not sure where or how to find your local library, this link (http://www.just****inggoogleit.com) may help you out.

As for your particular topic, most of the databases work best using Boolean search terms. For example, you could try entering, "Parentese AND language," "Parentese OR Baby-talk," or "Language AND Acquisition NOT ESL". The AND (Boolean search terms are generally required to be in all caps from my experience) tells the engine to include both terms, the OR says to find either or both, and NOT tell it which terms to exclude. Some databases don't require you to do that and it works a bit more like Google.

Lastly, I would guess that you would want to use either the APA style or the AAA style as such a topic generally comes up in a linguistics (subfield of anthropology, remember?) or child psychology. These you should be able to easily google for, along with MLA or even Chicago.

I hope that I have been able to amply assist you in your research and I wish you much luck in finding what it is you seek so that you may be better able to discuss your chosen topic.

[Foster Zygote]

Can someone tell me what words I shouldn't say to my son? Is boobies acceptable?
What about the poop song?
poop poop poop poop
poop poop poop poop
poop poop poop poop
poop poop poop poop
:p

Is The Poop Song sung to the tune of The Spam Song?

[joobz]

Oh my, you're right. Let me actually be helpful here. Finals must be getting to me.

As I said, law student right? If you go to your school's library's website, they very likely have a link to the article databases. These tend to contain at least the cites for thousands upon thousands of articles, some peer-reviewed, some not. For example, Gale Group's Expanded Academic ASAP carries both, but allows you to restrict your search to peer-reviewed journals. That particular database is very popular as it contains articles from a wide variety of disciplines. There's also the Anthropology Plus database that we have access to here that you might consider looking into as linguistics is considered a subfield of anthropology. If they don't have the whole article on line, your school might be able to tell you if it's in their catalog with the proper call numbers to go look it up.

If that's overloaded right now as we all seem to be in finals or going into them, you can always try www.pubmed.com (http://www.pubmed.com) to try and find a few articles there. Even better, there's always your local library. A lot of librarians, if not all, have a Master's in Library Sciences, and that doesn't mean that their Shhh-fu is strong. They'd probably be delighted to help you find what you're looking for. If you're not sure where or how to find your local library, this link (http://www.just****inggoogleit.com) may help you out.

As for your particular topic, most of the databases work best using Boolean search terms. For example, you could try entering, "Parentese AND language," "Parentese OR Baby-talk," or "Language AND Acquisition NOT ESL". The AND (Boolean search terms are generally required to be in all caps from my experience) tells the engine to include both terms, the OR says to find either or both, and NOT tell it which terms to exclude. Some databases don't require you to do that and it works a bit more like Google.

Lastly, I would guess that you would want to use either the APA style or the AAA style as such a topic generally comes up in a linguistics (subfield of anthropology, remember?) or child psychology. These you should be able to easily google for, along with MLA or even Chicago.

I hope that I have been able to amply assist you in your research and I wish you much luck in finding what it is you seek so that you may be better able to discuss your chosen topic.

I typically do Pubmed first.
Then I'll go to www.isiknowledge.com (http://www.isiknowledge.com) Which has things referenced by the number of citations and what articles a specific journal sites. It's a great way to find some of the original studies really fast.

I'll also go to scifinder which is really helpful on campus here since it has a lot of the engineering texts that tend to be ignored by pubmed.
Finally, I'll checkout compendex. That used to be my first stop in undergrad, but i've found the others much more useful.

I've never tried the Gale's group though. I'll check it out.
thanks

[drkitten]

Which, of course, is then colored by the teller's own personal viewpoints and biases which compounds the original author's own coloring of the research and hey, who know what you're really getting? (No offense to Dr. Kitten and co. Just trying to point out the flaws here.)

None taken. Although I, of course, know that I am the veritable epitome of reason, unbiased wisdom, wide-ranging knowledge, and deific epistemological rigour, there are nevertheless a few heretics who consider me to be merely mortal and therefore fallable.

I forgive them. For I am at least a beneficent deity.

Sometimes.

[Kaylee]

This may be of interest. Baby sign language is not only a simplified version of sign, it also includes rhythmic babbling. Source: Two abstracts found in the PubMed database:

Science. 1991 Mar 22;251(5000):1493-6. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus)

Babbling in the manual mode: evidence for the ontogeny of language.
Petitto LA, Marentette PF.

Department of Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Infant vocal babbling has been assumed to be a speech-based phenomenon that reflects the maturation of the articulatory apparatus responsible for spoken language production. Manual babbling has now been reported to occur in deaf children exposed to signed languages from birth. The similarities between manual and vocal babbling suggest that babbling is a product of an amodal, brain-based language capacity under maturational control, in which phonetic and syllabic units are produced by the infant as a first step toward building a mature linguistic system. Contrary to prevailing accounts of the neurological basis of babbling in language ontogeny, the speech modality is not critical in babbling. Rather, babbling is tied to the abstract linguistic structure of language and to an expressive capacity capable of processing different types of signals (signed or spoken).

[emphasis mine]

and:

This abstract mentions that the researchers found a conclusive way to distinguish between the babies signing and just moving their hands around:

Cognition, 2004 Aug;93(1):43-73. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15110725&query_hl=14&itool=pubmed_docsum)

Baby hands that move to the rhythm of language: hearing babies acquiring sign languages babble silently on the hands.

Cognition, 2004 Aug;93(1):43-73.

Petitto LA, Holowka S, Sergio LE, Levy B, Ostry DJ.

Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences and Department of Education, Raven House, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755, USA. laura-ann.petitto@dartmouth.edu

...Using innovative quantitative Optotrak 3-D motion-tracking technology, applied here for the first time to study infant language acquisition, we obtained physical measurements similar to a speech spectrogram, but for the hands. Here we discovered that the specific rhythmic frequencies of the hands of the sign-exposed hearing babies differed depending on whether they were producing linguistic activity, which they produced at a low frequency of approximately 1 Hz, versus non-linguistic activity, which they produced at a higher frequency of approximately 2.5 Hz - the identical class of hand activity that the speech-exposed hearing babies produced nearly exclusively. Surprisingly, without benefit of the mouth, hearing sign-exposed babies alone babbled systematically on their hands. We conclude that babbling is fundamentally a linguistic activity and explain why the differentiation between linguistic and non-linguistic hand activity in a single manual modality (one distinct from the human mouth) could only have resulted if all babies are born with a sensitivity to specific rhythmic patterns at the heart of human language and the capacity to use them.


[emphasis mine]

[dogguy]

IOW: I'm too lazy to read something and think about so I have to ask others to do it for me and give me their digested versions.

Which, of course, is then colored by the teller's own personal viewpoints and biases which compounds the original author's own coloring of the research and hey, who know what you're really getting? (No offense to Dr. Kitten and co. Just trying to point out the flaws here.)

Didn't you say elsewhere you were a law student? Shouldn't you also have access to the huge and numerous databases that I, a mere undergrad, have access to?

Frankly, if you want to learn about a topic, I would consider taking a few hours to read about it and digest it incredibly worthwhile.

But then, I also think that if one wants something, one should put in the work necessary for it.

Thanks, LA. You saved me the trouble.

I would also add, Dave 1001, that asking people for info and then telling some that reply not to post because their response is not "scientific" enough is the height of rudeness. I have seen precious little "scientific" content to any of your posts in this thread.

[Katana]

:D


:popcorn1

[Kaylee]

Thanks, LA. You saved me the trouble.

I would also add, Dave 1001, that asking people for info and then telling some that reply not to post because their response is not "scientific" enough is the height of rudeness.
That's true, especially when not contributing any references of your own. That's the part that really bugs me, demanding more than one is willing to contribute himself.

I can't help but wonder also, are we helping Dave write a term paper or something? Usually if someone is really interested in a topic, I think they would have done a little reading and have at least one reference to contribute.

However, I just find this topic really interesting so I posted anyway, although I had mixed feelings about it.

[dogguy]

:D


:popcorn1

My pleasure.:)

[drkitten]

I would also add, Dave 1001, that asking people for info and then telling some that reply not to post because their response is not "scientific" enough is the height of rudeness. I have seen precious little "scientific" content to any of your posts in this thread.

At the risk of indulging in what Dave would no doubt consider to be ad hominem attacks, that's a fairly common MO for him. If you look at some of the other threads that he's participated in, most memorably the IQ threads, he has a tendency to use this forum as a resource in support of conclusions that he's already decided upon for (as far as I can tell) extra-scientific reasons.

If not a term paper, perhaps he's been assigned this as a debating topic or something? (Resolved: that speaking baby talk to infants retards their mental development -- and his team drew the "positive" side of the debate?)

[Dave1001]

If not a term paper, perhaps he's been assigned this as a debating topic or something? (Resolved: that speaking baby talk to infants retards their mental development -- and his team drew the "positive" side of the debate?)

huh? This is a branch off of the "universal baby language is woo" thread.

[Katana]

My pleasure.:)

I'm wondering when we're all going to be referred to the "FuelAir,Katana,LisaSimpson,LostAngeles,drkitten,jo obz,dogguy,Shera,etc: Please Post Spamming Of Science/Baby Talk Thread Here" thread.

[Dave1001]

However, I just find this topic really interesting so I posted anyway.

And thank you for doing so.:)

[dogguy]

However, I just find this topic really interesting so I posted anyway, although I had mixed feelings about it.

I too find it interesting. My wife and I have babies in our home constantly as we provide foster care for drug and alcohol affected babies. I am always on the lookout for info that will assist us in caring for our babies. There is some really interesting and useful info posted here - both "scientific" and anecdotal. I'm afraid I helped derail because I found Dava1001's attitude offensive. I apologise for this and will no longer contribute to the derail. So, back to the topic?

[drkitten]

I too find it interesting. My wife and I have babies in our home constantly as we provide foster care for drug and alcohol affected babies.

I salute you, sir.

:th:

[LostAngeles]

...

I can't help but wonder also, are we helping Dave write a term paper or something? Usually if someone is really interested in a topic, I think they would have done a little reading and have at least one reference to contribute.

...


That's why I added the suggestions on the appropriate formats. If I hadn't had to run off to take my Archaeology final I would have been more than happy to include additional tips on how to digest the information Dave would be reading.

Dave, if you'd like them, please let me know and I'll be delighted to continue to assist you when I'm not crashing post-finals.

[LostAngeles]

None taken. Although I, of course, know that I am the veritable epitome of reason, unbiased wisdom, wide-ranging knowledge, and deific epistemological rigour, there are nevertheless a few heretics who consider me to be merely mortal and therefore fallable.

I forgive them. For I am at least a beneficent deity.

Sometimes.

Could you stop feeding my girl crush, plzthxkbye?

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

Why "motherese"? What's wrong with "parentese"?

....


That is what the researchers call it. There is active research in how babies learn at the university I live near, and others. All three of my kids have been test subjects for various studies (it is fun, and we get a little bit of cash --- my middle son was given his own cash for a study on the emotional health of middle school students). I assume other universities conduct similar studies.

Anyway, the specific local research institute that researches babies (started with cash by a family who got rich with cell phones) is this:
http://www.talaris.org/about.htm[/URL]

Here is their page on speaking to babies with references:
http://www.talaris.org/spotlight_parentese.htm (http://www.talaris.org/)

I would suggest to Dave if he is truly interested in these subject that he start with www.pubmed.gov (http://www.pubmed.gov), then go on to www.medlineplus.gov (http://www.medlineplus.gov) and [URL]http://www.aap.org/ ... and possibly searching for things at the university he attends. He may find that there are folks he walks by every day asking and searching for the questions he posts here. For instance I put the search terms "baby research" into the search box at www.washington.edu (http://www.washington.edu) and got this:
http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/washington?site=search&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=baby%20research

Links on that page led me to (sometimes after clicking links on those pages:
http://steppingup.washington.edu/research-reviews.asp
http://ilabs.washington.edu/news/Times_Pacific_3_6_05.pdf (which is a newspaper article about Talaris)... and a few clicks later leads to this:
http://ilabs.washington.edu/research/index.html

Lots of this does bring up the same research and researchers, but a search of another research university (like UCLA, Duke Univ., Johns Hopkins, Univ. of Wisconsin, and on and on) would bring up more stuff.

Then after finding some interesting tidbit of research, he could bounce it off the forum.

Oh, another cool thing about being a college student, and even living near a university is that there are often some cool talks, seminars and exhibits that are either cheap or free. Not only are the speakers interesting, but sometimes so are the participants. Years ago I went to a talk on campus by Dr. Oliver Sacks when he was pushing his Island of the Colorblind book. I was seated in front of a group of people who did research with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. Oh, and they are great for dates... one of my first dates with my hubby was to a free talk by Carl Sagan!

[athon]

This part of your post looks like it might contradict what others have posted, and you aren't providing links to any scientific literature to back up what seems to be a contrarian post. Can you provide links to literature that supports specifically what I've bolded in your post?

The rest of your post, however, seems to be affirming what others have posted (also without reference to specific scientific literature, though).

I could dig some up if I looked. I'm relying on what I learned during my studies in literacy and child development at uni when I did my teaching qualifications, and it was backed up again when I did professional development workshops in subsequent years. The consensus was that children have a rather well developed language system for comprehending information in a grammatical construct, in that they can grasp meaning from a complicated sentence far before they are able to use it themselves.

Words are the same. Calling a 'cow' a 'moo-moo' does not help the child advance any faster in learning the word for a bovine creature. There is an illusion that this is the case, simply because it is easier to form the sound for 'moo' than it is for 'cow', hence the child will pronounce the former before the latter. Sooner or later, however, 'cow' will need to be mastered, so is it even necessary to ever teach it a simpler way of saying it?

At this point I couldn't be bothered either finding my old notes or textbooks or doing a Google for it. So, this is one rare occasion for me that I'm going to throw an appeal to my own authority out there, and if you don't like it, cool with me.

Athon

[Dave1001]

Dave, if you'd like them, please let me know and I'll be delighted to continue to assist you when I'm not crashing post-finals.

I'd prefer general research tips in a different thread more directly about that. However, if you have specific sources on this topic and your take on them, I would like to see them in here.:)

[Dave1001]

Calling a 'cow' a 'moo-moo' does not help the child advance any faster in learning the word for a bovine creature. There is an illusion that this is the case, simply because it is easier to form the sound for 'moo' than it is for 'cow', hence the child will pronounce the former before the latter. Sooner or later, however, 'cow' will need to be mastered, so is it even necessary to ever teach it a simpler way of saying it?
Athon

It sounds like that's a rhetorical question and your answer is "no". Does anyone disagree with that? And on what basis?

[LostAngeles]

I'd prefer general research tips in a different thread more directly about that. However, if you have specific sources on this topic and your take on them, I would like to see them in here.:)

Well, like you, as a student, I have access to many sources on the topic. However, I have little or no desire to do anyone else's work for them and it seems somehow, as a law student, you are unable to do your own research on the topic.

However, if this really is an offshoot from the "Is baby talk woo?" thread, you might have wanted to mention that in the OP rather than just coming out of the blue.

[Kaylee]

I've heard from other sources too that she's likely to drop one language and I fear that it will be English - her school will be French-speaking and she sees far more of her Italian family than the few English speakers on my side, so that could well get squeezed. Which would be a pity as it'll be useful later on.

You could probably keep her interest level up by providing her with children's programming in English on DVDs (even silly cartoons and movies would do the trick) and then later help her find an English language kid's web site that you think is appropriate.

Years ago I met some 3rd or 4th cousins in Israel whose English was very good although it was obvious that they had learned most of it from TV and not from school. It was a little startling at times, but they could definitely speak English very well.

More recently I've met kids who decided to learn Japanese on their own because of their interest in anime.

And of course I've met people over the internet (including this forum ;) ) who use it to learn or maintain their English, like yourself I guess since you say your native language is French. (BTW, your English is very good, and I never would have guessed that your are not a native English speaker. )

[Kaylee]

I too find it interesting. My wife and I have babies in our home constantly as we provide foster care for drug and alcohol affected babies. I am always on the lookout for info that will assist us in caring for our babies. There is some really interesting and useful info posted here - both "scientific" and anecdotal. I'm afraid I helped derail because I found Dava1001's attitude offensive. I apologise for this and will no longer contribute to the derail. So, back to the topic?

I salute you, sir.

Ditto.

That is truely awesome and generous of you and your wife.

[Kaylee]

That's why I added the suggestions on the appropriate formats. If I hadn't had to run off to take my Archaeology final I would have been more than happy to include additional tips on how to digest the information Dave would be reading.


And I really appreciated your post! And joobz and HC's also. :) I've cut and pasted your comments for handy reference the next time I find myself in a research library. It's nice to have other options besides PubMed.

Good luck with your finals, although since you are a smartie, I'm sure you won't need any! :p

[fuelair]

Well, like you, as a student, I have access to many sources on the topic. However, I have little or no desire to do anyone else's work for them and it seems somehow, as a law student, you are unable to do your own research on the topic.

However, if this really is an offshoot from the "Is baby talk woo?" thread, you might have wanted to mention that in the OP rather than just coming out of the blue.

Hmm, Dave's getting slow or busy - he would rather you say this kind of stuff
here : http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70527

I don't really care -since he doesn't get to tell people how to operate on any thread - but what the heck....:D :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :D

[Kaylee]

The consensus was that children have a rather well developed language system for comprehending information in a grammatical construct, in that they can grasp meaning from a complicated sentence far before they are able to use it themselves. FWIW, I've heard that also and I think that anyone who has spent a lot of time with babies and toddlers would agree.

Words are the same. Calling a 'cow' a 'moo-moo' does not help the child advance any faster in learning the word for a bovine creature. There is an illusion that this is the case, simply because it is easier to form the sound for 'moo' than it is for 'cow', hence the child will pronounce the former before the latter. Sooner or later, however, 'cow' will need to be mastered, so is it even necessary to ever teach it a simpler way of saying it?
I think the point is to get the kid speaking, not comprehending language. It's the speaking part that is more difficult for very young children.

ETA: FWIW, I like kellyb's (post #25) approach:

When my baby was little, I would usually repeat things...one time in "simplified form" (Mommy's going bye-bye to the store, but I'll be riiiight baaaack) and then again in "regular language", after the look of understanding swept across his face. (I'm going to the store, but I'll be coming right back. See you in a few minutes).

She's got it all covered! :)

[Dave1001]

Hmm, Dave's getting slow or busy - he would rather you say this kind of stuff
here : http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70527

I don't really care -since he doesn't get to tell people how to operate on any thread - but what the heck....:D :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :D

thanks, deputy.;) :p

[Katana]

And I really appreciated your post! And joobz and HC's also. :) I've cut and pasted your comments for handy reference the next time I find myself in a research library. It's nice to have other options besides PubMed.

Good luck with your finals, although since you are a smartie, I'm sure you won't need any! :p

Actually, I have to second this.

Great suggestions, LostAngeles, joobz, & HC!

[malbui]

You could probably keep her interest level up by providing her with children's programming in English on DVDs (even silly cartoons and movies would do the trick) and then later help her find an English language kid's web site that you think is appropriate.
I do quite a lot of this and it's very effective: some of her favourite DVDs (Angelina Ballerina and Thomas the Tank Engine) are in English only, and most of the others come with a choice of language and she decides which one she wants to listen to. Interestingly, my Italian has improved more from a couple of years of half-listening to cartoons while reading than from a dozen years of life with a native speaker :D .

And of course I've met people over the internet (including this forum ;) ) who use it to learn or maintain their English, like yourself I guess since you say your native language is French. (BTW, your English is very good, and I never would have guessed that your are not a native English speaker. )
Well, to be honest I am a native speaker: my father is Irish and I grew up able to feck and arse with the best of them. I've been back in the French-speaking world for a number of years now, though, and my reassimilation is almost complete - I dream and swear exclusively in French, which are usually good markers.

[Kaylee]

Interestingly, my Italian has improved more from a couple of years of half-listening to cartoons while reading than from a dozen years of life with a native speaker :D .
That is funny!


Well, to be honest I am a native speaker: my father is Irish and I grew up able to feck and arse with the best of them. I've been back in the French-speaking world for a number of years now, though, and my reassimilation is almost complete - I dream and swear exclusively in French, which are usually good markers.
I really envy you your trilingualness. :)

Did you learn French and Italian when you were a child, or were you able to pick up one or both languages as an adult?

[supercorgi]

But babies aren't nearly as cute.

:duck:

Agreed! Reference small corgi on the left. :D

[malbui]

Did you learn French and Italian when you were a child, or were you able to pick up one or both languages as an adult?
French is my mother's language and what we mainly spoke at home when I was little, so that remains my language of choice. I then did a degree in German and to round things off met a captivating Italian woman: she was brought up in France so we always just spoke French together, but in order to communicate with most of her family I needed to make an effort with Italian. To be honest, when you've already got a couple of languages in your head learning the structures and patterns of another is pretty straightforward - it's only on vocabulary that I struggle sometimes.

[LostAngeles]

And I really appreciated your post! And joobz and HC's also. :) I've cut and pasted your comments for handy reference the next time I find myself in a research library. It's nice to have other options besides PubMed.

Good luck with your finals, although since you are a smartie, I'm sure you won't need any! :p

You're quite welcome! And like I said, remember that the librarians are there to help you and will be more than happy to give you even more suggestions!

[Foster Zygote]

Agreed! Reference small corgi on the left. :D

I have counter evidence.:)

[Foster Zygote]

You're quite welcome! And like I said, remember that the librarians are there to help you and will be more than happy to give you even more suggestions!

Well that explains your hat. You're pimpin' librarians!:D

[LostAngeles]

Well that explains your hat. You're pimpin' librarians!:D

I take offense to that. I am not a monkey, even if I do have a shared ancestor with apes, but those are apes and it was some 6-8 million years ago. I think monkeys get their own genus, genius.

[skeptigirl]

My 2 science cents worth without reading if I'm being redundant:

Baby talk (parents high pitched and silly chatter) is universal across cultures and has been shown to get babies attention quite effectively. This implies there is a biological basis to it.

Babies in all cultures and languages go through similar speech development stages with the bababa, mamama and so on sounds made. After a certain age the general sounds fade and the language specific sounds remain. This is one of those clues we learn languages better at a particular language acquiring age than later after that phase passes and our brains establish the language we will eventually speak. (I'll never be able to roll my r's and some of you will never pronounce girl as well as an English speaker.)

But as children get older, those who are in one child families may learn more extensive vocabularies than in multi-child families. There is an hypothesis that talking to adults more than talking to other kids does have a beneficial influence on language development. I don't know how this has panned out with more definitive research but I suspect the hypothesis has been supported.

So, babble all you want to your infants and toddlers. But speak to your preschooler like you speak to adults. In my opinion, that is.