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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Quote:

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...0329143741.htm

Quote:

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 at it than men.

[Lisa Simpson]

Originally Posted by Dave1001

science please (rather than personal anecdotes).

Well excuse me for posting.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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:

Quote:

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/.../F050219/#talk

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

[Ben Tilly]

Originally Posted by 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.

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-The.../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.

Originally Posted by Ben Tilly

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]

Originally Posted by Zygar

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Zygar

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.

Originally Posted by Zygar

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

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

Originally Posted by Zygar

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.

Originally Posted by Zygar

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-.../dp/0380811960.

Cheers,
Ben

[Zygar]

Originally Posted by drkitten

You missed the word "slightly."

Originally Posted by Ben Tilly

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!

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

[Iamme]

Originally Posted by 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....

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]

Originally Posted by athon

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!

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

But babies aren't nearly as cute.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Lisa Simpson

Well excuse me for posting.

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]

Originally Posted by fuelair

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]

Originally Posted by Katana

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]

Originally Posted by Dave1001

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"?



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

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

Originally Posted by Katana

Since when does one post represent "cluttering"?



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

I think you just did.

[Katana]

Originally Posted by Ripley Twenty-Nine

I think you just did.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Katana

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]

Originally Posted by fuelair

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]

Originally Posted by Dave1001

Please oblige:

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

Spamming?

[joobz]

Originally Posted by Katana

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