Talking seriously with children is good for their language proficiency(sciencedaily.com)
sciencedaily.com
Talking seriously with children is good for their language proficiency
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100512172529.htm
12 comments
> if language influences thought patterns, "baby talk" is a pretty crippled language and you shouldn't cripple your kid's expressive or reasoning abilities.
Kids are actually pretty insensitive to the precise form of linguistic input they get. It doesn't matter much if it's baby talk directed at the kid, or the ambient speech of other adults. Any regular exposure to a language/dialect is sufficient for a kid to acquire it perfectly. (Bearing in mind that perfect acquisition of a non-standard dialect may be viewed by the linguistically ignorant as imperfect acquisition of the standard dialect.) There's certainly no evidence for "baby talk" crippling kids reasoning abilities.
There are even cultures where parents don't talk to their kids until the kids can talk back, but the kids don't grow up with any kind of linguistic deficit.
Of course, there may be sociological benefits to having your kid acquire something close to standard English as their native dialect. But if schools could get over prescriptivism and do a better job of teaching standard English, I doubt this would be so much of an issue.
Kids are actually pretty insensitive to the precise form of linguistic input they get. It doesn't matter much if it's baby talk directed at the kid, or the ambient speech of other adults. Any regular exposure to a language/dialect is sufficient for a kid to acquire it perfectly. (Bearing in mind that perfect acquisition of a non-standard dialect may be viewed by the linguistically ignorant as imperfect acquisition of the standard dialect.) There's certainly no evidence for "baby talk" crippling kids reasoning abilities.
There are even cultures where parents don't talk to their kids until the kids can talk back, but the kids don't grow up with any kind of linguistic deficit.
Of course, there may be sociological benefits to having your kid acquire something close to standard English as their native dialect. But if schools could get over prescriptivism and do a better job of teaching standard English, I doubt this would be so much of an issue.
Are you saying that middle-class American white guys do not change the way they speak depending on the situation? Even a white guy 'in power' is going to speak differently to co-workers, when giving a presentation in front senior executives, talking with their wife, or with their friends at a bar.
Aside from the generall "well, duh" factor (see e.g. Groxx's comment), the usual complaint applies here: there are some really hard-to-control-for factors. For instance, I bet "talking seriously with children" is very strongly correlated with parents' intelligence, which in turn is strongly correlated with children's intelligence, which in turn is strongly correlated with language proficiency. (For any reasonable definition of "intelligence", slippery though that term is.)
The relevant publication here seems to be the one available in pieces at http://dare.uva.nl/record/334829 and, indeed, it doesn't look as if the researcher has tried to control for parents' intelligence, education, etc. For that matter, the sample size is only 25 so it would be difficult to do so and still get any results worth reporting.
I'm underwhelmed by this.
The relevant publication here seems to be the one available in pieces at http://dare.uva.nl/record/334829 and, indeed, it doesn't look as if the researcher has tried to control for parents' intelligence, education, etc. For that matter, the sample size is only 25 so it would be difficult to do so and still get any results worth reporting.
I'm underwhelmed by this.
I have noticed this about people I know that have good vocabularies and were top students when they were young: Their fathers don't do baby talk. When I've seen their fathers interacting with young children, they talk to them as young adults. Is this a known correlation or is my sample size too small?
When I was a kid one of my teachers asked me if I'd gotten a boo-boo. "No," I told her, "It's an injury."
My parents always spoke to me as an adult. I'll leave it to you to judge how well it turned out.
My parents always spoke to me as an adult. I'll leave it to you to judge how well it turned out.
My native language is Finnish. There are plenty of dialects in Finland, and the official written form of the language is kind of an artificial synthesis of various dialect traits -- nobody really speaks written Finnish.
That is, except me when I was six... My parents would go to a school meeting and the teachers and other parents would be surprised -- "Oh, you don't speak in written language like your son?".
I guess I had been spending quite a bit more time with books rather than people.
That is, except me when I was six... My parents would go to a school meeting and the teachers and other parents would be surprised -- "Oh, you don't speak in written language like your son?".
I guess I had been spending quite a bit more time with books rather than people.
My problem with learning English (my native language) from books rather than people was knowing tons of words but not how to pronounce them.
Occasionally I'll use an unusual word without even thinking about it, and then later realize that I've never uttered that word aloud before. Ever. It's a pretty weird feeling.
We play a game where you think of words you've never said before and try use them in a sentence. (So if you don't know roughly what it means, it doesn't count.) It's fun because you try unsuccessfully to search for words with the weakest indices before eventually finding profitable seams by thinking of the crazy stuff you've read.
> I guess I had been spending quite a bit more time with books rather than people.
I've sometimes had the same problem. my native language is French, and I mostly learned English by myself with books, computers, and music. Sometimes when I spoke, it sounded more like something a character in a book would say than what a typical person would.
Exposure to more flesh-and-blook Anglophones has mostly fixed that, though.
I've sometimes had the same problem. my native language is French, and I mostly learned English by myself with books, computers, and music. Sometimes when I spoke, it sounded more like something a character in a book would say than what a typical person would.
Exposure to more flesh-and-blook Anglophones has mostly fixed that, though.
What's your sample size? Are you a teacher, or just referring to friends and acquaintances of yours?
I've received numerous compliments on how well my children speak. All I ever did was speak to them like people (in the way that I would like to be spoken to), and explain any concepts or words they didn't understand using concepts and words they already did understand.
It just seemed...obvious. If you're going to treat your children like they're idiots, why would you expect them to turn out any different?
I've received numerous compliments on how well my children speak. All I ever did was speak to them like people (in the way that I would like to be spoken to), and explain any concepts or words they didn't understand using concepts and words they already did understand.
It just seemed...obvious. If you're going to treat your children like they're idiots, why would you expect them to turn out any different?
I never made a conscious decision, but I mostly talked to my kid like he was a normal human being with all rights and privileges. Not to say I never went loony on him, but "normal" situations got normal conversation, with perhaps a bit more enthusiasm/encouragement thrown in.
And now at twelve he gets compliments on his articulation and engagement, and he treats me as a normal human being with all rights and privileges. Although I expect that treatment to stop any day now, as he approaches his teens. Nice while it lasted though. :)
And now at twelve he gets compliments on his articulation and engagement, and he treats me as a normal human being with all rights and privileges. Although I expect that treatment to stop any day now, as he approaches his teens. Nice while it lasted though. :)
Sometimes, I come within earshot of a parent talking to their kid, and I happen to notice that the parent is talking as though the kid is an adult. This always surprises me a little, and the fact that it is surprising makes me sad, if I think about it.
Hey, I do remember as a kid being frustrated when people would dumb down when talking to you. Also, when they refused to talk to me about things because "I was too young to be concerned about these things." Pissed me right off. I always liked the adults who took me seriously.
Exactly. My son was just born, and I fully plan on talking to him like an adult when possible, and not shying away from things like sex and politics just because he's young. That doesn't mean I'd describe graphic sexual acts to him, but talking frankly with honest language I think will be best.
I cringe when I see parents get upset when they have to explain something slightly embarrassing to their children.
I cringe when I see parents get upset when they have to explain something slightly embarrassing to their children.
As a kid I was surprised that adults seemed to have forgotten how mentally capable they were at my age. I made a distinct mental note to my future self that kids are smarter than I would evidently grow up to think.
Of course I also now look back at the downright stupid things I did as a kid and realize I was not nearly as smart as I thought...
Of course I also now look back at the downright stupid things I did as a kid and realize I was not nearly as smart as I thought...
Taking children seriously is good.
http://www.takingchildrenseriously.com/
http://www.takingchildrenseriously.com/
I feel like this deserves a "well, duh". If you speak gobbledygook or fluff around them, that's all they'll learn. How can you expect otherwise?
This does propose an interesting experiment: any of you lawyers out there, read laws to the kids as bed-time stories! Maybe we'll finally have someone who can translate between Legalese and English. Maybe they'll come up with a pidgin / creole the rest of us can learn.
This does propose an interesting experiment: any of you lawyers out there, read laws to the kids as bed-time stories! Maybe we'll finally have someone who can translate between Legalese and English. Maybe they'll come up with a pidgin / creole the rest of us can learn.
I've been known to read law textbooks to my kids. No, really. It works better when they're really really little and don't much care what you're reading. Time will tell what harm or good it's done.
The lesson I take from this is that it's not that people can't read legalese, but that from a young age they quite reasonably would rather do something interesting instead.
The lesson I take from this is that it's not that people can't read legalese, but that from a young age they quite reasonably would rather do something interesting instead.
There's no real secret to legalese. It's just an attempt to say as little as possible in as many ways as possible in order to avoid any interpretation being applied.
The problem isn't the language, it's that the human brain doesn't function that way.
The problem isn't the language, it's that the human brain doesn't function that way.
"The problem isn't the language, it's that the human brain doesn't function that way."
Yes, but this sort of implies that we have a genetic predisposition to not understand Legalese. Attempting to get a kid to learn it as a "native" language would effectively show that it is possible to learn, it just may be a radical departure from all other forms of language. If it's not possible, it could be that we're genetically prevented from learning it... I wonder if that would be an argument that Evolution has decided Legalese is counter to our best interest as a species.
Maybe someone fully understanding Legalese could help us communicate with aliens. While I doubt they would speak Legalese, and may attempt to destroy us if they heard it directed towards them as a first-contact language, having a second fundamentally different language model may shed light on understanding other, more radically different ones.
Unless of course Legalese is on one extrema and the rest of Human languages is on another. Which would imply aliens speak some form of language we can understand...
Hmmmm.....
Yes, but this sort of implies that we have a genetic predisposition to not understand Legalese. Attempting to get a kid to learn it as a "native" language would effectively show that it is possible to learn, it just may be a radical departure from all other forms of language. If it's not possible, it could be that we're genetically prevented from learning it... I wonder if that would be an argument that Evolution has decided Legalese is counter to our best interest as a species.
Maybe someone fully understanding Legalese could help us communicate with aliens. While I doubt they would speak Legalese, and may attempt to destroy us if they heard it directed towards them as a first-contact language, having a second fundamentally different language model may shed light on understanding other, more radically different ones.
Unless of course Legalese is on one extrema and the rest of Human languages is on another. Which would imply aliens speak some form of language we can understand...
Hmmmm.....
The only reference I could find for this was the following conference presentation:
http://home.medewerker.uva.nl/l.henrichs/bestanden/LHenrichs...
It seems to be based on some rather odd (and completely unsupported) ideas of what constitutes an "academic register", and the results are pretty messy. It would be better if Science Daily could give a real citation to back this up.
edit: There is also this, listed on the author's homepage:
Henrichs, L. F., & Schoonen, R. (2009). Lexical features of parental academic language input. The effect on vocabulary growthin monolingual Dutch children. In B. J. Richards, H. M. Daller, D. D. Malvern, P. P. Meara, J. Milton & J. Treffers-Daller (Eds.), Vocabulary studies in first and second language acquisition: the interface between theory and application (pp. 1-22). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
http://home.medewerker.uva.nl/l.henrichs/bestanden/LHenrichs...
It seems to be based on some rather odd (and completely unsupported) ideas of what constitutes an "academic register", and the results are pretty messy. It would be better if Science Daily could give a real citation to back this up.
edit: There is also this, listed on the author's homepage:
Henrichs, L. F., & Schoonen, R. (2009). Lexical features of parental academic language input. The effect on vocabulary growthin monolingual Dutch children. In B. J. Richards, H. M. Daller, D. D. Malvern, P. P. Meara, J. Milton & J. Treffers-Daller (Eds.), Vocabulary studies in first and second language acquisition: the interface between theory and application (pp. 1-22). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
I've always thought that if I had children I would try to treat them less like little kids and with more autonomy. For example if they misbehaved, instead of just punishing them, I would give them a chance to write a paraphraph or two if they wished to dispute the punishment. Or giving them some (though not complete) freedom in choosing what to do, such as "would you prefer to go the opera, play, or concert?" Is this a good idea or am I being too optimistic?
Maybe too optimistic but the right idea. The tricks I've found with giving my 4 year old autonomy and responsibility are
a) make it abundantly clear that sometimes, what Daddy says, goes, and
b) realizing that kids behavior fluctuates up and down with their energy level and environment. Trying to rationalize with a kid who didn't eat lunch, or who's wasted at the end of the day is a lost cause and you just have to step up and enforce.
a) make it abundantly clear that sometimes, what Daddy says, goes, and
b) realizing that kids behavior fluctuates up and down with their energy level and environment. Trying to rationalize with a kid who didn't eat lunch, or who's wasted at the end of the day is a lost cause and you just have to step up and enforce.
Agreed. I've tried trading one punishment for another, and the only thing it seems to teach is that punishment is malleable, and that they can start "gaming" the punishments for less harsh ones, even if the situation calls.
I promised myself when I was a child that I would never tell my children, "because I said so." You know, sometimes it really is "you just have to put up with it and do what I say...because I'm Daddy, and I said so."
I promised myself when I was a child that I would never tell my children, "because I said so." You know, sometimes it really is "you just have to put up with it and do what I say...because I'm Daddy, and I said so."
Because I said so works, but you aren't actually thinking this in your own head, so why not just take the time once everyone is back in listening mode to give them the long version?
Dad: Go to bed, please.
Kid: Why?
Dad: Because I said so.
post hysterics...
Dad: Why do you think Dad was telling you to go to sleep?
Kid: I don't know.
Dad: Well, what are you doing today?
Kid: Going to school.
Dad: And if you don't sleep before you go to school, what happens... etc etc.
Of course this is variable on the child, the issue and the level of understanding. I've done this though and while it doesn't solve the immediate concern, it sure as hell helps with any possible recurrence.
Dad: Go to bed, please.
Kid: Why?
Dad: Because I said so.
post hysterics...
Dad: Why do you think Dad was telling you to go to sleep?
Kid: I don't know.
Dad: Well, what are you doing today?
Kid: Going to school.
Dad: And if you don't sleep before you go to school, what happens... etc etc.
Of course this is variable on the child, the issue and the level of understanding. I've done this though and while it doesn't solve the immediate concern, it sure as hell helps with any possible recurrence.
My suggestion would be not allowing them to "dispute the punishment", but encouraging them to logically follow the path of their actions to the conclusion that the punishment is designed to avoid.
You're not interested in teaching them to justify poor judgement, you're trying to teach them the judgement skills directly.
Of course, situations vary.
You're not interested in teaching them to justify poor judgement, you're trying to teach them the judgement skills directly.
Of course, situations vary.
Limited autonomy of a four year old is good, but they need guidance and correction to know what to do with their autonomy. You're trying to grow an autonomous being, but you don't yet have one, and treating a kid as such can be as dangerous as treating a car autonomously.
There's always the risk that they'd prefer hanging out with the hoodies.
[deleted]
We use this approach with our two-year-old. He has never had baby talk, we use the proper words for everything, and he gets multiple reading sessions per day - which he enjoys.
Health professoinals have told us that he speaks with the proficiency of a 3-4 year old, and he is noticeably more advanced than his peers. To me this is plain common sense and doesn't need a scientific paper.
Health professoinals have told us that he speaks with the proficiency of a 3-4 year old, and he is noticeably more advanced than his peers. To me this is plain common sense and doesn't need a scientific paper.
are you serious about this common sense business? There are a lot of plausible reasons why "baby talk" could actually be essential for linguistic or emotional development. While it does seem dumbed down to an adult, in some ways it simplifies language and conversational protocols. How would you know who is right without a scientific study?
There is, however, a purpose to using baby-talk with infants. It just shouldn't be used with children as they get older and have already developed their language skills to a certain degree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_talk#Use_with_infants
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_talk#Use_with_infants
Infants actually pay more attention when parents use infant-directed language, which is a slower, repetitive tone used in a regular conversations.
How many "baby-talkers" do you know speak slower or more repetitively? Most babble quickly and in a high pitch.
At least, that's been my experience with what people consider to be "baby talk". Speaking slower and more simply / repetitively with infants seems to be essentially the same as speaking "seriously" with them, as you don't use complex words or phrasing with adults starting to learn your language, and you deal with them seriously too. (or, you should be)
How many "baby-talkers" do you know speak slower or more repetitively? Most babble quickly and in a high pitch.
At least, that's been my experience with what people consider to be "baby talk". Speaking slower and more simply / repetitively with infants seems to be essentially the same as speaking "seriously" with them, as you don't use complex words or phrasing with adults starting to learn your language, and you deal with them seriously too. (or, you should be)
I don't know if it's the same effect, but I've found that I write as if I were giving a speech or a talk. I suspect this is because, growing up almost all of the arguments I presented were oral ones, in school we didn't really write persuasive essays until upper-middle school, however, I'd been arguing politics, science, history and whatever else over dinner with my family.
to kill a mockingbird
This is not to say that "proper" English is any better than dialects of English. I'm a descriptivist, not a prescriptivist. That said, a) "proper" English is a pretty significant signalling mechanism so it's socially advantageous to speak it fluently b) if language influences thought patterns, "baby talk" is a pretty crippled language and you shouldn't cripple your kid's expressive or reasoning abilities. Even if they grow out of it, replacing their language facilities is lost development time.
[1] Going sociopolitical for a second: This is more of a problem for people who are members of the group "in power," for various definitions of the term, but being a middle-class white guy in America qualifies. If you're "in power" and your own dialect is the default, then you don't have to switch dialects depending on the social situation, which makes you less sensitive to the presence of dialects as well as their role in social interactions.