Talking to Babies
From a discussion about whether it inhibits language acquisition for parents to use more than one term for things:
Velvet Jiang: I have to disagree with the idea that you should use only one word for
any given thing until a child is a certain age.
By the time my dd was five she knew several words in english and at
least one in chinese for many things in her world. If I said a new word
and she wanted to know what it meant, she would ask. I don't even know
how I could have made sure that she only heard one word for everything
in her world. She would only be able to be around me and anyone else
who was around her would have to be told what was acceptable and what
wasn't for each object or idea.
I think you are underestimating the intelligence and adaptability of
young children.
[To-be-nameless]:I still think you should use one word when
trying to communicate with our little scientists.
Ren Allen: Well THAT might just stunt their vocabulary!!! I don't speak in front
of, or TO my children any differently than I do another human...THAT
would be baby talk.
Of course they can't communicate the same at young ages, but that
doesn't mean they don't understand!! Even if they don't understand me,
I talk to them like anyone else...even as wee babsies.
Kerryn: Thanks for this thread, it has got me thinking...
My 2 1/2 yo daughter has been, for a few months, literally repeating all nouns. For instance, we were reading a book about animals, big beautiful pictures with just a few words for each. She would point, and I would say the name. Elephant, I would say, she would confidently say, ephalant. "Yes, that's right, it's an elephant". Satisfied, she would repeat, ephalant.
We'd look at the kangaroo with a joey in its pouch. The text read something like "the mother kangaroo has a special pocket for her baby". My daughter said "pocket" and pointed to the "baby". I then read "it's called a pouch and her baby is a joey" She took the word change in her stride, repeated the words pointing to the pictures.
Same thing happened with the snakes, when I started chatting that they were reptiles and a bit like lizards. She just 'understood' that there were many names for any one animal.
I must add, this same daughter told my 10 yo son to 'set the cake on fire' for my 39th birthday on Friday. He'd put the whole 39 candles on it too.
I have to admit, that before unschooling started to unfold in our lives, I would have 'made sure' that the pronunciation was right. I'm now confident, that as you said, Ren, even very young ones know what's going on. And I am continually reminding myself that I am not teaching the little ones to speak/walk/read, but that they are learning because that's what they are designed to do.
[Someone who probably will have changed her mind by now:]I still think you should use one word when trying to communicate
with our little scientists.
Pam Sorooshian: Right - the "withhold information" form of unschooling?
I'm not sure, still, what you're basing the idea on, but it seems
that it contradicts a very basic tenet of unschooling - surround the
child with a swirling, wonderful, exciting, stimulating and rich
environment and the child is naturally capable of learning from it.
[Original poster]:They do not need two or three labels for an object thrown at them.
It is
difficult enough for a child under the age of five to learn...
Sandra Dodd: It is not in the LEAST bit difficult for a child under the age of
five to learn, and in fact those in fully bilingual situations pick
up two different languages, including more than one word for objects
in both languages, and they sort out the grammar and all, naturally.
[Original poster]:Children (under the age of five) are like scientists from an alien
world.
Sandra Dodd:No, they are natural parts of their OWN world.
[Original poster]:Not only have they never seen, touched or experienced anything in
our world
- they also have no way of communicating thoughts, feelings or
desires with
anything more then frustrated cries, screams and babbling.
Sandra Dodd:There is touch. There is gaze. Have you never just looked into the
eyes of your child, communicating? Have you not touched them
soothingly, and felt them touch you back sometimes? They can tell
the difference between an angry look and a gentle look.
[Original poster]:While I did mention that I don't use baby words, my point was that
while I
don't see the use for baby words, I still think you should use one
word when
trying to communicate with our little scientists.
Sandra Dodd:Right. Then you said you hadn't said that.
But English has MANY words for things. A sandwich can be a sandwich,
a snack, dinner, a tuna sandwich or a grilled cheese. A dog can be
a puppy or a guard dog or a pet or a beagle or a poodle. A flower
might be a tulip or a gift. A gift might be a present, or a birthday
present.
[Original poster]:That is not to say that once children have a foundation of
language they
will discover new words for old objects.
Sandra Dodd:When will you decide that they have a foundation of language?
Because honestly, they have a foundation before they ever utter a
word. They are starting to understand speech they hear before they
use it intelligibly.
Sandra Dodd:
They are starting to understand speech they hear before they
use it intelligibly.
Joyce Fetteroll:Yup. I remember carrying Kathryn around when she a week shy of 1
nattering on about what I was doing. As I was looking all over for
her hat I said "Where's you're hat?" not really expecting her to
understand what I was saying but she not only understood but had
watched someone put it up on the mantle at some point during the day
and she pointed right at it.
Robyn Coburn:I remember Jayn, at about 15-16 months, who was definitely speaking English
but not always intelligible, falling and bumping her little head on the
cement. She was crying and I picked her up and was saying, "Show me your
head" to check for bumps or blood. In the midst of her crying the valiant
soul lifted her hands and patted herself on the head "showing me" her head.
Alas an inadvertent quiz!
Joyce Fetteroll:And yet it just doesn't hold up against reality for babies. They
aren't consciously thinking about making a connection between a sound
(word) they hear and an object the way adults try to when learning a
language. They just absorb it all and connections get made in the
background as the brain does whatever it does.
Robyn Coburn:I'm not sure that it always holds up for mothers either.
Before Jayn was born I subscribed to that "use the proper words and no baby
talk" notion also - considering myself to be enlightened and knowledgeable.
I was going to speak to her as if she were a rational being at all times.
Hah!
The moment Jayn was placed on my chest and I stared into her surprised eyes,
I instantly devolved into high pitched, itty-bitty baby talk. It was an
instinctive heart-response.
Later, much later, I read about some study or other, that showed that this
high pitched, baby talk inflection *was* a natural and appropriate maternal
response to infants and *is* helpful to babies' developing
hearing/cognition.
Here's a link to similar information:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050329143741.htm
From the intro: "Adults may feel silly when they talk to babies, but those
babies will learn to speak sooner if adults talk to them like infants
instead of like other adults, according to a study by Carnegie Mellon
University Psychology Professor Erik Thiessen published in the March issue
of the journal Infancy."
OTOH, using strange family words for some common things, can cause problems
once out in wider society. My mother used the word "kiki" for all the female
genital area. Why? I'll never know. But it was weird and embarrassing for me
to learn from other kids that this was not a commonly used expression. Not
to mention my confusion when I discovered that Kiki is a woman's name!
I remember an acrimonious argument with another girl my age, on the school
bus, about whether the ovum was an "egg" or a "seed". I was not given the
information that other people had other real words for things that were
equally valid.
Other family words are less loaded. My mother had a word "ickyackymore" - it
means the small reflection of the sun off a prism such as a watch face. I
use it with Jayn, coupled with the information that this is our special made
up word, that other people will not know it.
Another issue, probably not one that Unschoolers have in their lives, is
that baby words are only acceptable for babies. One of the anti-baby talk
arguments, as I recall, is that a child on becoming school age supposedly
will suddenly be told to start using the proper words—too old for "doggy",
only "dog". I just can't see Unschoolers attempting to impose or enforce
notions of "school aged maturity" on our kids. Rather because our
conversations with our children are authentic, they appear to have more
mature vocabularies—based on my unscientific recollections of various
postings over the years.
Julie
(mother of Dmitri, 9 months): Exactly my experience, Robyn. I knew that I spoke to my six-year-old friend
in a pretty straightforward way, so I was really surprised to hear some of
the high-pitched exaggerations I directed at Dmitri. For some reason,
JEE-raf felt better than "giraffe" and "EL-ee-font" felt better than
"elephant."
Now I seem to say the "normal" word most of the time, but the old version
makes an appearance now and then. I think I felt the words needed more of a
texture for him be able to grab onto them at first. Now he seems to know
what I'm saying more often.
It's fun to figure out some of the things I'm doing instinctively. For
example, I'm in the habit of making different sounds when I need or want to
move him. "Whhooo-ooop!" tends to be the sound effect for lifting him up
high, and "Vvooo-voo" is often the sound I make when I'm scooching across
the floor with him in tow. "Heeere we go!" is for when I'm putting him on
the potty, and a descending-pitch "Aaaahh" often happens when we sit down.
"Bup-bup-bup-bup...bupbupbupbupbupbup" seems to be used when I lift him up
and then set him down into something, followed by a brief period of
adjusting something--the sling, the straps on the carseat, his fleece suit
for outside.
None of this was intentional, but it seems to me that the sounds provide
advance notice about and structure for what we're doing. This seems to give
him some measure of control over the process. He knows what's coming next,
so he can voice his displeasure if he doesn't agree. Fun stuff!
Amy: I am in total agreement with the majority of posts here about language. I
think speaking to children as *gasp* normal people is the best way to
communicate. Of course, children also like to have fun, so we sing words,
make up words, talk with funny accents and have FUN with language. Kids get
it! You don't have to alter language to suit them.
When I am very tired I tell my children I am "tres fatique." It just sounds
so much better than whining that I am tired - until we are in public (and I
am looking weary) and Eva (nearly 4 yo) asks me in her concerned voice,
"Mommy, are you really fat and gay?" It is too funny!
[Original poster]: We still teach children language by the language we model. If we teach them
baby words like tubby instead of bath it lowers their vocabulary. I am not
talking about giving children more then one word for an object. I am talking
about letting them naturally learn real words instead of having them learn
made up words that don't mean anything, like tubby and drinky and all the
other words that don't mean anything.
Dawn Adams: Of course the words mean something, that's why kids use them. Language isn't about using specific words, it's about communicating. If a child is using tubby and getting across what tubby means to those she talks to, she using language well.
I'm not a fan of baby words either and didn't use them but can't for the life of me see the harm in them if they work for a child.
Sandra Dodd: It is not in the LEAST bit difficult for a child under the age of
five to learn, and in fact those in fully bilingual situations pick
up two different languages, including more than one word for objects
in both languages, and they sort out the grammar and all, naturally.
Robyn L. Coburn:That was the idea that worried me also in that post.
Having the idea that "learning is difficult" in general could be a barrier
to Unschooling with joy.
[Original]:Children (under the age of five) are like scientists from an alien
world.
Sandra Dodd: No, they are natural parts of their OWN world.
Robyn L. Coburn: I believe that idea, the visiting alien idea, is one that is mostly useful
as an aid to assist impatient or pushy parents (probably not Unschoolers) to
be more compassionate—an analogy rather than a true metaphor. One thing
that seems to unite Unschoolers is acceptance of their children's individual
timetables.
Meg wrote: This "teach one word" discussion reminds me of when my
son was learning to recognize numbers.
We went for a walk and he noticed the numbers on
houses. He was amazed that a 2 could have a loop or
not and still be a 2, or that a 3 could have a pointy
bit or be all curved and still be a 3. And a 4, my
goodness! It could look like a triangle or not, and
still be a 4! Wow!
We ended up talking about what was the essential (and
yes, I defined that word for him and we used it in our
discussion) shape of each number and how much
variation could take place and yet we could still
recognize it as that number.
And that led to noticing differences in cars, dogs,
chairs, but we still knew that they were, in fact,
cars, dogs and chairs. Then I told him about a
philosopher named Plato who wondered about this very
same thing—the Pure Form of a thing.
We came home and looked at different fonts on the
computer. He saw that letters could be played with
this way, too.
Pretty cool discussion to have with a 3yo!
Tone of Voice and Joy
Young Children
on parents, children, and words
|