• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Dave1001

Illuminator
Joined
Jul 21, 2006
Messages
3,704
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.
 
Last edited:
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 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).;)
 
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....:)
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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....)
 
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
 
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.
 
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:
 
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...:)
 
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
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom