Yesterday, Jane Brody, the New York Times "personal health" columnist, published a very interesting piece about talking to young children. She pointed out some recent issues about communication between mothers and babies-- especially the fact that mothers who are constantly involved with texting, cell phone conversations, and iPods are not likely to be available for communication with their children. Ms. Brody's remarks provided some useful guidelines for young parents, but there were two points that made me stop and think--- and disagree.
My first concern was about the column's statement that parents should avoid baby words and baby talk. This is of course the conventional wisdom, but as I pointed out in a post a couple of months ago, "baby talk" in any language bears a close resemblance to the adult language. The distribution of phonemes is similar, so babies can learn from baby talk which of the many possible human sounds are actually employed in their parents' language. The grammar of baby talk is like the grammar of the adult language as it would be used in talking to young children. So, for instance, if in the adult language the subject of a sentence usually comes before the verb it governs, that's also the case in baby talk. These facts suggest that a baby can learn important things about a language as well from baby talk as from the adult language, so the conventional belief that baby talk is harmful to language development is no more than partially true, if true at all.
As for using baby words, there are several considerations here. One is that baby words usually involve at least one syllable of the adult word-- for example, "tummy" comes from "stomach". An adult who uses the baby word in imitation of his or her child is often producing a sound that most native speakers of the language would recognize as having the meaning of the adult word. Another is that the use of baby words has an important meaning about relationships within the family. Specific words or expressions become part of a family language whose use suggests affection and solidarity, and which may continue to be used long after a child has become a mature speaker-- or even had children of his own. Thus, it seems to be the case that children can learn language well when baby words are used, and there may be some advantages to having a shared family language. Of course, there are family words, particularly those about private actions like toileting, that may not be understood by other adults the child comes in contact with, and before a child goes to day care or school or even to a neighbor's house, it would be a kindness to teach the public words that convey private needs.
An interesting issue related to the use of baby words is the effect of imitation of a young child by his or her parents. We generally think about kids imitating us, but obviously we imitate them too (or else we wouldn't be discussing the use of baby words by grownups). Some work has suggested that imitation of young children by adults calls positive attention to the adults, and even that imitation helps children come to understand other people's mental states. A recent study looked at adult imitation as part of treatment for children with autistic spectrum disorders (Sanefuji, W., Yamashita, H., & Ohgami, H. [2009], Shared minds: Effects of a mother's imitation of her child on the mother-child interaction. Infant Mental Health Journal, Vol. 30(2), pp. 145-157.) and concluded that imitation might be a useful intervention. We should not reject the idea that a parent's smiling, affectionate, imitative use of baby words may be a positive factor in normal development both of language and of social relationships. (Nor, of course, should we accept this without further evidence.)
There's another point about Jane Brody's column that I'd like to make. Although I agree very strongly that lots of talk, play, and interaction is the key to good language development, I'm concerned about the column's many references to the idea that "reinforcing" child language is necessary to help children learn to use and understand speech. There is a conventional view that assumes that all learning occurs because of positive reinforcement, and several decades ago this was a common theory about language learning, based on the work of B.F. Skinner. However, it is a lot more likely that young children learn language with little or no reinforcement from other people; their learning is quick and efficient because they are very interested in language and because they are at a point in development where much energy goes into language learning.
So, why do I even bring it up the issue of reinforcement? Could it hurt to reinforce a child's speaking by smiles and praise? No, that doesn't seem likely. Nor is it likely that any child's language was ever delayed because her parents refused to say "tummy". But these prescriptions about what to say and when to say it seem designed to give parents a bad case of "analysis paralysis". Talking to and with a young child should be fun for everyone, not a time when parents cautiously avoid imitating baby words or watch for opportunities to reinforce speech. Just talk, already (and not on your cell phone)! And keep in mind that a young child wants to know about this interesting world and delights in language for itself and as a tool to find out more about how it all works.
