Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Talking seriously with children is good for their language proficiency

sciencedaily.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 40 posts

Re: Talking seriously with children is good for their language proficiency

#21

Post by nfnaaron »

johnswamps wrote: post #6

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…

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.

Re: Talking seriously with children is good for their language proficiency

#22

Post by philwelch »

pavlov wrote: post #11
GavinB wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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…

My problem with learning English (my native language) from books rather than people was knowing tons of words but not how to pronounce them.

Re: Talking seriously with children is good for their language proficiency

#23

Post by brc »

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.

Re: Talking seriously with children is good for their language proficiency

#24

Post by Groxx »

nhooey wrote: post #10

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

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)

Re: Talking seriously with children is good for their language proficiency

#25

Post by alaithea »

jhancock wrote: post #3

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?

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.

Re: Talking seriously with children is good for their language proficiency

#26

Post by alsomike »

Groxx wrote: post #24
nhooey wrote: post #10

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

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 essentia…

Infants are at a completely different stage of language acquisition than 3-6 year olds, so there's no reason to think that there's a single best "essentially the same" way of speaking regardless of age.

Re: Talking seriously with children is good for their language proficiency

#27

Post by Groxx »

alsomike wrote: post #26
Groxx wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 essentia…

Infants are at a completely different stage of language acquisition than 3-6 year olds, so there's no reason to think that there's a single best "essentially the same" way of speaking regardless of age.

I meant equivalence, not equality.

Re: Talking seriously with children is good for their language proficiency

#28

Post by sketerpot »

philwelch wrote: post #22
pavlov wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Re: Talking seriously with children is good for their language proficiency

#29

Post by run4yourlives »

Groxx wrote: post #12

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.

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.

Re: Talking seriously with children is good for their language proficiency

#30

Post by run4yourlives »

johnswamps wrote: post #6

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…

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.

Post reply on HN