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

Infants understand language via rhythm and tone rather than individual sounds

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 93 posts

Re: Infants understand language via rhythm and tone rather than individual sounds

#21

Post by jstarfish »

corethree wrote: post #6
vr46 wrote: post #3

Personal recommendations are: * Elmo’s Song * Feist’s Sesame Street version of 1-2-3-4

Maybe more complex songs and songs with big words can make the baby more articulate. Maybe rap will have other effects. I wonder what's the effect of playing baby songs and exposing the baby to dumbed down versions of everything.

Haven't there been a bunch of studies about this sort of thing? Lyrics aren't relevant to someone who doesn't understand language. Voice is just another instrument. Syllables are just notes.

Classical music is frequently cited as beneficial to learning and it has no lyrics. Nobody has ever suggested rap music is intellectually stimulating in any context, and they use a lot of words.

Even on rats in mazes, blasting them with Metallica seems to result in worse performance than Mozart. Myself, I can't work while listening to rap, rock or metal. Techno or classical only. Inducing a state of aggression/heightened arousal never leads to cogent thought (I can't work to Lords of Acid either!). There's a reason generals lead from afar.

I suspect music exposure may be related to autism in children, as a product of the spectrum of stimulation they're exposed to-- too much overall (urban life), too much of one type (war, domestic violence), or too little of any ("frigid mother"). The classical arts (a form of expression) are another thing that dropped off as diagnoses rose. We do not value art like we used to. Who owns a piano anymore?

Re: Infants understand language via rhythm and tone rather than individual sounds

#22

Post by gardenhedge »

ipnon wrote: post #10

This seems to be why people naturally default to sing-song when speaking to babies.

Does it explain why people do that? Are you suggesting we intrinsically know that singing to a baby is beneficial for learning?

Re: Infants understand language via rhythm and tone rather than individual sounds

#24

Post by j45 »

This is 100% my experience.

The amount of vocabulary that is learned through the experience and play of song is astounding. Similar to a song tied to a memory. Exposure to diverse cuisine and music before birth both seems to be helpful too to the degree possible.

The number of words I have seen the little ones in my life absorb and use before age 1.5 to 3 leaves you a little speechless.

So many words, syllables, full sentences, and a way to reduce some of the little frustrations of not being able to express yourself.

So many words seem to musically originating in a few ways in hind sight:

First is reading, talking and singing anything you can as much as one can. Learning the sound of the voices around them is super valuable if present from the start.

Next is ending up being children of the digital co-parent and teacher Miss Rachel. Her content on YouTube was irreplaceable during the pandemic, and the bonus of speaking in song was one of the biggest gifts to learn.

Last, but not least is a Reggio Emilia child development / care program. If a parent has a chance to check out a Reggio Emilia centric child care program in regards to this topic of learning expression, more than not it’s an invitation to explore and play with lots of music and vocabulary. What’s neat is no place can be Reggio Emilia certified because it’s a town in Italy, so the methods can be freely taught, learned and used at home too.

What stands out is all of the children in Reggio Emilia programs are not the same, they are very ok with structure but just as adaptable with going with the flow of the fire alarm goes off. The rigour in fuelling music, dance, craft, curiosity, imagination, exploration, interaction and expression.

There will be some parents who find this approach a fit for them, (it’s a little different than Montessori which can be tough for some children to switch into a regular world program) as it focuses on helping each child bring out their uniqueness at their own pace.

Re: Infants understand language via rhythm and tone rather than individual sounds

#26

Post by mattlondon »

dzolob wrote: post #13

I just sang, sang, sang anything that came to my mind. About mountains, clouds, courage, poo… It was just love pouring out of my heart, and I don’t know if it had something to do with it, but my kid started talking very early on and very well. The best thing is was that I got to know him very soon, while my peers and their daughters/sons still were kind of communicating.

It seems to vary a lot in my experience. I have two kids who basically got the same treatment. One was eloquently talking in coherent sentences of 4 or 5 words by 18 months ("plane in the sky", "teddy come downstairs", "want something to eat" etc) and was understandable by others outside the family, the other kid was barely able to grunt single words at the same age ("mukk" instead of milk, "nur-sa" instead of nursery etc) that only we really understood as it was just incomprehensible sounds to everyone else

Singing made fuck all difference in that case (FWIW, the grunter is now totally fine as an older kid). Both were walking at 10 months so it was not like one was just "slow" at their milestones

As they say, every baby is different.

Re: Infants understand language via rhythm and tone rather than individual sounds

#28

Post by gumby »

gardenhedge wrote: post #22
ipnon wrote: post #10

This seems to be why people naturally default to sing-song when speaking to babies.

Does it explain why people do that? Are you suggesting we intrinsically know that singing to a baby is beneficial for learning?

If you believe that speech is a survival skill (which I would think most people believe) then anything that increases its prevalence or effectiveness would be evolutionarily selected for, right? We’re talking a 300-500+ Ky period, probably almost 2X that (depending upon the speech capabilities of our hominid ancestors), so plenty of time for evolutionary pressure to apply.

Re: Infants understand language via rhythm and tone rather than individual sounds

#29

Post by animitronix »

gardenhedge wrote: post #22
ipnon wrote: post #10

This seems to be why people naturally default to sing-song when speaking to babies.

Does it explain why people do that? Are you suggesting we intrinsically know that singing to a baby is beneficial for learning?

Yes, some shit comes built-in.

Re: Infants understand language via rhythm and tone rather than individual sounds

#30

Post by civilitty »

jstarfish wrote: post #21
corethree wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe more complex songs and songs with big words can make the baby more articulate. Maybe rap will have other effects. I wonder what's the effect of playing baby songs and exposing the baby to dumbed down versions of everything.

Haven't there been a bunch of studies about this sort of thing? Lyrics aren't relevant to someone who doesn't understand language. Voice is just another instrument. Syllables are just notes. Classical music is frequently cited as beneficial to learning and it has no lyrics. Nobody has ever suggested rap music is intellectually stimulating in any context, and they use a lot of words. Even on rats in mazes, blasting th…

> Nobody has ever suggested rap music is intellectually stimulating in any context, and they use a lot of words.

You need less DMX and more Wu-Tang [1]

[1] https://pudding.cool/projects/vocabulary/index.html

Post reply on HN