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

41–50 of 93 posts

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

#41

Post by tbcj »

e1g wrote: post #38
pstuart wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. Having more than one kid disabuses us of the notion that our parenting was the driver in how awesome the kid turns out. That said, I believe it's nature and nurture in the end.

Same here, two kids and zero strategies that worked with one apply to the other. Might as well be raising a dog and a dolphin.

My experience as well. My two are so different it’s hard to even parent at times as they need different kinds of attention. You can’t really give yourself in different ways at the same time. We recognize that one - being born in the lockdown environment - is likely different in meaningful ways than our first. Our first is helpful in she almost recognizes a difference.

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

#42

Post by shadowfoxx »

Loughla wrote: post #36
zagrebian wrote: post #33

They should do a study to test if letting babies watch a show like Last Airbender instead of Teletubbies has a positive effect.

Real talk though. Kids and babies aren't stupid. So if you take the time to explain things, they pick up on more than you would believe. Where many people go wrong is that they assume little kids are stupid instead of understanding that they lack context.

Yeah it seems to me like a human bias against ignorance. We have this notion that if people that don't know the knowledge that we know they must be dumb because, "everybody knows ____".

Kids are literally just the definition of inexperienced.

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

#43

Post by CSMastermind »

e1g wrote: post #38
pstuart wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. Having more than one kid disabuses us of the notion that our parenting was the driver in how awesome the kid turns out. That said, I believe it's nature and nurture in the end.

Same here, two kids and zero strategies that worked with one apply to the other. Might as well be raising a dog and a dolphin.

> Might as well be raising a dog and a dolphin.

That made me chuckle.

But it's possible for siblings not to share any genetic material right?

A brother and a sister would obviously get different genes from their father and presumably there would be a 50/50 chance of them getting different genes from their mother.

There's four unique prototypes of children any two people can produce together.

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

#44

Post by darkerside »

CSMastermind wrote: post #43
e1g wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same here, two kids and zero strategies that worked with one apply to the other. Might as well be raising a dog and a dolphin.

> Might as well be raising a dog and a dolphin. That made me chuckle. But it's possible for siblings not to share any genetic material right? A brother and a sister would obviously get different genes from their father and presumably there would be a 50/50 chance of them getting different genes from their mother. There's four unique prototypes of children any two people can produce together.

Four prototypes?

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

#45

Post by nitwit005 »

jncfhnb wrote: post #27

The actual article simply says babies pick up on phonetic differences featured in rhyme and song. It says nothing about being crucial to learning.

Yep, the headline is a deliberate lie to make the story more appealing.

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

#46

Post by rossdavidh »

jncfhnb wrote: post #27

The actual article simply says babies pick up on phonetic differences featured in rhyme and song. It says nothing about being crucial to learning.

Yeah the quote from the researcher is “Parents should talk and sing to their babies as much as possible or use infant-directed speech like nursery rhymes because it will make a difference to language outcome.”

Which, you know, sure, why not. Nursery rhymes are, I'm sure, great. But the idea that it is "vital" seems preposterous, as I'm sure many infants do not have anyone singing to them, and they still learn to speak.

Again, I'm sure singing to your baby is good stuff, but the headline seems like a stretch.

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

#47

Post by bloopernova »

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…

I am deeply offended on behalf of Aesop Rock right now.

When braggadocio to go from mostly jokey to gross

Corrode a homie 'til his probity is notably ghost

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

#48

Post by krapp »

civilitty wrote: post #30
jstarfish wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Or Sage Francis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-9uhUBKah8

Or Killah Priest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu1ObsgF6ts

Or Run the Jewels (El-P and Killer Mike): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sff7Kc77QAY

Of course Aesop Rock: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNrB6--KBqs

Graydon Square: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qJop-w0YAY

Joyner Lucas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WrMzFlLk7Q

MF Doom: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_QQamQt5x4

Deltron 3030: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34k3GwQtbbs

Immortal Technique: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLBNMhzn8VI

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

#49

Post by caseymarquis »

CSMastermind wrote: post #43
e1g wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same here, two kids and zero strategies that worked with one apply to the other. Might as well be raising a dog and a dolphin.

> Might as well be raising a dog and a dolphin. That made me chuckle. But it's possible for siblings not to share any genetic material right? A brother and a sister would obviously get different genes from their father and presumably there would be a 50/50 chance of them getting different genes from their mother. There's four unique prototypes of children any two people can produce together.

I thought it was more like 2^23 unique prototypes?

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

#50

Post by gardenhedge »

Loughla wrote: post #34
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.

We talked constantly to ours. Not about anything in particular. Just narrating everything we did. Constantly. Our oldest was talking in full sentences at 1 year. It was astounding. Now, granted, it was stuff like, "I'm dunna det da fwad" but he was communicating in full thoughts at about the time he walked. People always asked what system we used for teaching him. Our answer was always, "it's boring at our house so w…

Everyone talks to their babies a lot. What does "it's boring at our house" mean?
Post reply on HN