Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by azrael on Wednesday July 02 2014, @02:46AM   Printer-friendly
from the practice-makes-perfect dept.

Research into language development of young children shows that talking to them at a young age gives them an advantage at communicating effectively when they start school (linked article based on article from page 42 of PsyPAG).

Just saying more words to children, however, isn't enough on its own; diversity and complexity of the language is important.

But it's not enough just to bombard children with a barrage of words: the quality of the speech that they hear matters too. Children who hear language that is diverse, complex, and is directed towards them specifically (child-directed speech), often have a larger vocabulary size and a faster rate of vocabulary growth.

The most consistent finding in why some children are exposed to more speech than others is that it is strongly related to parents' socioeconomic status. Researchers have also found correlations between maternal education, family income, and occupational prestige.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by paulej72 on Wednesday July 02 2014, @03:02AM

    by paulej72 (58) on Wednesday July 02 2014, @03:02AM (#62829) Journal

    What did they expect?

    --
    Team Leader for SN Development
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 02 2014, @03:19AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 02 2014, @03:19AM (#62833)

      Ugh. Always somebody with the "it's obvious" shootdown.
      If it were obvious, even the poor parents would be doing it.
      And if the counterpoint were obvious, even rich parents wouldn't be buying baby einstein dvds and parking their kids in front of tvs. [babycenter.com]

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by efitton on Wednesday July 02 2014, @03:31AM

        by efitton (1077) on Wednesday July 02 2014, @03:31AM (#62836) Homepage

        It is obvious, that doesn't mean that everyone has the capabilities to do it. If your vocabulary and grammar are poor, that makes a difference. If you work two jobs and aren't home that much, that makes a difference. If you don't have the ability to have books in the house, that makes a difference. And not shockingly this correlates with socio-economic status. Everyone (well nearly everyone if you want to be fully pedantic) knows that reading books to children makes a difference. However, not everyone does. And there are many great parents with low incomes who take their kids to the library, etc. However,I'm guessing that you might not be surprised that socio-economic status correlates there as well.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 02 2014, @04:43AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 02 2014, @04:43AM (#62855)

          > It is obvious, that doesn't mean that everyone has the capabilities to do it.

          No, I mean it literally isn't obvious.

          All parents gave their children directives like "Put away your toy!" or "Don't eat that!" But interaction was more likely to stop there for parents on welfare, while as a family's income and educational levels rose, those interactions were more likely to be just the beginning.
          The Power of Talking to Your Baby [nytimes.com]

          • (Score: 2) by efitton on Wednesday July 02 2014, @05:24AM

            by efitton (1077) on Wednesday July 02 2014, @05:24AM (#62872) Homepage

            "Children who hear language that is diverse, complex, and is directed towards them specifically (child-directed speech), often have a larger vocabulary size and a faster rate of vocabulary growth." That is the premise. It is obvious. Interactions stopping more quickly for parents on welfare (generally) is less obvious. But it is part of the mechanism, not the premise.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 02 2014, @05:30AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 02 2014, @05:30AM (#62875)

              > That is the premise. It is obvious. Interactions stopping more quickly for parents on welfare (generally) is less obvious.

              You just don't get it. Kind of like those parents on welfare who just didn't know any better because it was not obvious. The difference here though is that you appear to be willfully not getting it, while they were simply uninformed.

              • (Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday July 02 2014, @03:45PM

                by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Wednesday July 02 2014, @03:45PM (#63104) Homepage

                My parents were dirt poor and on government assistance when I was a toddler, but they could still afford newspapers and read those to me, pointing out each word and making sure I associated those funny noises their mouths were making with what they were actually pointing to on that big grey mess of letters.

                They also wouldn't move on to the next word until I at least made an effort at sounding out the word they wanted me to, as retarded as it might have sounded to them given my limited "goo-goo, ga-ga" speaking ability at the time. Come to think of it, my linguistic skill level at age 2 is on-par with that of your average modern Star Wars prequel dialog writer.

                To teach me basic numbers they took me to the pool halls, sat me on the pool table, and rolled the balls by me one-by-one until I was able to correctly and vocally identify each ball without their help.

                When taking me out around the block they pointed at each car and said "Cadillac, Toyota, Ford, etc." and made me repeat it. That one was a little more tricky, but in no time I got it and was able to identify cars unseen until then as long as they had the right logos.

                Kids are needy fuckers. Being a decent parent means constantly humoring and interacting with your kid. It doesn't have to mean that you have a lot of expensive toys and fad learning-aids to throw at them. Parents nowadays treat their kids as trophy pets and/or breeding for vanity's sake, all with a total lack of common sense. This is why you have fad "Einstein soundtracks," "tiger-moms," and kids polished and overprotected like trophies yet able to crawl out from under the coffee table on demand to play violin for mommy and daddy's guests like well-trained pets.

                Fuck That, yo.

                • (Score: 2) by EvilJim on Wednesday July 02 2014, @10:28PM

                  by EvilJim (2501) on Wednesday July 02 2014, @10:28PM (#63299) Journal

                  I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter. your childhood sounds like something from a twisted mind :)

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 03 2014, @11:07AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 03 2014, @11:07AM (#63504)

                  And yet your oh-so-superior linguistic skills and vocabulary still leaving you stuck with using that slur against the intellectually disabled. I bet you call women c*nts, blacks n*gg*ers, and Jews k*kes, too, because you can't be bothered to actually consider the modern context of the insults you so casually throw around.

                  • (Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday July 03 2014, @02:13PM

                    by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Thursday July 03 2014, @02:13PM (#63582) Homepage

                    Yes, because however ugly history may be, I'm not going to let thin-skinned weenies like you attempt to disappear language down the memory hole because you're too weak to handle life. Go back to Reddit and Tumblr.

                    You can see already that critics of certain people and policies are already unfairly being labeled "racist" as a way for big behavior-modification and their useful idiots (like you) to silence discussion and attack the source rather than the message.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Dunbal on Wednesday July 02 2014, @04:58AM

        by Dunbal (3515) on Wednesday July 02 2014, @04:58AM (#62862)

        Just because something is obvious doesn't mean people will do it. That should be pretty obvious too. How many times have you seen toddlers drinking Coca-cola out of a baby bottle, eating french fries and candies, etc? Many parents think that junk food marketed to kids is appropriate for feeding to kids. It's obvious that kids especially need a healthy balanced diet for growth.

        Also "low socioeconomic status" is not a polite way to say poor. It's a polite way to say uneducated. Yes there is a correlation between wealth and better education but it's not perfect. There are plenty of educated, intelligent poor people and plenty of ignorant rich people.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 02 2014, @05:35AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 02 2014, @05:35AM (#62878)

          > Many parents think that junk food marketed to kids is appropriate for feeding to kids. It's obvious that kids especially need a healthy balanced diet for growth.

          Srsly? Your own example contradicts your claims. They think it is appropriate because it is not obvious. You are arguing that these parents willfully neglect their children. Anytime you find yourself arguing the viewpoint that poor people don't love their kids you need to take a long pause and reflect on just how messed up you gotta be to believe something like that.

          • (Score: 2) by Dunbal on Wednesday July 02 2014, @11:59AM

            by Dunbal (3515) on Wednesday July 02 2014, @11:59AM (#62971)

            My claim is "Just because something is obvious doesn't mean people will do it.". I don't see a contradiction at all. Willfully - your words not mine. I didn't say that at all. Ignorance is not necessarily willful. Nice strawman attempt though.

            • (Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Wednesday July 02 2014, @12:38PM

              by Sir Garlon (1264) on Wednesday July 02 2014, @12:38PM (#62998)

              There's a certain, delicious irony to watching two people argue over the semantics of the word "obvious." :-)

              --
              [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
      • (Score: 2) by EvilJim on Wednesday July 02 2014, @05:53AM

        by EvilJim (2501) on Wednesday July 02 2014, @05:53AM (#62885) Journal

        that is odd... the article you linked to states that babies watching baby einstein ended up with less skills than babies who didn't... that doesn't seem right. methinks they're missing some other influence.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 02 2014, @01:16PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 02 2014, @01:16PM (#63025)

        > If it were obvious, even the poor parents would be doing it.

        I think you seriously overestimate the human race.

    • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday July 02 2014, @04:07AM

      by kaszz (4211) on Wednesday July 02 2014, @04:07AM (#62845) Journal

      Probably to have a study to slam in the head of people that can't deduce conclusions like in the study given the hints that already exists. Most likely decision makers and (child) caregivers that don't get it.

      The next study will probably show that lead lined toys are not good for children.. :P

    • (Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday July 02 2014, @04:44AM

      by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 02 2014, @04:44AM (#62857)
      Psst, try reading past the headline.
      --
      🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 02 2014, @05:19AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 02 2014, @05:19AM (#62869)

      Everything is obvious in hindsight.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 02 2014, @03:17AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 02 2014, @03:17AM (#62832)

    But but but... TV!

    • (Score: 2) by Alfred on Wednesday July 02 2014, @01:22PM

      by Alfred (4006) on Wednesday July 02 2014, @01:22PM (#63028) Journal

      I notice a lack of breadth in your vocabulary.

      I wonder why./s

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by efitton on Wednesday July 02 2014, @03:49AM

    by efitton (1077) on Wednesday July 02 2014, @03:49AM (#62840) Homepage

    "Consider the following results from some seminal studies in the field:

            First-grade children from higher SES groups know about twice as many words as lower SES children (Graves, Brunetti, & Slater, 1982; Graves & Slater, 1987).
            High school seniors near the top of their class know about four times as many words as their lower-performing classmates (Smith, 1941).
            High performing third graders had vocabularies about equal to the lowest-performing twelfth graders (Smith, 1941).
    "

    - From http://www.education.com/reference/article/socioeconomic-status-vocabulary-development/ [education.com]

    So as far back as 1941 we knew that the top end of third graders had a vocabulary equal to our the student who squeaked out of high school and likely higher than a high school drop out. This isn't because of the books the third grader read. The language (from home) of a high performing third grader is equal to that of the parent of a lower performing student. This is one reason why it is so hard to fix our "failing" schools that disproportionately serve the disadvantaged.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 02 2014, @04:49AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 02 2014, @04:49AM (#62858)

      What is new is the understanding of cause and effect. It used to be the common belief that of course those poor performing kids have weak vocabularies, what else would you expect from a dummy? What's new, in the last decade or so, is the theory that:

      "the disparities in word usage correlated so closely with academic success that kids born to families on welfare do worse than professional-class children entirely because their parents talk to them less. In other words, if everyone talked to their young children the same amount, there would be no racial or socioeconomic gap at all."
      http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/10/the-power-of-talking-to-your-baby/ [nytimes.com]

      • (Score: 2) by efitton on Wednesday July 02 2014, @05:00AM

        by efitton (1077) on Wednesday July 02 2014, @05:00AM (#62863) Homepage

        Your quoting an opinion piece? And one that contradicts the parent article that it was as much about the vocabulary used as the amount of talking... If the parent of one third grader has the same vocabulary as a second third grader with highly educated parents, what do you think happens to the first third grader no matter how much their parent(s) talk to them? I think the cause and effect was pretty well understood in 1941 with that scenario. Virtuous circle and vicious circle aren't exactly new concepts either.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 02 2014, @05:42AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 02 2014, @05:42AM (#62879)

          > Your quoting an opinion piece?

          I'm quoting the part of the opinion piece that quoted researchers.

          > what do you think happens to the first third grader no matter how much their parent(s) talk to them?

          I dunno, how about you make that can be evaluated instead of expecting people to read your mind instead of your writing?

          • (Score: 2) by efitton on Wednesday July 02 2014, @06:28AM

            by efitton (1077) on Wednesday July 02 2014, @06:28AM (#62891) Homepage

            Too bad your parents never used rhetorical question around you growing up.

          • (Score: 2) by efitton on Wednesday July 02 2014, @06:56AM

            by efitton (1077) on Wednesday July 02 2014, @06:56AM (#62896) Homepage

            >> what do you think happens to the first third grader no matter how much their parent(s) talk to them?

            >I dunno, how about you make that can be evaluated instead of expecting people to read your mind instead of your writing?

            Maybe this: "Hart and Risley later wrote that children’s level of language development starts to level off when it matches that of their parents — so a language deficit is passed down through generations." which is from the same _paragraph_ you quoted.

  • (Score: 2) by cafebabe on Wednesday July 02 2014, @03:56AM

    by cafebabe (894) on Wednesday July 02 2014, @03:56AM (#62842) Journal

    I believe this was covered in a Monty Python sketch involving the Minster For Overseas Development, although you'll have to excuse the racism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MT-JIJTSpF0 [youtube.com]

    --
    1702845791×2
  • (Score: 1) by hellcat on Wednesday July 02 2014, @04:52AM

    by hellcat (2832) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 02 2014, @04:52AM (#62859) Homepage

    Not only is this old news (strong positive r between SES and acquired language skills) but it also appears we have a "journal" that is taking on the appearance of respectability without proof.

    A quick look at the source article and its publication make it look more like an internal diary for UK psych post-grads rather than a bona-fide research publication.

    Let's move on.

  • (Score: 2) by EvilJim on Wednesday July 02 2014, @05:47AM

    by EvilJim (2501) on Wednesday July 02 2014, @05:47AM (#62882) Journal

    how does one get through the first years of their baby's life _without_ talking to them?

    I guess yelling abuse counts too?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 02 2014, @08:04AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 02 2014, @08:04AM (#62905)

      Why would you talk to something that can't talk back?
      That's just silly.

      • (Score: 2) by EvilJim on Wednesday July 02 2014, @10:16PM

        by EvilJim (2501) on Wednesday July 02 2014, @10:16PM (#63292) Journal

        I talk to my cat, he only meows back but sometimes I can work out what he's trying to say. he's starting to do a reasonable impression of 'Hello' when I get home from work, one day he'll get it right :)
        so I guess the answer is that we hope one day they will talk back.

    • (Score: 1) by Yow on Wednesday July 02 2014, @10:43AM

      by Yow (1637) on Wednesday July 02 2014, @10:43AM (#62942)

      Very interesting comments. On the one hand I understand the "SES factors into communication btw parents and babies" but I can't get past the intuitive "how do you NOT talk to your baby"? I worked on a pediatric ward in a urban hospital. I learned too much. Parents from all social/economic backgrounds proved to me [major point following] you don't need to WANT a baby to HAVE a baby. Who wants to talk to a squirming demanding life form you didn't want in the first place? I'm pretty sure it's easier to cope with accidental offspring when you have money. Even though I understand this point I still don't understand it (?). Good discussion topic. Good segue into off topic recent SCOTUS decision.

      • (Score: 2) by EvilJim on Wednesday July 02 2014, @10:20PM

        by EvilJim (2501) on Wednesday July 02 2014, @10:20PM (#63294) Journal

        sometimes reality is really sad :( but thanks for that insight.

  • (Score: 2) by Oligonicella on Wednesday July 02 2014, @12:32PM

    by Oligonicella (4169) on Wednesday July 02 2014, @12:32PM (#62993)

    feeding them keeps them alive, but you can't only feed them asparagus.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by DrMag on Wednesday July 02 2014, @01:07PM

    by DrMag (1860) on Wednesday July 02 2014, @01:07PM (#63018)

    How many parents run into a situation where they just wish their kids would behave "more like an adult"? And how many of those parents ever spoke to their children like adults? Having siblings starting to have children of their own, I've noticed that up until the age of 5 or so, the tone of voice people use around them is completely different--and they start using nonsense words too. Even beyond that, "adults talking" seems to be a different language than "adults talking to kids". I don't get it.

    Don't get me wrong--I think kids should be allowed to be kids, and they need to get outside and explore more. They shouldn't be forced to act like an adult. But why do we have to speak to them as though they don't understand our language?

  • (Score: 1) by Buck Feta on Wednesday July 02 2014, @01:21PM

    by Buck Feta (958) on Wednesday July 02 2014, @01:21PM (#63027) Journal

    I wish I'd known this when my child was born. I've been speaking to him in Shyriiwook [wikipedia.org] for three years now and he has the cutest little accent, but doesn't speak a word of English.

    --
    - fractious political commentary goes here -