SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 02 2014, @04:43AM
> It is obvious, that doesn't mean that everyone has the capabilities to do it.
No, I mean it literally isn't obvious.
(Score: 2) by efitton on Wednesday July 02 2014, @05:24AM
"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
> 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
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
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
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
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.