I have the privilege of working with some of my littlest clients in their preschools. The teachers are so interested in how and why we SLP’s recommend what we do. Some of the favorite questions involve second/third languages, use of signing, and “baby talk”. Here is a condensed version of my perspective(s) on these “hot” preschool topics. I invite any questions which may be prompted. Of course, space limits my discussion here.
Up until the age of 8, typically-developing children can easily learn multiple languages, and will usually sound “like a native” if frequently exposed to that language in a meaningful way over time. However, there are exceptions to this rule. One: the child does not have speech and/or langauge disorder(s), Two: the language must be meaningful and relevant in his/her world. That is to say, somebody actually speaking it dynamically with the child on a regular basis (not just videos and TV), Three: the child may choose (much to his/her parent’s dismay), to “reject” non-ambient or culturally non-dominant languages. Some parents find that their children enrolled in English-speaking schools will refuse even to use the language spoken at home by their parents, they may insist on English-only. This always brings up a whole load of questions. I invite them here.
The second issue preschool teachers want to know about is the use of signing. It is true that signing with infants and toddlers has become a very popular thing. There are many benefits for the use of sign and in fact, some research in the field of speech and language indicates that signs can help bridge the gap between what a child understands and is able to say when he/she does not yet have adequate speech-sounds developed to support the production of verbal words/phrases. However, in the case of children with speech and language disorders, it is best to have the parents and the professional SLP make a joint decision whether signs will be most helpful for a child. An analysis of the relevance to his/her communicative demands must be made. If he/she spends most of his time with adults and peers who can sign, then it may be useful. If he/she does not, then perhaps a different approach can be utilized, such as the use of visual symbols (pictures) or speech-word approximations (baby-talk) as the child is learning his/her speech sound production. I have been a proponent of the use of signs as well as one to discourage the use of signs depending upon the specific communicative-demand circumstances he/she lives within. And of course, decisions are always made in conjunction with parents and family.
And finally, “baby talk”. Did you know that in every language-culture studied in the world, adults and older children instinctually slow their speaking rate, simplify words, shorten the length of utterance, use a higher pitch, and increase the number of repetitions when speaking with an infant or small child? In the literature, this phenomenon has been coined “mother-ese”; however, clearly it is more universally used than by mother to child. Speech pathologists typically advocate the natural use of “mother-ese” with infants and developmentally delayed toddlers; however, will discourage hanging on-to baby talk when a child is developing and becomes capable of understanding longer utterances and producing more sophisticated speech him- or herself. An example is the use of “baba” for bottle. As an infant/early toddler, “baba” is a developmentally appropriate speech target. It is simply a single syllable repeated. At age 2, it is not. At two, a child should be able to produce two distinct syllables such as bahbo or bahbuh. Both of these are more age-appropriate. In fact, by two the child should be putting two words together and asking for “more bahbo” or the equivalent. The trouble with mother-ese comes when the adult is reluctant to allow changing the “cute” way he/she says a word, or fails to recognize the child’s abilities have grown. All along the child should be given both mother-ese and adult-level speech models in a natural mixture.
On the other extreme, some families with a more intellectualized-approach to child-rearing won’t use motherese at all. They are speaking leaps and bounds ahead of where their child is functioning in infant/toddler years. Mother-ese is a very useful developmental tool. As you can see from above, there is usefulness and universality to it’s use; and it is, in fact, developmentally appropriate for infants and developmentally delayed toddlers. The idea is to know the developmental norms and to be producing speech one or two steps beyond where he/she is functioning (the classic “stretch goal”, or ZPD: Zone of Proximal Development for those who’ve studied Vygotsky) as well as using sophisticated adult-models of speech.
What are your experiences and/or questions?
