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?

I see many clients in my practice who have never had their tongue thrust identified.  The result of not correcting the tongue thrust is the possibility of  multiple sets of braces and/or speech therapy that “didn’t work”.  In reality what happens is that the symptoms (misaligned teeth or distorted speech) were addressed, but not the cause (tongue pushing on teeth during the swallow, and/or improperly placed during speech).

Some of my clients have undergone jaw surgery, or other oral-facial orthopedic interventions  and still their bite “regressed” once the orthodontia was completed.   Some have told me that they changed orthodontists thinking the work was not good; however, starting over with an orthodontist unfamiliar with the client may have contributed to the pattern not being identified.

The parent of a child I evaluated last week told me her son was in speech therapy for two years and did not improve like she expected; also that he had been seen by two other therapists and neither had identified or treated his tongue thrust.  As soon as we identified it, she said it made “perfect sense” to her and she could see for herself that her son was thrusting his tongue forward during speech.    He has gaps between his teeth and is getting to the age he will require orthodontia.

In the case of an executive I know, his speech calls attention to itself.  That is to say, what he says gets lost in how he says it.   His tongue is highly visible and saliva “spray” so evident, that people focus on his prominent tongue or not getting sprayed rather than what he wants them to hear.    By the way, his bite is a classic overbite.

I actually had one client tell me she was about to get her 9th set of braces.  Expensive!  Not to mention frustrating.  Her s and z sounds were mildly distorted, though nobody had ever called her attention to the fact.

Here are three quick ways to screen for tongue thrust:  1)  Is the tongue  obvious (visible) when saying these words:  seas, zippers, church, judge, tweets, none, dude? It should not be.  2)  Take a small sip of water, hold it in your mouth (do not swallow it).  Then grin a toothy smile.   Is the water visible on the lower lip or spilling out of the mouth?  It should not be. 3) Is there saliva “spray” when speaking?  There should not be.  One “yes” indicates you may benefit from a tongue thrust evaluation.  There are many other features with tongue thrust which can (and should be) evaluated and treated.

See an ASHA-certified Speech/Language Pathologist with experience in oral-myofunctional therapy for a professional evaluation to find out more.

She is working with me using the LSVT/LOUD techniques.  She has made incredible improvement.  In fact, her husband stated that last night SHE ordered dinner for the two of them!  The LSVT/LOUD really is great stuff.

His natural inclination? Stop using signs and only use his words! We didn’t even provide any guidance with this. Children are amazingly attuned to what is important in their ambient communicative environment.

He and I have had approximately 12 individual sessions to-date.