1662

Get good. (mander.xyz)

submitted 8 months ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

140 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Hegar@fedia.io 191 points 8 months ago

Baby-talk is a universal human phenomenal and almost certainly plays an important role in helping kids learn language.

The implication that not using baby talk somehow unlocks rapid development of language is simply not true.

[-] EvilCartyen@feddit.dk 10 points 8 months ago

Is it really universal though? I don't recall that from my linguistics masters at all, in fact I think I recall pretty much the opposite...

[-] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 9 points 8 months ago

I thought the universal part was the tone and cadence people use when talking to small children, and not the actual words or grammar changes.

It's why you can listen to a recording of a language you don't know and tell if they're talking to a baby, but there are also cultures that essentially don't talk to them at all until they have language.

[-] EvilCartyen@feddit.dk 7 points 8 months ago

I just wonder if it's true. It's certainly true for many indo-european languages, but I wonder if there's been a typological study with a representative sample of languages done for it. I'm not sure I buy it being a language univeral.

[-] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(17)31114-4?xid=PS_smithsonian

I know I've read a handful of things roughly a long these line, that basically it's probably not universal that humans simplify language for infants, but that we likely do shift how we vocalize to them.

Seems like a reasonably plausible hypothesis to me.