Talk:Baby talk

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Gustavus Adolphus College supported by WikiProject Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}} on 14:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Foreigner Baby-Talk?

For the section "Foreigner talk" I'm not so sure if that is similar to Baby Talk, more so than Cave-man like talk. Usually people do not use high pitches nor do they use repeat single syllable words to refer to things like "boo-boo" when speaking to a foreigner (Usually because those may be culture specific vocabulary that other cultures may not understand). Some other things I noticed also were for the examples of Baby Talk. It might be a good idea to have examples from other languages as well, including phonetic reading, just to get a better idea of baby talk. For the sections "Phonology" and "Syntax", maybe some diagrams or trees would be helpful. Jcjjfu52 (talk) 04:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

2014

This article should be titled more appropriately towards the linguistic terminology, such as Child Directed Speech or Infant Directed Speech. The general description of the term “Baby Talk” is vague and unstructured concerning facts and content. The “Purpose and Implications” section could use some organization within subcategories to break up the paragraphs to make it easier to navigate the different ideas. Give less examples of “Baby Talk” in the “Vocabulary and Structure” section, maybe limit it to 10-15 examples.

Contko (talk) 00:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

2006

I think it's interesting how words such as "mother", "father", "dad" etc probably are derived from Baby Talk... But that is likely(?) from babies, themselves, rather than their mothers. Maybe we could add something about that...

Well, dad, and mom are from baby talk, but mother and father are not. JayW 19:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Mom and dad are from baby speech, not baby talk. -Acjelen 03:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I removed the reference quoting the researcher regarding baby talk being similar to poetry. It's not a mainstream idea at this time, and I don't think it's appropriate for an article on such a general topic to quote one single researcher on recent findings, especially subjective or controversial findings. That should be left to magazine or newspaper articles. Jeeves 18:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Um... Why "especially mothers"? Alveolate 06:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Or lack thereof?

I was extremely disappointed to see that this article has (essentially) no information about the many societies that don't use CDL. I suppose I'll have to dredge through my bookshelf to get more, but here's a snippet from Language Development by Erika Hoff (Wadsworth, 2005, p. 117):

Furthermore, in many cultures - including the cultures of the Samoans (Ochs, 1982; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986), Papua New Guineans (Schieffelin, 1979, 1985), aboriginal groups in Australia (Bavin, 1992), Mayans in Mexico (Brown, 2001), and U.S. African Americans in the rural South (Heath, 1983) - adults simply do not address speech to prelinguistic infants. In these cultures, infants are loved, held, and cared for but not talked to, yet they learn to talk. The fact that language acquisition is universal whereas infant-directed speech may not be raises the question of how important the properties of infant-directed speech can be for language development...

The studies cited are:

• Ochs, E. (1982). Talking to children in Western Samoa. Language in Society, 11, 77-104.
• Schieffelin, B. B., & Ochs, E. (1986). Language socialization. Annual Review of Anthropology, 15, 163-191.
• Schieffelin, B. B. (1979). Getting it together: An ethnographic approach to the study of the development of communicative competence. In E. Ochs & B. B. Schieffelin (Eds.), Developmental Pragmatics (pp. 73-110). New York: Academic Press.
• Schieffelin, B. B. (1985). The acquisition of Kaluli. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition: Vol. 1. The data (pp. 525-594). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Bavin, E. L. (1992). The acquisition of Warlpiri. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition: Vol. 3. (pp. 309-372). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Brown, P. (2001). Learning to talk about motion: Up and DOWN in Tzeltal: is there a language-specific bias for verb learning? In M. Bowerman & S. Levinson (Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development. (pp. 512-543). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Heath, S. E. (1983). Ways with words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

I guess I'll try and chase those down when I get a chance. This data should really be in here. It's appalling that it's not. 69.140.12.199 18:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please be bold and add information about such research. It sounds fascinating. :-) Ruakh 06:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, go for it. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit - Agree?

I recently removed a "Sex and the City" reference that involved the mention of "Titty Witties," feeling this was inappropriate and could be found offensive by someone who stumbles upon it unknowingly. Just wanted to get peoples' opinions on this matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.249.66.23 (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Suggestion

Maybe someone who's informed could provide some theories as to *why* people use CDS with babies and children?

Restoring "examples" section

Retitling it "examples in literature" and using those for which a reference is clear (it not explicit). I don't see any indication here or in edit comments of why it was removed. It is useful in documenting the way baby talk is used in dialogue, and as indicating its cultural universality at least in the English-speaking world. It also shows how perfectly recognizable a 1917 example is to modern ears. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Vocabulary

The most recent editions appear to be more pronunciations than actual words... should they not be removed unless they can be found in actual dictionaries. Hesitant to do it myself though. 198.54.202.242 (talk) 11:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. I would say that a word isnt a baby talk word proper unless adults use it and it is the word itself that has a special meaning rather than just the tone of voice. e.g. Adults do use /w/ for L and R in a humorous way among each other but I dont know if that really counts as baby talk because it isnt tied to any particular words. If we can find people saying sowwy to their kids then it should stay ... but they dont, as far as I know. Haplolology ^Talk/_{Contributions} 12:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to baby talk as the common name for the topic.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Request to move

Child-directed speech → Baby language — item of psycholinguistics with ancient denomination Caceo (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose quite strongly: the former gets more Google hits than the latter, which to me is pretty strong evidence it's more than valid, given it's unlikely a phrase like "child-directed speech" would get many spurious hits. Moreover, hits include scientific papers from .edu addresses and similar, while "Baby language" mostly gives Wikipedia itself. --LjL (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Please look interlinks de:Babysprache, fr:Langage enfantin, it:Linguaggio infantile, pt:Fala de bebê. Why not the exact translation and ancient denomination in english ? target Baby language is empty. --Caceo (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, well, it's only empty because you removed the redirect that it contained to Dunstan Baby Language. Also, what other languages call something is irrelevant to what English calls it. You say "baby language" is the common term in English; maybe you're right, but Google hints to the contrary. Maybe scientific usage of the concept is more common than, uh, common usage, in which case the scientific term should be employed. --LjL (talk) 14:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

What the sources of this scientific terme ? How translate it ?

• (english) Child-directed speech (CDS) = direct talk to child
• (fr) Discours Direct à l'Enfant (DDE) - source ?
• (es) Discurso Directo al Enfante (DDE) - source ?
• (it) Discorso diretto all'Infante (DDI) - source ?

If it is without sources to have exact translation, the common ancient translation should be applied. --Caceo (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Are you saying that the concept was only "imported" from other languages into English...? --LjL (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I say that the name is "Baby language", while "direct talk to child" is a specific concept of it, at present without sources to be eligible to substitute the exact and common inter-links denomination. --Caceo (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you mean to say that there are no sources to substantiate this being a commonly used scientific term in English rather than a WP:Neologism? Well, in that case, I have added a few now. --LjL (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Please cite in that section Child-directed_speech#Terminology. We know that the ancient term Baby talk is the one use by researchers and psychologists in other languages (also german). therefore cite the source that state english researchers and psychologists are preferring the term Child-directed speech. --Caceo (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, not the German, Italian, French or Spanish one. Anyway, I've added the reference requested. I've also already said that it's easy to see which term is preferred by simply making a Google search for both terms, "baby language" and "child-directed speech". Try [1]. --LjL (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The cited source do not say what you are saying. It only call a specific topic and do not state a redefinition of "Baby language". Otherwise please cite statement quoting it. --Caceo (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - Never heard of "baby language"; the vernacular name is "baby talk". --Una Smith (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Specification of object: we are speaking about moving Child-directed speech to Baby language, (empty voice so far and topic of psycholinguistics, not to move to "baby talk"). The Una Smith vote above is invalid. --Caceo (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense, it's not at all invalid. Una Smith clearly said that "baby language", what you proposed to move to, is not considered acceptable, while "baby talk" (which, however, is taken), if anything, would be the vernacular name for this subject. Please, don't say whose votes are invalid based on your own misunderstanding... --LjL (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Sorry. While I don't particularly like the idea of having this article at Child-directed speech either, I believe the best solution would be to move it back to baby talk, where it was for several years, and not to baby language. Child-directed speech is indeed a mainstream term used in psychology. --- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 20:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that article should be moved to baby talk, nevertheless i report that all others WP translate baby language (fr:Langage enfantin etc.) because baby cognition is based not only in talk. Baby language in my knowledge remain the psycholinguistic more adequate denomination. --Caceo (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh by the way, why did you point the it: article to "Linguaggio infantile", which is merely a redirect to "language acquisition" on the Italian Wikipedia? Hopefully not just to give undue support to your point of view on the issue... The actual article on the Italian Wikipedia is "baby talk". In English. :\ --LjL (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes I moved the italian article to adjust italian denomination, because the french one was exact and the italian one was wrong. No problem! --Caceo (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

SITUATION CHANGED

• Both possible target articles baby talk and baby language have ben created some hour ago.
• Some suggestion what to do ?

I put off the move question to a later time, to see the evolution of the new articles. --Caceo (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What, "some hour ago"? Baby talk has existed since May 26. Baby language is now a stub (while it was previously a redirect to something else, and had been for months) saying that there's two different "baby language", one of which is receptive (I assume that would be our "child-directed speak"). It only remains to be backed up by WP:Reliable sources... --LjL (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have emptied Baby language (13:52, 5 July 2009 Caceo) removing it's wrong redirection. Now it is edited and is a stub, as well as baby talk, thus I wait their evolution. Thank you! --Caceo (talk) 00:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Receptive language is not child-directed speech, but the ability to understand language. Babies' receptive language normally develops in advance of their expressive language, thus for example they can understand simple instructions from adults long before they are able to repeat the instructions. --Una Smith (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Move to Baby talk. Technically, child-directed speech is any speech by an adult directed to anyone under the age of majority, normally 18 years old. Clearly not what the article is about. Baby talk is well known and a very common term for the subject of the article, which is an adult choosing a baby-like pattern of speech directed only to a very young child - a baby. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 01:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Your source for claiming that technically CDS is what you said it is, please? --LjL (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Any dictionary. Child = anyone under 18. Directed = to someone. Speech = verbally. Child-directed speech, therefore, is any adult talking to anyone under 18. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 04:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I find this to be nonsense. This is a scientific topic, what matters is how WP:Reliable sources (and I added a few just at the beginning of the article, in case anyone missed them) use the term, now how a dictionary defines the single constituents of the terms - building from that would be obvious WP:Original research. This is basically a compound word, and its meaning isn't necessarily the sum of the meanings of its constituents. --LjL (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

A more accurate term, if you want to stick with 10 cent words, is "infant-directed speech". The common term, however, is baby talk. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yup. I revised the dab page accordingly. --Una Smith (talk) 02:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Move to Baby talk, the common name, and move the new dab to Baby talk (disambiguation). Having seperate stubs as mentioned earlier would represent a content fork. Dekimasuよ! 05:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

  Note to anyone reading: this proposal is the same as the situation that we had had from 2004 up until about a month ago. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose --Invitamia (talk) 09:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

  Which move is it that you're opposing? -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm opposing to move to baby language, which is very unclear. --Invitamia (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Move to Baby talk, the common name, yes I agree Dekimasu argument. --Caceo (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Caceo, in this case you should oppose this proposal, which is to move this article to Baby language; and after it closes then propose moving the article to Baby talk and moving the disambiguation page to Baby talk (disambiguation). --Una Smith (talk) 02:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. No second move request is required. It is quite common for a move request to morf into something else, and the closing admin (or whoever closes) will move to baby talk if that is the consensus. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Opppose move to Baby talk. That title is too ambiguous and so I support having that title be a disambiguation page. I also Oppose moving it to Baby language, as that to me would imply either Babbling or Dunstan Baby Language, not child-directed speech. Powers ^T 14:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I see nothing ambiguous about baby talk. The purpose of a disambiguation page, however, is not to explain ambiguous terms, but to distinguish between identical terms - for example, if you look, baby talk is the name of a couple of songs, etc., each of which, clearly, is referring to "baby talk". If you want a scientific term, use Infant-directed speech, but that is clearly not the correct title, which needs to use the common name. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    • What I mean is that when someone searches for or links "Baby talk", we have no basis on which to make a reasonably certain guess as to which article is meant. It could be any number of things, although Babbling and child-directed speech the most likely candidates. But I see no basis on which to distinguish between those two in terms of primacy. Powers ^T 16:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support a move to baby talk. Maybe not ideal but less ambiguous and more precise than "child-directed speech." — AjaxSmack 06:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I believe this talk page should be moved, as well (though for that matter, I really believe the above was a "no consensus", too, so...). --LjL (talk) 13:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I was taking care of some other matters—a history merge of baby talk and baby talk (disambiguation), fixing double redirects and then reporting a cluebot false positive reverting one of the double redirect fixes. Have patience:-) As for reviewing the arguments made, assigning them weight against policy and thinking there was no consensus, we'll have to disagree on that one.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree the consensus was to move to Baby talk, but I wish my argument against that move had been refuted more clearly. I'm still not convinced that this is obviously the primary topic compared to Babbling or Baby language. Powers ^T 10:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Update

We are working on updating this page for our college Psychology class, Psychology of Language. As changes are made we will post them to this page for editing and feedback. We look forward to expanding the depth of this topic on Wikipedia. Ahartlin (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Kfinsand (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

comments

I'm so sorry iof I deleted anyones comments, I thought you were supposed to delete it so you could add in your comment, I was completely unaware, I guess u can say i'm a newbe to wikipedia an im only doin it for a project. so sorry :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Princesspaperieca (talk • contribs) 22:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No real problem, everything is easily repaired. =) I'm sorry I don't have an answer to your question. You might want to try the Wikipedia:Reference desk. Powers ^T 13:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Update

The Wikipedia article on “Baby Talk” or “Infant Directed Speech” describes this practice as the use of high pitched speech with short words to communicate most often with children. In addition, the article outlines alternative names for this method of speech. Possible purposes of “baby talk” include that babies are more likely to respond to this method and prefer to listen to this type of speech. “Baby talk” also aids infants in their ability to learn words as they are usually in simplified forms as well as providing a base for infants to understand the fundamental attributes of language structure. Further, “baby talk” has been linked to the development of the ability of children to ask questions. This article includes a section regarding universality of “baby talk”. However, this particular section needs to be expanded and will be a major site of revision through this project. We hope to include a section on differences by region regarding this topic as well. The article highlights that “baby talk” is not solely used with infants and can be used in communication with foreign language, in a condescending manner, or with pets. This Wikipedia article also includes a list of vocabulary often used in “baby talk” which may need to be condensed. This does not allow the reader to understand the implications or structure of baby talk, rather simply provides a list of examples. We hope to expand this article to include additional specifics about the characteristics of “baby talk”, adding phonology and syntax sections to the vocabulary section, and, finally, add a section outlining the implications of “baby talk” in order to provide a more comprehensive view of effects. This may include, but is not limited to, how “baby talk” impacts word recognition, social preferences, and aids cognitive development.

Below is a list of sources that will be applicable to these updates:

Green, J. R., Nip, I. S. B., Wilson, E. M., Mefferd, A. S., & Yunusova, Y. (2010). Lip movement exaggerations during infant-directed speech. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53(6), 1529-1542. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0005)

Kaplan, P. S., Dungan, J. K., & Zinser, M. C. (2004). Infants of chronically depressed mothers learn in response to male, but not female, infant-directed speech. Developmental Psychology, 40(2), 140-148. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.40.2.140

Kaplan, P. S., Jung, P. C., Ryther, J. S., & Zarlengo-Strouse, P. (1996). Infant-directed versus adult-directed speech as signals for faces. Developmental Psychology, 32(5), 880-891. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.32.5.880

Liu, H., Tsao, F., & Kuhl, P. K. (2007). Acoustic analysis of lexical tone in mandarin infant-directed speech. Developmental Psychology, 43(4), 912-917. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.4.912

McLeod, P. J. (1993). What studies of communication with infants ask us about psychology: Baby-talk and other speech registers. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 34(3), 282-292. doi:10.1037/h0078828

Schachner, A., & Hannon, E. E. (2011). Infant-directed speech drives social preferences in 5-month-old infants. Developmental Psychology, 47(1), 19-25. doi:10.1037/a0020740

Singh, L., Morgan, J. L., & Best, C. T. (2002). Infants' listening preferences: Baby talk or happy talk? Infancy, 3(3), 365-394. doi:10.1207/S15327078IN0303_5

Singh, L., Nestor, S., Parikh, C., & Yull, A. (2009). Influences of infant-directed speech on early word recognition. Infancy, 14(6), 654-666. doi:10.1080/15250000903263973 Kfinsand (talk) 04:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC) Thiessen, E. D., Hill, E. A., & Saffran, J. R. (2005). Infant-directed speech facilitates word segmentation. Infancy, 7(1), 53-71. doi:10.1207/s15327078in0701_5

Kfinsand (talk) 04:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Possible Edit/Delete

There was previous talk on this page about removing some of the vocabulary, as stated above, we are editing this page for our psychology class and have come to the consensus that the extensive vocabulary section is unnecessary and lacking references. We propose to remove this extensive list and replace it with a handful of referenced examples. Ahartlin (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

GAN Nomination

This was nominated with outstanding clean-up tags. Wikipedia articles needing clarification (October 2011), Articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases (March 2009, May 2010). These should be dealt with quickly or the article coul be quickfailed. AIRcorn (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Baby talk/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sasata (talk · contribs) 18:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll review this article. Before we begin, please clean up the outstanding tags, and ensure that each paragraph has a citation, as I need to check to confirm the sources are being properly represented and adequately paraphrased. A number of paragraphs in the "Vocabulary and Structure" section have numerical citation tags (suggesting that the information was copy-pasted from somewhere), so these will need to be converted to regular inline citations as well. Sasata (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

No changes have been made to the article (nor has the nominator edited since May 2), so will have to close this review as failed. Sasata (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Impact of recent student edits

This article has recently been edited by students as part of their course work for a university course. As part of the quality metrics for the education program, we would like to determine what level of burden is placed on Wikipedia's editors by student coursework.

If you are an editor of this article who spent time correcting edits to it made by the students, please tell us how much time you spent on cleaning up the article. Please note that we are asking you to estimate only the negative effects of the students' work. If the students added good material but you spent time formatting it or making it conform to the manual of style, or copyediting it, then the material added was still a net benefit, and the work you did improved it further. If on the other hand the students added material that had to be removed, or removed good material which you had to replace, please let us know how much time you had to spend making those corrections. This includes time you may have spent posting to the students' talk pages, or to Wikipedia noticeboards, or working with them on IRC, or any other time you spent which was required to fix problems created by the students' edits. Any work you did as a Wikipedia Ambassador for that student's class should not be counted.

Please rate the amount of time spent as follows:

• 0 -No unproductive work to clean up
• 1 - A few minutes of work needed
• 2 - Between a few minutes and half an hour of work needed
• 3 - Half an hour to an hour of work needed
• 4 - More than an hour of work needed

Please also add any comments you feel may be helpful. We welcome ratings from multiple editors on the same article. Add your input here. Thanks! -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Women

Can we expand on why grown women will sometimes speak like this? like, the psychology behind it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumblebritches57 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Baby talk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061127114004/http://aune.lpl.univ-aix.fr/~labphon10/abstracts/92.pdf to http://aune.lpl.univ-aix.fr/~labphon10/abstracts/92.pdf

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070822110409/http://ohioline.osu.edu:80/flm02/FS08.html to http://ohioline.osu.edu/flm02/FS08.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I have checked the sources, but the results are unsatisfactory.

The second reference (Reschke at ohioline.osu.edu) was successfully archived and can be retrieved in full from the archive.

The first reference (Khattab at aune.lpl.univ-aix.fr) cannot be retrieved from the archive due to that website's robots.txt. We will need to find it elsewhere, or else remove the reference completely. What next? yoyo (talk) 12:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment

I am confused about the last sentence in the Aid to cognitive development section, which states that "Some feel that parents should refer to the child and others by their names only (no pronouns, e.g., he, I, or you), to avoid confusing infants who have yet to form an identity independent from their parents." Attempts to find any information related to this turned up mostly empty. The most relevant result I found was an editorial essay in a blog (here: [2]) which takes a clear idealogical stance in relation to issues of gender and social justice.

In this instance I am unsure whether or not this statement should be removed, or just clarified in some way?

CeraWithaC (talk) 01:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Update: That sentence was deleted on 12 June 2016 – and rightly so! yoyo (talk) 10:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Use with infants - dubious unsourced statement

The section "Use with infants" concludes with the following unsourced statement:

"families with a lower-status might just have less time to spend focusing on interactions."

This is {dubious} at best, and I've so marked it for discussion here. Although plausible, no evidence is given to support it.

To the contrary, I'm aware of some research of the last couple of decades that shows that some high-status parents, in particular doctors, have high levels of work-related stress that leads to them being more likely than average:

• to abuse alcohol and other drugs,
• to suffer marital and other adult relationship problems, and
• to be time-poor,

all of which means that such families "might just have less time to spend focusing on interactions" (with their infant – and other – children), to borrow a phrase. This goes double for parents who are both in high-status occupations.

Your thoughts are welcome! yoyo (talk) 10:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baby talk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070822110409/http://ohioline.osu.edu/flm02/FS08.html to http://ohioline.osu.edu/flm02/FS08.html
• PEM Confinement Nanny Agency (6 May 2021). "Why It Is Important to Talk to Your Baby or Toddler". pemconfinement.com.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baby talk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121101071744/http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.com/pdf/13/9780199565962_prelim.pdf to http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.com/pdf/13/9780199565962_prelim.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The Disabled and Mentally-Ill as Recipients

I think that a section on baby talk directed toward disabled and mentally-ill adults might be good to add. I don't have any research to post right now, but there are tons of stories of people who are physically and/or mentally disabled and people with mental illnesses receiving this kind of speech -- from doctors, teachers, strangers, family members, peers, you name it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.17.163.143 (talk) 05:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

propagandistic

I'd already begun writing this before realizing the note near the head, "2014" (by former editor Contko), aligns with my thoughts. Credit where credit's due.

As a supposed article about a supposed scientific discipline that is supposedly well-documented, I find this article a disservice to linguistics in particular and WP in general. The entire page comes across as at best defensive, more generally hyperbolic: not only is there nothing bad about adults imposing pseudoinfantile speech upon helpless children, but it is repeatedly touted as though some sort of invaluable teaching aid, to a point near the border of "WP is not a textbook, WP is not a manual."

Here's a simple check: at roughly what age does this downtalking become a hindrance to the maturing of the parent/child relationship? I find nothing; indicatively, the word years appears nowhere in the article.

This article has apparently been revised multiple times by various student gaggles. Should further blow in here, a hint: learn how to attach proper citations to your claims. I'd have failed many freshman outright for that alone.

There are no cited counterpoint views, much less criticisms — something I would expect of ANY valid discipline. This alone seems to place the behavior more squarely in the realm of religious faith (or at least philosophy) than anywhere near grounded academic study. In doing brief research on the subject, I note that articles even hinting at babytalk being merely a neutral factor will excite wild and even vitriloic attack from commenters.

Based in part on that hysteria, I could perhaps make the case that babytalk is a valid slang or argot or maybe cant or perhaps even jargon of a self-perpetuating infantilizing subculture. However, amidst all the "science" I don't see a credible overarching argument presented to the effect that it is somehow "natural," as in "common to human beings across cultures."

I have anecdotal tales from elementary teachers of how students with questionable speech skills — e.g. speaking through pursed lips, clinging to "cute" words, consonant substitutions ("widdow" for "little"), mispronunciations ("topato" for "potato"), sing-song pitch extremes — had a mother who persisted in using that speech with them despite the kid being in second or third or even fourth grade. Imagine simple spelling tasks: how do you teach a child to "sound out" a word like potato when they've heard so constantly that it's pronounced "topato"?

Though the article takes pains to separate these tics from strict speech disorders, the fact (as teachers can attest) is that these must similarly be overcome if the child is to be taught properly. For instance, whether a particular example is clinical apraxia of speech or just an environmentally imposed affectation is immaterial in regards to end-effect -- either way, the kid is difficult to understand. That makes the kid special needs, needing more attention to ensure that the lessons are properly communicated and fully comprehended.

And overreach abounds, often with sentence constructions that suggest the author is putting up a nonsupporting source, betting nobody will notice, i.e.:

And because it is slow, simple and easier to understand, research has proven that infants prefer CDS over normal speech.

The cited source does indeed find that infants (and apparently adults as well!!) focus better when presented with exaggerated prosody, but nowhere is the preceding clause validated. (This is a propoganda trick for which I cannot stand.) I believe it's been proven that opposite extremes from babytalk — speaking rapidly or monotonously or clipped or with an accent — are also attention-grabbing. Or consider the vapidity of

Infant directed speech includes features of higher pitch, exaggerated pitch changes, elongated vowels and long pauses between phonemes. This is done in order to allow infants time to process the information being conveyed to them.

How precisely is it known that the kid WANTS that? Actually, a 2015 study (RIKEN: Andrew Martin et al.) bluntly says it's amazing the victom learns language at all —

The fact that they are able to pick up sounds from input that is less clear than that used by adults with each other makes this accomplishment all the more remarkable.

On a reread, I note that "infant-directed speech" becomes equated to speaking directly to an infant. Therefore, as presented, it's not the raft of accreted infantilist nonsense, but the fact that the adult is willing to interact with the child in a focused manner that is important. In short, it's the interaction. Here's a few lines, edited:

Due to the visual cues offered by caregivers, infants are more highly motivated to engage in communication. … research indicates that infants are not only attracted to the practice itself but to people who engage in directed speech. Through interaction, infants infer who is likely to be a positive and encouraging caregiver. When infants attempt to echo what they hear, and feel reechoed, their cognitive development thrives because they are being encouraged by adults who are invested in the development of the given infants.

Here's the original, overreach and arm-waving intact:

Due to the visual cues used by caregivers in this method of communication, infants are more highly motivated to engage in communication. Because infants are willing to participate in this process, caregivers are able to make significant progress through the use of infant directed speech.

It is often assumed that infants are interested in the properties of infant directed speech and play a passive role in this interaction. However, research indicates that infants are not only attracted to the practice itself but to people who engage in infant directed speech[citation needed]. Through this practice, infants are able to determine who positive and encouraging caregivers will be in their development. When infants use infant directed speech as a determinant of acceptable caregivers their cognitive development seems to thrive because they are being encouraged by adults who are invested in the development of the given infants.

Still no supporting citation, but much more credible on the face of it.

Though I have been told (more than once) to be bold with my editing, I will exercise restraint as I prune back the unfounded claims made in this article, hoping to eventually find some strong healthy limbs on which a thorough, balanced, objective article can grow.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Two nonsense words from roots music: honkey-tonk and hoochie-coochie. Perhaps there are others. (added later: heebie-jeebies, hocus-pocus)

If these are "baby talk," then what meaning could have possibly been intended for an infant to understand??

And if it can somehow be proven they are not "baby talk," then I say this topic is a mere subset of something larger, which

• deserves its own article

AND

• ought to have the content of baby talk as a subsection rather than a stand-alone article. Weeb Dingle (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

On the basis of one statement (cited above: Infant directed speech includes features ... conveyed to them.), I have removed another: Contrary to popular belief, the intensity of speech, however, does not differ from that used in adult directed speech.[dubious – discuss]]. Neither claim cites a source, and both cannot cohabit without a really good explanation. Weeb Dingle (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Must go: repeated reliance on trash: "Research shows…" or "Research has proven…" without even an attempt to identify that "research." For hiding behind quackery, it's worse than the nimrods who think that calling something "notable" MAKES it notable.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, some basic editing problems here. First, not only are "CDS" and "IDS" used interchangeably throughout the article, context seems to hint thyat they're somehow different. As the claim is boldly/baldly made that the pros prefer CDS, I propose changing all mentions of IDS to CDS. Be warned.

At the very head is the note

This article is about speech directed at babies. For speech-like sounds produced by babies, see babbling.

yet mention within is made of babies attempting to return the CDS presented to them. Now, is this CDS or is it "babbling"?
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I've changed almost every instance of "infant directed speech" to "CDS," per the grounded assertion that this is the term preferred by professionals. I also not that literally ~75% of sentences (in some sections at least) contained at least one instance of "infant directed speech," suggesting either that the original writer has the attention span of a gnat and might forget what the article's about, or believes that WP readers do. Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

O god... the jargon... the jargon...: CDS may also contribute to the modulation of infant attention, assist infants in determining relevant syntactic qualities including phonetic boundaries…
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

overhaul begun

I just completed a major rework of Characteristics. It appeared that people had simply crammed in a bunch of factoids, with no attempt to group them or eliminate repetition. These (for lack of a better term) contributors also appear unfamiliar with relevant academic work, for example body language and prosody. I have NOT sought credible sources for the claims made — if it were up to me, I'd simply eliminate ALL unfounded claims outright.

That, at least, gives me a paradigm for looking at the rest of the article.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The section Purpose and implications (near the beginning) appears to be highly redundant with Characteristics (at the end). Therefore, I am relocating the latter to immediately after the former; it doesn't need to remain there longterm, but this will make for easing some editing tasks.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I feel as though Characteristics ought to be "how to recognize babytalk," Purpose should be "what babytalk is doing there," and Implications as "what babytalk will mean to the history of the human race." Or something like that.

Instead, each section is a hodgepodge -- ooh, another babytalk word!! -- of assertions (sometimes mutually contradictory), description, and rationalization. While P & I presently makes better use of credible sources, Characteristics is now the better organized of the two, so I'm moving it to the head of the article. I'll be trying to poke these unruly data-dumps into eventual order.

The subsequent target will likely be the overreaching claims to Universality.

Incidentally, I'm eliminating the Colwyn Trevarthen shout-out (after two years!) as irrelevant.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I've chopped much of the "Baby talk with pets" section. It reads like something that fell out of Dog Fancy magazine. The article is Baby talk; as I addressed previously, if there's something that contains babytalk AND (ugh!) "Doggerel," then THAT is where ALL this stuff really belongs.Until then, if pet-talk is someone's hobby, then please launch a new article.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

"This" may refer to the wrong thing in the "Children of depressed mothers" paragraph

> Infants are unable ....(1) When fathers ... are able ..., infants respond well... (2) This too can inhibit language and speech development. (3)

"This" in (3) seems to refer to the fact in (1). Maybe (2) was added later without fixing (3)? _Vi (talk) 07:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

articles that rely on "usually" are usually making stuff up

At the moment, "usually" appears eight times. Only once is a citation within spitting distance (and that offers questionable support).

People hate when I tag stuff like that, but usually can't be bothered to support the claims, so I might simply remove every instance as egregious OR/peacocking.

FWIW, usually gets 233,689 hits on Wikipedia. Like notable (360,925), any appearance ought to cause any credible editor to immediately ask "really?" and expect a well-documented reply.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

spring cleaning

Seeing as it's been more than a year, and this is hardly a neglected article (multiple editors adding claims and apparent citations), and citation needed tags remain abundant, I'm simply going to start pruning.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Experiment: I have begun by hiding a few hundred words, almost entirely stuff that's been carrying a citation needed tag since 2014 or earlier, on the assumption that since nobody's given a crap about it in five years, nobody'll miss it.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

"Whoopsie daisy" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Whoopsie daisy has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 12 § Whoopsie daisy until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 17:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)