Huh interesting. We had a chat with our midwife and she offhandedly said it would be easier on parents to skip the baby talk/voice, and just speak in your normal calm voice so the baby gets used to the “real” you.
I guess your story perfectly illustrates her point.
Baby talk has its place. It’s structured to help with learning to talk. It also acts as an indicator “pay attention to this”. The mistake most parents make is continuing it too long. Once they start talking, shift out of it to full sentences etc.
That said, if they only hear you talking baby talk, you’re doing them a disservice. They need both.
In the OP, the baby likely just wanted more attention. Non-baby talk = less attention, in their mind.
I watched a documentary on it a while back. Basically, baby talk actually follows a lot of rules religiously, that often gets blurred in normal speech. This lets babies lock on to the rules faster. The sounds are also emphasised. This makes mouth movements more obvious, and gives a better reference for practice. It also includes a lot of repetition, which also helps with practicing hearing words, rather than just sounds. The sing song nature also acts as an indicator. This talking is for you to learn from.
Once they start speaking however, you want to transition to full sentences. The sing song nature can hang around, along with slightly simplified language. Think of it like training wheels. Great for early learning, but a detriment if left in use too long.
Mine was reliably responding to commands at around 3 months. About 6 months for first words. They were talking in full sentences happily about 18 months (I think. We didn’t get full night sleeping till gone 24 months. The period is slightly blurry.)
Huh interesting. We had a chat with our midwife and she offhandedly said it would be easier on parents to skip the baby talk/voice, and just speak in your normal calm voice so the baby gets used to the “real” you.
I guess your story perfectly illustrates her point.
Baby talk has its place. It’s structured to help with learning to talk. It also acts as an indicator “pay attention to this”. The mistake most parents make is continuing it too long. Once they start talking, shift out of it to full sentences etc.
That said, if they only hear you talking baby talk, you’re doing them a disservice. They need both.
In the OP, the baby likely just wanted more attention. Non-baby talk = less attention, in their mind.
Eh, I don’t know. Ours had no trouble talking in full sentences by 2 without it. I’m interested to see some data.
Also our indicator of “pay attention to this” was, well, giving them some attention. Eye contact, touch, etc.
But yeah, sample size of one. Maybe you’re right. I don’t know. Kids are weird. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯
I watched a documentary on it a while back. Basically, baby talk actually follows a lot of rules religiously, that often gets blurred in normal speech. This lets babies lock on to the rules faster. The sounds are also emphasised. This makes mouth movements more obvious, and gives a better reference for practice. It also includes a lot of repetition, which also helps with practicing hearing words, rather than just sounds. The sing song nature also acts as an indicator. This talking is for you to learn from.
Once they start speaking however, you want to transition to full sentences. The sing song nature can hang around, along with slightly simplified language. Think of it like training wheels. Great for early learning, but a detriment if left in use too long.
Mine was reliably responding to commands at around 3 months. About 6 months for first words. They were talking in full sentences happily about 18 months (I think. We didn’t get full night sleeping till gone 24 months. The period is slightly blurry.)