'Cutesy' language to baby

[Wick]

NC'd

DH keeps saying "feeties" instead of foot or feet and many other words to our 10 month old. I've asked him to use the proper words while our child learns to speak but he's carrying on anyway.

It's driving me mad, AIBU?

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180801102605.htm

Summary:
The more baby talk words that infants are exposed to the quicker they grasp language, a study suggests. Assessments of nine-month-old children suggest that those who hear words such as bunny or choo-choo more frequently are faster at picking up new words between nine and 21 months.

LTB!

I call my children’s arms and feet ‘armsie pegs and footsie pegs’ 😂😂
But if it helps the eldest can now talk (20m) and had only ever referred to them as arms and feet, I wouldn’t worry about speech development!
But you’re totally fine to find it annoying, just don’t use the words yourself!

Like Masonverger, my then 2 year old (now a hulking 16 year old) turned to his great-grandmother and very politely corrected her when she "accidentally" called a cow a "moo-moo" (see, I always thought that was a sort of dress, personally, but each to their own, I suppose). My ex-MIL (whose mother this was) was torn between being really annoyed with me for teaching him the proper words for things, and agreeing with me that they need to start building their language blocks somewhere (she was an English teacher at the time).

The great-grandmother, fortunately, found it hysterically funny - and she never baby-talked to my son again. And they had a fantastic relationship - she developed dementia, sadly, and passed away last year, but out of all her grandchildren and great-grandchildren, it was mine whom she didn't forget. My ex-MIL took great comfort in that as she lost her mother piece-by-piece, because whenever my son was around, ex-GMIL would perk up and her ability to hold conversations would return. I'm willing to bet that her no-nonsense Yorkshire parents didn't baby-talk ex-GMIL - and that's why.

I may have spoken to my children in a higher-pitched tone of voice when they were babies/toddlers - but I didn't baby-speak them. I left that to my ex. All I know is that when both of mine started school, they had an already well-established vocabulary which they could use to easily communicate with the adults in charge of them. I can't imagine being a teacher, or TA, in a class of 30 Reception class pupils, who each call a toilet by a different name (my son's younger siblings, for instance, still - at 11 and 9 - call it "a wee-poo"), and having to work out what they want.

psychcentral.com/blog/why-baby-talk-is-good-for-your-infant/

www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/baby-talk-language#1

www.acsh.org/news/2016/10/11/why-baby-talk-good-your-baby-10282

www.parentingscience.com/baby-communication.html

Each of which has pointers to academic research.

l I know is that when both of mine started school, they had an already well-established vocabulary which they could use to easily communicate with the adults in charge of them.

In my experience that was also the case with those children whose parents used baby words when they were babies. Mine could even do it in two languages.

Assuming that a child gets enough verbal interaction, they will know a lot of words by the time they are 4 or 5. Including a lot of synonyms, whether babyese or not. And, again, assuming that they are in a stimulating environment with access to people of different ages, they will also have started to unpick which words go in what social context. And assuming that the parents are also more or less integrated in their local community (not perhaps a given on MN), it is unlikely that all the different children will have learnt widely differing words for toes or toilets to the confusion of their teacher. A reasonably bright teacher should also be able to memorise the two or three local variants for the concepts which most commonly attract babyese.

I work in nursery and primary 1 so around 120 3-6 year olds. Not one said they need to go to the 'wee poo' or anything similar. They all ask for the toilet (bar the few not toilet trained). I've never had a single problem knowing exactly what they mean. It's a deprived area so language skills are mixed but they all know the 'proper' words for things. I'm sure the 11 and 9 year olds aren't using that language in school

my son's younger siblings, for instance, still - at 11 and 9 - call it "a wee-poo"

That's just really weird. I've never in my life met a child of 9 who uses terms like that. My DD is 4 and starting school in September. Her vocabulary is excellent and she doesn't use any baby talk at all. We used loads when she was a baby and toddler. That's more typical in my experience.

So what harm exactly, have you been advised by experts, will happen if people use cutesy language with their children?

I think YABU, sorry. The main thing for language development is having adults speaking to, playing with and generally engaging with the baby/child. I wouldn't do anything to discourage your DH from doing this, including policing his speech. I also really don't think that using diminutives is going to mean the kid grows up thinking their feet are called feeties!!

All I know is that when both of mine started school, they had an already well-established vocabulary which they could use to easily communicate with the adults in charge of them

I baby-talked both of mine. The eldest has been noted to be exceptionally articulate, his nursery teacher told me on several occasions that she often forgot she was speaking to a 3/4 year old. Maybe your ex was the reason your son could communicate so well?

I can't imagine being a teacher, or TA, in a class of 30 Reception class pupils, who each call a toilet by a different name

How many words do you think there are for toilet . Very likely a reception child will know a toilet is a toilet. Less likely a potty, or similar depending on local dialect that a teacher would be well aware of.

(my son's younger siblings, for instance, still - at 11 and 9 - call it "a wee-poo"), and having to work out what they want.

Your son's younger siblings are very very much in the minority. That's not in anyway typical or an argument against using baby-talk.

There's a lot of linguistic snobbery on this thread. People thinking that being ever so well spoken will result in more articulate children. They all start talking rubbish when they get to their teens, regardless of whether they spoke 'properly' beforehand or not, so it really doesn't matter in the end.

And still out of those of you who appear hell bent on trying to change my opinion, and insisting that your way is better somehow, not one can produce what I have asked for. Plenty of examples of what I have specifically asked not to show.

The only words mentioned, the words ending in y, are proper words. I asked for the evidence that supports the made up words. It can't be that difficult surely?!

@Wick, if you don't believe you're wrong, why post here? Did you think MN is just a super-duper middle class site, where everyone's children can speak eloquently, in fully composed sentences by the time they are 1? That we'd all laugh or berate your silly husband for using baby-language and setting your poor child back several years in their linguistic abilities?

How about you compromise with your husband instead. He can use baby speak in one chosen language, you speak 'properly' in the other two. Write down your findings over 18 years, that way you'll have definitve proof if over the top baby talk has a detrimental effect. Or don't, as you'll have long stopped caring by that point and will just be hoping you teen stops saying ridiculous things in any bloody language.

Baby talk helps with speech development, I was encouraged by SALT to continue doing it with my son until he was four due to a hearing impairment. Baby talk nicely emphasises sounds.

[he] will also shout "FFS (child's name)" at our child when he's frustrated with prolonged crying

I mean this kindly, OP, but do you really think that a bit of silly baby talk is going to do more harm to your child than being shouted and sworn at when when they are distressed? Is it possible that you have fixated on one issue rather than deal with the other?

Baby talk nicely emphasises sounds.

It emphasise sounds, it also teaches how to use the mouth to create sounds. Soft sounds like /s/ are particularly more difficult to learn, due to not being able to see how it's made. So adding it on to words encourages further use of the sound. Learning to speak is not always about learning the actual words, there's several cognitive and motor skills involved.

Interesting points of view. As an avid fan of motherese (I didn't even term it that - it just came naturally), I think in retrospect it taught that talking and communicating was fun. And therefore it encouraged speech. And laughter. Both good things

@MouthBreathingRage No, I as mentioned before (numerous times now) I asked AIBU about the made up words DH was using. Some fair points were made and I concluded that IABU. Since then however, pp's have been trying to imply that my child is somehow missing out and that it's been proven by experts, so I've asked for these people to send me a link to this evidence, but so far the only evidence provided is what BOTH DH and I currently do which is use a 'sing song' tone and elongate words, repetition is regularly used and also words ending in y (Mummy, Daddy & Nanny) all of which I use proper words and DH uses made up words, in some instances he doesn't use the correct term at all, and the 'research' for teaching multiple languages is that parents should split them, and I had some concerns hence coming on here.

Mitsuhiko Ota, Nicola Davies-Jenkins, Barbora Skarabela. Why Choo-Choo Is Better Than Train: The Role of Register-Specific Words in Early Vocabulary Growth. Cognitive Science, 2018; DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12628

“Researchers say these findings suggest some types of baby talk words more than other words can help infants develop their vocabulary more quickly.

“The team says words that end in 'y' such as tummy, mummy and doggy or words that repeat sounds such as choo-choo and night-night could help infants identify words in speech.

“They found that infants who heard a higher proportion of diminutive words and words with repeated syllables developed their language more quickly between nine and 21 months.”

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29998604<a class="break-all" href="http://go.mumsnet.com/?xs=1&id=470X1554755&url=www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29998604/" target="_blank">/

To use a higher proportion of diminutive words and words with repeated syllables is using those baby words though - only using mummy, daddy etc. would be a low proportion. Obviously you will use whatever mix works for you, but mixing in diminutive words to make language more appealing will support language acquisition.

Also, not sure if this is the thing you're concerned about, but the reason multilingual children talk later is because they are in the 'silent' phase of language acquisition for longer - it's not a problem!

@PuntoEBasta I don't think I have but it's a fair observation, I have also discussed this with him, and expressed my opinions and that if he's frustrated then take a break and I'll happily have DS back.

He still does it but he's improving and usually apologises to him later when calm.

I said it because some were making incorrect assumptions and spiteful accusations, which of course they're entitled to.

We were guilty of that sort of talk with dd who's just turned 2. And it's not affected her. She doesn't shut up haha. Can speak full sentences of 10 or more words.
Pil still speak like it to her with certain words.
There's a couple dh still says to her now and for the life of me I can't think what they are.

I think often, you just know you don’t need to trawl the internet for expert opinion, studies, statistics etc to know your parenting technique in a particular area is perfectly benign.

Use cutesy language, or don’t. It doesn’t matter.

And, for the record, a baby’s backside is a ‘bot-bot’. Always.

@SamVimesFavouriteDragon thank you, I am aware of the silent phase though. I was trying to make sense of pp's comparisons of baby talk with saying that children can use lots of words for the same thing which encourages earlier speech, which is why I pointed out that it's normal for children learning multiple languages (where there are multiple words for the same thing) to have delayed speech. Most of my family are trilingual so I'm familiar with the phenomenon.

As you mentioned the silent phase, I'll assume you're aware that current advice with raising multilingual children is to split the languages between the adults. DH solely speaks English, so it makes sense for him so speak that and me to do the other two. So my concern is/was: causing confusion by using 'fun' words, and also that DH will not use words like foot, feet, socks, legs, arms, hands etc...at all. This makes me feel forced to also speak English so that DS does learn the proper words.

Therefore this would stop me following best practice for teaching other languages and I assume make things a more challenging (be it a little or a lot), and I prefer to make things easier in life, not more challenging.

@Whichoneofyoudidthat That made me laugh thank you!

My cat has tootsies and a cute tummytum.
It hasn't helped with her speech. TBH.