Baby talk led to language evolution?

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 11:24 am

Not really relevant to the teaching of English but an interesting read for linguists nonetheless:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/ ... 49,00.html

Lorikeet · Post by **Lorikeet** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 4:24 pm

Hah! I never spoke "motherese." In fact, I can't stand baby talk. I never could figure out why you would want your kid to learn how to talk like that. My kids turned out just fine, thank you, and were very verbal, had good vocabulary skills, and wrote well. (They are old enough to not really be considered "kids" any more; hence the past tense

.) There are certainly a lot of ways to indicate you love your kids without stunting their language growth. (Yeah, that's my opinion

.)

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 4:36 pm

Another theory is that language originated with gesture, another with onamatopoea. It is still said that 70% of communication is gesture. Ever seen anyone threading a needle and making the same gesture with their tongue?

I imagine it is a mixture of things that resulted in language.

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 8:46 am

Although Professor Falk may have a good argument to make regarding the evolution of language (or maybe not), this sentence from the newspaper article certainly made me pause to scratch my head:

The evolutionary development of bigger brains meant that early humans began giving birth before their babies' heads became too big to pass through the birth canal.

Larry Latham

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 8:51 am

Andy wrote:It is still said that 70% of communication is gesture.

I know it is said, Andy, but though it might be temptingly elegant, it sort of suggests that successful communication by telephone must be nearly impossible.

Larry Latham

(Is that needle threader attempting to give a real time narrative?)

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 3:06 pm

Dear Larry

Having conducted dozens of telephone interviews I can assure you that you are only communicating 30%.

With email and online forums it must go to about 10% . The fact that they are both so popular may suggest that it is the right 10%

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 6:24 pm

Dear Larry

Having conducted dozens of telephone interviews I can assure you that you are only communicating 30%.

It sounds to me like you have a lot more trouble with telephone conversations than I do, Stephen. Are you doing these interviews in Saudi Arabia or Sri Lanka? Are you speaking the local language?

I try not to use the telephone any more than I absolutely have to. (I don't even carry a cell phone!! Gasp!) But I'd guess I understand most of the people I do talk to that way. And I presume from what they say that they understand me pretty well too.

Anyway, I hope you all understand this:
H A P P Y H O L I D A Y S

Larry Latham

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 7:08 pm

They're interviews in English with Brits, Americans, Canadians or Australians, and I can just about understand English

Another local institution insists on all job candidates setting up a video interview in order to palliate this somewhat, but unfortunately we don't have anything like the bandwidth. And business executives still travel half way round the world for business meetings because even video conferences leave much to be desired.

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 7:20 pm

...And business executives still travel half way round the world for business meetings because even video conferences leave much to be desired.

Oh, having been a 'business executive' for a number of years, Stephen, I suspect that a good many of them travel half way round the world is so they can travel half way round the world.

Why be content with misunderstanding your associates in New York when you can misunderstand them in Toyko, and then amuse yourself in the evenings by throwing your company's money around and subjecting yourself to the delights of the ladies of Toyko? Business is just so hard.

Larry Latham

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 8:05 am

My friend, Lorikeet, wrote:Hah! I never spoke "motherese." In fact, I can't stand baby talk. I never could figure out why you would want your kid to learn how to talk like that.

Lorikeet, I'm trying real hard to ignore your comment here, because I'm not sure that you meant it, but I just can't seem to get it out of my head. So I have to ask: Why in the world would you think (if you do) that mothers (or fathers, for that matter) might want their kids to learn to talk like that? Surely that can't be the goal! And anyway, kids don't learn to talk from their parents, at least, not entirely. If we are to believe the language scientists, kids are hard wired. They would (and absolutely do) learn to speak even if their parents are mute. What seems undeniably clear is that they do not learn to speak by emulating their parents. When Billy and Janie say things like, "Daddy goed to work already", or "We holded the puppies", that cannot possibly be repetition of something they heard Mom or Dad say. (Unless, I suppose, Mom and Dad gurgle baby talk to each other). That's an instinctive grammar machine at work. That's a kid who, at age 3, has figured out how English works, and has nailed it right on the money. He knows how to make past tense forms, and also knows when to use them. Kids are fantastic! I can't help wondering whether adult ESL learners aren't more like this than we realize, and we teachers might just be failing to make use of this human tendency. In fact, we work against it by design.

Larry Latham

Sorry, Lorikeet. You just happened to touch on a raw nerve that lurks in my brain constantly waiting for chances to spring out. You couldn't've known.

Lorikeet · Post by **Lorikeet** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 8:57 am

LarryLatham wrote: Sorry, Lorikeet. You just happened to touch on a raw nerve that lurks in my brain constantly waiting for chances to spring out. You couldn't've known.

Oh, I don't mind giving you a chance to vent a little Larry. I have no idea what goes on in a child's head. I only know my kids had a bigger vocabulary than some of their peers, and from what I could gather, it was due in part to their having heard the words at home. I still can't stand baby talk. It is, indeed, one of my raw nerves.

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 11:12 am

Anyway, I hope you all understand this:
H A P P Y H O L I D A Y S

I know that this wasn't intended to be answered, but I just can't resist my tendency to overanalyse.

I was watching CNN the other day, not so much by choice, but because I have Hobson's choice when it comes to TV channels - CNN, CNBC or BBC prime. There was an article about the phrase "happy holidays" and they were saying that in the US (don't know about Canada) Christmas seems to have merged with Honnika to form a quite long period of celebration. To avoid saying one or the other, presumably to avoid upsetting people's religious sensibilities, the phrase happy holidays was adopted. This expression is not used very much in Britain.

I seem to remember the word "Winterfest" being bandied around at one time to avoid the "Christ" in Christmas for the same reason, and wondering what was wrong with bringing back "Yuletide" if they felt that way. I supose happy holidays won out in the end and is here to stay.

How did you do the coloured letters btw.

Happy Holidays yourself, or have a Cool Yule.

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:09 pm

No doubt about it, Andy. "Happy Holidays" is indeed a way for people to wish good things for their friends without trampling on others' religious sensibilities. I'll even admit I was at first going to write, "Merry Christmas", but then I realized that some of you may be Jewish, and have another holiday going at this time of year. So, I caved to the current social standard, and decided I'd be safer with, "Happy Holidays." I'm a coward, I know, but then who wants to get into a donnybrook over wishing your friends peace, prosperity and happiness?

Larry Latham

Oh, the colored letters? Check out the "Font colour" option at the top of your screen.

Sally Olsen · Post by **Sally Olsen** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 12:25 am

Just was trying to figure out what Honnika was. Do you mean Hanukah or Hanukkah? You can also spell it Chanukah. In Canada we say Happy Holiday because there are other religions in the schools that don't celebrate at this time of year at all. You can teach about the different holidays of all cultures and tell why some North Americans have a dead tree in their living room around the 25th but you can't hold celebrations of those holidays where you are expecting all students to participate. We still have a school entertainment night but not the Christmas story protraying the Nativity in which each child must take a role. It is just respectful of the true multicultural nature of our country. I imagine wishes of peace, goodwill and having the best year of your lives in 2005 are universal though and I wish them to you all.
Cheers,
Sally