Toddlers must learn two languages. First comes baby language ( which parents adore) then english.
Think about this. As our children grow we teach them smaller words to supplement for the actual word. Such as "ba-ba", instead of bottle. Or "tum-tum" instead of tummy. Is this actually healthy? Well yeah, it is easier for the young toddlers to say, but is it actually healtheir to substitute these words for the actual word?
No, it is not. Simply beacuse the once the child has mastered pronouncing "tum-tum" and "ba-ba", most parents are eager to began teaching him "tummy" and "bottle". This takes the child through another stage of diffrenciating words all over again. If parents would just teach them the words tummy and bottle in the beginning, the children wouldn't have to learn another language, so to speak. Baby language is used only to compensate for the child's limited use of syllables.
Many children have been having complications switching from baby language to regular english. These complications are initiated by parents when they blurt out "da da", instead of daddy. It's like learning english and then moving straight to Greece.
However, if parents avoid baby language it would totally eliminate that stage where they must convert from baby language to real english. Teaching your child regular english as a toddler won't be easy for them, but it will be beneficial. While all of their school friends are learning the words fan, man, and can, their vocabulary will be on a whole new level. I encourage you to teach your youngsters proper english from the start, trust me, it'll pay off in the end.
I learned baby language first, and then English, and I've never had a problem. In fact, by the time I was two, I was reading a dozen of those little children's books a day... out loud to my mom.
Also, I know that, at least in the case of my brothers, my parents tried to teach them proper English words, and they substituted baby language for themselves because it was all they can manage. I really don't think it's a bad thing that proper English words aren't the first ones children learn. Learning languages is easier the younger you are, and as far as I'm aware, most children quickly and easily pass through the stage of baby language as they learn how to make the different sounds of the language.
In face, I'm an advocate of teaching young children second languages, as soon as they have a decent grasp on English and can understand that they are learning a second language. I wish someone had done that for me.
And that's comin' at ya' from yer local redneck hippie.
--
Ooh, ooh, pick me, pick me!!!
I think you are overlooking the fact that babies just aren't the same as adults. I agree that speaking to a child as if they were an adult after they have learned language is better than speaking to them as if they aren't intelligent.
Consider first that certain sounds are harder to pronounce than others for many reasons, which is why younger children often substitute sounds for similar ones. Babies don't always have the muscle coordination needed to make all the sounds that are in a language, which is why they babble. Consonant-vowel sounds are easy to make, and this is why babies innately repeat them when babbling (such as why mama or dada might be easier to say.)
Not only that, but the combination of consonant sounds in "bottle" could be considered difficult to a baby the same way it could be to someone who doesn't speak English, and isn't used to such a combination.
Children don't necessarily learn language by imitation. A child that says "He goed with" rather than "he went with" isn't saying "goed" because he heard his parents say it. Children have innate grammar and understand basic rules. They are taught these kinds of exceptions.
So, I have to say, that regardless of how you speak to a child, they are still a child. Even when corrected, children still make the same mistakes. If you speak to a child, specifically a baby, in a complex way they won't easily understand, I think you are making it harder for them to acquire language. It's when you speak to them like a child for a long time that the problems come about.
That's why I'm so grateful to today's childrens TV.
I know it sounds bad, but seriously, the child TV programs of today far surpass the Sesame Street and 321 Contact I grew up on.
I am only slightly ashamed to admit that my daughter watches an average of 3 hours of TV every day.
The reason I say only slightly is because the shows that she watches are highly attuned to her developmental needs.
If i have to do laundry and wash dishes, and I can't be with her one on one, I would rather her be occupied with an activity that I know is safe and will hold her attention.
Every day she says words that I don't remember saying to her, then I watch a show with her, and I find out where she discovered these words.
I am not saying that TV is a substitute for parental interaction, but when parents are busy, the assigned activity should be useful. the information they absorb should benefit them.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude