From the Crib to the Community

(or, how humans don't all talk to babies the same way)

If there’s anything I’ve learned from living in New York City, it’s that American adults love talking to two things that won’t talk back to them: babies and dogs. (Both of those things also love a stroller.)

There are quite a few similarities between how Americans speak to their babies and how they speak to their pets. The main one is the use of “baby talk” — higher pitch, simpler language, softer tone.

But leaving dogs aside for a minute (since they can’t talk back — or can they???), there’s something to be said about this seemingly universal “baby talk.”

When we examine the ways in which caregivers interact with their babies, not every culture is the same. Not only do some cultures not use baby talk — but in fact, some cultures don’t direct any speech to babies at all. So how does this affect childrens’ language development?

Language Socialization

This phenomenon was observed by Elinor Ochs and Bambi Schieffelin in their seminal 1984 publication that came to define the field of language socialization.¹

Language socialization is guided by the perspective that language acquisition is an inherently social process, and must be situated within its social context.

Researchers in this discipline primarily explore how children are socialized into language (like, Korean children learning the proper honorifics to address others) and through language (like, Korean children learning Korean social structure through those honorifics).

In their research on the socialization of Kaluli babies in Papua New Guinea and Samoan babies, Ochs and Schieffelin made some interesting observations on how adult caregivers interact with their young ones.

Kaluli

The Kaluli people’s general belief about babies is that they do not have much understanding of what’s going on around them. In social contexts, they position their babies as observers, not as active participants.

Unlike American adults, who will chat up a storm with babies in “proto-conversation,” Kaluli adults rarely address their children. They’ll talk about the baby and around the baby — but they won’t direct a whole lot at the baby. That is, until the baby can say two words that indicate an awareness of language: the words for “mother” and “breast.”

Samoan

Like the Kaluli, Samoan adults prefer talking about the baby over addressing the baby. They’ll sing songs and rhythmic language to their children, but won’t try to hold a conversation with them.

What’s more, Samoan caregivers place the burden of clarification on the child. So while an American adult might work hard to interpret a baby’s incomplete utterance (“oh no, is baby sad? What’s wrong?”), a Samoan adult would view an utterance as being either clear or unclear — and if it’s unclear, it’s on the child to clarify. Why should a high-status adult need to talk down to understand a child?

How We Language

So, what does this tell us about how children acquire language? Ochs and Schieffelin’s research gives us a few intriguing takeaways.

First, “baby talk” is not as universal as some might think. Other forms of caregiver language — including not directing anything at all to the child — can still result in normal language development for young children (which all the children in the study were displaying).

(This is obviously not an argument for us to deprive young children of language at all, as this is extremely detrimental for development and definitely abusive.)

Second, societal beliefs of the caregiver play a significant role in children’s language acquisition and development. Many American caregivers view their children as conversation partners, and have no problem “talking down” to elicit a reaction from their child. Samoan caregivers, on the other hand, view their children as being too assertive, and needing to understand their place in their social context — hence, why they place the burden of clarification on the child.

Finally, the process of language acquisition shapes the child’s understanding of their social expectations and roles. Through the ways that these babies are initially exposed to language, they are not just acquiring language, but are also picking up on how their social world is formed. There are culturally preferred ways of languaging, and these are learned, not pre-programmed.

This is what language socialization addresses: children are socialized into language, and also through language. I really enjoy this angle, because while the cognitive and biological factors certainly matter when it comes to language acquisition, the process of learning a language is so inherently social.

Thanks for reading!

Are you interested in language socialization, or are you more interested in the cognitive aspects of language acquisition? Let me know in the comments below.

Until next time,

Rebecca

1. Ochs, E. & Schieffelin, B. (1984). Language acquisition and socialization: Three developmental stories.