It may not be availability so much as conversational style.
Anecdotal (I would most likely qualify as high-income for the purposes of that study): Most of the time when I am with my now-18-month-old daughter, I give her a lot of authority. If she can say where she wants to go or what she wants to do or what she wants me to do, then in general that's what happens. I have to imagine that creates a great incentive to learn to express your thoughts.
This is true for adults as well. I have great retention from speaking Japanese with taxi drivers, but the 900 words in my quiz program evaporated quickly. You need to really use it.
I'm fairly opinionated about language acquisition, having spent 5 years teaching English as a foreign language. However, my experience of failing to learn French after 13 years of school study, while at the same time succeeding to learn Japanese after 0 classes of Japanese lessons influences me even more :-)
I'll use English as an example because I happen to know lots of trivia about it. I think it is similar for other languages. The average educated adult native English speaker knows about 20,000 "word families" of vocabulary. A "word family" is similar to a word, but the word family includes all conjugations of the word and all compound words (so the "police" in "police station" or "police state" is part of the same word family).
The average 3 year old knows about 1500 word families. By age 5 they know about 5000 word families and improve their vocabulary about 1000 word families per year (about 3 per day) until the age of 20. Some people have vocabularies up to around 60,000 word families (for example if they have a very technical job).
When people study in school, they tend to study lists of vocabulary up to 1000-3000 words (not word families). These lists often include ridiculous words like "unemployment". Anyone studying a foreign language should look at their word lists. If you have 5000 words, you should be asking yourself, "Would a 5 year old know and use this word?" And then you should be asking yourself, "If this list has this word and a 5 year old would not use it, what word is not on this list that the average 5 year old would know?" Then you should learn that word :-) (bodily functions are usually included in that list and I have to say it is extremely important if you ever need to go to the doctor!)
There are only about 1500 grammar structures in basic English (although there are lots more set phrases that can be used in grammatical situations) Basic fluency starts with simply being able to use the language in a variety of situations. One of the problems with many language courses is that they start the student memorising grammatical structures (mainly because it is really easy to test and makes it appear as if the student has made progress).
However, I recommend finding a 3 year old to talk to. Take note of the grammar that they can use (it's not much!). Take note of the vocabulary that they can use. When second language learners are at the 1500 word vocabulary level, this is what they should be realistically aiming for. Between the years of 3 and 5, children acquire most of the common conversational grammar. They can do it quite naturally because they can speak easily from about 3 years of age on. Children of that age do not require specialised instruction on language -- their parents are more than sufficient.
Finally, a couple of important notes. It takes children about 12 years before they are able to have adult level conversations. Before that, they are unlikely to understand the news, or even movies that are not aimed at children. Even then, it takes until they are in their teens before they start speaking and listening like an adult. We tend to think of children as having underdeveloped brains, but in reality I think they simply lack the language skills. Children that have exceptional language skills at a young age are often thought to be exceptionally bright and often it is not the case.
Even if you learn as fast as a native child, it will take you 15 years to be able to learn adult level conversation and reading skills. Luckily, second language learners can actually learn a language faster than children, but most learners have completely unrealistic expectations (by an order of magnitude).
Finally, there is a period in language acquisition (known as the "closed period") where you can generally understand what's going on, but you can't speak. Virtually everybody goes through this phase in their first language and...
This. I studied German for six years in school and have yet to complete a successful conversation. I worked as a volunteer in a children's home in Thailand for a couple of months and while far from fluent in Thai, I can manage most situations.
I very firmly believe that languages are taught the wrong way in school. There's too much focus on grammar but not enough of getting a "feel" for the language. You need to soak in it for that. You shouldn't need to think about how to say something (but that's what German is to me, whenever I try to say things the "is it accusative or dative?"-question pops up in my mind).
Needing to think about how to say what you want to say is like needing to think about how to move your feet in order to walk.
You nailed it for me there. I'm in the closed period I guess.
I've had a lot of 1 on 1 in my second language but quit. I was fed up of getting corrected all the time. Makes conversation a bit dull when the teacher interrupts.
Might try a course with a whole bunch of people. See if that helps.
If you'd like a recommendation, I would try free reading. "Free" reading means to pick up anything you are interested in reading and read it :-) The main thing is to be able to comprehend what you are reading. Sometimes the level of what you want to read is higher than your level and so you can't read it. In that case, I tend to scan the text to find vocabulary I don't know. Usually I'll try to find the first 20 words I don't know. Then use a "spaced repetition software (SRS)" application (I recommend Anki --https://apps.ankiweb.net/) to memorise the vocabulary. Go back to the text and try to read it again. If you can understand it, then no problem. If not, try to find the grammatical constructions that you don't understand and look them up in a grammar dictionary. These days you could probably just as easily plug it in to Google Translate and get good results, though (warning: haven't tried it -- I haven't learned new grammar in a long time ;-) ). Then put that example sentence in your SRS app.
It's slow going at first (it will take you a few days to get past your first unknown 20 words, then a few days for the next), but authors tend to use the same vocabulary, grammar structures and expressions in their book, so by the time you get to the middle of the book, you will be able to understand it without having to do the above. At that point, just keep reading -- as long as you understand what they are talking about, don't worry if you don't understand a word here and there.
Another quick tip if you happen to have a grammar dictionary or a traditional textbook: Put all the example sentences in your SRS app. Drill from your first language (I suppose English) to your second language. Throw away the text book :-). I found that memorising a whole mess of example sentences got me out of my closed period really, really fast. After the example sentence was memorised, almost exactly a week later it was popping out of my mouth. No idea why.
Finally, for me, part of my problems getting out of the closed period was just having to concentrate too hard on physically forming the words. I fixed this by going to karaoke 2 or 3 times a week :-). Find the lyrics to a song you like in the target language. Get a recording of it. Sing along with the recording. Get some slow songs and some fast songs. Because the song is unforgiving about pacing, it forces you to form the sounds at a natural speed. You can also do the same thing with an audio book if you find singing embarrassing.
Apart from studying kanji, I think this is all I did when learning Japanese (BTW, comic books are great reading material because they are completely conversational). There are also language exchange meetups in most big cities. Before I moved to Japan, I went to a Japanese language meetup and met a few expat Japanese people. I hung out with these people -- sometimes we would hang out in English and sometimes in Japanese. Here in Japan, the best English speakers I know regularly seek out and hang out with the expat community here. If you go out once or twice a week, eventually you start to be able to say a few things.
But I think the best advice I can give you is to surround yourself with your target language. If you are reading for pleasure, do it in your target language. If you are watching a movie or TV, do it in your target language. Seek out and make friends with people who speak your target language. If you are cooking, then look up recipes on the internet in your target language. Just make a "target language bubble" and live in it. This will accelerate your growth super fast.
Both of our kids are very verbal, they were speaking very clear sentences when a lot of their peers where barely intelligible for example. We are constantly amazed at their vocabulary and clever turns of phrase they come up with on their own.
My personal goal has been to make sure they feel like they have a voice and get to be heard. They have agency in their lives; choices and consequnces. We've always talked to them like people and encouraged them to use their words. When they were little I'd repeat back what they said and respond as clearly as I could, asking for clarification or whatever. They've been read over a thousand books by the age of 5.
I don't know how much of that is nature or nurture, but we definitely make time for them, and have the means to do so.
It is hard and non intuitive to talk to newborns, but our hospital material suggested us this. We started talking from day one. And our kid is cooing significantly more and has advanced fine motor skills, according to the pediatrician. We have enrolled in a local library course to do the 1000 books before 5 program. It is very important to give time to kids, and it can be done relatively inexpensively through local government initiatives.
It is tiresome for me personally, because it is hard to get used to non-verbal responses. My wife does a stellar job though. I am gaining experience along the way though and a bit better than initial days.
My wife used to explain the grocery shopping to our kids when they were babies. "Let's go get tomatoes, OK? What else do we need?" and so on, as a running commentary. They were babies, so they couldn't answer of course.
I would feel stupid doing that, even if I see the benefits, but I enjoyed reading out loud to them, because then you have a script to follow. I wouldn't read "Dog - Apple - Ball" children books, but stuff I wanted to read anyway, just to get them used to hearing my voice, the speech rhythm, and the vocabulary.
Our first-born was good at understanding language at an early age. We don't talk much, so I tried to get into the habit of speaking aloud when I was with him, and apparently it worked.
Then one day, as I'm watching him trying to climb a fence at a playground, it occurs to me he was comparably better at intellectual, grown-up activities than actual kid-like activities like getting dirty, climbing dangerous stuff, balancing on rocks, ignoring grown-ups, playing with other kids, etc.
From that point, I tried to back off a little with the grown-up chatter.
I'm happy to say that our following children, although perhaps a little later with the speaking, have been better at the kid stuff. Our first-born did get after it, too. We put him in a Waldorf kindergarten.
So although well-intended, I don't think I had my priorities straight. If you do try to influence your children, you'd better make damn sure your influence is for the better.
Today I would never enroll in a 1000 books before 5 programme. The Waldorf kindergarten was helpful here - they've been thinking about these things for many years, and don't seem to fall as easily for the pseudo-scientific stuff where someone spends a year or two studying whether children respond to specific training (e.g. language), and surprise! yes, they do! Without considering what those children were missing when they had to attend those training sessions, and could have been digging up worms in the garden.
(And yes, I do read with my children, and we probably have more than a hundred books we've bought used over the years, but I consider reading inferior to playing or doing a meaningful activity, like peeling carrots and talking about that.)
Reading to a baby seems much easier to me than trying to converse with one, especially before they're even trying to talk.
The 1000 by 5 program seems very ... unambitious, that isn't even one book a day. We've read at least 3 books a day before bed to our child since the day he was born, so we're well over 2000 books before age 2, and that doesn't count his other readings. He's way ahead in other areas, but his speech is not advanced. He watches very little TV, especially compared to his peers, and I often wonder if that has had an effect. I'm not really concerned enough to think that he should be watching more TV, but it seems like hearing that many extra words per day could be a brighter side of a darker habit.
We did the same, and my wish-not-really-a-wish-but-maybe-a-wish is that we talked to her less (insert laughing with sweat emoji here).
She was an exceptionally loud baby, just constant stream of (non-crying, mostly happy chatter) noise coming from her mouth and we encouraged it by talking to her like a normal adult, and eventually those sounds turned into syllables, words, then sentences, and she's entering teenhood now, and she literally has not shut up except to sleep.
I'm an extrovert myself so she probably inherited it from me, and maybe our engagement with her from infancy is only partially responsible, but spending an entire day with her is mentally exhausting.
This made me think. My 7y boy has ASD/ADHD. When he talks, which is often, he talks constantly and all the time. It can feel like an onslaught; is very tiring over time.
We've always been reading to him, and he enjoys words - and learning new vocabulary. I'm quite particular about grammar also, and he's always open to being learning this, being corrected, and he'll even correct his own after a few times. It's amazing to hear him "work" Google Home, modulating his questions until he gets what he wants.
So he's obviously got a very sharp brain, but from a parent's point of view it can take a lot of effort to stay engaged at that "11th hour" point - specially when tired and dealing with non-compliance.
Would appreciate if anyone has pointers here, if this resonates. We need to teach him that communication isn't just Transmit, but Transmit/ Receive (Tx/Rx).
His pediatrician, psychologist and psychiatrist made that assessment.
I didn't describe his full set of behaviours, impulsiveness; it'd be a very long post. I try to focus on the good things, but was hoping to see if others here might have some strategies to try.
I've taken steps like change jobs to be able to get rid of car to ride to work to improve fitness to get more energy to hopefully be a better dad.
There is a fad in diagnosing ADHD to boys especially. Some boys just need to move their bodies more than others.
OPs experience with his children is wonderful but I’ve never seen research indicating early language development having anything to do with intelligence or success in adulthood.
I read you, yet that's kind of funny: Son struggled to get through a karate class in the afternoon without a small refresher dose of Ritalin - which has helped him academically at school. He finally got sent out after three strikes for disrupting the class without; his attention and ability to be one of the crowd instantly improved with the addition of the drug.
From this in particular I'm inclined to believe in the professional opinions of the specialists we engaged.
He's doing 3x weekly Kyoshkin sessions as well as occasional mountain bike riding, but we could probably try to do even more to get energy use up on a daily basis; very strong, an abundance of energy. Which is normal for most children at least.
Not sure if the issues are the same as the ones that we experienced with our son, but my wife suspected that our son had ADHD and she read several books and ended up agreeing with the ideas behind brain balance. She found a chiropractic neurologist who studied with the author of the book, and he prescribed some exercises to overcome some primitive reflexes and an elimination diet. Our son became less irritable and is better able to focus (but is still working on impulse control). My wife is super happy with the results.
My daughter used to be a 'narrate my life' kind of girl at that age, and I used to play silly conversational games with her, that we both really enjoyed.
So, she would see a balloon up a tree, and she's ask how it got there, and I would say "I guess it was carried up there by a giant eagle" and she'd say "no a man with a crane" and we would just keep spinning increasing outrageous hypotheses.
It became a quite common game for us. She also liked 'guess my animal' type games.
My in laws do this thing were children are mostly ignored. When adults are talking or watching tv, the adults should not be interrupted. In practice they ignore other adults most of the time too. Very boarish, dysfunctional people in general. Conversations with them are very one sided and shallow. So kudos to you for not relagating the kid to non-person status like that.
One of the things we focus on is taking turns, giving other people the opportunity to talk, and not interrupting each other. I thinks it's easier with multiples because they tend to regulate this among themselves. Like our two will object if they're interrupted, especially the littler one.
> So kudos to you for not relagating the kid to non-person status like that.
I was raised to do as I was told, sit quietly and speak when spoken to in company. It did me no harm whatsoever, and meant I could behave in public without constantly demanding attention.
There is a difference between expecting a child to behave properly in company, and neglecting to interact with them at all.
> My in laws do this thing were children are mostly ignored. When adults are talking or watching tv, the adults should not be interrupted. In practice they ignore other adults most of the time too. Very boarish, dysfunctional people in general.
Surely these two (ignoring children for adult conversation and ignoring other adults) do not always go together, and need not be conflated. My wife, who is Italian, told me that, in the European model of parenting with which she is familiar, children are expected to defer to adult conversations.
While I have no children, I see no reason that this couldn't have a positive effect, analogous to that of not being an only child—whereby children learn that, though they are important and valued, their desires do not always come first, and they need to learn to be respectful of others. Your comment seems to suggest, by contrast, that it is obviously and necessarily a poor way to raise children.
(I also don't think that ignoring other adults, at least in some circumstances where they want my intention, is necessarily a bad thing, but that's probably more a factor of my bias towards being alone than of any parenting philosophy.)
I have four kids (two of my own, and two stepchildren) and I generally agree with this style of parenting. I feel like there is a bit of a "cult of the child" in America (where I am) where it is a competition now to raise the most perfect children, with the most perfect Instagram ready activities all the time, each a potential STEM subject genius with world changing thoughts, etc. etc. It's tiring to watch if you are on social media, which I feel is one of the big drivers of the new attitudes toward kids. I see parents using their kids for virtue signalling all the time.
But that's not how the world actually works. How is this conditioning preparing your kids to live in the real world, where people aren't going to coddle them and make sure all conversations are fair and equal?
Do people really read ~300 different books a year?
We've been going through the same 10 books for more than a year now with my currently 3.2 year old: Karlsson on the Roof, Beechwood Bunny Tales, Winnie the Pooh, Paddington Bear and a few more. I guess these contain multiple stories which can be counted as separate "books", but they are nevertheless enjoyed every evening. Even though we've probably read every story at least 10 times already.
I think it really depends on the child. Some like novelty, some like the reassurance from a story they already know. My 4 year old seems to go through phases of wanting nothing but one book for a couple of weeks, then moving on to something new. Fortunately our local library has a great collection of children's books.
When my kids were in preschool we also repeated a lot from the same set of maybe 40 books. Bill Peet wrote great books for the 3-7 range -- Cyrus the Unsinkable Sea Serpent, Kermit the Hermit, The Ant and the Elephant, Wump World, Hubert's Hair-Raising Adventure, and one that's great if it's not too scary: Cowardly Clyde.
Although we have a lot of toddler/kids books ourselves, probably 100-150 (a lot inherited from nieces/nephews), the majority are from the library. Our local branch has a fairly extensive kids/toddler section. There are a fair number of repeats. My son loved Violet the Pilot, we read it every day for a couple of weeks.
Still sounds a bit much. But let's have some fun with napkin math: Assuming you started reading to them when they were 2, then you'd have three years to read. To get to 1000 books that would be almost one book a day. You'd have to go to the library twice a week unless your library let you lend 7 books at once. I think most libraries only allow you to lend out 3 books at a time.
Maybe this is just Soviet Canada silliness, but when our daughter was tiny we were literally checking out 20 books (small, could be read in 15-20 minutes) once a week, and there didn't seem to be any limit at all, that we ran into at least.
We were reading to my daughter when she was an infant and had no idea what was going on, every night, 2 to 3 books a night, and we carried that habit well into 4 or 5 years old, so I have no doubt we passed 1000 books. When she was older she had a few faves that we returned to, but mostly we were constantly getting new material
Our library has a program to read 1,000 books before Kindergarten (age 5 or so), and the kids get prizes along the way.
It's easier than you might expect - the books are all short picture books at that age, so it's easy to just sit and read 5 at a time. Also if you read the same book 40 times, then it counts 40 times - so it's not 1,000 unique books (although we probably have read 1,000 unique books by now too). We also read 2 or 3 books every night before bedtime, so that adds up quickly.
Our library doesn't have any checkout limit, so we just get 30 at a time and go back once every week or two.
We took one of the Hanen Centre parent education courses (“It takes two to talk”). I can’t recommend it highly enough - best training I’ve ever received:
File under wisdom lost. I don't know if this asinine study and obvious result should give me hope or dismay. Did people really need a study to tell them that interacting with children is better for them? Countdown 7 years until the public sector of schooling adopts this into state-approved pedagogy.
This is one reason why too much phone time can be detrimental to child development. Modern kids are losing out on verbal skills because they are able to "hide" in their phones and avoid talking to adults. It is sad when parents fail to say to their kids, "hey, an adult is speaking to you, pay attention and answer them."
What makes you think that without phone kids would do talking instead of gazzilion of other activities?
Also I am sure having access to iPad helped my daughter to learn way more than I thought she could at that age (e. g. English names for colors; count in English and the alphabet song — before she even was three). Just to clarify — we do not speak English at home.
I had no phone or computer. Most of my time was spent in books. (Not bad for the vocabulary, I guess).
> having access to iPad helped my daughter to learn way more than I thought she could at that age (e. g. English names for colors; count in English and the alphabet song — before she even was three)
While that may sound awesome, I'm not so sure it's better in the long term. Your daughter would've learned the English names of colors and the alphabet eventually anyway. OTOH using phones and pads changes our brains, making us worse and worse at keeping our focus. We become addicted to that something is always changing or moving until reading a book becomes hard. I'd rather start from the other side, reading a lot of books for the kids, letting them learn at a slower rate but with retained ability to focus.
No. Though seemingly grim, this is actually a good use for technology for people who don't talk too much.
I don't speak much. Unless I'm in a group where conversation is free-flowing among all parties, then I'm not saying much. I will ask a direct question to a coworker. I have no issue with talking about something specific. However I can't contribute much to small talk unless someone else is driving the bus. In turn, that makes me a great listener. This is where the electronic reminder would come in handy for me.
I've played with nieces, nephews, cousins once removed, and when I was younger, I had a volunteer position with the Boys and Girls Club. I have no problem listening and participating in activities. But newborns and infants need you to speak to them even though they may not speak back. An infant cannot (for all intents and purposes) drive conversation with an adult, so my natural inclination is to make faces, imitate sounds if they're making any, and play.
I've seen it while out shopping. Mothers and fathers flying solo with their infants in the cart are getting groceries as usual. However, they're narrating their actions to the child so that the child may get a better grasp on the language. Something like this would have never occurred to me.
This isn't a dystopian future where we need robots to remind us to breathe. It's leveraging technology to help every live the best life that they can.
I already see a fairly grim reality around me where adults are spending their time engaging with electronic media over and above engaging with the children around them, theirs or otherwise, you actually state in your reply that you have a natural inclination to do the right thing, I think other options, such as a poster in a place where large numbers of parents gather, or on the wrapping of a child oriented product should be explored before applying a tech oriented solution.
You make two separate points. There are people who are wrapped up on their phones instead of engaging with their children. That's a separate problem that's not necessarily addressed here.
Your other stated problem seems to be with setting a digital reminder. I don't understand how a poster is superior (or even on par) in this case. If I see the poster, then I can act on the reminder. Otherwise, it would still need to be in the back on my mind for me to act on it. A small alarm is always with me, and it tells me exactly what I need to do.
If we're splitting hairs about tech-oriented, what about an egg timer? Those can be completely mechanical, but it offers the same functionality in much more noticeable method.
It's like a company putting up posters reminding employees to get up once an hour to stretch, take a break from the screen, and walk out your limbs for a few minutes. If I'm head down in my work, time could fly by before I even realized that it's been two hours. If my watch vibrates at 45 past the hour every hour, then the reminder will always be present.
>The important thing is not just to talk to your child, but to talk with your child
Taking this to the next level, it's not about about talking per se but having meaningful communication. This entails noting interesting things, fun things and helping the child get what they want, helping the parent get what they want, deciding what to want next, etc. The ability to talk co-evolves with the content i.e. with the reasons to talk.
My brother bought up his kids beautifully, and when I asked him what the secret was, he simply said 'talk to them like people' which worked for us too.
My kids do tend to ask me things me now and prefix it with 'not one of your long answers, though dad'.
Indeed, and the conversation (allowing the child to experiment and reinforce its use of language) extends to reading as well: I remember we never "read" to our child, but always had an engagement '"Pippi jumped onto the roof", hey, do you believe she really could do that?'
75 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 90.6 ms ] threadThat said, are high income earners more available for conversation? Seems like a good question for economic researchers within child development.
Anecdotal (I would most likely qualify as high-income for the purposes of that study): Most of the time when I am with my now-18-month-old daughter, I give her a lot of authority. If she can say where she wants to go or what she wants to do or what she wants me to do, then in general that's what happens. I have to imagine that creates a great incentive to learn to express your thoughts.
Knowing this helps parents with limited time to know that it's better to focus on back-and-forth than to just read more books all the time.
He explained how they teach you a language with 5 hours of class every day with 3 students per teacher.
Then take you to the local town or village to interact with little or no help. Like, sink or swim.
I'll use English as an example because I happen to know lots of trivia about it. I think it is similar for other languages. The average educated adult native English speaker knows about 20,000 "word families" of vocabulary. A "word family" is similar to a word, but the word family includes all conjugations of the word and all compound words (so the "police" in "police station" or "police state" is part of the same word family).
The average 3 year old knows about 1500 word families. By age 5 they know about 5000 word families and improve their vocabulary about 1000 word families per year (about 3 per day) until the age of 20. Some people have vocabularies up to around 60,000 word families (for example if they have a very technical job).
When people study in school, they tend to study lists of vocabulary up to 1000-3000 words (not word families). These lists often include ridiculous words like "unemployment". Anyone studying a foreign language should look at their word lists. If you have 5000 words, you should be asking yourself, "Would a 5 year old know and use this word?" And then you should be asking yourself, "If this list has this word and a 5 year old would not use it, what word is not on this list that the average 5 year old would know?" Then you should learn that word :-) (bodily functions are usually included in that list and I have to say it is extremely important if you ever need to go to the doctor!)
There are only about 1500 grammar structures in basic English (although there are lots more set phrases that can be used in grammatical situations) Basic fluency starts with simply being able to use the language in a variety of situations. One of the problems with many language courses is that they start the student memorising grammatical structures (mainly because it is really easy to test and makes it appear as if the student has made progress).
However, I recommend finding a 3 year old to talk to. Take note of the grammar that they can use (it's not much!). Take note of the vocabulary that they can use. When second language learners are at the 1500 word vocabulary level, this is what they should be realistically aiming for. Between the years of 3 and 5, children acquire most of the common conversational grammar. They can do it quite naturally because they can speak easily from about 3 years of age on. Children of that age do not require specialised instruction on language -- their parents are more than sufficient.
Finally, a couple of important notes. It takes children about 12 years before they are able to have adult level conversations. Before that, they are unlikely to understand the news, or even movies that are not aimed at children. Even then, it takes until they are in their teens before they start speaking and listening like an adult. We tend to think of children as having underdeveloped brains, but in reality I think they simply lack the language skills. Children that have exceptional language skills at a young age are often thought to be exceptionally bright and often it is not the case.
Even if you learn as fast as a native child, it will take you 15 years to be able to learn adult level conversation and reading skills. Luckily, second language learners can actually learn a language faster than children, but most learners have completely unrealistic expectations (by an order of magnitude).
Finally, there is a period in language acquisition (known as the "closed period") where you can generally understand what's going on, but you can't speak. Virtually everybody goes through this phase in their first language and...
I very firmly believe that languages are taught the wrong way in school. There's too much focus on grammar but not enough of getting a "feel" for the language. You need to soak in it for that. You shouldn't need to think about how to say something (but that's what German is to me, whenever I try to say things the "is it accusative or dative?"-question pops up in my mind).
Needing to think about how to say what you want to say is like needing to think about how to move your feet in order to walk.
I've had a lot of 1 on 1 in my second language but quit. I was fed up of getting corrected all the time. Makes conversation a bit dull when the teacher interrupts.
Might try a course with a whole bunch of people. See if that helps.
It's slow going at first (it will take you a few days to get past your first unknown 20 words, then a few days for the next), but authors tend to use the same vocabulary, grammar structures and expressions in their book, so by the time you get to the middle of the book, you will be able to understand it without having to do the above. At that point, just keep reading -- as long as you understand what they are talking about, don't worry if you don't understand a word here and there.
Another quick tip if you happen to have a grammar dictionary or a traditional textbook: Put all the example sentences in your SRS app. Drill from your first language (I suppose English) to your second language. Throw away the text book :-). I found that memorising a whole mess of example sentences got me out of my closed period really, really fast. After the example sentence was memorised, almost exactly a week later it was popping out of my mouth. No idea why.
Finally, for me, part of my problems getting out of the closed period was just having to concentrate too hard on physically forming the words. I fixed this by going to karaoke 2 or 3 times a week :-). Find the lyrics to a song you like in the target language. Get a recording of it. Sing along with the recording. Get some slow songs and some fast songs. Because the song is unforgiving about pacing, it forces you to form the sounds at a natural speed. You can also do the same thing with an audio book if you find singing embarrassing.
Apart from studying kanji, I think this is all I did when learning Japanese (BTW, comic books are great reading material because they are completely conversational). There are also language exchange meetups in most big cities. Before I moved to Japan, I went to a Japanese language meetup and met a few expat Japanese people. I hung out with these people -- sometimes we would hang out in English and sometimes in Japanese. Here in Japan, the best English speakers I know regularly seek out and hang out with the expat community here. If you go out once or twice a week, eventually you start to be able to say a few things.
But I think the best advice I can give you is to surround yourself with your target language. If you are reading for pleasure, do it in your target language. If you are watching a movie or TV, do it in your target language. Seek out and make friends with people who speak your target language. If you are cooking, then look up recipes on the internet in your target language. Just make a "target language bubble" and live in it. This will accelerate your growth super fast.
My personal goal has been to make sure they feel like they have a voice and get to be heard. They have agency in their lives; choices and consequnces. We've always talked to them like people and encouraged them to use their words. When they were little I'd repeat back what they said and respond as clearly as I could, asking for clarification or whatever. They've been read over a thousand books by the age of 5.
I don't know how much of that is nature or nurture, but we definitely make time for them, and have the means to do so.
I had the opposite experience, but maybe that's because I have decades of experience of talking to pets as if they're human adults...
I would feel stupid doing that, even if I see the benefits, but I enjoyed reading out loud to them, because then you have a script to follow. I wouldn't read "Dog - Apple - Ball" children books, but stuff I wanted to read anyway, just to get them used to hearing my voice, the speech rhythm, and the vocabulary.
Then one day, as I'm watching him trying to climb a fence at a playground, it occurs to me he was comparably better at intellectual, grown-up activities than actual kid-like activities like getting dirty, climbing dangerous stuff, balancing on rocks, ignoring grown-ups, playing with other kids, etc.
From that point, I tried to back off a little with the grown-up chatter.
I'm happy to say that our following children, although perhaps a little later with the speaking, have been better at the kid stuff. Our first-born did get after it, too. We put him in a Waldorf kindergarten.
So although well-intended, I don't think I had my priorities straight. If you do try to influence your children, you'd better make damn sure your influence is for the better.
Today I would never enroll in a 1000 books before 5 programme. The Waldorf kindergarten was helpful here - they've been thinking about these things for many years, and don't seem to fall as easily for the pseudo-scientific stuff where someone spends a year or two studying whether children respond to specific training (e.g. language), and surprise! yes, they do! Without considering what those children were missing when they had to attend those training sessions, and could have been digging up worms in the garden.
(And yes, I do read with my children, and we probably have more than a hundred books we've bought used over the years, but I consider reading inferior to playing or doing a meaningful activity, like peeling carrots and talking about that.)
The 1000 by 5 program seems very ... unambitious, that isn't even one book a day. We've read at least 3 books a day before bed to our child since the day he was born, so we're well over 2000 books before age 2, and that doesn't count his other readings. He's way ahead in other areas, but his speech is not advanced. He watches very little TV, especially compared to his peers, and I often wonder if that has had an effect. I'm not really concerned enough to think that he should be watching more TV, but it seems like hearing that many extra words per day could be a brighter side of a darker habit.
She was an exceptionally loud baby, just constant stream of (non-crying, mostly happy chatter) noise coming from her mouth and we encouraged it by talking to her like a normal adult, and eventually those sounds turned into syllables, words, then sentences, and she's entering teenhood now, and she literally has not shut up except to sleep.
I'm an extrovert myself so she probably inherited it from me, and maybe our engagement with her from infancy is only partially responsible, but spending an entire day with her is mentally exhausting.
This made me think. My 7y boy has ASD/ADHD. When he talks, which is often, he talks constantly and all the time. It can feel like an onslaught; is very tiring over time.
We've always been reading to him, and he enjoys words - and learning new vocabulary. I'm quite particular about grammar also, and he's always open to being learning this, being corrected, and he'll even correct his own after a few times. It's amazing to hear him "work" Google Home, modulating his questions until he gets what he wants.
So he's obviously got a very sharp brain, but from a parent's point of view it can take a lot of effort to stay engaged at that "11th hour" point - specially when tired and dealing with non-compliance.
Would appreciate if anyone has pointers here, if this resonates. We need to teach him that communication isn't just Transmit, but Transmit/ Receive (Tx/Rx).
I didn't describe his full set of behaviours, impulsiveness; it'd be a very long post. I try to focus on the good things, but was hoping to see if others here might have some strategies to try.
I've taken steps like change jobs to be able to get rid of car to ride to work to improve fitness to get more energy to hopefully be a better dad.
OPs experience with his children is wonderful but I’ve never seen research indicating early language development having anything to do with intelligence or success in adulthood.
From this in particular I'm inclined to believe in the professional opinions of the specialists we engaged.
He's doing 3x weekly Kyoshkin sessions as well as occasional mountain bike riding, but we could probably try to do even more to get energy use up on a daily basis; very strong, an abundance of energy. Which is normal for most children at least.
So, she would see a balloon up a tree, and she's ask how it got there, and I would say "I guess it was carried up there by a giant eagle" and she'd say "no a man with a crane" and we would just keep spinning increasing outrageous hypotheses.
It became a quite common game for us. She also liked 'guess my animal' type games.
One of the things we focus on is taking turns, giving other people the opportunity to talk, and not interrupting each other. I thinks it's easier with multiples because they tend to regulate this among themselves. Like our two will object if they're interrupted, especially the littler one.
I was raised to do as I was told, sit quietly and speak when spoken to in company. It did me no harm whatsoever, and meant I could behave in public without constantly demanding attention.
There is a difference between expecting a child to behave properly in company, and neglecting to interact with them at all.
How could you possibly know?
Surely these two (ignoring children for adult conversation and ignoring other adults) do not always go together, and need not be conflated. My wife, who is Italian, told me that, in the European model of parenting with which she is familiar, children are expected to defer to adult conversations.
While I have no children, I see no reason that this couldn't have a positive effect, analogous to that of not being an only child—whereby children learn that, though they are important and valued, their desires do not always come first, and they need to learn to be respectful of others. Your comment seems to suggest, by contrast, that it is obviously and necessarily a poor way to raise children.
(I also don't think that ignoring other adults, at least in some circumstances where they want my intention, is necessarily a bad thing, but that's probably more a factor of my bias towards being alone than of any parenting philosophy.)
We've been going through the same 10 books for more than a year now with my currently 3.2 year old: Karlsson on the Roof, Beechwood Bunny Tales, Winnie the Pooh, Paddington Bear and a few more. I guess these contain multiple stories which can be counted as separate "books", but they are nevertheless enjoyed every evening. Even though we've probably read every story at least 10 times already.
I'd really like to hear more about that. Did you mean that literally? How would you even acquire that many books?
We were reading to my daughter when she was an infant and had no idea what was going on, every night, 2 to 3 books a night, and we carried that habit well into 4 or 5 years old, so I have no doubt we passed 1000 books. When she was older she had a few faves that we returned to, but mostly we were constantly getting new material
As for lending, I've have 55 books out right now. (Seattle area library system, son just turned 6) Sounds like you need to get to the library :)
It's easier than you might expect - the books are all short picture books at that age, so it's easy to just sit and read 5 at a time. Also if you read the same book 40 times, then it counts 40 times - so it's not 1,000 unique books (although we probably have read 1,000 unique books by now too). We also read 2 or 3 books every night before bedtime, so that adds up quickly.
Our library doesn't have any checkout limit, so we just get 30 at a time and go back once every week or two.
http://www.hanen.org/Helpful-Info/Articles/power-turn-taking...
We took one of the Hanen Centre parent education courses (“It takes two to talk”). I can’t recommend it highly enough - best training I’ve ever received:
http://www.hanen.org/Programs/For-Parents/It-Takes-Two-to-Ta...
I had no phone or computer. Most of my time was spent in books. (Not bad for the vocabulary, I guess).
While that may sound awesome, I'm not so sure it's better in the long term. Your daughter would've learned the English names of colors and the alphabet eventually anyway. OTOH using phones and pads changes our brains, making us worse and worse at keeping our focus. We become addicted to that something is always changing or moving until reading a book becomes hard. I'd rather start from the other side, reading a lot of books for the kids, letting them learn at a slower rate but with retained ability to focus.
Thats not true:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-38896790
This is a very one sided attitude and conversation, why would any one want to talk to some one with this attitude?
As an adult I can call out this poor attitude, but a child cant, thats why they are hiding in their phone.
A child also can't understand when their impulse to follow impulse is harmful. Someone should be interrupting with what you call a poor attitude.
I don't speak much. Unless I'm in a group where conversation is free-flowing among all parties, then I'm not saying much. I will ask a direct question to a coworker. I have no issue with talking about something specific. However I can't contribute much to small talk unless someone else is driving the bus. In turn, that makes me a great listener. This is where the electronic reminder would come in handy for me.
I've played with nieces, nephews, cousins once removed, and when I was younger, I had a volunteer position with the Boys and Girls Club. I have no problem listening and participating in activities. But newborns and infants need you to speak to them even though they may not speak back. An infant cannot (for all intents and purposes) drive conversation with an adult, so my natural inclination is to make faces, imitate sounds if they're making any, and play.
I've seen it while out shopping. Mothers and fathers flying solo with their infants in the cart are getting groceries as usual. However, they're narrating their actions to the child so that the child may get a better grasp on the language. Something like this would have never occurred to me.
This isn't a dystopian future where we need robots to remind us to breathe. It's leveraging technology to help every live the best life that they can.
Your other stated problem seems to be with setting a digital reminder. I don't understand how a poster is superior (or even on par) in this case. If I see the poster, then I can act on the reminder. Otherwise, it would still need to be in the back on my mind for me to act on it. A small alarm is always with me, and it tells me exactly what I need to do.
If we're splitting hairs about tech-oriented, what about an egg timer? Those can be completely mechanical, but it offers the same functionality in much more noticeable method.
It's like a company putting up posters reminding employees to get up once an hour to stretch, take a break from the screen, and walk out your limbs for a few minutes. If I'm head down in my work, time could fly by before I even realized that it's been two hours. If my watch vibrates at 45 past the hour every hour, then the reminder will always be present.
Taking this to the next level, it's not about about talking per se but having meaningful communication. This entails noting interesting things, fun things and helping the child get what they want, helping the parent get what they want, deciding what to want next, etc. The ability to talk co-evolves with the content i.e. with the reasons to talk.
My kids do tend to ask me things me now and prefix it with 'not one of your long answers, though dad'.
>talk to them like people
Except that most adult/social conversations are restrictive.
I get this a lot too. My 8 yr old daughter frequently tells me she just wants the answer.