typical early words for babies and toddlers in your language

[dustthouart]

From both my (admittedly introductory) study of linguistics and my own experience with my 14 month old, it seems that the early words of children are guided chiefly by #1 what the children themselves find most urgent and interesting to communicate, #2 what their unskilled and immature muscles find possible to form, and #3 starting with nouns and

Comments

[dustthouart]

Do you have an explanation then for why she said "mama" six months before signing MOTHER, and now she uses them both? Why she signed DOG a month before saying "do do do" and now can actually say "dog"? Why she signed BABY four months before saying "baby" and now uses both? If has no need to learn how to voice something she can sign or sign something she can voice, why does she now use both when before she only used one?

To use anecdata, every baby I know in real life who signs had MILK as their first sign. I have never heard of a single baby who had "milk" as among their first English words, whether they sign or not. Surely this point to the fact that "milk", being a very consonant heavy word, with a liquid and a palatal consonant, and with a vowel sound that is not common among early babbling, is not an easy word for babies to say? Milk, the concept, is certainly one of the most important things in any baby's life.

In fact I'm pretty sure MILK is why she's now signing MOTHER--she didn't start to sign it until she wanted to communicate her desire for MILK-MOTHER (breastmilk) versus MILK-DRINK (cow's milk in a cup). But after using MILK-MOTHER for only one day she started using MOTHER in combination with voicing "mama" in other situations (crying after taking a tumble, etc), so clearly she understands the connection.

[di_glossia]

Because she may now be differentiating, likely because you seem to be signing while speaking. I'm not saying that children can't differentiate, just that from your post (Ditto EAT and MORE, which she managed to sign very early, but still has not attempted to say.), a far more likely explanation for a child using "milk" in one language but not another would be that the child is unaware that another word is needed. Since you sign and speak at the same time, the connection was eventually made through repetition that sound and hand gestures were both parts of the word. Essentially, you were correcting the notion that spoken mama and signed milk were the correct ways of communicating the words.

Why milk would not be used could have a lot to do with breastfeeding vs. bottle feeding. I know of plenty of babies who say some form of "bottle", but do not say milk. Water is a taught word since it's considered a basic concept, but there is no need to give milk a name if it's the only thing the child drinks and it always comes in a sort of container, so "drink" or just plain "give me" are more common. Milk is also difficult to say in English. "Ba-ba" is not, nor are "dink" or "gimme".

[biascut]

To use anecdata, every baby I know in real life who signs had MILK as their first sign. I have never heard of a single baby who had "milk" as among their first English words, whether they sign or not. Surely this point to the fact that "milk", being a very consonant heavy word, with a liquid and a palatal consonant, and with a vowel sound that is not common among early babbling, is not an easy word for babies to say? Milk, the concept, is certainly one of the most important things in any baby's life.

It is, but is it the word that most parents use for it? Most of my friends say something like, "Oh, are you hungry baby?" or "Oh, are you ready to nurse?", not necessarily "do you want some milk? MILK?" Lots of my friends kids had something which meant "I would like milk" as an early word, but it was usually something completely different - "nana" or "boovah" or "momomom" or whatever, possibly based on whatever sounds the baby things she's hearing when her parent feeds her.

As I understand it, the latest theory on how babies learn language is that they are ruthlessly efficient. So there is probably an early process of

parent offers milk, accompanied by a range of sounds
baby starts to single out a particular sound, or regularly says *%&!!@!* when wanting milk
parent learns that baby associates *%&!!@!*with milk and asks for milk with it
baby wants milk, says *%&!!@!*, parent provides milk, link between *%&!!@!* and milk reestablished for baby and parent
baby has no need to learn further sound for milk and can concentrate on other sounds with other interesting effects. (Dat! No!)

If you had a parent who ruthlessly used "MILK" and only responded to something that sounded like, "MIL", there would be much more incentive for the baby to learn it early.

So I think you were probably signing "MILK" really clearly and distinctly, but actually saying, "Aw baby, are you hungry?" or "Ready to feed, pet?" or a whole host of other things, so the MILK sign is what she's latched on to. And once she's got that and it works, there's no immediate need to learn another word.