Slashdot Mirror


Babies Can Learn Words as Early as 10 Months

linguizic writes "According to Scientific American Online: '10 month olds can learn to associate words with objects in their environment when given interesting enough stimuli. A two-year-old can quickly link an object--whether a flashy rattle or a boring latch--to a word. Even a one-year-old can follow a parent's gaze to an object and match it with a word being spoken. But although anecdotal evidence seems to show that babies younger than one year can learn words, it remains unclear whether they are in fact mastering language. Now a new study reveals that 10-month-old infants can link words and objects, but only if the object is already interesting to them.'"

152 comments

  1. Mastery?? by JDSalinger · · Score: 1

    But although anecdotal evidence seems to show that babies younger than one year can learn words, it remains unclear whether they are in fact mastering language. Last time I spoke with a 10 month old, it became clear to me that sub one-year olds have yet to master language. OR, they have mastered some language concepts, but have yet to develop a worthwhile attention span to convey this mastery. -C

    1. Re:Mastery?? by CRCulver · · Score: 1, Funny

      Well, sometimes even we Slashdotters don't have enough attention sp--- Oooh, shiny thing! *NO CARRIER*

    2. Re:Mastery?? by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      Master? no. Be good enough to convey needs more than simply screaming? yes.
      Both my kids started off quick, my son is the slower of the two and at 11 months he can say 6 words clearly enough that non close family members can understand what he said:
      Mama, dada, baba, ihih (can't quite get the soft pallet to work enough to say sis sis), nana, and neigh neigh (the last being what he calls my wife's breasts, quite funny really).
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    3. Re:Mastery?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mastering != mastered.

    4. Re:Mastery?? by ddimas · · Score: 1

      My 12 mo. baby can say Mama, Baba, and Mmmm (food). All other conversation is carried on by giggles or wailing.

    5. Re:Mastery?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Babies have trouble vocalising, however, they don't have much trouble using sign-language. Our son communicated very well through sign before he could walk, and he was walking at 9 months.

      Plenty of people said we shouldn't be teaching him sign as it would make him lazy vocalising later. He's just turned 3 and is clearly one of the better talkers in his 3-4 year old group. He also has a pretty good Spanish vocabulary, unlike his parents.

    6. Re:Mastery?? by rah1420 · · Score: 1

      My 11 month old will say "yes" if you ask if she's hungry and she is.

      If she's just eaten and you ask her if she's hungry, she doesn't say yes. If you offer her more food, she'll say "no" sometimes - not reliably - and shake her head and fend off the spoon, again not reliably.

      I'd say she's mastered half of the binary number system, so she's on her way. :)

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
    7. Re:Mastery?? by PFI_Optix · · Score: 1

      Mine has simply refused to learn sign language. He never had any use for it...he started walking a little before 9 months and by 10 months could get to nearly everything he wanted/needed.

      He's 18 months now and can reach most anything on the kitchen counters without standing on anything. I have a three-foot-tall toddler. Yikes.

      --
      120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
    8. Re:Mastery?? by ender- · · Score: 1

      Babies have trouble vocalising, however, they don't have much trouble using sign-language.

      Bingo, my baby has been able to sign 'milk' when she's hungry since she was 3 or 4 months old.

    9. Re:Mastery?? by ender- · · Score: 1

      Just in case that came across wrong, my baby's name is not "Bingo" :)

      She does however have her own blog. even though she's only 10 months old!

      Geez they let anyone have one of those these days. :)

    10. Re:Mastery?? by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      Sounds like my boss. Does yours get a smelly diaper too?

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    11. Re:Mastery?? by jmccay · · Score: 1

      By the time my niece was 1.5 years old, she ould speak in sentences (simple sentences), and she could translate stuff like:

      Us: Do you want...
      her: I want...

            She was also walking too. We though she'd walk before she crawled because she kept on standing up. My neice is very smart considering she is only 2.5 years old! You can carry on a conversation with her, and her attention span will stay with you...if she is interested. She's very interested in things around her. She deffinately understands more than she can communicate at times. That is improving with age. When she was 1 to 1.5, she would get frustrated & sad because she couldn't always express what she wanted to express. Now at 2.5 years, that is not so much of a problem.
            What it comes down to is what you say and do around the child when the child is still in the womb. Talking nonsense stuff like gaga-googoo doesn't help. The baby is trying to form an understanding of the language and to be able to communicate. Talk to the baby even before he/she is born in complete sentences with positive reaffirming things. Play claiscal music around the child because studies have shown this helps in developement. I also recomend the Baby Mozart series.

      --
      At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
  2. yeah, but can a baby... by yagu · · Score: 5, Funny

    From the Slashdot: .A two-year-old can quickly link an object.... Yeah, but at what age can a baby levarage development patterns? No baby is going to be much use until he (she) knows the difference between a Singleton and a Factory.

    1. Re:yeah, but can a baby... by AnonymousPrick · · Score: 2, Funny
      Yeah, but at what age can a baby levarage development patterns? No baby is going to be much use until he (she) knows the difference between a Singleton and a Factory.

      Well, if you'd buy him the Fisher Price Object Oriented Compiler with the accompanied Sponge Bob Square Pants development frameworks, he would learn about that. It's all the rage in India. Geeze! You're such a bad parent!

      --
      Saturday is April 1. Slashdot will be shut down. Sorry for the inconvenience.
    2. Re:yeah, but can a baby... by rbarreira · · Score: 1

      How old are you? Just asking to get a lower bound on the age a human can levarage spelling ;)

      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
    3. Re:yeah, but can a baby... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, saw that too late after posting. Sorry. :-(

    4. Re:yeah, but can a baby... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last week a coworker showed me some code that his 1-year-old daughter wrote. It looked quite powerful and original at first -- but then I realized that it was actually just a Facade.

  3. Baby Sign Language by dudeX · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Those who know about teaching young babies (6 mos and up) sign language already know that babies have a capacity to understand some grammar.
    At least it's nice to have study that shows this.

    The real study now is to develop an effective system for teaching babies communication.

    1. Re:Baby Sign Language by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      You don't need to teach babies language, they will learn in on their own. That is one of the main points of Steven Pinker's The Language Instinct . Children worldwide start talking at the same time whether adults try to teach them or not. Pinker does a little mocking of American mothers saying sacchrine things like "What is that? It's a doggie? A dog-gie!" as if their children needed their conscious help to learn, when in many cultures children's linguistic talents are just ignored by the adult community until they have gained speech naturally. They all still end up speaking at the same time.

    2. Re:Baby Sign Language by FinestLittleSpace · · Score: 1

      It's not to simply 'learn to talk' that people speak to their kids like that. It's a good idea to deconstruct words like that so that the kid begins to understand the logic of constructing different sounds, rather than treating a word as one sound.

    3. Re:Baby Sign Language by CRCulver · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Total nonsense. Read the book mentioned above. Linguists have long observed that babies' minds are already capable of doing all these operations of breaking down sound and processing individual elements. There's no need for a grown woman like their mother to act silly for no real reason, because her actions simply do not result in faster speech development or greater eloquence.

    4. Re:Baby Sign Language by Migraineman · · Score: 4, Informative

      We started Baby Sign with my daughter at about 6 months. My mother was offended, convinced that we were going to retard the child's lingual development. At about 10-months, we started to get coherent responses to queries. It started out with simple concepts like "eat" and "done." Once she realized that she could communicate with sign, the learning and communication grew exponentially. Her lingual skills were delayed slightly, but she went from no verbal communication to full-polysyllabic-sentences almost overnight. The transition was astounding, and her sign vocabulary was well over 150 signs (we couldn't keep up ...)

      Don't listen to the buttheads who claim children can't communicate before 12-16 months. Oh yes they can. Many tantrums are a result of frustration because the kid can't verbalize what he wants to communicate. Signing is a whole lot more practical than speaking for someone with limited motor skills.

      We've still maintaiined some signs, but not nearly to the level we used to have. It's a wonderful skill for communicating across distances - you don't need to shout across a large room to confirm that your kid is okay after tripping and falling. Also, I credit the early sign exposure for jump-starting my daughter's reading and writing abilities. She's five now, and can read books, can write her own stories (which look like something from Infocom,) and has an amazing vocabulary.

    5. Re:Baby Sign Language by FinestLittleSpace · · Score: 1

      Obviously there's no need to 'act silly', but from observing my two kids (7 and 9 now) when spelling and reading, they still don't always understand how a word is formed because they've compiled it as one. Some words *do* need breaking down, some don't.

    6. Re:Baby Sign Language by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      Yes, but you are dealing with children who are older and already in school, who are reading and writing (not speaking or listening, the real domain of linguistics), and who already have already acquired speech. That puts them in a different category than the infants of this article and in Pinker's book mentioned in my post.

    7. Re:Baby Sign Language by PFI_Optix · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't hinge your entire argument on a single book. I'd wager there's at least one book that directly contradicts it.

      I use slow pronunciation and make it a point to strongly enunciate sounds so that my son picks up the right way to say something and can more easily communicate with people outside the family earlier. It seems to be working; since I started doing that he's had much greater success telling other people what he wants.

      --
      120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
    8. Re:Baby Sign Language by ergo98 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Total nonsense. Read the book mentioned above. Linguists have long observed that babies' minds are already capable of doing all these operations of breaking down sound and processing individual elements.

      There are countless early education experts who advocate deconstructing words, and individually naming objects to young children, but you've read one book from one author and now you're strongly refuting people who say otherwise. Amazing.

      There's no need for a grown woman like their mother to act silly for no real reason, because her actions simply do not result in faster speech development or greater eloquence.

      If you think a "grown woman" is acting "silly" when they baby talk with their child, an exercise that both of them generally enjoy, you really, really need to get some perspective, and to get a life. Desperately clutch onto your one author that shares your bile and feel delusionally confident in your superiority over those fools.

    9. Re:Baby Sign Language by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      Oh for crying out loud...I really need to use the preview. Somehow I left a strong unclosed. Sorry for that.

    10. Re:Baby Sign Language by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      There are countless early education experts who advocate deconstructing words, and individually naming objects to young children, but you've read one book from one author and now you're strongly refuting people who say otherwise. Amazing.

      I recommend Pinker to laymen, but I myself am a linguistics student who has read the wide variety of literature in the field supporting these arguments which Pinker summarises. Furthermore, "early education experts" are not linguists, so why should I care what they have to say about a field they hold no qualifications in?

    11. Re:Baby Sign Language by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      The Language Instinct is a summary for laymen of research done by linguists over the last 50 years that overwhelmingly supports certain ideas about language acquisition and language change. So, even if there is another popular science book that refutes it (in this case Sampson's Educating Eve , a shoddy work written by a crackpot and supporting a minority view), there are thousands of papers and monographs supporting the ideas in Pinker's book.

      Your son's learning to talk has nothing to do with your teaching him and is simply due to his natural ability to acquire language from the sounds around him as time goes by. And anecdotal evidence doesn't really count for anything, anyway.

    12. Re:Baby Sign Language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah don't talk to them at all, don't expose them to language and watch them miraculously one day learn to speak Hebrew

    13. Re:Baby Sign Language by Sique · · Score: 1

      With both my daughter and my son I never tried something like 'baby speak'. I just talked to them like I would to every other people. My daughter was talking in whole sentences shortly after her first birthday, and my son was talking whole sentences way before his second birthday. I know that this is just anecdotal evidence, but at least using normal language didn't disturb completely their ability to learn language.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    14. Re:Baby Sign Language by cagle_.25 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      You don't need to teach babies language, they will learn in on their own.

      Let's modify this statement slightly. "Babies will learn language on their own, so it's best to give them as much exposure as possible -- in other words, to interact with them regularly."

      Babies that (for whatever reason) are speech-delayed benefit greatly from being read to or talked to.

      --
      Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
    15. Re:Baby Sign Language by The+Snowman · · Score: 1

      I do this with my son and always have. I speak to him as though he is an adult. I may not use big words with him, but I don't baby-talk him, either. I hate it when other people talk like that, especially when the purposefully mispronounce words that he has trouble saying correctly. Rather than reinforcing the correct way to say things, they continue to teach bad habits. His grandmother (my in-law) refuses to say "grandma" correctly -- it is "gammaw". What does this teach my son? answer -- to speak like a moron.

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    16. Re:Baby Sign Language by Keebler71 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I fully agree. We began with some baby signs at about six months but only a few critical words (milk, more, food, finished, etc...) Nothing happened at all for months, then one day he started signing. It was a huge relief because up until that point, he could be a very frustrated baby (usually around meals) and we never knew if he wanted more or if he was done. Once he started signing, his frustration greatly diminished. His speach was maybe a few months later than some of his friends, but then it exploded and is way, way beyond his age level.

      Interestingly, although we stopped signing with him once he started using words, he still occassionally uses the signs for "more" and "finished" as he speaks those words (he is now 3.5 yrs old). He only does this when he really is trying to emphasize his point and seems to be doing it subconciously (if you ask him what the sign means out of context he doesn't know).

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    17. Re:Baby Sign Language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I use slow pronunciation and make it a point to strongly enunciate sounds so that my son picks up the right way to say something

      This is going to become more of an issue as our society becomes less literate (i.e. reading and writing) and more verbal. A friend of mine who has never read anything unless he had to mispronounces a lot of words, apparently because he didn't hear them clearly when he learned them, and has never seen them in print. So he "admittaly" gets "fustrated" when people don't understand him.

    18. Re:Baby Sign Language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know what the hell this "research" is about. Just spend some time with kids. I know plently 10 months that clearly use language in complex ways.

      I don't think it did any special for your daughter. Girls in general learn that stuff pretty fast. My own daughter was walking at 8 months and clearly using verbal language (almost sentences in fact) by 10 months. She was reading and writing at 2. By 5 she could spell words that I couldn't even spell. She almost had a magical ability to spell words she had never even seen. It still baffles me. That isn't particularly exceptionional as I know a couple other kids (also girls) that had similar development patterns.

      Funny now as a teenager she's gotten lazy and thinks she can't even spell basic words... :)

    19. Re:Baby Sign Language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Don't hinge your entire argument on a single book. I'd wager there's at least one book that directly contradicts it."

      I don't know. Lots of people base their entire system of belief on a single book. ;-)

    20. Re:Baby Sign Language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We also did sign language for primatives like eat, sleep, and milk starting at six months. At ten months we saw a one word vocabulary of thirty words. We started keeping track of the word and counted 120 before her 1st birthday. She is now a little over two years old using complex sentences and is highly skilled at making demands and getting her point across.

    21. Re:Baby Sign Language by Pearson · · Score: 1

      Baby sign language is a great tool for helping you understand your child. Even after my sons started vocalizing, their pronounciation was sometimes just too poor to understand what they were saying. Adding the sign to the vocalization aided tremendously in learning what word he was trying to say. It takes a little bit of effort, but it's really worth it.

      For some reason, some people find the lack of immitation or response to their early attempts at teaching signs to their baby to be very frustrating. Yet they don't get any response to the verbal stream they throw at their children, either, and they keep doing that. They'll ask the baby questions, say the baby's answers; hold the whole conversation on their end alone, which teaches the baby speach patterns as well as words. But with signing, they try to do a vocabulary lesson, "water! Water! This is water! Oh, s/he's not responding! It must be too early; I'll just give up." /rolleyes

      Another point, is that American Sign Language is great, but babies have very little finger control early on, so you'll have to modify some signs, and don't worry about just making some up. As with verbal pronounciation, your child will likely not reproduce your sign exactly anyway. The important part is establishing a working system for communicating with him or her.

      --
      I...I'm attacking the darkness!
  4. The language instinct by CRCulver · · Score: 0, Redundant

    If anyone is interested in how infants learn language, I'd recommend Steven Pinker's The Language Instinct , which is an elegant presentation for laymen of the theories behind "universal grammar" and language change. I read it about a month ago and was blown away.

  5. Sign language works too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been using sign language to communicate with our baby and it worked for us to communicate around 7 months old. Specifically, signing eating and drinking were both used from 7 months up through 14 months (his current age). Of course now he can say "Bob the Builderderder" at 14 months so signing is becoming less useful ;-).

    1. Re:Sign language works too by Keyslapper · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My daughter was using sign language at 8 months, and by 9 months old, she was becoming a voracious inquisitor. If she saw something she didn't have a sign for, she asked (she made up her own signs for this interaction). If we didn't have a sign for it, she made up her own. By 10 months old, she knew around a dozen signs for colors alone, several dozen for toys and environmental objects and phenomena (hot, cold, pain, tree, rock, rainbow, rain, clouds, sun, moon, etc.), a dozen animals (at least!) and of course, the necessities (milk, juice, water, diaper change, food - cereal, fruit, etc) She also began making up signs on her own, sometimes without telling us until it was time to guess. That made things very interesting at times, but quite fun. By 14 months, she had well over 120 signs. And no, I don't think this is exceptional (though I do think my daughter is :), it's just a result of constant interaction without any pressure to advance faster than she wished.

      For each sign she knew, she certainly recognized the spoken word associated and could demonstrate on verbal interaction without the object being present. She just focused more on the meaning than on teaching her mouth to make the sounds come out right.

      So, I don't think the scientists are getting the whole picture when they restrict their research to actual verbal language. Studies have shown (both formal and informal, but don't ask me for the links - find them yourself if you're that interested) that children are intellectually capable of beginning their mastery of language much earlier than 10 months. The problem is that most people (scientists and non-scientists alike) forget that a physical inability to form words doesn't mean an intellectual inability to understand them.

      Personally, and I have no evidence to support this, anecdotal or otherwise, I think babies begin linking sound to meaning as soon as they can visually focus on their parents, and hear their voices. Voice has been suggested as a major factor in bonding between mother and child, and I think there was a study done about this some time ago. There's probably a lot more physiological detail here that I'm certainly not qualified to expand on, but right or wrong, that's my opinion for the time being.

      The only trick with sign language is in realizing that babies will use their mouths for getting food in and tasting things - which doesn't really require much oral dexterity, but they use their hands and fingers a lot more when pulling ears, noses, hair, etc. and when poking eyes and grabbing things to put into their mouths. They learn hand dexterity more quickly than they learn how to use their tongue - after all they can see what they're doing wrong with their hands and learn from it. Even so, they don't get signs as precise as an adult would, but they get them close enough for a parent - or anyone communicating with them regularly - to understand them perfectly. Some people have expressed concerns that using sign language will delay verbal language use, and this appears to be true in a small percentage of cases, but the only time I've ever seen it is when there were other issues with hearing that weren't caught early enough.

      After our experience with sign language the first time around, we enthusiastically recommend it to anyone and everyone we come across with a small infant (at least those that stand still long enough to listen), and we plan to introduce it even earlier with our next child, coming later this year.

    2. Re:Sign language works too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Word of caution there - we, too, taught sign to our first with great results. But when our second came along, we found him incredibly NOT interested in sign and only bothered to use a few. However, he started talking faster than his brother. Seems he just prefered to talk instead of sign. He prefered to try to make the verbal sound even when he knew the sign (and had used it before).

      So...try it, by all means. But be prepared if your child just doesn't want to. :-)

    3. Re:Sign language works too by jeffs72 · · Score: 1

      I have to second this. Our daughter was very easy to deal with as far as tantrums and so forth go and my wife and I attribute a lot of it to a lack of frustration with communication. If she wanted something or was interested in something, she had a method of expressing herself and it seemed to make her much happier. Signing seemed very intuitive for her to pickup and she learned very rapidly to sign for things she liked. She just turned 2 and has been able to do 5 word sentences already, so I don't think it's negatively impacted her verbal learning either.

      --
      This article has recently been linked from Slashdot. Please keep an eye on the page history for errors or vandalism.
    4. Re:Sign language works too by sonikbeach · · Score: 1
      "... most people (scientists and non-scientists alike) forget that a physical inability to form words doesn't mean an intellectual inability to understand them...." Or to think the thoughts that the words will eventually become.

      With my younger two kids, when each was somewhere around 1 1/2 - 2 1/2 years, I found an opportunity to ask, "You have lots to say but the words don't come, is that right?" Agreement. "That must be really hard to endure." Big, big agreement, mixed with apparent relief.

    5. Re:Sign language works too by Keyslapper · · Score: 1

      Excellent observation.

      If I hadn't already posted in this thread, I'd have to mod that one up as informative.

      That's not to say that young children and infants are all little geniuses that are squandered by the limitations of their little bodies, but it's clear when you watch many infants observing the world around them that they have thoughts and questions. The absence of language is the biggest barrier to overcome. Giving them some real interaction with a mode of communication they can muddle through more productively than the old "point and grunt" method is certainly a serious leg up in their development.

  6. I don't talk to my kid in baby talk by rk · · Score: 1

    And I won't have him using that sissy baby "OO" stuff, either. He'll start where his old man did, on IBM/360 systems, writing assembler on punch-cards writing drivers for DASD systems.

    And he'll like it if he knows what's good for him.

    1. Re:I don't talk to my kid in baby talk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      He'll start where his old man did, on IBM/360 systems, writing assembler on punch-cards writing drivers for DASD systems.

      I'm impressed that you're still fertile at your age. :)

    2. Re:I don't talk to my kid in baby talk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's only women that become infertile with age, foo! Besides that, most IBM mainframes ran in 360 compatibility mode well into the 80s.

  7. Not Surprising by pete-classic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't find this surprising at all. My friend's daughter started learning sign language before 10 months. At her first birthday she constructed a novel and meaningful sentence in sign. She, apparently, was tired and overstimulated and started telling people to "Please bye-bye."

    Anyway, at or about 10 months she could request several of her favorite foods, and was pretty disciplined about saying please and thank you! She could also identify a helicopter by its sound and give her variation on the sign for helicopter.

    -Peter

    1. Re:Not Surprising by linguizic · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's nothing! My unborn son can tap out on his mothers womb in morse code the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy from rote in Elvish (both kinds!). Now he's learning semaphore!

      --
      Does this sig remind you of Agatha Christie?
    2. Re:Not surprising by kaiidth · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I expect that 'Psychologist Kathy Hirsh-Pasek of Temple University' is definitely a male scientist :)

      You are right, though; reading TFA is bad form and could lead us all into terrible habits. If we start getting all hung up on details, anything could happen...

    3. Re:Not Surprising by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 1

      Pfft! My unborn son can do the same, but more efficiently, because his version is gzip-compressed.

    4. Re:Not Surprising by bjpirt · · Score: 3, Funny
      Now he's learning semaphore


      that's gotta hurt
    5. Re:Not surprising by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 1

      I think the difference is that it's now scientifically established. There are lots of "obvious" things that people "know" that turn out not to be so obvious when placed under rigorous examination.

    6. Re:Not Surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recall that in Meet the Fockers, Little Jack (played by the Pickren twins) does baby sign language. The extras in DVD of that movie mentioned that one of the basis for hiring the twins was that they already learned some baby sign language. Now, I don't know exactly how old they were when they were filming the movie, but it isn't too surprising to me, too, that 10 month-olds were able to associate words with objects.

    7. Re:Not Surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "At her first birthday she constructed a novel and meaningful sentence in sign. She, apparently, was tired and overstimulated and started telling people to "Please bye-bye.""

      The fact that you think "please bye-bye" is a novel and meaningful sentence cracked me up.

      Your kids threw out some signs and you interpreted them. That was much more about you. Stop acting like she wrote Crime and Punishment

    8. Re:Not Surprising by pete-classic · · Score: 1
      The fact that you think "please bye-bye" is a novel and meaningful sentence cracked me up.


      Yeah, it's pretty funny out of context. The point is that no one ever said that to her. She was able to express her emotional state using the sign she knew.

      Your kids threw out some signs and you interpreted them.


      As usual, AC, your reading comprehension skills are lacking. She isn't mine. The point wasn't "look how smart my (friend's) kid is!" The point was that the summary seemed to imply that 10 months olds understanding language is earth-shattering, and that I disagree.

      -Peter
    9. Re:Not Surprising by Christopher+Rogers · · Score: 1

      At her first birthday she constructed a novel...

      (Wow I haven't even constructed a novel...... oh...)

    10. Re:Not Surprising by jtorkbob · · Score: 1

      She could also identify a helicopter by its sound

      Now that's a talent. Rather like Calleigh Duquesne's ability to recognize firearms by sound.
      --
      AC: Only on slashdot... could the sentence "My hovercraft is full of eels." be moderated "+4, Insightful
    11. Re:Not Surprising by hawkfish · · Score: 1

      My wife is a speech therapist so we started signing to our kids pretty early. The joke is that our oldest's first word (signed) was not "Mommy" or "Daddy" but "cheese". Sort of humbling ;-)

      --
      You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
    12. Re:Not Surprising by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      Ha! That was one of my friend's daughter's first signs as well. She loves cheese.

      (Twists right palm against left palm.)

      -Peter

    13. Re:Not Surprising by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      Very nice.

      To be clear, I meant as opposed to by sight. Not sure she would know what the hell a 'coper is by sight.

      -Peter

    14. Re:Not Surprising by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 1

      Most parents who teach sign language to their infants have seen these language skills at a very early age.

      I think many parents miss this development in their child, which is a little sad. It's amazing to watch-- babies have incredible brains.

      It's a little frustrating when researchers are a little slow to recognize this, or dismiss these observations simply as 'prideful parents'. Granted, many parents think their child is a superbaby, but I know parents (and researchers!) who were looking at this sort of stuff in the 70s.

      Most babies make simple primal noises like "ma ma ma", "ba ba ba" or "da da da" starting at a few months. But somewhere between 5-8 months, these noises stop becoming "grunts" and start becoming "words". Certainly the babies continue to 'grunt', but some of those grunts start to have real meanings.

      We started teaching our son sign language when he was 6 months. At 7-8 months, he would make sounds like "ma ma ma" when mom walked into the room. By 9 months, he was signing "Milk", "Dog", "HOT!!!" and "More" numerous times every day, and used more then 20 signs sporatically. Eventually he learned 'da da' ;)

      By 12 months, he even would say & say two words together like "Ball Play", but I don't know if these were actual sentences or just two words that seemed right for the situation.

      I have three babies in my family, and I've watched them all develop from an early age. By 7 months, all three of them started making making a noise like "ma ma ma ma" consistantly when Mommie walked into the room.

      --
      "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    15. Re:Not Surprising by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 1

      Sort of humbling

      Well, think of it this way-- your baby didn't NEED to say 'mommie' or 'daddy'-- the baby probably did something else that got your attention, and you picked him/her up-- this happens dozens of times a day.

      Cheese, on the other hand, is a special request. How many cheese sticks can your kid eat in a day, really? ;)

      --
      "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    16. Re:Not Surprising by poopdeville · · Score: 1
      By 12 months, he even would say & say two words together like "Ball Play", but I don't know if these were actual sentences or just two words that seemed right for the situation.

      What's the difference?

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    17. Re:Not Surprising by gstoddart · · Score: 1
      I don't find this surprising at all. My friend's daughter started learning sign language before 10 months.

      I'm curious about this ... are people doing this because of disabilities their babies have, or is this a new view of communicating with babies I've just never heard of. (The latter is highly likely, I neither have, nor want kids, so I don't know much about them.)

      Have people just discovered infants are far more capable of communication than we've thought? I know they've proven other primates can communicate far more than we thought (not to compare your friends child to a monkey ;-)

      This thread is literally the first I've ever heard of baby signing. And "please, bye-bye" is just way too brilliant to be a fluke.

      It's actually fascinating from an anthropological perspective since this seems about a year earlier than we've been led to believe would otherwise be possible -- at least from my limited perspective.

      Cheers
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    18. Re:Not Surprising by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      She is regularly compared to a monkey by just about everyone that knows her ;-)

      Her verbal communication skills are at or above par for her age. (She's two now, and rarely signs anymore.) She doesn't have any disablities that we know of.

      I'm working from a sample of one, but it seems pretty clear to me that babies begin to develop the mental faculties of communication well before they develop the physiological capablity to speak.

      I'm pretty skeptical that this will have any long term impact. Honestly the psychological relief it gave her parents was worth it.

      -Peter

    19. Re:Not surprising by LordofEntropy · · Score: 1

      Precisely, there are plenty of people who will tell you that the sky is blue because of the ocean's reflection and that water drains in a direction based on which hemisphere it is located. Things that might seem to make sense at a first glance, but quickly fall apart once actual science(i.e. hypothesis then experiment) is applied.

      --
      Entropy just isn't what it used to be.
    20. Re:Not Surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I figured out the puzzle in your signature!! It reads: Alex.Solla@reed.edu, doesn't it? Now where's my free maths advice, private advertizer?

  8. Talking dogs by Otter · · Score: 1, Funny
    This isn't a normally a source of valuable scientific information, but -- I was watching America's Funniest Home Videos a few nights ago, and they had a long series of videos of dogs "talking" like parrots.

    I'd had no idea dogs could be trained to do that but since a) they had seven or eight of them and b) all the owners were teaching them to say the same thing ("Love you Mama"), it must be something people commonly know. Does everyone know this? A Google search mostly turns up page after page of links to videos on blocked or NSFW sites.

    1. Re:Talking dogs by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      My dog can say "cookie" and "pee pee," as well as nod his head for "yes."

    2. Re:Talking dogs by Aqws · · Score: 1

      Heres the googled links:
      Talking Dogs and talking cats

    3. Re:Talking dogs by Aqws · · Score: 1

      sorry about that: talking dogs and talking cats

  9. I'd say earlier than that by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 1

    My son is 6 months old and he certainly understands 'mama', you say that and he looks around for her. Don't know if he understands 'dada' or 'father dear' yet....

    We think he also understands 'baba' or 'bottle', as you say that and he expects food......

    1. Re:I'd say earlier than that by LiNKz · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if this is exactly WHY I had speech issues when I was younger, but I know that everybody that has been raised in my parents house has ended up with trouble speaking. My sister who is seven years still talks as if she was three. I'm not saying she uses "mama" for mom, but she has huge trouble with pronouncing words properly.

      Compooder is her version of Computer. She says water like "Wha Ter", because my mom tried to teach her it isn't waher. Three is free, etc.

      I assume it is caused from everybody speaking like a baby for far too long with us. Or something.

      --
      Proceed with Format (Y/N)? Y
    2. Re:I'd say earlier than that by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 1

      I've heard that too, and we really do try to talk 'adult' to the child as much as possible. Outside of 'mama' which isn't so bad, we really don't do it at all.... we say 'bottle' and he starts going 'babababababa' so 'baba' will also happen.....

    3. Re:I'd say earlier than that by stanmann · · Score: 1

      Baby's talking baby talk is a lack of consistent muscle control, Adults talking baby talk to babies is a lack of consistent mental control.

      IMO, Mama is an acceptable term, baba isn't.

      If you say bottle, and the baby goes bababababa, there's comunication. If he sees the bottle and goes bababababa there's comprehension. As his muscle control improves so will his enunciation.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
  10. yes... by BewireNomali · · Score: 1

    my niece was seven months old when she spoke her first words. Her first word was "This" and it was my fault. She always would point at an object she wanted. I'd go over to the object and say "this?" so many toys and bottles became known as "this". Her second word was "no" because most of the objects she wanted were not age appropriate. She took her first steps in her tenth month - and was running around autonomously by her first birthday. In fact, she helped cut the cake and hand out pieces. "No" became a real problem because she got to the point where she would unbuckle herself from the stroller and take off. Pigtails flying, we'd yell, "Come back!". She'd yell, "NO!!!!"

    --
    un burrito me trampeó.
    1. Re:yes... by SoCalChris · · Score: 1

      My son started talking at 6 months. By 8 months, he knew a few dozen words, and could use them. They were simple words, like "truck", "train", "ball", etc... By a year, he was making very basic sentences like "Hold me.", "Hi dada", etc.

      He's definately a smart kid, but I think what makes the most difference is that my wife stays home with him, and spends a lot of time reading to him, instead of sending him off to daycare every day. Now he's 3 and a half, and we can't shut him up.

    2. Re:yes... by PFI_Optix · · Score: 1

      He's definately a smart kid, but I think what makes the most difference is that my wife stays home with him, and spends a lot of time reading to him, instead of sending him off to daycare every day. Now he's 3 and a half, and we can't shut him up.

      Mine is just the opposite. When my wife stayed home with him, he didn't talk much. When she went back to work and we put him in day care, he came home chattering the first day. Being around a group of kids slightly older than him every day has been very good for him; he tries hard to be on their level in every way.

      Of course, ours is a very independent child. He wants to do everything for himself. He refused to be spoonfed, selects his own books and turns the pages himself when you read to him (usually on cue, too), and wants to walk everywhere. This kid started holding his bottles as soon as we had to give up breastfeeding in his second month.

      --
      120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
    3. Re:yes... by SeanDuggan · · Score: 1

      Her second word was "no" because most of the objects she wanted were not age appropriate .... "No" became a real problem because she got to the point where she would unbuckle herself from the stroller and take off. Pigtails flying, we'd yell, "Come back!". She'd yell, "NO!!!!"
      No is a particularly favorite word for kids around that age. Basically, realizing that they can say "no" is an important step in self-identity. They realize that while your parents may believe one thing, they can believe another. ^_^ Also, you generally get more attention for saying "no" than "yes" to a request, so that may factor in too.

      --
      This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
    4. Re:yes... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1
      Her first word was "This" and it was my fault. She always would point at an object she wanted.

      My son learnt to say "Truck" when he was about a year old. Unfortunately his T sounded more like an F.

      Well before then he knew how to ask for yoghurt (go-go!) and later pineapple pizza (apple pie!)

  11. No surprise there... by brian0918 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    William Sidis could read at 18 months, and taught himself Latin at 3, Greek at 4, and had written a treatise on anatomy at 5. He had written 4 books and knew 8 languages by age 8, and when he entered Harvard at 11, he was lecturing auditoriums of mathematicians.

    But surely it's better to watch Barney, Sesame Street, and Blue's Clues until you're at least 14, so as to grow up to become a well-rounded American.

    1. Re:No surprise there... by Acy+James+Stapp · · Score: 1

      I don't think a prodigy and one of the brightest minds of the century is a good example of a typical child.

      --
      -- Too lazy to get a lower UID.
    2. Re:No surprise there... by jheath314 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A bit off topic, but it's sort of sad to read where Sidis went from there...

      His academic career flamed out early, mostly due to his inability to cope with other people (students, administrators, etc.) who didn't match his stellar IQ. In an age when theories like quantum mechanics and relativity were turning the world upside down, he contributed surprisingly little of substance to any field of intellectual endeavor. Instead he withdrew into himself, becoming neurotically obsessed with, of all things, streetcar transfers. While unquestionably intelligent, his tremendous gifts were mostly wasted.

      When I was in university, I noticed that there were two types of students who did well: those who were very smart, and those who were not so bright, but worked very hard. While I often envied the first group, I always respected the second group more. When it comes to life outside the university, I'm willing to bet that, as a whole, the hard workers will end up doing better than the naturally gifted ones.

      --
      Procrastination Man strikes again!
    3. Re:No surprise there... by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      "I don't think a prodigy and one of the brightest minds of the century is a good example of a typical child."

      Yes, but is that more the fault of the parents of the prodigy or the parents of the typical child?

    4. Re:No surprise there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's two things insanely bright kids need to learn:
      1) How to socialize with other people. That's really hard when those on your same age just aren't providing any intellectual challenge and bore you with child's plays, and the adults aren't exactly going to invite you over for beers and talk about last frat party they were at.
      2) That there are problems way, way out of the scope of one man, no matter how insanely bright. If you're used to every problem being a breeze, you're usually not good at handling difficulties, or even just that you must work long and hard to achieve something.

      This gets rather personal so I'm ACing but I found the first to clearly be the most difficult. I was never rushed through classes though, but I was years ahead of them in certain subjects (at least 5 years in math) and aced all subjects with very little effort. At the time, I really wanted to move on to higher education.

      Looking back, that would have meant disconnecting from all those of the same age and I'm really not sure how that'd turn out. If I hadn't learned to cope with other people, I wouldn't have been sucessful in school, at university or at work. No, I think the hard working people are still working twice as hard as me to achieve the same.

      With that said, I don't feel I'm that successful at life, somehow I never managed to bond well with girls or with very many friends. While the basic interactions are there, I don't feel we're thinking on the same level at all. That, and an overly analytical mind is really great at analyzing fun, happiness, friendships and love until it is neither. Sometimes I wish my brain would just STFU and enjoy it.

    5. Re:No surprise there... by 4D6963 · · Score: 1
      When I was in university, I noticed that there were two types of students who did well: those who were very smart, and those who were not so bright, but worked very hard. While I often envied the first group, I always respected the second group more. When it comes to life outside the university, I'm willing to bet that, as a whole, the hard workers will end up doing better than the naturally gifted ones.

      I totally agree with you, while I'm not a genius, I was doing very good at school up to the 9th grade without doing anything, but later on, I couldn't go on to all the scientifical studies I wanted, just because, not being used to work hard, I couldn't follow. I also gave up after the first year of college.

      No need to say that the hard working people who were doing more averagily than me while when were ten didn't fail where I fail.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
  12. mildly interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many have children here? Raise your hands. From the usual demographic of Slashdot readers, it's a foregone conclusion that many here don't have a human girlfriend let alone human children (i.e. process threads do not count). So here is a quick lesson for you who have yet to become parents. Much like many of you can tell when a baby has pooped in its diaper by the smell, a mother can also discern hunger, sleepiness, or just plain non-sense crying by the type of crying. The problem is largely that even father may have a hard time initially figuring out the differences in crying. This is where the idea of language is important because a small and cohesive group can make up whatever words necessary to convey thoughts or needs, the triumph of language is allowing a sort of standardization which make communication easier. The idea that a baby can associate a word with an object at 10 months is nothing new for parents who have very eager and talkative babies. However, up to this point there was no solid research to back it up. Sign language is another demonstration of the fact that babies have the ability to at least associate a word with an object/thought/need.

    The major problem that slashdoters will have is differentiating between abstract thought which babies largely lack and rote learning.

    Lastly, these days humans are living longer but we are also artificially slowing down our children's progress toward development. In some homes (overseas) I've seen 4 year olds helping their mothers serve snacks to guests while in others (locally in America) not even a 14 year old will have the social tact to help his/her mother. Remember, in the olden days people were married at the onset of puberty (12-15 years of age) and became parents themselves not soon after. How many of you think the average American teen would make a good parent these days? Yup, I'm going off on a tangent but it's all tied together. Don't underestimate babies/children because they are capable of a lot.

  13. maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Babies can apparently hold their breath on cue when dipped underwater as young as 6 to 10 months. So, that leaves us with vexing question as to whether babies are capable of talking underwater.

  14. But... by Templar · · Score: 1

    My 10-month-old has a few words (or at least sounds), such as Ma for Mommy, Da for Daddy, and Baby when she sees herself in the mirror. (Yes, 2 syllables.)

    What I really need, though, is a way to get my 4-year-old to *stop* using words. Like when I saw her playing with a toy at the dinner table.

    Me: "Hey! What are you doing!?" Her: "I'm eating my damn dinner!"

    Yeah, she learned that from me too.

    1. Re:But... by M-G · · Score: 1

      Same here. We've have 'na' down for months which means 'no' plus dada for me, and just da for dog. These are consistent sounds, so there's definitely an association in her mind.

  15. 3 month say it's name by denisbergeron · · Score: 1

    It was a real surprise for me and my wife when at around 3 month old, my first son said his name! It was a only time, have to be there time. But he actually really said it's name with me and my wife has direct witness ! And not the less it's name are phonetically a little hard to prononce : Raphael !

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une Signature !
    1. Re:3 month say it's name by trazom28 · · Score: 1

      I'm not suprised.. when our second daughter was about.. 4-6 months old (don't specifically remember) she could say Mama, Dada, her sister's name, and would point when asked "where is" that person. She also would have "conversations" i.e. I'd say her name, she'd reply "daddy" she wasn't mimicing, she was playing and responding. Her sister was an early talker too.. at 2 years old, she started daycare, and the teachers were floord at how clearly she spoke. Kids are smarter than most people give credit for, or are willing to take the time to work with.

      --
      {} ------ When I think of a good sig, I'll put it here
    2. Re:3 month say it's name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My dog can say Ralph.

    3. Re:3 month say it's name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, my kid repeated 'hey' once when he was perhaps a month old. He did it very clearly, repeating after me saying it. Have a witness too. But, we haven't heard that since (he's now 14 months, and can say a few *other* words).

  16. The real issue at hand... by hadj · · Score: 1

    Capacity isn't the issue. We are all born with brains. What scientists are researching is to what extent can the development of communication skills be accelerated. We all know babies can learn a language or two just by observing and practically duplicating what they are hearing and seeing. The real matter at hand is how can we interact (read: train) with babies making them more conscious about their communication capability and thus help them develop that skill?

    1. Re:The real issue at hand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure can! You and I and everyone else here learned that way!

  17. Number of parents surprised by this: 0 by PFI_Optix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously, do these people have kids themselves?

    My son is 18 months. He's got a vocabulary somewhere around 50 words and strings together short sentences. "I got out" was the first sentence we heard him say, maybe two months ago.

    At 10 months, he had actually named his two favorite toys (Gah and Meh) and would look up if you said "light". If you said "tractor" he would want to go outside, because that's where the tractor is at his grandfather's house. He wasn't talking then (he barely is now) but it was clear that he understood words.

    --
    120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
  18. This is news? by TheGreatGraySkwid · · Score: 1

    According to numerous accounts I was speaking many words at 10 months, and complete sentences at 12. I also knew most of my alphabet by two years, and could "read" from the newspaper (sounding words out) at 4.

    Of course, the "interestingness" qualification mentioned above was clearly in effect, as my first word was (I shit you not) "titty."

    What can I say...some things in your life stick with you.

    --
    The Humblest Mollusk on the Net
    1. Re:This is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, what happened to you between the ages of 10 months and 12 years?

      Bit of a long time between speaking words and whole sentences, don't you think?

  19. Sign language by RyoShin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My mother is a doula (works with women in more of a supportive mental sense than a medical sense during pregancy, childbirth, and afterwards) who is doing a class on sign language for mothers to be or recent mothers.

    According to her (with about 15 years of experience under her belt as a doula, and "speaks" fluent sign language), babies can learn basic sign language before they can talk, and that teaching them sign language will enhance their mental capabilities (speak earlier, read earlier, higher IQ). She's listed off studies to back this, though I've never checked into them myself.

    However, I don't doubt it. After all, we can teach monkeys to communicate via sign language. While certainly not dumb animals, they don't have the mental capabilities of humans (do monkeys have soap operas? There you go), so it shouldn't come as a surprise that we can teach humans sign language at an early age.

    1. Re:Sign language by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 1
      monkeys . . . don't have the mental capabilities of humans (do monkeys have soap operas? There you go)

      I would consider that a sign that monkeys are more intelligent than humans.

    2. Re:Sign language by slashjames · · Score: 1
      do monkeys have soap operas?


      I guess that means monkeys are more intelligent than humans?
    3. Re:Sign language by PapalMonkey · · Score: 1

      This is absolutely true.

      My two boys have watched Signing Time, a series of Sign-Language videos for children, since they were six months old. They pick it up faster than you'd think, and the benefit is enormous. Having your eight month old crawl up to you and sign "Sleep" when they're ready for bed, or "Milk" when they're hungry is incredibly useful.

    4. Re:Sign language by jcostantino · · Score: 1

      My wife (who works w/ developmentally disabled people) tells me that signing can actually degrade verbal skills because it reduces the need to speak. I don't know about that personally but it makes sense in theory.

      --
      Reviews with a twist! http://www.sardonicbastard.com
    5. Re:Sign language by Rifter13 · · Score: 1

      Our daughter has been signing since before she was 12 months old. We have not really taught her much. She knows eat, drink, milk, more, and cookie. (You would be amazed how fast they pick up a sign, for something they REALLY like... like cookie) :-) We have a couple of baby sign type DVDs... but don't use them often. Probably should. She also says several words, now... though, she has not really put words to the signs yet.

    6. Re:Sign language by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      When sign language is used the majority of time versus speaking, that would make sense.

      However, here sign language would be used in conjunction with words (most likely,) so the babies would pick up the sign language first and associate the words later; eventually, you'd switch over to speaking entirely, except when quiet is needed, and then you might switch to short sign language phrases.

      Kind of like a person who walks crawls for a bit; you just crawl for a bit and you still walk just as well. I imagine if you started crawling all the time, your walking might be impaired.

    7. Re:Sign language by camryl · · Score: 1

      I agree with RyoShin. Bilingual households produce bilingual babies, regardless of whether one of those languages is sign. Furthermore, consider that if your baby is hearing-impaired, s/he may not be diagnosed until her/his speech skills have noticeably lagged behind the average. If you wait to begin teaching sign language until after diagnosis, s/he will miss out on valuable language development time.

      --
      camryl
  20. No kidding by grasshoppa · · Score: 2, Informative

    As a parent myself, I know my little one knew what I was telling her before she was a year old. She was an early walker, so after I would change her, I would give her the wrapped up diaper and tell her to throw it away.

    A complex sentance, loaded with stuff she'd have to figure out on her own, and she did just fine.

    So, from the parents of the world, let me just say, "no shit".

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  21. Not surprising by pubjames · · Score: 1


    I imagine that this report was done by a male scientist who spends all his day in the lab, meanwhile his wife is at home spending all day with the children.

    He comes home at 7pm one evening: "Darling I've made a wonderful discovery! Babies can learn words as young as ten months! Isn't that wonderful!" His wife looks at him distainfully and says: "Your son said his first word at eight months." ... "Did he? Oh!"

    As a father of two I don't find this surprising at all. In fact, if these scientists has just bothered to ask a group of mothers they would have found this out in five minutes.

  22. Is not the kids its the parents by metoc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I grew up in a medium sized family with lots of brothers, a sister, cousins, nieces and nephews so dealing with kids is normal. Unfortunately as an adult I am always amazed at how clueless many of my peers are when it comes to being parents. I have co-workers who have no idea that most children talk early if their parents encourage them to communicate, or learn to crawl earlier if you play tug-of-war, or walk if you support them by letting them hold you fingers. Watching my 12 month olds outclass 18 months olds is priceless. Its not the kids who are behind, it is the parents.

    1. Re:Is not the kids its the parents by jcostantino · · Score: 1
      I agree, you only get out what you put in when it comes to kids. Of course, that goes for everything else as well. Our 1 year old daughter has been identifying things since 6 months old. She knows what the ceiling fan is, the sounds of airplanes, the moon, etc... She's been speaking her labels for things since 9-10 months old and can identify dogs, cats, cows, babies, etc...

      She's funny with certain things, too. She LOVES phones and remote controls. I tried to give her an old remote that we weren't using and she INSISTED on the universal remote we were using at the time. Nothing else was acceptable because she wanted the one we were using. When that one got lost (don't ask, it's a small house) the other remote because the object of her desire.

      In spite of having to wake up at 6:30 in the morning when she does, I'm usually greeted with a "HI DADA!" so all the hard work pays off in the end.

      I don't know if it's "good" or "bad" but she LOVES those Baby Einstein DVDs. I can have 30 minutes of peace when she watches one from her play yard or we can interact and have fun watching it. For the past month or two she's been associating the clicks and beeps of the Media Center with a movie being played. If I'm rotting her brain with TV, at least it's educational.

      --
      Reviews with a twist! http://www.sardonicbastard.com
    2. Re:Is not the kids its the parents by ender- · · Score: 1

      She's funny with certain things, too. She LOVES phones and remote controls. I tried to give her an old remote that we weren't using and she INSISTED on the universal remote we were using at the time. Nothing else was acceptable because she wanted the one we were using.

      I think this is fairly normal. I haven't met a baby that didn't love remote controls, and they all want very much to be involved with whatever you are doing. My baby wants the remote we're using, and ignores the other remotes. She absolutely LOVES typing on the keyboard. I tried to give her her own keyboard. She wants nothing to do with it, but man she will work beyond the limits of her abilities to reach the keyboard I'm typing on!

      Her favorite TV show is Jeopardy. Ever since she was about 5 months old, as soon as she hears the theme song, she will instantly drop whatever she is doing and yank her head towards the TV [much to the dismay of my wife's breast]. I figure it's because every day when we watch the show, we are both talking to the TV [giving answers]. She wants to be involved in something that we are so frequently interacting with.

      I haven't figured out one thing though. She finally started crawling this week [I think her brain is progressing faster than her motor skills], and she constantly makes a bee-line for the PS2, which is currently on the bottom shelf of our stereo rack [not for long]. We don't use it very often so it has nothing to do with seeing us use it.

  23. How come this is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a gifted person, I could read and write when i was 1 1/2 years old. And I'm sure I'm not the only one.

  24. How old are they when they *stop* speaking words? by edremy · · Score: 1
    I can't get my 4-year-old to shut up, ever. High volume monologues, singing, questions and so forth every single minute he's awake. Please, please tell me we might get the sullen teenager stage early.

    As far as the article, uh duh. Said four year old knew a number of words by 10 months- Mama, Dada, Adah (Adam, his name) My current toddler is slower, but he certainly knew Mama and Dada well before a year. At 14 months, his favorite word is Uh-oh. Not a favorite of ours, since he uses it appropriately...

    --
    "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
  25. Learning words by phorm · · Score: 1

    Well the article title does say "learning words," so this would be more along the lines of learning to pronounce (in an understandable manner) a word and/or possibly associate that word with a particular object, action, etc.

    Moreover, young children like to repeat the things they hear, so even at this young age you should probably put 'em in another room next time you have to devirus a $#@)($*! computer in your office :-)

  26. sig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ANYONE who claims more than months or even weeks uptime in XP isn't applying patches!

    Au contraire, there was one month late last year where the monthly patch drop didn't require a reboot. So you could have run your XP for two months straight, fully patched.

    But I reboot mine weekly anyway.

  27. Baby Signs by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

    If you think babies can't learn language before 1, you should check out Baby Signs. Babies can learn simple sign language as early as 8 months. Just because they don't have the necessary muscle control to speak, doesn't mean they don't understand language.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  28. 10 months is too late by cagle_.25 · · Score: 1

    My daughter was using words reliably at 7 months. Her first? "Ki-ka", referring to the neighbor's cat. It was a consistent pattern of usage, too. "Da-da" was next, and eventually "Ma-ma."

    --
    Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
  29. A boring latch?!?! by pclminion · · Score: 1
    Who said latches were boring? My mom likes to tell the story of how I was 6 months old, sitting in a crib, and I'd love to look at the hinges on my bedroom door as the door opened and closed. I guess I was trying to figure out how they worked.

    If hinges are that fascinating, imagine how incredible the infantile study of LATCHES must be!!

    1. Re:A boring latch?!?! by linuxwrangler · · Score: 1

      I was older than 6 months but my parents had bought me a tool set. They had also installed one of those old expanding gates to block off the door to where my mother was doing some sewing since I had discovered the pedal and liked playing race-car with it which did not please my mother.

      Anyway, my parents thought I'd scream in protest about being blocked from the room but I was, instead, quiet and content. Warning: when kids are quiet, be afraid. The silence came to an end when the gate crashed down. I had been cheerfully removing all the screws that held it together.

      Back on topic...my daughter is 19 months old and picking up words like a sponge. Every day when I get home she surprises me with new additions to her vocabulary. Long ago it became clear that she understands quite a bit of language even when she can't form certain words or complete sentences. By understand language I don't mean just knowing a couple words - I mean being able to follow directions like "Please go to daddy's dresser and bring him a shirt and some socks." or "Grab your bib and take it to mommy in the kitchen."

      Oh, and latches are fascinating - my daughter always makes sure to close the latch on the child-gate when we are leaving and she crawls under her high-chair and locks all the wheels. She is also quite busy trying to figure out the child-proofing and is starting to open doors. I guess it's time for more child-proofing...

      --

      ~~~~~~~
      "You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
  30. I have news for you by GuloGulo · · Score: 2, Informative

    Many linguists disagree with Pinker, and he is by no means in the majority with his suppositions.

    I've read your posts. You seem to have been convinced by a very good writer that he has the inside track on the truth.

    However, to give you some perspective, Noam Chomsky disagrees with him. He's not the only one.

    http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~mnkylab/publications/l anguagespeech/EvolLangFac_Cognition.pdf

    Pinker did the same thing to you that he does to so many others. He convinced you with flowery porse that disguised the lack of empirical support for his idea of "evolutionary psychology".

    Pinker isn't in the majority. How you could be a linguistics student and believe this is beyond me.

    --
    "The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
  31. I agree. My son has spoken. by Wokan · · Score: 1, Informative

    I agree. My wife has been teaching out son sign language and he spoke a complete sentence before he was 8 months old. (It was "I want my mommy" while I was trying to feed him breakfast, much to my chagrin.) We normally ask him about a particular toy or person during playtime and most (80%+) of the time he does identify the correct item or person. (He has 3 siblings and 2 parents to pick from, so random looks would only make him right about 20% of the time.)

    And now I'll probably get modded down as some kind of Slashdot infiltrating imposter for claiming to be married and having children. C'est la vie.

  32. They can link concepts too, duh by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    Kids MUCH younger than that can certainly link concepts to phonemes, why not object?

    I mean, tell a 6 month old "no", even in a rising tone (non-negatively inflected, in english) and they get the concept. How hard is it to believe that they can tie concept-object? Seems logical to me.

    Although I have to say I know a lot of adults that could use a refresher course.

    --
    -Styopa
  33. Reductive. by Eric+S.+Smith · · Score: 1
    Your son's learning to talk has nothing to do with your teaching him [...]

    Don't be ridiculous. Of course the teaching has an influence -- you've gone on to say that the child's learning is based on his exposure to the language in his environment, and obviously the teaching forms a part of that environment.

    Unless, of course, you're thinking that parental influence magically won't count because of its insufficient academic rarification. "The naïve 'goo-goo' approach of the non-specialist (Foonly 78, inter alia)..."

    And anecdotal evidence doesn't really count for anything, anyway.

    Yeah, I heard that, once.

  34. Re:How old are they when they *stop* speaking word by gatkinso · · Score: 1

    The old saying goes, "You spend a year trying to get them to talk... and the next 17 trying to get them to stop."

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  35. Troubles of Gifted People by SeanDuggan · · Score: 3, Interesting
    When I was in university, I noticed that there were two types of students who did well: those who were very smart, and those who were not so bright, but worked very hard. While I often envied the first group, I always respected the second group more. When it comes to life outside the university, I'm willing to bet that, as a whole, the hard workers will end up doing better than the naturally gifted ones.
    The naturally gifted people can have a harder time making the transition than the hard workers, but it's not unsurmountable. Mainly, I've noticed that the gifted often have trouble figuring out what they want to do. (When my brother took the ACTs, he scored 33-35 on every section and the area where it recommended areas of study translated those even results to "You have no particular talent in any area.") Often, they're the ones who spend years in an undeclared major, or switch frequently. Or, more sadly, they lock themselves in for four years of a degree, then realize it wasn't what they wanted.

    The other big problem for gifted people is adjusting to difficulty. You can see this some with bright kids who go to college, realizing that they've gone from being the big fish in a small pond to being a midsize fish in an even bigger pond. And then, there are some who still breeze through college without effort. When they're confronted with a situation which requires them to buckle down, they may not find they have the skills for it whether it's holding down their job or maintaining a marriage.

    My feeling is that what's important for bright kids, at any level, is to keep learning no matter how hard the teachers work to prevent it, and to never settle for just coasting by when you know you can do better.

    --
    This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
    1. Re:Troubles of Gifted People by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      "Or, more sadly, they lock themselves in for four years of a degree, then realize it wasn't what they wanted."

      Alright, you've identified my situation exactly. Now, what the hell do I do about it?!

  36. Baby Sign by SeanDuggan · · Score: 1

    I don't find this surprising at all. My friend's daughter started learning sign language before 10 months. At her first birthday she constructed a novel and meaningful sentence in sign. She, apparently, was tired and overstimulated and started telling people to "Please bye-bye."
    As I understand it, a lot of this is that the motor control required for basic sign is simpler than the finer motor control of vocalization and therefore the child can participate in language at a much earlier age. At one point Baby Sign was well on its way to becoming the next flashcards, although I don't know how far it's progressed since.

    --
    This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
  37. Let me tell you about MY daughter... blah blah by LightningBolt! · · Score: 1

    As a fetus, my daughter recited a proof of Riehmann's hypothesis as I listened through a stethoscope.

    --
    Old people fall. Young people spring. Rich people summer and winter.
  38. 10 months?! Try 5... by BrainBarker · · Score: 1

    10 months seems a bit conservative. Our daughter learned to recognize the word "Kitty" at about 5 1/2 months. We have 2 cats, and she laughs whenever she sees them as if they were the next Penn and Teller. If one of the cats was around, but not yet noticed, we could just ask her "Where's the Kitty?", and she would stop whatever she was doing, and look around the entire room until she found them. 100% repeatable by 6 months.

    Again, no surprise to parents, but kids are much more capable than even the so-called experts suppose.

    - Brain.

    --
    "Dance like it hurts. Love like you need money. Work when people are watching." - Dogbert.
  39. they name what they see, not what you point by chocolateeater · · Score: 1

    I think the most interesting finding was that 10 mos olds link names to what THEY are looking at, not what you are pointing at.

  40. Gee this is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You fucking think? My god. Even I said my first words at around 10 months and I'm a complete moron.

    Tell us something we don't know.

    Next up.. Old dogs CAN learn new tricks? pfft.

  41. Even a PocketPC can link words and actions by Expert+Determination · · Score: 1

    A 10 month old baby can reach out for objects and pick them up using accurate finger motions, feed itself, perform the balancing act required to sit up, respond to its name, turn towards a sound and can do all kinds of other things. Babies can peform feats of visual processing that blow away the cleverest image processing software. So why is it news that a baby can recognise some words at 10 months, something that even a PocketPC can do?

    --
    "The White House is not an intelligence-gathering agency," -- Scott McClellan, Whitehouse spokesman.
  42. Speaking as a Master... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...in a Dom/Sub relationship. I find it highly disturbing and deranged that we are talking about 10 month old "masters". The D/S lifestyle, while quite a lot of fun is hardly something for people below the age of 21 (YEARS) to engage in.

    1. Re:Speaking as a Master... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's ok for a 10 month-old to dom. It's entirely NOT ok for a 10 month-old to sub.

  43. My kid read at 10 months! by pcraven · · Score: 1

    Well, not really. But early on, we could name one of her books and she could pull it off the shelf. She recognized by colors and patterns or something. You could also recite part of the book and she'd pull the right one.

    We could get some gullible people to think she was reading the book title to pick them out. Great party trick.

  44. Absolute agreement... by Otto · · Score: 1

    I was kind of shocked a while back when I visited my aunt and discovered that one of my cousins was three but unable to read. Well, actually what I was shocked about was their total lack of desire to teach the child. I fully credit my own dad with teaching me to read before I turned two by the simple expedient of sitting me on his lap and reading to me while pointing to words. After a few months I appearantly worked it out, because I have no memory of ever not being able to read. My earliest memory is of sitting at the living room table, reading a book (and knowing not to color it up), while Sesame Street played on the TV. I was about 2.5 years old, and according to them, had been reading for almost a year by that point.

    Any parents out there: The biggest favor you can ever do for you kid is to teach them to read early. Not only will this improve their speech, it will get them into the habit of reading, which means that they will learn much, much faster as you won't have to tell them every little thing. It will also make them annoyingly good at Trivial Pursuit, which is always an invaluable skill. :)

    "Every book is a children's book if the kid can read!" - Mitch Hedberg

    --
    - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
    1. Re:Absolute agreement... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It will also make them annoyingly good at Trivial Pursuit, which is always an invaluable skill."

      That's so true! My parents (both teachers) taught me how to read at a young age. I have memories of being somewhere between 8 and 10, playing trivial pursuit, and sometimes beating my mom (there may have been some handicap of which I was unaware). These days, whenever friends play trivial pursuit, or games of that nature, it's either too hard for them, or they use the "junior" pack. It gets a little boring sometimes.

      It's extremely important to teach kids how to learn/read/communicate at a young age.

  45. 6 months by hopethisnickisnottak · · Score: 1

    My girlfriend's parents keep telling me how she was speaking complete sentences like 'Mommy and daddy come here,' 'Uncle go away,' etc at the age of 6 months only. And sometimes I feel she hasn't stopped since! What? No sweetheart, I was just *NO CARRIER*

    --
    -Shaunak
  46. My kid talked early by SiliconEntity · · Score: 1

    My son Jason started talking at about nine months and was using complete sentences by a year. At his one year checkup, we told the pediatrician that Jason was talking already. The pediatrician pointed to one of the pictures decorating his office. "What's that, Jason?" he asked. Jason said, "That... is... a... picture... of... a... bird... on... wall." (Jason spoke very slowly and haltingly, with difficulty, like he was thinking hard about each word.) The doctor was amazed, he said he had never heard a child answer like that at that age. He said he thought Jason might say "bird". In fact, he said he would almost have wondered if we had taught Jason to parrot that sentence except that he made one grammatical error.

    Jason is now in grad school, got 1600 on his SATs and graduated from Caltech. He's a bright kid. I'm sure there are many kids who are talking well before a year old, and using complete sentences as Jason did at a year.

    1. Re:My kid talked early by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 1

      Yes, interestingly, most kids start with correct grammer, then when they are more developed, they start making grammer mistakes. In the begining, they are just parroting sentences they have heard, but after they've progressed, they are making up sentences of their own, and start the make mistakes.

      --
      All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
  47. Some of us do, earlier than that. by Lord+Kano · · Score: 0

    I do not remember this, but I was told by my mother and several other relatives; I was able to talk before I could walk. I was 8 months old and able to speak in complete sentences. I would ask my mother to carry me and tell her when I was hungry.

    One person does not prove the case, but I'm sure that many others here have similar experiences.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  48. No news to me... by Kyrene · · Score: 1
    According to my parents, I said my first word ("Mama") at 6 months, and could carry on talk in full sentences and have conversations when I was about 12 months old.

    Either I'm a freak, or this study hasn't been around children enough--or at all.

    --
    Do not disturb. Already disturbed. http://www.teaaddictedgeek.com
  49. May I be the first to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Breast!

  50. I could have told you this in 99 when my son was a 10-month old. I wish I thought to publish a paper this. I hope no federal money was used on this. It's like the $200 haircut except even more useless. On the plus side, a rigorous scientific method is good so perhaps psychology may one day evolve into a science.

    --
    brandelf -t FreeBSD /brain
  51. So if you want your child to say DADDY first.. by SacredNaCl · · Score: 1

    You should probably dye your hair bright red colors and be really interesting? :) I'll keep it in mind if I ever have another one. I don't think my daughter said anything for 14 months that was more than normal cooing, crying, and depriving us of lots of sleep. Her first word was: "Kitty!". My sisters kid is 8 months old and says "Hi!". So I don't doubt that some kids are quite capable of speaking very early. It probably helped that when her dad sees her, or anyone for that matter, the first word they say is "Hi!!".

    Salt

    --
    Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.
  52. Degree Lock-in by SeanDuggan · · Score: 1

    Alright, you've identified my situation exactly. Now, what the hell do I do about it?!
    Honestly, I don't really know. I know some people who slogged their way through a few years of a job in their field so as to pay off college loan debt and raise enough capital to make another try at school. My brother took the route of moonlighting in a job that he does enjoy (bartending). I do wish you the best of luck though.

    --
    This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
  53. unusual by elenaran · · Score: 1

    My brother was amazingly able to speak sentences at 9 months, but then couldn't walk until he was nearly 2. He didn't need to! He would just sit on the floor and give commands to my mom. "Bring me that." "Take me over there."

  54. News Flash: Babies learn at different rates! by SeaDuck79 · · Score: 1

    Boy, our tax dollars at work. Put a bunch of moms in a room and they could have told you what this guy did. The funny thing is that it really makes no difference in forecasting how a child will turn out. My son was walking at 10 months, which I thought meant he had good physical ability. Nope - he hates sports. He just hated crawling at the time. He didn't talk more than one word at a time until he was almost 2, at which time he started speaking complete sentences. He'll start college next fall at the age of 15. Go figure...