Betty Tresya Maylianti. N (0743042005)

“Analyze Baby Talk by Using Balinese Language” (SLA Assignment) By : Betty Tresya Maylianti. N 0743042005 Lecturer: Drs. Heri Yufrizal, M.A., Ph.D ENGLISH EDUCATION LANGUAGE AND ART DEPARTMENT TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY UNIVERSITY OF LAMPUNG BANDAR LAMPUNG 2010 “BABY TALK” The Definition of Baby Talk Baby talk, also referred to as caretaker speech, infant-directed speech (IDS) or child-directed speech (CDS) and informally as "motherese", "parentese", "mommy talk", or "daddy talk" is a nonstandard form of speech used by adults in talking to toddlers and infants. It is usually delivered with a "cooing" pattern of intonation different from that of normal adult speech: high in pitch, with many glissando variations that are more pronounced than those of normal speech. Baby talk is also characterized by the shortening and simplifying of words. Baby talk is similar to what is used by people when talking to their pets (pet-directed speech), and between adults as a form of affection, intimacy, bullying or condescension. Baby talk is a long-established and universally understood traditional term. Motherese and parentese are more precise terms than baby talk, and perhaps more amenable to computer searches, but are not the terms of choice among child development professionals (and by critics of gender stereotyping with respect to the term motherese) because all caregivers, not only parents, use distinct speech patterns and vocabulary when talking to young children. Motherese can also refer to English spoken in a higher, gentler manner, which is otherwise correct English, as opposed to the non-standard, shortened word forms. Child-directed speech or CDS is the term preferred by researchers, psychologists and child development professionals. Caregiver language is also sometimes used. The research on child language acquisition has examined from a variety of perspectives the language that infants produce. If, however, we assume that infants do not learn language in a vacuum, an examination of the infant_s linguistic environment seems logical and appropriate. In a different but related area of study, second language acquisition (SLA) research, a great deal of work has focused on the input to which learners are exposed for comprehensive and insightful discussions of issues regarding input). The implication of this vein of SLA research is that the input to which second language learners are exposed is a very important component in determining the output that they produce in the target language. Nevertheless, this specific area of L1 research, the linguistic input directed at infants by their parents, has not been examined from the perspective of what language functions it may contain and how those functions may affect L1 acquisition. Baby Sign Language is all about using simple gestures with your hearing child to allow you to communicate long before they have mastered the intricacies of speech. Baby Talk was set up in order to provide parents Baby Sign Language resources and support. Baby Talk, or Baby Sign Language, can be more clearly defined as teaching the symbols of sign language as opposed to the structure of New Zealand Sign Language. It can be best described as being a stepping stone for language - in the same way that crawling is to walking. Babies naturally resort to using their body language, facial expressions, noises, cries and gestures in order to communicate with you. Baby Sign Language is just an extension on what your baby can already do. By introducing a few simple signs, your baby will be able to tell you what she or he is thinking about or needing. In summary, Baby Sign Language fills the communication gap until your baby has mastered spoken language. Personality data Parents name               : Father            : Nyoman  Subagia Children’s name                                  :Wayan Sanjaya, 3 years old Family background                             : Balinese Setting : 1. Time          : morning   2. Place          : at home Wayan and his father is talking about wayan’s activity in that day. Bapak              : meme luas ije ? (ibu pergi kemana?) Wayan             : uas ke walung pak. (pergi ke warung pak) Bapak              : ajak nyen?(sama siapa?) Wayan             : mbok.(kakak perempuan) Bapak              :kar meli ape? (mau beli ape?) Wayan             : li ukut(mau beli sayur) Bapak              : be uli tuni luas ke warung ne? (sudah dari tadi pergi kewarungnya?) Wayan             : ube pak (sudah pak) Bapak              : Wayan be kayeh ape konden? (wayan sudah mandi apa belum?) Wayan             : nden  (belum) Bapak              : wayan kar mandus iyeh anget ape iyeh dingin?(wayan mau mandi air anget apa air dingin?) Wayan             : yeh anget (air hangat) Bapak              : nyen ane ngangetang iyehe (siapa yang ngangetin airnya) Wayan             : meme ane nagangetang (tadi ibu yang ngangetin airnya) Bapak              : yan nden yen meme be teke orang ken bapak nah? (nanti kalau ibu sudah datang bilang sama bapak ya?) Wayan             : nah pak (iya pak) Bapak              : wayan nden yen be suud kayeh langsung medaar nah? (wayan nanti kau sudah mandi langsung makan ya?) Wayan             : nah pak, (iya pak) Bapak              : nah wayan liunang medaar nah pang enggal gede? (iya wayan banyakin makan ya biar cepat besar?) Wayan             : nah pak, (iya pak,) Bapak              : wayan yen be gede kar dadi ape? (wayan kalau sudah besar mau jadi apa) Wayan             : dadi doktel pak (jadi dokter pak) Bapak              : nah keto be mare panak bapak ane paling bagus (iya begitu baru anak bapak yang paling cakep) Wayan             : ae pak (iya pak) Bapak              : bapak kar luwas megae malu nah (bapak mau pergi kerja dulu ya) Wayan             : nah pak (iya pak) The results of the data analysis show that while the parents of the subject were seen to use roughly equal amounts of language with the child, the distribution of language functions used by the mother was importantly different from that used by the father; therefore, it is suggested that this difference in CDS aids the language development of the infant by providing more interactive negotiation, which is argued to be the crucial factor in language development. Superficially, this kind of language interaction, which is replicated daily by parents and their children around the world, seems unremarkable, even meaningless. However, it is anything but meaningless for it contains utterances which urge this child into action, question him, and confirm things for him, all of which are rather complex concepts. Parents use language to help reveal the world to their children. However, infants are not born with adult-like language competency with which they can comprehend the meaning of the language their parents direct at them. So, where, one may logically ask, do they get that ability? Though it is likely that children are born with some sort of innate capacity for language acquisition (the nature of which is only theorized at present) which might play some role in the language learning process, we know that normal infants successfully manage to acquire the language(s) of their environment. Exactly how infants become such skilled manipulators of a communication tool as complex and nuanced as language, and to do it within a relatively short time frame, still remains a fascinating riddle without a completely satisfying solution. The infant begins with the ability to articulate all human speech sounds, then loses those that do not occur in the linguistic environment. As children acquire new words during the one word stage, they typically also acquire expanded capacities to express themselves. There is considerable controversy over the degree to which children’s early meanings and the means for expressing them derive directly from input. For example, Ninio (1992) demonstrates that over 90 percent of 18-month-old_s single word utterances are used to express the same communicative intents as the single word utterances of the mothers addressing them, and furthermore that the children typically selected the most frequent form used by the mothers to express any particular speech act. She argues that this is possible because the children have an adult like system for analyzing communicative intent, but rely on predictable form function mappings in the input when seeking ways of expressing those intents. Barrett et al. (1991) agree that initial word uses are closely tied to maternal use, but argue that subsequent uses by the child are less predictable from high frequency maternal use. But there are some potential inconsistencies herein. If the child uses an adult-like system for analyzing intent, then the child must already have at its disposal, possibly through prior acquisition or an innate endowment, some type of system for the comprehension and interpretation of intent. Although these researchers have observed what children do, they do not explain how the input causes the children to acquire this apparent ability to understand intent and produce utterances which adults believe contain that intent. Certainly simple utterances usually associated with the expression of pain or pleasure noted in infants are typically construed by caregivers as carrying an appropriate (expected) intent/function of seeking assistance of some sort or giving confirmation of contentment. But when more complex requests or ideas are to be conveyed to these caregivers, there must be something in the input which has caused the child to know which sounds to utter to achieve his/her goals. Language acquisition normally takes place in the context of a rich interaction between the child and his parents. Several facets of that interaction seem to be important facilitators of language acquisition, and some of them may even be necessary for the acquisition of normal speech. They go on to say that since most of the early conversations between parent and child take place in familiar contexts and concern objects that are present in the situation, the child already has a good idea of what the parents_ sentences are about Mothers (and fathers too, although they have not been studied as much) tailor the length and complexity of their utterances to the linguistic ability of their children. Mother’s speech to one- and two-year olds consists of simple, grammatically correct, short sentences that refer to concrete objects and events. There are few references to the past and almost none to the future. Sentence intonation and stress are greatly exaggerated, and clear pauses appear between sentences. Furthermore, as many as 30 percent of the utterances are repetitions, partial or complete, of one of the earlier sentences of the mother to the child. . . . Other features of speech to children, such as the use of a higher-pitched voice and special baby-talk words containing simplified speech sounds, reflect the adult’s conception of the way children talk. The adult assumes that the young child finds certain sounds and words easier to pronounce than others. Finally, some properties of speech to children of different ages seem to depend on what the parent is trying to do with the language. With a child of one or two years the mother is often trying to manage and direct the child’s behavior, as well as provide him with the names of objects. How might the speech modifications made by adults assist the child in language learning? The restriction of early conversations to familiar settings and to objects and events that are present in those situations greatly simplifies the Child’s problem of learning the words for things. It limits the range of possible referents for any new word and provides the child with clues from the situation that might indicate what is being referred to, clues such as the speaker’s direction of gaze of the presence of a new object among familiar ones. Adults also use recurrent sentence frames in talking to children: ‘‘Look at the’’ ‘‘That’s a’’ or ‘‘Where’s the?’’ The word that enters into the frame is usually heavily stressed, so the child’s attention is drawn to it. Other features of mother-to-child speech may help the child to divide speech up into words, phrases, and sentences. Single-word utterances are quite frequent, and even multiword sentences are slowly enunciated and have distinct pauses between them. Mothers also tend to repeat isolated phrases and words following the complete utterance. The preceding clearly stresses the importance of this _rich_ interaction between parents and child and, at least in part, suggests that the nativist argument of _impoverished input,_ which says that the language input an infant receives during L1 acquisition is often ungrammatical and is insufficient to account for the infant’s rather dramatic language learning ability, may not be absolutely valid. Children acquire communicatively useful language from all that they are exposed to; that is, children learn the words that apply to objects and experiences that interest them, ignoring words for objects and experiences that are not salient to them. For example, although young children undoubtedly hear the articles a, and, and the quite frequently—these are the most frequent words used in English— they never include these among their early vocabulary; the words refer to nothing of interest to them. Children imitate selectively as a technique to keep conversation going, to practice unfamiliar forms of language, and to learn new forms; they do not mechanically imitate upon request. Despite learning theory accounts that foreground child imitation is a key mechanism of the language acquisition process, adult imitation of children may be more important than child imitation of adults in the language acquisition process. Only when children find imitation communicatively useful will they engage in it. Children negotiate meaning with their parents, with parents requesting clarification from them and vice versa. Communication allows for second, third, and fourth chances for success in optimal parent–child encounters. Social interactionism cites the interactive nature of parent-infant language as the reason why language acquisition happens. L1 acquisition is not viewed as simply stimulus- response conditioning no matter how complex one might envision the stimulus- response chains which behaviorist theory posits as responsible for learning. The communicative and creative nature of language, especially the language of children, cannot be accounted for by behaviorism, nor can the selective imitation of words children engage in. Such selective imitation implies a decision on the infant’s part as to what chunks of the language he/she is interested in and is willing to explore further. Similarly, the question arises of how the here and now nature of infant speech relates to nativism with its heavy reliance on innate capacities of language. Social interactionism sees parents and children negotiating meaning of the here and- now_—children selectively imitating portions of L1 input they deem interesting and parents expanding on that output to provide the child with additional and more finely tuned input. When their babies reach seven or eight months, parents realize that they are beginning to recognize words and then to understand them: the remarks that are directed to them must therefore prepare them for this. These remark become clearer and better articulated, utterances shorter and spoken more slowly, with longer pauses in between. Adults seek to make themselves understood. Prosodic characteristics remain important. The voice continues to be higher, and intonation, like the emphasis placed on ends of sentences, is quite pronounced. . . Sentences are simple, short, and repeated. The frequency of words containing reduplicated syllables is important. Present-day research finds labials and syllables not involving too many movements of the upper articulators appear with the greatest frequency in the first production of babies and in the vocabulary of mothers, who spontaneously employ more words beginning with labials ([m], [b], [f], [v]) when they speak to children. The child’s repertoire reflects that of the language spoken in the family circle more than any particular aspect of the mother’s phonetic repertoire. From the preceding sections relating to the nature of CDS, it is a simple matter to conclude that CDS is a crucial factor in the language development of children and that those unfortunate infants who received little or no normal linguistic nurturing face a harsh life, the (in)famous case of Genie (Curtiss, 1977) being a prime example. What will be shown later in this study is that CDS has an even greater influence than may already be appreciated but in ways not previously examined. Children learn language for acts of expression in the effort to make known to others what their own thoughts and feelings are about, and for acts of interpretation in the effort to share the thoughts and feeling of other persons. Intentional states underlying acts of expression and interpretation provide the mental meanings for which knowledge of language its vocabulary, semantics, syntax, and discourse procedures is acquired. Mental meanings are constructed, as we talk and listen, from data perceived in the here and now and data recalled from the knowledge we have in memory . . . Because such mental phenomena are hidden, language is required to make them manifest when what one individual has in mind differs from what another has in mind and needs to be shared. A basic assumption being made here is that infants at the end of the first year of life have intentionality. All this means is that they are capable of having thoughts and feelings and that the thoughts and feeling they have in mind are about something, because they are directed at objects (including persons and events) in the world. . . Attributing intentionality to infants should not be controversial: after all, we routinely attribute intentionality to a pet cat or dog. From this we can surmise, based on the assumption of intentionality, that meaning is something that is given to the utterances an infant may make. This intentionality, in turn, is interpreted by the listener, in the case of speech, based on that listener’s interpretation of the sounds and/or any actions accompanying the speech. If this seems somewhat circular reasoning, it may be unavoidable. Attributing a specific meaning to an infant’s utterance may in fact be straightforward. If, for example, a parent holds out a tempting piece of an infant’s favorite food and the child upon seeing it lunges for it while uttering something like [a] with a sharply rising intonation, one could assume or interpret that utterance to mean approximately, _Yes! I want that! Give it to me!_ However, surely interpretations of similar examples of _infant language_ would likely not be something like, _Why Father, Mother! I am shocked by the fact that you recalled my favorite food and were good enough to offer me some._ Beyond examples of nascent language that appear to have a stimulus-response component, it is very difficult to be certain that the meaning ascribed to an Infant’s utterance is absolutely accurate. The common baby talk techniques of speaking slow, overenunciating, and overemphasizing one or two words in a sentence are tailor-made for the 1- or 2-year-old child trying to segment the speech stream into comprehensible units. Her father uses a slower and more repetitive tone than used in regular conversation. It sounds that his father tries to make the sentence simpler.