language in Teletubbies

[Lois Bloom]

Monday, May 17, 1999

As far as I know, there are no studies on the value of TeleTubbies for
fostering language acquisition.  But, for what it's worth, I was asked by
ABC News to review one of the earliest tapes to come across and comment on
the controversy in Britain at the time over the relative benefit, or not,
of TeleTubbies for early language acquisition.  I was 'set up' to expect
the worst: the controversy as explained to me was that both the
TeleTubbies and the real children in the tele-vignettes used 'baby talk'.
The rationale given by the producers was that baby talk would be more
compatible to very young ears.  The criticism was that it was a 'dumbing
down' that would provide distorted speech models.  Two tapes were hand
delivered from NY to CT so that I could watch them one Saturday afternoon.
My husband wandered in and promptly fell asleep.  I loved them!

First, this show (or at least the tapes I watched) is not going to 'teach'
children language.  But the tapes I saw did incorporate several aspects of
normal language acquisition that are potentially valuable for holding very
young children's attention (at least) and creating some awareness of what
language does (not unimportant).

Here are the features that I saw as noteworthy.  One is *repetition* (the
reason my husband feel asleep) --the short segments are shown, and then
shown again, and sometimes yet again, which means that the young 1- or 2-
year-old who didn't catch it the first time gets another shot at it.
Second, there are certain concepts built into the vignettes that echo
research in normal language acquisition by myself and others:  in
particular, the use of relational words like "more," "again" and "uhoh"
and "gone" - -fairly basic concept-word connections for 1-year-olds.  (If
students want cites to the relevant research, I can provide them).  So
somebody had to have done some reading; they weren't showcasing "1 ball,"
"2 balls," "red ball," "blue ball".  And the pace is slow, and easy, and
colorful, and catchy, and incorporates expectation as well as surprise
(BUT I have to admit, I haven't watched any segments since).

Will the use of so-called 'baby talk' be hurtful?  Maybe there will be
research out there some day to say that it is, but I seriously doubt it.
The talk is entirely intelligible, and the other features of the
productions I watched far outweigh in value any potential harm to language
acquisition.  Face it: this is baby fodder, meant to sooth and entertain
VERY young children.  Should such children be parked in front of a TV for
soothing?  Good question.  But one that I am not prepared to answer -
-it's been a long time since I've been the mother of a 1-year-old.  And I
understand that both babies and mothers enjoy them --must be a reason for
that.

Lois Bloom


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lois Bloom, Ph.D.
Edward Lee Thorndike Professor Emeritus
     of Psychology and Education
Teachers College, Columbia University
525 West 120th Street
New York, New York 10027
PHONE: 212-678-3888 (office); 203-261-4622 (home)
FAX: 203-261-4689
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~