[Linganth] Is "motherese" universal?

[Harriet J. Ottenheimer]

I have looked at Falk's responses to commentaries and am surprised to
note that she continues to ignore the work of O&S even though it is
clear from Kit's comments that she was told about that work long enough
ago to have taken note of it, at the very least. This points to a larger
problem and that is the fragmentation of the four-field vision of
anthropology. One of the strengths of that vision should be the way that
researchers can use the insights of all four fields to address complex
problems; pinpointing and explaining the origins of language (not just
speech) is one of those problems which is, in fact, best dealt with
through a four-field approach. It is disappointing to learn that our non
linganth colleagues are not aware of our work in linganth, at least the
parts that might be most relevant to them. Whomever is going to write
the piece for the journal should consider including this sort of commentary.

I continue to remain unconvinced by Falk's egocentric arguments. I would
think that egocentric data is useful at some level--perhaps to provide
ideas for research--but once the research has been done then arguments
from data and analysis would be more powerful. On the other hand, if
Falk can make egocentric arguments then so can others. This, of course,
is not the most scientific path to pursue, and could diminish the way
research is viewed by the general public. My own egocentric experiences
(and observations) are quite different from Falk's. In my experience
babies are best 'put down' after they have fallen asleep. Even then,
putting them down sometimes wakes them up. Fussy babies making noises
while lying on the floor (or in a bed or carseat) are not as likely to
be soothed with cooing noises as by being picked up. Often they are
making those noises because they want to be picked up and nursed, not
conversed with. Finally, it is actually rather easy to balance a baby
(even a one or two year old) on one hip while picking things up and
doing fairly complex operations (even eating) with the other. So then,
my egocentric data suggests that a mother wanting dig up a root or
gather a handful of berries doesn't really need to put the baby down at
all. Should she really decide she needs two hands for a particularly
difficult root or berry a better solution would be to hand off the baby
to a colleague who is out gathering with her. Putting a baby down while
it is awake, and expecting it to remain quiet so as not to attract
predators, is just not a very good option, as the baby is unlikely to
accept being put down happily. No amount of cooing is likely to convince
a baby to stay 'put down' or to be content about it. (I also expect that
cooing and other such noises would *attract* predators rather than
protect against them.)

This might be a better experiment to try than the one Falk proposes:
have some mothers put some babies down and coo to them or otherwise
engage them with some sort of 'motherese' and see how long it takes to
convince the babies to quiet down and accept their 'put down' status.
This, I think, would be more telling than the experiment Falk suggests,
which would ask mothers to carry babies through a park and attempt to
'gather' such items as diapers, blankets, and water (I think those are
the items Falk suggested, I am not able to be online and to compose
messages at the same time). (Again, my own egocentric observations
indicate I would not need to put the baby down to pick up a bottle of
water or any other of these items.) This reveals the problem with
egocentric arguing. Someone always has some different experience that
can be brought to bear on the question. It definitely weakens Falk's
overall argument, but it does tend to make it more appealing to the
general (American) public, or at least to any public that has
experiences similar to hers. Which brings us back to the question of why
she continues ignore O&E's work, and the more general problem of the
fragmentation of anthropology into its four separate fields, with less
and less reading across the four fields than there used to be.

(Like Chad, I am also not a member of the Anthro-L list. Additionally
the linguist list rejected my previous reply-post for some reason. I am
therefore not attempting to post to either of those lists)

All best,

Harriet Ottenheimer



Chad Nilep wrote:

>[This message is not being posted to Anthro-L, as I don't subscribe. Feel free
>to forward.]
>
>A draft of Dr. Falk's forthcoming "Prelinguistic evolution in early hominins:
>Whence motherese?" is at:
>http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/Falk/Referees/
>
>Quoting one relevant line, "Despite several ‘flawed’ studies to the contrary
>(Monnot 1999), Monnot marshals strong support for the hypothesis that ID
>[infant-directed] speech that is characterized by a simplified vocabulary,
>more repetition, exaggerated vowels, higher overall tone, wider range of tone,
>and slower tempo is a universal trait among modern humans."
>
>Monnot, M. (1999) Function of infant-directed speech. Human Nature 10:415-443.
>
>Reading Falk's responses to commentaries
><http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/Falk/Falk.Response.html> (I can't locate
>the original commentaries) suggests that she has little interest in the sort
>of critiques raised on this list. "There are only a few assertions with which
>I categorically disagree, such as the argument by Rosenberg et al. that
>motherese is not really universal (addressed in 2.2. of the target article and
>in the commentary by Monnot et al.), and the statement by Bouissac that I
>assert that 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.'"
>
>As Professor Woolard suggests, the reason for this categorical disagreement
>appears to be at least partially based on personal experience, as well as
>review of psycholinguistic literature. "Put a baby in my arms and I cannot
>refrain from producing sing-song streams of baby talk, punctuated by attention-
>getting clicks and breathy intakes of air, all of which are accompanied by a
>barrage of gentle bouncing.  From reading the literature on language
>acquisition, I began to realize that motherese occurs all over the world, that
>babies like it, and that it is important for (among other things) their
>eventual acquisition of language." (from Falk's introduction to her responses)
>
>-Chad Nilep
>
>Quoting Kathryn Woolard <kwoolard at ucsd.edu>:
>
>
>
>>Since I haven't seen either the NYT report or the journal article,
>>I'm wary of contributing to this discussion - it feels uncomfortably
>>like the "Dame Edna" uproar of a while back. But Dean Falk gave a
>>colloquium in my department two years ago  on exactly this material
>>and thesis, so that's the basis of my comment here. At that talk, I
>>expressed  many of the same concerns you've all been discussing here.
>>It was apparent in our exchange that she (Dean Falk is a woman) had
>>never heard of or read Ochs and Schieffelin's work. (I think I
>>remember that she was relying primarily on a psycholinguist's review
>>of the literature for the claim that "we now know" that all societies
>>have motherese, despite some earlier reports to the contrary.)  After
>>the talk I told her how to spell O & S's names, mentioned the
>>principal refs. and urged her to look at them. Roy D'Andrade and
>>other audience members tackled Falk's conception of what language is
>>and the ethnocentric - actually egocentric, since she announced that
>>her view of universals of mothering was based on her own experience
>>as a mother -  ideas about childcare and childcarrying. It was an
>>extended, quite impassioned and very critical discussion, and,  as I
>>mentioned above, the relevant ling. anthro. refs. were urged upon
>>Falk. So it's not opportunity or awareness that's missing here.
>>
>>A written comment to the journal seems likely to be in order. But
>>it's really important that those concerned about this argument  read
>>Falk's own article carefully. I recall that she  defines motherese in
>>terms of a very very few features ( I think  exaggerated intonation
>>contour was one of them, but I'm not sure), not  the register of
>>"babytalk" , e.g. as described by Ferguson or by Ochs &
>>Schieffelin/Heath for American middle-class whites. Falk's narrow
>>definition might actually fit brief early stages of mother-child
>>interaction in more societies than we are accustomed to talk about.
>>(do I have a vague recollection of Elinor Ochs reporting a fleeting
>>early infant stage in Samoa that looked more like this?)
>>
>>Kit
>>--
>>Kathryn A. Woolard			kwoolard at ucsd.edu
>>Professor				Phone: (858) 534-4639
>>Department of Anthropology, 0532		Fax :     (858) 534-5946
>>UCSD
>>9500 Gilman Drive
>>La Jolla, CA 92093-0532
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>Chad D. Nilep                         Rien ne serait pire pour
>Department of Linguistics             l'humanité que de progresser
>University of Colorado, Boulder       vers une situation où l'on ne
>http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~nilep/      parlerait qu'une seule langue.
>                                       -Jacques Chirac
>
>
>
>