Talk:Babbling

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amandafoort, Care.hail, JessicaRJ. Peer reviewers: Cait ash, Clfergus, Mikailaperrino.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Types of babbling

Could it be specified (if possible) which languages are featured in the example of consonants? Or at least explained so that foreign English speakers don't assume that the alphabet is composed like that? I'm not a foreigner myself, but acknowledge that I was confused at first glance. 98.202.38.225 (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There is also adult babbling M-W to talk enthusiastically or excessively, which leads to M-W to reveal by talk that is too free. The latter is often deemed gossip but might be the result of continued infantile functions within the brain. Perhaps not "continued" but the mechanism operating without the immediate control of maturity. Distinguishing such babble from malicious and cognizant gossip intended to harm others; might be useful.72.95.181.9 (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Stages of babbling

At 0-4 months babies gurgle, and coo (vowel sounds such as "oooh" and "aah"). And at 4-6 months babies may start to babble (adding consonants: "gaga," "dada"). At 6-12 months of age, babies typically babble and enjoy vocal play ...

This early period of prelinguistic vocalization can be divided into five stages,” the first of which begins at about age six months. Stage one is crying, stage two is cooing, stage three is vocal play, and stage four is canonical babbling.

These two statements are in contradiction. If cooing begins at 0-4 months (and crying, I can assure you, begins immediately at birth) then the first stage of babbling can't possibly begin at six months. I would have thought that the phrase should have read "... the last of which ...", but the very next sentence states that the fifth stage begins at about 10 months.

I don't see any good way of making this makes sense. It should be cleaned up by some one more knowledgeable than I. 68.76.215.54 (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Babbling → Baby language — Babbling is only a small subset of baby language. Recent studies have determined some clarity of meaning, making it a language. - 199.125.109.102 (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose The most commonly used proper linguistic term is babble/babbling. It may sound strange to non-linguists because "babble" has a different meaning in colloquial usage, but I think we should stick with the proper linguistic term. And, I suppose, the same rationale could be used to support keeping the article formerly known as baby talk at child-directed speech, which I had previously been opposed to, so I'll rethink that for now. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Rename to something. Babbling is mindless chatter, incoherent speech, etc, not baby talk. 70.29.208.69 (talk) 05:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Yes, "babble" is a commonly used linguistic term and might be the best simple word to use. "Baby language" would not be ideal because what babies are producing prior to producing words is not language. If there is consensus the article should be renamed then "Infant vocalizations", "Prelinguistic vocalizations", "Prespeech sounds", "Infant babbling" might be good alternatives.--Anne S. Warlaumont (talk) 06:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Withdrawn. Article is in fact only about one small portion of baby language. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 04:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Update

We are seeking to update this wikipedia page for a college course titled the Psychology of Language. We would like to update some of the information already provided with journal sources that we have found. We plan to add examples of numerous nonhuman babbling species such as songbirds, primates and bats. We also would like to add information about manual babbling and how cochlear implants for the deaf can influence the onset of babbling. Amf14 (talk) 13:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Misaacso (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Review following nomination for class GA

Article title: Babbling

Nominator: Amf14

Nomination date: 3 May 2012

Reviewer: Maarten 1963

Review start date: 4 June 2012

Review completion date: 9 July 2012

Review scale: very poor - poor - mediocre - good - very good

Presentation

Neatness of the layout: very good

Neatness of the graphical elements: very good

Neatness of the text: good

Explanation:

1. The article has four in-line references that do not follow the text immediately, but have a space in between. Fixed Amandafoort (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
2. The subsection “Babbling in deaf infants” contains: “Children are able to produce manual articulation of words correctly, ...”. This sentence does not follow the preceding sentence with a space in between. - In progress care.hail
3. References 6, 9, and 13 do not have the title and the publisher. References 1, 6, 9, and 13 do not end with a full stop. Reference 8 has an internal link that is not recognized. References 9 and 13 are inconsistent in notation. Reference 9 misses a comma. - Fixed. No title and publisher added as source is not findable. Working to find new sources care.hail

Form

Spelling: good

Explanation:

1. The subsection “The link between babbling and language” contains “Sometimes, they lose them all together before learning how to speak.” This must be “Sometimes, they lose them altogether before learning how to speak.”. Fixed JessicaRJ (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
2. There is a section called “Nonhuman babbling”. This must be: “Non-human babbling”. Fixed JessicaRJ (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
3. The section “Nonhuman babbling” contains: “Another important factor is the physiology of the animal where brain regions used in analyzing and processing information and the properties of the ear and vocal tract are critical determinants to how song is interpreted and later produced.”. In this sentence, “analyzing” must be “analysing”. Fixed JessicaRJ (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
4. The section “Nonhuman babbling” contains: “Although babbling is important for practicing adult calls during the juvenile age, babbling decreases with age in pygmy marmosets.”. In this sentence, “practicing” must be “practising”. Fixed JessicaRJ (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
5. The section “Nonhuman babbling” contains: “Babbling is common in infants that have a large repertoire of adult vocalizations to learn and this is seen in the pups of Sac-Winged bat.”. In this sentence, “Sac-Winged bat” must be “sac-winged bat”. Fixed JessicaRJ (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Grammar: poor

Explanation:

1. In the first sentence of the lead section , the second subordinate clause must be: “but does not yet produce any recognizable words”. Fixed Amandafoort (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
2. In the last sentence of the lead section, “around 12 months” must be “when they are around 12 months old” or “when they are at around 12 months of age”. Fixed Amandafoort (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
3. In the first paragraph of the section “Babbling in humans”, “when emotionally calm” must be “when they are emotionally calm”.Fixed Amandafoort (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
4. The second paragraph of the section “Babbling in humans” contains: “By the time an infant reaches 8–9 months, they display productions of more advanced sounds known as variegated babbling.”. This must be: “By the time an infant reaches 8–9 months, it displays productions of more advanced sounds known as variegated babbling.”.Fixed Amandafoort (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
5. The second paragraph of the section “Babbling in humans” contains: “The final stage is known as conversational babbling, or the "jargon stage" (usually occurring by about ten months of age).” Usually occurring at about ten months of age.Fixed Amandafoort (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
6. The subsection “The link between babbling and language” contains: “Infants pay close attention to their caregivers reactions and use their feedback as approval to the sound they are making.”. This must be: “Infants pay close attention to their caregivers' reactions and use their feedback for approval of the sound they are making.”.Fixed Amandafoort (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
7. The subsection “The link between babbling and language” contains “By comparing infants in English, French, Swedish and Japanese linguistic backgrounds, ...”. This must be “By comparing infants with English, French, Swedish and Japanese linguistic backgrounds, ...”.Fixed Amandafoort (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
8. The subsection “The link between babbling and language” contains: “These findings support another hypothesis; the “babbling drift hypothesis” in which infant babbling resembles the phonetic characteristics of their native language through exposure to speech.” In this sentence, the semicolon is not correct. It must be a comma. In the last clause, infant babbling is the subject. This subject is singular, and babbling cannot possess something. Therefore, the possessive pronoun their is a double error.Fixed Amandafoort (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
9. The subsection “The physiology of babbling” contains: “When saying each individual sound out loud, it is noticeable that a human uses different parts of their mouth, ...”. This must be: “When saying each individual sound out loud, it is noticeable that a human uses different parts of its mouth, ...”. Fixed Amandafoort (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
10. The subsection “The physiology of babbling” contains: “As a baby begins to produce sounds beyond the reduplicated sequences of babbling, they exhibit equal sized mouth or hand openings on the right and left sides.”. This must be: “As a baby begins to produce sounds beyond the reduplicated sequences of babbling, it exhibits equally sized mouth or hand openings on the right and left sides.”. Changed in article. No longer applicable. Amandafoort (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
11. The subsection “Babbling in deaf infants” contains: “Some deaf infants will never reach the canonical stage of babbling, thus never speaking at all.” This must be: “Some deaf infants will never reach the canonical stage of babbling, thus they will never speak at all.”.Fixed Amandafoort (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
12. The subsection “Babbling in deaf infants” contains: “In order for hearing impaired humans to gain auditory experience, ...”. This must be: “For hearing impaired humans to gain auditory experience, ...”.Fixed Amandafoort (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
13. The subsection “Babbling in deaf infants” contains: “Once the surgical implantation is complete, an infant begins to listen and have experience with language outputs.” This must be: “Once the surgical implantation is complete, an infant begins to listen and can have experience with language outputs.”Fixed Amandafoort (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
14. The subsection “Babbling in deaf infants” contains: “Although all infants move their hands in imitation to what is modeled in their environment, ...”. This must be: “Although all infants move their hands in imitation to what is modelled in their environment, ...”.Fixed Amandafoort (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
15. The subsection “Babbling in deaf infants” contains: “around 9–12 months deaf infants begin to produce gestures that are distinct from all other hand movements.”. This must be “deaf infants begin to produce gestures that are distinct from all other hand movements when they are around 9–12 months old.”.Fixed Amandafoort (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
16. The subsection “Babbling in deaf infants” contains: “This was originally thought to represent the first indicators of sign language.”. This must be: “This was originally thought to represent the first indicator of sign language.”.Fixed Amandafoort (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
17. The subsection “Babbling in deaf infants” contains: “but deaf infants do not reach this stage of babbling until 10 months or later.”. This must be: “but deaf infants do not reach this stage of babbling until they are at least 10 months old.”.Fixed Amandafoort (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
18. The subsection “Babbling in deaf infants” contains: “Interestingly enough, if a hearing infant has deaf parents, they will still imitate the signs that they see their parents displaying.”. This must be: “Interestingly enough, if a hearing infant has deaf parents, it will still imitate the signs that it sees its parents displaying.”.Fixed Amandafoort (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
19. The subsection “Babbling in deaf infants” contains: “There are three main components to manual babbling.”. This must be: “There are three main components of manual babbling.”.Fixed Amandafoort (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
20. The subsection “Babbling in deaf infants” contains: “This is comparable to the important aspects of vocal babblings.”. This must be: “This is comparable to the important aspects of vocal babbling.”.Fixed Amandafoort (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
21. The section “Nonhuman babbling” contains: “The learning of a song is produced by a mix of interaction, experience and predisposition as shown when young songbirds will imitate their species call when presented with songs from their own and another species.”. This must be: “The learning of a song is produced by a mix of interaction, experience and predisposition. Young songbirds will imitate their species' call when presented with songs of their own and another species.”. Shown is a perfect participle. Will signifies the future tense simple. Something of the future cannot be attributed to the past to be shown in the present. Note also the accent in species' call. Note also “of their own”.Fixed Amandafoort (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
22. The section “Nonhuman babbling” contains: “variety of immature songs that often are referred to”. This must be: “variety of immature songs that is often referred to”. Variety is singular. For the position of the word often, and other adverbs that express frequency, see a book about English grammar.Fixed Amandafoort (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
23. The section “Nonhuman babbling” contains: “Another relation to human babbling, is that the amount of vocalizations is not key, but rather the quality of the sounds that is retained and resembles the final produce of language.” It is incorrect to place a comma between the subject and the predicate. Thus, the first comma must be removed.Fixed Amandafoort (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
24. The section “Nonhuman babbling” contains: “Another important factor is the physiology of the animal where brain regions used in analyzing and processing information and the properties of the ear and vocal tract are critical determinants to how song is interpreted and later produced.”. In this sentence, “determinants to” must be “determinants of”.Fixed Amandafoort (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
25. The section “Nonhuman babbling” contains: “Memory for songs are able to form before the period where learning to sing occurs.”. In this sentence, memory is singular. Hence, “are” must be “is”.Fixed Amandafoort (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
26. The section “Nonhuman babbling” contains: “As human infants do, marmoset babies have higher rates of social interaction when producing babbling sounds.”. This must be: “As human infants have, marmoset babies have higher rates of social interaction when producing babbling sounds.”.Fixed Amandafoort (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
27. The section “Nonhuman babbling” contains: “The sac-winged bat (Saccopteryx bilineata) is a social creature and the vocalizations that they produce depend on the social situation that the animal is in.”. This must be: “The sac-winged bat (Saccopteryx bilineata) is a social creature and the vocalizations that it produces depend on the social situation that the animal is in.”.Fixed Amandafoort (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Style: very poor

Explanation:

1. The entire article contains four times “reduplicated babbling”. This is not correct. It must be “reduplicative babbling”. The babbling is not reduplicated, the sounds therein are reduplicated. The entire article also contains two times “reduplicated sequence”. This is also not correct. It must be “reduplicative sequence”.

I see what you mean though in this case "reduplicated babbling" is the way the term is commonly used. --Anne S. Warlaumont (talk) 06:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

1. The lead section does not have an interesting encyclopedic style. It has a pompous and scholarly style.
2. A lead section is an introductory section. Therefore, it should not have texts between parentheses. And certainly, it should not have anatomical details of child development.

Fixed --Anne S. Warlaumont (talk) 06:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

1. The lead section interchanges the words baby, child, and infant too often. And the long word approximately is not necessary: about is better.
2. The lead section states: “Infants begin to produce recognizable words usually around 12 months, though babbling may continue for some time afterward.”. Around 12 months is vague, and some time afterwards is also vague.

I agree about the "some time afterwards", but am not sure the vagueness of "around 12 months can be avoided, since this really is an approximate number. --Anne S. Warlaumont (talk) 06:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

In addition to Anne, language development is 'vague'. The time lines are not precise therefore, leaving this section as is. Care.hail (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

1. The second paragraph of the section “Babbling in humans” contains: “When reaching an age of 6 months, infants are finally able to control the opening and closing of the vocal tract, and upon obtaining this ability, infants begin to distinguish between the different sounds of vowels and consonants. This period is known as the beginning of the canonical stage.” When infants reach an age of 6 months, they are 6 months old. This is a point in time for every child. Therefore, it is not correct to state in the next sentence that it is a period.

fixed Care.hail (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

1. The second paragraph of the section “Babbling in humans” contains: “During the canonical stage, the babbling involves reduplicated sounds containing alternations of vowels and consonants (i.e.; baba or bobo).” In this sentence, it is not appropriate to place the examples between parentheses, because ebobe would also fit the description. Secondly, the Latin abbreviation i.e. is incorrect, because it means “that is”. A correct Latin abbreviation would be e.g., which means “for example”. Thirdly, the semicolon is inappropriate.

fixed Care.hail 20:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC) care.hail

1. In the second paragraph of the section “Babbling in humans”, the constructs “they display productions of more advanced sounds” and “This stage includes more complex combinations of consonant and vowel syllables” are pompous. They now produce combinations of consonants and vowels.
2. In the second paragraph of the section “Babbling in humans”, there is another instance of wrong use of the abbreviation i.e. and the semicolon. fixed Care.hail (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
3. The second paragraph of the section “Babbling in humans” contains: “Most babbling consists of a small number of sounds, which suggests the child is preparing the basic sounds necessary to speak the language to which he is exposed.” Humans cannot prepare sounds. Sounds are there or are not there, but they cannot be stored for release later. And the word child is neutral in English, not masculine. The word he is probably not a grammatical mistake though. The sentence may be replaced by: “Most babbling consists of a small number of sounds, which suggests that the child is preparing to speak the basic sounds of the language it is exposed to.”fixed Care.hail (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
4. The third paragraph of the section “Babbling in humans” contains: “If babbling occurs during the first year of life, it can typically be concluded that the child is developing speech normally.” In this sentence, “the child” must be “a child”.
5. The third paragraph of the section “Babbling in humans” contains: “As the baby grows and changes, his/her vocalizations change as well.” This can be improved: “As babies grow and change, their vocalizations change as well.”.fixed Care.hail (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
6. The subsection “Types of babbling” contains: “The consonants that babbling infants produce tend to be any of the following : /p, b, t, m, d, n, k, ɡ, s, h, w, j/. The following consonants tend to be infrequently produced during phonological development : /f, v, θ, ð, ʃ, tʃ, dʒ, l, r, ŋ/.” However, it is unusual to begin and end lists with a slash. ::: slashes are used when explaining sounds in text Care.hail (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
7. The subsection “Types of babbling” contains: “The complex nature of sounds that developing children produce ...”. That can be improved: “The complexity of the sounds that infants produce ...”. This is not pompous, and note the definite article before sounds. fixed Care.hail (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
8. The subsection “The link between babbling and language” contains: “The Continuity Hypothesis – According to these claims ...”. However, an hypothesis is not a claim.fixed Care.hail (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
9. The subsection “The link between babbling and language” contains: “This hypothesis agrees with the claim that the anatomical changes of the vocal tract are very important, ...”. However, the continuity hypothesis is not about the relative importance of the descend of the larynx. Furthermore, the descend of the larynx is a singular change; making it plural is pompous. fixed Care.hail (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
10. The subsection “The link between babbling and language” contains: “This reinforcement through feedback helps infants to focus their attention to very specific features of sound.” It seems that this sentence has the cause and the effect swapped. When a baby concentrates on a detail, this reinforces learning. It is not the reinforcement that leads to attention for a detail. Furthermore, “very specific features” is pompous. fixed Care.hail (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
11. In the subsection “The link between babbling and language” it is rather funny that an infant takes a giant step backwards. A funny wording is not appropriate for an encyclopedia.fixed Care.hail (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
12. The subsection “The link between babbling and language” contains: “There is no clear evidence for either of these hypotheses, ...”. However, the paragraphs in which these hypotheses are presented are referenced, so there is evidence for the existence of both hypotheses.fixed Care.hail (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
13. The subsection “The link between babbling and language” contains: “By comparing infants in English, French, Swedish and Japanese linguistic backgrounds, babbling reveals that placement of consonants and vowels also resembles native languages.”. This sentence is pompous. Better is: “The ordering of consonants and vowels in the babbling of English, French, Swedish and Japanese infants also appears to resemble that of their native language.”.fixed Care.hail (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
14. The subsection “The link between babbling and language” contains: “When infants are exposed to two languages after birth, they typically babble in their dominant language. The dominant language is considered to be the one that children have the most exposure to.” This is extremely pompous. Better is: “When babies are exposed to two languages, they normally babble in the language that they are most exposed to.”.fixed Care.hail (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
15. The subsection “The link between babbling and language” has the continuity hypothesis and the discontinuity hypothesis written with capitals at first, but in the last paragraph this is not maintained. It is better not to write hypotheses with capitals. Furthermore, the aforementioned hypotheses are followed by a dash. It is better not to use the dash to connect two sentences when the second sentence does not take an unexpected turn.
16. The subsection “The link between babbling and language” contains: “Infants do not produce a blend of languages while babbling and sometimes they may choose which language they prefer to babble in based upon particular features.” This sentence is very pompous. Infants do not mix languages when babbling but may switch to another.fixed Care.hail (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
17. The subsection “The physiology of babbling” contains: “According to the Frame Dominance Theory, ...”. It is better not to write theories with capitals; better use italics instead.
18. The subsection “The physiology of babbling” contains: “When the mandible is depressed, ...”. According to Collins Dictionary, to depress can mean to press or push down. But muscles can only contract or relax. Therefore, it is physically impossible to push the mandible down. Better is: “When the mandible is lowered, ...”. fixed Care.hail (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
19. The subsection “Babbling in deaf infants” contains: “It is also difficult to locate deaf infants that have had severely impaired hearing since birth, have been diagnosed within the first year of their lives, and do not suffer from any other impairments.”. This sentence has 34 words, and the reader must find out what the infants have been diagnosed with.

1. The subsection “Babbling in deaf infants” contains: “Infants who are deaf do show signs of vocal babbling, but in minimal amounts. This suggests that early babbling arises from inherent human tendencies to use the vocable articulators in particular ways during early language acquisition.”. It cannot be understood why the second sentence should follow from the first. Furthermore, the word articulator is a very uncommon word, but it is not explained.

1. The article uses the word particular four times: “in no particular order”, “based upon particular features”, “to differentiate particular sounds”, and “in particular ways”. In the last three times, the word conceals information. That may irritate readers, and it makes a pompous impression. Please do not tease readers; give the details or do not mention them at all.
2. The subsection “Babbling in deaf infants” contains: “Due to the findings relating to this babbling delay, researchers have rejected the belief that language is an innate capability that humans have. Researchers instead support the suggestion that experience with auditory speech is necessary in language development.”. This is pompous. Better is: “Because of this delay in babbling, researchers have rejected the idea that language is an innate capability of humans. They believe that hearing other people talking is necessary for language development.”.

1. The subsection “Babbling in deaf infants” contains: “There are exceptions to these studies on the occasion that infants are not completely impaired of all hearing.” This is poor English. Exceptions exist for infants with some hearing.fixed Care.hail (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
2. The subsection “Babbling in deaf infants” contains: “Children with varying degrees of hearing loss display different speech signals and babbling.” The degrees of hearing loss are not varying but are various. What are speech signals? Do they display different speech signals and the same babbling, or is the babbling also different?
3. The subsection “Babbling in deaf infants” contains: “In order for hearing impaired humans to gain auditory experience, a number of solutions have been implemented. Hearing aids can be used to help infants reach babbling stages earlier.” The second sentence follows the first illogically: the first implemented solution is expected, not a possibility to obtain something else.fixed Care.hail (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
4. The subsection “Babbling in deaf infants” contains: “Once the surgical implantation is complete, an infant begins to listen and have experience with language outputs. As soon as language has been heard, they begin to babble and speak in rhythmic patterns just as normal hearing infants do.”. The subject of the first sentence is an infant, which is singular. Therefore, it is incorrect to use the personal pronoun they in the second sentence.fixed Care.hail (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
5. The subsection “Babbling in deaf infants” contains: “Although all infants move their hands in imitation to what is modeled in their environment, ...”. This sentence is rarely intelligible because of the word modeled. Better is: “Although all babies imitate with their hands the movements that they see before their eyes, ...”.fixed Care.hail (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
6. The subsection “Babbling in deaf infants” contains: “around 9–12 months deaf infants begin to produce gestures that are distinct from all other hand movements.” Gestures are made and not produced.fixed Care.hail (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
7. The subsection “Babbling in deaf infants” contains: “This was originally thought to represent the first indicators of sign language.”. Better is: “This was once thought to be the first sign of sign language.”.Fixed Amandafoort (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
8. The subsection “Babbling in deaf infants” contains: “Deaf children acquire signs for the same concepts that are present in English speaking children,...” Better is: “Deaf children develop signs for the same concepts that speaking children develop,...”. Modified. The word develop implies the deaf children create the signs. Acquired is more accurate. Amandafoort (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
9. The subsection “Babbling in deaf infants” contains: “Deaf children acquire signs for the same concepts that are present in English speaking children, but deaf infants do not reach this stage of babbling until 10 months or later.”. What stage? FixedAmandafoort (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
10. The subsection “Babbling in deaf infants” contains: “Children are able to produce manual articulation of words correctly, which is important since many articulation tendencies of manual babbling transfer to the children’s early sign production and then later into the production of words.”. This sentence is hardly intelligible. What is manual articulation of words? What are articulation tendencies?FixedAmandafoort (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
11. The subsection “Babbling in deaf infants” contains: “Interestingly enough, if a hearing infant has deaf parents, they will still imitate the signs that they see their parents displaying.”. This sentence is problematic. When a researcher writes that something is interesting, he or she thinks that it is interesting for the advance of science. However, this does not necessarily mean that it is also interesting for a general public or for parents.FixedAmandafoort (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
12. The subsection “Babbling in deaf infants” contains: “The most common sign in manual babbling is where all fingers are extended and spread and it is also related to the first signs an infant will make.”. This sentence seems not correct. For in science, to say that two things are related requires proof. A minimal correction is: “The most common sign in manual babbling is where all fingers are extended and spread; this sign is also one of the first signs an infant will make.”. An elaborated correction is: “The extension and spreading of all fingers is the most common sign in manual babbling. This sign is also one of the first signs an infant will make in manual communication.”FixedAmandafoort (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
13. The subsection “Babbling in deaf infants” contains: “This is comparable to the important aspects of vocal babblings.”. When Dr. Laura Ann Petitto writes that something is important, she does so as a scientist. This does not necessarily mean that it is also important for a general public or for parents. FixedAmandafoort (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
14. The section “Nonhuman babbling” contains: “Young male songbirds produce a variety of immature songs that often are referred to as babbling because the immaturity precedes the fully developed mature song.”. Part of this sentence has already been discussed in the section about grammar. The part “as babbling because the immaturity precedes the fully developed mature song.” is discussed here. It has two problems. Immaturity is not equal to immature songs. Songs are not a song. Thus, a solution is: “as babbling because the immature songs precede those that are fully developed.”. Fixed. Amandafoort (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
15. The section “Nonhuman babbling” contains: “As with humans, if these sounds are reinforced with positive social feedback, they are more likely to recur.” However, sounds are not a synonym of songs.Fixed. Amandafoort (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
16. The section “Nonhuman babbling” contains: “Since the females do not sing songs, they are in charge of providing the feedback. If females provide more social signals, males will develop more mature songs at a faster rate than other male birds.” In the second sentence, it would be better to maintain the word feedback. Fixed JessicaRJ (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
17. The section “Nonhuman babbling” contains: “Another relation to human babbling, is that the amount of vocalizations is not key, but rather the quality of the sounds that is retained and resembles the final produce of language.” This sentence is not intelligible, because its words are not combined in way that makes sense. Fixed JessicaRJ (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
18. The section “Nonhuman babbling” contains: “Another important factor is the physiology of the animal where brain regions used in analyzing and processing information and the properties of the ear and vocal tract are critical determinants to how song is interpreted and later produced.”. Important factor of what? The reader does not know of any previous factors. The previous paragraph ended with a relation, but a relation is not a factor. The rest of the sentence is very hard to understand, and extremely pompous. Better is: “The vocal tract, the ear, and the brain are all factors that determine the learning of a song.”. Fixed JessicaRJ (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
19. The section “Nonhuman babbling” contains: “In studies using isolated birds that have not had exposure to song, they produce an abnormal 'isolate song' that still retains species-specific aspects.”. In this sentence, the words “still” and “retains” are strange. A minimal correction is: “In studies using isolated birds that have not had exposure to song, they produce an abnormal 'isolate song' that nevertheless contains species-specific aspects.”. “Better is: “Songbirds that were never exposed to songs produce an abnormal song which, in some aspects, is still typical for their species.”. Fixed JessicaRJ (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
20. The section “Nonhuman babbling” contains: “This shows that the neural pathways have predetermined features that allow for such a phenomenon to occur.”. In this sentence, the word features is not appropriate; it must be characteristics. Furthermore, the pompous “allow for such a phenomenon to occur” is not logical; this must be “make this occur”. Seems logical to me JessicaRJ (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
21. The section “Nonhuman babbling” contains: “There is an important phase in development when song learning is best accomplished.”. Development of what? Sources should be reviewed to clarify JessicaRJ (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
22. The section “Nonhuman babbling” contains: “This phase is called the ‘sensitive period’ and the amount of change that a songbird experiences in adulthood varies by species.”. This sentence is not intelligible. Sources should be reviewed to clarify JessicaRJ (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
23. The section “Nonhuman babbling” contains: “Young birds have a production phase after a listening phase of development.”. Development of what? Sources should be reviewed to clarify JessicaRJ (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
24. The section “Nonhuman babbling” contains: “The production of song is called ‘subsong’ where vocalizations resemble that of an adult as time passes.”. This sentence does not express its probable meaning correctly. Better is: “The singing of immature songs is called subsong. Subsong gradually evolves into mature singing.”. Best is to simply remove the sentence. Did NOT remove sentence, sources should be reviewed to clarify JessicaRJ (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
25. The section “Nonhuman babbling” contains: “Memory for songs are able to form before the period where learning to sing occurs.”. In this sentence, the word “are” has already been discussed in the section about grammar. The sentence also has a pompous noun-style. Better is: “The ability to memorize is attained earlier than the ability to sing.”. Fixed JessicaRJ (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
26. The section “Nonhuman babbling” contains: “Social interaction is important when dealing with vocal learning where non-singing females can even influence an infant through feedback.”. Songbirds are not dealing with vocal learning; they learn because of an internal drive; they do not need to cope with something external. Furthermore, the sentence is rather difficult, because it presents a qualification first, and the matter that it qualifies second. Better is: “Female songbirds can give feedback to infants, which is important for the learning of a song.”. Fixed JessicaRJ (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
27. The section “Nonhuman babbling” contains the title “Pygmy marmosets (Cebuella pygmaea)”. In this title, pygmy marmosets is plural, and Cebuella pygmaea is singular. Better is: “Pygmy marmoset (Cebuella pygmaea)”. Fixed JessicaRJ (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
28. The section “Nonhuman babbling” contains: “A normal series of calls for a pygmy marmoset contains approximately 10 different call types.” This must probably be: “A normal series of calls by a pygmy marmoset contains approximately 10 different call types.”. Fixed JessicaRJ (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
29. The section “Nonhuman babbling” contains: “This abundance of call forms produced by this creature is comparable to babbling in human infants for a multitude of reasons.”. The words abundance and multitude are what Wikipedia calls peacock terms, and they must be avoided. Better is: “This variety is comparable to human babbling for the following reasons.”. Fixed JessicaRJ (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
30. The section “Nonhuman babbling” contains: “The vocalizations also gain attention of caregivers and provide practice for future vocal behavior.”. In this sentence, the word also is not justified, because the previous sentence does not describe an effect of the vocalizations. Fixed JessicaRJ (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
31. The section “Nonhuman babbling” contains: “For these reasons, pygmy marmoset calls are also distinguished as babbling behavior.”. This sentence is somewhat pompous. Better is: “For these reasons, pygmy marmoset calls are seen as babbling.” Fixed JessicaRJ (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
32. The section “Nonhuman babbling” contains: “Like reduplicative babbling in humans, the call type is often repeated several times before a new sequence of sounds is produced.”. It is not a type that is repeated, but the call itself, an instance of a type. Fixed JessicaRJ (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
33. The section “Nonhuman babbling” contains: “Different calls serve different survival functions such as when desiring food and social interaction or during times of alarm.”. After “survival functions such as”, functions are expected, not circumstances. Fixed JessicaRJ (talk) 20:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
34. The section “Nonhuman babbling” contains: “Another babbling occurrence during the juvenile age is the addition of territorial calls and mild threat vocalizations.”. This sentence is pompous. Better is: “Another occurrence during the juvenile age is the addition of territorial calls and mild threats.”.
35. The section “Nonhuman babbling” contains: “Babbling-like behavior in songbirds, humans and some nonhuman primates has been previously researched, but it has not been seen until recently in non-primate mammals.”. Wikipedia is not a research journal. Furthermore, the statement is based on a publication of 2006, which is 6 years ago. Therefore, the word recently is not correct. Fixed JessicaRJ (talk) 20:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Structure: mediocre

Explanation:

1. The third paragraph of the section “Babbling in humans” jumps from one subject to another. Restructured. Amandafoort (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
2. The three paragraphs of the section “Babbling in humans” do not have one and only one clear subject.Restructured. Amandafoort (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
3. In the section “Babbling in humans”, the second sentence of the third paragraph could serve as an introduction to the second paragraph, which illustrates imperfect structuring of the section.Restructured. No longer applicable Amandafoort (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
4. The subsection “Types of babbling” contains little more information than the previous section. About 40% of the text is a repetition. The additional information can be incorporated in the previous section text. Fixed. Amandafoort (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
5. The subsection “The link between babbling and language” contains: “These findings support another hypothesis; the “babbling drift hypothesis” in which infant babbling resembles the phonetic characteristics of their native language through exposure to speech.” If the first two hypotheses are in a dotted list, the third one must also be in there. Babbling drift hypothesis is included as support for the Continuity Hypothesis.Amandafoort (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
6. The subsection “The link between babbling and language” contains: “This hypothesis agrees with the claim that the anatomical changes of the vocal tract are very important, ...”. To understand this sentence, the reader must use a sentence that is in the lead section. However, the distance between these sentences is enormous. Fixed. Amandafoort (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
7. In the subsection “The physiology of babbling”, the first three sentences jump from one subject to another and back again.
8. The subsection “The physiology of babbling” contains: “The International Phonetic Alphabet was formed in 1897 as a representation of the sounds produced by language.” This sentence has nothing to do with physiology. Removed. Amandafoort (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
9. The subsection “Babbling in deaf infants” contains: “Deaf babbling is now titled manual babbling, and is structurally identical to vocal babbling in its development.”. However, that manual babbling is structurally identical to vocal babbling in its development has already been written in the previous paragraph.
10. The section “Nonhuman babbling” contains: “Another relation to human babbling, is that the amount of vocalizations is not key, but rather the quality of the sounds that is retained and resembles the final produce of language.” This sentence is the last sentence of the second paragraph, but belongs more to the first paragraph. The first paragraph starts with the similarities between human and non-human babbling.
11. The section “Nonhuman babbling” contains: “Social interaction is important when dealing with vocal learning where non-singing females can even influence an infant through feedback.”. This sentence ends the fourth paragraph of the subsection on songbirds, but it is a summary of what already has been written in the second paragraph.

Content

Trustworthiness: mediocre

Explanation:

1. The lead section states: “Babbling (also called baby talk or twaddling) is a stage in child development and a state in language acquisition, during which an infant appears to be experimenting with uttering sounds of language, but not yet producing any recognizable words.” But twaddling is not acknowledged as a noun by Collins Dictionary. Removed, Amandafoort (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC) And that babbling is a stage in child development and a state in language acquisition does not have clear support in Baby en Kind by Penelope Leach or in Attachment by John Bowlby or in Psychology by Henry Gleitman and others. Nowhere in these books is a list of stages presented, one of which is babbling. Other sources such as Harley's Psychology of Language confirm babbling as a stage in language development. Amandafoort (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
2. The lead section states: “Babbling begins at approximately 5 to 7 months of age, when a baby's noises begin to sound like phonemes.”. This statement is opposed by the following copyright-respecting paraphrases. This age is consistent with other sources, Timeline of vocal developments has been added to improve clarity. Amandafoort (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
   1. Babies use their voice from the start of their lives. They cry, coo, and babble, and make word-like sounds as “ga” and “bagoo”. When they are about three months old, the babbling of babies that were exposed to different languages differs. This reveals that their language learning has already begun.
   2. When a baby is about 6 weeks old, it reacts to being smiled at or being talked to, with smiling and trampling. When a baby is about 2 months old, it combines smiling with small fluent sounds. A few weeks later, it distinguishes between being smiled at and being talked to; it gives the same response. This does not refute the claim that babies begin to babble around 6 months of age. Amandafoort (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
   3. The second quarter of the first year of a baby's life is characterized by a flood of babbling. When a baby is 3 or 4 months old, most sounds are open vowels. It says “Aaah” and “Oooh”. The sounds resemble those of a pigeon. This stadium is often called cooing. When a baby is about 4 or 5 months old, it will learn to make more complicated sounds at an higher pace, provided that the baby is being talked to a lot. This does not refute the claim that babies begin to babble around 6 months of age. Amandafoort (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
   4. Babbling plays a rather similar role as smiling in social interchange. The similarities are that both occur when a baby is awake and contented, that both are likely to cause a social response of the baby's companion, and that both occur at an age of 5 weeks. The difference is that smiling is a visual signal, and babbling is an auditory signal. This does not refute the claim that babies begin to babble around 6 months of age. Amandafoort (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
   5. When a baby is 4 months old, it can make a very large variety of sounds. During the second half of its first year, a baby reveals a tendency to copy the intonations and inflections of its companions. This does not refute the claim that babies begin to babble around 6 months of age. Amandafoort (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
   6. At the end of the 7th month, the sounds that a baby makes develop from one to two syllable words that use one vowel twice: “Ala”, “Amam”, and “booboo”. This supports the above claim. Amandafoort (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
3. The second paragraph of the section “Babbling in humans” states: “Babbling is the first sign of human language.” This statement is opposed by the following copyright-respecting paraphrase. Removed. Amandafoort (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
   1. Quite early on, babies start to exchange looks, caresses, and sounds with caregivers. Several investigators (Bruner, 1974/1975; Tomasello and Ferrar, 1986) have suggested that the interaction with gestures and babbling is the precursor and organizer of language development to follow. It helps children to already learn the conversation's aspects of taking turns and responding to the other.
4. The second paragraph of the section “Babbling in humans” states: “The sounds and expressions of babbling are produced before an infant begins to construct recognizable words. This is mainly due to the immaturity of the vocal tract and neuromusculature at this age in life.” But according to Collins Dictionary, the word neuromusculature does not exist.
5. The third paragraph of the section “Babbling in humans” states: “If babbling occurs during the first year of life, it can typically be concluded that the child is developing speech normally.” This statement has medical importance, but it has not been referenced. Even worse, it is opposed by the following copyright-respecting paraphrase.
   1. When a baby, younger than six months old, babbles and makes noises, it may not be concluded that its hearing is normal.
6. The third paragraph of the section “Babbling in humans” states: “Babies use these vocalizations to communicate.” But the first paragraph of the section stated: “These vocalizations generally do not contain meaning or refer to anything specific.” This is a contradiction. Removed. Amandafoort (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
7. The third paragraph of the section “Babbling in humans”, especially the last three sentences, arouse the suspicion that the paragraph is based on a trashy book, a book that most editors would not qualify as a reliable published source. Removed. Amandafoort (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
8. The subsection “The link between babbling and language” contains: “Social feedback facilitates faster learning and earlier production of a variety of advanced words.” The word advanced suggests that babies speak difficult words earlier than simple words. This is opposed by the following copyright-respecting paraphrase. Removed. Amandafoort (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
   1. Almost all children's talking begins with utterances of one word. Examples are hi, peekaboo, Mama, Fido, duck, spoon, give, push, and “No!”.
9. The subsection “Babbling in deaf infants” contains: “Infants who are deaf do show signs of vocal babbling, but in minimal amounts. This suggests that early babbling arises from inherent human tendencies to use the vocable articulators in particular ways during early language acquisition.” In this sentence, the expression “vocable articulators” is an error. There are no organs that take part in the production of speech (articulators) that are capable of being uttered (vocable).
10. The subsection “Babbling in deaf infants” states: “However, contradictory evidence supports that language will not develop fully without auditory experience.”. However, when researchers present contradictory findings then none of these findings constitute evidence.
11. The subsection “Babbling in deaf infants” states: “Although all infants move their hands in imitation to what is modeled in their environment, around 9–12 months deaf infants begin to produce gestures that are distinct from all other hand movements. This was originally thought to represent the first indicators of sign language. Just as hearing infants babble with their mouths, deaf infants babble with their hands. Deaf children acquire signs for the same concepts that are present in English speaking children, but deaf infants do not reach this stage of babbling until 10 months or later.” These sentences contain a contradiction. When deaf infants begin to make gestures when they are around 9-12 months old, then some develop signs for concepts before they are 10 months old.
12. The section “Nonhuman babbling” states: “Not only are songbird and human language parallel regarding neural and molecular factors, they also are similar in how their communication is initially produced. Observations about these similarities can be traced back to Charles Darwin and his studies. Avian and mammalian brains are similar in form and connectivity and there may even be a gene that is relevant to speech found in both organisms.” When there may be a gene that is relevant to speech found in both organisms, then the statement that songbird and human language are parallel in molecular factors cannot be made.
13. The section “Nonhuman babbling” states: “Since the females do not sing songs, they are in charge of providing the feedback.” This reasoning seems to have a reference to a publication titled Social interaction shapes babbling: Testing parallels between birdsong and speech, but I have a doubt. There may be another reason why females provide the feedback; for example, they may be more oriented towards caring, while males may be more oriented towards guarding.

Objectivity: good

Explanation:

1. In my opinion, the article stresses scientific research and undervalues information that has been written for parents.

Completeness: good

Explanation:

1. The lead section states: “Infants begin to produce recognizable words usually around 12 months, though babbling may continue for some time afterward.”. This statement can be made more exact with the following copyright-respecting paraphrases.
   1. Infants begin to understand some words of their caregivers' speech when they are 5 to 8 months old. Talking begins when they are between 10 and 20 months old.
   2. Many babies pronounce their first words when they are 10 or 11 months old. Because it is very difficult to recognize the first words, the precise month cannot be determined.
   3. When children are 12 months old, 50% will haven spoken their first words. When they are 18 months old, 90% will have spoken their first words.
2. The following copyright-respecting paraphrases are meant to show that more attention can be given to the role of parents. The paraphrases are so listed that a more or less continuous flow of information results.
   1. When a baby is about 6 weeks old, it reacts to being smiled at or being talked to, with smiling and trampling. When a baby is about 2 months old, it combines smiling with small fluent sounds. A few weeks later, it distinguishes between being smiled at and being talked to; it gives the same response.
   2. This 'talking' of of a baby is not meant to say anything specific, but is meant to take part in the conversation with the caregiver. The baby uses its voice to have contact with the caregiver, and this contact consists of taking turns in the conversation. When the 'talking' of a baby is answered by ringing a bell instead, then there is no subsequent answer from the baby. When a baby is being talked to a lot, the baby will also 'talk' a lot. Babies do not 'talk' only when being talked to, but also 'talk' when they are alone in their beds. But even then, this solitary 'talking' is exercised more when the baby is being talked to more in general.
   3. The second quarter of the first year of a baby's life is characterized by a flood of babbling. When a baby is 3 or 4 months old, most sounds are open vowels. It says “Aaah” and “Oooh”. The sounds resemble those of a pigeon. This stadium is often called cooing. The p, b and m are the first consonants that are added. When this happens, cooing changes to sounds that are more similar to words. By adding these consonants, a baby learns to make more complicated sounds. When a baby is being talked to a lot, babbling will be more fluent. When a baby is neglected or deaf, babbling takes place nevertheless, but only to a certain extend.
   4. When a baby, younger than six months old, babbles and makes noises, it may not be concluded that its hearing is normal. Deafness can only be recognized by observing a baby's reaction to noise.
   5. When a baby is about 4 or 5 months old, it will learn to make more complicated sounds at an higher pace, provided that the baby is being talked to a lot.
   6. Parents are responsible for the stimulation of a child's babbling. Some parents have no difficulty to talk to their babies, but others feel ashamed to talk to babies that cannot answer. Although parents cannot change their personality, they can create situations that make it less difficult to talk to their babies. For example, they can show them a picture book. Another method is to tell the baby in detail what is being done when caring for the baby.
   7. There is good evidence that babies of four months old prefer Motherese to normal speech, even though they do not understand the one or the other. Motherese is a way of speaking with high pitch, slow word rate, and exaggerated intonations. It is employed almost universally by adults when they talk to infants. This remarkable mutual adjustment is the first indication that our species is biologically adapted to learning a language.
3. The following copyright-respecting paraphrases give different ideas about the effects of babbling.
   1. Babies have an innate interest for the human voice and are inclined to babble. A baby will gradually associate the voice of a caregiver with the satisfaction of personal needs and with pleasure. When a baby babbles, the baby associates this with the caregiver's voice, and thus with pleasure.
   2. Crying, smiling and babbling, and later calling and certain gestures, can all be grouped to signalling behaviour, the effect of which is to bring mother to child. Crying is effective from birth onwards, but smiling and babbling are not during the first four weeks. When a baby smiles and babbles a mother returns a smile; she also talks to, strokes, and pats the baby, and perhaps she picks it up. In all this each partner seems to express joy and the certain effect is a prolongation of their social interaction.
4. The following copyright-respecting paraphrases give additional information.
   1. When a baby is picked up it ceases to smile, and it also ceases to babble.
   2. Sooner or later, infants vocalise more in interaction with their familiar mother-figure than with anyone else. Wolff (1963) noticed it in infants of five or six weeks old.
   3. In the ninth month a baby starts making long series of syllables, such as loo-loo-loo-loo-loo. Pitch and emphasis are also varied. At the same time, the baby starts making series as ah-dee-dah-boo-maa. When a baby makes these kinds of sequences, the first words will be next.
   4. Deaf babies usually babble during the first 6 months, but then the vocalizations die away.

Respect for copyright laws: no opinion

Explanation:

1. Respect for copyright laws can only be completely checked when the article is fully referenced, and a copy of all sources is at hand. The article is not fully referenced, and I did not have the will to acquire a copy of all sources.
2. I checked the online source by Laura Ann Petitto. This was in order.
3. I checked the copyright of the photograph. This was in order.
4. It is possible that the subsection “Sac-winged bat” was copied from the source, because the linguistic quality of this subsection is very high. The first sentence and the word “correlated” raise the suspicion even more. The source is a periodical of Springer-Verlag, and could not be obtained without payment.

Absence of original research: good at best

Explanation:

1. The absence of original research can only be completely checked when the article is fully referenced, and a copy of all sources is at hand. The article is not fully referenced, and I did not have the will to acquire a copy of all sources.
2. It is imaginable that the third paragraph of the section “Babbling in humans” is original research. This paragraph could have been written by someone who works at an infant welfare centre.
3. The subsection “Physiology of babbling” contains: “As a baby begins to produce sounds beyond the reduplicated sequences of babbling, they exhibit equal sized mouth or hand openings on the right and left sides.”. This statement is not supported by the source.
4. The section “Babbling in deaf infants” contains: “It is also difficult to locate deaf infants that have had severely impaired hearing since birth, have been diagnosed within the first year of their lives, and do not suffer from any other impairments.”. In this sentence, the word locate can be original research resulting from inaccurate paraphrasing of the word identify.
5. The subsection “Babbling in deaf infants” contains: “Although all infants move their hands in imitation to what is modeled in their environment,”. This statement is not supported by the source.
6. The subsection “Babbling in deaf infants” contains: “This was originally thought to represent the first indicators of sign language.”. This statement is not supported by the source.

Notes

1. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable published secondary sources, and to a lesser extend, to tertiary sources. Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care. (See Wikipedia:No original research) Of the eighteen sources that the article lists, only two clearly are secondary sources, and no less than twelve are primary sources. In my view, it is possible to base a decent account about the babbling of humans primarily on secondary sources, and to use primary sources for details only.
2. The Dutch and German Wikipedia articles on language acquisition provide interesting reading on the matter of whether or not babbling is a phase in language development. The Dutch article states that language development is often devided in four phases, which the article lists. The first phase is the prelingual period, that comprises of vocalizations, cooing, and babbling. This means that babbling itself is not recognized as a phase in language development. The German article, even though it gives much more information, does not feature the scheme of four phases that the Dutch article presents, but instead gives detailed information for 9 periods of time. This suggests that the aforementioned scheme is not generally adopted.
3. This review will not be explained any further.

Rating

Class: C

Explanation:

1. The article does not comply with the requirements of class GA, for the following reasons. The prose is sometimes not clear. The prose is often not concise. Grammar is often not correct. The article does not comply with the Manual-of-style requirements for lead sections: the lead does not mention non-human babbling. The article does not provide a reference for all sources. The article contains original research. The article is not factually accurate.
2. The article does not comply with the requirements of class B, for the following reasons. There are many major grammatical errors. The article does not seem to have the broadest intended audience: parents of all social classes do not seem to be included.

Importance: Mid

Explanation:

1. The subject is of some interest to all who have a baby.

Bibliographic information

1. Baby en Kind, 4th edition, by Penelope Leach, Uitgeverij Kosmos BV, 1986, is a Dutch translation of Baby and Child, published by Michael Joseph Limited, London.
2. De aangeklede aap – het dier in de mens, 2nd edition, by Desmond Morris, Van Holkema & Warendorf/Unieboek BV, 1995, is a Dutch translation of The Human Animal, published by BBC Books, a division of BBC Enterprises Ltd.

Signatures

1. Maarten 1963 (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Maarten 1963 (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. However, I don't understand the purpose of conducting a review like this instead of making the changes yourself. If you're going to all the trouble of finding ways to improve the article, why not just make the improvements (at least the simple ones about wording)? By simply making the changes, there would be no need to catalog them. As far as I can tell, the suggested edits have not yet been made. I refer to WP:BOLD. --Albany NY (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Improvements in the making

As a portion of a university class project myself and my colleagues Care.hail, and JessicaRJ will be working to improve this page. We will be taking into consideration the suggestions made in the GA Review that was posted in 2013 as well as adding current relevant information on the topic. I personally will add information about babbling in other languages and cultures to the existing article and work to improve the overall grammar, organization, and structure of the article. I will be preparing changes and a list of relevant sources in my Sandbox. Amandafoort (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I will be adding information about babbling in deaf children both manually and vocally. I will also be looking to add information about deaf babbling in other languages. In addition i will work to improve the overall grammar, organization, and structure of the article. I will be preparing changes and a list of relevant sources in my sandbox Care.hail 18:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

My contribution to the page will be the addition of an Abnormal Development section. I will have my proposed changes and list of relevant sources in my sandbox User:JessicaRJ/sandbox JessicaRJ (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I added an "Abnormal development of babbling" section. Please feel free to make any edits or suggestions for improvement. I am not sure whether it could be better integrated in a different section, or how the headings should look, especially concerning the connection with deaf infants. JessicaRJ (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I altered the organization of the page a bit to encompass abnormal development and included a time line of vocal developments. I added to the lead section to ensure that all of the information on the page is highlighted and added a small intro to the "Evidence across species" section. I also added some specific studies which study babbling across languages to ensure the page is not solely based on English speaking research. Amandafoort (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hi all

I specifically reviewed Amandafoort (talk) 's additions and overall I only have a few minor changes. Also Amanda let me know if I missed any of your work, I looked at: the lead, timeline, and the introductory sentences to evidence across species.

Lead Section

• When you say "infant's repertoire" what are you referring to? Infant's repertoire of speech sounds or words, etc.?
• I would say " Infant's typically produce recognizable words..." rather than saying "usually" (not an issue if you don't make this change it's just a stylistic preference of mine)
• I wonder if you could somehow lead in to the sentence "The physical structures involved..." It seems like this sentence was placed into this paragraph but does not flow as well with the rest of the paragraph. Perhaps if you mentioned something in the previous sentence on the physical structures involved?

Timeline

• I like that this is a sub-section of Typical Development rather than it's own section
• Saying "According to Owens ..." makes it sound like this was primary research rather than a book, but I know that Marentette (talk) said this was okay in class. I would ask her but using "Infants follow a general ..." might "wiki-fy" this more
• I changed the second sentence in order to specify what age you were talking about but it may be better still to say first words occur around age one (but then you are repeating age one twice).
• I wonder if you could have a link to "goo"ing and/or cooing sounds? If not I would just define / give an example for each as you have with the other types of babbling
• 9-10 mos I would again specify which children's repertoire you are referring to (speech sounds or words or ...?)

Intro to Evidence across Species

• Great introduction but it needs a citation Clfergus (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments about Peer Review

Thanks Clfergus,

LEAD

• - Added "of sounds" to follow infant's repertoire.
• - Fixed usually to typically. I agree this sounds more clear.
• - Edited physical structures sentence to focus on babbling rather than speech.

TIMELINE

• - I will wait to see what Paula has to say about the intro.
• - I like the way you specified the age, I was playing around with that for a while too.
• - Added a link to a video of cooing sounds but i'm not sure this is allowed. So I explained it too.
• - Added of sounds. Not sure about it, Seems a little repetitive to me.

INTRO

• - Added citation.

Amandafoort (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

More Peer Review

Hey everyone,

I looked at peer reviewing JessicaRJ (talk) 's additions to the page. All I have to offer are minor changes and easy fixes, but let me know if I've missed any of your parts! I looked at the Abnormal Development section and its subheadings

General notes

• I thinking that the subheadings Vocal babbling and Manual babbling look great, but I think that if you change the In deaf infants to Deaf infants, it'll stand out better
• Overall your diction seems a little advanced
• I like how you've separated the information into sections, makes for an easier read

Under the heading

• "It is also difficult to locate..." - for what purpose? I think it's for research purposes that its hard to find deaf infants, but I wasn't 100% sure
• Apraxia link should be further up when you first mention it
• Perhaps link to the "Developmental disability" page

Vocal babbling

• Very coherent section
• Canonical stage of babbling - not quite sure what this is. Could you offer a small explanation or link to a page that explains it?

Manual babbling

• Link to the "Manual babbling" page
• "There are three main concepts..." - What are they? If the three main parts are in the next sentence, then I only counts two things (unless I missed the third thing which is totally possible). If it is the next sentence, perhaps join the two sentences together with a colon to make a list. Or add a sentence that describes the three parts of manual babbling?
• "Hearing children follow identical..." - I think you should provide a reference
• Link to American Sign Language page
• "...in a designated ASL call the space" - Something is funky about this sentence.

Overall, this is a great addition to the page and it's looking really good! Great Job! Mikailaperrino (talk) 03:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review 3

I am reviewing Care.hail (talk)'s contributions, which I think is mainly the manual babbling section under abnormal development. I have a few minor suggestions:

• In the sentence ending "...these are used referentially with no organization, principal or combinatorial units" found in the second paragraph could be explained further. What does referentially mean? and why is this important/different from babbling? I think that principal/combinatorial units are not common concepts and need to be described further.
• The sentence ending in "than children with their hearing" sounds odd. I understand what you mean but I feel like this could be worded differently.
• "Children are able to produce words correctly..." I think you need to specify which children and possibly which words.
• I added a link to the American Sign Language page
• "It is difficult to study manual babbling as often then manual activity can be mistaken as gestures rather than signs. " This sentence needs something. Does it make sense if you replaced "then" with "because"? I don't want to make a change if that is not what is intended.
• The last two sentences in the section need citations.

Overall, I think the section looks great. I hope this helps. Cait ash (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Mid revision comments

I realize that you may be in the middle of revisions, but here are my comments for you to consider as you proceed.

• Good lead, very careful final sentence.
• unbelievably cute, but also accurate cooing video

Typical development

• Summary looks great
• Timeline: "...this marks the ending" not sure what the referent of this is - when they say their first word?
• at 6 months it says they can physiologically make consonants, but it says babies make strings of consonants at 4 months too
• at 8 months: two different examples in two different formats for variegated babbling. Can this be condensed - the sentences feel repetitive
• at 12 months - this is a typical age for first words, though some children are significantly later than this - I've added typically in to moderate but you can reject or alter that if you like.

Transition

• I'm still not convinced about the claim that there is no order to the sounds produced in babbling. This contradicts the research reported above. There is no citation for this claim. I would evaluate its contribution and remove if unnecessary or unsupportable. Later in the section, Werker and Tees are cited but be careful with this. They primarily study perception, and they do discuss loss, but you are writing about production. Check that the citation is directly relevant to the claim about speech production that is being made.
• In light of the lack of evidence above, I'm very troubled by the claim that the conflicting perspectives are both possibilities. These are testable options. They have been tested. I don't see why one option is being presented as valid with no evidence to support it. The next section then provides support for the continuity hypothesis.
• If babbling drift is part of the continuity hypothesis, might it be advantageous to group the information?
• Is it possible to babble in a language? I think the review above suggests that the form or sounds of children's babbling might be influenced by the language they hear.

Physiology

• do we need link for descended larynx, given that it just goes to the larynx page which was linked in the previous sentence?
• Seems odd to cite a paper on manual babbling to argue that vocal babbling is about opening and closing the jaw. Try something by Macneilage and Davis whose frame dominance theory is discussed in the next sentence.
• Phonation is both required but not always present? Can you put the two sentences about phonation together? Is it still babbling when phonation isn't present?
• There is a sentence about deaf infants babbling with their hands tucked into a discussion of vocal physiology. I think some consideration should be given to where on the page the idea of manual babbling is introduced. Then this sentence could make make sense as the last sentence in the paragraph.

Abnormal Dev

• the first section is great
• deafness is now frequently diagnosed in neonates so this comment, which was true in 1988, is not really relevant any longer. Also is it primarily about how difficult it was to find subjects for the study, so I'm not really sure why the content is relevant
• "contradictory evidence supports" this phrase is very confusing, particularly as it is followed by a negative. I cannot tell what the claim is and what the evidence supports.
• Manual babbling is not a process of abnormal development nor is it a function of deafness. Any child that has sign language input may produce manual babbling. This is acknowledged at the end of the section. Sort of - no deafness needs to be involved at all, what is important is sign language in the child's environment. The parents do not have to be deaf. I recommend moving this section from the Abnormal Dev't section and putting it elsewhere. As I recommended above, some thought should be given about where it gets placed.
• citation [18] which is about deaf infants vocal babbling is an inappropriate source for a claim about when manual babbling begins.
• citation [30] about birdsong is a strange and inappropriate source for a claim about the form of manual babbling. The paper does not discuss manual babbling in any way at all.
• are there weird things happening to the refs? The Bolhuis paper (currently [30]) is being used to cite claims about manual babbling and sign. I think there is a linking problem.
• "children with their hearing" This phrase was already commented on by a peer reviewer, but I want to be sure it gets attention. It seems that the hearing children produced less manual babbling? Does the study compare deaf children with sign exposure to hearing children without? More detail about the goal and outcome of the study are necessary or I'm not sure why it is included. A comparison between deaf and hearing children's babbling is interesting, once it is clear that they don't produce manual babbling because of their deafness. Another difference that could explain the difference is that the hearing children (if they have sign exposure) are bilingual - so they might babble less manually because some of their babbling will also be vocal.
• The next paragraph might be about signs or words, it might use these terms interchangeably, which is confusing because most people will assume words means speech. My bigger question is why the production of words or signs is really being discussed in an article on babbling. It is important but complicated to introduce the distinction between babbling, gesture and signs. I would link to the Wiki pages on gesture and sign and be precise in what you are trying to say. I'm not sure why the formational properties of manual babbling are discussed in a paragraph that might be about words.
• Not all manual babbling happens in ASL.
• The last sentence about the timing of first signs, is a hot potato. You have no evidence for this claim. Is it necessary for this article. If so, it needs sources, and more than one, as there is much disagreement on this question.

Evidence across species

I like the intro bit here. Seeing as none of us are biologists, we'll leave the content as it is.
Paula Marentette (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

removed the expert banner

I removed the "expert needed" banner from the front page. This page has been the subject of review by a senior university class in Language Acquisition. They have read extensively in the literature under my guidance. I am their professor and an expert in this field. We realize this does not preclude further discussion or changes to the page, but do believe that the banner is no longer needed. Paula Marentette (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Gustavus Adolphus College supported by WikiProject Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)