How to speak to a child
It was shown the essential role of the appointment of the child to his birth. The child, hardly left the belly of his mother, needs reference mark, to start with which it is. One neglects the importance to call it by his first name and ready-made phrase "oh the fine young man, oh the beautiful girl" at a few moments of its existence denatures the future relation. However the effects on its individuation can be consequent. Paroxysm is reached when the child is named, often until late, "my gnognote, my chick", or worse still because unperceived passer by, "my baby". As well as "speaking baby" with his child, under pretext that in any case it cannot all include/understand generates not easily recoverable traumatisms. "It will drink its milk, it is the hour of sound miam-miam", or the "negro small speech", which good idea to abrutir his/her child. Parents even listened to the manner of speaking about the children to be able to reproduce it, as if there was the French, the English, the Baby. That gives a rather comic vocabulary and the parents address to the child, even between them in its presence, only through this new language which they handle extremely well I must say.
It is true that when the child starts to speak, there are certain words against which it butts and has evil to pronounce them. Crocodile becomes crocrodile, car-tuture, swing transforms itself into balanchoire etc. For the reasons of this slow and hard training I return you to the reading of the texts of Jean Piaget. The parents thus anticipate and express themselves with this language there as of the birth of the child. He thus hears what he is supposed evil to pronounce later as being the witty remark. Finally it is the relative who infantilise itself. A regression which it indirectly carries out for him and the reference with its characteristic lived. The adult is so much afraid "badly" to make, is so deprived of all his means when the child cries and that it does not include/understand what these tears mean, sometimes to mean thirst, the hunger, sometimes the pain or quite simply to mean that there exists. Vis-a-vis this small being which it does not include/understand and which it grows reduced to the simple animal language, here the tears to be expressed, the adult is reassured by speaking the language baby. It is put at the "level" of the child believes it, whereas the baby only asks to put himself at his.
A lot of parents name the things by the name which they use them to name without seeking to adapt them to the child. It is not so significant at the beginning which the child includes/understands what is known as but simply that it hears. It is not necessary when it starts to use the language which he pronounces correctly immediately, but to take it again when he is mistaken or stammers and not "to drop" while pronouncing in his turn from the manner that he pronounces.
To name a child "Pépère" is also rather frequent, that returns us to two generations of variation. See his/her child already like little old woman or to re-examine the past through his/her child, of course the term is nice, tender as all the denominations that one one could submit to his child. It is often said that while advancing in the age one falls down in childhood, that senility makes us become again child, then why on the baby to affix "pépère"? The physical aspect undoubtedly, this good-naturedness which one meets at the two ages, this immobilism also.
The baby is a human being and just what one teaches him, to start with the language. To name the things by their name without reducing or simplifying principle. For which is this good, for the child or the relative? The child needs to be identified in turn with his parents then in the external world but it must know what it is. To the father of saying "you are a man, my son", with the mother to mean the woman with his daughter. It is the same for the catch for the feeding-bottle. The child is not simply a mouth to be nourished, it must be satisfied alimentairement and affectivement. To give the feeding-bottle right to nourish it is destabilizing. It is true that for much this step a character of drudgery has, under hearing a passage obliged every three hours, including the night, and one minimizes in fact the role of the word. More quickly it will have eaten and more quickly one can pass to another thing. However the child requires for words behind what it ingurgite especially if he were not nursed. The feeding-bottle is the substitute symbolic system of its relation to the centre with the mother, if in what his/her mother gives him the love, tenderness does not pass, it simply becomes a belly. If one spoke a little more to the children in these moments there, one would realize that they are nourished much better. Dolto told to have seen orphanages in ex the USSR where the first ages were aligned the ones beside the others, more than one score, at the hour of tétée, the nurses present wedged the feeding-bottle between the child and a cushion and could thus be occupied with their occupations. These children suffered all from this swinging which one can note among certain autists. The bringing together goes from oneself.