Language Attitudes Regarding Communication with Young Children and the Use of Diminutives

Abstract

Parental attitudes play a crucial role in shaping children’s language development. Language attitudes within families and parental beliefs about communicating with young children are under-researched, particularly in Estonia. This study aims to investigate language attitudes in Estonian-speaking families regarding communication with children under three years old. Using data collected via a web-based questionnaire from 246 Estonian families, the article addresses the following questions: How important do Estonian-speaking parents consider communication with young children during early stages of language development, including the pre-verbal period?; Do parents believe that speaking to young children should differ from communication with adults?; What specific features of child-directed speech (e.g., the use of diminutives) are known and applied by parents?; How do language ideologies about child-directed communication relate to socio-economic factors such as parental education, age, language skills, or residential environment (e.g., rural vs. urban)? The findings contribute to understanding the interplay between individual attitudes and beliefs in language strategies used with speaking with young children. Almost all parents considered speaking with children very important. Altogether, 58% of respondents answered that one should speak even with pre-verbal children, 67% reported that they use diminutives when speaking with children. Attitudes were more strongly expressed by individuals who indicated that they do not use a different register when speaking with children. Many respondents justified their perspective by emphasizing the importance of using normative and correct language with young children. Socio-economic status factors such as age, education, language skills, and residential environment did not appear to influence attitudes toward communicating with small children.

1. Introduction

According to Dragojevic et al. (2013, p. 3), language ideologies represent broad, socio-cultural schemas shaping the attitudes towards particular language varieties and comprise sets of beliefs, largely consistent, about languages and the principles of their appropriate use (Woolard, 1994; Irvine & Gal, 2000). Since the 1960s with the seminal works of Lambert (1967), Lambert et al. (1960), Hymes (1962, 1972), and Labov (1966), it has generally been accepted that real-life language behaviors—such as the realization and management of linguistic diversity in the home—are not separated from their social contexts. Instead, the application of linguistic resources, as they manifest from our cognitive faculties, are mediated through societal norms, beliefs, and dispositions. While language ideology is commonly discussed at the broader societal level, language attitudes can be viewed more at the individual speaker’s level and has been referred to as the speaker’s opinions and beliefs about languages, or dialects, as well as the ‘assessments that speakers make about the relative values of a particular language’ (Myers-Scotton, 2006, p. 109). Attitudes are commonly described as towards a language, dialect, or accent, but attitudes can also be expressed towards specific registers. However, limited research exists regarding the attitudes as a choice of register of one language within the family context.

The attitudes surrounding communication with young children are shaped by cultural, social, and linguistic factors that influence the interactions between parents and caregivers. Usage-based approaches (Tomasello, 2003; Clark, 2009; E. Lieven & Tomasello, 2008) argue that children acquire language through exposure to linguistic input. The amount and nature of this input are shaped by adults’ attitudes toward communication with children, as well as by the language forms they themselves use.

From research on language attitudes, it is evident that such attitudes are diverse, and the primary distinction lies between essentialist (purist, normative) and relativist (nominalist, diversity-oriented, liberal) approaches (Gasparov, 2004). Purists regard standard languages as objectively existing realities, treating any non-standard variants as unwelcome deviations and thereby overlooking that variation is inherent in language (Milroy, 2001). Such variation may likewise be observed in attitudes toward child-directed speech as a non-standard register.

Parents’ attitudes toward speaking with young children are generally constructive and positive, as they acknowledge the critical role of communication in language development and overall cognitive growth (e.g., Jones, 2015; for Estonian see Kütt, 2023). Research indicates that parents believe their engagement in conversations significantly influences their children’s language skills, social interactions, and emotional development (Jones, 2015; Rowe, 2008; Tomasello, 2003). This understanding is reflected in various studies that underscore the importance of parental involvement in fostering effective communication (Kütt, 2020; Tomasello, 2003); regular conversations facilitate the development of essential communication skills in children, which are foundational for later academic success (Yuill, 2011).

However, the positive attitude toward communicating with young children and the recognition of the significant role of child-directed speech is not characteristic of all societies and cultures (for a review see Kõrgesaar & Kapanen, 2016). In some cultures, it is customary to begin language teaching, that is, speaking with children only after the child has uttered their first words. In these contexts, adults believe that children learn most behaviors through observation, and language must be demonstrated rather than verbally communicated to them (Bonvillain, 2003, p. 266). Additionally, in certain South American cultures, some caregivers refrain from speaking to the child. Among both the Maijada and the Kichwa, verbal communication between the child and adult is nearly nonexistent; children are only regarded as conversation partners once they have acquired the ability to speak (E. V. M. Lieven, 1994; Pye, 1986, 1992, pp. 242–243). Different cultures also exhibit distinct communication styles with children, reflecting their child-rearing ideologies and speech communities generally fall into two categories: those that engage in child-directed communication (predominantly Western societies) and those that do not. In the former, the child is viewed as an active communicator from birth and is regarded as a conversation partner, with adults actively involved in teaching the child to speak. Conversely, in other cultures, children are excluded from conversations until they have acquired speech, and adults do not play an active role in language instruction.

Still, attitudes towards talking with small children can vary also within modern Western cultures, particularly regarding the importance placed on talking versus silence and cultural habits of communication. These differences influence the nature and content of family conversations with children (Tulviste, 2019). Recent studies (Alsaadi et al., 2024; Ghaisani & Salam, 2022) have also indicated that excessive screen time has a detrimental effect on children’s language development. This issue is associated with screen media consumption; specifically, when parents do not prioritize communication with their young children, there is a greater likelihood that the child will spend more time in front of a screen, leading to a reduction in active communication.

These varying attitudes toward communication not only impact family interactions but also highlight the broader concept of child-directed speech (CDS), which is prevalent across cultures and influences language acquisition through emotional engagement and caregiver responsiveness (Meyer et al., 2011). Cultural norms and values significantly shape the use of CDS among parents from diverse backgrounds. CDS reflects local cultural practices, as demonstrated in indigenous Australian communities, where it embodies specific verbal routines and socialization methods (Davidson et al., 2023). In Romani-speaking communities, CDS incorporates elements of oral culture, emphasizing traditional dialogue modeling and folk genres that are vital for cultural identity (Réger & Berko Gleason, 1991). This influence is evident in the structure, frequency, and communicative functions of CDS, reflecting the underlying cultural beliefs about child rearing and socialization.

CDS, characterized by its unique language-specific features, serves as a medium through which caregivers convey cultural norms and socialization practices to children. Considering language, the CDS differs from adult-directed speech (ADS) in various linguistic aspects such as repetition, word choice (Soderstrom, 2007), preference of certain morphological and syntactic patterns (Pine, 1994; for Estonian see Argus, 2019) like preference of certain inflectional types (Argus, 2009) or repetitions (Argus, 2019), and sentence length, as well as in prosodic and phonemic variation (typically use of higher pitch or/and exaggerated intonation) (Pine, 1994; Kõrgesaar & Kapanen, 2016, p. 126). These modifications are designed to capture infants’ attention and aid in their language acquisition.

The use of diminutives is a characteristic feature of child-directed speech across various languages (Savickienė & Dressler, 2007); it is multifaceted, serving numerous expressive, social, and pragmatic functions across different languages and cultures (e.g., Jurafsky, 1996). Their perception can range from affectionate and endearing to ironic and devaluing, depending on the context and intent behind their use (for Estonian see Mänd, 2024). According to Reynoso (2005), the functions of diminutives referring to the entity are called “quantifying value” (the reduced size of the entity) and “qualifying value” (positive, negative value), and the one referring to the relation of the subject, regarding the reduced entity, is the “relational value” (irony, attenuation, respect). The qualifying and relational functions include the expression of an affective value associated with diminutives, as these functions convey a higher degree of subjectivity. Specifically, the speaker expresses positive or negative feelings, attitudes, beliefs, or judgments toward various entities or individuals (Malaver & Paredes García, 2020). Diminutives are typically used in friendly or intimate exchanges, ‘informal’ situations (Dressler & Merlini Barbaresi, 1994) and are frequently employed in CDS to create a child-centered atmosphere, to express affection and endearment, hedge speech acts, and even convey contempt (Travis, 2004), also to facilitate language acquisition (King & Melzi, 2004), e.g., to aid in the segmentation of speech or to acquire more difficult inflectional types (Savickienė & Dressler, 2007).

Although the common interpretation of diminutives is often linked to emotions, affection, and kindness, this can vary significantly across different languages and cultures. Cultural norms significantly influence the use of diminutives in languages, shaping attitudes and expectations around their use. Attitudes expressed by diminutives have been found to be different in different social groups. For example, Malaver and Paredes García (2020) found that sex and age did not play a role in the use of diminutives in evaluative functions; still, education has some impact on the use of diminutives and people with higher education used less diminutives in affective-evaluative function (Malaver & Paredes García, 2020, p. 334). The concept of “verbal laxity” suggests that diminutives may be viewed as lacking seriousness, further contributing to negative perceptions (Makri-Tsilipakou, 2003). The characteristics of CDS, particularly the use of diminutives, are influenced by cultural beliefs, linguistic contexts, and SES factors. The impact of the developmental environment, specifically socio-economic status, on children’s linguistic development has been recognized as a strong and persistent factor across languages and cultures (Noble et al., 2019; Brito, 2017; Pace et al., 2017), affecting various linguistic levels—from vocabulary to pragmatics (see, for example, Rowe, 2008, 2012; Kuchirko & Tamis-LeMonda, 2019). Still, there is limited research on the attitudes towards the use of diminutives in asymmetrical communication, such as interactions with young children.

Research indicates that diminutives function also as markers of social identity, with usage varying significantly across socio-economic segments; for example, in Santiago, Chile, diminutives are predominantly employed in narratives by males from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, suggesting a correlation between socio-economic status (SES) and linguistic choices (Riffo, 2019). In addition, parental beliefs on the importance of speaking several languages can have an effect on language input and through this also outcomes of their children (Ronderos et al., 2022). Therefore, social background factors, such as age, education, language skills, and place of residence, may influence individuals’ attitudes towards diminutives as well as the frequency and extent of their usage. Conversely, a study of dialects in England and Wales demonstrates that increased mixing of socio-economic classes results in diminished interdependence in language use, including diminutive forms (Louf et al., 2023).

The use of diminutives may also be influenced by the inherent structure of the language. A comparison between Estonian and Russian (Kazakovskaya & Argus, 2021) based on recordings of spontaneous speech data reveals that Estonian parents employ significantly fewer diminutives when speaking with their children compared to their Russian counterparts. This difference is influenced by cultural factors as well as the distinct diminutive repertoires in each language. Russian features approximately 30 diminutive suffixes, while Estonian has only three, limiting the use of diminutives in Estonian (Argus & Kazakovskaya, 2023). Therefore, the extensive use of diminutives by Estonian parents would not be expected.

In summary, the attitudes surrounding communication with children is significantly influenced by cultural factors, with different cultures exhibiting varying attitudes toward this practice. However, there exists a notable lack of data regarding attitudes within specific cultural contexts, such as the East-European culture represented by Estonian families. Language attitudes encompass beliefs about the significance of language use, such as how important parents consider speaking with their children and the perceived role of input in child development. Additionally, these attitudes include affective factors, which reflect parents’ reasoning behind their language choices when communicating with children, as well as the strategies they employ to promote certain behaviors, particularly in facilitating children’s language development (Ó Riagáin, 1997). This study aims to address existing knowledge gaps by examining Estonian parents’ attitudes toward communication with children and the usage of diminutives. It also analyzed how these attitudes and linguistic practices may vary according to the diverse social backgrounds of parents. The following research questions were formulated to guide the investigation of Estonian parents’ attitudes toward speaking with children:

(1)

How important do Estonian-speaking parents consider communication with young children during early stages of language development, including the pre-verbal period?

(2)

Do parents believe that speaking to young children should differ from communication with adults?

(3)

Do parents use the specific feature of child-directed speech, e.g., diminutives when speaking with children?

(4)

How do language ideologies about child-directed communication relate to socio-economic factors such as parental education, gender, age, place of residence, or knowledge of languages?

2. Method and Participants

A web-based questionnaire was employed to address the research questions concerning parents’ attitudes. The survey was conducted through the Google Forms platform and comprised six meta-data questions (e.g., age, education, language skills, place of residence of respondents) and nine questions specifically related to attitudes toward communicating with young children. This latter section included three dichotomous (yes-no) questions, one question utilizing a five-point Likert scale, followed by five open-ended questions allowing for free responses, providing opportunity to reason the answer and give examples for language use. It took on average 8–10 min to complete the survey. The study included 246 parents who were selected using snowball sampling and who voluntarily participated in the online survey. The data were collected in accordance with ethical principles of research and participant confidentiality: (1) participants remained anonymous, as no IP addresses, names, birth dates, or contact information (e.g., email addresses) were collected, ensuring that the data could not be personalized; (2) after data collection was completed, the questionnaire was deleted, and the dataset was uploaded to the university’s special repository, where access was restricted solely to the authors of the present article through secure identification. Data regarding the participants is presented in

Table 1. Parents’ profiles.

First Language	Total and Ratio
Estonian	233 (95.10%)
Russian	12 (4.90%)
Mean age
18–30	43 (17.55%)
31–40	124 (50.61%)
41–50	64 (26.12%)
51–60	10 (4.08%)
61–70	4 (1.63%)
Gender
Female	238 (97.14%)
Male	7 (2.86%)
Place of residence
Rural	82 (33.47%)
Urban	163 (66.53%)
Education
Basic education	10 (4.08%)
Upper secondary education	39 (15.92%)
Vocational secondary education	40 (16.33%)
Professional higher education	34 (13.88%)
Higher education	122 (49.80%)
Knowledge of languages besides native language (average number of languages per person)	2.31

.

The majority of respondents were native Estonian speakers, while only 4.9% identified Russian as their native language1. The number of families who speak Russian as a home language is limited, which restricts the possibility of drawing generalizable conclusions. The survey was predominantly completed by mothers; only 3% of respondents were male. The highest number of responses came from individuals aged 30–40, followed by those aged 41–50 and 18–30. Approximately two-thirds of respondents resided in urban areas, while about one-third (34%) lived in rural regions. In terms of educational background, the largest share of respondents held higher education degrees. All levels of education were represented, including 10 individuals with basic education2. When asked about additional languages spoken besides Estonian, respondents reported an average of 2.31 languages.

In the analysis, open questions were analyzed qualitatively and descriptive statistics were provided to illustrate the results of the dichotomous questions (e.g., “Do you consider speaking with small children important?”), as well as for the five-point Likert scale questions (e.g., “How important do you consider communication with young children during the early stages of language development, including the pre-verbal period?”). Chi-square tests were conducted to identify relationships between responses regarding attitudes toward speaking with young children and socio-economic status factors, including parental education, place of residence, language proficiency, gender, and age (in years). The responses to the open-ended questions were analyzed qualitatively using the principles of content analysis (e.g., Roberts, 1992) for coding the answers. During the coding process, the main categories were initially developed, and subsequently, subcategories were established when narrower subgroups of responses were identified. All answers underwent double coding: after the initial coding performed by one researcher, the coding was verified by a second researcher. In instances where multiple reasons were mentioned within a single response, the first mentioned reason as the most salient one was included in the analysis.

3. Results

The questionnaire responses are presented below, with questions and corresponding answers organized in accordance with the research questions.

3.1. Attitudes Towards the Importance of Speaking with Children

To address the first research question (“How important do Estonian-speaking parents consider communication with young children during the early stages of language development, including the pre-verbal period?”), the responses from two questions: (a) How important do you consider speaking with a toddler in general?; (b) Is it necessary to speak with a child who is not yet talking (e.g., a child under one year old)? were analyzed.

For the responses to the first question, a five-point Likert scale was employed. The responses were largely uniform, with only one respondent out of 246 selecting a score of four, while all others opted for a score of five, resulting in an average score of 4.98. In relation to the second question concerning communication with preverbal children, only one respondent expressed uncertainty.

The responses to the open-ended question regarding the importance of speaking to young children can be categorized into six main topics (see Figure 1). The most prevalent response indicated that communication with small children supports their language and speech development.

In some responses, language development was addressed in general terms (e.g., The child acquires speech skills through listening) by respondents. While in others, more specific linguistic skills were highlighted, with the acquisition of vocabulary mentioned most frequently (e.g., Vocabulary development; Talking with the child helps to develop the toddler’s speech and vocabulary). The acquisition of phonology was also referenced by participants a few times (e.g., This is where the child’s linguistic representation begins to develop, as they hear their native language and start to perceive various sounds: It is important for the child to hear phonemes and begin to imitate them).

The second most frequent category of responses pertained to “general development”. In some instances, parents responded with rhetorical questions, such as “Where does the child learn?” and “How else do they learn?” Additionally, the development of the brain was mentioned in some answers (e.g., Being in a language environment stimulates the brain). The development of cognitive or semantic acquisition was also referenced (e.g., By speaking with the child, they develop and begin to create associations, what means what). Furthermore, some responses highlighted the child’s ability to learn through imitation (e.g., The child learns by imitating).

Much less often, supporting the child’s emotional development and natural behavior of parents was mentioned by respondents. In reference to emotions, parents noted both the child’s ability to perceive emotions (e.g., The child understands emotions; In conversation, the child also perceives emotions to which they respond) and the parents’ role in creating emotional experiences (e.g., It is important to generate emotions). When parents described speaking with children as a natural behavior, they predominantly employed rhetorical questions (e.g., How else could it be done?) or made statements reflecting a common knowledge or rule (e.g., It is difficult to explain something that is fundamentally elementary and entirely logical; It would be strange not to talk to one’s child; It seems normal and human to behave this way; Active communication with the child is necessary from the moment of birth). Additionally, some responses referenced “instincts” (e.g., This arises from maternal instinct).

Responses in which parents acknowledged the child’s ability to listen and comprehend, even when they are unable to speak themselves, were relatively rare and brief (e.g., They already understand a lot; The child comprehends many things). In some instances, the ability to listen to speech was intertwined with the development of listening skills (e.g., They learn to listen and understand simpler sentences).

Speaking with young children as a means of fostering a child’s social development was mentioned by parents only six times. Parents addressed both aspects of communication: the child’s ability to learn communication skills (e.g., Thus, they also learn to communicate) and the parents’ strategy to establish contact with the child (e.g., Talking with the child helps to create a connection).

Parents primarily see speaking with young children as a means of supporting language development. Vocabulary acquisition was mentioned most frequently, along with the importance of listening to and imitating sounds, indicating that parents have a good awareness of language acquisition processes and consider them important. Some parents acknowledged the importance of emotional and social development, though these aspects were mentioned less frequently. It was also commonly understood and mentioned that children comprehend speech before they can produce it, which encourages parents to engage in verbal interaction even in the absence of the child’s verbal responses.

3.2. Attitudes Toward Variations in Register, i.e., Using CDS, When Communicating with Young Children

To address the second research question regarding parents’ beliefs concerning the differences in communication with young children and adults, we employed one yes-no question (“Do you believe that speaking with young children (e.g., children under three years old) should be done differently than with adults?” with the possibility to choose the answer “I don’t know”) and two open-ended questions (“What do you think this difference is (i.e., how should one speak with small children)?”). The differences between CDS and ADS, as well as personal experiences (“Do you speak (or did you speak when your children were small) with young children differently than with adults? Please describe how this difference manifests.”) can be identified through these responses.

Altogether, 142 participants responded positively to the second question (“Do you believe that speaking with small children (e.g., children under three years old) should be done differently than with adults?”). The answer “no” was provided by 99 people and four people said that they do not know.

Analyzing responses to the question “How should one speak with young children?” reveals eight distinct categories. However, approximately 10% of all responses do not clearly fit into these categories. More than half of the answers to this question fell into the category of “using simpler language” (see Figure 2) (e.g., in common language). The second most frequent category was “using language appropriate for the child’s age”. Respondents noted that when speaking to children, one must communicate “from the level of a child” or “in the proximal development zone”. Nearly 20% of the responses emphasized that adults should speak softly, friendly, patiently, and peacefully when interacting with children (e.g., generally not so differently, but more patiently; things should be explained to them gently).

Some respondents (ten) indicated that it is important to speak slowly with children, while others (seven) emphasized the need to use a different tone (e.g., a higher pitch, a slightly melodic tone, or a softer tone). Some of these respondents elaborated on their answers, explaining why the use of a special tone is important (e.g., to attract the child’s interest with tone; it has been widely discussed that one should speak in a different tone with children, as they respond better to it). Fewer responses addressed the use of repetitions, and some mentioned employing a special register for children (CDS, primarily lexical means).

The category of “other” includes a variety of explanations, ranging from avoiding vulgarisms and too abstract words when communicating with children to the responsive use of one’s own language during interactions with children.

Many respondents who answered negatively to the question, “Do you believe that speaking with young children (e.g., children under three years old) should be done differently than with adults?”, provided comments on their answers. Approximately 25% of those who asserted that the same language should be used with children as with adults expressed a negative attitude towards the use of diminutives or onomatopoeia. This negative perspective was evident in responses where parents emphasized the “normalcy” or “correctness” of language use with children (e.g., participants provided comments like: young children should be spoken to like a normal adult; I use normal words; Should one speak to a child as if they are a fool? One does not need to speak to a three-year-old as if they are a baby).

In many instances, various pejorative terms were used to describe how adults should not talk to children (e.g., pudikeel, tuti-pluti, ninnunännu ‘baby-talk’, puditama ‘to use pudgy language, i.e., baby talk’; one should not use baby talk, should not use a babyish language; you should talk clearly and simply and not in baby talk; a bit of that baby language does need to come in; baby talk is not practiced in our family; there is no need for babyish chatter).

Some respondents who indicated that communication with young children should be conducted in the same manner as with adults still provided examples of how to adjust their speech when interacting with children, primarily mentioning simplification as the main strategy to be employed.

Altogether, 172 participants (70%) reported having used a child-directed register with their children. This number exceeds those who indicated that one should speak differently to young children. In cases where respondents expressed the belief that they should not speak differently with young children, they acknowledged that, despite knowing the importance of not altering their speech, they had not managed to avoid using specific terms characteristic of CDS (e.g., I try not to use (baby talk) but sometimes I still use it e.g., näm-näm for food etc.). Some respondents mentioned that while they do not use a special register, they tend to provide more elaborate explanations of their speech content to children. Additionally, some participants cited insufficient knowledge about child development (e.g., I spoke less because I didn’t have enough experience and knowledge, and I didn’t know that is important; (I) didn’t use different register because haven’t sufficient knowledge), and two respondents indicated that they likely use CDS but could not articulate how they do so.

In sum, almost two-thirds of participants considered communication with small children different from that with adults. Responses predominantly highlighted the use of simpler language and age-appropriate communication; nearly 20% emphasized speaking softly and patiently, while some respondents noted the importance of using a different tone. Those respondents who answered that speaking with children should be the same as speaking with adults frequently expressed their negative attitude towards the special register used with small children. Their negative attitudes include the use of diminutives, advocating for “normal” or “correct” language use. Not all respondents who asserted that one should not speak differently to young children acknowledged that; despite their reluctance to embrace the idea of using CDS, they had still employed this register with their children.

3.3. Attitudes Toward Using Diminutives

In addressing the third research question, “Do parents use the specific feature of child-directed speech, e.g., diminutives, when speaking with children?”, we utilized responses to a yes-no question: “Do you use affectionate words when speaking with a small child, such as tibukene ‘chicken.DIM’, kutsu ‘dog.DIM’, kätu ‘hand.DIM’, kallike ‘darling.DIM’ and so on?”. Additionally, we incorporated responses from open-ended questions: “If you answered the previous question affirmatively, please provide 3–4 examples of affectionate words that you use when speaking with young children,” and “Can you explain why you use affectionate terms?”.

A total of 165 parents (67%) responded affirmatively to the question regarding the use of specific words when speaking to children, while 71 (29%) respondents indicated that they do not use such words, and 8 expressed uncertainty.

Analyzing responses to the question about reasons why parents use diminutives reveals twelve distinct categories (see Figure 3). A limited number of responses did not align clearly with the established categories and were subsequently classified under the residual category labeled “other.”

Participants most frequently (25%) explained the use of diminutives by referring to the perceived endearment of both the expressions and the children they are intended for (e.g., the child is lovely and dear, and thus I express my affection; it is sweet, and sometimes the little ones need to be pampered; it’s cute). In some responses the use of diminutives was mentioned even while speaking with adults (e.g., I also refer to cats as kittens and dogs as puppies when speaking with adults).

The second most frequently mentioned category (21%) indicated that diminutives were perceived as facilitating children’s learning of the corresponding words. The concept of learning was interpreted broadly to encompass pronunciation, imitation, word acquisition, and the development of associations, as well as aspects of social and emotional development (e.g., they are phonetically simpler, making them easier for children to imitate; children can replicate them more easily and establish associations. These contribute positively to language development, social skills, and emotional bonding).

Close to the frequency of the previously mentioned category and content-wise close to the first mentioned category, responses (20%) described diminutives as a means of expressing love, warmth, and care (e.g., similar to affection shown towards adults; used to convey tenderness and attachment).

Other frequently mentioned categories included the belief that diminutives have a positive effect on the child (16%, e.g., the child feels himself safe), the notion that their use arises from habit or social modeling (12%, it’s a habit; it seems more natural), and the perspective that such usage is rooted in intuition or emotional perception (11%).

Although the question concerned the rationale for using diminutives, some participants who responded negatively nevertheless provided arguments for their non-use. One respondent, for instance, stated that she consciously avoided them. Diminutives were also associated with baby talk, with only certain forms being employed (e.g., kullapai ‘dear’, kalli-kene ‘dearest-DIM’). Some responses indicated that participants may not have reflected critically on their own language use, or may have misinterpreted the question, as they claimed not to use the words provided in the examples, yet supplied alternative items—many of which contained diminutive endings.

The most frequently provided diminutives by parents as examples pertain to children, including terms such as kallike ‘dear.DIM’, lapsuke ‘child.DIM’, poju, pojuke ‘son.DIM’, tibuke ‘chicken.DIM’, nunnu, nunnuke ‘cute.DIM’. Additionally, some diminutives were noted for animals, such as kiisu ‘cat.DIM’, kutsu ‘dog.DIM’, as well as for body parts of children, such as kätu ‘hand.DIM’ and for objects belonging to children, like papu ‘footwear.DIM’.

In sum, the most common reason for using diminutives was their perceived endearment, followed by their role in facilitating children’s learning. Additionally, participants regarded diminutives as expressions of love and care. This function is further illustrated by the diminutives provided by parents as examples, which predominantly referred to children and conveyed endearment. Other notable categories included beliefs in their positive impact on children, habitual use or social modeling, and intuition or emotional perception.

3.4. Attitudes Toward Speaking with Children in Connection to SES Factors

To address the fourth research question regarding the relationship between language attitudes about child-directed communication and socio-economic factors, we analyzed the responses to yes-no questions alongside a Likert scale question in relation to the socio-economic status of the respondents. Five socio-economic factors were examined: parental education, gender, age, place of residence, and knowledge of languages. Of these, place of residence and knowledge of languages were more exploratory in nature and cannot be strongly substantiated by existing literature.

With regard to the age of the participants, no significant differences were observed among the various age groups. Only three respondents from the 31–40 age group rated the importance of speaking with small children as “four” on the five-point Likert scale. In response to the question about the necessity of speaking with pre-verbal children, there were minor differences in the proportions of affirmative responses across age groups (see

Table 2. The age groups and percentage of answers.

Age	No of Participants	Is It Necessary to Speak Differently with Pre-Verbal Children?			Do You Use Diminutives When Talking with Young Children?
		Yes	No	Don’t Know	Yes	No	Don’t Know
18–30 y	43	55	44	1	77	21	2
31–40 y	123	57	42	1	68	29	3
41–50 y	65	60	40	0	58	37	3
51–60 y	10	80	20	0	70	20	10
60+ y	4	75	25	0	75	25	0

): 54% of respondents aged 18–31, 58% of those aged 31–40, and 60% of participants aged 41–59 answered affirmatively. However, these differences did not reach statistical significance (e.g., the difference between the first and third groups yielded a p-value of 0.659). Additionally, the use of diminutives did not correlate with age, as a comparison of responses among the five age groups did not reveal any significant differences (chi-square test result: p = 0.410).

The education level of participants seems also irrelevant in the attitudes towards speaking with young children. Only three respondents (from different education levels) evaluated the necessity of speaking with small children with “four” on the five-point Likert scale. Also, the proportion of answers provided to the question concerning the necessity of speaking with pre-verbal children were not different in different education groups. When analyzing similar education level groups together (higher education with upper secondary education and applied university with university degree) no significant difference was found between groups (p = 0.354). The same method of grouping yielded similar results in the analysis of diminutive usage: the difference between the groups was not significant (p = 0.793), indicating that the level of education was not associated with the use of diminutives.

Respondents were categorized into two groups based on their living environment: urban or rural. Individuals from both environments responded similarly to all questions. Notably, only three respondents selected “four” on the five-point Likert scale regarding the importance of speaking with small children; one of these respondents indicated a city residence, while two identified as living in rural areas. Although the percentage of affirmative responses to the question about speaking with pre-verbal children differed between the two groups (54% in the city and 64% in the country), this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.186). Regarding the use of diminutives with children, 68% of urban participants responded positively (six answered that they do not know), while 66% of rural participants provided a negative response (two answered that they do not know). Although the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (p = 0.721), we still see that slightly more rural participants reported to use diminutives when speaking to their children.

Parents were also asked to provide information about languages they speak. This represented a novel SES factor that had not been previously investigated. The selection was based on the assumption that individuals with more advanced language skills may exhibit greater metalinguistic awareness; consequently, it was hypothesized that respondents who speak multiple languages would display more positive attitudes toward the use of CDS.

Overall, the number of languages indicated by respondents varied from only one (i.e., the first language, reported by one parent) to seven languages (also reported by one parent). On average, parents indicated proficiency in two additional languages beyond their first language.

Only three respondents selected “four” on the five-point Likert scale regarding the importance of speaking with young children; one of these respondents indicated three, two respondents marked two languages they can speak. Although the percentage of affirmative responses to the question about speaking differently with children differed between groups (e.g., 48% to 75% in

Table 3. The language skills groups and percentages of answers.

Number of Languages	No of Participants	Is It Necessary to Speak Differently with Young Children? (Percentages)			Do You Use Diminutives When Talking with Young Children? (Percentages)
		Yes	No	Don’t Know	Yes	No	Don’t Know
1–2	59	56	41	3	69	27	4
3	94	65	34	1	70	27	3
4	61	48	50	2	67	31	2
5	23	57	43	0	52	39	9
6+	8	75	25	0	63	37	0

), languages-based groups are not comparable considering their size and the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.506). Regarding the use of diminutives with children, respondents who indicated proficiency in three languages provided more positive responses (70%), while 52% of participants who reported speaking five languages also offered positive feedback. The difference between these groups was still not significant (p = 0.742).

Only three respondents rated the importance of speaking with small children as “four” on the five-point Likert scale; one of these respondents indicated the number of languages she speaks as three, while two respondents reported proficiency in two languages. Although the percentage of affirmative responses to the question regarding differentiated communication with children varied between groups (ranging from 48% to 75%, as shown in Table 3), the language-based groups were not comparable in terms of their sample sizes, and the observed difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.506). In relation to the use of diminutives with children, respondents who reported proficiency in three languages provided more positive responses (70%), compared to 52% of participants who indicated proficiency in five languages (see Table 3). Still, the chi-square test revealed that there were no associations between the number of languages respondents can speak and attitudes toward use of diminutives (p = 0.742).

In summary, socio-economic status factors such as age, educational level, language proficiency, and place of residence do not appear to be linked to parents’ attitudes toward talking with young children, both at a general level (regarding the necessity of interacting with children) and in the use of diminutives.

To characterize the respondents who expressed negative attitudes toward the use of specific registers, such as CDS and diminutives, ten parents who demonstrated the strongest opposition (e.g., using pejorative terms to describe CDS) were selected from the participant pool for further analysis of their SES features. As a result, this group was heterogeneous with respect to nearly every characteristic, comprising individuals from various age groups and educational backgrounds. Among the ten respondents, one resided in a rural area, while the others lived in urban settings. Additionally, three respondents indicated proficiency in two languages, whereas the remaining participants reported knowledge of three or four languages. Consequently, it is not feasible to delineate a specific profile corresponding to parents who are strictly opposed to the use of child-specific registers.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

Estonian parents consider talking with children to be important. They primarily view speaking with young children as a means to support language development. This result coincides with previous findings from English (Jones, 2015; Rowe, 2008) and Estonian (Kütt, 2023). Vocabulary acquisition was mentioned most frequently, along with the significance of listening to and imitating sounds, indicating that parents are aware of some aspects of language-acquisition processes and consider them important. Some parents acknowledged the importance of general development as well emotional and social development, though these last two aspects were less frequently addressed. It was commonly understood that children comprehend speech before they can produce it, and therefore parents considered speaking with children to be meaningful and important. Unlike the previous research of Yuill (2011), Estonian parents did not identify speaking with children as a predictor of their subsequent academic achievement.

Overall, the findings indicate that Estonian parents adhere to the broader conceptualization of child-directed speech prevalent in contemporary Western cultures (Meyer et al., 2011), which facilitates language acquisition through emotional engagement and caregiver responsiveness.

Almost two-thirds of participants considered communication with small children different from that with adults. Responses highlighted the use of simpler language and age-appropriate communication; nearly 20% emphasized speaking softly, friendly, and patiently. While unexpectedly, some noted the importance of a different tone when speaking to children. Although the use of a special tone in CDS has not been widely investigated in linguistics, it could be that the tone is a feature which is salient and easily attested by speakers and listeners. Other language features specific to CDS, e.g., repetitions, word choice, simpler syntactic patterns and sentence length were mentioned a couple of times. All features noted by participants of the current study have been documented in various previous studies on CDS (see Soderstrom, 2007, for a review of general features of CDS; the use of repetition in Estonian CDS has been reported in Argus, 2019). Preferences of certain morphological and syntactic patterns in CDS, which have been studied in different languages, including Estonian (Argus, 2009; Argus & Kazakovskaya, 2023) were not mentioned by parents in the current study.

Those who believed speaking with children should be the same as with adults often expressed clear negative attitudes towards the special register used with children, including diminutives, advocating for “normal” or “correct” language use. Those respondents also used pejorative terms while referring to the way parents should not talk to their children. It seems that those respondents see the CDS as a kind of “verbal laxity” (Makri-Tsilipakou, 2003), being too informal and lacking correctness. Some respondents admitted that although they favor the idea that speaking with children should not be different from speaking with adults, they still have not managed to avoid using CDS with their children. Thus, the distinction between more liberal, diversity-oriented and purist, normative-oriented attitudes (see Gasparov, 2004) is likewise evident also in the family-centered language register, particularly in the use of diminutives. However, a closer examination of the small group of respondents who most strongly anticipated CDS as a distinct register revealed no clear socio-economic status profile, which may be explained by the fact that, in Estonia, CDS exhibits minimal variation across such groups (Kütt, 2023); moreover, the present sample is too small to permit reliable generalizations.

Based on existing data concerning Estonian diminutives in child-directed spontaneous speech (Argus & Kazakovskaya, 2023), it would not be anticipated that Estonian parents would report extensive use of diminutives. Nevertheless, the finding that 67% of respondents indicated their use of diminutives suggests that a significant majority of parents do employ words characteristic of child-directed speech, diminutives.

Two main reasons for using diminutives with children have been identified in the literature: (1) to create a child-centered atmosphere by expressing affection and endearment (Travis, 2004) and (2) to facilitate language acquisition (King & Melzi, 2004), for instance, by aiding speech segmentation or the acquisition of more complex inflectional types (Savickienė & Dressler, 2007). In the present study, the first reason predominated. Parents most frequently cited the use of diminutives as a means of conveying endearment, love, and care, followed closely by their role in facilitating children’s learning. No respondents referred to the ironic functions of diminutives, which are characteristic of colloquial Estonian (Mänd, 2024). Parents primarily cited the phonological structure and meaning of diminutives as instrumental in language acquisition. However, while the morphological structure of diminutives as a facilitator of morphological acquisition has been extensively studied in various languages (Savickienė & Dressler, 2007; for Estonian Argus & Kazakovskaya, 2023), it was not referenced by the participants in the current study. No responses contained references to, or examples of, the acquisition of morphology. This suggests that parents may not be fully aware of structural aspects of language, such as morphology, but rather tend to focus on supporting their child’s language development through vocabulary and phonology.

A reflection of the concept of verbal laxity (as described by Makri-Tsilipakou, 2003) was also evident in responses to the question on the use of diminutives, particularly in the comments of parents who employed pejorative terms for CDS and argued that diminutives (i.e., baby-talk words) should not be used by parents. Nevertheless, the number of such comments was limited.

Socio-economic status factors, including age, educational level, and place of residence, do not appear to be associated with individuals’ attitudes toward communicating with small children, both in general terms (regarding the necessity of interaction with young children) and in the use of diminutives. Although some of the literature suggests that education may influence the use of diminutives, with individuals possessing higher educational attainment reportedly employing fewer diminutives for affective-evaluative purposes (Malaver & Paredes García, 2020, p. 334) and males from lower socio-economic backgrounds using more diminutives (Riffo, 2019), the current data did not support these findings. In the case of Estonian, it has generally been found that CDS exhibits no substantial differences across SES groups (Kütt, 2023); thus, the data obtained in the present study corroborate previous findings.

Although proficiency in multiple languages—examined here as a largely exploratory variable—might be expected to indicate greater linguistic awareness and mastery of various registers, the use of CDS and diminutives was not associated with parental language proficiency. It is possible that language proficiency does not have a strict and linear impact on the use of child-directed speech but rather involves more complex factors, such as metalinguistic awareness and culturally specific language practices. This leads us to two key insights: a pragmatic and constructive attitude that emphasizes the importance of speaking to children for their development, and the notion that CDS serves as a register expressing endearment, love, and care. While the role of CDS in children’s socialization has been emphasized, our data did not highlight this aspect significantly among parents. The absence of SES-based distinctions may also be attributed to the blurred boundaries of many social classes in Estonia. For instance, a study of dialects in England and Wales (Louf et al., 2023) demonstrated that increased mixing of socio-economic classes results in diminished interdependence in language use, including diminutive forms. It should still be kept in mind that the absence of a clear distinction may be attributable also to the relatively small proportion of respondents with lower levels of education in the present study.

The attitudes surrounding communication with young children are shaped by cultural, social, and linguistic factors that influence interactions between parents and caregivers. In our study, we examined social factors; however, our results indicated no significant connection between socio-economic status and the use of child-directed speech or diminutives. It has been reported that cultural norms and values significantly influence the use of CDS, and attitudes toward CDS may vary across different cultural contexts, such as family traditions and language practices. Some indications of this variability were observed in the current study, where some parents justified their use of diminutives based on naturalness and tradition and from the other side the desire to act “normally” or “correctly”. Therefore, it is essential to further investigate these cultural factors, as the existing literature underscores their critical role in shaping the use of CDS.

It also has to be considered that the attitudes or believed behavior will not coincide with actual language practices and parents who reported that they do not use special registers as CDS can behave differently in actual child-centered situations. Some hints for differences between beliefs and actual language use can be found in several studies (Garrett et al., 2003; Labov, 1972; Ramirez et al., 2023). Therefore, further research on actual language practices in child-centered situations using different methods, i.e., interviews or recordings of spontaneous speech, would be valuable.

In summary, consistent with previous research on Western European societies, the present study revealed that Estonian parents place high value on communicating with their children. They adopt a pragmatic perspective, regarding interaction as essential, with most parents asserting that it benefits children’s overall development and language acquisition. Reported factors concerning the usefulness of CDS align with those identified in earlier studies. However, more than one-third of respondents maintained that there is no need to communicate with children differently than with adults and expressed the view that diminutives should not be used. This reflects a prevailing emphasis on normative correctness in language use. While the polarity between normative and more liberal orientations has been examined in studies on language attitudes more broadly, the novel finding of the present study is that it can also be observed in a specific register such as CDS. The influence of socio-economic status on these attitudes was not clearly evident, suggesting that other factors, such as cultural practices or traditions, may play a role. These factors warrant closer examination in future research.

In addition to findings of linguistic relevance, the study also offers potential practical implications for educators and parents. A broader understanding of CDS as a distinct register should be disseminated among parents and professionals working with children. The positive impact of diminutive use on linguistic development—particularly on the acquisition of inflection—ought to be highlighted in educational programs, with emphasis on the fact that diminutives neither hinder vocabulary development nor imply incorrect language use.