Kevin Baldeosingh
A father's vocabulary usually predicts his child's language development by age three.
A mother's usually doesn't. In other words, if a father is well-spoken, his child should be speaking in complete sentences and have a good vocabulary by age three. And it doesn't matter if a mother has a good vocabulary or not.
Researchers aren't sure why this is so, but one suggestion, ironically, is that fathers exert more influence over their toddlers' language development because fathers are less familiar with their children than the mother.
In a 2012 article in Scientific American, writer Emily Anthes suggested that "Dads may be less sensitive to their children's language development (perhaps because they spend less time with them) and are therefore more apt to stretch them, speaking at a more sophisticated level." Mothers, by contrast, tend to talk down to their children.
If Anthes is right, though, then my wife Afi will influence our children's language development more than me, because she tends to use more unusual words. When I use unusual words with Jinaki, it's usually a half-joke on my part, to make her sound precocious. For example, she was able to say, "Daddy doesn't like pink because it's too garish and effeminate" months before she learned the meaning of those words.
But, whatever the basis, the fact is that a father is a key influence on a child, whether he is present and involved or not. If he is not, there is ample data showing the bad effects of an absent father: children from such households are more likely to be delinquent, to try drugs and become addicted, and to perform poorly in school.
While it is true that there are children from such households who do as well or better than the average children from stable two-parent homes, such a child is the exception not the rule: he or she is most likely genetically lucky and with a family network strong enough to replace the absent father.
"Fathers seem to influence children in unique ways," Anthes writes. "In particular, they play an outsized role in challenging their kids and stretching their emotional and cognitive capabilities." Fathers seem to teach their children about how to handle risk, usually through play, which is the main way that children learn. "Dads are more likely than moms to bounce their kids on their knees, toss them into the air, give them piggyback rides and wrestle, tickle and chase them," says Anthes.
In a sense, this is paradoxical, since children from father-absent households are more likely to indulge in risky behaviour, such as vandalism and drinking and smoking and unprotected sex. Since I don't think middle-class children are necessarily better-behaved in such respects, my interpretation is that fathers teach their children to manage risk better.
Afi has a different suggestion which I think more plausible, although it doesn't necessarily exclude my own: she thinks that fathers through edgy play give children an adrenalin rush, so their brains in teenage years are less likely to crave the excitement fix. Small children from lower socioeconomic households, however, not only are less likely to get such exposure through Daddy play and are also typically ordered not to do things without explanation: "Don't touch that or is licks for you!"
But even in low-income households, a father's influence can be significant. According to a 2004 study by American psychologist Meredith Rowe, low-income fathers tend to ask their children more Who, What, Where and Why questions. That helps a child to develop cognitively, including how they talk: and that can be a crucial factor in overcoming poverty.