User talk:Elemarth

Which last quotation? Akerbeltz (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I meant the fourth citation (What is Selective Mutism?), which seems to be a broken link (again). It was my source for most of that section. Our citations are pretty terrible overall, but something is better than nothing.

Fixed the link.

Do you, or does anyone reading this, know how to cite the various editions of the DSM? Elemarth (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that. I'm really unsure about the scientific merit of that statement, I think I'll pass it by an expert on bilingualism at Edinburgh Uni. It sounds like one of those ancient scare stories from the 60's. And I'm afraid I don't know the answer to your question. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Scare stories? I don't understand your opinion. But I can see that you might doubt the merit, since I'm not sure whether there has been a study about it. I'm glad you'll do that, but you have to realize that a lot of people don't know about Selective Mutism at all. I hope we can find an answer, but since this is Wikipedia, unless we can find a study or good professional opinion I think I have to let you take it out. Elemarth (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, especially in the 60's-70's people got their knickers in a twist about the potential damage bilingualism might do to children - afaik all that nonsense has been debunked in scientific circles a long time ago and the current view is that bilingualism has a range of cognitive benefits. Which is why this surprises me and makes me just a tad suspicious, esp the phrasing of "indications"... either they have a study or they haven't and if they do, let's see it.

Anyway, the person I'm asking does major research into the cognitive aspects of bilingualism and its effects and while she's not an expert on mutism, if there is serious research, she'll know about it. Let's leave it in for now until I get an answer back, ok? Akerbeltz (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am still waiting for your answer, but since it had been a while and I found a reference (if not the best, as usual), I added the reference. Elemarth (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm still waiting for an answer myself. I'll get back to you once I get it! She's a very busy woman. Akerbeltz (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I didn't mean to sound impatient. I was telling you that I haven't given up! Along with why I added a link when we decided to leave it for the moment. Elemarth (talk) 00:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for explaining :) Ok, I've had an answer now. She says its total nonsense, nowhere in the scientific literature is there evidence of this type of phenomenon. The only thing vaguely in that direction is the well known fact that bilingual children statistically are later talkers but that's all. There is research into language impairments, but the rate is no higher than in monolinguals.

Most "statements" (she hesitated to call it research) she says are created by overly worried parents, educationalists, medical people and even speech therapists who are unaware of this issue about bilingual children being slightly later talkers than monolinguals.

As to the web page she says, it exploits a series of well-known urban myths around bilingualism (such as parents projecting their own (linguistic) anxieties onto children who as a rule, learn the new host language at light speed compared to their parents) and should not be used as a reference. She certainly wouldn't accept it in an article. She'd love to read their "preliminary research" but doubts it would amount to anything.

So I think we better take it out. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Okay.