Hostname: page-component-6bb9c88b65-s7dlb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-27T07:44:16.776Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The cultural basis of prosodic modifications to infants and children: a response to Fernald's universalist theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

David Ingram
David Ingram*
Affiliation:
The University of British Columbia
*
[*] Department of Linguistics, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, CanadaV6T 1Z1.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Fernald and her colleagues have argued for the universality of prosodic modifications in speech addressed to infants (e.g. Fernald, 1987; Fernald, Taeschner, Dunn, Papousek, de Boysson-Bardies & Fukui, 1989). An alternative proposal in Bernstein-Ratner & Pye (1984) and Pye (1986) argues that speech modifications to children are the result of a set of conventions that may vary from culture to culture. This note presents arguments against Fernald and in support of the cultural account of prosodic modifications to infants and children. First, in response to criticisms in Fernald et al., data are presented which defend the conclusion in Bernstein-Ratner & Pye that Quiché mothers show less prosodic modification to children than do mothers in other cultures studied to date. Second, data used to support the universal position in Fernald (1987) on adult identification of infant affective states are reinterpreted and shown to be equally interpretable as the result of a set of culturally transmitted rules.

Information

Type
Notes and Discussion
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , February 1995 , pp. 223 - 233
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Bernstein-Ratner, N. & Pye, C. (1984). Higher pitch in BT is not universal: acoustic evidence from Quiché Mayan. Journal of Child Language 11, 515–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Clark, E. V. (1977). Psychology and language: an introduction to psycholinguistics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Fernald, A. (1984). The perceptual and affective salience of mothers' speech to infants. In Feagans, L., Garvey, C. & Golinkoff, R. (eds), The origins and growth of communication. New York: Ablex.Google Scholar
Fernald, A. (1987). Intonation and communicative intent in mothers' speech to infants: is the melody the message? Child Development 60, 1497–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernald, A. & Kuhl, P. K. (1987). Acoustic determinants of infant preference for motherese speech. Infant Behavior and Development 10, 279–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernald, A., Taeschner, T., Dunn, J., Papousek, M., de Boysson-Bardies, & Fukui, I. (1989). A cross-language study of prosodie modifications in mothers' and fathers' speech to preverbal infants. Journal of Child Language 16, 477–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garnica, O. (1977). Some prosodic and paralinguistic features of speech to young children. In Snow, C. E. & Ferguson, C. A. (eds), Talking to children: language input and acquisition. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A. & Nicely, P. E. (1955). An analysis of perceptual confusions among some English consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 27, 338–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pye, C. (1986). Quiche Mayan speech to children. Journal of Child Language 13, 85–100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shepard, R. N. (1972). Psychological representation of speech sounds. In David, E. E. & Denes, P. B. (eds), Human communication: a unified view. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Shute, B. & Wheldall, K. (1989). Pitch alterations in British motherese: some preliminary acoustic data. Journal of Child Language 16, 503–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed