Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T18:05:58.383Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Differential responding to two- and three-year-olds' utterances: the roles of grammaticality and ambiguity*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

David Furrow ,
Constance Baillie ,
Jennifer McLaren  and
Chris Moore
David Furrow*
Affiliation:
Mount Saint Vincent University
Constance Baillie
Affiliation:
Mount Saint Vincent University
Jennifer McLaren
Affiliation:
Mount Saint Vincent University
Chris Moore
Affiliation:
Dalhousie University
*
Address for correspondence: Department of Psychology, Mount Saint Vincent University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, B3M 2J6.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Mothers have been found to respond differently to grammatical and ungrammatical utterances in young children's language. However, parents indicate that they are conscious only of responding to communicative aspects of their children's speech, not grammar. Further, researchers have looked to the understandability of utterances to explain the effects of grammaticality on maternal responses. The present study addressed the question of whether it is actually grammatical form that mothers respond to, or whether it is ambiguity in the communicative functions of children's utterances. Three mother-child dyads were videotaped in a free play setting when the children were 2;0 and 3;0. Children's spontaneous comprehensible utterances were rated for grammaticality and ambiguity of function, and mothers' responses to them were noted. Results indicated that mothers responded differentially to both the ambiguity and grammaticality of children's utterances, and that these two factors had some degree of independence in their effects on mothers' responses.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , June 1993 , pp. 363 - 375
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

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.)

Footnotes

[*]

This research was supported by a grant (No. 410–89–0352) from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada to Chris Moore and David Furrow. We are grateful to Barbara D'Entremont for her assistance in statistical analyses, and to the students in our language acquisition classes for their coding.

References

REFERENCES

Bohannon, J. & Stanowicz, L. (1988). The issue of negative evidence: adult responses to children's language errors. Developmental Psychology 24, 684–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. (1977). Introduction. In Snow, C. & Ferguson, C. (eds), Talking to children. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Brown, R. & Hanlon, C. (1970). Derivational complexity and the order of acquisition in child speech. In Hayes, J. (ed.), Cognition and the development of language. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Demetras, M., Post, K. & Snow, C. (1986). Feedback to first language learners: the role of repetitions and clarification questions. Journal of Child Language 13, 275–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dixon, W. (ed.) (1985). BMPD statistical software. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Dore, J., Gearhart, M. & Newman, D. (1978). The structure of nursery school conversation. In Nelson, K. E. (ed.), Children's Language: Vol. 1. New York: Gardner Press.Google Scholar
Elliott, G. (1988). Interpreting higher order interactions in log-linear analysis. Psychological Bulletin 103, 121–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garnica, O. (1977). Some prosodic and paralinguistic features of speech to young children. In Snow, C. & Ferguson, C. (eds), Talking to children. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Hirsh-Pasek, K., Treiman, R. & Schneiderman, M. (1984). Brown & Hanlon revisited: mothers' sensitivity to ungrammatical forms. Journal of Child Language 11, 81–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moerk, E. (1991). Positive evidence for negative evidence. First Language 11, 219–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, J. & Travis, L. (1989). Limits on negative information in language input. Journal of Child Language 16, 531–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Penner, S. (1987). Parental responses to grammatical and ungrammatical child utterances. Child Development 58, 376–384.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wexler, K. & Culicover, P. (1980). Formal principles of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar