Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:36:41.114Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Infant engagement and early vocabulary development: a naturalistic observation study of Mozambican infants from 1;1 to 2;1*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2015

J. DOUGLAS MASTIN  and
PAUL VOGT
J. DOUGLAS MASTIN*
Affiliation:
Tilburg University, the Netherlands
PAUL VOGT
Affiliation:
Tilburg University, the Netherlands
*
Address for correspondence: J. Douglas Mastin, Stanford University – Developmental Psychology, Language Learning Lab, 50 Serra Mall, Margaret Jacks Building, Stanford, CA 94305. E-mail: mastjd@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study analyzes how others engage rural and urban Mozambican infants during naturalistic observations, and how the proportion of time spent in different engagements relates to infants' language development over the second year of life. Using an extended version of Bakeman and Adamson's (1984) categorization of infant engagement, we investigated to what extent a detailed analysis of infant engagement can contribute to our understanding of vocabulary development in natural settings. In addition, we explored how the different infant engagements relate to vocabulary size, and how these differ between the two communities. Results show that rural infants spend significantly more time in forms of solitary engagement, whereas urban infants spend more time in forms of triadic joint engagement. In regard to correlations with reported productive vocabulary, we find that dyadic persons engagement (i.e. interactions not about concrete objects) has positive correlations with vocabulary measures in both rural and urban communities. In addition, we find that triadic coordinated joint attention has a positive relationship with vocabulary in the urban community, but a contrasting negative correlation with vocabulary in the rural community. These similarities and differences are explained, based upon the parenting beliefs and socialization practices of different prototypical learning environments. Overall, this study concludes that the extended categorization provides a valuable contribution to the analysis of infant engagement and their relation to language acquisition, especially for analyzing naturalistic observations as compared to semi-structured studies. Moreover, with respect to vocabulary development, Mozambican infants appear to benefit strongest from dyadic Persons engagement, while they do not necessarily benefit from joint attention, as tends to be the case for children from industrial, developed communities.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , March 2016 , pp. 235 - 264
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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 funded by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) with a VIDI grant (number 276-70-018) awarded to PV. We thank Afra Alishahi, Eve Clark, and Fons Maes for their invaluable comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. Many thanks to Wona Sanana, Associação Communitário Ambiente da Mafalala, and the local research assistants for their support in Mozambique. Finally, our gratitude goes to all participants involved in this study.

References

REFERENCES

Abels, M., Keller, H., Mohite, P., Mankodi, H., Shastri, J., Bhargava, S., Jasrai, S. & Lakhani, A. (2005). Early socialization contexts and social experiences of infants in rural and urban Gujarat, India. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 36, 717–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adamson, L. B., Bakeman, R. & Deckner, D. F. (2004). The development of symbol-infused joint engagement. Child Development 75(4), 1171–87.Google Scholar
Akhtar, N. & Gernsbacher, M. A. (2007). Joint attention and vocabulary development: a critical look. Language and Linguistic Compass 1(3), 195–207.Google Scholar
Bakeman, R. & Adamson, L. B. (1984). Coordinating attention to people and objects in mother–infant and peer–infant interaction. Child Development 55(4), 1278–89.Google Scholar
Barton, M. E. & Tomasello, M. (1991). Joint attention and conversation in mother–infant–sibling triads. Child Development 62, 517–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bornstein, M. H., Cote, L. R., Maital, S., Painter, K., Park, S.-Y., Pascual, L., …, & Vyt, A. (2004). Cross-linguistic analysis of vocabulary in young children: Spanish, Dutch, French, Hebrew, Italian, Korean, and American English. Child Development 75(4), 1115–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bornstein, M. H. & Putnick, D. L. (2012). Cognitive and socioemotional caregiving in developing countries. Child Development 83(1), 46–61.Google Scholar
Brown, P. (2011). The cultural organization of attention. In Duranti, A., Ochs, E. & Schieffelin, B. (eds), The handbook of language socialization (pp. 29–55). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Callaghan, T., Moll, H., Rakoczy, H., Warneken, F., Liszkowski, U., Behne, T. & Tomasello, M. (2011). Early social cognition in three cultural contacts. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 76(2), 1–142.Google Scholar
Carpenter, M. & Liebal, K. (2011). Joint attention, communication, and knowing together in infancy. In Seemann, A. (ed.), Joint attention: new developments in psychology, philosophy of mind, and social neuroscience (pp. 159–81). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Carpenter, M., Nagell, K., Tomasello, M., Butterworth, G. & Moore, C. (1998). Social cognition, joint attention, and communicative competence from 9 to 15 months of age. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 63(4), 1–133.Google Scholar
Childers, J. B., Vaughan, J. & Burquest, D. B. (2007). Joint attention and word learning in Ngas-speaking toddlers in Nigeria. Journal of Child Language 33, 199–225.Google Scholar
De Houwer, A., Bornstein, M. & Leach, D. (2005). Assessing early communicative ability: a cross-reporter cumulative score for the MacArthur CDI. Journal of Child Language 32(4), 735–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eisenbeiss, S. (2010). Production methods in language acquisition research. In Blom, E. & Unsworth, S. (eds), Experimental measures in language acquisition research, 11–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feinstein, A. R. & Cicchetti, D. V. (1990). High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 43(6), 543–9.Google Scholar
Fenson, L., Dale, P. S., Reznick, J. S., Bates, E., Thal, D. & Pethick, S. (1994).Variability in early communicative development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 59(5), 1–185.Google Scholar
Fenson, L., Pethick, S., Renda, C., Cox, J. L., Dale, P. S. & Reznick, J. S. (2000). Short-form versions of the MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories. Applied Psycholinguistics 21, 95–116.Google Scholar
Fernald, A., Marchman, V. A. & Weisleder, A. (2012). SES differences in language processing skill and vocabulary are evident at 18 months. Developmental Science 16, 234–248.Google Scholar
Gaskins, S. (2006). Cultural perspectives on infant–caregiver interaction. In Enfield, N. J. & Levinson, S. C. (eds), Roots of human sociality: culture, cognition, and human interaction (pp. 279–298). Oxford: Berg (Wenner-Gren Foundation International Symposium Series).Google Scholar
Grantham-McGregor, S., Cheung, Y. B., Cueto, S., Glewwe, P., Richter, L. & Strupp, B. (2007). Developmental potential in the first 5 years for children in developing countries. The Lancet 369(9555), 60–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenfield, P. M. (2009). Linking social change and developmental change: shifting pathways of human development. Developmental Psychology 45(2), 401–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harkness, S. (1977). Aspects of social environment and first language acquisition in rural Africa. In Snow, C. & Ferguson, C. (eds), Talking to children: language input and acquisition, 309–16. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hart, B. & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.Google Scholar
Hobson, R. P. (2005), Social engagement and understanding in chimpanzees and humans. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 70, 133–52.Google Scholar
Hoff, E. (2006). How social contexts support and shape language development. Developmental Review 26, 55–88.Google Scholar
Houston-Price, C., Mather, E. & Sakkalou, E. (2007). Discrepancy between parental reports of infants’ receptive vocabulary and infants’ behavior in a preferential looking task. Journal of Child Language 34(4), 701–24.Google Scholar
Junker, D. A. & Stockman, I. J. (2002). Expressive vocabulary of German–English bilingual toddlers. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 11(4), 381–95.Google Scholar
Keller, H. (2007). Cultures of infancy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Keller, H. (2012). Autonomy and relatedness revisited: cultural manifestations of universal human needs. Child Development Perspectives 6(1), 12–8.Google Scholar
Law, R. & Roy, P. (2008). Parental report of infant language skills: a review of the development and application of the Communicative Developmental Inventories. Child and Adolescent Mental Health 13, 198–206.Google Scholar
LeVine, R. A., Dixon, S., LeVine, S., Richman, A., Leiderman, P. H., Keefer, C. H. & Brazelton, T. B. (1994). Childcare and culture: lessons from Africa. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. P. (2009). Ethnologue: languages of the world, 16th ed. Dallas, TX: SIL International. Online: <http://www.ethnologue.com/>.Google Scholar
Lieven, E. (1994). Crosslinguistic and crosscultural aspects of language addressed to children. In Gallaway, C. & Richards, B. J. (eds), Input and interaction in language acquisition (pp. 56–73). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lieven, E. & Stoll, S. (2013). Early communicative development in two cultures: a comparison of the communicative environments of children from two cultures. Human Development 56, 178–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mastin, J. D. (2013). Exploring infant engagement, language socialization & vocabulary development: a study of rural and urban communities in Mozambique (TiCC PhD Series no. 31). Tilburg University.Google Scholar
Mastin, J. D., Vogt, P., Schots, D. & Maes, A. (2015). Analyzing infant engagement: filling the gaps in research approaches. Journal of Infant Behavior and Development, under revision.Google Scholar
Morales, M., Mundy, P., Delgado, C. E. F., Yale, M., Messinger, D., Neal, R. & Schwartz, H. K. (2000). Responding to joint attention across the 6- through 24-month age period and early language acquisition. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 21(3), 283–98.Google Scholar
Mundy, P. & Gomes, A. (1998). Individual differences in joint attention skill development in the second year. Infant Behavior and Development 21(3), 469–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oller, D. K. & Eilers, R. E. (eds) (2002). Language and literacy in bilingual children. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Patterson, A. L. (1998). Expressive vocabulary development and word combinations of Spanish–English bilingual toddlers. American Journal of Speech Language Pathology 7, 46–56.Google Scholar
Pine, J. M., Lieven, E. V. M. & Rowland, C. (1996). Observational and checklist measures of vocabulary composition: What do they mean? Journal of Child Language 21, 573–90.Google Scholar
Rabain-Jamin, J., Maynard, A. E. & Greenfield, P. M. (2003). Implications of sibling caregiving for sibling relations and teaching interactions in two cultures. Ethos 31(2), 204–31.Google Scholar
Salomo, D. & Liszkowski, U. (2013). Sociocultural settings influence the emergence of prelinguistic deictic gestures. Child Development 84(4), 1296–307.Google Scholar
Schieffelin, B. & Ochs, E. (1986). Language socialization. Annual Review of Anthropology 15, 163–91.Google Scholar
Scofield, J. & Behrend, D. A. (2011). Clarifying the role of joint attention in word learning. First Language 31(3), 326–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shneidman, L. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2012). Language input and acquisition in a Mayan village: How important is directed speech? Developmental Science 15(5), 659–73.Google Scholar
Strassmann, B. I. (2011). Cooperation and competition in a cliff-dwelling people. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108, 10894–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (1995). Joint attention as social learning. In Moore, C. & Dunham, P. (eds), Joint attention: its origins and role in development, 103–30. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T. & Moll, H. (2005). Understanding and sharing intentions: the origins of cultural cognition. Behavioural and Brain Sciences 28, 675–735.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tomasello, M. & Farrar, M. J. (1986). Joint attention and early language. Child Development 57(6), 1454–63.Google Scholar
Vogt, P. & Mastin, J. D. (2013). Rural and urban differences in language socialization and early vocabulary development in Mozambique. In Knauff, M., Pauen, M., Sebanz, N. & Wachsmuth, I. (eds), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 3687–92. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Vogt, P. & Mastin, J. D. (2014). Cross-cultural differences in three prototypical learning environments. Paper presented at the International Congress for the Study of Child Language (IASCL), Amsterdam, July 2014.Google Scholar
Vogt, P., Mastin, J. D. & Schots, D. (2015). Communicative intentions of child-directed speech in three different learning environments: observations from the Netherlands, and rural and urban Mozambique. First Language (in press).Google Scholar
Wittenburg, P., Brugman, H., Russel, A., Klassmann, A. & Sloetjes, H. (2006). ELAN: a professional framework for multimodality research. In Proceedings of LREC 2006, Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. Online: <http://tla.mpi.nl/tools/tla-tools/elan/>>Google Scholar
Zukow-Goldring, P. (2002). Sibling caregiving. In Bornstein, M. H. (ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 3 – being and becoming a parent, 2nd ed., 253–86. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Mastin and Vogt supplementary material

Mastin and Vogt supplementary material 1

Download Mastin and Vogt supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 157.3 KB