Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-pnlb5 Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-10-31T13:52:34.316Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How salient are onomatopoeia in the early input? A prosodic analysis of infant-directed speech

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2016

CATHERINE E. LAING ,
MARILYN VIHMAN  and
TAMAR KEREN-PORTNOY
CATHERINE E. LAING*
Affiliation:
University of York
MARILYN VIHMAN
Affiliation:
University of York
TAMAR KEREN-PORTNOY
Affiliation:
University of York
*
Catherine E. Laing, Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University, North Carolina. e-mail: Catherine.laing@duke.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Onomatopoeia are frequently identified amongst infants’ earliest words (Menn & Vihman, 2011), yet few authors have considered why this might be, and even fewer have explored this phenomenon empirically. Here we analyze mothers’ production of onomatopoeia in infant-directed speech (IDS) to provide an input-based perspective on these forms. Twelve mothers were recorded interacting with their 8-month-olds; onomatopoeic words (e.g. quack) were compared acoustically with their corresponding conventional words (duck). Onomatopoeia were more salient than conventional words across all features measured: mean pitch, pitch range, word duration, repetition, and pause length. Furthermore, a systematic pattern was observed in the production of onomatopoeia, suggesting a conventionalized approach to mothers’ production of these words in IDS.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 44 , Issue 5 , September 2017 , pp. 1117 - 1139
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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

Ambridge, B., Kidd, E., Rowland, C. F. & Theakston, A. L. (2015). The ubiquity of frequency effects in first language acquisition. Journal of Child Language 42, 239–73.Google Scholar
Bates, D. M., Maechler, M. & Bolker, B. (2012). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999999-0.Google Scholar
Behrens, H. (2006). The input–output relationship in first language acquisition. Language and Cognitive Processes 21, 2–24.Google Scholar
Bonvillian, J. D., Miller Garber, A. & Dell, S. B. (1997). Language origin accounts: Was the gesture in the beginning? First Language 17, 219–39.Google Scholar
Bornstein, M. H., Tal, J., Rahn, C., Galperin, C. Z., Pecheux, M-G., Lamour, M., Toda, S., Azuma, H., Ogino, M. & Tamis-Lemonda, C. S. (1992). Functional analysis of the contents of maternal speech to infants of 5 and 13 months in four cultures: Argentina, France, Japan, and the United States. Developmental Psychology 28, 593–603.Google Scholar
Brent, M. R. & Siskind, J. M. (2001). The role of exposure to isolated words in early vocabulary development. Cognition 81, B33–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DePaolis, R. A., Keren-Portnoy, T. & Vihman, M. M. (2010). Exploring cultural impact on segmentation and first word recognition (ESRC end of award report, RES-000-22-3331). Swindon: ESRC.Google Scholar
Farrar, F. W. (1883). Language and languages. London: Longmans, Green.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. A. (1964). Babytalk in six languages. American Anthropologist, New Series, part 2: The Ethnography of Communication 66, 103–14.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. A. (1983). Reduplication in child phonology. Journal of Child Language 10, 239–43.Google Scholar
Fernald, A. (1985). Four-month-old infants prefer to listen to motherese. Infant Behavior and Development 8(2), 181–95.Google Scholar
Fernald, A. (1989). Intonation and communicative intent in mothers’ speech to infants: Is the melody the message? Child Development 60, 1497–510.Google Scholar
Fernald, A. & Kuhl, P. (1987). Acoustic determinants of infant preference for motherese speech. Infant Behavior and Development 10, 279–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernald, A. & Morikawa, H. (1993). Common themes and cultural variations in Japanese and American mothers’ speech to infants. Child Development 64, 637–56.Google Scholar
Fernald, A. & Simon, T. (1984). Expanded intonation contours in mothers’ speech to newborns. Developmental Psychology 20, 104–13.Google Scholar
Fernald, A., Taeschner, T., Dunn, J., Papousek, M., De Boysson-Bardies, B. & Fukui, I. (1989). A cross-language study of prosodic modifications in mothers’ and fathers’ speech to preverbal infants. Journal of Child Language 16, 477–501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fikkert, C. & Levelt, P. (2008). How does place fall into place? In Avery, P., Dresher, B. E. & Rice, K. (eds), Contrast in phonology: theory, perception, acquisition (pp. 231–268). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Floccia, C., Keren-Portnoy, T., DePaolis, R., Duffy, H., Delle Luche, C., Durrant, S., White, L., Goslin, J., and Vihman, M. (2016). British English infants segment words only with exaggerated infant-directed speech stimuli. Cognition 148, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gervain, J., Macagno, F., Cogoi, S. Peña, M. & Mehler, J. (2008). The neonate brain detects speech structure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105, 14222–27.Google Scholar
Golinkoff, R. M. & Alioto, A. (1995). Infant-directed speech facilitates lexical learning in adults hearing Chinese: implications for language acquisition. Journal of Child Language 22, 703–26.Google Scholar
Imai, M. & Kita, S. (2014). The sound symbolism bootstrapping hypothesis for language acquisition and language evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 369, 2013·0298.Google Scholar
Jusczyk, P. W., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Nelson, D. G. K., Kennedy, L. J., Woodward, A. & Piwoz, J. (1992). Perception of acoustic correlates of major phrasal units by young infants. Cognitive Psychology 24, 252–93.Google Scholar
Karzon, R. G. (1985). Discrimination of polysyllabic sequences by one- to four-month-old infants. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 39, 326–42.Google Scholar
Kauschke, C. & Hofmeister, C. (2002). Early lexical development in German: a study on vocabulary growth and vocabulary composition during the second and third year of life. Journal of Child Language 29, 735–57.Google Scholar
Kauschke, C. & Klann-Delius, G. (2007). Characteristics of maternal input in relation to vocabulary development in children learning German. In Gülzow, I. & Gagarina, N. (Eds), Frequency effects in language acquisition: defining the limits of frequency as an explanatory concept (pp. 181–204). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kern, S. (2010). Les premiers mots du jeune enfant français: analyse quantitative et qualitative du vocabulaire réceptif et productif des deux premières années de vie. Rééducation Orthophonique 244, 149–65.Google Scholar
Kunnari, S. (2002). Word length in syllables: evidence from early word production in Finnish. First Language 22, 119–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laing, C. E. (2014). Tracing the role of onomatopoeia in early word production. First Language 34, 387–405.Google Scholar
Laing, C. E. (2015). ‘What does the cow say?’ An exploratory analysis of onomatopoeia in early phonological development. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of York.Google Scholar
Lee, S., Davis, B. L. & Macneilage, P. F. (2008). Segmental properties of input to infants: a study of Korean. Journal of Child Language 35, 591–617.Google Scholar
Leopold, W. F. (1939). Speech development of a bilingual child, 1: vocabulary growth in the first two years. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. M. (1936). Infant speech: a study of the beginnings of language. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace. [Reprint edition, 1975. New York, NY: Arno Press.]Google Scholar
McMurray, B., Kovack-Lesh, K. A., Goodwin, D. & McEchron, W. (2013). Infant directed speech and the development of speech perception: Enhancing development or an unintended consequence? Cognition 129, 362–78.Google Scholar
Menn, L. & Vihman, M. M. (2011). Features in child phonology: Inherent, emergent, or artefacts of analysis? In Clements, N. & Ridouane, R. (Eds), Where do phonological features come from? The nature and sources of phonological primitives (pp. 261–301). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2003). Phonetic diversity, statistical learning, and acquisition of phonology. Language and Speech 46, 115–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Priddy Books (2009a). Home: press-out flash card book. London: St. Martin's Press, LLC.Google Scholar
Priddy Books (2009b). Toys: press-out flash card book. London: St. Martin's Press, LLC.Google Scholar
R Core Team (2014). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, online: <http://www.R-project.org/>..>Google Scholar
Smith, N. A. & Trainor, L. J. (2008). Infant-directed speech is modulated by infant feedback, Infancy 13, 410–20.Google Scholar
Soderstrom, M. (2007). Beyond babytalk: re-evaluating the nature and content of speech input to preverbal infants. Developmental Review 27, 501–32.Google Scholar
Stern, D. N., Spieker, S., Barnett, R. K. & Mackain, K. (1983). The prosody of maternal speech: infant age and context related changes. Journal of Child Language 10, 1–15.Google Scholar
Stern, W. & Stern, C. (1928). Die Kindersprache. Leipzig: Barth.Google Scholar
Sundberg, U. (1998). Mother tongue – phonetic aspects of infant-directed speech. Stockholm: Perilus XXI.Google Scholar
Tardif, T., Fletcher, P., Liang, W., Zhang, Z., Kaciroti, N. & Marchman, V. A. (2008). Baby's first 10 words. Developmental Psychology 44, 929–38.Google Scholar
Vihman, M. M. (2010). Phonological templates in early words: a cross-linguistic study. In Fougeron, C., Kühnert, B., D'Imperio, M. & Valée, N. (Eds), Laboratory phonology 10 (pp. 261–84). New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Vihman, M. M. (2014). Phonological development: the first two years, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Vihman, M. M. (2016). Prosodic structures and templates in bilingual phonological development. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 19, 69–88.Google Scholar
Vihman, M. M. & Keren-Portnoy, T. (2013). The emergence of phonology: whole-word approaches, cross-linguistic evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Werker, J. F., Pons, F., Dietrich, C., Kajikawa, S., Fais, L. & Amano, S. (2007). Infant-directed speech supports phonetic category learning in English and Japanese. Cognition 103, 147–62.Google Scholar
Werner, H. & Kaplan, B. (1963). Symbol formation. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar