Table of Contents | Previous | Next |
FUNCTIONS OF LANGUAGE USE IN MOTHER-TODDLER COMMUNICATION
Joanne Roberts, Catherine S. Tamis-LeMonda and Mark Spellman
New York University
Note: This research is taken from: Roberts, J. & Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. (2000, June). Functions of language use in mother toddler communication. In J. Atwater (Chair), The social context of early language development for children in poverty. Symposium conducted at Head Start’s National Research Conference, Washington, D.C.
Caregivers who provide children with verbally rich and responsive language environments in the early stages of language acquisition have children who excel in lexical, grammatical, and syntactic abilities, and who achieve important language milestones sooner in development. Indeed, one of the most consistent predictors of children’s language achievements specifically, and school performance and cognitive development more generally, is the quality and quantity of verbal interactions with adult caregivers (e.g., Hart & Risley, 1995). In linking these findings to the Early Head Start Research Evaluation, impacts in the area of children’s early language development and emerging literacy are expected to be obtained through the mediating effect of Early Head Start interventions on the quality of parent-child interactions, particularly those measures that capture the language use of mothers (such as stimulation and cognitive growth fostering). Demonstrating links between parenting and children’s emerging language competencies is central to understanding and modeling associations between Early Head Start and developmental achievements in children.
In line with this goal, investigators at New York University have been closely investigating the sorts of language environments to which children are exposed in relation to children’s early communicative abilities. Our aims in this study were to provide a descriptive analysis of maternal language and children’s emerging communication at 14 months, and to examine associations between mothers’ and children’s language during this initial stage of language acquisition.
Because productive vocabulary is limited at 14 months, we developed a system for assessing children’s communicative intentions, which incorporated verbalizations and gesture in determining whether or not children were intentionally communicating meanings with others. We expected maternal language that was both didactic and responsive (e.g., providing labels as well as imitations) to predict children’s communicative abilities, and expected maternal language that was controlling, restrictive, and/or intrusive to be negatively associated with children’s communication.
The sample consisted of the first wave of participants at New York University’s local site, namely 75 ethnically diverse mother-child dyads (63.6 percent male children). The average age of the mothers was 21.8 years (range = 15 years 8 months to 44 years 10 months). The average age of the children was 14.4 months (range = 13 to 17 months). (Given such ranges, age was covaried from all analyses.) Mothers were primarily Black (57.5 percent) and Hispanic (41.2 percent). All mothers spoke English.
Data here are based on the ten-minute semi-structured three-bag, free play task used in the national protocol. Detailed transcriptions of all maternal speech and actions, and all child vocalizations and actions were made of this 10-minute interaction. Utterances were defined as units of speech as indicated by intonation and/or pauses. Transcripts were reviewed at least once for accuracy, prior to coding.
Language was coded from the transcripts while simultaneously viewing the tapes. All maternal utterances were coded into one of 17 several language functions (e.g., repetitions, expansions, paraphrases, descriptions, labels, open ended questions, closed ended questions, play prompts, prohibitions, criticisms, and attention directives). Children’s vocalizations were classified into one of nine functions (e.g., labels, reference to action, notice, declaratives, objection, and distress). Children’s communicative utterances had to have a clear intended meaning but were not restricted to standard adult word forms. For example, an utterance in which the child says “boo” while pointing at a book would be considered a label. An utterance in which the child says “uh” while reaching for an object would be coded as an action/object request. Contextual cues were considered in the determination of the communicative intent of all utterances.
Variation among mothers and among children in language amount and function was dramatic. Mothers expressed between 20 and 331 utterances within the 10-minute free play session (M = 167.5). Children expressed between 0 and 117 utterances (M = 33.6). The range and mean suggest that despite the young age of the sample, children were often clearly communicating to their social partners.
Factor analysis, with varimax rotation was conducted on mothers’ and children’s language.
Three factors of maternal language emerged (see Tables 1 to 3):
-
Responsive/Didactic: language in which the mother is repeating and expanding on the child’s vocalizations, reformulating the child’s behaviors into words, proposing questions to the child, and labeling and describing objects and events.
-
Directive: language characterized by control and direction of children’s actions as well as prohibitions and corrections,
-
Uninvolved/Hostile: language that is characterized by self-directed comments and criticism of the child.
For children, two factors of communication emerged (see Tables 4 and 5):
-
Communicative: utterances that are responsive to the social partner or relate information about objects, events, desires and interactions with others.
-
Distress: Child utterances that express discontent, frustration or objection.
| Communicative Function | Factor Loading |
|---|---|
| Reformulation | 0.73 |
| Closed Question | 0.716 |
| Conversational Filler | 0.685 |
| Description | 0.654 |
| Repetition | 0.608 |
| Label | 0.595 |
| Self Response | 0.569 |
| Open Question | 0.536 |
| Expansion/Extension | 0.523 |
| Description with Gesture | 0.51 |
| Label with gesture | 0.484 |
| Play prompt | 0.454 |
| Communicative Function | Factor Loading |
|---|---|
| Action Directives | 0.815 |
| Action Encouragement | 0.596 |
| Requests for Repetition | 0.572 |
| Attention Directives | 0.568 |
| Action Directives with Gestures | 0.522 |
| Prohibitions | 0.516 |
| Corrections | 0.501 |
| Communicative Function | Factor Loading |
|---|---|
| Questioning child's behavior | 0.8 |
| Criticism | 0.778 |
| Self-Directed Comments | 0.573 |
| Communicative Function | Factor Loading |
|---|---|
| Imitations | 0.781 |
| Action/object Requests | 0.705 |
| Response to social partner | 0.705 |
| Reference to action in play | 0.692 |
| Declarative | 0.673 |
| Label | 0.669 |
| Random Utterances | 0.572 |
| Notice | 0.539 |
| Communicative Function | Factor Loading |
|---|---|
| Distress | 0.739 |
| Objection/Refusal | 0.607 |
Associations between maternal language and children’s language were next explored. The maternal responsive/didactic factor related to the children’s communicative factor (r = .54, p < .01) as did the maternal directive factor (r = .33, p <. 01), although not as strongly. The maternal directive factor also related to the children’s distress factor (r = .24, p < .05). Further breakdown of these associations revealed that mothers’ responsive/didactic language speech predicted children’s imitations (r =. 61, p <. 01), expression of notice (r =. 30, p < .01), references to actions in play (r = .35, p < .01) and declaratives (r =.43, p <.01) whereas, directive speech only related to children’s objections/refusals (r = .36, p <.01). The maternal uninvolved/hostile factor did not relate to children’s language. All associations obtained over and above sample demographics.
In summary, strong associations existed between the kind of language mothers provide for their children and children’s emerging communicative competencies. Maternal responsive/didactic language is the strongest predictor of toddlers’ communicative competence; maternal directive language predicts toddlers’ distress. Uninvolved/hostile language does not relate to toddlers’ communication. These findings suggest the urgency of programs to support mothers in their use of frequent, responsive-didactic speech in order to encourage language fluency in children. A unitary focus on reducing hostile behaviors, while of great importance to social-emotional aspects of development, will not be sufficient to promote children’s language achievements. Finally, interventions aimed at enhancing mothers’ language use must be implemented soon in children’s first year, as mothers are affecting children’s abilities to effectively communicate well before children use “language” per se.
Reference
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
| Table of Contents | Previous | Next |