Motherese, affect, and vocabulary development: dyadic ......This study explores responsivity in...

ARTICLE

Motherese, affect, and vocabulary development:dyadic communicative interactions in infantsand toddlers

Shruti DAVE1*, Ann M. MASTERGEORGE2, and Lesley B. OLSWANG3

1University of California, Davis, USA, 2Texas Tech University, USA, and 3University of Washington, USA*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]

(Received 2 March 2016; revised 13 February 2017; accepted 19 October 2017;first published online 19 February 2018)

AbstractResponsive parental communication during an infant’s first year has been positivelyassociated with later language outcomes. This study explores responsivity in mother–infant communication by modeling how change in guiding language between 7 and 11months influences toddler vocabulary development. In a group of 32 mother–childdyads, change in early maternal guiding language positively predicted child languageoutcomes measured at 18 and 24 months. In contrast, a number of other linguisticvariables – including total utterances and non-guiding language – did not correlate withtoddler vocabulary development, suggesting a critical role of responsive change ininfant-directed communication. We further assessed whether maternal affect duringearly communication influenced toddler vocabulary outcomes, finding that dominantaffect during early mother–infant communications correlated to lower child languageoutcomes. These findings provide evidence that responsive parenting should not onlybe assessed longitudinally, but unique contributions of language and affect should alsobe concurrently considered in future study.

Keywords: guiding language; motherese; affective communication

Introduction

An infant’s waking life consists of repeated social interactions with caregivers. Thesescenarios allow infants to begin to create internal working models (Landry, Smith,Swank, Assel, & Vellet, 2001) for responsive communication (Bowlby, 1980, cited inBretherton, 1995; Smith, 2010). In order to effectively communicate, infants andcaregivers must derive a shared understanding of each other’s intent, co-constructingexperiences to define objects, emotions, and mental states (Murray & Trevarthen,1986; Rogoff, 2003; Bortfeld, 2004). Caregivers generate more meaningfulco-constructions when they have an appropriate understanding of infantcomprehension abilities. For example, a mother asking her infant to “Give me theball!” would be more likely to expect an 11-month-old to respond to and follow thissimple command than she would a 7-month-old. Responsive caregivers are thereforelikely to be responsive communicators.© Cambridge University Press 2018

Journal of Child Language (2018), 45, 917–938doi:10.1017/S0305000917000551

terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000917000551Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 24 Jun 2021 at 08:10:33, subject to the Cambridge Core

mailto:[email protected]://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1017/S0305000917000551&domain=pdfhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/termshttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000917000551https://www.cambridge.org/core

As in the example above, dyadic communication often involves the use of language,which has long been examined in the context of infant–caregiver interactions(e.g., Snow, 1972; Tomsello & Farrar, 1986). These studies have examined howmodulations of caregiver language, or MOTHERESE, impacts child development. Forinstance, GUIDING LANGUAGE, a form of caregiver speech associated with promotingjoint attention with children, may organize and focus child behaviors and attention(Tomasello, Carpenter, Call, Behne, & Moll, 2005). If a caregiver is a responsivecommunicator, then her use of guiding language should change across her infant’scognitive development, in concert with the child’s understanding of objects and useof attention. How guiding language specifically shows responsive malleability toinfant development has yet to be examined, and the longer-term consequences ofsuch responsive variability for child language development forms the crux of this study.

Caregiver communication not only consists of language but also emotionalexpression, or AFFECT. The intentionality model posits that language learning requiressocio-emotional engagement (Bloom, Tinker, & Scholnick, 2001), such thatcommunicative performance influences language acquisition. We therefore aim toexamine responsive guiding language in the context of varying maternal affect, toassess if these factors independently influence child language development.

Guiding language in motherese

Snow (1972) was the first to posit the Motherese Hypothesis, which holds that specificqualities of caregiver speech both enhance and speed language acquisition; thishypothesis has since been widely studied (e.g., Cohen & Beckwith, 1976; Fermald &Kuhl, 1987; Bortfeld, 2004; Brodsky, Waterfall, & Edelman, 2007). The goal ofmotherese is to attract and focus infant attention (Carroll, 2007), and several featuresof motherese, such as increased use of questions and redundant guiding, appear tobe designed for exactly this purpose.

In order to hold child attention, caregivers adjust the type of language they use withtheir infants responsively and contingently (Fernald & Kuhl, 1987; Estes, Evans, Alibali,& Saffran, 2007). Across ordered, bi-directional maternal speech and infant behavioralresponses, a shared knowledge of semantic content develops incrementally as the childlearns. The role of the caregiver is to consequently recognize and accommodate changesin the developing child’s cognitive and communicative capacity. Therefore, motherese isnot static, but rather dynamically and continuously modified by caregivers (Dominey &Dodane, 2004).

Guiding speech is thought to influence infant focus during these dyadic exchanges(Tomasello et al., 2005). Guiding commands and questions are used by caregivers toestablish predictable references of joint attention (Mundy & Newell, 2007; Hirotani,Stets, Striano, & Friederici, 2008). Once joint attention is established, caregivers candirect child attention to one of two referents: the object the infant is focused on(known as FOLLOWING-IN), or to a redirected object of the mother’s interest(DIRECTIVES) (Tomasello & Todd, 1983; Akhtar, Dunham, & Dunham, 1991). Whencaregivers guide their infants’ attention to new objects, the infant must generate anentirely new frame of reference (i.e., infant attention to new object via an adult)prior to more elaborative communication. Consistent use of rerouting via directiveshas shown negative effects longitudinally, with Tomasello and Farrar (1986) findingthat mothers using less redirecting had children with larger vocabularies at 21months of age.

918 Dave et al.


https://www.cambridge.org/core/termshttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000917000551https://www.cambridge.org/core

Directive language may take the form of questions or commands, and studies findingnegative correlations with child cognitive development (Tomasello, Mannle, & Kruger,1986) have typically observed behavior-driven, intrusive directive commands. Incontrast, the literature on object-directed, question-based directives is moreopen-ended, but suggests that that there may be dissociation between directivecommands and questions rooted in maternal intent (Pine, 1992; Masur, Flynn, &Eichorst, 2005). Further, whether questions or commands are redirecting an infant toa new object or to the mother (i.e., as a source of new information) may affect theattentional outcomes of directives.

In contrast to the directive literature, Tomasello and Todd (1983) note thatcaregivers who use language to maintain infant attention and focus on the infant’sobject of interest are using an already established infant–object–adult interaction.Maintenance of joint focus to the child’s interest has proven to be a reliablepredictor of language development. Following-in behaviors (Brooks & Meltzoff, 2008)and commands (Akhtar et al., 1991) correlate with vocabulary production inchildren, suggesting that following-in can positively affect child cognitivedevelopment. As with directive language, question-based following-in is lessunderstood. We aim to address whether questions and commands are correlated forboth directive and follow-in language, and if following-in questions and commandsyield similar downstream effects.

Beyond quantitative measures of guiding language used in early maternalcommunication, we also aim to address the responsivity of maternal guidinglanguage across early communication. Between 7 to 11 months of age (and averagingat approximately 9 months), infants reach critical neural and cognitive milestones(i.e., Lalonde & Werker, 1995; Kuhl, Conboy, Padden, Nelson, & Puritt, 2005).Specifically, infants in this age group begin showing mimicking behaviors of soundand actions, respond to pointing and directing within dyads, and engage in nascentbabbling, alongside rising visual acuity and focus (Albrecht & Miller, 2001). Maternalattunement to these cognitive and linguistic developmental milestones across thistime-point may result in a specific role of responsive motherese in influencing childlanguage learning. Therefore, we will determine whether responsive infant-directedguiding language influences later language development skills.

Expression of emotional affect in dyadic communication

In addition to linguistic features of motherese, caregivers also maintain child-orientedAFFECT, or the physical expression of emotionality during communication. Infants asyoung as two months of age demonstrate emotional understanding of maternalbehavior, such as affective timing and appropriateness of smiling and frowning.During the first year, infants are progressively able to respond to a mother’s affectivecommunication (e.g., Murray & Trevarthen, 1986; Masur et al., 2005), especiallywhen coupled with exaggerated speech and gesture production (Meltzoff & Kuhl,2004; Tomasello et al., 2005). As a result, these studies suggest caregiver affectiveexpression during communication may be a crucial component of responsive parenting.

Infants display a specific preference for positive emotion expression in caregivercommunication (e.g., Fernald, 1993; Mumme & Fernald, 2003). However, themeaning and nature of POSITIVITY in maternal speech changes as infants becomemore attuned to affect. Kitamura and Burnham (2003) rated recordings of adultspeech geared towards infants across the first year. They found that at 3 months of

Journal of Child Language 919



age, mother’s positive affect is primarily intended for comfort; at 6 months, positiveexpression is typically used to demonstrate affection. By 9 months, mothers tendtowards more dominant affect during motherese; this type of communication aims tocapture attention and interest. Similar findings in Japanese dyads were seen in workby Niwano and Sugai (2002), showing that prosodic contours of motherese shift asinfants age. These results are consistent with the role of language toward 3-, 6-, and9-month-old infants, as motherese becomes increasingly informative (Soderstrom &Morgan, 2007). In order to understand what maternal style resonates best withinfants, Kitamura and Lam (2009) examined affective communication associated withcomfort, affection, or dominance. These results indicated that 9-month-oldscontinued to show preference for affectionate positive affect despite the markedincrease in maternal use of directive, dominant speech. Specifically, dominant affectwas less associated with garnering and holding infant attention than affectionatecommunication at this age. While these cross-sectional studies have beenilluminating in understanding affective preferences, no longitudinal studies to datehave measured the downstream effects of early dominant affect, especially incombination with early motherese. Since capturing infant attention is related to thedevelopment of cognitive skills (Masur et al., 2005; Soderstrom & Morgan, 2007), theeffects of dominant affect on child language should be examined longitudinally tounderstand their influence on developmental trajectories.

A longitudinal approach to dyadic communication

The dynamic content of motherese across infant developmental trajectories has beendocumented (e.g., reviewed in Tomasello et al., 2005). Most literature assessingmaternal input and child performance examines concurrent maternal input and childresponse to motherese (e.g., Werner & Keller, 1994; Meltzoff & Kuhl, 2004). Thismethodological approach provides a non-developmental view of language acquisitionthat consists of distinct time-points of mother–infant interactions. However, languageacquisition and learning are developmental processes, such that responsivity in earlymaternal speech and affect may be correlated to later time-points of child languageperformance (e.g., Tamis-LeMonda, Bornstein, & Baumwell, 2001; Marchman &Fernald, 2008; Rowe, Raudenbush, & Goldin-Meadow, 2012; Nozadi et al., 2013).

Researchers have investigated the longitudinal influence of motherese on later childlanguage development; studies conducted by Huttenlocher, Haight, Bryk, Seltzer, andLyons (1991) and Hurtado, Marchman, and Fernald (2008) measured the quantity ofunique (or distinct) word choices during naturalistic, semi-guided free play in orderto predict later measures of child expressive language. The former study measuredlongitudinally from 14 to 26 months; the latter assessed toddlers from 18 to 24months. These studies demonstrate prospective longitudinal relationships betweenqualitative aspects of maternal input and child expressive language.

While the aforementioned studies have examined the relationship betweenmotherese and child language across the second year of life, a slew of results (e.g.,Akhtar et al., 1991; Tomasello, 2001; Tomasello et al., 2005; Kitamura & Lam, 2009)indicate a critical earlier time-point for dyadic communication. This study willspecifically address how guiding language shifts across this critical time, as responsivecaregivers reactively shift their guiding language to match changes in their infants’capacities. This study will further address independent contributions of early

920 Dave et al.



language and affect for later child vocabulary, as well as assessing how potentialinteractions between language and affect may affect vocabulary development.

Developmental model of guiding language, affect, and child vocabulary

The current study aims to add to the existing literature by addressing two sets ofquestions:

1. While directive language use has been linked to reduced child languagedevelopment, following-in language has been associated with increased childlanguage acquisition (McCathren, Yoder, & Warren, 1995). We will investigatethe responsive nature of guiding language; as reactive communication has beenassociated with later child language development, we ask if change in earlyguiding language to infants might have a unique – and separate – influence ontoddler vocabulary use, and whether this may vary across types of guidinglanguage (i.e., questions or commands, directives or following-in).

2. Many studies have focused on moderating impacts of adjacent variables to maternalspeech; for example, a rich literature has assessed how gestural dyadiccommunication augments spoken language (e.g., Rowe & Goldin-Meadow, 2009;Goldin-Meadow, Ping, Decatur, Larson, & Zinchenko, 2012). Less research,however, has focused on the specific role of affect in moderating how infantsperceive maternal language. Instead, studies have typically combinedinfant-directed maternal speech and affect into an overall measure of responsivitythat influences later child language and general cognitive development (e.g.,Landry et al., 2001; Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2001; Nozadi et al., 2013). No studiesto date have extricated caregiver verbalizations to their infants from affect-specificqualities in assessing whether the two have distinct relationships with multipletime-points of later child language. As such, we aim to address not only the role ofguiding language and responsive guiding language on child language acquisition,but also how this relationship may be modeled with early maternal affect.

Method

Participants

Researchers recruited mother–infant pairs as part of a larger longitudinal studyconducted at the University of Washington. Data is reported from 32 dyads, ofwhich 20 infants were male and 12 were female. All infants were 7 months of age(M = 0; 7.0; range: 0;6.15 to 0;7.15) at the initial time of the assessment. All childrenwere born within two weeks of their due dates and weighed at least six pounds atbirth; the subject pool children were first-born infants. Caregiver participants in thestudy reported that infants had normal hearing and vision, no prior major illnessesor injury requiring hospitalization, and no evidence of developmental delay (i.e., allinfants were typically developing). For all dyads, caregivers reported that English wasthe primary language spoken in the home.

Procedure and measures

Measures for this study were taken across four time-points. At 7 and 11 months,mother–infant free play interactions were observed, videotaped, and later transcribed




and scored for (i) maternal use of guiding speech and (ii) maternal dominant affect. At18 and 24 months, caregivers reported child expressive language performance in theform of MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories (Words andSentences; Fenson, Marchman, Thal, Dale, Reznick, & Bates, 2007).

Data collection: 7 and 11 months

Mother–infant interactions at 7 months and 11 months were recorded in an 11´ by 15´soundproof university laboratory playroom. In the room, mothers sat across a tablefrom their children, who were seated in high-chairs. Infants’ backs faced a one-waymirror. Participants were recorder with a Sony digital camcorder, with the mother’sface and play-related activity clearly visible. Mothers were given four children’s toys(i.e., a dump truck, a jack-in-the-box Winnie the Pooh toy, a box with plastic keysinside, and a rolling dog toy) and were instructed to use one toy at a time insuccession with their children. They were additionally asked to play with each toy forno more than 2 to 3 minutes. The experimenter did not stay in the room during thedyadic play sessions.

Experimenters generated a room set-up procedural checklist that was used for eachsession, and gave identical instructions to each mother. Across 10% of sessions,experimenters calculated the percentage of checklist procedures actually conductedby the examiner (reliability procedures detailed by Billinglsey, White, & Munson,1980). For both 7- and 11-month sessions, reliability for the procedure ranged from95% to 100%.

Coding – maternal language measures: 7 and 11 monthsEach session was video-recorded. Videos were subsequently transcribed and codedusing specified coding conventions. Each utterance, or unit of speech bounded bysilence, was denoted as a separate line of dialogue. Two independent coderstranscribed each session. The content of mothers’ speech to their children was thenparsed and coded for maternal use of guiding language. For each transcript, coderscounted the number of words (TOTALWords) and number of utterance(TOTALUtterances) spoken by the mother. While TOTALWords andTOTALUtterances are strongly correlated (R = 0.83 at 7 months, .83 at 11 months),raters showed some variation in marking the end of utterances (κ = .61, SE = .06, p< .001).

As defined in Table 1, each utterance was also categorized as either non-guiding orguiding speech. Within the latter category, utterances were marked as either guidingcommands (GC; i.e., statements) or guiding questions (GQ). Utterances were furthercategorized as guiding to the child’s current object of interest (FOLLOWING IN;GC_Interest, GQ_Interest), guiding the child’s attention to another object (DIRECTIVE;GC_RedirectObject, GQ_RedirectObject), or guiding the child’s attention to themother (DIRECTIVE; GC_RedirectMother, GQ_RedirectMother). All raw languagemeasures were appended with a number indicating the time-point (i.e., GC_Interestat 7 months is designated as GC_Interest7). Table 1 provides a summary ofdefinitions and examples of each of the coding scheme categories.

922 Dave et al.



Coding – maternal affect measure: 7 and 11 monthsMaternal emotionality, otherwise known as MATERNAL AFFECT, was coded duringcommunication with her infant according to a modified form of the CaliforniaFamilies Project Interaction (CFP) Ratings Scales and the fifth revision of the IowaFamily Interaction Rating Scales (Melby et al., 1993). Affect scales are defined as themother’s emotion state as measured by numerical observer rating of vocal intonationand bodily/facial emotional expression. The dominance scale adapted from the CFPassesses maternal dominant affect, as defined as a demonstration of control orexertion of influence by the mother over the infant. The dominance scale ratingsrank from 1 (no exertion of control over infant’s behavior) to 9 (frequent attemptsand success in controlling the infant’s actions). Higher scores were typicallygenerated by commanding physical behavior (e.g., grabbing at the toy the infant isplaying with or demonstrating actions with the toy without allowing the childsufficient opportunity to engage with the toy) and verbal communication (e.g.,demanding or commanding child attention).

To code maternal affect, researchers recorded a dominant affect score four times permother–infant session – one score per each toy played with during the session. Per

Table 1. Coding scheme used to assess maternal guiding language to children at 7 and 11 months

Measures Code Definition

Total Words TOTALWords Total number of words used by the mother acrossthe play session.

Total Utterances TOTALUtterances Total number of utterances used by the motheracross the play session. Each utterance consistsof continuous speech preceded and followed bya silent pause.

Non-Guiding NONGuiding Any utterance not intended to guide child behavior(e.g., Are you still feeling okay?).

Guiding Via: Question – GQ A question used to guide the child towardsengaging in a play-related behavior.

Command – GC A command (or statement) used to guide the childtowards engaging in a play-related behavior.

Guiding To:Object ofInterest(Following-In)

GQ_InterestGC_Interest

An utterance used to continue the child’sengagement with an object the infant is alreadyinteracting with or focused on (by hand or bygaze) (e.g., Want to turn the handle? / Turn thehandle.).

Another Object(Directive)

GQ_RedirectObjectGC_RedirectObject

An utterance used to redirect the child’s attentionto another object (e.g., new toy) or any part ofthe room that is the child’s object of interest(e.g., Want to try this one now? / Let’s play withthis one instead.).

Mother(Directive)

GQ_RedirectMotherGC_RedirectMother

An utterance used to guide the child’s attention tothe mother (either by requesting the child shiftgaze to the mother’s behavior or by using thechild’s name to guide focus to mother speech)(e.g., Want to play with me? / Look at whatmommy’s doing.).




coder, the mother’s total dominant affect score was generated by averaging across thefour scores for the entire session. As with speech transcription, each session wascoded for affect by two independent coders.

Child language measures: 18 and 24 months

The MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories (CDI) (Words andSentences; Fenson et al., 2007) was administered twice in this study: when theinfants reached 18 and 24 months of age. The CDI: Words and Sentences includes a680-word expressive vocabulary production checklist with semantic categories suchas animals, toys, food and drink, people, verbs, adjectives, and connecting words.The caregiver reported which words children were able to produce from the680-item list.

Results

Data analysis

Maternal languageRaters reliably categorized maternal utterances into guiding command categories at 7(R(223) = .94, κ = .74, SE = .03, p < .001) and 11 months (R(223) = .95, κ = .72,SE = .03, p < .001). Descriptive statistics for each maternal language measure areprovided in Table 2.

Maternal affectIn rating maternal affect on a 9-point scale, inter-judge recording reliability was 76%between coders across all 32 sessions (κ = .64, SE = .09, p < .001 at 7 months; κ = .69,SE = .04, p < .001 at 11 months). Dominant affect scores were similar at 7(DOMINANCE7: M = 5.51, SD = 1.56) and 11 (DOMINANCE11: M = 5.35, SD =1.53) months (t(58) = 0.39, p = .70).

Table 2. Average number of items coded for each maternal language measure at 7 months, 11 months,and the change in each measure from 7 to 11 months (reported as M (SD))

Measure 7 months 11 months Change: from 7–11 months

TOTALWords 689.13 (211.31) 1105.91 (285.87) 416.78 (211.86)

TOTALUtterances 177.06 (50.5) 294 (92.64) 116.94 (82.61)

NONGuiding 48.66 (30.53) 109.69 (81.62) 61.03 (80.62)

GQ_Interest 38.63 (13.96) 50.34 (13.35) 37.39 (23.02)

GC_Interest 31 (10.66) 39.75 (10.49) 30.73 (17.44)

GQ_RedirectObject 33.16 (13.55) 39.66 (13.05) 29.43 (18.83)

GC_RedirectObject 10.94 (4.72) 18.34 (4.77) 14.26 (8.39)

GQ_RedirectMother 8.66 (2.72) 16.44 (4.51) 11.83 (8.12)

GC_RedirectMother 6.03 (2.93) 19.78 (6.74) 15.26 (9.89)

924 Dave et al.



Child language outcomesToddler vocabulary scores were recorded at 18 (CDI18: M = 88.84, SD = 108.38) and 24months (CDI24: M = 278.85, SD = 208.08). CDI scores differed significantly betweenage groups (t(58) = 4.44, p < .001), as expected.

Correlational analyses: 7 to 11 months

Maternal languageWe first used partial correlational analyses to quantify associations between guidinglanguage measures. For maternal language at 7 months, we controlled forTOTALWords7 and TOTALUtterances7 while conducting partial correlationsanalyses between GC_ and GQ_ for Interest7, RedirectObject7, and RedirectMother7(Table 3). A significant correlation was found between GC_Interest7 andGQ_Interest7 ( p < .001). In a similar analysis conducted for maternal language at 11months (Table 3), a similar correlation emerged between GC_Interest11 andGQ_Interest11 ( p < .001). These results imply similar or related goals of following-inquestions and commands, suggesting that combined following-in language measures(Interest7, Interest11) may significantly emerge in later analysis.

As predicted, GC_RedirectObject7 negatively correlated with both following-invariables (GQ_Interest7, p < .001 and GC_Interest7, p = .05), indicating thatfollowing-in language and directive commands are inversely related at 7 months.This inverse correlation was not significant at 11 months ( ps > .05).

Unlike GC_Interest and GQ_Interest, GC_RedirectObject and GQ_RedirectObjectwere not correlated ( ps > .05 at 7 and 11 months). This finding matches ourprediction that directive questions and commands do not share the samecommunicative goals. Finally, GC_RedirectMother and GQ_RedirectMother did notsignificantly correlate with any language measure ( ps > .05) at either time-point.This finding is likely rooted in the significantly ( ps < .001) fewer utterances coded inthese categories relative to the other variables.

Maternal affectWe examined change in dominant affect scores between 7 and 11 months. As predicted,DOMINANCE7 and DOMINANCE11 were strongly correlated (R = 0.84), andtherefore these scores were mathematically averaged to generate a single variablereflecting maternal affective communication (DOMINANCE; M = 5.43, SD = 1.40).

Maternal language and maternal affectCorrelational analyses were performed for guiding language and affect measures. Nosignificant correlations emerged between DOMINANCE7 or DOMINANCE11 andany guiding language variable, nor DOMINANCE and any guiding language variable( ps > .05, range: .09 to .99).

Correlational analyses: early maternal measures and later child outcomes

Maternal language and child outcomesWe performed separate bivariate correlational analyses for associations between guidinglanguage measures at 7 and 11 months and CDI18 and CDI24 scores, respectively(Table 4).




Table 3. Partial correlations between raw language measures at 7 and 11 months, controlling for total numbers of words and utterances at each time-point (*p < .05,**p < .01, ***p < .001)

Control variables Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6

TOTALWords7, TOTALUtterances7 1. GQ_Interest7 –

2. GC_Interest7 0.529*** –

3. GQ_RedirectObject7 −0.077 −0.136 –

4. GC_RedirectObject7 −0.623*** −0.359* 0.201 –

5. GQ_RedirectMother7 0.126 −0.126 −0.060 −0.195 –

6. GC_RedirectMother7 0.050 −0.105 −0.104 0.288 0.090 –

Control variables Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6

TOTALWords11, TOTALUtterances11 1. GQ_Interest11 –

2. GC_Interest11 0.670*** –

3. GQ_RedirectObject11 0.223 0.173 –

4. GC_RedirectObject11 −0.349 −0.223 0.337 –

5. GQ_RedirectMother11 0.192 0.042 0.051 0.000 –

6. GC_RedirectMother11 0.175 0.245 0.057 0.035 0.041 –

926Dave

etal.

terms of use, available at https://w

ww

.cambridge.org/core/term

s. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000917000551D

ownloaded from

https://ww

w.cam

bridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 24 Jun 2021 at 08:10:33, subject to the Cambridge Core


Table 4. Correlations between raw language measures at 7 and 11 months (including an amassed Interest measure) and CDI scores at 18 and 24 months, respectively.GQ_ and GC_RedirectObject and RedirectMother are reported as RO and RM, respectively (*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001).

Raw measures

7 months TOTALWords TOTAL Utterances GQ_Interest GC_Interest Interest GQ_RO GC_RO GQ_RM GC_RM

CDI18 −0.006 −0.018 −0.205 −0.334 −0.219 0.246 0.123 −0.032 −0.212

CDI24 −0.048 −0.074 −0.303 −0.498** –0.425* 0.300 0.146 −0.101 −0.250

11 months

CDI18 0.129 0.019 0.497** 0.228 0.353* 0.286 0.204 −0.135 0.462

CDI24 0.053 −0.012 0.560*** 0.262 0.467** 0.243 0.278 −0.004 0.023

Journalof

Child

Language927


ww


s. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000917000551D

ownloaded from

https://ww

w.cam



Of the maternal language measures assessed when the infant was 7 months of age,no language measures correlated with CDI18, and only GC_Interest significantlycorrelated with CDI24 ( p = .004). Of the remaining measures, only the associationsbetween GC_Interest and CDI18 ( p = .06) and between GQ_Interest and CDI24 ( p= .09) trended towards significance.

Of the maternal language measures assessed when the infant was 11 months of age,GQ_Interest significantly correlated with both CDI18 ( p = .001) and CDI24 ( p = .001).GC_Interest did not significantly correlate with either CDI18 or CDI24 ( ps > .10).These findings suggest that, despite their strong correlations, following-in commandsand questions have variable associations with later child language outcomes. Theseresults also indicate that both categories of redirecting questions and commands werenot correlated with later child expressive vocabulary outcomes measured in this study.

As partial correlations analyses performed above (Table 3) suggested thatGC_Interest and GQ_Interest were likely related at both 7 and 11 months, thesevariables were added together to generate amassed Interest7 (M = 69.63, SD = 22.42)and Interest11 (M = 90.09, SD = 21.92) variables. As reported in Table 4, Interest7was not predictive of CDI18 ( p = .23) but was correlated with CDI24 ( p = .02).Interest11 was significantly correlated to both CDI18 ( p = .05) and CDI24 ( p = .007).These correlations remained significant when TOTALWords and TOTALUtteranceswere controlled for (Table 5).

Maternal affect and child outcomesDOMINANCE in early maternal communication was significantly correlated withboth CDI18 (R = –0.45, p = .01) and CDI24 (R = –0.49, p = .005), indicating thatmaternal dominance is negatively associated with later child language outcomes.These correlations remained significant when we controlled for TOTALWords andTOTALUtterances (Table 5).

The role of change in early maternal language

A primary study goal was to examine if responsive guiding language affected later childlanguage outcomes. Therefore, controlling for TOTALWords and TOTALUtterances,1

we first performed correlational analyses to observe associations between CDImeasures and change in each of the six language measures (GC_Interest,GQ_Interest, GC_RedirectObject, GQ_RedirectObject, GC_RedirectMother,GQ_RedirectMother) from 7 to 11 months (Table 5). While only following-in(GC_Interest, GQ_Interest, and Interest) measures directly correlated with CDIoutcomes, we wanted to assess whether change in ANY of these guiding languagemeasures was associated with CDI outcomes.

As seen in Table 5, CHANGE_GC_Interest correlated with CDI scores (CDI18: p= .04; CDI24: p = .003). Likewise, CHANGE_GQ_Interest correlated with CDIoutcomes (CDI8: p = .01; CDI24: p = .001) All other change scores were notsignificantly correlated with child vocabulary / CDI scores.

Importantly, CHANGE_GC_Interest and CHANGE_GQ_Interest significantlycorrelated (R = 0.77), indicating that change across these measures may be summed

1No significant correlations emerged between CHANGE_Words or CHANGE_Utterances and CDIscores, with R values as follows: CHANGE_Words and CDI_18 (.155), CHANGE_Words and CDI_24(.120), CHANGE_Utterances and CDI_18 (.046), CHANGE_Utterances and CDI_24 (.032).

928 Dave et al.



Table 5. Correlations between change scores (for all 6 guiding language measures) and CDI scores at 18 and 24 months, controlling for change in total number of wordsand utterances across the 7 and 11 month time-points. GQ_ and GC_RedirectObject and RedirectMother are reported as RO and RM, respectively. Correlations betweenCDI scores and Interest measures at 7 and 11 months, as well as maternal dominant affect, are also reported (*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001)

Control Variables:CHANGE_TOTAL Words & _TOTALUtterances

Interest Change MeasuresAffect

Interest7 Interest11GQ_

InterestGC_

InterestGQ_RO

GC_RO

GQ_RM

GC_RM Dominance

CDI18 −0.267 0.451** 0.451** 0.381* −0.019 0.031 −0.100 0.068 −0.468**

CDI24 −0.413* 0.512** 0.563** 0.526** −0.080 0.222 0.066 0.133 −0.507**

Journalof

Child

Language929


ww


s. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000917000551D

ownloaded from

https://ww

w.cam



to a single change score measure (CHANGE_Interest; M = 20.47, SD = 34.57).CHANGE_ Interest correlated with CDI18 (R = 0.45, p = .01) and CDI24 (R = 0.58, p= .001). This finding suggests that not only Interest guiding language, but alsoresponsive change in Interest may be valuable to assess in longitudinal studies ofchild vocabulary development. Therefore, we performed regression analyses to assessindependent contributions of TOTALUtterances (i.e., quantity of maternalcommunication), Interest (i.e., quantity of following-in language), andCHANGE_Interest (i.e., change in following-in language use between 7 and 11months) to CDI18 and CDI24 (i.e., later child language outcomes).

Regression analyses: maternal language and child vocabulary

Tables 6 and 7 present models for which CDI18 and CDI24, respectively, are outcomevariables. Model 1 in both Tables 6 and 7 presents regression analyses in whichTOTALUtterances and Interest are the predictor variables; Model 2 in both tablesalso includes CHANGE_Interest as a predictor variable.

Model 1 is not significant for either CDI18 ( p = .78) or CDI24 ( p = .93). However,Model 2 is significant for both CDI18 ( p = .05) and CDI24 ( p = .01). In Model 2for CDI18 (Table 6), CHANGE_Interest is the only significant predictor of CDI18( p = .01). Similarly, for Model 2 for CDI24 (Table 7), CHANGE_Interest is the onlysignificant predictor of CDI24 ( p = .001).

Furthermore, across both Model 2s, TOTALUtterances and Interest do not becomemore significant with the addition of change scores, suggesting that they do notindependently contribute to the models. CHANGE_Interest is positively correlatedwith CDI18 and CDI24, indicating that mothers responsively increasing their use offollowing-in language between 7 and 11 months have children with highervocabulary scores at 18 and 24 months, respectively.

Regression analyses: maternal language, maternal affect, and child vocabulary

We next explored the role of dominant affect in predicting later child vocabulary, asDOMINANCE was inversely correlated with both CDI18 and CDI24.

In a second set of stepwise regression analyses (Tables 6 and 7), DOMINANCE wasadded as a predictor variable (Model 3). At 18 months (Table 6), Model 3 wassignificant ( p = .03, F change p = .04), explaining 23% of the variance in CDI18.Both CHANGE_Interest ( p = .04) and DOMINANCE ( p = .04) significantlypredicted CDI18. Importantly, CHANGE_Interest was positive correlated withCDI18, while DOMINANCE was negative correlated with CDI18.

Model 3 was also significant at 24 months (Table 7; p = .002, F change p = .02),explaining 38% of the variance in CDI24. As before, both CHANGE_Interest(p = .003) and DOMINANCE (p = .02) significantly predicted CDI24. Likewise,CHANGE_ Interest positive predicted CDI18, while DOMINANCE negativecorrelated with CDI18.

Regression analyses: interactions between maternal language and affect on childvocabulary

Finally, we aimed to address if DOMINANCE and CHANGE_Interest were independentpredictors of CDI scores. Therefore, we added a DOMINANCE and CHANGE_ Interest

930 Dave et al.



Table 6. Fitted regression model comparison for predictors of CDI score at 18 months (CDI18) (n.s.) p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

B SE B β B SE B β B SE B β

TOTAL Utterances −0.247 0.497 −0.114 −0.113 0.455 −0.052 −0.193 0.429 −0.089

Interest 1.564 2.222 0.161 1.308 2.027 0.135 0.458 1.944 0.047

CHANGE_ Interest 1.730 0.657 0.444* 1.369 0.639 0.352*

DOMINANCE −35.568 16.365 −0.371*

Summary statistics

R2 .017 (n.s.) .212* .329**

F-stat (df) 0.252 (2, 29) 2.513 (3, 28) 3.316 (4, 27)

R2 Change – .195* .117*

Journalof

Child

Language931


ww


s. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000917000551D

ownloaded from

https://ww

w.cam



Table 7. Fitted regression model comparison for predictors of CDI score at 24 months (CDI24) (n.s.) p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

B SE B β B SE B β B SE B β

TOTAL Utterances −0.255 0.708 −0.083 −0.011 0.596 −0.004 −0.132 0.544 −0.043

Interest 1.020 3.166 0.074 0.552 2.650 0.040 0.738 2.464 −0.054

CHANGE_ Interest 3.155 0.859 0.572** 2.607 0.810 0.473**

DOMINANCE −53.986 20.740 −0.398*

Summary statistics

R2 .005 (n.s.) .382* .681**

F-stat (df) 0.074 (2, 29) 4.563 (3, 28) 5.822 (4, 27)

R2 Change – .323** .135*

932Dave

etal.


ww


s. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000917000551D

ownloaded from

https://ww

w.cam



interaction variable to Model 3 for both CDI18 and CDI24. At 18 months, the addition ofthe interaction term added tomodel strength, but this effect was not significant ( p = .01, sig.F change = .08). Further, the interaction term was not a significant in this model ( p = .80),while CHANGE_Interest ( p = .03) and DOMINANCE ( p = .03) remained significantpredictors. Likewise, the addition of the interaction term did not significantly boostmodel strength at 24 months ( p = .001, sig. F change = .78). The interaction term wasalso not a significant predictor in this model ( p = .48), while CHANGE_Interest ( p= .002) and DOMINANCE ( p = .02) remained independently predictive. These findingsindicate that DOMINANCE does not influence the path between CHANGE_Interest andCDI outcomes, suggesting that early maternal affect and responsive following-in languagemake independent contributions to later child language outcomes.

Discussion

The goal of this study was to unravel the concept of responsive parenting into twocomponents of early mother–child interaction: responsive following-in language, ormalleability in maternal following-in guiding language from 7 to 11 months, andmaternal dominant affect, or expression of controlling influence duringcommunication. Our aim was to determine how these indicators of maternalresponsivity were associated with later child language performance. In line withprevious research (e.g., Kuhl et al., 2005) indicating that caregiver behavior haslongitudinal influences on child language, this study predicted that both aspects ofmaternal responsivity to infants – change in motherese and dominant affect – wouldbe associated with later toddler expressive language.

In the present study, results indicated that maternal verbalization and affect towardstheir infants separately contributed to the development of child vocabulary. Responsivelinguistic input (here, specifically guiding language to the child’s engaged object ofinterest) was found to be uniquely correlated to later children’s language acquisition,as compared to total number of utterances, guiding or otherwise. Further, thischange score variable and dominant affect distinctly – and oppositely – reflected onchild language outcomes, such that at both 18 and 24 months, previous maternaldominant affect negatively affected child vocabulary, while previous responsiveguiding language positively influenced toddler language measures.

These findings were largely in line with our predictions, demonstrating that not onlycan the verbalized and expressive aspects of mothers’ communication be separatelyassessed, but also that these factors play unique roles in the development of childvocabulary. Moreover, the influence of maternal responsivity early in a child’scommunicative life was shown to be longitudinally associated with later childperformance, extending the findings of previous studies (e.g., Tamis-LeMonda et al.,2001; Kuhl et al., 2005) and highlighting the role responsive parenting plays inbuilding early semantic capabilities in children. The results of this study furtherexpand upon previous findings regarding the functional role of reactivity parenting,generally – and motherese and maternal affect, specifically – in influencing children’slanguage development outcomes (Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2001; Masur et al., 2005).

Early maternal language and later child language

Rogoff (2003) suggests that internal working models are based on co-constructiveinterchange between caregivers and infants; this study’s results similarly illustrate




how flexibility in dyadic co-construction can be linked to later linguistic benefits inchildren. In addition, the findings of this current study show that mothers whoaltered their speech to include increased use of child-focused guiding commandsacross 7 to 11 months – known to be a critical time-point in infantdevelopment – did in fact have children who developed higher expressivevocabularies earlier in their developmental trajectories. Not surprisingly then, studieshave shown that following-in guiding language provides a clear, highly anticipated,and increasingly referential framework for children to use in understanding how toysare being referred to in guided play situations (e.g., Hitotani et al., 2008). Forinstance, Hirotani also showed that object-referring commands used to guide childbehavior are both theoretically and demonstrably useful in better segmenting speech.Consequently, across these studies and our own, increased use of reactive mothereseacross a critical time-point of infants’ language development appears to be positivelylinked to later child vocabulary development in this study.

Interestingly, guiding language at 7 months was negatively associated with laterlanguage outcomes, while guiding language at 11 months was positively associatedwith later language outcomes. This dissociation may be linked to the shift in childattentional interest in guiding language noted in Kitamura and Lam (2009). Infantsmay be less reactive to guiding language at 7 months, and therefore may gain lesssemantic knowledge from this type of language than they would at 11 months – atwhich time guiding commands are both more of interest and more effective (i.e.,because children are more likely to be able to operate the toys as guided) to children.

This study uniquely found that following-in questions and commands are correlated,while directive questions and commands are not correlated. Before considering thelong-term consequences of maternal use of question versus commands, it will becritical for future research to address why these differences may arise. In line withprevious literature, we suggest that maternal intent for following-in language issimilar across questions and commands. We further offer that directive questionsmay have the same redirecting intent as directive commands, but may necessitateforming a different infant–new object–caregiver model than commands. Becausequestions often engender responses, directive questions may place more emphasis onthe infant–mother element of the model than the infant–new objectelement – especially relative to directive commands.

Early maternal affect and later child language

How caregivers express motherese to their infants – for instance, whether dominantemotional valence of speech directs toy referencing within the child’s expressedinterest range – has been shown to influence the ways in which infants attend toincoming speech (Mumme & Fernald, 2003; Page, Wilhelm, Gamble, & Card, 2010).Interestingly, and not surprisingly, dominance in maternal affect during dyadiccommunication was negatively associated with later language performance, similar tothe results reported by Kitamura and colleagues (Kitamura & Burnham, 2003;Kitamura & Lam, 2009). In line with previous research indicating that dominantaffect diminishes infant attention maintenance, it appears that non-dominant affectstyles may allow infants increased time and opportunity to map words onto objectsof interest. In this way, the dominance findings are very similar to those of generalreceptive reactivity in caregivers; highly supportive parenting environments are thosewhich are guided by the child’s own interests – including focusing on toys and

934 Dave et al.



supporting actions the child has self-selected (e.g., Landry, Smith, & Swank, 2006;Wooldridge & Shapka, 2012). Consequently, the findings of the aforementionedstudies as well as this current study concur that lower levels of dominant maternalaffect in dyadic play scenarios are likely linked to increased lexicon building acrossthe child’s early developmental trajectories.

Limitations

One potential confound of this study design is that linguistic and affective interactionsobserved between mother and child at 7 and 11 months were assumed to berepresentative of typical communication in free play for that dyad despiteconfounding effects of videotaped communication, semi-structured play, andenforced seating and distance arrangements within the room (for filming andstandardization purposes).

The hypotheses of this study were generated based on models of bi-directionality indyadic communication. However, our early maternal language variables do not directlyaccount for the infant’s role in guiding responsive communication. Off-line measures ofinfant cognitive development may provide a control measure for infant developmentallevel (i.e., to determine how well caregivers are responding to change in the child).Further, eye-tracking during similar lab experiments may provide a means of directlymeasuring infant attention, which may moderate the efficacy of maternal language inthese settings.

Another limitation results from the measurement of the change in maternal speech.In this design, this change score was assessed across two time-points (7 and 11 months),given the comprehensive data available in this particular sample; including additionaltime-points along the developmental trajectory could provide a more temporallyrepresentative slope of maternal moderation of motherese, as opposed to a changescore. The 9-month critical time-point of cognitive and linguistic development isunlikely to be the sole rapid shift in infant development (as suggested in Albrecht &Miller, 2001). A more widely distributed timeline would determine if (i) continuousresponsivity or (ii) critical point-timed responsivity on the part of the motherresulted in larger effects on later child language development.

Conclusions

The findings in this study are best interpreted in the rich context of maternal and childbehaviors at these time-points. A number of studies (reviewed in Saint-Georges et al.,2013) point to the crucial role of prosody in maternal responsivity; while prosodiccomponents of communications are likely enveloped in the dominant affect measuresused here, the affect measure is unlikely to contain the breadth of tone, rhythm, andintonation information covered in prosodic research. Further, guiding language iscouched in a broader category of guiding communicative patterns – ranging fromgesture (Tomasello et al., 2005) to gaze (Brooks & Meltzoff, 2008). Finally, in futureresearch, infant responsivity – for instance, through eye-tracking measures ofattentional focus – may be gauged in a study alongside maternal measures in orderto more completely assess mother–infant contingency and synchrony (Saint-Georgeset al., 2013).

The present study has provided a distinct methodological approach by investigatingthe longitudinal association between responsive use of following-in guiding language to




preverbal infants and their early lexicon development. Further, by separating anddistinctly correlating responsive motherese and early maternal affect with latervocabulary development, the effects of both components of responsive parenting areshown to be predictive of language in young children, beyond effects of the sheeramount of verbal communication to children. As such, reactive parenting – both onlinguistic and emotional levels – contributes to emerging cognitive skills in veryyoung children.

Acknowledgements. This research was funded in part by the University of Washington Institute forLearning and Brain Sciences, formerly Center for Mind, Brain, and Learning, ‘Early Signals ofCommunication and their Relationship to Later Language and Social Skills’, PI-Lesley B. Olswang,September, 2001 to March, 2003.

ReferencesAkhtar, N., Dunham, F., & Dunham, P. J. (1991). Directive interactions and early vocabulary

development: the role of joint attentional focus. Journal of Child Language, 18(1), 41–9.Albrecht, K., & Miller, L. G. (2001). Innovations: infant and toddler development. New York, NY:

Gryphon.Billingsley, F. F., White, O. R., & Munson, R. (1980). Procedural reliability: a rationale and an example.

Behavioral Assessment, 2, 229–41.Bloom, L., Tinker, E., & Scholnick, E. K. (2001). The intentionality model and language acquisition:

engagement, effort, and the essential tension in development. Monographs of the Society for Researchin Child Development, 1–101.

Bortfeld, H. (2004). Which came first: infants learning language or motherese? Behavioral and BrainSciences, 27, 505–6.

Bretherton, I. (1995). A communication perspective on attachment relationships and internal workingmodels. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 60(2/3), 310–29.

Brodsky, P., Waterfall, H. R., & Edelman, S. (2007). Characterizing motherese: on the computationalstructure of child-directed language. In D. S. McNamara & J. G. Trafton (Eds.), Proceedings of the29th Cognitive Science Society Conference (pp. 833–8). Cognitive Science Society.

Brooks, R., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2008). Infant gaze following and pointing predict accelerated vocabularygrowth through two years of age: a longitudinal, growth curve modeling study. Journal of ChildLanguage, 35, 207–20.

Carroll, D. W. (2007). Psychology of language. Australia: Wadsworth Publishing Company.Cohen, S. E., & Beckwith, L. (1976). Maternal language in infancy. Developmental Psychology, 12(4),

371–2.Dominey, P., & Dodane, C. (2004). Interdeterminancy in language acquisition: the role of child directed

speech and joint attention. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 17(2/3), 121–45.Estes, K. G., Evans, J. L., Alibali, M. W., & Saffran, J. R. (2007). Can infants map meaning to newly

segmented words? Statistical segmentation and word learning. Psychological Science, 18(3), 254–60.Fenson, L., Marchman, V. A., Thal, D. J., Dale, P. S., Reznick, J. S., Bates, E. (2007). MacArthur-Bates

Communicative Development Inventories: user’s guide and technical manual, 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD:Paul H. Brookes.

Fernald, A. (1993). Approval and disapproval: infant responsiveness to vocal affect in familiar andunfamiliar languages. Child Development, 64(3), 657–74.

Fernald, A., & Kuhl, P. (1987). Acoustic determinants of infant preference for motherese speech. InfantBehavior and Development, 10(3), 279–93.

Goldin-Meadow, S., Ping, R., Decatur, M. A., Larson, S., & Zinchenko, E. (2012). Gesture predictsreadiness-to-learn in adults learning a complex spatial task. Cognitive Processing, 13, S31–S34.

Hirotani, M., Stets, M., Striano, T., & Friederici, A. D. (2008). Joint attention helps infants learn newwords: event-related potential evidence. NeuroReport, 20(6), 600–5.

936 Dave et al.



Hurtado, N., Marchman, V. A., & Fernald, A. (2008). Does input influence uptake? Links betweenmaternal talk, processing speed and vocabulary size in Spanish‐learning children. DevelopmentalScience, 11(6), F31–F39.

Huttenlocher, J., Haight, W., Bryk, A., Seltzer, M., & Lyons, T. (1991). Early vocabulary growth: relationto language input and gender. Developmental Psychology, 27(2), 236–48.

Kitamura, C., & Burnham, D. (2003). Pitch and communicative intent in mother’s speech: adjustmentsfor age and sex in the first year. Infancy, 4(1), 85–110.

Kitamura, C., & Lam, C. (2009). Age-specific preferences for infant-directed affective intent. Infancy,14(1), 77–100.

Kuhl, P. K., Conboy, B. T., Padden, D., Nelson, T., & Pruitt, J. (2005). Early speech perception andlater language development: implications for the ‘Critical Period’. Language Learning andDevelopment, 1(3/4), 237–64.

Lalonde, C. E., & Werker, J. F. (1995). Cognitive influences on cross-language speech perception ininfancy. Infant Behavior and Development, 18(4), 459–75.

Landry, S. H., Smith, K. E., & Swank, P. R. (2006). Responsive parenting: establishing early foundationsfor social, communication, and independent problem-solving skills. Developmental Psychology, 42(4),627–42.

Landry, S. H., Smith, K. E., Swank, P. R., Assel, M. A., & Vellet, S. (2001). Does early responsiveparenting have a special importance for children’s development or is consistency across earlychildhood necessary? Developmental Psychology, 37(3), 387–403.

Marchman, V. A., & Fernald, A. (2008). Speed of word recognition and vocabulary knowledge in infancypredict cognitive and language outcomes in later childhood. Developmental Science, 11(3), F9–F16.

Masur, E. F., Flynn, V., & Eichorst, D. L. (2005). Maternal responsive and directive behaviours andutterances as predictors of children’s lexical development. Journal of Child Language, 32(1), 63–91.

McCathren, R. B., Yoder, P. J., & Warren, S. F. (1995). The role of directives in early languageintervention. Journal of Early Intervention, 19(2), 91–101.

Melby, J. N., Conger, R. D., Book, R., Rueter, M., Lucy, L., Repinski, D., & Scaramella, L. (1993). TheIowa Family Interaction Rating Scales. Ames: Institute for Social and Behavioral Research, Iowa StateUniversity.

Meltzoff, A. N., & Kuhl, P. K. (2004). Faces and speech: intermodal processing of biologically relevantsignals in infants and adults. In D. J. Lewkowicz & R. Lickliter, (Eds.), The development of intersensoryperception: comparative perspectives (pp. 335–69). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Mumme, D. L., & Fernald, A. (2003). The infant as onlooker: learning from emotional reactions observedin a television scenario. Child Development, 74(1), 221–37.

Mundy, P., & Newell, L. (2007). Attention, joint attention, and social cognition. Current Directions inPsychological Science, 16(5), 269–74.

Murray, L., & Trevarthen, C. (1986). The infant’s role in mother–infant communications. Journal of ChildLanguage, 13(1), 15–29.

Niwano, K., & Sugai, K. (2002). Intonation contour of Japanese maternal infant-directed speech and infantvocal response. Japanese Journal of Special Education, 39, 59–68.

Nozadi, S. S., Spinrad, T. L., Eisenberg, N., Bolnick, R., Eggum-Wilkens, N. D., Smith, C. L.,Gaertner, B., Kupfer, A., & Sallquist, J. (2013). Prediction of toddlers’ expressive language frommaternal sensitivity and toddlers’ anger expressions: a developmental perspective. Infant Behavior andDevelopment, 36(4), 650–61.

Page, M., Wilhelm, M. S., Gamble, W. C., & Card, N. A. (2010). A comparison of maternal sensitivity andverbal stimulation as unique predictors of infant social–emotional and cognitive development. InfantBehavior and Development, 33(1), 101–10.

Pine, J. M. (1992). Maternal style at the early one-word stage: re-evaluating the stereotype of the directivemother. First Language, 12, 169–86.

Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. London: Oxford University Press.Rowe, M. L., & Goldin‐Meadow, S. (2009). Early gesture selectively predicts later language learning.

Developmental Science, 12(1), 182–7.Rowe., M. L., Raudenbush, S. W., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2012). The pace of vocabulary growth helps

predict later vocabulary skill. Child Development, 83(2), 508–25.




Saint-Georges, C., Chetouani, M., Cassel, R., Apicella, F., Mahdhaoui, A., Muratori, F., & Cohen, D.(2013). Motherese in interaction: at the cross-road of emotion and cognition? (A systematic review).PloS one, 8(10), e78103.

Smith, M. (2010). Good parenting: making a difference. Early Human Development, 86(11), 689–93.Snow, C. E. (1972). Mothers’ speech to children learning language. Child Development, 43(2), 549–65.Soderstrom, M., & Morgan, J. L. (2007). Twenty-two-month-olds discriminate fluent from disfluent

adult-directed speech. Developmental Science, 10, 641–53.Tamis‐LeMonda, C. S., Bornstein, M. H., & Baumwell, L. (2001). Maternal responsiveness and children’s

achievement of language milestones. Child Development, 72(3), 748–67.Tomasello, M. (2001). Perceiving intentions and learning words in the second year of life. In M. Bowerman

& S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development (pp. 132–58). CambridgeUniversity Press.

Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., & Moll, H. (2005). Understanding and sharingintentions: the origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(5), 675–90.

Tomasello, M., & Farrar, M. J. (1986). Joint attention and early language. Child Development, 57(6),1454–63.

Tomasello, M., Mannle, S., & Kruger, A. C. (1986). Linguistic environment of 1- to 2-year-old twins.Developmental Psychology, 22(2), 169–76.

Tomasello, M., & Todd, J. (1983). Joint attention and lexical acquisition style. First Language, 4(12),197–211.

Werner, S., & Keller, E. (1994). Prosodic aspects of speech. In E. Keller (Ed.), Fundamentals of speechsynthesis and speech recognition: basic concepts, state of the art, the future challenges, (pp. 23–40).Chickester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

Wooldridge, M. B., & Shapka, J. (2012). Playing with technology: mother–toddler interaction scores lowerduring play with electronic toys. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 33(5), 211–18.

Cite this article: Dave S, Mastergeorge AM, Olswang LB (2018). Motherese, affect, and vocabularydevelopment: dyadic communicative interactions in infants and toddlers. Journal of Child Language 45,917–938. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000917000551

938 Dave et al.


https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000917000551https://www.cambridge.org/core/termshttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000917000551https://www.cambridge.org/core

Motherese, affect, and vocabulary development: dyadic communicative interactions in infants and toddlersIntroductionGuiding language in mothereseExpression of emotional affect in dyadic communicationA longitudinal approach to dyadic communicationDevelopmental model of guiding language, affect, and child vocabulary

MethodParticipantsProcedure and measuresData collection: 7 and 11 monthsCoding&emsp14;–&emsp14;maternal language measures: 7 and 11 monthsCoding&emsp14;–&emsp14;maternal affect measure: 7 and 11 monthsChild language measures: 18 and 24 months

ResultsData analysisMaternal languageMaternal affectChild language outcomes

Correlational analyses: 7 to 11 monthsMaternal languageMaternal affectMaternal language and maternal affect

Correlational analyses: early maternal measures and later child outcomesMaternal language and child outcomesMaternal affect and child outcomes

The role of change in early maternal languageRegression analyses: maternal language and child vocabularyRegression analyses: maternal language, maternal affect, and child vocabularyRegression analyses: interactions between maternal language and affect on child vocabulary

DiscussionEarly maternal language and later child languageEarly maternal affect and later child languageLimitationsConclusions

AcknowledgementsReferences

Motherese, affect, and vocabulary development: dyadic ......This study explores responsivity in...

Documents

Transcript of Motherese, affect, and vocabulary development: dyadic ......This study explores responsivity in...