Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T23:26:59.318Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Referential style and maternal directiveness: Different measures yield different results

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Julian M. Pine
Julian M. Pine*
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham
*
Department of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Since the publication of Nelson's (1973) monograph, a number of studies have documented negative relationships between referential style and some form of maternal directiveness. However, the precise nature of these relationships is still far from clear. The present study represents an attempt to resolve this confusion by investigating the relationship between different measures of maternal directiveness and different measures of referential style in the same group of eight mother–infant dyads. A distinction is made, first, between attentional directiveness and behavioral directiveness, and, second, between referential vocabulary measures based on a fixed number of vocabulary items (i.e., 50 words) and measures taken at particular age points (in this case, 1;4). Correlational analysis of these different measures shows not only that attentional and behavioral directiveness are not significantly related, but also that they are differentially predictive of different measures of referential style. Attentional directiveness is significantly related to referential style at 1;4, but not to referential style at 50 words; behavioral directiveness is significantly related to referential style in the child's subsequent 50 words, but not to referential style at 1;4. These findings suggest that, although the attentional regulation hypothesis may be potentially useful in explaining differences in children's actual rate of vocabulary development, it may be less valuable as a means of explaining stylistic variation in early vocabulary composition. This conclusion underlines the need to distinguish relationships between mothers' interactional behavior and stylistic variation in their children's early language from more general effects of maternal behavior on children's overall rate of language development.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , April 1994 , pp. 135 - 148
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Akhtar, N., Dunham, F., & Dunham, P. J. (1991). Directive interactions and early vocabulary development: The role of joint attentional focus. Journal of Child Language, 18, 41–49.Google Scholar
Bates, E., Bretherton, I., & Snyder, L. (1988). From first words to grammar: Individual differences and dissociable mechanisms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Della, Corte M., Benedict, H., & Klein, D. (1983). The relationship of pragmatic dimensions of mother's speech to the referential–expressive distinction. Journal of Child Language, 10, 35–43.Google Scholar
Hampson, J. (1989). Elements of style: Maternal and child contributions to referential and expressive styles of language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, City University of New York.Google Scholar
Lieven, E. V. M., Pine, J. M., & Dresner-Barnes, H. (1992). Individual differences in early vocabulary development: Redefining the referential–expressive distinction. Journal of Child Language, 19, 287–310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McShane, J. (1980). Learning to talk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. (1973). Structure and strategy in learning to talk. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 38 (1–2).Google Scholar
Nelson, K. (1981). Individual differences in language development: Implications for development and language. Developmental Psychology, 17, 170–187.Google Scholar
Peters, A. M. (1983). The units of language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pine, J. M. (1992a). The functional basis of referentiality: Evidence from children's spontaneous speech. First Language, 12, 39–55.Google Scholar
Pine, J. M. (1992b). Maternal style at the early one-word stage: Re-evaluating the stereotype of the directive mother. First Language, 12, 169–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pine, J. M., & Lieven, E. V. M. (1990). Referential style at thirteen months: Why age-defined cross-sectional measures are inappropriate for the study of strategy differences in early language development. Journal of Child Language, 17, 625–631.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M., & Farrar, M. J. (1986). Joint attention and early language. Child Development, 57, 1454–1463.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tomasello, M., & Kruger, A. C. (1992). Joint attention on actions: Acquiring verbs in ostensive and non-ostensive contexts. Journal of Child Language, 19, 311–333.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M., & Todd, J. (1983). Joint attention and lexical acquisition style. First Language, 4, 197–212.Google Scholar