Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T15:57:57.717Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Visual preference as a test of infant word comprehension

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

J. Steven Reznick
J. Steven Reznick*
Affiliation:
Yale University
*
Department of Psychology, Box 11-A Yale Station, New Haven, CT 06520
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Three experiments explored the usefulness of a visual preference technique for assessing word comprehension in infants. Pairs of slides were presented, and visual fixation to each recorded. The parent (in Experiments 1 and 2) or the experimenter (in Experiment 3) then prompted the child with the name of one of the slides (“Find the ——,” “Do you see the ——?”), and visual fixation to each was recorded again. Percentage fixation to the picture matching the word referent following the prompt question was compared to initial preference for that picture, providing a measure of the acceptability of the picture as a word referent, independent of its initial salience.

The first experiment demonstrated increases in comprehension from 8–14 and 14–20 months. The second experiment established longitudinal stability of comprehension from 14 to 20 months. Word comprehension scores were related to parent report of vocabulary knowledge and difficulty of words. The final experiment measured 1-week test-retest reliability of the word comprehension score at 14 and 20 months and replicated the effect of word difficulty. Methodological and theoretical implications of these results are discussed, in particular, the profound effect of stimulus salience and the lack of sex differences in word comprehension.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , June 1990 , pp. 145 - 166
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

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

Bates, E., Bretherton, I., & Snyder, L. (1987). From first words to grammar: Individual differences and dissociable mechanisms. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bates, E., & Harris, C. (1987). Parent report of language comprehension and production in the second year. Unpublished manuscript, Psychology Department, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA.Google Scholar
Behrend, D. A. (1988). Overextensions in early language comprehension: Evidence from a signal detection approach. Journal of Child Language, 15, 63–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berko, J. (1958). The child's learning of English morphology. Word, 14, 150–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bretherton, I., McNew, S., Snyder, L., & Bates, E. (1983). Individual differences at 20 months: Analytic and holistic strategies in language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 10, 293–320.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, E. V., & Hecht, B. F. (1983). Comprehension, production, and language acquisition. Annual Review of Psychology, 34, 325–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke-Stewart, K. A. (1973). Interactions between mothers and their young children: Characteristics and consequences. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. 38 (6–7, Serial No. 153).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, L. B. (1972). Attention-getting and attention-holding processes of infant visual preferences. Child Development, 43, 869–879.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dale, P. S., Bates, E., Reznick, J. S., & Morisset, C. (1989). The validity of a parent report instrument of child language at 20 months. Journal of Child Language, 16, 239–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, C., Bellugi, U., & Brown, R. (1963). Control of grammar in imitation, comprehension, and production. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 2, 121–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fremgen, A., & Fay, D. (1979) Overextensions in production and comprehension: A methodological clarification. Journal of Child Language, 7, 205–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golinkoff, G. M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (1987, October). A new picture of language development: Evidence from comprehension. Paper presented to the Boston Child Language Conference, Boston.Google Scholar
Golinkoff, G. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Cauley, K. M., & Gordon, L. (1987). The eyes have it: Lexical and syntactic comprehension in a new paradigm. Journal of Child Language, 14, 23–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, G. M. (1987, October). From evidence to explanation: Using comprehension data to inform theories of language acquisition. Paper presented to the Boston Child Language Conference, Boston.Google Scholar
Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, G. M., Fletcher, A., deGaspe Beaubien, F., & Cauley, K. (1985, October). In the beginning: One-word speakers comprehend word order. Paper presented to the Boston Child Language Conference, Boston.Google Scholar
Hollingshead, A. B. (1975). Four-factor index of social status. Unpublished manuscript. (Available from author 1965 Yale Station, New Haven, CT 06520.)Google Scholar
Horowitz, F. D., Paden, L., Bhana, K., & Self, P. A. (1972). An infant control procedure for studying infant fixations. Developmental Psychology, 7, 90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huttenlocher, J. (1974) The origins of language comprehension. In Solso, R. L. (Ed.), Theories in cognitive psychology: The Loyola Symposium. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kuczaj, S. A. II, (1979) Young children's overextensions of object words in comprehension and/ or production: Support for a prototype theory of early object word meaning. Abstracts of Individual Papers of the SRCD Biennial Convention, 2, 119.Google Scholar
Macaulay, R. (1978). The myth of female superiority in language. Journal of Child Language, 5, 353–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, D., & Reznick, J. S. (1985). The utility of a rewarded match-to-sample technique as a method of assessing 14- and 20-month-old infants' categorization abilities. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Naigles, L. (in press). Children use syntax to learn verb meanings. Journal of Child Language.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. (1973). Structure and strategy in learning to talk. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 38, (1–2, Serial no. 149).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reppucci, N. D. (1971). Parental education, sex differences, and performance on cognitive tasks among two-year-old children. Developmental Psychology, 4, 248–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reznick, J. S. (1982). The development of perceptual and lexical categories in the human infant. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado, Boulder.Google Scholar
Reznick, J. S., & Goldsmith, L. (1989). A multiple form word production checklist for assessing early language. Journal of Child Language, 16, 91–100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reznick, J. S., & Kagan, J. (1983). Dishabituation and category detection in infancy. In Lipsitt, L. P. & Rovee-Collier, C. K. (Eds.), Advances in infancy research (Vol. 2). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Schachter, F. F., Shore, E., Hodapp, R., Chalfin, S., & Bundy, C. (1978). Do girls talk earlier? Mean length of utterance in toddlers. Developmental Psychology, 14, 388–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, L., Bates, E., & Bretherton, I. (1981). Content and context in early lexical development. Journal of Child Language, 8, 565–582.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spelke, E. S. (1979). Perceiving bimodally specified events in infancy. Developmental Psychology, 15, 626–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, D. C, Campos, J. J., Shucard, D. W., Ramsay, D., & Shucard, J. (1981). Semantic comprehension in infancy: A signal detection analysis. Child Development, 52, 798–803.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, J., & Chapman, R. S. (1975). Who is daddy? The status of two-year-olds' overextensions in production and comprehension. Papers and reports on child language development: Seventh child language research forum. Stanford, CA: Committee on Linguistics.Google Scholar
Thompson, J. R., & Chapman, R. S. (1977). Who is “Daddy” revisited: The status of two-year-olds' overextended words in use and comprehension. Journal of Child Language, 4, 359–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar