Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T04:36:17.776Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The unintelligibility of speech to children: effects of referent availability*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Ellen Gurman Bard  and
Anne H. Anderson
Ellen Gurman Bard*
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
Anne H. Anderson
Affiliation:
University of Glasgow
*
HCRC, University of Edinburgh, 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, UK.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Speech addressed to children is supposed to be helpfully redundant, but redundant or predictable words addressed to adults tend to lose intelligibility. Word tokens extracted from the spontaneous speech of the parents of 12 children aged 1;10 to 3;0 and presented in isolation to adult listeners showed loss of intelligibility when the words were redundant because they had occurred in repetitions of an utterance (Experiment 1) or referred to an entity which was physically present when named (Experiment 2). Though children (N = 64; mean age 3;5, S. D. 6·1 months) recognized fewer excerpted object names than adults (N = 40), less intelligible tokens appeared to induce child listeners to rely on the word's extra-linguistic context during the recognition process (Experiment 3), much as such tokens normally induce adults to rely on discourse context. It is proposed that interpreting parental utterances with reference to non-verbal context furthers linguistic development.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , October 1994 , pp. 623 - 648
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.)

Footnotes

[*]

This work was supported by an ESRC IRC grant to the Universities of Edinburgh and Glasgow and by ESRC Project Grant HR 6130 to J. Laver and E. G. Bard. The authors are grateful to Lothian Regional Council for access to nursery schools; to teachers, informants, and subjects for their patience and good will; to Frances Macnamara for help in running Experiment 3; and to the anonymous reviewers for helpful comments. A preliminary version of this paper was presented at the XIIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Aix-en-Provence, in August, 1991.

References

REFERENCES

Bard, E. & Anderson, A. (1983). The unintelligibility of speech to children. Journal of Child Language 10, 265–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bard, E., Cooper, L., Kowtko, J. & Brew, C. (1991). Psycholinguistic studies on the incremental recognition of speech: an introduction to the messy and the sticky. Deliverable R1.3B, DYANA, ESPRIT Basic Research Action BR3175.Google Scholar
Bard, E., Lowe, A. & Altmann, G. (1989). The effects of repetition on words in recorded dictations. Proceedings of EUROSPEECH '89 2, 573–6.Google Scholar
Bernstein Ratner, N. (1984). Pattern of vowel modification in mother–child speech. Journal of Child Language 11, 557–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein Ratner, N. (1987). The phonology of parent–child speech. In Nelson, K. & van Kleeck, A. (eds), Children's language, Vol. 6. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bohannon, J. & Stanowicz, L. (1988). The issue of negative evidence: adult responses to children's language errors. Developmental Psychology 24, 684–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohannon, J., MacWhinney, B. & Snow, C. (1990). No negative evidence revisited: beyond learnability or who has to prove what to whom. Developmental Psychology 26, 221–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broen, P. (1972). The verbal environment of the language-learning child. The American Speech–Language–Hearing Association Monograph 17.Google Scholar
Charles-Luce, J. & Luce, P. (1990). Similarity neighbourhoods of words in young children's lexicons. Journal of Child Language 17, 205–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, H. & Haviland, S. (1977). Comprehension and the given-new contract. In Freedle, R. (ed.), Discourse processes: advances in research and theory, Vol. 1. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Cole, R. & Jakimik, J. (1980). A model of speech perception. In Cole, R. (ed.), Perception and production of fluent speech. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fernald, A. (1984). The perceptual and affective salience of mothers' speech to children. In Feagans, L., Garvey, C. & Golinkoff, R. (eds), The origins and growth of communication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Fernald, A. & Simon, T. (1984). Expanded intonation contours in mothers' speech to newborns. Developmental Psychology 20, 104–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, C. (1988). Differential shortening of repeated content words produced in various communicative contexts. Language and Speech 28, 47–56.Google Scholar
Fowler, C. & Housum, J. (1987). Talkers' signaling of ‘new’ and ‘old’ words in speech and listeners' perception and use of the distinction. Journal of Memory and Language 26, 489–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, C. & Levy, E. (1991). Some ways in which forms arise from functions in linguistic communications. Proceedings of the XIIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences 1, 279–82.Google Scholar
Garnica, O. (1977). Some prosodic and paralinguistic features of speech to young children. In Snow, C. & Ferguson, C. (eds), Talking to children. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Hoff-Ginsburg, E. (1986). Function and structure in maternal speech: their relation to the child's development of syntax. Developmental Psychology 22, 155–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoff-Ginsburg, E. (1990). Maternal speech and the child's development of syntax: a further look. Journal of Child Language 17, 85–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunnicutt, S. (1985). Intelligibility vs. redundancy – conditions of dependency. Language and Speech 28, 47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemler-Nelson, D., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Jusczyk, P. & Cassidy, K. (1989). How the prosodic cues in motherese might assist language learning. Journal of Child Language 16, 55–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lieberman, P. (1963). Some effects of the semantic and grammatical context on the production and perception of speech. Language and Speech 6, 172–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W. (1987). Functional parallelism in spoken word recognition. Cognition 25, 71–102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marslen-Wilson, W. & Welsh, A. (1978). Processing interactions and lexical access during word recognition in continuous speech. Cognitive Psychology 10, 29–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messer, D. (1980). The episodic structure of maternal speech to young children. Journal of Child Language 7, 29–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newport, E. (1976). Motherese: the speech of mothers to young children. In Castellan, N., Pisoni, D. & Potts, D. (eds), Cognitive theory, Vol. 2. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Newport, E., Gleitman, H. & Gleitman, L. (1977). Mother, I'd rather do it myself: some effects and non-effects of maternal speech style. In Snow, C. & Ferguson, C. (eds), Talking to children. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1979). Formal models of language learning. Cognition 7, 217–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: the acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Phillips, J. (1973). Syntax and vocabulary of mothers' speech to young children: age and sex comparisons. Child Development 44, 182–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollack, I. & Pickett, J. (1963). The intelligibility of excerpts from conversation. Language and Speech 6, 165–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, E. (1981). A taxonomy of given–new information. In Cole, P. (ed.), Radical pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Remick, H. (1976). The maternal environment of linguistic development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at Davis.Google Scholar
Ringler, N. (1973). Mothers' language to their children and to adults over time. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Case Western University.Google Scholar
Sachs, J. (1977). The adaptive significance of linguistic input to prelinguistic infants. In Snow, C. & Ferguson, C. (eds), Talking to children. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Snow, C. (1972). Mothers' speech to children learning language. Child Development 43, 549–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snow, C. (1977). Mothers' speech research: from input to interaction. In Snow, C. & Ferguson, C. (eds), Talking to children. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Snow, C. (1986). Conversations with children. In Fetcher, P. & Garman, M. (eds), Language acquisition (2nd edn.). Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Terken, J. & Nooteboom, S. (1987). Opposite effects of accentuation and deaccentuation on verification latencies for given and new information. Language and Cognitive Processes 2, 145–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treiman, R. & Breaux, A. (1982). Common phoneme and overall similarity relations among spoken syllables: their use by children and adults. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 11, 569–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wexler, K. & Culicover, P. (1980). Formal principles of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar