Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T16:24:46.793Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The role of phonetic factors in parent reference*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

John L. Locke
John L. Locke
Affiliation:
Massachusetts General Hospital
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Throughout this century observers have commented on the beginning talker's evident preference for words denoting ‘father’ over words representing the meaning of ‘mother’. Bateman (1917) said that ‘the most frequently named object is the paternal parent’. Leopold (1948) stated that ‘papa…appears far more commonly as the first meaningful word than does mama’. In this paper I will review some of the reported data on parent reference and propose a phonetic account of the child's evident preference for paternal terms.

Type
Notes and discussion
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , February 1985 , pp. 215 - 220
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

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

Bateman, W. G. (1917). Papers on language development: the first word. PedSem 24. 391–8.Google Scholar
Brooks-Gunn, J. & Lewis, M. (1979). ‘Why Mama and Papa?’ The development of social labels. ChDev 50. 1203–6.Google Scholar
Darley, F. L. & Winitz, H. (1961). Age of first word: review of research. JSHD 26. 271–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, C. A. & Farwell, C. B. (1975). Words and sounds in early language acquisition: English initial consonants in the first fifty words. Lg 51. 419–39.Google Scholar
Fisichelli, R. M (1950). An experimental study of the prelinguistic speech development of institutionalized infants. Doctoral dissertation, Fordham University.Google Scholar
Harding, C. G. (1983). Setting the change for language acquisition: communication development in the first year. In Golinkoff, R. M. (ed.), The transition from prelinguistic to linguistic communication. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Irwin, O. C. (1947). Infant speech: consonantal sounds according to place of articulation. JSD 12. 397–401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jakobson, R. (1960). Why ‘Mama’ and ‘Papa’? In Kaplan, B. & Wapner, S.(eds), Perspectives in psychological theory: essays in honor of Heinz Werner. New York: International Universities Press.Google Scholar
Kolarič, R. (1959). Slovenski otroski govor. Jahrbuch der Philosophischen Fakultat in Novi Sad 4. 229–58.Google Scholar
Labov, W. & Labov, T. (1978). The phonetics of cat and mama. Lg 54. 816–52.Google Scholar
Leonard, L. B., Schwartz, R. G., Morris, B. & Chapman, K. (1981). Factors influencing early lexical acquisition: lexical orientation and phonological composition. ChDev 52. 882–7.Google Scholar
Leopold, W. F. (1947). Speech development of a bilingual child: a linguist's record. Vol. 2. Sound-learning in the first two years. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Leopold, W. F. (1948). The study of child language and infant bilingualism. Word 4. 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, J. L. (1983). Phonological acquisition and change. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Murdock, G. P. (1959). Cross-linguistic parallels in parental kin terms. AnthLing 1. 1–5.Google Scholar
Oiler, D. K. & Eilers, R. E. (1982). Similarity of babbling in Spanish- and English-learning babies. JChLang 9. 565–77.Google Scholar
Pacesova, J. (1968). The development of vocabulary in the child. Brno: Universita J. E. Purkyne.Google Scholar
Pierce, J. E. & Hannah, I. V. (1974). The development of a phonological system in English speaking American children. Portland, Oregon: HaPi Press.Google Scholar