Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-mwwwr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-17T07:54:17.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How the prosodic cues in motherese might assist language learning*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

Deborah G. Kemler Nelson ,
Kathy Hirsh-Pasek ,
Peter W. Jusczyk  and
Kimberly Wright Cassidy
Deborah G. Kemler Nelson*
Affiliation:
Swarthmore College
Kathy Hirsh-Pasek
Affiliation:
Temple University
Peter W. Jusczyk
Affiliation:
University of Oregon and C.N.R.S. & E.H.E.S.S.
Kimberly Wright Cassidy
Affiliation:
Swarthmore College
*
Department of Psychology, Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, PA 19081, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The function of motherese has become a pivotal issue in the language-learning literature. The current research takes the approach of asking whether the prosodic characteristics that are distinctive to motherese could play a special role in facilitating the acquisition of syntax. Hirsh-Pasek, Kemler Nelson, Jusczyk, Cassidy, Druss & Kennedy (1987) showed that infants aged 0;7–0;10 are sensitive to prosodic cues that would help them segment the speech stream into perceptual units that correspond to clauses. The present study shows that infants' sensitivity to segment-marking cues in ongoing speech holds for motherese but not for adult-directed speech. The finding is that, for motherese only, infants orient longer to speech that has been interrupted at clausal boundaries than to matched speech that has been interrupted at within-clause locations. This selective preference indicates that the prosodie qualities of motherese provide infants with cues to units of speech that correspond to grammatical units of language – a potentially fundamental contribution of motherese to the learning of syntax.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , February 1989 , pp. 55 - 68
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

This research was supported by NICHHD grant no. HD-15795, a SURDNA grant to Swarthmore College, and funds from Swarthmore College. Our thanks to Lindy and Julia Cummiskey for the speech samples, and to Karen Kampmeyer, Sanjaya Saxena and Amanda Woodward for their assistance in data collection. Portions of the data were reported at the International Conference on Infant Studies, Los Angeles, April 1986.

References

REFERENCES

Aslin, R., Pisoni, D. B. & Jusczyk, P. W. (1983). Auditory development and speech perception in infancy. In Haith, M. and Campos, J. (eds), Handbook of child Psychology. Vol. 2. Infancy and developmental psychobiology. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bates, E. & MacWhinney, B. (1987). Competition, variation and language learning. In MacWhinney, B. (ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Berko Gleason, J. (ed.) (1986). The development of language. Columbus OH: Merrill.Google Scholar
Bernstein Ratner, N. (1985). Cues which mark clause boundaries in mother-child speech. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Speech-Language Hearing Association, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Bernstein Ratner, N. & Pye, C. (1984). Higher pitch in BT is not universal: acoustic èvidence from Quiché Mayan. Journal of Child Language 11. 515–22.Google Scholar
Berwick, R. (1985). The acquisition of syntactic knowledge. Cambridge MA: M.I.T. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broen, P. (1972). The verbal environment of the language learning child. American Speech and Hearing Association Monographs 17.Google Scholar
Bohannon, J. N. & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (1984). Do children say as they're told? A new perspective on motherese. In Feagans, L., Garvey, K. & Golinkoff, R. (eds), The origins and growth of communication. Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Bohannon, J. N. & Warren-Leubecker, A. (1986). Theoretical approaches to language acquisition. In Gleason, J. Berko (ed.), The development of language. Columbus OH: Merrill.Google Scholar
Cazden, C. (1965). Environmental assistance to the child's acquisition of grammar. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Graduate School of Education, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Cichetti, D. V. (1972). Extension of multiple-range tests to interaction tables in analysis of variance: a rapid approximate solution. Psychological Bulletin 77. 405–8.Google Scholar
Cross, T. (1977). Mother's speech adjustments: the contribution of selected child listener variables. In Snow, C. E. & Ferguson, C. A. (eds), Talking to children: language input and acquisition. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Eimas, P. D., Siqueland, E. R., Jusczyk, P. & Vigorito, J. (1971). Speech perception in infants. Science 171. 303–6.Google Scholar
Fernald, A. (1982). Acoustic determinants of infant preference for ‘motherese’. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
Fernald, A. (1984). The perceptual and affective salience of mothers' speech to infants. In Feagans, L., Garvey, C. & Golinkoff, R. (eds), The origins and growth of communication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Fernald, A. & Mazzie, C. (1983). Pitch marking of new and old information in mothers' speech. Paper presented at the biannual meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Detroit.Google Scholar
Fernald, A. & Simon, T. (1984). Expanded intonation contours in mothers' speech to newborns. Developmental Psychology 20. 104–13.Google Scholar
Furrow, D., Nelson, K. & Benedict, H. (1979). Mothers' speech to children and syntactic development: some simple relationships. Journal of Child Language 6. 423–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gamica, O. K. (1977). Some prosodie and paralinguistic features of speech to young children. In Snow, C. E. & Ferguson, C. A. (eds), Talking to children: language input and acquisition. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Gleitman, L., Gleitman, H., Landau, B. & Wanner, E. (1988). Where learning begins: initial representations for language learning. In Newmeyer, F. (ed.), The Cambridge linguistic survey, Vol. III. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gleitman, L. R. & Wanner, E. (1982). Language acquisition: the state of the state of the art. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. R. (eds), Language acquisition: the state of the art. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Hirsh-Pasek, K., Kemler Nelson, D. G., Jusczyk, P. W., Cassidy, K. W., Druss, B. & Kennedy, L. (1987). Clauses are perceptual units for young infants. Cognition 26. 269–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hirsh-Pasek, K., Kemler Nelson, D. G., Jusczyk, P. W., Woodward, A., Piwoz, J. & Kennedy, L. (1987). The perception of major phrase boundaries by prelinguistic infants. Poster presented at the biannual meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Baltimore.Google Scholar
Jusczyk, P. W., Pisoni, D. B., Reed, M. A., Fernald, A. & Myers, M. (1983). Infants' discrimination of the duration of a rapid spectrum change in nonspeech signals. Science 222. 175–7.Google Scholar
Jusczyk, P. & Thompson, E. (1978). Perception of a phonetic contrast in multisyllabic utterances by 2-month old infants. Perception and Psychophysics 23. 105–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, E. & Kaplan, G. (1971). The prelinguistic child. In Elliot, J. (ed.), Human development and cognitive processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Kuhl, P. K. (1979). Speech perception in early infancy: perceptual constancy for spectrally dissimilar vowel categories. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 66. 1668–79.Google Scholar
Kuhl, P. K. (1983). Perception of auditory equivalence classes for speech by infants. Infant Behavior and Development 6. 263–85.Google Scholar
Kuhl, P. K. & Miller, J. D. (1982). Discrimination of auditory target dimensions in the presence or absence of variation in a second dimension by infants. Perception and Psychophysics 31. 279–92.Google Scholar
Landau, B. & Gleitman, L. (1985). Language and experience: evidence from the blind child. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Maratsos, M. & Chalkley, A. (1980). The internal language of children's syntax: the ontogenesis of syntactic categories. In Nelson, K. (ed.), Children's language. Vol. 2. New York: Gardner Press.Google Scholar
Mehler, J., Lambertz, G., Jusczyk, P. W. & Amiel-Tison, C. (1986). Reconnaissance de sa langue maternelle par le nouveau né de quatre jours. The Annals of the French Academy of Sciences 303. 637–40.Google Scholar
Miller, J. & Eimas, P. W. (1983). Studies on the categorization of speech by infants. Cognition 13 135–65.Google Scholar
Morgan, J. (1986). From simple input to complex grammar. Cambridge MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Newport, E., Gleitman, L. & Gleitman, H. (1977). Mother, I'd rather do it myself: some effects and noneffects of motherese. In Snow, C. E. & Ferguson, C. A. (eds), Talking to children: language input and acquisition. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Peters, A. M. (1983). The units of language acquisition. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Pilon, R. (1981). Segmentation of speech in a foreign language. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 10. 113–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Remick, H. W. (1971). The maternal environment of language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Davis.Google Scholar
Snow, C. E. (1972). Mothers' speech to children learning language. Child Development 43. 549–65.Google Scholar
Snow, C. E. & Ferguson, C. A. (eds) (1977). Talking to children: language input and acquisition. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Spring, D. R. & Dale, P. S. (1977). Discrimination of linguistic stress in early infancy. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 20. 224–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wakefield, J. R., Doughtie, E. B. & Yom, L. (1974). The identification of structural components of an unknown language. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 3. 261–9.Google Scholar
Wexler, K. & Culicover, P. (1980). Formal principles of language acquisition. Cambridge MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar