Two groups of 20 infants aged 0; 3 experienced either conversational turn taking or random responsiveness of an adult. All infant vocalizations were counted and then each was categorized as a speech-like (syllabic) sound or a nonspeech-like (vocalic) sound. The results of this experiment indicated that turn taking caused changes in the quality of infant vocal sounds. When the adult maintained a give-and-take pattern, the infant produced a higher ratio of syllabic/vocalic sounds. The effect of turn taking on infant vocalizations was discussed in terms of its possible adaptive value for adult responsiveness.
The spontaneous language sample forms an important part of the language evaluation protocol (M. Dunn, J. Flax, M. Sliwinski, and D. Aram, 1996; J. L. Evans and H. K. Craig, 1992; L. E. Evans and J. Miller, 1999) because of the limitations of standardized language tests and their unavailability in certain languages, such as Afrikaans. This study examined 3 methods of language elicitation, namely conversation (CV), freeplay (FP), and story generation (SG), on the following 5 measures to determine which method is best for clinical practice: number of utterances, variety of syntactic structures, mean length of the utterance (MLU), number of syntactic errors, and proportion of complex syntactic utterances as elicited from ten 5-year-old, Afrikaans-speaking boys. FP elicited significantly more utterances than did SG but elicited a smaller proportion of complex syntactic structures than did CV and SG. Furthermore, SG elicited longer utterances than did CV or FP. It is recommended that SG be used in clinical practice with 5-year-olds if the clinician wishes to observe maximum behavior. Where typical behavior is to be evaluated, the clinician can select a language elicitation method that best suits the client's personality and communication style, bearing in mind that FP does elicit a larger language sample.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.