Subtlety of Ambient-Language Effects in Babbling: A Study of English- and Chinese-Learning Infants at 8, 10, and 12 Months

Lee, Chia-Cheng; Jhang, Yuna; Chen, Li mei; Relyea, George; Oller, D. Kimbrough

doi:10.1080/15475441.2016.1180983

Cited by 19 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 62 publications

(75 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We set about to evaluate the possibility that CBR might vary with age, language/cultural background, and social circumstance. The results give us pause in reflecting on the simple hypotheses that have previously been investigated regarding such phenomena as ambient language effects (Engstrand, Williams, & Lacerda, 2003; Lee et al, 2017) and the growth of CBR across age in various groups of infants (Oller & Eilers, 1982; Oller et al, 1994; Törölä et al, 2012). In fact the three factors (age, language/culture, social circumstance) interacted significantly, greatly complicating possible interpretations, and suggesting that the development of babbling is sensitive to social circumstances and that social circumstances may also adapt to infant development across time.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…It is worth noting that research on the effect of ambient language differences on babbling has focused not on CBR but on the phonotactic, phonetic or acoustic content of babbling (Kern, Davis, & Zink, 2009; Levitt & Wang, 1991; Vihman & de Boysson-Bardies, 1994; Whalen, Levitt, & Goldstein, 2007). We did not monitor the content of CB types (e.g., CV, CVC…) produced by the two groups of infants in the present study, but in another study (Lee, Jhang, Chen, Relyea, & Oller, 2017), we investigated possible ambient-language effects in babbling in English- and Chinese-learning infants at 8, 10, and 12 months. We found that neither English nor Chinese adult listeners could tell if a non-canonical utterance was produced by an English- or a Chinese-learning infant.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Babbling development as seen in canonical babbling ratios: A naturalistic evaluation of all-day recordings

Lee

Jhang

Relyea

et al. 2018

Infant Behavior and Development

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Canonical babbling (CB) is critical in forming foundations for speech. Research has shown that the emergence of CB precedes first words, predicts language outcomes, and is delayed in infants with several communicative disorders. We seek a naturalistic portrayal of CB development, using all-day home recordings to evaluate the influences of age, language, and social circumstances on infant CB production. Thus we address the nature of very early language foundations and how they can be modulated. This is the first study to evaluate possible interactions of language and social circumstance in the development of babbling. We examined the effects of age (6 and 11 months), language/culture (English and Chinese), and social circumstances (during infant-directed speech [IDS], during infant overhearing of adult-directed speech [ADS], or when infants were alone) on canonical babbling ratios (CBR = canonical syllables/total syllables). The results showed a three-way interaction of infant age by infant language/culture by social circumstance. The complexity of the results forces us to recognize that a variety of factors can interact in the development of foundations for language, and that both the infant vocal response to the language/culture environment and the language/culture environment of the infant may change across age.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Babbling development as seen in canonical babbling ratios: A naturalistic evaluation of all-day recordings

Lee

Jhang

Relyea

et al. 2018

Infant Behavior and Development

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As early as 5 months old, infants are able to recognize their own name (Delle Luche et al, 2017) and start associating sounds and words with objects (Gogate and Hollich, 2010). During the second half of the first year, infants start vocalizing and babbling (Lee et al, 2017), followed by using words around their first birthday (Rose et al, 2009). From toddlerhood, children undergo a rapid development in the amount of words they can produce (Dale and Goodman, 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Inhibitory Control, Attention and Vocabulary in Physical Aggression Trajectories From Infancy to Toddlerhood

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Physical aggression has its origin very early in development, but no studies to date have examined physical aggression trajectories starting before the age of 1.5 years. This study examined whether cognition plays a role in the development of physical aggression from infancy onward. In a sample of 182 mother-child dyads (94 boys; 88 girls), child physical aggression was assessed by maternal report using the Physical Aggression Scale for Early Childhood at 12, 20, and 30 months. Children performed cognitive tasks measuring inhibitory control and attention, and mothers rated children's vocabulary at 12 and 30 months. Results showed that differential development of physical aggression already starts at 12 months of age: low-stable, low-increasing, moderate-decreasing and high-stable trajectory groups were identified. Inhibitory control, attention and vocabulary at 12 months and development of these abilities from 12 to 30 months were selectively related to the likelihood of following the low-increasing and moderate-decreasing trajectories compared to the low-stable physical aggression trajectory. This study is the first to show that specific aspects of cognition and cognitive development are related to differential physical aggression development from infancy onward.

show abstract

“…In our second analysis, wherein cries were treated as nested within infants, we anticipated no differences between the language groups. Here, our rationale was that we find no convincing empirical support for any language‐based differences in sound production prior to the latter half of the first year (see also Kuhl, ; Lee, Jhang, Chen, Relyea, & Oller, ) and little theoretical support for such a phenomenon in models of the mechanics and neurophysiology of neonatal crying (e.g., Golub & Corwin, ; Lester & Zeskind, ; Lieberman, ; Newman, ; Porter, Porges, & Marshall, ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 91%

Newborns' Cries are Unique to Individuals (But Not to Language Environment)

Gustafson

Sanborn

Lin

et al. 2017

Infancy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human neonates exhibit individually distinctive patterns of variation—sometimes called cry “signatures”—in the acoustics of their cries. For tests of group differences (e.g., age, health status, or ambient language differences), the uniqueness of cry sounds to individuals means that multiple cries from same infant cannot appropriately be treated as independent events for analysis. This approach violates the assumption of independence that underlies many statistical techniques and runs the risk of uncovering “significant” group effects that do not actually exist. Nonetheless, publications continue to appear in which multiple cries from the same infant have been treated as independent events for analysis. To demonstrate the perils, we have compared the cries of infants born into a Mandarin Chinese language environment with cries of infants born into an American English language environment. We show (1) that treating each cry sound as an independent event yields numerous “significant” group effects and (2) that these effects all but disappear when cries are treated appropriately, as “nested” within individual infants. The latter outcome is in keeping with prevailing models of neonatal cry production and casts doubt on the claim that neonates alter their cries to match features of the language spoken in their environment.

show abstract

Subtlety of Ambient-Language Effects in Babbling: A Study of English- and Chinese-Learning Infants at 8, 10, and 12 Months

Cited by 19 publications

References 62 publications

Babbling development as seen in canonical babbling ratios: A naturalistic evaluation of all-day recordings

Babbling development as seen in canonical babbling ratios: A naturalistic evaluation of all-day recordings

The Role of Inhibitory Control, Attention and Vocabulary in Physical Aggression Trajectories From Infancy to Toddlerhood

Newborns' Cries are Unique to Individuals (But Not to Language Environment)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About