Abstract:The talk children hear from their primary caregivers predicts the size of their vocabularies. But children who spend time with multiple individuals also hear talk that others direct to them, as well as talk not directed to them at all. We investigated the effect of linguistic input on vocabulary acquisition in children who routinely spent time with one vs. multiple individuals. For all children, the number of words primary caregivers directed to them at age 2;6 predicted vocabulary size at age 3;6. For childre… Show more
“…The second area has to do with determining the different kinds of attentional and learning strategies and associated benefits that are cultivated when children are routinely exposed to different kinds of social configurations and normative language practices other than predominantly child‐directed speech (Brown & Gaskins, ). For example, when referring to recent studies that show relations between child‐directed speech and later vocabulary size but not for overheard speech and later vocabulary size (Shneidman & Goldin‐Meadow, ; Shneidman et al., ; Weisleder & Fernald, ), Brown and Gaskins added an important caveat:However, these studies treat all speech not directly addressed to the child as “overheard,” ignoring the fact that much of the speech (e.g., of adults on the phone, or adult–adult conversations) is irrelevant to the child who may well not be actually “overhearing” it. Such studies need to have more sensitive assessments of what the child is potentially attending to (actually overhearing) and more subtle analysis of the target vocabulary set in the different settings, before this issue will be clarified.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It also shows that speech directed to children predicts later vocabulary growth and language outcomes in school and suggests that different features of directed speech may have different effects as children get older. Although several studies have examined relationships between overheard versus directed speech and children's later vocabulary knowledge, and have shown a correlation with directed speech only (Shneidman & Goldin‐Meadow, ; Shneidman et al., ; Weisleder & Fernald, ), this literature tells us very little about overheard speech—its frequency in different sociocultural groups, its features, or its possible benefits. These issues are not trivial, particularly because one of the most robust findings from cross‐cultural research is the prevalence and efficacy of observational learning across a host of developmental domains (e.g., Gaskins & Paradise, ; Lancy, ; Miller & Cho, ; Ochs & Schieffelin, ; Rogoff, Paradise, Arauz, Correa‐Chávez, & Angelillo, ).…”
Amid growing controversy about the oft-cited "30-million-word gap," this investigation uses language data from five American communities across the socioeconomic spectrum to test, for the first time, Hart and Risley's (1995) claim that poor children hear 30 million fewer words than their middle-class counterparts during the early years of life. The five studies combined ethnographic fieldwork with longitudinal home observations of 42 children (18-48 months) interacting with family members in everyday life contexts. Results do not support Hart and Risley's claim, reveal substantial variation in vocabulary environments within each socioeconomic stratum, and suggest that definitions of verbal environments that exclude multiple caregivers and bystander talk disproportionately underestimate the number of words to which low-income children are exposed.
“…The second area has to do with determining the different kinds of attentional and learning strategies and associated benefits that are cultivated when children are routinely exposed to different kinds of social configurations and normative language practices other than predominantly child‐directed speech (Brown & Gaskins, ). For example, when referring to recent studies that show relations between child‐directed speech and later vocabulary size but not for overheard speech and later vocabulary size (Shneidman & Goldin‐Meadow, ; Shneidman et al., ; Weisleder & Fernald, ), Brown and Gaskins added an important caveat:However, these studies treat all speech not directly addressed to the child as “overheard,” ignoring the fact that much of the speech (e.g., of adults on the phone, or adult–adult conversations) is irrelevant to the child who may well not be actually “overhearing” it. Such studies need to have more sensitive assessments of what the child is potentially attending to (actually overhearing) and more subtle analysis of the target vocabulary set in the different settings, before this issue will be clarified.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It also shows that speech directed to children predicts later vocabulary growth and language outcomes in school and suggests that different features of directed speech may have different effects as children get older. Although several studies have examined relationships between overheard versus directed speech and children's later vocabulary knowledge, and have shown a correlation with directed speech only (Shneidman & Goldin‐Meadow, ; Shneidman et al., ; Weisleder & Fernald, ), this literature tells us very little about overheard speech—its frequency in different sociocultural groups, its features, or its possible benefits. These issues are not trivial, particularly because one of the most robust findings from cross‐cultural research is the prevalence and efficacy of observational learning across a host of developmental domains (e.g., Gaskins & Paradise, ; Lancy, ; Miller & Cho, ; Ochs & Schieffelin, ; Rogoff, Paradise, Arauz, Correa‐Chávez, & Angelillo, ).…”
Amid growing controversy about the oft-cited "30-million-word gap," this investigation uses language data from five American communities across the socioeconomic spectrum to test, for the first time, Hart and Risley's (1995) claim that poor children hear 30 million fewer words than their middle-class counterparts during the early years of life. The five studies combined ethnographic fieldwork with longitudinal home observations of 42 children (18-48 months) interacting with family members in everyday life contexts. Results do not support Hart and Risley's claim, reveal substantial variation in vocabulary environments within each socioeconomic stratum, and suggest that definitions of verbal environments that exclude multiple caregivers and bystander talk disproportionately underestimate the number of words to which low-income children are exposed.
“…We included children as input talkers due to emerging evidence that infants preferably listen to children's voices and presumably learn from them as well (Polka, Masapollo, & Ménard, ). Further, Shneidman, Arroyo, Levine, and Goldin‐Meadow () showed that all speech directed to children, including from their siblings (and presumably other children), predicts vocabulary development better than input from the main caregiver alone (but see Shneidman & Goldin‐Meadow, ; for conflicting results with Mayan children). The number of children in infants’ input was comparatively low, with 79 of 138 participants not hearing speech from children at all.…”
Both quality and quantity of speech from the primary caregiver have been found to impact language development. A third aspect of the input has been largely ignored: the number of talkers who provide input. Some infants spend most of their waking time with only one person; others hear many different talkers. Even if the very same words are spoken the same number of times, the pronunciations can be more variable when several talkers pronounce them. Is language acquisition affected by the number of people who provide input? To shed light on the possible link between how many people provide input in daily life and infants’ native vowel discrimination, three age groups were tested: 4‐month‐olds (before attunement to native vowels), 6‐month‐olds (at the cusp of native vowel attunement) and 12‐month‐olds (well attuned to the native vowel system). No relationship was found between talker number and native vowel discrimination skills in 4‐ and 6‐month‐olds, who are overall able to discriminate the vowel contrast. At 12 months, we observe a small positive relationship, but further analyses reveal that the data are also compatible with the null hypothesis of no relationship. Implications in the context of infant language acquisition and cognitive development are discussed.
“…We included children as input talkers due to emerging evidence that infants preferably listen to children's voices and presumably learn from them as well (Polka, Masapollo, & M enard, 2014). Further, Shneidman, Arroyo, Levine, and Goldin-Meadow (2013) showed that all speech directed to children, including from their siblings (and presumably other children), predicts vocabulary development better TALKER NUMBER AND NATIVE VOWEL DISCRIMINATION than input from the main caregiver alone (but see Shneidman & Goldin-Meadow, 2012; for conflicting results with Mayan children). The number of children in infants' input was comparatively low, with 79 of 138 participants not hearing speech from children at all.…”
Both quality and quantity of speech from the primary caregiver have been found to impact language development. A third aspect of the input has been largely ignored: the number of talkers who provide input. Some infants spend most of their waking time with only one person; others hear many different talkers. Even if the very same words are spoken the same number of times, the pronunciations can be more variable when several talkers pronounce them. Is language acquisition affected by the number of people who provide input? To shed light on the possible link between how many people provide input in daily life and infants' native vowel discrimination, three age groups were tested: 4-month-olds (before attunement to native vowels), 6-month-olds (at the cusp of native vowel attunement) and 12-month-olds (well attuned to the native vowel system). No relationship was found between talker number and native vowel discrimination skills in 4-and 6-month-olds, who are overall able to discriminate the vowel contrast. At 12 months, we observe a small positive relationship, but further analyses reveal that the data are also compatible with the null hypothesis of no relationship. Implications in the context of infant language acquisition and cognitive development are discussed.Correspondence should be sent to
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.
