Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T12:56:04.528Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Individual differences at 20 months: analytic and holistic strategies in language acquisition*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Inge Bretherton ,
Sandra McNew ,
Lynn Snyder  and
Elizabeth Bates
Inge Bretherton
Affiliation:
Colorado State University
Sandra McNew
Affiliation:
University of Colorado
Lynn Snyder
Affiliation:
University of Denver
Elizabeth Bates
Affiliation:
University of California at San Diego
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The study focuses on the language abilities of 30 20-month-old children, using data from two sources: a detailed maternal interview and 90 minutes of videotaped observation. Observed language was coded into the categories used for the interview. Production and comprehension at 28 months (MLU, PPVT and morphology comprehension) were also assessed. Observation and interview data at 20 months were highly intercorrelated. Cluster analyses of both data sets yielded referential, grammatical morpheme and dialogue clusters, providing partial support for the nominal/pronominal and referential/expressive acquisition styles reported in the literature. However, the referential and grammatical morpheme clusters were highly correlated, suggesting that two acquisition strategies are developing in parallel. Only for those children who heavily emphasize one strategy can one speak of a distinctive style. All interview and observation clusters predicted 28-months MLU, but the grammatical morpheme clusters did not predict later performance on a Grammatical Morpheme Test. It is tentatively suggested that holistic processing strategies underlie the pronominal/expressive style.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , June 1983 , pp. 293 - 320
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

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.)

Footnotes

[*]

Support for this research was provided by a grant from the Spencer Foundation to Bates and Bretherton. We would like to thank the mothers and children who participated in this project. We would also like to thank Marjorie Beeghly-Smith, Andrew Garrison, Cynthia Rodacy and Cecilia Shore for their help in data collection and analysis. Address for correspondence: Inge Bretherton, Department of Human Development and Family Studies, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523.

References

REFERENCES

Berko-Gleason, T. & Weintraub, S. (1978). Input language and the acquisition of communicative competence. In Nelson, K. (ed.), Children's language, Vol. 1. New York: Gardner Press.Google Scholar
Bloom, L. (1973). One word at a time: the use of single word utterances before syntax. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Bloom, L., Hood, L. & Lightbown, P. (1974). Imitation in language development: if, when and why. CogPsych 6. 380–420.Google Scholar
Bloom, L., Lightbown, P. & Hood, L. (1975). Structure and variation in child language. Monogr. Soc. Res. Ch. Devel. 40 (Serial No. 160).Google Scholar
Braine, M. D. S. (1963). On learning the grammatical order of words. PsychRev 39. 323–48.Google Scholar
Braine, M. D. S. (1976). Children's first word combinations. Monogr. Soc. Res. Ch. Devel. 41 (Serial No. 164).Google Scholar
Branigan, G. (1977). If this kid is in the one word period…so how come he's saying whole sentences? (Paper presented at the second annual Boston University Conference on Language Development.)Google Scholar
Bretherton, I., Bates, E., McNew, S., Shore, C., Williamson, C. & Beeghly-Smith, M. (1981). Comprehension and production of symbols in infancy. DevPsych 17. 728–36.Google Scholar
Bretherton, I. & Beeghly, M. (1982). Talking about internal states: the acquisition of an explicit theory of mind. DevPsych 18. 906–21.Google Scholar
Bretherton, I., McNew, S. & Beeghly-Smith, M. (1981). Early person knowledge as expressed in gestural and verbal communication: when do infants acquire a ‘theory of mind’. In Lamb, M. E. & Sherrod, L. R. (eds), Infant social cognition. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bretherton, I., O'Connell, B., Shore, C. & Bates, E. (in press). The effect of contextual variation on symbolic play: development from 20–28 months. In Bretherton, I. (ed.), Symbolic play: the representation of social understanding. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: the early stages. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. & Fraser, C. (1963). The acquisition of syntax. In Cofer, C. & Musgrave, B. (eds), Verbal behavior and learning: problems and processes. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Cazden, C. (1968). The acquisition of noun and verb inflections. ChDev 39. 433–8.Google ScholarPubMed
Clark, R. (1974). Performing without competence. JChLang 1. 1–10.Google Scholar
Dore, J. (1974). A pragmatic description of early language development. JPsycholingRes 4. 343–51.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. & Farwell, C. (1975). Words and sounds in early language acquisition. Lg 51. 419–39.Google Scholar
Garrison, A. & Bates, E. (1980). Object naming at 20 months: novel vs. natural categories. (Paper presented at the International Conference on Infant Studies,New Haven.)Google Scholar
Horgan, D. (1978). The development of the passive. JChLang 5. 65–80.Google Scholar
Horgan, D. (1979). Nouns: love ‘em or leave’ em. Address to the New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Leonard, L., Schwartz, R., Folger, M., Newhoff, M. & Wilcox, M. (1979). Children's imitations of lexical items. ChDev. 59. 19–27.Google Scholar
Lieven, E. (1977). Turn-taking and pragmatics: two issues in early child language. In Campbell, R. & Smith, P. T. (eds), The Stirling Psychology of Language Conference. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Lieven, E. (1978). Conversations between mothers and young children: individual differences and their possible implications for the study of language learning. In Waterson, N. & Snow, C. (eds), The development of communication: social and pragmatic factors in language acquisition. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1981). Basic processes in syntactic acquisition. In Kuczaj, S. (ed.), Language development: problems, theories & controversies. Vol. 1, Syntax and Semantics. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. (1973). Structure and strategy in learning to talk. Monogr. Soc. Res. Ch. Devel. 48 (Serial No. 149).Google Scholar
Nelson, K. (1975). The nominal shift in semantic-syntactic development. CogPsych 7. 461–79.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. (1981). Individual differences in language development: implications for development and language. DevPsych 17. 170–87.Google Scholar
Peters, A. (1977). Language learning strategies: does the whole equal the sum of the parts? Lg 53 560–73.Google Scholar
Ramer, A. (1976). Syntactic styles in emerging language. JChLang 3. 49–62.Google Scholar
Rowe, D. C. & Plomin, R. (1977). Temperament in early childhood. JPersAssess 41. 150–6.Google ScholarPubMed
Slobin, D. I. (1973). Cognitive prerequisites for the acquisition of grammar. In Ferguson, C. A. & Slobin, D. I. (eds), Studies of child language development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Snyder, L., Bates, E. & Bretherton, I. (1981). Content and context in early lexical development. JChLang 8. 565–82.Google ScholarPubMed
Starr, S. (1975). The relationship of single words to two-word sentences. ChDev 46. 701–8.Google ScholarPubMed
Tryon, R. C. (1939). Cluster analysis. Ann Arbor: Edwards.Google Scholar
Tryon, R. C. & Bailey, D. E. (1970). Cluster analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar