Playing house:
The portrayal of aspects of child-directed speech in peer talk.
Master thesis
Name
Karen Ramakers
ANR
758861
University
Tilburg University
Faculty
Faculty of Humanity
Course
Communication and Information Sciences
Place
Tilburg
Date
May 1st, 2014
Supervisor
Dr. A. Alishahi
Preface
Tying shoe laces seems an arbitrary task many of us carry out daily. Yet, it is a task we have
to master before we can actually do it daily. Most children are not able to tie their shoe laces
until the age of six years. Not me. My mother thought that it was absolutely necessary that I
could tie my shoe laces before I got to Kindergarten. Therefore, I have been tying shoe laces
since I was four years old. That would have unusable for the current study.
In this preface I want to thank my supervisor, dr. A. Alishahi. Dr. Alishahi has always
been at hand to answer my questions and guide me through the process of writing a master
thesis. Her clear and precise revisions helped me organise my thesis. Furthermore, I also
want to thank my second reader, dr. P. Vogt. Dr. Vogt has commented on my thesis. His
comments and feedback enabled me to improve my thesis. Moreover, the advice and
guidance of both my supervisor and second reader have enabled me to write this thesis.
Karen Ramakers, May 2014
2
Index
1.
2.
Summary
5
Introduction
6
1.1
Reason for present research
6
1.2
Purpose of the present study
7
Theoretical framework
7
2.1
Research on child-directed speech
7
2.1.1 Child-directed speech
7
2.1.2 Peer talk
8
Aspects of child-directed speech
9
2.2.1 Prosodic features of child-directed speech
9
2.2.2 Syntactical character of child-directed speech
10
2.2.3 Non-verbal cues in child-directed speech
11
Aspects of child-directed speech in the present study
11
2.2
2.3
3.
Method
14
3.1
Research design
14
3.2
Participants
15
3.3
Procedure
17
3.3.1 Experiment design
17
3.3.2 Transcription
18
Material analysis
19
3.4.1 Independent variable
19
3.4.2 Dependent variables
19
3.4.3 Context variables
20
3.4.4 Coding scheme and statistical analysis
20
3.4
4.
Results
20
4.1
Bias in complexity
20
4.1.1 Testing the assumptions
21
4.1.2 Results of bias in complexity
21
Bias in child-directed aspects
22
4.2.1 Testing the assumptions
22
4.2.3 Results of bias in child-directed aspects
23
4.2
3
4.3
4.4
4.5
5.
6.
Influence of the context variables on bias in complexity
24
4.3.1 Sexe of the speaker
24
4.3.2 Siblings of the speaker
26
4.3.3 Sexe of the instructed addressee
28
Influence of the context variables on bias in
child-directed aspects
30
4.4.1 Sexe of the speaker
30
4.4.2 Siblings of the speaker
31
4.4.3 Sexe of the instructed addressee
33
Overall view
35
Discussion
36
5.1
Comparison to earlier research
36
5.2
Generalisability of the present research
36
Conclusion
38
References
39
Appendices
41
4
Summary
Throughout the years much research has been conducted on the topic of child-directed
speech. Research has shown that parents and other adults play a crucial role in the process
of language acquisition by adapting their language input to the cognitive abilities of the child.
A child’s language development is also greatly influenced by other linguistic interactions
among which peer interactions play a big role. The purpose of the present study is to gain
insight into the specifics of peer talk from older to younger children by conducting an
explorative study. More specifically, we want to know if aspects of child-directed speech are
applied in peer talk. This will give more insight into the onset and development of the use of
child-directed speech patterns.
In the present study, focus was solely paid to the syntactical character of childdirected speech. First of all, the bias in complexity was analysed by determining the number
of utterances and the number of words and verbs per utterance. Secondly, bias in aspects of
child-directed speech was analysed by determining the number of repetitions, positive and
negative feedback, questions, calling the addressees name and use of imperatives.
In order to be able to answer the research question, an explorative study has been
carried out. Using an experiment it was researched whether there is a difference in the use of
child-directed aspects of speech between the fourth and the sixth grade. Furthermore,
various context variables were taken into account to determine whether these variables could
give an alternate explanation for possible results. The study was carried out amongst twelve
addressees from kindergarten, six pupils from the fourth grade and six pupils from the sixth
grade.
The results show that the grade the speakers were in had no significant effect on the
complexity and the use of child-directed aspects of speech. Furthermore, there were also no
significant differences in the use of child-directed aspects of speech. Finally, the context
variables all together have not been of influence on the results either. However, the context
variables did have an influence on some of the child-directed aspects. The gender of the
speaker was shown to be of significant influence on the number of utterances used. Even
though no significant differences were found, there are indications that significant differences
might arise when using a bigger sample. Overall, this research has contributed to the field of
research on peer talk by gaining more insight into the specifics of peer talk from speakers
from the sixth and fourth grade to addressees from kindergarten.
5
1.
Introduction
1.1
Reason for present research
Throughout the years much research has been conducted on the topic of child-directed
speech. Child-directed speech is also often referred to as motherese or parentese. These
terms refer to the speech-language pattern adults use when they address children (De Vis &
Depester, 2011; Fahim & Rahimi, 2013; Vázquez, n.d.). It has been shown that child-directed
speech pattern firstly draws the child’s attention and in that way it serves to facilitate
language acquisition in children (Ma et al., 2011). Foulkes, Docherty and Watt (2005) state
that child-directed serves two specific functions, the analytic and the social function. The
analytic function refers to the fact that child-directed speech is designed to assist the child in
coping with linguistic material. The social function refers to the fact that child-directed speech
is designed to offer a child the opportunity to initiate and maintain communication.
Research has shown that parents and other adults play a crucial role in the process
of language acquisition by adapting their language input to the cognitive abilities of the child,
because a substantial amount of variance in language achievements can be explained by
features of the context in which children learn language (Mashburn et al., 2009). It has for
example been shown that maternal use of child-directed speech between seven and eleven
months of age, is associated with a child’s language development at the age of five (Ma et
al., 2011). These effects have been shown to be of greater importance than genetics.
Furthermore, the language acquired during the first seven years of life are the basis of further
development of speech and other cognitive skills in life (Waterham, 2010). But besides the
language skills and cognitive skills that can be acquired through language, language also
plays an important role in becoming a member of a culture. Language allows children to
become members of their culture by acting like members and participating in linguistic events
(Blum-Kulka & Snow, 2004).
However, children’s language development is not solely based upon the childdirected speech they receive from adults. A child’s language development is also greatly
influenced by other linguistic interactions among which peer interactions play a big role.
Peers can serve as models in language use and they can provoke the use of language,
especially because children are not hindered by the asymmetry of speech as in adult-child
interaction (Blum-Kulka & Snow, 2004). Furthermore, peers are able to create a context for
socialisation more than adults can and in peer talk peers are able to act as experts instead of
novice participants (Blum-Kulka & Snow, 2004; Waterham, 2010). Even though the
importance of peer talk has often been stressed, little and unsystematic research has been
6
done on this topic (Blum-Kulka & Snow, 2004; Mashburn, Justice & Pianta, 2009; Waterham,
2010).
Based on the previous research that adults adjust certain aspects of their speech
when they speak to children, we have formulated a research question around which the
present study revolves. In this thesis, we will address the following research question: Is
there a difference in the use of child-directed aspects of speech between the fourth and the
sixth grade when addressing children from kindergarten?
1.2
Purpose of the present study
The purpose of the present study is to gain more insight into the specifics of peer talk from
older to younger children by carrying out an explorative study. More specifically, we want to
know if aspects of child-directed speech are applied in peer talk. This will give more insight
into the onset and development of the use of child-directed speech patterns. Furthermore, it
will contribute to the field of peer talk by gaining insight into the use of child-directed aspects
in peer talk. By taking into account other aspects like sexe and the number of siblings, more
insight can also be given into the differences of peer talk among groups. Since the present
study is an explorative study, no generalisations can be made based on the results.
2.
Theoretical framework
This chapter will discuss previously conducted research on child-directed speech. Firstly,
research on child-directed speech will be discussed. Next, the characteristics of childdirected speech will be discussed.
2.1
Research on child-directed speech
2.1.1 Child-directed speech
Throughout the years, several researches have been conducted on the topic of childdirected speech. Cristia (2013) has conducted literature research in order to formulate under
what conditions children prefer child-directed speech over adult-directed speech. This
research was based on previous research which stated that children typically prefer childdirected speech over adult-directed speech. This preference has been shown to be greater
for natural stimuli than synthesised ones. Furthermore, it has also been shown that children
even prefer child-directed speech over adult-directed speech in a language they have never
7
heard before. On the long run, children even seem to form more positive associations to
individuals who address them in child-directed speech than individuals who address them in
adult-directed speech. An exception can be found in newborns who are being addressed in
adult-directed speech by their mother. Most likely, this is determined by their prenatal
exposure to the mothers’ adult-directed speech (Cristia, 2013). Furthermore, it has also been
shown that children even attend to their name better when it is said in child-directed speech
than adult-directed speech (Watson, Baranek, Roberts, David & Perryman, 2010).
Researchers have focused on different aspects of child-directed speech over the
years. These aspects can be categorised in quantity and quality. For the most part, the focus
has been on quantity. This was primarily because it was known that children, whose parents
do not talk to them, tend to have smaller vocabularies (Cristia, 2013). Rowe (2012) took a
more detailed look at quality and quantity in her research. She carried out a longitudinal
study with fifty children and their caregivers. Between the ages of fourteen and 54 months of
age, the researchers visited the children at home. There the researcher would play with the
child individually. Furthermore, the researchers also taped interaction between the caregiver
and the child and had them carry out tasks. The speech that was uttered by the caregiver
was transcribed afterwards. This led to the conclusion that when focussing on the quality, it
has been shown that children have larger vocabularies in kindergarten and second grade if
their parents use a higher proportion of rare vocabulary (Rowe, 2012). Furthermore, the use
of decontextualised language has been shown to lead to greater vocabulary comprehension
in kindergarten. This refers to language that is “removed from the here and now”. This might
suggest that quality and quantity of input play different roles throughout different stages of
language acquisition (Rowe, 2012).
2.1.2 Peer talk
Research on peer talk and sibling talk has shown that children’s involvement in multiage groups gives them opportunities to learn several aspects on social behaviour. It is
important to take into account peer talk because peer talk is unhindered by the asymmetry
that is apparent in interaction between adults and children (Blum-Kulka & Snow, 2004). The
question is whether children also apply fine-tuning in their conversations, which means that
they adjust their speech to the addressee (De Vis & Depester, 2011). Shatz and Gelman (in
Blum-Kulka & Snow, 2004) observed children in the ages between five and seven years in
conversations in multi-age groups. This research showed that children adapt their language
to the younger participants in ways that are similar to child-directed speech used by adults
(Blum-Kulka & Snow, 2004). Research by Shatz and Gelman (in Hoff, 2010) has shown that
4-year-olds adjust their language use to their listeners, also known as convergence. They, for
8
example, use syntactically more difficult speech when addressing adults than when they
address 2-year-olds (Hoff, 2010). However, only limited research on this topic has been
conducted. Specifically, aspects like gender and age have not been taken into account in
studies of peer talk, even though studies of child-directed speech between parents and
children has shown that features of child-directed speech vary also on the basis of both the
child’s and the parent’s gender. Fathers, for example, do adjust their speech to their children
but they do this in a less complete fashion than mothers do. Research has, furthermore,
shown that fathers use more controlling language and requests than mothers do (Davidson &
Snow, 1996). Furthermore, fathers have been shown to interrupt their children more than
mothers. Furthermore, both mothers and fathers, interrupt daughters more than they do with
sons (Foulkes, et al., 2005). In the present study these aspects will be addressed as well.
Finally it will be taken into account whether the participants have a sibling for it has been
shown that children who have a sibling are able to observe the characteristics of childdirected speech more often and are therefore also able to apply these characteristics
themselves more often (Depester & De Vis, 2011).
2.2
Aspects of child-directed speech
Through years of research, several phenomena have been identified on which child-directed
speech differs from adult-adult speech. These phenomena can be characterised as prosodic
features, syntactic features and non-verbal features. These phenomena will be described
and characterised below.
2.2.1 Prosodic features of child-directed speech
Ma et al. (2011) have investigated word-learning in children by using a word-learning task for
21-month-olds under two conditions, namely adult-directed speech and child-directed
speech. Child-directed speech has been shown to lead to greater attention from child to adult
(Ma et al., 2011). Partly this may be due to differences in prosody. This results in a higher
fundamental pitch, exaggerated intonation contours, slower speed of speaking, more
frequent pauses and repetitive intonational patterns (Cameron-Faulkner, Lieven &
Tomasello, 2003; De Vis & Depester, 2011; Fahim & Rahimi, 2013; Ma et al., 2011).
However, this effect is not limited solely to mothers or parents. Both inexperienced and
experienced male and female adults have been shown to administer the same adjustment
patterns (Fernald, 1989). According to Fernald (1989) the specific prosodic modification of
child-directed speech serves two important functions. First of all, the specific prosodic nature
of child-directed speech may serve to engage children into interaction with adults and later
9
on maintain their attention. According to Lewis (in Fernald, 1989) the specific prosodic
character of child-directed speech leads to greater selective responsiveness than adult
speech, due to the strong affective character of the intonation (Fernald, 1989). Secondly, the
specific prosodic nature of child-directed speech may function to communicate affect. The
prosodic features of child-directed speech, as described above, have been shown to be
associated with positive affect. According to Ma et al. (2011) the prosodic features of childdirected speech may also facilitate language acquisition. They state that child-directed
speech is easier to segment into words and grammatical phrases, due to prosodic features.
Furthermore, it has been shown that new words are usually pronounced on a frequency peak
(Ma et al., 2011).
2.2.2 Syntactical character of child-directed speech
Lexico-syntactic phenomena refer to the simplified language used by adults when addressing
children. First of all, adults use simplified vocabulary with short utterances. Furthermore, they
use reduplications. Reduplication is a morphological process in which the root of a word is
repeated, either exactly or with a slight change (Wikipedia - Reduplication, 2012; Zebrowitz,
Brownlow & Olson, 1992). An example of exact reduplication often used by adults is “byebye” or “night-night”. Child-directed speech has also been shown to have more
onomatopoeia. An onomatopoeia is a word that imitates or suggests the sound that it
describes. Adults can for example refer to a dog as a “woof-woof” or a car as a “vroomvroom”, directly referring to the sound of the object. Furthermore, child-directed speech is
characterised by an increased number of repetitions, verbal expansions, imitations and a
simple syntactic structure (De Vis & Depester, 2011). Repetition helps the child to
understand the utterance by giving the child more than one opportunity to analyse the
utterance. Furthermore, repetitions also help the child to distinguish different words within a
stream of words (Foulkes, Dochterty & Watt, 2005).
Besides these lexico-syntactic phenomena, child-directed speech has also been
shown to differ from adult-directed speech on other phenomena of syntax. Snow (in Fahim &
Rahimi, 2013) states that child-directed speech is “syntactically simpler, more limited in
vocabulary and prepositional complexity, more correct and more fluent”. Child-directed
speech has for example been shown to contain fewer false starts and that is was also more
grammatically correct than adult-directed speech. This however, does not mean that childdirectly speech merely is simple or that is, according to Chomsky’s view, impoverished.
Child-directed speech still has a degree of complexity, for example through indirectness
(Fahim & Rahimi, 2013). On the other hand, whether one views child-directed speech as
10
impoverished like Chomsky, also depends upon the definition of impoverished (CameronFaulkner, 2003).
Furthermore, child-directed speech has been shown to differ in sentence
constructions employed. Child-directed speech has been shown to have a greater portion of
questions and commands and one word utterances are also more frequently applied
(Cameron-Faulkner, Lieven, Tomasello, 2003; Ma et al., 2013; Vázquez, n.d.). Moreover,
adults have also been shown to limit the use of past tenses, inflections, verbs and modifiers.
Instead they use more concrete nouns and make use of expansions and re-castings in which
they integrate the child’s vocabulary into a new utterance (Fahim & Rahimi, 2013).
Furthermore, adults using child-directed speech frequently comment on what the child is
doing (Vázquez, n.d.). In research Saxton (2000) conducted, comments directed at the child
were present in all studies. In this study, the comments referred to corrections the parents
made about the child’s language use. The feedback will lead the child to revise what he or
she was doing (Saxton, 2000).
2.2.3 Non-verbal cues in child-directed speech
Besides adjusting language when addressing children, adults often also use visible gestures
to support the language spoken. According to Clark and Estigarribia (2011) verbal
descriptions only become useful once a child has reached a certain degree of vocabulary.
This might be the reason that most visible gestures exhibited by adults towards children, are
most often in accordance with the language spoken (Gogate, Bahrick & Watson, 2000). More
precisely, gestures towards children are most likely to support the speech (O’Neill et al.,
2005). Like prosodic features, these gestures may serve to initiate and maintain the child’s
attention and joint attention (Clark & Estigarribia, 2011). This may be especially important
when introducing novel objects to children (Clark & Estigarribia, 2011). Furthermore,
gestures also serve to facilitate the child’s ability to detect relations between different senses
and promote communicative development (Gogate et al., 2000; O’Neill et al., 2005).
Like motherese, adults also help their children with adjusted gesturing, known as
gesturese (O’Neill et al., 2005). According to O’Neill (2005), adults adjust their gestures in
three ways when addressing children, namely: (1) they make fewer gestures, (2) they employ
more deictic gestures instead of empathic and iconic gestures and (3) the gestures are
usually employed alongside an utterance. Furthermore, gesturese also varies in accordance
to the age of the child, the child’s linguistic ability and the child’s comprehension of the
message (O’Neill et al., 2005)
11
2.3
Aspects of child-directed speech in the present study
In the present study, focus will solely be paid to the syntactical character of child-directed
speech. This choice has been made, because the children will engage in an active task.
Therefore, gestures will be limited and will be linked to the task at hand. First of all, the
complexity of the instruction will be analysed, because it has been shown that child-directed
language is usually syntactically simpler and uses limited vocabulary (De Vis & Depester,
2011; Fahim & Rahimi, 2013) The complexity will be analysed by looking at the number of
utterances. Secondly, the complexity of the utterance will be analysed by determining the
average number of words and verbs per utterance. Finally, the following aspects of childdirected speech will be taken into account:
Repetition
As shown in the literature, repetition is more frequently used in child-directed speech (De Vis
& Depester, 2011; Zebrowitz, Brownlow & Olson, 1992). Mothers tend to be more redundant
in their speech when they address children than when they address adults (Phillips, 1973).
Furthermore, parents also tend to repeat a word in isolation in order to attract the child’s
attention (Mandel-Emer & Jusczyk, 2003). Finally, research by Ochs, Solomon and Sterponi
(2005) has also shown that Western caregivers use frequent repetitions to get attention. In
the current study, it will be determined whether an utterance is a repetition of a previous
utterance or a new utterance. The following excerpt is an example of repetition from the
current study.
(1)
Repetition (Transcript 2, utterance 7, INS = F2, PUP = P1M)
INS
Utt
Pak maar hier vast en dan draai je hem er omheen. Zo.
Rep →
En dan pak je deze! Hier! Pak maar hier! En dan duw je die door dat gaatje
heen.
Rep →
Er doorheen. Duw maar. Duwen!
Feedback
When using child-directed speech, comments are frequently made to what the child is doing
(Vázquez, n.d.). Some researchers believe that feedback is important in learning language
(Doughty, 1993). A distinction can be made between negative feedback and positive
feedback. Feedback is given directly after the child’s action (Saxton, 2000) .The following
12
excerpts are examples of firstly positive feedback and secondly negative feedback from the
present study.
(2)
Positive feedback (Transcript 9, utterance 18, INS = M2, PUP = P8M)
INS
Utt
Dan pak je deze kant en die er onder door.
PFB →
Daar. Zo ja.
Utt
Aantrekken.
PFB →
En dan naar beneden doen. Ja goed zo.
(3)
Negative feedback (Transcript 3, utterance 27, INS = F3, PUP = P2M)
INS
Utt
En dan doe je ‘m er hier onder door. Zo.
NFB →
Kijk. Trek hier maar aan. Nee. Die hoef je niet meer te gebruiken.
Utt
Wacht. (<) Zo.
NFB →
Nee die – laat die maar even los. En dan trek hier maar eens aan. Aan dat
lusje.
Question
In the current study, it will be determined whether an utterance is a question or not.
Questions are utterances that are transcribed using a question mark. This leads to a total
number of questions. This will be taken into account, because it has been shown that childdirected speech contains a greater number of questions than adult-directed speech (Ma et
al., 2013; Vázquez, n.d.). In research conducted by Cameron-Faulkner, Lieven and
Tomasello (2003) 32% of the utterances were questions. Below is an example to illustrate
the use of questions in the present study.
(4)
Question (Transcript 10, utterance 5, INS = M3, PUP = P2F)
INS
Utt
Aantrekken
QUE →
Ja?
Utt
En dan de andere sla je er om.
QUE →
Duw je ‘m hier door. Zie je?
Name
Name calling is an easy way to gain someone’s attention. There are suggestions that name
calling is more frequent in child-directed speech than adult-directed speech (De Vis &
Depester, 2011). Parents also repeat the child’s name in isolation in order to attract the
13
child’s attention (Mandel-Emer & Jusczyk, 2003). The following excerpt is an example of
calling the addressees name in the current study.
(5)
Name (Transcript 11, utterance 17, INS = F8, PUP = P3F)
INS
Utt
En dan zo een konijnenoor maken.
NA →
P3F. Kijk. Konijnenoor.
Imperatives
Research has shown that child-directed speech contains more commands than adultdirected speech (Ma et al., 2013; Vázquez, n.d.). Commands or directive utterances are
usually formed in the imperative (Rowe, 2008). Imperatives are utterances that do not have a
subject and request action (Cameron-Faulkner, Lieven & Tomasello, 2003). Therefore,
imperatives will be taken into account in the current study. Below is an example of an
imperative in the current study.
(6)
Imperative (Transcript 9, utterance 47, INS = M2, PUP = P8M)
INS
Utt
Dan doe je weer (>) zo.
IMP →
Omheen draaien.
IMP →
Weer doorheen.
On the basis of what we have learned so far, several hypotheses have been formulated:
1) Speakers who are in the sixth grade will use more aspects of child-directed speech
than speakers who are in the fourth grade.
2) Female speakers will use more aspects of child-directed speech than male speakers.
3) Speakers who have one or more siblings will use more aspects of child-direct speech
than speakers who have no siblings.
4) Female addressees will be addressed using more aspects of child-directed speech
than male addressees.
3.
Method
3.1
Research Design
In order to be able to gain insight into the topic of aspects of child-directed speech in peer
talk, an explorative study will be carried out. Using an experiment it will be researched
whether there is a difference in the use of child-directed aspects of speech between the
14
fourth and the sixth grade. Furthermore, various context variables will be taken into account.
These context variables will be assessed in order to determine whether the correlation
between the grade the speakers are in and the use of child-directed aspects of speech can
be explained by factors related to the speaker or the instructed addressee. Factors related to
the speaker include their gender and the fact if they have siblings or not. Factors related to
the instructed addressee relates to the gender. These context variables will be assessed,
because they might give an alternative explanation for the effect. Figure 1 shows the
research design schematically.
Figure 1
Research design
Main aspect of effect
Studied phenomena
Grade the speaker is in
 Complexity of the instruction
o
(fourth & sixth grade)
Number of utterances
 Complexity of the utterance
Aspects related to speaker
o
Number of words
Gender
o
Number of verbs
Number of siblings
 Child-directed aspects
Aspects related to addressee
o
Repetition
Gender
o
Feedback
o
Questions
o
Name addressee
o
Imperatives
3.2
Participants
The experiment was conducted at primary school Sint Jozef in Altweert. This primary school
is a small catholic school with approximately 85 pupils. Since August 2010 the school is a
part of schooling foundation Eduquaat. In the week before the experiment, all pupils from this
school were asked to take home an informed consent form and they were asked to return it
within a week (see Appendix II). On request of the school, the consent form only had to be
returned if pupils were not allowed to participate in the study. This informed consent formed
stated the goal of the current research. Furthermore, it stated that the gathered data would,
of course, be handled anonymously and that the data would be destroyed after the research.
All in all, this resulted in twelve pupils from kindergarten being able to participate, six
children from the fourth grade (of whom 3 male) and six pupils from the sixth grade (of whom
none were male). Because of the reality at the school that the division between male and
15
female cannot be controlled for, there was no equal division between male and female in the
current research.
As shown in the table below, the average age of the pupils in kindergarten was over
five years. One could argue that these pupils are not the ideal addressees in an experiment
testing aspects of child-directed speech. Though five-year olds are early literate, it can still be
stated that adults do not address five-year olds in the same way they address adults. Of
course, speech used to address children becomes more adult-like as the linguistic
competence increases. However, it is not known at what age the addressee’s speech is at
adult level. Snow has conducted informal examination to test this. Her examination shows
that the speech addressed to ten-year olds is similar to speech used to address adults.
(Phillips, 1973). Therefore, it is expected that aspects of child-directed speech will still be
used when addressing five-year olds. Furthermore, most research on child-directed speech
from mothers has focused on speech to children between the ages of one and five years
(Fernald, 1984).
Table 1
Division between male and female, mean age and mean number of siblings for
the three categories
Male
Female
Mean age
Mean number of
siblings
Kindergarten
th
th
4
6
9
3
5,3
1,3
grade
3
3
9,5
1,2
grade
0
6
11,8
1,0
Table 2
Overview of the speakers
Number
Gender
Age
Grade
Siblings
01
Female
12
6
1
02
Female
12
6
0
03
Female
12
6
1
04
Female
12
6
2
05
Female
11
6
1
06
Female
12
6
1
07
Female
10
4
1
08
Male
9
4
1
09
Male
9
4
1
10
Male
9
4
2
11
Female
9
4
1
12
Female
9
4
1
16
3.3
Procedure
3.3.1 Experiment design
The experiment was conducted in a spare classroom at primary school Sint Jozef. For
the current research, each pupil from either the fourth or the sixth grade was paired to a pupil
from kindergarten. The pupils from the fourth and the sixth grade were instructed to teach the
younger pupil how to tie shoe laces. This task was chosen, because most pupils from
kindergarten are not yet able to tie their shoe laces, due to the development of their fine
motor skills. Therefore, this task enables all pupils from the fourth and the sixth grade to fully
explain to the younger pupils how to tie shoe laces.
In order to control for differences in material, all participants had to use an educative
board for tying shoe laces (see Figure 2). This board is a mock shoe made out of foam with a
shoe lace. A possible disadvantage of using this board could be that it is very light weight
and that it could, therefore, be more difficult to hold than a real shoe.
Figure 2
Educative board for tying shoe laces
For each session a pupil from the fourth or sixth grade was paired up with a pupil from
kindergarten. The pupils who participated in the experiment were first of all allowed by their
parents to participate in this experiment. Secondly, they were chosen by their teachers,
based on the time available in class. The pupils from the different grades were introduced to
each other upon meeting. However, most pupils already knew each other because of the
size of the school. Next, the experiment leader would explain the task. In the instruction, the
pupils from the fourth and the sixth grade were instructed to explain to the younger pupil how
to tie shoe laces. Hereby, they were instructed that they could use any way of instruction
17
they felt would reach the best result. As soon as the participants understood the task, they
were free to start.
The pupils from the fourth and the sixth grade could use all the time they needed to
explain the task. All the speakers were able to explain the task at least once to the younger
pupil. Some speakers would repeat the task. The speakers from the fourth and the sixth
grade ended the task after it was completed successfully, either by the pupil from
kindergarten or together.
The experiment leader would only intervene when the pupil from kindergarten was
getting frustrated. The experiment leader would first of all try to encourage the pupil by giving
compliments and focusing on the task. If this had no effect and the pupil remained frustrated,
the session would be ended by the experiment leader on a positive note. Overall, the
sessions had an average length of 3 minutes and 33 seconds.
During the session, solely the speaker, addressee and the experiment leader were
present in the room. The first reason for this had to do with logistic reasons; the teachers still
had their class to attend to. Furthermore, influence from the outside may have lead to less
focus on the task between the speaker and the addressee.
The interaction between the two participants was videotaped using a HD Camcorder
Canon Legria HF M52. The camera was positioned on a tripod, about 5 meters away from
the participants.
3.3.2 Transcription
After conducting the experiments, the data were transcribed. In order to allow transcription,
the videos from the experiments were converted to audio files. Both the video and the audio
files were saved to a usb-stick. All the recordings are in the same format and are the same
quality. Subsequently, Soundscriber was used to be able to replay the audio file multiple
times. Nonverbal expressions were not transcribed, because they are not taken into account
in the present study.
The transcription allows the analyst to get to know the recording into great detail and
it also allows for writing up in great detail what happens during the experiment. Furthermore,
besides what is being said, attention can be paid to turn taking and silences (Hutchy &
Woofitt, 2008). In this case, the sessions have been fully transcribed. This option has been
chosen, because the partial instruction the participants give to the younger children are part
of one instruction as a whole. The transcripts show whose turn it is, what is being said and
who this is addressed to. Furthermore, several aspects have been taken into account that
can be of influence on the interaction, like interruptions, simultaneous speech and silences
(Huls, 2001).
18
For the current research, the notation conventions as proposed by Jasper Varwijk
(2008) have been used. Varwijk (2008) derived these conventions from Jefferson (2008), but
made a selection of the used symbols on the basis of his research question. Since the
symbols as used by Varwijk (2008) suffice for the current research, these have been
maintained in the current research. Appendix III shows an overview of the symbols that have
been used in the transcription. Furthermore, an example of an annotated session can be
found in Appendix IV.
3.4
Material analysis
The current research investigates whether there is an influence of the grade a child is in on
the complexity of the instruction and the utterance and the display of child-directed aspects
of speech.
3.4.1 Independent variable
The independent variable can be divided into two groups, namely speakers from the 4th
grade and speakers from the 6th grade.
3.4.2 Dependent variables
3.4.2.1 Bias in complexity
Bias in complexity of the instruction has been measured by looking at the number of
utterances the speakers use to give the instruction to the addressee. In order to make the
instructions as ecologically valid as possible, only instruction without interference of the
practicum leader have been taken into account and no repetitions of the instruction have
been taken into account. This means that conclusion of the session by the experiment leader
when needed, did not influence the instruction the speaker gave. Furthermore, only the first
instruction was taken into account because not all speakers did a second instruction.
Complexity of the utterance has been measured by looking at the number words the
speakers use. Finally, we also looked at the number of verbs the speakers use.
3.4.2.2 Bias in child-directed aspects
Besides bias in complexity, attention has been paid to aspects of child-directed speech. First
of all, it has been determined whether there was repetition of an earlier phrase or not.
Secondly, we looked at the feedback the speakers gave to the addressees. There could be
no feedback, positive feedback or negative feedback. A third aspect related to child-directed
speech was the presence or absence of questions. Further, it was coded whether the
19
speaker referred to the name of the addressee in the instruction or not. Finally, it was coded
whether the speakers used imperatives or not.
3.4.3 Context variables
Besides the dependent and independent variables, there are also context variables that
should be taken into account. These context variables could possibly give an alternate
explanation to the results. As for the context variables, a division can be made between (1)
variables related to the speaker and (2) variables related to the addressee. Variables related
to the speaker include the speaker’s gender and the fact whether he/she has siblings or not.
The variable related to the addressee refers to the gender of the instructed pupil.
3.4.4 Coding scheme and statistical analysis
All variables have been coded with the use of a coding scheme, which can be found in
Appendix IV. The coding scheme gives an overview of the variables and the possible values
that can be assigned to this variable. Subsequently, the data have been entered in to the
statistical analysis programme SPSS.
4.
Results
The current chapter will discuss the results of the current research. First of all, attention will
be given to the bias in complexity. Furthermore, attention will be given to the influence of the
context variables. Because of the current study being an explorative study, the statistical
results cannot be interpreted generally. Therefore, attention will also be paid to non-statistical
differences.
4.1
Bias in complexity
Bias in complexity for instruction has been determined by looking at the number of
utterances the speakers used. Bias in complexity of the utterances has been determined by
looking at the average number of words and verbs per utterance per speaker. The
expectation was that speakers from the sixth grade will use more aspects of child-directed
speech than speakers from the fourth grade. It is, therefore, expected that speakers from the
sixth grade will use more simple utterances. The bias in complexity was researched by
carrying out to one-way ANOVA’s.
20
4.1.1 Testing the assumptions
The dependent variables number of utterances, number of words and number of verbs are all
considered to be of ratio level of measurement. The independent variable grade consists of
two independent groups, being the fourth and the sixth grade. The third assumption of
independence of observations has also been met, because there are different participants in
each of the two groups. The sample size in the current research is relatively small, due to the
difficulty of getting subjects. Using the Shapiro-Wilk test it is determined that the data are not
normally distributed for number of utterances, number of words and number of verbs (p=,000
for all variables). Even though this may be due to the small sample size, this has to be taken
into account when judging the results. Using Levene’s test it was determined that there is
homogeneity in variance for the number of utterances (F = 4,629, p=,057), the number of
words (F = 1,761, p=,214) and the number of verbs (F = 0,728, p=,413).
4.1.2 Results of bias in complexity
The results of these analyses are shown in table 3 and figure 1.
Table 3
Complexity by grade (average number of utterances, words and verbs per
utterance per speaker, n = total number of utterances)
4th grade
6th grade
Total
(n=205)
(n=77)
(n=282)
Number of utterances
34,17
12,83
23,50
Number of words
7,48
11,82
9,49
Number of verbs
1,46
1,95
1,70
Statistical analysis showed that there were no significant differences in the complexity of the
instruction and utterances between the fourth and the sixth grade. Even though speakers
from the fourth grade used far more utterances than speakers from the sixth grade, there
was no statistically significant differences between group means for the number of utterances
at determined by one-way ANOVA (F(1,10)=4,066, p=,071). Speakers from the fourth grade
did not use significantly more utterances than speakers from the sixth grade. Secondly, there
were also no significant difference between the group means for the number of words the
speakers used (F(1,10)=1,738, p=,217). Speakers from the fourth and the sixth grade did not
differ significantly on the number of words they used. Finally, there was also no statistically
significant difference between the group means for the number of verbs (F(1,10)=1,925
p=,195). Speakers from the sixth grade did not use significantly more verbs than speakers
from the fourth grade.
21
Figure 3
Complexity by grade (average number of utterances, words and verbs per
utterance per speaker)
40
35
30
25
4th grade
20
6th grade
15
10
5
0
Nr. of utterances
Nr. of words
Nr. of verbs
* error bars represent standard error of the mean
In figure 3 the results are put in a bar chart. No general trend can be derived from these
results. Even though the speakers from the sixth grade use more words and verbs in their
utterances than the speakers from the fourth grade, the speakers from the fourth grade use
more utterances overall. Even though no significant results were found, the results indicate
that the speakers from the sixth grade use longer sentences and perhaps more complex
utterances than the speakers from the fourth grade. This is opposite to the expectation that
speakers form the sixth grade would use more simplified language. This result could perhaps
be linked to the language development the speakers are going through.
4.2
Bias in child-directed aspects
Bias in child-directed aspects of speech has been determined by looking at repetition,
feedback, the number of questions, whether the speakers use the name of the addressee
and the use of the imperative. The expectation was that speakers who are in the sixth grade
will use more aspects of child-directed speech than speakers who are in the sixth grade.
4.2.1 Testing the assumptions
Because the following hypothesis is tested by using the chi square test, only two
assumptions have to be met. First of all, the dependent variables repetition, feedback,
questions, calling the addressee’s name and use of imperatives are categorical data.
Secondly, each of the variables consists of at least two groups.
22
4.2.2 Results of bias in child-directed aspects
Table 4
Child-directed aspects per grade (in percentages of the total number of
utterances, n = total number of utterances)
4th grade
6th grade
Total
(n=205)
(n=77)
(n=282)
8,3
10,4
8,9
positive
8,3
3,9
7,1
negative
5,4
5,2
5,3
Question
13,7
9,1
12,4
Name addressee
2,0
1,3
1,8
Imperatives
25,9
35,1
28,4
Repetition
Feedback
Child-directedness has been determined by looking at several aspects. The first one was
repetition. There was no significant difference in repetition between the 4th grade and the 6th
grade (χ²(1)=0,305, p=,580). The second child-related aspect was feedback. The participants
gave either no feedback or gave positive feedback or negative feedback. On this aspect, no
significant difference was found between the fourth and the sixth grade (χ²(2)=1,662,
p=,436). The third aspect we looked at, was the number of questions the participants used.
Again, no significant difference between the fourth and the sixth grade was found
(χ²(1)=1,074, p=,300). Subsequently, we looked at whether the participants named the name
of the addressee in the instruction. On this aspect, no significant difference was found
between the fourth and the sixth grade (χ²(1)=0,137, p=,711). Finally, we looked at the
number of times the participants used imperatives in their instruction. On this aspect, there
was also no significant difference between the two grades (χ²(1)=2,337, p=,126).
Overall, it has not been shown that speakers from the sixth grade use more childdirected aspects than speakers from the sixth grade. Even though there were no significant
differences, the results do show some differences worth mentioning. On some aspects of
child-directed speech the results seem to show that speakers from the sixth grade use more
child-directed aspects than speakers from the fourth grade. Overall, however, speakers from
the fourth grade used more child-directed aspects of speech than speakers from the sixth
grade. Even though these differences are not significant, they might be when using a larger
sample size.
23
Figure 4
Child-directed aspects by grade (in percentages of the total number of
utterances)
45
40
35
30
25
4th grade
20
6th grade
15
10
5
0
Repetition
Positive
feedback
Negative
feedback
Question
Name pupil
Imperatives
* error bars represent a 95% confidence interval
Figure 4 shows that the general trend is that the fourth grade uses more child-directed
aspects than the sixth grade, with the exception of the child-directed aspects repetition and
use of imperatives.
4.3
Influence of the context variables on bias in complexity
The results we found could possibly be influenced by the context variables, as described in
section 2.4.3. These context variables could give an alternative explanation to the results. To
research the influence of these context variables on the dimensions of child-directed aspects,
cross tabs have been made to be able to observe the differences. Furthermore, ANOVA’s
have been carried out to examine the bias in complexity.
4.3.1 Sexe of the speaker
Bias in complexity on the basis of the context variable sexe of the speaker has been
determined by calculating the mean number of utterances, words and verbs used by the
speakers. The expectation was that female speakers would use more aspects of childdirected speech than male speakers. Therefore, we expected that female speakers would
use more simplified language than male speakers. The bias in complexity was researched by
carrying out two one-way ANOVA’s. The results of these analyses are shown below.
24
Testing the assumptions
The dependent variables number of utterances, number of words and number of verbs are all
considered to be of ratio level of measurement. The independent variable sexe of the
speaker consists of two independent groups: male and female. The third assumption of
independence of observations has also been met, because there are different participants in
each of the two groups. The sample size in the current research is relatively small, due to the
difficulty of getting subjects. Using the Shapiro-Wilk test it is determined that the data are
normally distributed for the male speakers. However, the data are not normally distributed for
the female speakers. Even though this may be due to the small sample size, the non-normal
distribution has to be taken into account when judging the results. Using Levene’s test it was
determined that there is homogeneity in variance for the number of words (F(1,10)= 0,161,
p=,697) and the number of verbs (F(1,10) = 0,098, p=,761). However, there was no
homogeneity in variance for the number of utterances (F(1,10)=11,474, p=,007). This also
has to be taken into account when considering the results.
Results of bias in complexity
Table 5
Complexity by sexe of the speaker (average number of utterances, words
and verbs per speaker, n = total number of utterances)
Male
Female
Total
(n=130)
(n=152)
(n=282)
Number of utterances*
43,33
16,89
23,50
Number of words
7,56
10,35
9,65
Number of verbs
1,43
1,79
1,70
* p<,05
The table shows that female speakers use more words and verbs than male speakers use.
However, statistical analysis using ANOVA showed that these differences were not
significant (F(1,10)=0,556, p=,473). There was also no significant difference in the number of
verbs that the male and the female speakers used (F(1,10)=0,681, p=,429). The number of
utterances that the male and female speakers used did, however, differ significantly. Male
speakers used significantly more utterances than female speakers (F(1,10)=4,996, p<,05).
The results are shown graphically in figure 4 below. The figure shows that male speakers
seem to use more utterances, but that these utterances contain less words and verbs.
Female speakers, however, use fewer utterances, but they are longer and more difficult due
to a higher number of verbs. Therefore, the expectation that female speakers would use
more simplified language than male speakers cannot be proven.
25
Figure 5
Bias in complexity by sexe of speaker (average number of utterances,
words and verbs per speaker)
50
45
40
35
30
25
Male
20
Female
15
10
5
0
Nr. of utterances
Nr. of words
Nr. of verbs
* error bars represent standard error of the mean
4.3.2 Siblings of the speaker
Bias in complexity on the basis of the context variable siblings of the speaker has been
determined by calculating the mean number of utterances, words and verbs used by the
speakers. The expectation was that speakers who have one or more sibling would use more
aspects of child-directed speech than speakers with no siblings. Therefore, we expected that
speakers with one or more siblings would use more simplified language than speakers who
had no sibling. The bias in complexity was researched by carrying out two one-way
ANOVA’s. The results of these analyses are shown below.
Testing the assumptions
The dependent variables number of utterances, number of words and number of verbs are all
considered to be of ratio level of measurement. The independent variable siblings of the
speaker consists of three independent groups: no siblings, one sibling and two siblings. The
third assumption of independence of observations has also been met, because there are
different participants in each of the two groups. The sample size in the current research is
relatively small, due to the difficulty of getting subjects. Using the Shapiro-Wilk test only the
normal distribution of the speakers with one sibling can be determined, because there is only
one speaker who has no siblings and two speakers who have to siblings. The data for the
speakers with one sibling are normally distributed on the number of utterances. However, the
data are not normally distributed for the number of words and verbs. Using Levene’s test it
was determined that there is homogeneity in variance for the number of words (F(1,10)=
0,393, p=,546) and the number of verbs (F(1,10) = 0,084, p=,779). However, there was no
26
homogeneity in variance for the number of utterances (F(1,10)=5,552, p=,043). Both the nonnormal distribution and the fact that there was no homogeneity in variance for the number of
utterances should be taken into consideration, even though this probably occurs because of
the small sample size.
Results of bias in complexity
Table 6
Bias in complexity by number of siblings of the speaker (average number
of utterances, words and verbs per speaker, n = total number of utterances)
0
1
2
Total
(n=13)
(n=190)
(n=79)
(n=282)
Number of utterances
13,00
21,11
39,50
23,50
Number of words
8,15
10,17
8,08
9,65
Number of verbs
1,54
1,72
1,69
1,70
The table above shows that speakers with two siblings use the highest number of utterances,
followed by the speakers with one sibling. However, the speakers with one sibling use more
words than the speakers with none or two siblings. Finally, the speakers do not differ much in
the number of verbs they used. The fact that the speakers with two siblings used more
utterances but less words, could indicate that the speakers with two siblings used simpler
utterances than the speakers with no or one sibling. Three one-way ANOVA’s were used to
determine whether these differences were significant. Analysis showed that the number of
utterances (F(2,9)=0,749, p=,500), words (F(2,9)=0,110, p=,897) and verbs (F(2,9)=0,031,
p=,970) did not differ significantly depending on the number of siblings. The hypothesis that
speakers with one or more siblings would use more simplified language is not proven. The
results are also illustrated in the figure below.
27
Figure 6
Bias in complexity by siblings of speaker (average number of utterances,
words and verbs per speaker)
45
40
35
30
25
0 siblings
20
1 sibling
2 siblings
15
10
5
0
Nr. of utterances
Nr. of words
Nr. of verbs
* error bars represent standard error of the mean
4.3.3 Sexe of the addressee
Bias in complexity on the basis of the context variable sexe of the addressee has been
determined by calculating the mean number of utterances, words and verbs used by the
speakers. The expectation was that speakers would use more aspects of child-directed
speech towards female addressees than male addressees. Therefore, we expected that
speakers would use more simplified language towards female addressees than male
addressees. The bias in complexity was researched by carrying out two one-way ANOVA’s.
The results of these analyses are shown below.
Testing the assumptions
The dependent variables number of utterances, number of words and number of verbs are all
considered to be of ratio level of measurement. The independent variable sexe of the
addressee consists of two independent groups: male and female. The third assumption of
independence of observations has also been met, because there are different participants in
each of the two groups. The sample size in the current research is relatively small, due to the
difficulty of getting subjects. Using the Shapiro-Wilk test it can be shown that the data from
the female addressees are normally distributed. However, the data from the male
addressees are not normally distributed. When considering the results, the non-normal
distribution has to be taken into account. Using Levene’s test it was determined that there is
homogeneity in variance for the number of utterances (F(1,10)=0,858, p=,376) the number of
words (F(1,10)= 1,226, p=,294) and the number of verbs (F(1,10) = 0,158, p=,699).
28
Results of bias in complexity
Table 7
Bias in complexity by sexe of the addressee (average number of
utterances, words and verbs per speaker, n = total number of utterances)
Male
Female
Total
(n=174)
(n=108)
(n=282)
Number of utterances
25,22
18,33
23,50
Number of words
9,99
8,61
9,65
Number of verbs
1,68
1,75
1,70
When looking at the mean number of utterances, it shows that male addressees are
addressed using more utterances than female addressees. Furthermore, male addressees
are also addressed using more words than female addressees. This could indicate that
female addressees are indeed addressed in more simplified language. However, female
addressees are addressed using slightly more verbs. This indicates that the language used
towards female addressees might be more complex. However, statistical analysis using three
one-way ANOVA’s showed that the results for utterances (F(1,10)=0,176, p=,417), words
(F(1,10)=0,442, p=,521) and verbs (F(1,10)=0,058, p=,814) were not significant. Figure 7
shows the results.
Figure 7
Bias in complexity by sexe of the addressee (average number of
utterances, words and verbs per speaker)
30
25
20
Male
15
Female
10
5
0
Nr. of utterances
Nr. of words
* error bars represent standard error of the mean
29
Nr. of verbs
4.4
Influence of the context variables on bias in child-directed aspects
The results we found could possibly be influenced by the context variables, as described in
section 2.4.3. These context variables could give an alternative explanation to the results. To
research the influence of these context variables on the dimensions of child-directed aspects,
cross tabs have been made to be able to observe the differences. Chi square tests were
used to determine whether the differences were significant or not.
4.4.1 Sexe of the speaker
Bias in child-directed aspects of the context variable sexe of the speaker has been
determined by calculating the percentages of repetition, feedback, questions, name calling
and use of imperatives for the total number of utterances. The expectation was that female
speakers will use more aspects of child-directed speech than male speakers.
Because the following hypothesis is tested by using the chi square test, only two
assumptions have to be met. First of all, the dependent variables repetition, feedback,
questions, calling the addressees’ name and use of imperatives are categorical data.
Secondly, each of the variables, both dependent and independent, consists of at least two
groups.
Table 8
Child-directed aspects by sexe of the speaker (in percentages of the total
number of utterances, n = total number of utterances)
Male
Female
Total
(n=130)
(n=152)
(n=282)
6,2
11,2
8,9
positive
7,7
6,6
7,1
negative
4,6
5,9
5,3
Question
16,2
9,2
12,4
Name addressee
0,8
2,6
1,8
Imperatives
24,6
31,6
28,4
Repetition
Feedback
The table shows that female speakers use more repetition than male speakers. However,
this difference is not statistically significant (χ²(1)=2,195, p=,138). Male speakers prove to
give more positive feedback than female speakers, while female speakers give more
negative feedback than male speakers. This result was also not significant (χ²(2)=0,347,
p=,841). Male speakers also use more questions when addressing their addressee than the
female speakers. Female speakers, however, refer to the addressee by calling his or her
name more often than male speakers do and they also use imperatives more often. Both the
results for the use of questions (χ²(1)=1,395, p=,237) and the use of imperatives
30
(χ²(1)=1,672, p=,196) were not significant. Figure 8 shows the results for child-directed
aspects by sexe of the speaker. Even though the results that are found are not significant,
the results do indicate that female speakers use certain child-directed aspects more than
male speakers. Furthermore, the results also show a trend that female speakers use more
child-directed aspects than male speakers. These results would probably have been
significant when using a larger sample size.
Figure 8
Child-directed aspects by sexe of the speaker (in percentages of the total
number of utterances, n = total number of utterances)
35
30
25
20
Male
15
Female
10
5
0
Repetition
Positive
feedback
Negative
feedback
Question
Name pupil
Imperatives
* error bars represent a 95% confidence interval
4.4.2 Siblings of the speaker
Bias in child-directed aspects of the context variable siblings of the speaker has been
determined by calculating the percentage of repetition, feedback, questions, name calling
and use of imperatives for the total number of utterances. Concerning the number of siblings
the speaker has, the expectation was that speakers who have one or more siblings will use
more aspects of child-direct speech than speakers who have no siblings.
The hypothesis is tested using the chi square test. For the chi square test it is
assumed that the dependent variables are all categorical data. Furthermore, both the
dependent and independent variables consist of at least two groups.
31
Table 9
Child-directed aspects by number of siblings of the speaker (in
percentages of the total number of utterances, n = total number of utterances)
0
1
2
Total
(n=13)
(n=190)
(n=79)
(n=282)
30,8
5,3
0
6,9
positive
15,4
6,7
0
6,9
negative
0
6,0
0
5,2
Question
0
12,0
18,2
11,5
Name addressee
0
1,3
0
1,1
61,5
22,0
36,4
25,9
Repetition*
Feedback
Imperatives **
*p<,005, **p<,01
The results show that the speakers without siblings or with two siblings used less childdirected aspects than the speakers with one sibling. On the other hand, speakers with no
siblings used more repetition than speakers with one sibling. Moreover, they also used more
positive feedback and imperatives. Statistical analysis showed that there was a significant
difference between the groups on use of repetition (χ²(2)=8,247, p<,,05). Speakers without
siblings used significantly more repetition than speakers with one or two siblings.
Furthermore, there was also a significant difference in the use of imperatives (χ²(2)=11,523,
p=<,01). Speakers without siblings used significantly more imperative utterances than
speakers with one or two siblings. The results for feedback (χ²(4)=3,559, p=,469), the
number of questions (χ²(2)=3,152, p=,207) and calling the pupils name (χ²(2)=0,472, p=,790)
were not significant. If we were to repeat this research with a larger sample size, more
significant results might be found. Primarily because the overall trend shows that speakers
with one sibling make use of more different aspects of child-directed speech than speakers
without a sibling.
32
Figure 9
Child-directed aspects by number of siblings of the speaker (in
percentages of the total number of utterances)
70
60
50
40
0 siblings
1 sibling
30
2 siblings
20
10
0
Repetition
Positive
feedback
Negative
feedback
Question
Name pupil
Imperatives
* error bars represent a 95% confidence interval
4.4.3 Sexe of the instructed pupil
Bias in child-directed aspects of the context sexe of the addressee has been determined by
calculating the percentage of repetition, feedback, questions, name calling and use of
imperatives for the total number of utterances. It was expected that female addressees will
be addressed using more aspects of child-directed speech than male addressees.
For the analysis of the influence of the sexe of the instructed addressee on aspects of
child-directed speech, chi square tests will be used. All the dependent variables are
categorical. Furthermore, both the dependent and independent variables consist of two
groups or more.
33
Table 10
Child-directed aspects by gender of the instructed addressee (in
percentages of the total number of utterances, n = total number of utterances)
Male
Female
Total
(n=174)
(n=108)
(n=282)
6,9
12,0
8,9
positive
6,9
7,4
7,1
negative
5,2
5,6
5,3
Question
11,5
13,9
12,4
Name addressee
1,1
2,8
1,8
Imperatives
25,9
32,4
28,4
Repetition
Feedback
The results show that female addressees are more often displayed to repetition than male
addressees. However, statistical analysis with a chi square test showed that this result was
not significant (χ²(1)=2,180, p=,140). Furthermore, the amount of feedback the addressees
receive does not differ much between the groups (χ²(2)=0,049, p=,976). Female addressees
receive slightly more questions than male addressees and they are also exposed more to
imperatives than the male addressees. However, both the difference in questions
(χ²(1)=0,352, p=,553) and in the use of imperatives (χ²(1)=1,405, p=,236) were not
significant. Both male and female addressees hardly hear their name called in the instruction
(χ²(1)=1,015, p=,314). Figure 10 shows the result in a bar chart. Even though the differences
are not significant, the trend does show that female addressees are instructed using more
aspects of child-directed speech. Therefore, it would be interesting to repeat this research
with a larger sample size. It may be expected that significant results will be found on this
aspect when using a larger sample size.
34
Figure 10
Child-directed aspects by gender of the addressee (in percentages of the
total number of utterances)
35
30
25
20
Male
15
Female
10
5
0
Repetition
Positive
feedback
Negative
feedback
Question
Name pupil Imperatives
* error bars represent a 95% confidence interval
4.5
Overall view
Overall it can be stated that the grade the speakers were in had no significant effect on the
complexity and the use of child-directed aspects of speech. Nonetheless, a few results worth
mentioning have been found. First of all, it has been shown that speakers from the fourth
grade used far more utterances overall than the speakers from the sixth grade. On the other
hand, the speakers from the fourth grade used less words and verbs per utterance. This
indicates that speakers from the sixth grade used more complex and longer sentences than
the speakers from the fourth grade. Perhaps this could be linked to the stages of a child’s
language development.
Furthermore, there were also no significant differences in the use of child-directed
aspects of speech. Overall, the speakers from the fourth grade did, however, use more
aspects of child-directed speech than the speakers from the sixth grade. Even though these
differences were not significant in the current research due to the sample size, these
differences are most likely to be significant when using a larger sample size.
All in all, it can be stated that the context variables all together have not been of
influence on the results. However, the context variables did have an influence on some of the
child-directed aspects. The gender of the speaker was shown to be of significant influence on
the number of utterances used. Male speakers used significantly more utterances than
female speakers. Furthermore, the number of siblings the speaker had was of significant
35
influence to the number of repetitions used and the use of imperatives. Speakers without
siblings used repetitions and imperatives significantly more than speakers with one or two
siblings.
5.
Discussion
The current research was aimed at contributing towards the field of research on childdirected speech and peer talk. More specifically, the current research was an explorative
research that will result in new topics for future research. In this chapter some aspects will be
discussed. Furthermore, attention will be paid to future research on this topic.
5.1
Comparison to earlier research
The current research differed from earlier research on the topic of child-directed speech and
peer talk. As stated in the literature review, research on peer talk is limited to date.
Therefore, there was a great field still open for exploration. Previous research mainly paid
attention to the opportunities and downfalls of peer talk in socialisation and language
development (Blum-Kulka & Snow, 2004; Mashburn, Justice & Pianta, 2009). The current
research, however, focused on the peer talk as a form of child-directed speech. Therefore, it
is hard to make a comparison between previous research and the current research.
On the other hand, the current research can possibly give support to the notion of
socialisation in language learning. Adults adjust their speech to children in order to be able to
communicate with them. This is considered social adjustment. If children expose the same
adjustments in their language use when addressing younger children, one could state that
children are also able to adjust their language use to the needs of the addressee.
5.2
Generalisability of the present research
As stated earlier, the current research was an explorative research. This research was
designed in order to discover new subjects for research. The results of the present research
show that there are no significant differences in complexity and child-directed aspects of
speech on the basis of grade. However, significant results might have been found using a
larger sample. On the other hand, significant results have been found for two context
variables. First of all, it was shown that the sexe of the speaker was of significant influence
on the number of utterances used. Male speakers were shown to use significantly more
utterances in their instruction than female speakers. Even though previous research showed
36
that fathers used more imperatives than mothers, this was not found in the current study.
Male speakers did not use significantly more imperatives than female speakers (Davidson &
Snow, 1996). Secondly, the number of siblings the speaker had was shown to be of
significant influence on the number of repetitions used and the use of imperatives. Speakers
with no siblings were shown to use significantly more repetitions and make more use of
imperatives.
However, as stated earlier, these results cannot be generalised. The current research
was conducted among a limited group of twelve participants. Furthermore, due to the reality
at the school we were not able to control on the context variables. This resulted in all of the
speakers from the sixth grade being female and only three male speakers overall.
Furthermore, only one speaker had no siblings and only two speakers had two siblings.
Future research would, therefore, have to use greater number of participants in order to
come to results that can be generalised. Moreover, future research could also opt to control
for an equal division on the control variables so that the results can be generalised. This is
especially important for gender, since due to the skewed division in gender in the current
study, no general conclusions can be derived from these analyses.
Next, the current study could also be repeated using adults instead of pupils from the
fourth and sixth grade as speakers. Using adult speakers would give a starting point for
interpreting the results when using speakers from the fourth and sixth grade. This is
especially important, because it is not clear to what extent child-directed aspects of speech
are used when addressing five-year olds.
Furthermore, it would be interesting to see if significant differences would arise
between the different grades if they had to instruct younger children, e.g. one or two year
olds. In the present study, the speakers had to instruct addressees around the age of five
year. Even though these addressees have probably not reached an adult level of literacy,
they are, however, more literate than preverbal addressees. Informal investigation by Snow
has shown that children aged ten are addressed similar to adults (Phillips, 1973). Using
younger addressees could possibly alter the results, because these children are preverbal
and therefore need different kinds of instruction. Taking into account addressees who are in
different stages of their language development, might also give us more insight into the use
of child-directed aspects of speech on different ages.
Finally, it would be important to determine how much adults would use aspects of
child-directed speech in likewise research. In order to achieve a direct comparison, adults
would have to be included in the research as well.
37
6.
Conclusion
The current research focused on the following research question: ‘Is there a difference in the
use of child-directed aspects of speech between the fourth and the sixth grade when
addressing children from kindergarten?’. In the present research, no proof has been found
that there is bias in complexity between speakers from the fourth grade and the sixth grade.
The speakers from the fourth and the sixth grade did not differ in complexity of their
instruction and their utterances. However, when taking into account the sexe of the speaker,
male speakers were shown to use significantly more utterances than female speakers. The
other context variables, number of siblings and the sexe of the instructed addressee, did not
have a significant effect on the complexity.
The first hypothesis stated that speakers who are in the sixth grade will use more
aspects of child-directed speech than speakers who are in the sixth grade. No proof was
found for this hypothesis. Speakers from the fourth and the sixth grade used as many
aspects of child-directed speech.
The second hypothesis revolved around the context variable concerning the sexe of
the speaker. No proof was found for this hypothesis. Male and female speakers used childdirected aspects of speech in equal amounts. The sexe of the instructed addressee also
failed to yield results. The male and female addressees were instructed by the speakers
using the same amount of child-directed aspects. The last context variable concerned the
number of siblings the speaker had. The number of siblings the speaker had was shown to
be of significant influence on the number of repetitions used and the use of imperatives.
However, this result was in the other direction than expected. The hypothesis stated that
speakers who have one or more siblings will use more aspects of child-direct speech than
speakers who have no siblings. The results, however, showed that speakers with no siblings
used more repetitions and made more use of imperatives in their instructions. However, it
has to be noted that there was only one speaker in the current research who had no siblings.
Overall, this explorative research has contributed to the field of research on peer talk
by gaining insight into the specifics of peer talk from older to younger children. Even though
the results from the current research were not significant, the results indicate that differences
are likely to be found using a larger number of participants. The results indicate that there are
differences in the use of child-directed aspects on different ages. On the specific aspects of
child-directed speech regarding repetition and the use of imperatives, the older speakers
appear to make more use of these child-directed aspects of speech. On the other hand, the
speaker from the fourth grade made more use of the child-directed aspects overall. In order
to be able to generalise the findings from the current study, the study has to be carried out
amongst a larger group of participants.
38
References
Blum-Kulka, S. & Snow, C.E. (2004). Introduction: the potential of peer talk. Discourse
Studies, 6 (3), 291-306.
Cameron-Faulkner, T., Lieven, E. & Tomasello, M. (2003). A construction based analysis of
child directed speech. Cognitive Science, 27, 843-873.
Clark, E.V. & Estigarribia, B. (2011). Using speech and gesture to introduce new objects to `
young children. Gesture, 11 (1), 1-23.
Cristia, A. (2013). Input to language: the phonetics and perception of infant-directed speech.
Language and Linguistics Compass, 7(3), 157-170.
Davidson, R.G. & Snow, C.E. (1996). Five-year olds’ interactions with fathers versus
mothers. First Language, 16, 223-242.
Depester, L. & De Vis, J. (2011). De prosodische aspecten van kindgerichte spraak: een
onderzoek naar man-vrouwverschillen bij Vlaamssprekenden. Master Thesis,
University of Ghent, Ghent.
Doughty, C. (1993). Fine-tuning of feedback by competent speakers to language learners.
Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics, 96-108.
Fernald, A. (1984). Expanded intonation contours in mothers’ speech to newborns.
Developmental Psychology, 20 (1), 104-113.
Fernald, A. (1989). Intonation and communicative intent in mothers’ speech to infants: Is the
melody the message? Child Development, 60 (6), 1497-1510.
Fahim, M. & Rahimi, A. (2013). An investigation of structures and prosodic features of child
directed speech during shared reading. Journal of Academic and Applied Studies, 3
(1), 52-61.
Foulkes, P., Docherty, G. & Watt, D. (2005). Phonological variation in child-directed speech.
Language, 81(1), 177-206.
Gogate, L.J., Bahrick, L.E., Watson, J.D. (2000). A study of multimodal motherese: the role
of temporal synchrony between verbal labels and gestures. Child Development, 71
(4), 878-894.
Hoff, E. (2010). Context effects on young children’s language use: The influence of
conversational setting and partner. First Language, 30 (3), 461-472.
Ma, W., Golinkoff, R.B., Houston, D., Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2011). Word learning in infant- and
adult-directed speech. Language Learning and Development, 7, 209-225.
Mandel-Emer, D. & Jusczyk, P.W. (2003). What’s in a name?: How infants respond to some
familiar sound patterns. Retrieved on April, 3rd 2014 from:
http://www1.psych.purdue.edu/~ghollich/Jusczyk/pdf/Name.pdf
Mashburn, A.J., Justice, L.M., Downer, J.T. & Planta, R.C. (2009). Peer effects on children’s
language achievement during pre-kindergarten. Child Development, 80 (3), 686-702.
39
Ochs, E., Solomon, O. & Sterponi, L. (2005). Limitations and transformations of habitus in
child-directed communication. Discourse Studies, 7 (4-5), 547-583.
O’Neill, M., Bard, K.A., Linnell, M. & Fluck, M. (2005). Maternal gestures with 20-month-old
infants in two contexts. Developmental Science, 8 (4), 352-359.
Phillips, J.R. (1973). Syntax and vocabulary of mothers’speech to young children: age and
sex comparisons. Child Development, 44( 1), 182-185.
Rowe, M.L. (2012). A longitudinal investigation of the role of quantity and quality of childdirected speech in vocabulary development. Child Development, 83 (5), 1762-1774.
Saxton, M. (2000). Negative evidence and negative feedback: immediate effects on the
grammaticality of child speech. First Language, 20, 221-252.`
Vázquez, M.G. (n.d.). Child directed speech. Retrieved november 16, 2013 from:
http://www.spanishlessonsuk.co.uk/resources/Merche%20Gomez%20%20Child%20Directed%20Speech%20.pdf
Waterham, C. (2010). Taalinput van peers en receptieve woordenschat en ontluikende
geletterdheid van kleuters. Master Thesis, University of Utrecht, Utrecht.
Watson, L. R., Baranek, G. T., Roberts, J. E., David, F. J., & Perryman, T. Y. (2010).
Behavioral and physiological responses to child-directed speech as predictors of
communication outcomes in children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of
Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 53(4), 1052.
Wikipedia – Reduplication (2013). Reduplication. Retrieved on the 5th of march 2013 from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduplication.
40
I
Material: videos and transcripts
The enclosed dvd contains the twelve videos of the experiments that have been used in the
current research. Furthermore, it also contains the corresponding transcripts.
41
II
Consent form
Beste ouders/verzorgers,
In het kader van mijn opleiding Communicatie- en Informatiewetenschappen aan de
Universiteit van Tilburg, ben ik momenteel bezig met het schrijven van mijn masterscriptie.
Voor deze masterscriptie doe ik onderzoek naar het gebruik van kindgerichte spraak in
conversaties tussen kinderen van verschillende leeftijdsgroepen. Het onderzoek richt zich op
de vraag of oudere kinderen in hun gesprekken met jongere kinderen gebruik maken van
kindgerichte spraak die lijkt op kindgerichte spraak van volwassenen.
Om dit te kunnen onderzoeken, wil ik een experiment uitvoeren met een aantal leerlingen
van basisschool Sint Jozef (enkele leerlingen van groep 2 en enkele leerlingen van groep 6
en 8). In het experiment zullen twee kinderen een gezamenlijke taak uitvoeren. Het oudere
kind zal hierbij iets uit moeten leggen aan het jongere kind. Van het experiment zullen ook
video-opnames gemaakt worden, zodat deze later geanalyseerd kunnen worden. De
gegevens zullen uiteraard anoniem en vertrouwelijk behandeld en na het onderzoek worden
vernietigd.
Indien u bezwaar heeft tegen deelname van uw kind aan het experiment, wil ik u vragen het
onderstaande strookje voor (datum) te retourneren aan school.
Met vriendelijke groet,
Karen Ramakers
Ik geef geen toestemming voor deelname van mijn kind aan het experiment.
Naam kind: ……………………………………………………………………………………………...
Datum: ………………………
Handtekening: ……………………………………………………………………………………….
42
III
Legend transcript symbols
The symbols that have been used, are derived from the research by Varwijk (2008). Varwijk
used the symbols as used by Jefferson (2004). These symbols clarify the interaction in the
experiments.
(>)
Silence of more than 2 seconds.
(>)
Silence of less than 2 seconds.
=
Unification of sentences.
[
Simultaneous speech.
//
Utterance is interrupted.
!
Animated speech or emphatic tone of voice.
?
Interrogative tone. The question mark does not necessarily point to syntactic
questions.
.
Decline of tone. A full stop does not necessarily point to the syntactic end of a
sentence.
,
Constant intonation.
( )
Non-comprehendible speech. Empty brackets point to non-comprehendible speech.
The words within the brackets give an indication of the presumed content of the
utterance.
(( ))
Clarification.
43
IV
Example of an annotated session
Transcript 2
Description:
Transcript of the instruction from F2 to P1M
Participants:
F2
Female 2
P2M
Preschooler 2 Male
PL
Practicum Leader
Utt.
1.
2.
Sp.
Addr.
Transcript
Notes
F2
Kijk! Dan moet je zo een knoopje maken.
W (8) V (1)
P2M
((neemt de veters over))
F2
Kijk, dan hou je het zo vast en dan doe je deze (<)
W (15) V (2)
hier! doorheen. Zo.
F2
Doe maar eens trekken.
P2M
((trekt de veters strakker aan))
4.
F2
Zo.
W (1) V (0)
5.
F2
En dan doe je – Kijk! Dan maak je zo, zo’n bolletje.
W (11) V (2)
6.
F2
Kijk! Dan heb je het bolletje en (<) dan pak je deze
W (13) V (3)
3.
W (4) V (2)
hier vast.
7.
F2
Pak maar hier vast en dan draai je hem er omheen.
W (12) V (2)
Zo.
((voeren taak samen uit))
8.
F2
En dan pak je deze! hier! vast. Pak maar hier! En
W (20) V (3)
dan duw! je die hier door dat gaatje heen.
9.
F2
Er doorheen. Duw maar. Duwen!
W (5) V (2)
10
F2
Goed zo. Trek maar eens aan deze.
W (7) V (1)
11.
F2
Aan allebei trekken.
W (3) V (1)
P2M
((trekt aan beide veters))
12.
F2
Goed zo! Nou.
W (3) V (0)
13.
F2
Dat is een strik.
W (4) V (1)
PL
Zullen we het nog een keer proberen? Haal ‘m maar
eruit.
14.
F2
Zo.
15.
F2
Eerst weer het kleine knoopje, eerst weer een
kruisje maken.
16.
F2
En deze dan weer hier zo doorheen.
17.
F2
(>) Ja!
18.
F2
Trekken. Nu trekken.
19.
F2
Ja! (<) Nu mag je weer zo’n bolletje maken hier.
20.
F2
Zo. Dan draai je deze er weer omheen (<) Zo!
44
21.
Ja! En dan doe je ‘m hier doorheen. Hier! Kijk! Hier
F2
weer er doorheen halen, zo. En dan deze –
22.
F2
Bijna! Kijk! Zo.
23.
F2
En dan weer aan deze trekken. (<) Aan allebei
trekken. Ja!
24.
F2
(>) Kijk! Kijk! ((haalt strik eruit))
25.
F2
Een knoopje. En dan heb je het bolletje.
26.
F2
Hier! Hou het bolletje maar zo! vast.
27.
F2
Ja! En dan er omheen.
28.
F2
Zo. Ja zo ja.
29.
F2
En dan – (<) Kijk en dan pak je ‘m hier vast. Hier.
30.
F2
En dan hier aan allebei trekken!
31.
F2
Goed zo! En dan heb je een strik.
PL
P2M
Laat ‘m eens zien P2M?
PL
P2M
Een strik! Goed zo!
45
V
Coding scheme
Variable
Item
Description
Item values
Identification variable
Participant number
Each participant has a number
1 up to n
Speaker
Abbreviation speaker
Addressee
Abbreviation addressee
Class
Class the speaker is in
Independent variable
th
6 = 4 grade
th
8 = 6 grade
Context variables
Sexe
Sexe of the speaker
related to the speaker
Context variables
2 = female
Siblings
Number of siblings of the speaker
0 up to n
Sexepup
Sexe of the addressee
1 = male
related to addressee
Dependent variables
Child-directed aspects
1 = male
2 = female
Number of utterances
Each utterance has a number
1 up to n
Number of words
Number of words per utterance
1 up to n
Number of verbs
Number of verbs per utterance
1 up to n
Repetition
Use of repetition in utterance
0 = no
1 = yes
Feedback
Use of feedback in utterance
0 = no
1 = positive
2 = negative
Question
Use of question in utterance
0 = no
1 = yes
Name
Imperative
Use of addressee’s name in
0 = no
utterance
1 = yes
Use of imperative in utterance
0 = no
1 = yes
46