Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T06:42:39.946Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Sampling children's spontaneous speech: how much is enough?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 February 2004

MICHAEL TOMASELLO
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
DANIEL STAHL
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology

Abstract

There has been relatively little discussion in the field of child language acquisition about how best to sample from children's spontaneous speech, particularly with regard to quantitative issues. Here we provide quantitative information designed to help researchers make decisions about how best to sample children's speech for particular research questions (and/or how confident to be in existing analyses). We report theoretical analyses in which the major parameters are: (1) the frequency with which a phenomenon occurs in the real world, and (2) the temporal density with which a researcher samples the child's speech. We look at the influence of these two parameters in using spontaneous speech samples to estimate such things as: (a) the percentage of the real phenomenon actually captured, (b) the probability of capturing at least one target in any given sample, (c) the confidence we can have in estimating the frequency of occurrence of a target from a given sample, and (d) the estimated age of emergence of a target structure. In addition, we also report two empirical analyses of relatively infrequent child language phenomena, in which we sample in different ways from a relatively dense corpus (two children aged 2;0 to 3;0) and compare the different results obtained. Implications of these results for various issues in the study of child language acquisition are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
2004 Cambridge University Press

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

For their helpful comments we would like to thank the following people: Elena Lieven, Julian Pine, Gina Conti-Ramsden, Anna Theakston, Heike Behrens, and Caroline Rowland.