Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-5rzhg Total loading time: 0.354 Render date: 2021-12-07T10:35:40.582Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Change in maternal speech rate to preverbal infants over the first two years of life

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2020

Daniele RANERI
Affiliation:
Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, the University of Maryland
Katie VON HOLZEN
Affiliation:
Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, the University of Maryland
Rochelle NEWMAN
Affiliation:
Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, the University of Maryland
Nan BERNSTEIN RATNER*
Affiliation:
Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, the University of Maryland
*
*Corresponding author: Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, The University of Maryland, College Park, College Park, MD20742, USA. E-mail: nratner@umd.edu

Abstract

Aims: Although IDS is typically described as slower than adult-directed speech (ADS), potential impacts of slower speech on language development have not been examined. We explored whether IDS speech rates in 42 mother–infant dyads at four time periods predicted children's language outcomes at two years. Method: We correlated IDS speech rate with child language outcomes at two years, and contrasted outcomes in dyads displaying high/low rate profiles. Outcomes: Slower IDS rate at 7 months significantly correlated with vocabulary knowledge at two years. Slowed IDS may benefit child language learning even before children first speak.

Type
Brief Research Reports
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2020

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.)

References

Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergelson, E., & Swingley, D. (2012). At 6–9 months, human infants know the meanings of many common nouns. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(9), 3253–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2015). Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 5.4.08. Retrieved from <http://www.praat.org>..>Google Scholar
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, D. M. (2007). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test: Fourth Edition. Minneapolis, MN: Pearson Assessments.Google Scholar
Eaves, B. S. Jr, Feldman, N. H., Griffiths, T. L., & Shafto, P. (2016). Infant-directed speech is consistent with teaching. Psychological Review, 123(6), 758–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feldman, H. M., Dale, P. S., Campbell, T. F., Colborn, D. K., Kurs-Lasky, M., Rockette, H. E., & Paradise, J. L. (2005). Concurrent and predictive validity of parent reports of child language at ages 2 and 3 years. Child Development, 76(4), 856–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fenson, L., Dale, P. S., Reznick, S. J., Thal, D., Bates, E., Pethick, S., & Reilly, J. S. (1993). The MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brokes Publishing.Google Scholar
Fernald, A., Perfors, A., & Marchman, V. A. (2006). Picking up speed in understanding: speech processing efficiency and vocabulary growth across the 2nd year. Developmental Psychology, 42(1), 98116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fernald, A., & Simon, T. (1984). Expanded intonation contours in mothers’ speech to newborns. Developmental Psychology, 20(1), 104–13.10.1037/0012-1649.20.1.104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gergely, A., Faragó, T., Galambos, Á., & Topál, J. (2017). Differential effects of speech situations on mothers’ and fathers’ infant-directed and dog-directed speech: an acoustic analysis. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 13739.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Golinkoff, R. M., & Alioto, A. (1995). Infant-directed speech facilitates lexical learning in adults hearing Chinese: implications for language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 22, 703–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Golinkoff, R. M., Can, D. D., Soderstrom, M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2015). (Baby) talk to me: the social context of infant-directed speech and its effects on early language acquisition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(5), 339–44.10.1177/0963721415595345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, J. R., Nip, I. S. B., Wilson, E. M., Mefferd, A. S., & Yunusova, Y. (2010). Lip movement exaggerations during infant-directed speech. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 53, 1529–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Han, M., de Jong, N. H., & Kager, R. (2018). Infant-directed speech is not always slower: cross-linguistic evidence from Dutch and Mandarin Chinese. In Proceedings of the 42nd annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 331–44). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Holm, S. (1979). A sharper Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6, 6570.Google Scholar
Jusczyk, P., & Aslin, R. (1995). Infants' detection of the sound patterns of words in fluent speech. Cognitive Psychology, 29(1), 123.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kemler Nelson, D. G., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Jusczyk, P. W., & Cassidy, K. W. (1989). How the prosodic cues in motherese might assist language learning. Journal of Child Language, 16(1), 5568.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ko, E. S. (2012). Nonlinear development of speaking rate in child-directed speech. Lingua, 122(8), 841–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lam, C., & Kitamura, C. (2010). Maternal interactions with a hearing and hearing-impaired twin: similarities and differences in speech input, interaction quality, and word production. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53, 543–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leong, V., Kalashnikova, M., Burnham, D., & Goswami, U. (2017). The temporal modulation structure of infant-directed speech. Open Mind, 1(2), 7890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ma, W., Golinkoff, R. M., Houston, D. M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2011). Word-learning in infant- and adult-directed speech. Language Learning and Development, 7, 209–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Martin, A., Igarashi, Y., Jincho, N., & Mazuka, R. (2016). Utterances in infant-directed speech are shorter, not slower. Cognition, 156, 52–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, N. A., & Brownell, R. (2010 ). Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test: Fourth Edition. Novato, CA: ATP Assessments.Google Scholar
Nakatani, L. H., O'Connor, K. D., & Aston, C. H. (1981) Prosodic aspects of American English speech rhythm. Phonetica, 38, 84106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narayan, C. R., & McDermott, L. C. (2016). Speech rate and pitch characteristics of infant-directed speech: longitudinal and cross-linguistic observations. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 139(3), 1272–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newman, R. S., Rowe, M. L., & Bernstein Ratner, N. (2016). Input and uptake at 7 months predicts toddler vocabulary: the role of child-directed speech and infant processing skills in language development. Journal of Child Language, 43(5), 1158–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oller, D. (1973). The effect of position in utterance on speech segment duration in English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 54(5), 1235–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quene, H. (2008). Multilevel modeling of between-speaker and within-speaker variation in spontaneous speech tempo. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 123, 1104–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
R Core Team (2018). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Online <https://www.R-project.org/>..>Google Scholar
Revelle, W. (2018) psych: Procedures for Personality and Psychological Research, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA, Version = 1.8.10. Online <https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych>..>Google Scholar
Ring, E., & Fenson, L. (2000). The correspondence between parental report and child performance for receptive and expressive vocabulary beyond infancy. First Language, 20(59), 141–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sjons, J., Hörberg, T., Östling, R., & Bjerva, J. (2017). Articulation rate in Swedish child-directed speech increases as a function of the age of the child even when surprisal is controlled for. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.03216. Retrieved from <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.03216.pdf>..>Google Scholar
Soderstrom, M. (2007). Beyond babytalk: re-evaluating the nature and content of speech input to preverbal infants. Developmental Review 27, 501–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Song, J. Y., Demuth, K., & Morgan, J. (2010). Effects of the acoustic properties of infant-directed speech on infant word recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 128(1), 389400.10.1121/1.3419786CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spinelli, M., Fasolo, M., & Mesman, J. (2017). Does prosody make the difference? A meta-analysis on relations between prosodic aspects of infant-directed speech and infant outcomes. Developmental Review, 44, 118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Heuven, V. J., & van Zanten, E. (2005). Speech rate as a secondary prosodic characteristic of polarity questions in three languages. Speech Communication, 47(1/2), 8799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Y., Llanos, F., & Seidl, A. (2017). Infants adapt to speaking rate differences in word segmentation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 141(4), 2569–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, Y., Seidl, A., & Cristia, A. (2016). Acoustic characteristics of Infant-directed Speech as a function of prosodic typology. In Heinz, J., Goedmans, R., & van der Hulst, H. (Eds.), Dimensions of phonological stress (pp. 311–26). Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316212745.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuan, J., Liberman, M., & Cieri, C. (2006). Towards an integrated understanding of speaking rate in conversation. Proceedings of Interspeech, 541–4. Retrieved from SemanticScholar.org.Google Scholar
2
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Change in maternal speech rate to preverbal infants over the first two years of life
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Change in maternal speech rate to preverbal infants over the first two years of life
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Change in maternal speech rate to preverbal infants over the first two years of life
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *