1887
Volume 7 Number 2
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This paper addresses the conditions under which knowledge of situation-specific language use should be part of a construction grammatical representation and under which it should, rather, be part of a frame semantic representation. Using child-directed speech as an example, which has been suggested to constitute a good candidate for a register, it is shown that a conventional association between grammatical form and situation is implausible. Instead, the relationship between grammar and situation is mediated by speakers’ understandings of the functional affordances of the respective situation, to which the communication partner may contribute considerably. In the case of the so-called baby talk register, situational knowledge is thus stored best in semantic frames as a set of functions that can be demonstrated to be commonly attended to, whereas construction grammar remains an inventory of general form-function pairs.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cf.7.2.04fis
2015-12-30
2019-11-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alley, Th. R
    (1983) Infantile head shape as an elicitor of adult protection. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29(4), 411–427.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Antonopoulou, E. , & Nikiforidou, K
    (2011) Construction grammar and conventional discourse: a construction-based approach to discoursal incongruity. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2594–2609. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.01.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.01.013 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bard, E.C. , & Anderson, A.H
    (1983) The unintelligibility of talk to children. Journal of Child Language, 10(1), 265–292. doi: 10.1017/S0305000900007777
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900007777 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bateman, J.A. , Delin, J. , & Henschel, E
    (2007) Mapping the multimodal genres of traditional and electronic newspapers. In T.D. Royce & W. Bowcher (Eds.), New directions in the analysis of multimodal discourse (pp.147–172). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Behrens, H
    (2006) The input-output relationship in first language acquisition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21(1-3), 2–24. doi: 10.1080/01690960400001721
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960400001721 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bernstein-Ratner, N
    (1987) The phonology of parent–child speech. In K. Nelson & A. van Kleeck (Eds.), Children’s Language, Vol. 6 (pp. 159–174). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Biber, D
    (1994) An analytical framework for register studies. In D. Biber & E. Finegan (Eds.), Sociolinguistic perspectives on register (pp. 31–56). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Biersack, S. , Kempe, V. , & Knapton, L
    (2005) Fine-tuning speech registers: a comparison of the prosodic features of child-directed and foreigner-directed speech. InInterspeech-2005 (pp. 2401–2404).
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Brent, M.R. , & Siskind, J.M
    (2001) The role of exposure to isolated words in early vocabulary development. Cognition, 81, B33–B44. doi: 10.1016/S0010‑0277(01)00122‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(01)00122-6 [Google Scholar]
  10. Brown, R
    (1977) The place of baby talk in the world of language. In C. Snow & C. Ferguson (Eds.), Talking to children: Language input and acquisition (pp.1–27). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bybee, J
    (2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  12. Cartwright, T.A. , & Brent, M.R
    (1997) Syntactic categorization in early language acquisition: Formalizing the role of distributional analysis. Cognition, 63, 121–170. doi: 10.1016/S0010‑0277(96)00793‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(96)00793-7 [Google Scholar]
  13. Clark, E.V
    (1998) Lexical structure and pragmatic directions in acquisition. In M.C. Gruber , D. Higgins , K.S. Olson , & T. Wysocki (Eds.), Chicago linguistic society: Papers from the panels, Vol. 34 (pp.437–446). Publisher.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Clark, E.V. , & Estigarribia, B
    (2011) Using speech and gesture to inform young children about unfamiliar word meanings. Gesture, 11(1), 1–23. doi: 10.1075/gest.11.1.01cla
    https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.11.1.01cla [Google Scholar]
  15. Conti-Ramsden, G. , & Friel-Patti, S
    (1987) Situational variability in mother-child conversations. In K. Nelson & A. van Kleek (Eds.), Children’s language, Vol. 6 (pp.43–63). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Croft, W
    (2001) Radical construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  17. Cross, T. , Johnson-Morris, J.E. , & Nienhuys, T.G
    (1980) Linguistic feedback and maternal speech: Comparisons of mothers addressing hearing and hearing-impaired children. First Language, 1, 163–189. doi: 10.1177/014272378000100301
    https://doi.org/10.1177/014272378000100301 [Google Scholar]
  18. Cross, T.G. , Nienhuys, T.G. , & Kirkman, M
    (1985) Parent–child interaction with receptively disabled children: Some determinants of maternal speech style. In K. Nelson (Ed.), Children’s language, Vol. 5 (pp. 247–290). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Cruse, D.A
    (2000) Meaning in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. DePaulo, B.M. , & Coleman, L
    (1986) Talking to children, foreigners, and retarded adults. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 945–959. doi: 10.1037/0022‑3514.51.5.945
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.5.945 [Google Scholar]
  21. Ferguson, C.A
    (1977) Baby talk as a simplified register. In C.E. Snow & C.A. Ferguson (Eds.), Talking to children. Language input and acquisition (pp.209–235). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. (2004) Talking to children: A search for universals. In B.C. Lust & C. Foley (Eds.), First language acquisition – The essential readings (pp.176–189). Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Fernald, A
    (1985) Four-month-old infants prefer to listen to motherese. Infant Behavior and Development, 8(2), 181–195. doi: 10.1016/S0163‑6383(85)80005‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-6383(85)80005-9 [Google Scholar]
  24. (1992) Human maternal vocalizations to infants as biologically relevant signals: an evolutionary perspective. In J.H. Barkow , L. Cosmidess , & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 391–428). New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Fernald, A. , & Hurtado, N
    (2006) Names in frames: Infants interpret words in sentence frames faster than words in isolation. Developmental Science, 9(3), F33–F40. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑7687.2006.00482.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2006.00482.x [Google Scholar]
  26. Fernald, A. , Marchman, E. , & Weisleder, A
    (2012) SES differences in language processing skill and vocabulary are evident at 18 months. Developmental Science, 1–13.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Fernald, A. , & Mazzie, C
    (1991) Prosody and focus in speech to infants and adults. Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27, 209–221. doi: 10.1037/0012‑1649.27.2.209
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.27.2.209 [Google Scholar]
  28. Fernald, A. , & Weisleder, A
    (2011) Early language experience is vital to developing fluency in understanding. In S. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research, Vol. 3 (pp.3–19). New York: Guiltford Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Filipi, A
    (2009) Toddler and parent interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.192
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.192 [Google Scholar]
  30. Fillmore, C.J
    (1976) Frame semantics and the nature of language. In Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Conference on the Origin and Development of Language and Speech , 280, 20–32.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. (1982) Frame semantics. InLinguistics in the Morning Calm (pp.111–137). Seoul, Hanshin Publishing Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. (1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6, 222–254.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Fillmore, C.J. , & Atkins, B.T
    (1992) Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of risk and its neighbors. In A. Lehrer & E.F. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields and contrasts (pp. 75–102). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Fillmore, C.J. , Kay, P. , & O’Connor, M
    (1988) The case of let alone. Language, 64(3), 501–538. doi: 10.2307/414531
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
  35. Fischer, K
    (2000) From cognitive semantics to lexical pragmatics: The functional polysemy of discourse particles. Berlin, NewYork: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110828641
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110828641 [Google Scholar]
  36. (2006) What computer talk is and isn’t: human-computer conversation as intercultural communication. Saarbrücken: AQ.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. (2010) Beyond the sentence: Constructions, frames and spoken interaction. Constructions and Frames, 2(2), 185–207. doi: 10.1075/cf.2.2.03fis
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.2.2.03fis [Google Scholar]
  38. (2011) Interpersonal variation in understanding robots as social actors. In Proceedings of HRI’11 ( pp. 53–60). March 6-9th, 2011. Lausanne, Switzerland.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. (2012) Human tutors intuitively reduce complexity in socially guided embodied grammar learning. Ro-Man 2012, Paris.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. (2015) Conversation, construction grammar, and cognition. Language and Cognition, 7, 563–588. doi: 10.1017/langcog.2015.23
    https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2015.23 [Google Scholar]
  41. . (forthcoming). Designing speech for a recipient: The roles of partner modeling, alignment and feedback in so-called ‘simplified registers’. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Fischer, K. , Foth, K. , Rohlfing, K. , & Wrede, B
    (2011) Mindful tutors – linguistic choice and action demonstration in speech to infants and to a simulated robot. Interaction Studies, 12(1), 134–161. doi: 10.1075/is.12.1.06fis
    https://doi.org/10.1075/is.12.1.06fis [Google Scholar]
  43. Fischer, K. , Lohan, K. , & Foth, K
    (2012) Levels of embodiment. Linguistic analyses of factors influencing HRI. In Proceedings of HRI’12 , Boston.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Fischer, K. , Lohan, K.S. , Rohlfing, K. , & Foth, K
    (2014) Partner orientation in asymmetric communication: Evidence from contingent robot response. HRI ’14 Workshop on Humans and Robots in Asymmetric Interactions , March 3rd, 2014, Bielefeld, Germany.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. French, L. , & Pak, M.K
    (1995) Young children’s play dialogues with mothers and peers. In K.E. Nelson & Z. Réger (Eds.), Children’s language, Vol. 8 (pp.65–101). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Gibson, J.J
    (1977) The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing (pp. 67–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Gleitman, L.R. , Newport, E.L. , & Gleitman, H
    (1984) The current status of the motherese hypothesis. Journal of Child Language, 11, 43–79. doi: 10.1017/S0305000900005584
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900005584 [Google Scholar]
  48. Goldberg, A.E
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. (2006) Constructions at work. Oxford/NewYork: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Groom, V. , Takayama, L. , Ochi, P. , & Nass, C
    (2009) I am my robot: The impact of robot-building and robot form on operators. In Proceedings of the Human-Robot Interaction Conference: HRI 2009 (pp.31–36). San Diego, CA.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Haggan, M
    (2002) Self-reports and self-delusion regarding the use of motherese: Implications from Kuwaiti adults. Language Sciences, 24, 17–28. doi: 10.1016/S0388‑0001(00)00044‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(00)00044-9 [Google Scholar]
  52. Halliday, M. , & Matthiessen, C
    (2004) Introduction to functional grammar, 3rd edition. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Kaplan, P.S. , Bachorowski, J.-A. , & Zarlengo-Strouse, P
    (1999) Child-directed speech produced by mothers with symptoms of depression fails to promote associative learning in four-month old infants. Child Development, 70, 560–570. doi: 10.1111/1467‑8624.00041
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00041 [Google Scholar]
  54. Kay, P
    (1995) Construction grammar. In J. Verschueren , J-O. Östman , J. Blommaert , & C. Bulcaen (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 171–177 ). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hop.m.con2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hop.m.con2 [Google Scholar]
  55. Kay, P. , & Michaelis, L.A
    (2012) Constructional meaning and compositionality. In C. Maienborn , K. von Heusinger , & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: an international handbook of natural language meaning (pp.2271–2296). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Kaye, K
    (1980) Why we don’t talk baby talk to babies. Journal of Child Language, 7, 489–507. doi: 10.1017/S0305000900002804
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900002804 [Google Scholar]
  57. Kempe, V. , Brooks, P.J. , & Pirott, L
    (2001) How can child-directed speech facilitate the acquisition of morphology?InProceedings of the VIIIth International Congress for the study of child language (pp. 1237–1247).
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Kitamura, C. , Thanavishuth, C., Burnham, D. , & Luksaneeyanawin, S
    (2002) Universality and specificity in infant-directed speech: Pitch modifications as a function of infant age and sex in a tonal and a non-tonal language. Infant Behavior and Development, 24, 372–392. doi: 10.1016/S0163‑6383(02)00086‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-6383(02)00086-3 [Google Scholar]
  59. Kraljic, T. , Samuel, A.G. , & Brennan, S.E
    (2008) First impressions and last resorts: How listeners adjust to speaker variability. Psychological Science, 19(4), 332–338. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9280.2008.02090.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02090.x [Google Scholar]
  60. Krause, J. , & Hitzenberger, L
    (Eds.) (1992) Computer talk. Hildesheim: Olms Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Küntay, A. , & Slobin, D.I
    (1996) Listening to a Turkish mother: Some puzzles for acquisition. In D.I. Slobin , J. Gerhardt , A. Kyratzis , & J. Gua (Eds.), Social interaction, social context, and language. Essays in honor of Susan Ervin-Tripp (pp. 265–286). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Küntay, A. , & Slobin, D.A
    (2001) Discourse behavior of lexical categories in Turkish child-directed speech: nouns vs. verbs. In M. Almgren , A. Barrena , M. Ezeizabarrena , I. Idiazabal , & B. MacWhinney (Eds.), Research on child language acquisition: Proceedings for the 8th Conference of the International Association for the Study of Child Language (pp.928–946). Cascadilla Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Laakso, A. , & Smith, L
    (2004) Pronouns predict verb meanings in child-directed speech. In K. Forbus , D. Gentner , & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 767–772). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Lakoff, G
    (1987) Women, fire and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  65. Langacker, R
    (1988) A usage-based model. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics (pp. 127–161). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.50.06lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.50.06lan [Google Scholar]
  66. (2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  67. Lee, D.Y
    (2001) Genres, registers, text types, domains, and styles: Clarifying the concepts and navigating a path through the BNC jungle. Language Learning and Technology, 5(3), 37–72.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Lieven, E.V
    (1978) Conversations between mothers and young children: Individual differences and their possible implication for the study of language learning. In N. Waterson & C.E. Snow (Eds.), The development of communication (pp. 173–187). Chichester, New York, Brisbane, Toronto: John Wiley and Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Liu, H.-M. , Feng-Ming, T. , & Kuhl, P.K
    (2009) Age-related changes in acoustic modifications of Mandarin maternal speech to preverbal infants and five-year-old children: A longitudinal study. Journal of Child Language, 36, 909–922. doi: 10.1017/S030500090800929X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S030500090800929X [Google Scholar]
  70. Lohan, K.S
    (2011) A model of contingency detection to spot tutoring behavior and to respond to ostensive cues in human-robot interaction. PhD Thesis, Bielefeld University.
  71. Mannle, S. , & Tomasello, M
    (1987) Fathers, siblings, and the bridge hypothesis. In K. Nelson & A. van Kleek (Eds.), Children’s Language, Vol. 6 (pp. 23–41). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Martin, J.R
    (1992) English text. London: Arnold. doi: 10.1075/z.59
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.59 [Google Scholar]
  73. Matsumoto, Y
    (2010) Interactional frames and grammatical description. Constructions and Frames, 2(2), 135–157. doi: 10.1075/cf.2.2.01mat
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.2.2.01mat [Google Scholar]
  74. Metta, G. , Natale, L. , Nori, F. , Sandini, G. , Vernon, D. , Fadiga, L. , Von Hofsten, C. , Rosander, K. , Lopes, M. Santos-Victor, J . et al.
    (2010) The iCub humanoid robot: An open-systems platform for research in cognitive development. Neural Networks, 23(8), 1125–1134. doi: 10.1016/j.neunet.2010.08.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2010.08.010 [Google Scholar]
  75. Mitchell, R.W
    (2001) Americans’ talk to dogs: Similarities and differences with talk to infants. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 34(2), 183–210. doi: 10.1207/S15327973RLSI34‑2_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI34-2_2 [Google Scholar]
  76. Nass, C. , & Moon, Y
    (2000) Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81–103. doi: 10.1111/0022‑4537.00153
    https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00153 [Google Scholar]
  77. Nelson, K
    (1973) Structure and strategy in learning to talk [Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 38]. Oxford: Wiley/Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Newman-Norlund, S.E. , Noordzij, M.L. , Newman-Norlund, R.D. , Volman, I.A. , de Ruiter, J.P. , Hagoort, P. , & Toni, I
    (2009) Recipient design in tacit communication. Cognition, 111, 46–54. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.12.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.12.004 [Google Scholar]
  79. Newport, E.L. , Gleitman, H. , & Gleitman, L.R
    (1977) Mother, I’d rather do it myself: Some effects and non-effects of maternal speech style. In C.E. Snow & C.A. Ferguson (Eds.), Talking to children. Language input and acquisition (pp.109–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Nikiforidou, K
    . (2016). ‘Genre knowledge’ in a constructional framework: Lexis, grammar and perspective in the folk tales. In W. Spooren & N. Stukker (eds.) Genre in discourse and cognition. Concepts, models and methods. Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Ninio, A
    (2011) Syntactic development: Its input and output. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199565962.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199565962.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  82. Nomikou, I. , Lohan, K.S. , & Rohlfing, K
    (2012) Adaptive maternal synchrony: Multimodal practices are tailored to infants’ attention. CEU Conference on Cognitive Development , Budapest, Hungary.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Östman, J.–O
    (2005) Construction discourse: A prolegomenon. In J–O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 121–144). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.3.06ost
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.3.06ost [Google Scholar]
  84. Papousek, M. , Papousek, H. , & Haekel, M
    (1987) Didactic adjustments in fathers’ and mothers’ speech to their three-month-old infants. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 16, 306–319. doi: 10.1007/BF01073274
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01073274 [Google Scholar]
  85. Pine, J.M
    (1994) The language of primary caregivers. In C. Gallaway & B.J. Richards (Eds.), Input and interaction in language acquisition (pp. 15–37). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620690.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620690.003 [Google Scholar]
  86. Quam, C. , Yuan, J. , & Swingley, D
    (2008) Relating intonational pragmatics to the pitch realizations of highly frequent words in English speech to infants. InProceedings of the CogSci’08 Conference.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Redford, M.A. , Davis, B.L. , & Miikkulainen, R
    (2004) Phonetic variability and prosodic structure in mothers. Infant Behavior and Development, 27, 477–498. doi: 10.1016/j.infbeh.2004.05.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2004.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  88. Reeves, B. , & Nass, C
    (1996) The media equation. Stanford: CSLI and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Rowe, M.L
    (2008) Child-directed speech: Relation to socioeconomic status, knowledge of child development and child vocabulary skill. Journal of Child Language, 35, 185–205. doi: 10.1017/S0305000907008343
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000907008343 [Google Scholar]
  90. Roy, B.C. , Frank, M.C. , & Roy, D
    (2009) Exploring word learning in a high-density longitudinal corpus. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society .
    [Google Scholar]
  91. (2012) Relating activity contexts to early word learning in dense longitudinal data. InProceedings of the 34th Annual Cognitive Science Conference . Sapporo, Japan.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Scheper-Hughes, N
    (1985) Culture, scarcity, and maternal thinking: Maternal detachment and infant survival in a Brazilian shantytown. Ethos, 13(4), 291–317. doi: 10.1525/eth.1985.13.4.02a00010
    https://doi.org/10.1525/eth.1985.13.4.02a00010 [Google Scholar]
  93. Slobin, D.I
    (1975) On the nature of talk to children. InFoundations of language development: A multi-disciplinary approach, Vol. I (pp. 283–297). New York, San Francisco, London: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Snow, C.E
    (1972) Mothers’ speech to children learning language. Child Development, 43, 549–565. doi: 10.2307/1127555
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1127555 [Google Scholar]
  95. (1977) Mothers’ speech research: From input to interaction. In C.E. Snow & C.A. Ferguson (Eds.), Talking to children. Language input and acquisition (pp.31–49). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  96. (1994) Beginning from baby talk: Twenty years of research on input and interaction. In C. Gallaway & B.J. Richards (Eds.), Input and interaction in language acquisition (pp. 3–12). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620690.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620690.002 [Google Scholar]
  97. (1995) Issues in the study of input: Finetuning, universality, individual and developmental differences, and necessary causes. In P. Fletcher & B. MacWhinney (Eds.), The handbook of child language (pp. 180–193). Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Snow, C.E. , & Goldfield, B.A
    (1983) Turn the page please: Situation-specific language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 10, 551–569. doi: 10.1017/S0305000900005365
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900005365 [Google Scholar]
  99. Soderstrom, M
    (2007) Beyond baby talk: Re-evaluating the nature and content of speech input to preverbal infants. Developmental Review, 27, 501–532. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2007.06.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2007.06.002 [Google Scholar]
  100. Soderstrom,M., Seidl, A. , Kemler Nelson, D.G. , & Jusczyk, P.W
    (2003) The prosodic bootstrapping of phrases: evidence from prelinguistic infants. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(2), 249–267. doi: 10.1016/S0749‑596X(03)00024‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00024-X [Google Scholar]
  101. Stern, D.N
    (1977) The first relationship: Infant and mother. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Sylvester-Bradley, B. , & Trevathen, C
    (1978) Baby talk as an adaptation to the infant’s communication. In N. Waterson & C.E. Snow (Eds.), The development of communication (pp. 75–92). Chichester, New York, Brisbane, Toronto: John Wiley and Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Trainor, L.J. , & Desjardins, R.N
    (2002) Pitch characteristics of infant-directed speech affect infants’ ability to discriminate vowels. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(2), 335–340. doi: 10.3758/BF03196290
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196290 [Google Scholar]
  104. Uther, M. , Knoll, M. , & Burnham, D
    (2007) Do you speak e-ng-l-i-sh ? A comparison of foreigner- and infant-directed speech. Speech Communication, 49, 2–7. doi: 10.1016/j.specom.2006.10.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2006.10.003 [Google Scholar]
  105. Veneziano, E
    (2001) Displacement and informativeness in child-directed talk. First Language, 21, 323–356. doi: 10.1177/014272370102106306
    https://doi.org/10.1177/014272370102106306 [Google Scholar]
  106. Vogt, P. , & Mastin, J.D
    (2013) Rural and urban differences in language socialization and early vocabulary development in Mozambique. In M. Knauff , M. Pauen , N. Sebanz , & I. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 3687–3692). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Walker, K. , & Armstrong, L
    (1995) Do mothers and fathers interact differently with their child or is it the situation which matters?Child: Care, Health and Development, 21(3), 161–181. doi: 10.1111/j.1365‑2214.1995.tb00747.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2214.1995.tb00747.x [Google Scholar]
  108. Yont, K.M. , Snow, C.E. , & Vernon-Feagans, L
    (2003) The role of context in mother-child interactions: an analysis of communicative intents expressed during toy play and book reading with 12-month-olds. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 435–454. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00144‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00144-3 [Google Scholar]
  109. Zoeppritz, M
    (1985) Computer talk?Technical Report TN 85.05, IBM Heidelberg Scientific Center.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/cf.7.2.04fis
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): child-directed speech , construction grammar , frame semantics , motherese , register and usage-based model
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error