CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 103Language Development and DisordersChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentPhonetics and Phonology Research

Look Who’s Talking NOW! Parentese Speech, Social Context, and Language Development Across Time

Open access
Ramírez-Esparza, Nairán, García-Sierra, Adrián, Kuhl, Patricia K.·2017·Frontiers in Psychology
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01008PMC PMC5477750
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In previous studies, we found that the social interactions infants experience in their everyday lives at 11- and 14-months of age affect language ability at 24 months of age. These studies investigated relationships between the speech style (i.e., parentese speech vs. standard speech) and social context [i.e., one-on-one (1:1) vs. group] of language input in infancy and later speech development (i.e., at 24 months of age), controlling for socioeconomic status (SES). Results showed that the amount of exposure to parentese speech-1:1 in infancy was related to productive vocabulary at 24 months. The general goal of the present study was to investigate changes in (1) the pattern of social interactions between caregivers and their children from infancy to childhood and (2) relationships among speech style, social context, and language learning across time. Our study sample consisted of 30 participants from the previously published infant studies, evaluated at 33 months of age. Social interactions were assessed at home using digital first-person perspective recordings of the auditory environment. We found that caregivers use less parentese speech-1:1, and more standard speech-1:1, as their children get older. Furthermore, we found that the effects of parentese speech-1:1 in infancy on later language development at 24 months persist at 33 months of age. Finally, we found that exposure to standard speech-1:1 in childhood was the only social interaction that related to concurrent word production/use. Mediation analyses showed that standard speech-1:1 in childhood fully mediated the effects of parentese speech-1:1 in infancy on language development in childhood, controlling for SES. This study demonstrates that engaging in one-on-one interactions in infancy and later in life has important implications for language development.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01008

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Infants who are not exposed to highly intonated IDS engage less in sustained social interactions.

    “The importance of IDS has been demonstrated empirically in studies showing that infants who are not exposed to highly intonated IDS engage less in sustained social interactions; and that infants who experience less IDS input show poorer language development by the second year of life [8–10].”

    From Effect of maternal depression on infant-directed speech to prelinguistic infants: Implications for language development (2020) · cites this paper as [8]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) says parentese speech in a one-on-one setting promotes contingent, bidirectional interaction. The Discussion (page unavailable) likewise suggests that parentese in this setting facilitates such interaction, but the paper does not show that infants with less exposure engage in fewer or less sustained social interactions. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Infants who experience less IDS input show poorer language development by the second year of life.

    “The importance of IDS has been demonstrated empirically in studies showing that infants who are not exposed to highly intonated IDS engage less in sustained social interactions; and that infants who experience less IDS input show poorer language development by the second year of life [8–10].”

    From Effect of maternal depression on infant-directed speech to prelinguistic infants: Implications for language development (2020) · cites this paper as [8]

    The Introduction reports that greater exposure to parentese speech in one-on-one interactions during infancy was associated with greater productive vocabulary at 24 months. The Discussion says this paper’s own follow-up found a similar association at 33 months. The claim omits the one-on-one condition and generalizes the finding to IDS input overall; the paper does not establish that less IDS in any social context predicts poorer language development. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Modulated IDS pitch and the timing of vocal responses have recently been shown to enhance early language abilities in intervention studies with non-PND mothers.

    “Notably, these differences were observed in components that have recently been shown to enhance early language abilities in intervention studies with non-PND mothers [8,10], such as modulated IDS pitch and the timing of vocal responses.”

    From Effect of maternal depression on infant-directed speech to prelinguistic infants: Implications for language development (2020) · cites this paper as [8]

    The Introduction (page not provided) reports experiments in which contingent caregiver responses changed infants’ vocalizations, and it describes infant feedback modulating mothers’ parentese pitch. It does not report that modulating pitch enhanced early language abilities in an intervention, nor does it identify the mothers in those experiments as non-PND. The paper’s own finding linking parentese with later vocabulary is observational. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Exposure to speech and the level of involvement that infants have with early conversations is associated with early language development.

    “This finding is important because exposure to speech, and the level of involvement that infants have with early conversations is associated with early language development [8,10,15,16,18].”

    From Effect of maternal depression on infant-directed speech to prelinguistic infants: Implications for language development (2020) · cites this paper as [8]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 44

  1. Baron R. M. Kenny D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 51 1173– 1182. 10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 3806354 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Benigno J. P. Clark L. Farrar M. J. (2007). Three is not always a crowd: contexts of joint attention and language. J. Child Lang. 34 175– 187. 10.1017/S0305000906007732 17340943 · DOI
  3. Braarud H. C. Stormark K. M. (2008). Prosodic modification and vocal adjustments in mothers’ speech during face-to-face interaction with their two- to four-month-old infants: a double video study. Soc. Dev. 17 1074– 1084. 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00455.x · DOI
  4. Burnham D. Kitamura C. Vollmer-Conna U. (2002). What’s new pussycat? On talking to babies and animals. Science 296 1435 10.1126/science.1069587 12029126 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Burnham E. B. Wieland E. A. Kondaurova M. V. McAulery J. D. Bergeson T. R. Dilley L. C. (2015). Phonetic modification of vowel space in storybook speech in ifnats up to 2 years of age. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 58 241– 253. 10.1044/2015_JSLHR-S-13-0205 25659121 PMC4675117 · DOI
  6. Conboy B. T. Brooks R. Meltzoff A. N. Kuhl P. K. (2015). Social interaction in infants’ learning of second-language phonetics: an exploration of brain-behavior relations. Dev. Neuropsychol. 404 216– 229. 10.1080/87565641.2015.1014487 PMC4824050 26179488 · DOI
  7. Conboy B. T. Kuhl P. K. (2011). Impact of second-language experience in infancy: brain measures of first- and second-language speech perception. Dev. Sci. 14 242– 248. 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.00973.x 21499512 PMC3075538 · DOI
  8. Cristia A. (2011). Fine-grained variation in caregivers’ /s/ predicts their infants’ /s/ category. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 129 3271– 3280. 10.1121/1.3562562 21568428 PMC3188616 · DOI
  9. Cristia A. (2013). Input to language: the phonetics and perception of infant-directed speech. Lang. Linguist. Compass 7 157– 170. 10.1111/lnc3.12015 · DOI
  10. Fernald A. (1985). Four-month-old infants prefer to listen to motherese. Infant Behav. Dev. 8 181– 195. 10.1016/S0163-6383(85)80005-9 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Fischer K. Foth K. Rohlfing K. Wrede (2011). “Is talking to a simulated robot like talking to a child?,” in Proceedings of the ICDL-Epiro 2011 Frankfurt 24– 27. 10.1109/devlrn.2011.6037320 · DOI
  12. Funder D. C. Levine J. M. Mackie D. M. Mork C. C. Sansone C. Vazire S. (2014). Improving the dependability of research in personality and social psychology: recommendations for research and educational practice. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 18 3– 12. 10.1177/1088868313507536 24214149 · DOI
  13. Goldstein M. H. King A. P. West M. J. (2003). Social interaction shapes babbling: testing parallels between birdsong and speech. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 100 8030– 8035. 10.1073/pnas.1332441100 12808137 PMC164707 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Grieser D. L. Kuhl P. K. (1988). Maternal speech to infants in a tonal language: support for universal prosodic features in motherese. Dev. Psychol. 24 14– 20. 10.1037/0012-1649.24.1.14 · DOI
  15. Hayes A. F. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  16. Hirsh-Pasek K. Kemler Nelson D. G. Jusczyk P. W. Cassidy K. W. Druss B. Kennedy L. (1987). Clauses are perceptual units for young infants. Cognition 26 269– 286. 10.1016/S0010-0277(87)80002-1 3677573 · DOI
  17. Hollingshead A. B. (2011). Four factor index of social status. Yale J. Sociol. 8 21– 52. 10.1007/s11832-010-0320-4 · DOI
  18. Huttenlocher J. Haight W. Bryk A. Seltzer M. Lyons T. (1991). Early vocabulary growth: relation to language input and gender. Dev. Psychol. 27 236– 248. 10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0216) · DOI
  19. Huttenlocher J. Waterfall H. Vasilyeva M. Vevea J. Hedges L. V. (2010). Sources of variability in children’s language growth. Cogn. Psychol. 61 343– 365. 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.08.002 20832781 PMC2981670 · DOI
  20. Karzon R. G. (1985). Discrimination of polysyllabic sequences by one- to four-month-old infants. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 39 326– 342. 10.1016/0022-0965(85)90044-X 3989467 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Kemler Nelson D. G. Hirsh-Pasek K. Jusczyk P. W. Cassidy K. W. (1989). How the prosodic cues in motherese might assist language learning. J. Child Lang. 16 55– 68. 10.1017/S030500090001343X 2925815 · DOI
  22. Kuhl P. K. (2007). Is speech learning ‘gated’ by the social brain? Dev. Sci. 10 110– 120. 10.1055/s-0030-1257531 17181708 · DOI
  23. Kuhl P. K. (2011). “Social mechanisms in early language acquisition: understanding integrated brain systems supporting language,” in The Oxford Handbook of Social Neuroscience eds Decety J. Cacioppo J. (Oxford: Oxford University Press) 649– 667.
  24. Kuhl P. K. Andruski J. E. Chistovich I. A. Chistovich L. A. Kozhevnikova E. V. Ryskina V. (1997). Cross-language analysis of phonetic units in language addressed to infants. Science 277 684– 686. 10.1126/science.277.5326.684 9235890 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Lieven E. V. M. (1994). “Crosslinguistic and cross cultural aspects of language addressed to children,” in Input and Interaction in Language Acquisition eds Gallaway C. Richards B. J. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 74– 106.
  26. Liu H. –M. Tsao F. –M. 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. J. Child Lang. 36 909– 922. 10.1017/S030500090800929X 19232142 PMC2818882 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Locke J. L. (2006). Parental selection of vocal behavior: crying, cooing, babbling, and the evolution of language. Hum. Nat. 17 155– 168. 10.1007/s12110-006-1015-x 26181412 · DOI
  28. Ma W. Golinkoff R. M. Houston D. Hirsh-Pasek K. (2011). Word learning in infant- and adult- directed speech. Lang. Learn. Dev. 7 209– 225. 10.1080/15475441.2011.579839 PMC5679190 29129970 · DOI
  29. Mehl M. R. Vazire S. Ramírez-Esparza N. Slatcher R. B. Pennebaker J. W. (2007). Are women really more talkative than men? Science 317: 82. 17615349
  30. Oller D. K. Niyogi P. Gray S. Richards J. A. Gilkerson J. Xu D. (2010). Automated vocal analysis of naturalistic recording from children with autism, language delay and typical development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107 13354– 13359. 10.1073/pnas.1003882107 20643944 PMC2922144 · DOI
  31. Ramírez-Esparza N. Garcia-Sierra A. Kuhl P. K. (2014). Look who’s talking: speech style and social context in language input to infants are linked to concurrent and future speech development. Dev. Sci. 17 880– 891. 10.1111/desc.12172 24702819 PMC4188803 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Ramírez-Esparza N. García-Sierra A. Kuhl P. K. (2017). The impact of early social interactions on later language development in Spanish–English bilingual infants. Child Dev. 10.1111/cdev.12648 [Epub ahead of print]. 27759883 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Ramírez-Esparza N. Mehl M. R. Alvarez-Bermúdez J. Pennebaker J. W. (2009). Are Mexicans more or less sociable than Americans? Insights from a naturalistic observation study. J. Res. Pers. 43 1– 7. 10.1016/j.jrp.2008.09.002 · DOI
  34. Roseberry S. Hirsh-Pasek K. Golinkoff R. M. (2014). Skype me: socially contingent interactions help toddlers learn language. Child Dev. 85 956– 970. 10.1111/cdev.12166 24112079 PMC3962808 · DOI
  35. Rowe M. L. (2008). Child-directed speech: relation to socioeconomic status, knowledge of child development and child vocabulary skill. J. Child Lang. 35 185– 205. 10.1017/S0305000907008343 18300434 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Saint-Georges C. Chetouani M. Cassel R. Apicella F. Mahdhaoui A. Muratori F. (2013). Motherese in interaction: at the cross-road of emotion and cognition? A systematic review. PLoS ONE 8: e78103 10.1371/journal.pone.0078103 PMC3800080 24205112 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Shneidman L. A. Arroyo M. E. Levine S. C. Goldin-Meadow S. (2013). What counts as effective input for word learning. J. Child Lang. 40 672– 686. 10.1017/S0305000912000141 22575125 PMC3445663 · DOI
  38. Shneidman L. A. Goldin-Meadow S. (2012). Language input and acquisition in a Mayan village: how important is directed speech? Dev. Sci. 15 659– 673. 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01168.x 22925514 PMC3538130 · DOI
  39. Singh L. Nestor S. Parikh C. Yull A. (2009). Influences of infant-directed speech in early word recognition. Infancy 14 654– 666. 10.1080/15250000903263973 32693515 · DOI
  40. Smith N. A. Trainor L. J. (2008). Infant-directed speech is modulated by infant feedback. Infancy 13 410– 420. 10.1080/15250000802188719 · DOI
  41. Solomon O. (2011). “Rehinking baby talk,” in The Handbook of Language Socialization eds Duranti A. Ochs E. Schieffelin B. B. (Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Publishing Ltd) 121– 149. 10.1002/9781444342901.ch5 · DOI
  42. Stern D. N. Spieker S. Barnett R. K. MacKain K. (1983). The prosody of maternal speech: infant age and context related changes. J. Child Lang. 10 1– 15. 10.1017/S0305000900005092 6841483 · DOI
  43. Warren-Leubecker A. Bohannon J. N. (1984). Intonation patterns in child-directed speech: mother–father differences. Child Dev. 55 1379– 1385. 10.2307/1130007 · DOI
  44. Weikum W. M. Vouloumanos A. Navarra J. Soto-Faraco S. Sebastian-Galles N. Werker J. F. (2007). Visual language discrimination in infancy. Science 316 1159 10.1126/science.1137686 17525331 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ramírez-Esparza, N., García-Sierra, A., & Kuhl, P. K.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
ORCID
Kuhl, Patricia K.
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2017-06-20
Volume
8
Pages
1008-1008
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01008
PMC
PMC5477750
OpenAlex
W2662400371
Cited by
103
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1
FWCI
11.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
National Science Foundation (SBE-0354453)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
Keywords
infant-directed speech, language development, caregiver-child interaction, one-to-one interaction, group interaction, vocabulary development, word production, mediation, socioeconomic status, home language environment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review