Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
36 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
Newport et al 1977 studied relationship between course & rate of language development and motherese – How?
|
-natural data from parent-child, parent-experimenter interactions; concurrent and predictive (6 mos later) - checked mothers' well-formedness, length, complexity, repetition/expansion; checked kids for complexity, MLU, auxiliary use, plural use, vocab size
|
|
What were Newport et al 1977's main findings from the motherese study?
|
no correlation between mother's production and GENERAL language development from MLU, production of auxiliaries correlated with yes/no and repetition/expansion in mother
|
|
Woodward (1999) asked if 9 mos can distinguish purposeful from nonpurposeful actions – explain their design
|
Purposeful condition: arm grabs ball but not teddy repeatedly in habituation, test: ball and teddy switch spots and arm either grabs ball or teddy; Nonpurposeful condition – stroking objects with back of hand
|
|
Woodward (1999) study of 9 mo purposeful/nonpurposeful action distinction – main finding
|
infants look longer at display where actor changes goal in purposeful condition, infants look equally at both displays in nonpurposeful condition
|
|
Papafragou & Musolino (2003) investigated use of scalar implicature in 5 yos – describe their design
|
puppet watches stories with child & tells experimenter what happened; child is asked if Minnie answered well: all descriptions are true but some use weaker form when stronger more appropriate e.g. Some horses vs. All horses jumped the fence
|
|
Papafrugou & Musolino (2003)'s main findings about use of scalar implicatures
|
adults reject underinformative statements but 5 yos don't
|
|
Morton & Trehub (2001) studied how children interpret conflict between prosody and words in speech – how?
|
Happy & sad sentences produced with consistent or inconsistent emotion; kids age 4 & 10 and adults asked to label sentence and label emotion in voice when sentences were low-pass filtered
|
|
Morton & Trehub (2001) results of conflict between interpretation of conflicting prosody & content
|
4 yos rely on sentence content, 10 yos half-and-half, adults rely on how sentence is said
|
|
Nadig & Sedivy (2002) studied perspective-taking in 5-yos – how?
|
elicited production task: describe to experimenter a target object in an array of 4 objects; one is blocked from experimenter's view, two alike but differ on some characteristic (e.g. Tall vs short glass) – common ground condition where both can see glasses, priveleged ground condition where only child can see both
|
|
Nadig & Sedivy (2002) studied perspective-taking in 5-yos – results?
|
children more likely to produce adjective 'tall' in common ground condition than priveleged ground condition, just like adults when target is taller of two glasses
|
|
Santelmann & Jusczyk (1998) studied function morpheme perception in 18 mos – how?
|
Infants heard 8 is-ing and 8 can -ing stories read by synthesized voice: she IS drinkING the coffee, she CAN drinkING the coffee
|
|
Santelmann & Jusczyk (1998) study of function morpheme peception results
|
18 mos listened longer to grammatical sentences is-ING – show sensitivity to dependency between -ing and auxiliary verb
|
|
Gerken & McIntosh (1993) found that function morphemes affect comprehension by 23 months – how?
|
synthesized sentence asks them to find common objects in a picture book – grammatical, missing morpheme, ungrammatical, nonsense syllables
|
|
Gerken & McIntosh (1993) function morpheme comprehension in 23 mos – results
|
kid finds obkects more accurately when sentence used correct morpheme
|
|
Hirsch-Pasek & Golinkoff (1991) showed 16-18 mos know word order affects meaning – how?
|
preferential looking paradigm: sequential trials for familiarization “Who's tickling?” + other actions; test 2 videos, infant asked to find X doing Y
|
|
Hirsch-Pasek & Golinkoff (1991) word order study
|
16-18 mos looks at picture that matches description
|
|
Gertner & Fisher (2006) showed 25 mos use word order to figure out meaning of nonsense verbs – how?
|
Duck & bunny video: familiarization with characters, then simultaneous presentation of videos “the duck is gorping the bunny”
|
|
Gertner & Fisher (2006) word order with nonsense verbs finding
|
infants look longer at event where subject is the agent even for nonsense verbs
|
|
Hirsch-Pasek et al 1996 studied if 28 mo infants know different sentence structures have different meanings – how?
|
transitive structure: X verbs Y, vs. Intransitive: X and Y verb – simultaneous trials have BB pushing CM into squat & BB & CM squatting side by side; “Find BB squatting CM”
|
|
Hirsch-Pasek et al - sentence structure comprehension study results
|
infants sensitive to relationship for known AND unknown verbs (transitive vs. Instransitive constructions)
|
|
Shi et al 1999 – can newborns group function words and content words based on acoustic properties? Design
|
HAS procedure: habituate kids to function word list or content word list; control group hears new words from same category, experimental group has words from new catagory
|
|
Shi et al 1999 – can newborns group function words and content words based on acoustic properties? Findings
|
group that heard new words from new category showed greater novelty preference
|
|
Mandel et al (1994) showed 2 mos can use prosody to organize input: how?
|
HAS procedure; habituation to word list or sentences containing the words; test: 1 word change, 2 word change, no change
|
|
Mandel et al finding re: 2 mo use of prosody to organize input
|
infants increased sucking rate for more changes – memory for words better when in sentence context
|
|
Jusczy, Hirsch-Pasek et al showed 9 mos and 4.5 mos break speech into clauses – how?
|
recorded speech from mother talking to 18 mo – inserted pauses at clause boundaries (coincident) or in middle of clause (noncoincident)
|
|
Jusczy, Hirsch-Pasek et al findings re: prosody and clause boundaries
|
infants listened longer to coincident than non-coincident speech, 4.5 mos only did this for IDS
|
|
Shady 1996 – studied whether 16 mos are aware of function morphemes they don't produce> how
|
listened to sentences with function morphemes in different places: this man has bought 2 cakes (unmodified), has man this bought two cakes (modified)
|
|
Shady 1996 awareness of function morphemes results
|
infants noticed modified sentences – recognized morphemes & knew where they should be
|
|
Olgiun & Tomasello (1993) compared productions of kids <3 years and >3 years and found what?
|
older group will use a verb heard in intransitive frame in a transitive frame, younger kids never do
|
|
Olgiun & Tomasello (1993) compared productions of kids <3 years and >3 years – how?
|
Heard familiarwords in intransitive frame, then encouraged to give transitive sentence “What's happening?” - expect “Ernie is pushing Bert” ; on test trial hear another new verb in intransitive frame
|
|
Song & Fisher 2004 looked at syntactic priming in 3yos – how?
|
elicited imitation task – hear prime sentences, listen & repeat test sentence either with same structure or different (in word order & inclusion of a preposition)
|
|
Song & Fisher 2004 looked at syntactic priming in 3yos – findings?
|
repetition less accurate when repeating sentence with changed structure both for same verbs and different verbs from prime
|
|
Newport et al 1977 characterized motherese – findings?
|
shorter MLU, well formed, more utterance types; length of utterance correlated with child's age not linguistic ability
|
|
Explain how Newport et al's finding that yes/no questions correlate with child's use of auxilaries is an interaction
|
child is biased to pay attention to utterance initial position; mothers who ask more yes/no questions use aux-inversion which puts the auxiliary in utterance initial position
|
|
Song & Fisher 2005 studied if 3yos can figure out who pronouns refer to – how
|
stry: see turtle & tiger. Turtle goes downstairs with the tiger. The turtle gives a box to the tiger. Look HE has a kite!; 2 conditions – continue and shift where shift changes emphasis of character
|
|
Song & Fisher 2005 studied if 3yos can figure out who pronouns refer to -findings?
|
during ambiguous period children looked more at referent consistent with continuation -> character mentioned first and more prominently
|