• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/36

Click to flip

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