The role of child-directed speech
in language acquisition:a case study
Paul Matychuk
*Department of English/CIEP,Andrews University,Nethery Hall 200,Berrien Springs,MI 49104,USA
Accepted 24April 2004Abstract
This study examines the nature of child-directed speech (CDS)from the perspective of functions [M.A.K.Halliday,Learning how to mean:Explorations in the development of language,Elsevier North-Holland,Inc.,New York,1977]and social interactionist theory.It is argued that previous explanations of CDS,often called motherese or caregiver speech,have either minimalized or neglected the functionalist–interactionist dimension of input in lan-guage acquisition.Far from being merely a novel way of describing the language caregivers use with infants,CDS is presented as a crucial catalyst in the complex process of L1acquisition.
At the heart of CDS is negotiation between caregiver(s)and infant.The infant need not always respond with complete or near-complete linguistic units or constituents such as an adult might during a given neg
otiation,yet the context of the negotiation remains crucial to the infant.As physical maturation increases and the infant begins to produce more adult-like utterances,the negotiation between interlocutors becomes more balanced,syntactically and phonologically,but not necessarily semantically/functionally.
This paper presents the results of a case study which specifically examines the utterances or input which family members direct at a Japanese infant during the early part of his language development.The data generated by the subject and his parents provide an interesting glimpse into one of the ways in which infants absorb language.The results of the data analysis show that while the parents of the subject were seen to use roughly equal amounts of language with 0388-0001/$-see front matter Ó2005Elsevier Ltd.All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.langsci.2004.04.004
*Tel.:+16164713660;fax:+16164713799.
E-mail address:
pmatychuk@hotmail
Language Sciences 27(2005)
301–379
www.elsevier/locate/langsci
302P.Matychuk/Language Sciences27(2005)301–379
the child,the distribution of language functions used by the mother was importantly different from that used by the father;therefore,it is suggested that this difference in CDS aids the language development of the infant by providing more interactive negotiation,which is argued to be the crucial factor in language development.
Ó2005Elsevier Ltd.All rights reserved.
Keywords:Child language acquisition;Child-directed speech;Language functions;Social interactionism
1.Introduction
sort of in orderOn the face of it,the following short piece of actual dialogue would seem to con-tain an ordinary exchange between a mother(M)and father(F)and their young child(H).That it is in Japanese or that its contents relate to mundane events in the life of the child are not the especially noteworthy parts,except,perhaps,to sug-gest the universality of such parent–child exchanges.However,whether this language exchange contains components crucial to the childÕs language acquisition process is extremely important.
M:hikaru chan,yatta to itte,ÔHikaru,say,‘‘hooray!’’Õ
F:gokigen wa ii mitaidesu.ÔIt appears that his mood is good.Õ
M:yatta wa,iutte,ÔWhat about‘‘hooray?’’Say it.Õ
F:yatta to itte,ÔSay,‘‘hooray.’’Õ
H:[pepe,pepe,]
M:pipi ne‘‘ÔPipi’’,isnÕt it?Õ
H:[pu:][pu].
F:koe dashite,yattatte,ÔSpeak up.Say,‘‘hooray.’’Õ
H:((laughs.))
F:yatta to itte,ÔSay,‘‘hooray.’’Õ
((pause here;lots of background noise.))
H:((laughs,))[ba,ba,]
M:doshitan?meme?ÔWhatÕs wrong?(Is it your)eye?Õ
H:[meme]((squeals and makesÔbrrrÕnoise with lips many times.))
F:yatta.ÔHooray!Õ
((M&F talking in the background for some time here.))
H:((playing and shouting,))[pipi pipi pi],[pipi pipi,]
M:((to F))chotto,nitattekitara yowabi ni shitene.
((to F))ÔHey,when it starts boiling,lower the heat.Õ
((to H))tori no koto pipi ittendane.pippi pippi,
((to H))Ô(You say)pipi for bird,donÕt you?Pippi,pippi.Õ
M:((goes outside and tells F she is going to the garden.))
F:hikaru chan itchadameyo.ÔHikaru,you canÕt go.Õ
H:((starts to cry))
F:((to H))iyo iyo ittekite,ittekite,((to H))ÔOk,ok.Go,go.Õ
H:((cries))
P.Matychuk/Language Sciences27(2005)301–379303 Superficially,this kind of language interaction,which is replicated daily by parents and their children around the world,seems unremarkable,even meaningless.How-ever,it is anything but meaningless for it contains utterances which urge this child into action,question him,and confirm things for him,all of which are rather complex concepts.Parents use language to help reveal the world to their children.However, infants are not born with adult-like language competency with which they can com-prehend the meaning of the language their parents direct at them.So,where,one may logically ask,do they get that ability?Though it is likely that children are born with some sort of innate capacity for language acquisition(the nature of which is only the-orized at present)which might play some role in the language learning process,we know that normal infants successfully manage to acquire the language(s)of their envi-ronment.Exactly how infants become such skilled manipulators of a communication tool as complex and nuanced as language,and to do it within a relatively short time frame,still remains a fascinating riddle without a completely satisfying solution.
Chomsky(1988,p.3),near the outset of his Managua Lectures,states that
[a]person who speaks a language has developed a certain system of knowledge,
represented somehow in the mind and,ultimately,in the brain in some physical configuration.In pursuing an inquiry into these topics,then,we face a series of questions,among them:
1.What is the system of knowledge?What is in the mind/brain of the speaker
of English or Spanish or Japanese?
2.How does this system of knowledge arise in the mind/brain?
3.How is this knowledge put to use in speech(or secondary systems such as
writing)?
4.What are the physical mechanisms that serve as the material basis for this
system of knowledge and for the use of this knowledge?
ChomskyÕs second question,which deals with the thorny issue of acquisition, necessitates direct,empirical study of child orfirst language(L1)learning in order to help explain theÔsystem of knowledgeÕmentioned in hisfirst question.Yet,to ap-proach any sort of answer to the question of how language is acquired,an examina-tion of how and for what purposes that language comes to be used by the infant (ChomskyÕs third question)should also be conducted.
To begin to answer this multi-faceted L1acquisition question and how the acqui-sition relates to L1usage,one must ask,ÔAssuming that a language acquisition sys-tem of some sort exists within the mind of an infant and is operating normally,how does it work?ÕIn the simplest of terms,the function of human language is to encode and decode signals that are sent between individuals.These signals can range from an infantÕs simple expression of pain or pleasure to a teacherÕs explanation of a son-net.Typical production and comprehension of a language(the potentially infinite set of linguistic signals and functions of that language)assume an intelligence which cre-ates,directs,and understands specific linguistic output,and which can accurately decipher and appropriately respond to linguistic input.
304P.Matychuk/Language Sciences27(2005)301–379
ChomskyÕs questions,especially the acquisition question,have long been consid-ered either from a bi
ological perspective or,once an infant is old enough to begin producingÔlanguageÕwhich somewhat resembles typical adult forms,from a devel-opmental perspective,both of which are influenced by the environment.It is almost a truism that the theory of acquisition one adopts and the method of studying L1 acquisition one chooses determine to a great extent the types of questions one asks and the way one examines the data gathered from such questions,and so,theories of language acquisition abound.Piper(1998,pp.141–164)provides a succinct overview of the principles,strengths,and shortcomings of behaviorist,nativist,cognitive,and social interactionist theories of language acquisition.Even though each of these gen-eral theories has strengths and weaknesses,the one that I believe provides the great-est insight into the process of language acquisition and,therefore,the one on which I base the present study,is social interaction theory.
More will be said about this theory later,but for now a short quote from Piper (1998,p.161)sums up my motivation for choosing social interaction theory as a ba-sis for examining L1acquisition.
The question that is of primary interest in language acquisition theory is how children acquire the ability to express their intentions or meanings in language.
[Social]interactionists believe that they do so through a process of negotiation with their mothers or pri
ncipal caregivers[emphasis added].This negotiation occurs partly as a result of mothers treating childrenÕs speech,even if it is bab-bling,as meaningful and intentional[emphasis added].
Investigations of L1acquisition which focus on biological aspects and which are unquestionably of great importance,neglect,or at least minimize,what I believe to be the crucial aspect of that acquisition:namely,the interaction(or in PiperÕs terms, theÔprocess of negotiationÕ)of the child and mother(or primary caregiver),arguably the most important person in the infantÕs environment.It is this interaction,and its concomitant facilitation of the development of functional language use,which de-mands the closest scrutiny and,therefore,is the aspect of L1acquisition on which
I will focus.
1.1.Statement of the problem
The research on child language acquisition has examined from a variety of per-spectives the language that infants produce.If,however,we assume that infants do not learn language in a vacuum,an examination of the infantÕs linguistic environ-ment seems logical and appropriate.In a different but related area of study,second language acquisition(SLA)research,a great deal of work has focused on the input to which learners are exposed(see Gass,1997;Gass and Selinker,2001;for comprehen-sive a
nd insightful discussions of issues regarding input).The implication of this vein of SLA research is that the input to which second language learners are exposed is a very important component in determining the output that they produce in the target language.That this should be even truer forfirst language acquisition is almost too
P.Matychuk/Language Sciences27(2005)301–379305
obvious to mention.Nevertheless,this specific area of L1research,the linguistic input directed at infants by their parents,has not been examined from the perspec-tive of what language functions it may contain and how those functions may affect L1acquisition.
1.2.Research question
In this study I attempt to answer,at least in part,the question ofÔhow the system of knowledge arises in the mind/brain.ÕSpecifically,I examine L1acquisition through a study of the interaction between a young child and his family in order to discover how it might be that infants come to understand the relationship between the phonetic and semantic net which is thrown over them in thefirst few years of life and the world which that net represents.First,I will examine what research into L1 acquisition says about how language acquisition is believed to take place.Next,I will present what has been said about
one of the most crucial factors in that acquisition: child-directed speech(CDS—variously referred to in the literature asÔinfant-directed speech,parentese,caretaker speech,nursery talk,nursery language,and caregiver speechÕ(Cattell,2000,p.104))and its contribution to the language learning process. Then,after having presented the research plan for this study,I give the results of this study with their analysis.Finally,I will explain why previous analyses of the L1 acquisition by infants are incomplete and will propose a more appropriate perspec-tive from which to view the relationship of CDS and L1development.
For this study I examine the interaction between an infant and his environment in the context of social interactionist theory and using the taxonomy of language func-tions proposed and defined by Halliday(1977).HallidayÕs work posited that the lan-guage children use contains functions which show what children do with language. These functions,which Halliday believed to be present in the childÕs output system, do not,of course,appear fully formed and functioning at birth.The functions(and of course the language which is used to convey them)must have developmental roots within either the children themselves or the environment,or perhaps both.Although Halliday examined a childÕs linguistic output system,it is reasonable to ask what influence the environment,in other words,the input,has on the development of that output system.If the environment plays any role at all in the lingui
stic development of an infant,presumably the parents or primary caregivers are responsible for a sub-stantial part of the input needed for the infantÕs linguistic development to commence and thenflourish.
But,recalling ChomskyÕs question of how the system of knowledge arises in the mind/brain,we may askÔWhat is the nature of the input,the‘‘linguistic net,’’which is thrown over the infant?Does it contain some or all of the types of functions seen in the output that Halliday has proposed?If so,which functions appear and in what concentration?Can we discover any sort of relationship between the input and the output?ÕIf this functional languageÔnetÕdoes indeed exist,it should be detectable in the language spoken to infants by their family members or those with whom they have sustained contact.It is perhaps reasonable,then,to suppose that CDS may be more complex and play a more crucial role in acquisition than has been thought.

版权声明：本站内容均来自互联网，仅供演示用，请勿用于商业和其他非法用途。如果侵犯了您的权益请与我们联系QQ:729038198，我们将在24小时内删除。