Maternal Responsiveness and the Development of...

Maternal Responsiveness and theDevelopment of Directed Vocalizing in

Social Interactions

Julie Gros-LouisDepartment of Psychology

University of Iowa

Meredith J. West and Andrew P. KingDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences

Indiana University

For effective communication, infants must develop the phonology of soundsand the ability to use vocalizations in social interactions. Few studies have

examined the development of the pragmatic use of prelinguistic vocaliza-tions, possibly because gestures are considered hallmarks of early pragmaticskill. The current study investigated infant vocal production and maternal

responsiveness to examine the relationship between infant and maternalbehavior in the development of infants’ vocal communication. Specifically,we asked whether maternal responses to vocalizations could influence the

development of prelinguistic vocal usage, as has been documented in recentexperimental studies exploring the relation between maternal responses andphonological development. Twelve mother–infant dyads participated over asix-month period (between 8 and 14 months of age). Mothers completed the

MacArthur Communicative Development Inventory when infants were15 months old. Maternal sensitive responses to infant vocalizations in theprevious months predicted infants’ mother-directed vocalizations in the fol-

lowing months, rather than overall response rate. Furthermore, mothers’sensitive responding to mother-directed vocalizations was correlated with anincrease in developmentally advanced, consonant–vowel vocalizations and

Correspondence should be sent to Julie Gros-Louis, Department of Psychology, Univer-

sity of Iowa, 11 Seashore Hall E, Iowa City, IA 52242. E-mail: [email protected]

Infancy, 1–24, 2014Copyright © International Society on Infant Studies (ISIS)ISSN: 1525-0008 print / 1532-7078 onlineDOI: 10.1111/infa.12054

some language measures. This is the first study to document a social shapingmechanism influencing developmental change in pragmatic usage of vocal-izations in addition to identifying the specific behaviors underlying develop-ment.

INTRODUCTION

Starting in the 1970’s, researchers began to recognize the potential extentof the relationship between vocalizations used in social exchanges and thedevelopment of language (e.g., Bates, Benigni, Bretherton, Camaioni, &Volterra, 1979; Bruner, 1977). Since that time, studies have considered therole of maternal responsiveness in the development of language milestonesin the second year (e.g., Baumwell, Tamis-LeMonda, & Bornstein,1997; Nicely, Tamis-LeMonda, & Bornstein, 1999; Rollins, 2003; Tamis-LeMonda, Bornstein, & Baumwell, 2001); however, prior to learning lan-guage, infants progress through the prelinguistic period, during which theydevelop a range of communicative skills, including the production ofspeech sounds of language, in addition to the pragmatic usage of vocaliza-tions: how to use vocalizations for effective social interactions (Dore,1974; Halliday, 1975).

Studies in both animal and human communicative development indi-cate that the development of the acoustic structure of a signal is not pre-dictive of the development of its pragmatic use and vice-versa (Locke,1993). That is, vocal development can progress without the correspondingdevelopment of usage of vocalizations or language in social interactions(Freeberg, King, & West, 1995; Surian, Baron-Cohen, & Van der Lely,1996; Tanguay, Robertson, & Derrick, 1998). In support of this view,many studies have demonstrated that vocalizations can affect others’behavior before they have speech-like structure or specific meaning (e.g.,Goldstein & West, 1999; Green, Jones, & Gustafson, 1987; Hsu & Fogel,2003; Keller & Scholmerich, 1987; McCune, Vihman, Roug-Hellichius,Delery, & Gogate, 1996; Papousek, 1989). Thus, vocalizations have prag-matic function, that is, perlocutionary effect (Austin, 1962), before infantsdevelop their vocal repertoire. Oller and colleagues provide further evi-dence for early pragmatic development by showing that prespeech vocal-izations in the first year, including growls, squeals, and protophones, havea range of pragmatic functions (Oller et al., 2013). Importantly, the vari-ability is not systematic, so that all vocal types are produced across differ-ent contexts and with variable positive and negative affect. It is precisely

2 GROS-LOUIS, WEST, & KING

this functional flexibility—the ability to produce vocalizations of differenttypes combined with different affect across situations–that allows for prag-matic and language development.

For infants’ vocal usage to further develop, however, they must learn thatvocalizations have specific consequences and can influence caregivers’behavior in predictable ways (Papousek & Bornstein, 1992; Papousek, 1992;Locke, 1996). Infants begin to show a rudimentary understanding of theconsequences of vocalizing to engage a social partner as young as 5 monthsof age (Goldstein, Schwade, & Bornstein, 2009). Using the still-face para-digm to probe infants’ behavior, Goldstein and colleagues found that infantsincreased their vocalizations when adults adopted a still face. That is, whenadults stopped responding, infants produced an extinction burst, which indi-cates that infants have learned the association between their vocalizationsand the outcome. A similar study using the still-face procedure found thatmaternal smiles that were contingent on infants’ behavior predicted infants’social bids during the still-face episode (Mcquaid, Bibok, & Carpendale,2009). These findings suggest that infants’ early social experience lays thefoundation for the development of vocal usage because infants developexpectations of receiving responses to their behavior.

At present, there is a gap between studies of vocal development andpragmatic usage of vocalizations. By pragmatic usage of vocalizations, orvocal usage, we mean infants’ production of vocalizations to caregivers ininteractions. Recent experimental studies suggest that maternal responsesto infant vocalizations could influence phonological development. Gold-stein, King, and West (2003) found that nonvocal social feedback contin-gent on infant vocalizations in moment-to-moment interactions led to anincrease in infants’ phonologically advanced speech-like syllables (termed“canonical syllables”-Oller, Eilers, & Basinger, 2001) whereas the equiva-lent, but noncontingent, feedback did not have this effect. Also, Goldsteinand Schwade (2008) found that infants showed an increase in vocaliza-tions that were phonologically similar to their mothers’ vocalizations whenthey received contingent vocal feedback compared to noncontingent vocalfeedback. Furthermore, there was no evidence for imitation by infants ofthe phonemes in mothers’ vocalizations. These experimental results wereprovocative in that they suggested that a social shaping mechanism, basedon contingent responses to vocalizations, may drive communicative devel-opment rather than innate motor programs or imitation (Bloom, 1993;Kent, 1981; Kuhl & Meltzoff, 1996); however, because the experimentalstudies only documented change within an experimental session, it remainsan open question whether social shaping influences developmental change.

In contrast to advancements in understanding the mechanism underly-ing vocal development, studies of prelinguistic vocal usage are largely

PRELINGUISTIC PRAGMATIC DEVELOPMENT 3

descriptive and do not examine developmental origins (Bates, 1976;Carpenter, Mastergeorge, & Coggins, 1983; Dore, 1974; Ninio, Snow,Pan, & Rollins, 1994; Sugarman, 1984; Wetherby, Cain, Yonclas, &Walker, 1988). Furthermore, gestures, such as giving, showing, offering,reaching, and pointing, are often the anchor behavior of interest andvocalizations or eye gaze are considered in conjunction with gestures (e.g.,Bates, Camaioni, & Volterra, 1975; Blake, McConnell, Horton, & Benson,1992; Franco & Butterworth, 1996; Masur, 1983; Ninio & Snow, 1996).Few studies examine the usage of prelinguistic vocalizations alone or incombination with eye gaze in the absence of gestures (but see Harding &Golinkoff, 1979). This is a significant oversight given that during the firsthalf of the first year of life, caregiver-infant communication is largelybased on vocal exchanges and facial expression (e.g., Hsu, Fogel, &Messinger, 2001; Papousek, 1992; Trevarthen, 1974, 2001; Tronick, 1989),whereas gestural communication develops later in the first year.

An important finding from studies of prelinguistic communication isthat the integration of eye gaze (attentional focus toward objects or socialpartners) with vocal behaviors and/or nonverbal gestures is considered tobe indicative of infants’ intention to communicate (Bates, 1976; Bateset al., 1975; Golinkoff, 1986; Harding & Golinkoff, 1979; Iverson &Goldin-Meadow, 2005; Ninio & Bruner, 1978; Wetherby et al., 1988). Thedevelopment of intentional communication marks a significant changebecause infants are capable of eliciting responses that, in turn, can influ-ence language development (Colonnesi, Stams, Koster, & Noomb, 2010;Laakso, Poikkeus, Katajam€aki, & Lyytinen, 1999; Liszkowski, Albrecht,Carpenter, & Tomasello, 2008; Paavola, Kunnari, & Moilanen, 2005; Wu& Gros-Louis, 2014; Yoder & Warren, 2001).

Although influences on the development of pragmatic use of prelinguis-tic vocalizations have not been well-studied, recent studies have identifiedpragmatic functions of directed vocalizations in the absence of gestures.For example, vocalizations produced when infants are looking at an objectthat is held or within reach, that is, object-directed vocalizations, havebeen found to facilitate interactions around objects that provide wordlearning opportunities. Infants’ attentiveness to objects and maternalresponsiveness contribute to successful word learning in part because itallows infants to realize that sounds are linked to objects (Goldstein,Schwade, Briesch, & Syal, 2010). Less is known about caregiver-directedvocalizations; but, just as infants have to realize that sounds are linked toobjects, infants must learn the function of vocalizing in social interaction.One prior study found that adults respond differentially to vocalizationsdepending on whether an infant is directing the vocalization to them or ifthe infant is interacting with objects (West & Rheingold, 1978). This sug-


gests that infants’ attentional focus when they vocalize influences caregiv-ers’ responses, providing an opportunity for infants to learn about theeffectiveness of vocalizations in influencing caregivers’ behavior. In addi-tion, studies of interactions between preverbal children and mothers haveshown that that eye gaze helps mothers interpret intentions of their chil-dren (Golinkoff, 1986). Therefore, regardless of infants’ intent to commu-nicate, parents use eye gaze in combination with vocalizations to gleanintent and respond accordingly.

We propose that responses to vocalizations produced in social interac-tions shape the development of pragmatic usage of vocalizations, as hasbeen suggested for phonological development (Goldstein & Schwade,2008; Goldstein et al., 2003). Specifically, we hypothesize that maternalsensitive responses are positively associated with an increase in vocaliza-tions produced to mothers in social interactions. Sensitive responses, firstdefined in attachment studies (Ainsworth, 1973), refer to contingentresponses appropriate to a child’s behavior or focus of attention (e.g.,Baumwell et al., 1997). Sensitivity is positively associated with communi-cative, attentional, and cognitive development (e.g., Belsky, Goode, &Most, 1980; Bornstein & Tamis-LeMonda, 1997; Landry, Smith, Miller-Loncar, & Swank, 1997). Most relevant to the current study, sensitivematernal responses to infants’ behavior have been shown to relate to com-municative behavior and language development (e.g., Baumwell et al.,1997; Goldin-Meadow, Goodrich, Sauer, & Iverson, 2007; Miller & Gros-Louis, 2013).

The current study provides a preliminary exploration of the effects ofmaternal contingencies on long-term change in infant vocal communica-tion. The purpose of the study is twofold: (1) to validate the socialshaping mechanism of vocal development that has been documented inshort-term experimental sessions over a longer developmental period and(2) to examine how social feedback may influence the development of thepragmatic usage of vocalizations. Specifically, we documented moment-to-moment interactions between infants and mothers, focusing on infants’vocal production and maternal responses, to determine effects of respon-siveness on changes over time in communicative behavior. We also reportrelated findings on early language measures as they relate to the interac-tion between infants’ vocal production and maternal responses. Based onrecent experimental findings demonstrating the influence of caregiver sensi-tive responsiveness on prelinguistic communication (Goldstein & Schwade,2008; Miller & Gros-Louis, 2013; Miller & Lossia, 2013), we hypothesizethat maternal sensitive responses to infants’ vocalizations will be positivelyrelated to an increase in infants’ syllable-like vocalizations and caregiver-directed vocalizations.


METHODS

Participants

Twelve infants and their mothers were recruited using a database compris-ing birth records for Monroe County, Indiana, USA. Participants includedfive mother–son pairs and seven mother–daughter pairs. Participants ran-ged from lower-middle to upper-middle class, with a mean SES status of45.6 (SD = 18.5) based on the Hollingshead four-factor index (Hollings-head, 1975). Eleven of the infants were Caucasian and one was African-American. Six of the infants were firstborn and six of the infants weresecond-born. All infants were monolingual, full-term with no develop-mental delays and had normal hearing, based on hearing screenings doneat birth. Participants were given a prize after each visit (book, stuffedanimal, toy) and a photo album containing pictures taken at each lab visitat the end of the study.

Procedure

Mothers and infants visited the laboratory every other week for 6 months,starting within 1 week after infants’ eighth month birthday, for a total of12 visits. Mothers and infants played for ½ hr in unstructured interactionsin a large playroom (3.9 m 9 4.6 m) with a wide selection of toys in a toybox in the corner of the playroom (such as pop-up toy, ring stacker, balls,school bus, shape sorter, stuffed animals, puppets). In addition, there weretwo mobiles hanging from the ceiling. Mothers were instructed to playwith their infants as they would at home and they were unconstrained intheir activities and their movement around the room. Behavioral interac-tions were recorded using one or two of three remote-controlled wall-mounted cameras (SONY TR-100 handycam, Sony, Tokyo) routed to anSVHS video tape recorder (AG1980, Panasonic, Secaucus, NJ) by a videomixer (Videonics MX-1, Focus Enhancements, Campbell, CA) to allowfor selection of the best camera angle or split-screen images of dyads.High-quality audio recordings were obtained using a wireless microphone(FMR-150, Telex Communications, Burnsville, MN) sewn into overallsworn by the infant. Audio input was routed to the left stereo channel ofthe SVHS video tape recorder by an audio mixer (1604 VLZ, MackieDesigns, Woodinville, WA). Therefore, audio and video channels weresynched and videos contained time code accurate to the video frame forlater coding. One month following the end of the study, parents weregiven the MacArthur Communicative Development Inventory: Words andGestures (MCDI) (Fenson et al., 1993), to fill out and return to the lab.


Nine of the twelve subjects completed the MCDI within a week of theirinfants turning 15-months old and were included in analyses of early lan-guage development.

Coding

All coding was done using an SVHS video tape recorder (AG1980, Pana-sonic) with jog-shuttle controller to allow for frame-by-frame coding. Datawere typed into Excel on a Macintosh G4 computer with columns for thetime of the infant vocalization and the categories of infant vocal behaviorsand maternal responses that were coded (see below). The middle 10 min.of the ½ hr play session was coded for infant vocal behavior and maternalresponses to allow for a period of warm-up and to ensure that infantswere not fatigued at the end of the 30-min session.

Infant vocalizations were coded for phonological properties using abroad classification that differentiates less developmentally advanced andmore developmentally advanced vocalizations (Oller, 1980). We codedvocalizations that contained a consonant-like sound paired with avowel-like sound as “CV” and vocalizations that contained just a vowel-like sound as “V”. Coding was based on the fact that parents readilyidentify differences between syllable-like and vowel-like vocalizations(Oller et al., 2001). We also coded the “directedness” of vocalizationsbased on the direction of infants’ visual gaze at the start of the vocali-zation. Infant vocal directedness categories included (see also Goldsteinet al., 2010; Miller & Gros-Louis, 2013) (1) mother-directed (looking totheir mother when they vocalize, including looking to mothers’ body,face or hands, with or without physical contact and eye contact is notnecessary), (2) object-directed (looking to an object that they are holdingor that is within reach when they vocalize), and (3) undirected (notfocused on any object or mom, e.g., looking around the room). Giventhe broad definition of mother-directed vocalizations, we also assessedwhether mother-directed vocalizations occurred with mother–infantmutual gaze.

Maternal contingent responses to infants’ vocalizations were coded.Contingent responses were defined as maternal vocal or nonvocal behav-iors that occurred within 2 sec of the offset of infants’ vocalizations fol-lowing prior studies (Goldstein & Schwade, 2008; Gros-Louis, West,Goldstein, & King, 2006). In addition, in coding pilot data, althoughresponses often occurred within 1 sec of the offset of the vocalization, a2 sec window ensured that we captured the majority of responses (see alsoKeller, Lohaus, Volker, Cappenberg, & Chasiotis, 1999). These contingentresponses were classified as either (1) sensitive: acknowledge or imitate (see


below), comment and/or act on object in infant’s line of visual regard(Bornstein & Tamis-LeMonda, 1989; Tomasello & Farrar, 1986) or (2)redirective: comment and/or act on object outside of infant’s line of visualregard (Baumwell et al., 1997).

Maternal verbal responses were further coded in seven categories (fol-lowing Gros-Louis et al., 2006): (1) acknowledgments (“mmm-hmm,”“uh-huh”), (2) attributions (“it’s pretty”), (3) directives (“push that”), (4)naming (“it’s a ball”), (5) play vocalizations (“gotcha!”), (6) questions(“do you want that?”), and (7) imitations/expansions (Gros-Louis et al.,2006). Imitations rarely took the form of imitating the sound that theinfant made, but more often involved the mother modeling the wordthat the sound approximated and expanding on it (e. g., if the infantuttered “da-da-da,” the mother would say “Da-da is working. I am ma-ma.”).

The first author and four assistants trained in the coding procedurecoded the observation sessions. Assistants were trained by the firstauthor and had to reach 85% agreement across all behaviors beforethey coded independently. To calculate interobserver reliability, observ-ers coded 2 of the 12 sessions for each of the 12 subjects. Averageinterobserver reliability was 87% for infant vocal directedness (mother-directed, object-directed, undirected), 90% for maternal contingentresponses (sensitive versus redirective), and 85% for maternal vocalresponses. Cohen’s k ranged from .76 to .84 across these coding catego-ries. The first author coded the broad infraphonology of vocalizations(consonant–vowel versus vowel-like). A second coder coded broadinfraphonology of vocalizations for three subjects. Average interobserverreliability was 92%.

Analyses

Data from every two visits were combined to obtain monthly values foreach infant. Monthly values were used in analyses. Correlations andrepeated measures analysis of variance with Bonferroni corrections weredone using PASW, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA Statistic 17 software.Where violations of sphericity occurred, Greenhouse–Geiser correctionswere used. To examine the relationship between previous cumulativematernal responses and infant vocal production in the current visit, a gen-eralized linear mixed model analysis was performed using the GLIMMIX,SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA procedure in SAS, version 9.1. Thisanalysis was used to be able to account for the multiple responses overtime for each infant. The model that was fitted is a logistic model (seeJaeger, 2008).


RESULTS

Preliminary analyses revealed no differences in total vocal production ordirected vocalizations (mother-directed, object-directed, undirected) betweenmales and females (all p’s > .3). Therefore, we collapsed the data acrosssex. We first report results for infant vocal behavior, then maternal respon-siveness. Lastly, we assess the relationship between maternal responsivenessand changes in infant communicative and language measures. Descriptivedata for infants’ directed vocalizations and maternal responsiveness toinfants’ directed vocalizations are presented in Table 1.

Infant vocal behavior

Infants primarily produced nonverbal utterances consisting of vowel-like andconsonant-vowel vocalizations, producing only a handful of words and wordapproximations during play sessions (M = 2.8, SD = 2.5). Infants significantlyincreased their overall production of vocalizations as they got older (Table 1).A 2 (time: first 3 months, last 3 months, within-subject) 9 2 (vocal type: vowel-like, consonant–vowel, within-subject) repeated measures ANOVA found asignificant main effect of time (F(1,11) = 10.623, p = .008, g2 = .491), but nosignificant main effect of vocal type (F(1,11) = 0.000, p > .9). In addition, therewas an interactive effect of time and vocal type (F(1,11) = 6.359, p = .028,g2 = .366). Infants produced significantly more vocalizations in the last3 months compared to the first 3 months (Mfirst3 = 85.0, SD = 66.1 vs.Mlast3 = 159.0, SD = 104.7, t(11) = �3.259, p = .008. Specifically, there was asignificant increase in consonant–vowel vocalizations between the first three andthe last 3 months (t(11) =�2.676, p = .022).

Infants showed variation in their overall amount of vocalizing in addi-tion to their attentional focus when they vocalized (Table 1 and Figure 1);however, the pattern of vocal directedness was not consistent across the6 months. There was no association between the combined categories ofobject-directed and mother-directed vocalizations for the first 3 and thelast 3 months (r = .190, n = 12, p > .5). Considering object-directed andmother-directed vocalizations separately, we found a significant differencein the average number of infants’ object-directed vocalizations for the first3 months and the last 3 months (t(11) = �2.405, p > .05), but not formother-directed vocalizations (t(11) = �1.732, p > .1), suggesting thatinfants’ ODV’s and MDV’s did not show similar changes over time. Forthe ten infants who produced mother-directed vocalizations in both thefirst month and last month to allow for comparison, infants’ mother-direc-ted vocalizations involved more eye contact with mothers in the lastmonth compared to the first month (t(9) = 3.29, p < 0.01).


TABLE

1

InfantVocalBehaviorandMaternalResponsiveness

Month

1Month

2Month

3Month

4Month

5Month

6

Mean(SE)

Mean(SE)

Mean(SE)

Mean(SE)

Mean(SE)

Mean(SE)

Range

Range

Range

Range

Range

Range

Infants

DirectedVocalizing(frequency)

Mother-directedvocalizations

16.3

(4.4)

13.9

(4.7)

9.3

(2.3)

14.8

(3.6)

21.6

(4.4)

20.3

(6.0)

1–57

1–48

0–21

0–34

4–47

0–58

Undirectedvocalizations

11.4

(2.4)

11.2

(2.9)

9.08(2.5)

14.7

(4.1)

10.5

(1.7)

13.0

(3.9)

2–34

0–40

3–33

1–54

1–21

2–47

Object-directedvocalizations

29.1

(5.9)

33.7

(7.3)

33.3

(5.3)

48.4

(8.0)

51.8

(12.1)

40.8

(8.1)

3–78

9–103

12–63

17–122

11–153

8–98

Vowel-likevocalizations

33.5

(6.1)

45.1

(14.4)

29.7

(5.9)

32.7

(6.9)

38.2

(7.6)

65.3

(17.2)

9–88

10–188

4–58

10–78

7–108

15–230

Consonant-vowel

vocalizations

23.8

(6.4)

13.9

(3.0)

24.0

(4.3)

46.2

(8.6)

48.1

(9.5)

87.7

(25.1)

1–70

0–28

4–55

9–107

6–110

8–271

MaternalResponsivenessto

DirectedVocalizations(proportion)

Mother-directedvocalizations

.55(.09)

.68(.09)

.60(.08)

.60(.09)

.61(.07)

.62(.11)

0–1.0

0–1.0

0–1.0

0–1.0

0–.94

0–1.0

Undirectedvocalizations

.43(.10)

.31(.07)

.51(.09)

.39(.09)

.41(.11)

.37(.11)

0–.86

0–.71

0–1.0

0–.89

0–1.0

0–1.0

Object-directedvocalizations

.38(.06)

.46(.06)

.44(.07)

.48(.07)

.48(.07)

.52(.08)

0–.73

.04–.75

0–.86

.14–.77

.06–.78

.13–.97

Note.Twoplaysessionsare

combined

foreach

month.


Maternal responsiveness

Over the 6 months, mothers responded, on average, to 17–83% of infants’vocalizations. Although maternal responses were typically sensitive(M = .71, SD = .11, range = .41–.88, n = 12), mothers also ignored vocal-izations (M = .24, SD = .12, range = .03–.51, n = 12) and responded redi-rectively to a small number of vocalizations (M = .05, SD = .04,range = 0–.14, n = 12).

The average proportions of the seven different maternal verbal responsetypes produced per infant per month are presented in Table 2. A repeatedmeasures analysis found significant differences in the proportion of mater-nal verbal response types, F(2.302,25.321) = 3.297, p < .05; however,applying Bonferroni corrections in pairwise comparisons yielded no signifi-cant pairwise differences. Examination of changes in maternal verbalresponses over time, we found a significant increase in the overall propor-tion of maternal naming responses out of all possible responses (Mincrease/

month = .03, SD = .01; p = .003; Figure 2). Specifically, mothers producedmore object names in response to infant vocalizations directed to objects.There was a significant increase in maternal naming in response to object-directed vocalizations between the first month (at 8 months) and lastmonth (at 14 months) of the study (t(11) = 4.34, p = .001).

In addition to documenting wide variability across mothers in overallresponsiveness, mothers showed differences in responsiveness relativeto the directedness of infants’ vocalizations (Table 1 and Figure 3). Visualinspection of the proportion of responses to different infant-directed

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f vo

caliza

tio

ns

Participant

MDV

ODV

UDV

Figure 1 Overall proportion of mother-directed (MDV), object-directed (ODV), and

undirected (UDV) vocalizations produced by infants across the 6 months of the

study.


vocalizations suggests that most mothers responded proportionally moreto mother-directed vocalizations than to object-directed vocalizations.Object-directed vocalizations were by far the most frequent vocalization,but mothers responded to a significantly lower proportion of object-direc-ted vocalizations than mother-directed vocalizations. Repeated measuresanalysis found significant variation in responsiveness to object-directed,

TABLE 2

Maternal Specific Vocal Responses

Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Month 6

Mean

(SE)

Mean

(SE)

Mean

(SE)

Mean

(SE)

Mean

(SE)

Mean

(SE)

Maternal Vocal Responses (proportion)

Acknowledgements .10 (.028) .12 (.024) .12 (.025) .08 (.014) .07 (.015) .07 (.016)

Attributions .04 (.006) .04 (.009) .02 (.005) .03 (.005) .03 (.006) .03 (.009)

Directives .05 (.018) .03 (.013) .04 (.012) .04 (.009) .06 (.013) .02 (.008)

Imitation .05 (.024) .05 (.017) .06 (.017) .06 (.019) .06 (.022) .09 (.029)

Naming .03 (.008) .05 (.018) .07 (.020) .09 (.020) .07 (.011) .10 (.018)

Play vocalizations .06 (.024) .06 (.018) .06 (.012) .06 (.011) .07 (.020) .06 (.021)

Questions .08 (.019) .11 (.024) .10 (.020) .12 (.020) .10 (.018) .10 (.021)

Note. Two play sessions are combined for each month.

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0 2 4 6

Pro

po

rtio

n n

am

ing

resp

on

ses

Month

Figure 2 Change in maternal naming responses over time as a proportion of all

maternal responses across infants. Figure shows the mean and upper and lower 95%

confidence intervals.


mother-directed and undirected vocalizations, F (2, 22) = 25.043, p < .001,gp

2 = .695. Maternal responses to infants’ mother-directed vocalizationswere significantly greater than responses to object-directed and undirectedvocalizations (both p’s ≤ .001). We explore potential effects of responsive-ness on changes in directed vocalizations over time in the next section.

Relationships between maternal responsiveness to infantvocalizations and communication

Maternal responsiveness was related to changes in vocal usage over the6-month study. Maternal overall responsiveness correlated with the rela-tive increase in mother-directed vocalizations from the beginning of thestudy to the end of the study, measured as the difference in proportion ofmother-directed vocalizations between the 8-month visit and the 14-monthvisit (r = .814, n = 12, p < .002). When examining month-to-monthchanges, however, increases in mother-directed vocalizations were notfound. A repeated measures analysis of covariance (infants’ mother-direc-ted vocalizations per month as the dependent variable and maternalresponsiveness to mother-directed vocalizations as the covariate) did notfind a main effect of mother-directed vocalizations F (5, 50) = 1.094,p > .3, but there was an interactive effect of mother-directed vocalizationsand maternal responsiveness to mother-directed vocalizations, F (5,50) = 3.671, p < .008, gp

2 = .269. This suggests that the difference inmother-directed vocalizations across months is partly dependent on mater-nal responses to these vocalizations.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f re

spo

nse

s p

er

cate

go

ry

Participant

MDV

ODV

UDV

Figure 3 Proportion of infants’ maternal-directed (MDV), object-directed (ODV),

and undirected (UDV) vocalizations responded to by mothers.


Given the relationship between mother-directed vocalizations andmaternal responsiveness, we next employed a generalized linear mixedmodel analysis to examine the relationship between previous maternalresponding and current vocal behavior of an infant. We used maternalcumulative responding in the previous months’ visits as the explanatoryvalue for infant current vocal production to reflect dynamic influences inmother–infant interactions as opposed to a static variable of overallmaternal responsiveness. Results indicate that maternal sensitive responsesin the previous month(s), rather than overall response rate, predicted anincrease in infants’ mother-directed vocalizations in social interactions inthe following month (ln[p/(1–p)] = �1.34–.044*Percent sensitive responses+ .000783*Percent sensitive responses*Percent sensitive responses, p < .03;Figure 4). That is, mothers’ responsiveness in month 1 predicted infants’mother-directed vocalizing in month 2. Months 1 and 2 maternal sensitiveresponsiveness predicted infants’ mother-directed vocalizing in month 3,etc.

We next examined the relationship between mothers’ specific vocalresponses and change in mother-directed vocalizing over time. Using ageneralized liner mixed model analyses as above, we found that mothers’imitation of their infants’ vocalizations in prior months related to anincrease in infants’ mother-directed vocalizations in future months (ln[p/(1–p)]= �1.328–.047*Percent imitative responses, p < .04).

Lastly, there was a significant positive association between maternalresponses to mother-directed vocalizations and a relative increase in devel-opmentally advanced consonant–vowel vocalizations from 8 to 14 months

0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.800.901.001.10

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Pro

po

rtio

nm

oth

er-

dir

ect

ed

vo

cali

zati

on

Cumulative percent of maternal sensitive responsein previous months

Mean

95% Confidence Limits

Figure 4 The proportion of infant mother-directed vocalizations as a function of

maternal responses to directed vocalizations in prior months.


of age (r = .58, n = 12, p < .05). That is, comparing maternal responses tomother-directed vocalizations across infants, infants who received propor-tionally more responses to their mother-directed vocalizations, showeda larger increase in developmentally advanced vocalizations from their8-month visit to their 14-month visit.

Correlations between maternal responsiveness to infant vocalizationsand language measures

For the nine infants for whom we obtained MCDI scores at 15 monthsof age, infants who received more maternal sensitive responses overall totheir vocalizations scored higher on both vocabulary production and ges-ture on the MCDI at 15 months (vocabulary production: r = .77, n = 9,p < .02; gesture: r = .84, n = 9, p < .01). We next explored the relationshipbetween maternal responsiveness to infants’ directed vocalizations and lan-guage outcomes. When looking specifically at maternal responses toobject-directed, mother-directed, and undirected vocalizations separately,we only found two significant negative correlations: maternal responsive-ness to undirected vocalizations (UDV’s) was negatively correlated withvocabulary production and gesture production at 15 months of age(vocabulary production: r = �.78, n = 9, p < .02; gesture: r = �.76,p < .02).

DISCUSSION

The results of this study suggest that maternal contingent, sensitiveresponses to infants’ directed vocalizations contribute to the emergence ofvocal usage and the shaping of vocal development. By identifying thatmaternal contingent responses to prelinguistic vocalizations predict devel-opmental change in vocal usage, this is the first study to validate previousexperimental research suggesting that social shaping can act as a mecha-nism of communicative development (e.g., Goldstein & Schwade, 2008).One difference between this study and prior studies is that in this study weexamined unstructured mother–infant behavioral interactions over alonger developmental period, providing support for social shaping in natu-ralistic settings. In addition, we identified the specific behaviors on whichsocial shaping can operate. Rather than a steady overall increase in infantvocalizing and maternal responding, a dynamic relation between infants’production of directed vocalizations and maternal responses underliesdevelopmental change. Mothers’ sensitive responding to directed vocaliza-tions predicted an increase in infant vocalizations directed to mothers over


time. In addition, we found a specific predictive relationship of priormaternal imitative responses and an increase in mother-directed vocaliza-tions. This is consistent with findings from a recent meta-analysis of stud-ies of the effects of maternal contingent verbal and vocal response oninfants’ vocal production. Dunst, Gorman, and Hamby (2010) found thatimitative responses, over and above comments and nonverbal responsessuch as smiling, predicted an increase in infants’ vocal production.

Evidence for a social shaping mechanism operating in communicativedevelopment parallels what has been found in songbirds, which are con-sidered model species for human speech development (King, West, &Goldstein, 2005; Kuhl, 2003; Smith, King, & West, 2000; West & King,1988). Similar to maternal responses to infant vocalizations observed inthis study, female cowbirds’ nonvocal feedback (“wingstrokes”) producedcontingently to males’ vocalizations resulted in a faster rate of vocal devel-opment (Smith et al., 2000; West & King, 1988). Furthermore, the direct-edness of song (i.e., to a social partner) has been shown to be critical tocommunicative development and reproductive success in several songbirdspecies (reviewed in Gros-Louis, West, & King, 2010). Similarly, earlier invocal development, mother–infant mutual, coordinated engagement hasbeen shown to be associated with more syllabic vocalizations (longer andmore melodically complex), suggesting that interaction influences vocalproduction (Hsu & Fogel, 2001). The current study found that infantswho received more maternal sensitive responses to their directed vocaliza-tions showed a larger relative increase in phonologically advanced conso-nant-vowel sounds and mother-directed vocalizations. This suggestscontinuity over development in the role of interaction in eliciting vocaliza-tions and responses that can shape vocal development.

The notion that caregivers can bootstrap infants to more sophisticatedcommunicative behaviors through caregiver responses to vocalizations thatare initially “directed” to caregivers or objects coincidentally is not new(cf Bruner, 1983; Collis, 1979; Harding, 1983; Locke, 1996). As infantsreceive feedback about the effectiveness of their vocalizations, they mayincrease vocalizations in combination with visual gaze (toward objects orsocial partners). This results in more advanced communication, in that theinfants’ attentional focus can bring functionality and meaning to vocaliza-tions (Golinkoff, 1986; Locke, 1996). Rich descriptive studies of toddler–mother communication indicate that children’s use of eye contact withspeech indicates that an utterance is socially intended and directed to spe-cific person (e.g., Bates et al., 1979; Schieffelin, 1983). Results from thecurrent study suggest that these vocal pragmatic abilities may emerge fromdirected vocalizations and caregiver responsiveness during the prelinguisticperiod.


A similar role of social responses has been suggested to underlie thetransition to communicative gestures out of initially self-directing behav-iors (Iverson & Thal, 1998). An important point is that gestures initiallyinfluence caregivers’ behavior prior to infants’ intention to do so. It isthrough caregivers’ interpretation of, and responses to, these gestures thatintentional communication can emerge (Carpendale & Carpendale, 2010;Jones & Zimmerman, 2003). Our findings are suggestive of a similar effectof caregiver responses to prelinguistic vocalizations on the development ofmother-directed vocalizations.

One caveat that should be noted is that in the current study we specifi-cally explored a possible predictive relationship of maternal responsivenessin prior months on infant behavior. It is likely, however, that infants influ-ence maternal sensitivity over development, although in this study weexamined the influence of maternal responsiveness in previous months oninfant production of mother-directed vocalizations. Therefore, infants eli-cit particular caregiver responses, which in turn influence a change ininfant behavior, feeding back on caregiver behavior. Prior studies haveshown that infant and child characteristics clearly affect caregiverresponses. In addition to infant stable characteristics such as child temper-ament (Crockenberg & Leerkes, 2003) and gender (Weinberg, Tronick,Cohn, & Olson, 1999), infant dynamic behaviors that are continuallychanging over development also have an effect (Vallotton, 2009). In oneof the early studies identifying bidirectional effects between mother andinfant behavior, Bell and Ainsworth (1972) documented that infants’ nega-tive affect (crying) at 6 months results in mothers who responded less at12 months; however, mothers who responded more immediately toinfants’ cries at 6 months have infants who cry less at 12 months. In termsof positive communicative behaviors, Hsu and Fogel (2003) found effectsof infant nondistress vocalizations on mothers in ongoing interactions (seealso Gros-Louis et al., 2006). In addition to vocalizations influencing care-giver responses, infants’ pointing and infant signs are predictive of particu-lar responses from caregivers (Vallotton, 2009). Thus, prelinguisticcommunicative behaviors differentially influence caregivers in the momentand over time, which should be taken into account in future studies.

Additional results showed that infants’ directed vocalizations, andmaternal responses that are sensitive to infants’ attentional focus whenthey vocalize, are associated with early language measures. Infants whoreceived more sensitive responses to vocalizations produced more wordsand gestures at 15 months of age. Clearly, we are limited in drawing firmconclusions based on the small sample size. Nonetheless, the findings areconsistent with experimental and observational evidence that maternalresponses that are related to infants’ attentional focus facilitate language


development (Baumwell et al., 1997; Rollins, 2003; Tamis-LeMonda et al.,2001; Tomasello & Farrar, 1986); however, in the current study, we exam-ined maternal responses to infants’ directed vocalizations exclusively, thatis, co-occurring vocal behavior and attentional focus, rather than consider-ing maternal responses to infants’ ongoing nonvocal and/or vocal behav-iors (e.g., Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2001). This is important in light ofrecent findings that suggest that object-directed vocalizations specificallymay be an indicator of readiness to learn and are associated with wordlearning (Goldstein et al., 2010; see also Schieffelin, 1983). Our resultsextend this finding by identifying that infant object-directed vocalizationsand maternal responses potentially interact to influence learning, giventhat maternal naming responses to infants’ object-directed vocalizationsincreased over time during a period when infants are learning first words(8–14 months). Responding to infants’ object-directed vocalizations helpsinfants make the link between the object and the potential label (cf Gold-stein et al., 2010), or at the very least, helps infants to understand apotential communicative function of concurrent visual gaze and vocaliza-tions.

A similar relationship between infants’ gestures and maternal responseshas been found to facilitate language acquisition (Goldin-Meadow et al.,2007). Infants’ gestures in real-time interactions facilitate communicationwith caregivers. Infants’ pointing gestures indicate what they are interestedin (Liszkowski, Carpenter, Henning, Striano, & Tomasello, 2004) and eli-cit verbal responses from caregivers (Goldin-Meadow et al., 2007; Kishim-oto, Shizawa, Yasuda, Hinobayashi, & Minami, 2007). Caregiverresponses provide descriptions of objects that infants are attending to,“translating” infants’ requests, comments, etc., thus facilitating the acqui-sition of two-word speech (Goldin-Meadow et al., 2007). The results ofthe current study suggest that prelinguistic directed vocalizations, whichprecede pointing but could nonetheless direct adults’ attention (“pointingwith the eyes”-Streeck, 2009), may potentially serve the same function.

The results of this study indicate a dynamic process in the developmentof pragmatic usage of vocalizations and language development facilitatedby maternal responses to infants’ directed vocalizations. Thus, the currentstudy and comparative work in songbirds provide direct evidence that asocial shaping mechanism can drive communicative development (Kuhl,2003). Given that we now know that social feedback to vocalizations is anunderlying mechanism for developmental change, it is important to iden-tify the potential for social interactions, in addition to characteristics ofinteractions, with social partners in different social environments. A con-cept that was developed from research on songbirds is the “social gate-way”: different social environments offer different opportunities for


interactions with social partners, which can affect individuals’ behaviorsand responses to those behaviors (White, King, Cole, & West, 2002). Wepropose that the social gateway provides a useful construct for examininghow social interactions between infants and social partners (caregivers,parents, siblings) vary across social environments. Interactions and relatedcontingencies in every day contexts may vary considerably with socioeco-nomic status or birth order. For example, children who “inherit” an oldersibling have additional models for acquiring speech sounds as comparedto first-born children (West, King, & Arberg, 1988). Additionally, differentsocial partners may provide different contingencies.

One limitation of the current study is that we only examined infants’interactions with their mothers. Preliminary analyses of caregiver respon-siveness to prelinguistic vocalizations have documented similar levels, butdifferent types, of maternal and paternal responses to infants’ directedvocalizations (Gros-Louis & Wu, unpublished data). In addition, althoughwe had a diverse sample, we could not examine effects of birth order orSES, which are known to influence language and communicative develop-ment (e.g., Fenson et al., 1994; Hoff-Ginsberg, 1998). Thus, a moredetailed examination of the social interactions in which social shaping canoperate is needed to determine how different social partners influence vari-ability in developmental outcomes. In addition, because the sample sizewas extremely small, future research should examine social contingenciesacross contexts and social partners in a larger sample. Data from abroader sample could contribute to the formulation of a model of commu-nicative development that captures the variability in interactions and con-tingencies present in different social environments.

REFERENCES

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1973). The development of infant-mother attachment. In B. M. Cald-

well & H. N. Ricciuti (Eds.), Review of child development research: Vol. 3. Child develop-

ment and social policy (pp. 1–94). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Austin, J. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bates, E. (1976). Language and context: The acquisition of pragmatics. New York, NY: Aca-

demic Press Inc.

Bates, E., Benigni, L., Bretherton, I., Camaioni, L., & Volterra, V. (1979). The emergence of

symbols: Cognition and communication in infancy. New York, NY: Acadmic Press.

Bates, E., Camaioni, L., & Volterra, V. (1975). The acquisition of performatives prior to

speech. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 21, 205–226.Baumwell, L., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., & Bornstein, M. H. (1997). Maternal verbal sensitivity

and child language comprehension. Infant Behavior and Development, 20, 247–258.Bell, S. M., & Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1972). Infant crying and maternal responsiveness. Child

Development, 43, 1171–1190.


Belsky, J., Goode, M. K., & Most, R. K. (1980). Maternal stimulation and infant exploratory

competence: Cross-sectional, correlational, and experimental analyses. Child Development,

51, 1168–1178.Blake, J., McConnell, S., Horton, G., & Benson, N. (1992). The gestural repertoire and its

evolution over the second year. Early Development and Parenting, 1, 127–136.Bloom, L. (1993). The transition from infancy to language: Acquiring the power of expression.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Bornstein, M. H., & Tamis-LeMonda, C. (1989). Maternal responsiveness and cognitive

development in children. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), New directions for child development:

No. 43. Maternal responsiveness: Characteristics and consequences (pp. 49–61). San Fran-

cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bornstein, M. H., & Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. (1997). Maternal responsiveness and infant men-

tal abilities: Specific predictive relations. Infant Behavior and Development, 20, 283–296.Bruner, J. (1977). Early social interaction and language acquisition. In H. R. Schaffer (Ed.),

Studies in mother-infant interaction (pp. 271–289). London: Academic Press.

Bruner, J. (1983). Child’s talk: Learning to use language. New York, NY: Norton.

Carpendale, J. I. M., & Carpendale, A. B. (2010). The development of pointing: From per-

sonal directedness to interpersonal direction. Human Development, 53, 110–126.Carpenter, R., Mastergeorge, A., & Coggins, T. (1983). The acquisition of communicative

intentions in infants eight to fifteen months of age. Language and Speech, 26, 101–116.Collis, G. (1979). Describing the structure of social interaction in infancy. In M. Bullowa

(Ed.), Before speech: The beginning of interpersonal communication (pp. 111–130). Cam-

bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Colonnesi, C., Stams, G. J. J. M., Koster, I., & Noomb, M. J. (2010). The relation between

pointing and language development: A meta-analysis. Developmental Review, 30, 352–366.Crockenberg, S., & Leerkes, E. (2003). Infant negative emotionality, caregiving, and family

relationships. In A. Crouter, & A. Booth (Eds.), Children’s influence on family dynamics:

The neglected side of family relationships (pp. 57–78). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dore, J. (1974). A pragmatic description of early language development. Journal of Psycholin-

guistic Research, 3, 343–350.Dunst, C. J., Gorman, E., & Hamby, D. W. (2010). Effects of adult verbal and vocal contin-

gent responsiveness on increases in infant vocalizations. CELL Reviews, 3, 1–11.Fenson, L., Dale, P. A., Reznick, J. S., Bates, E., Thal, D., & Pethick, S. J. (1994). Variabil-

ity in early communicative development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child

Development, Serial No. 242, 59 (5), 1–185.Fenson, L., Dale, P. S., Reznick, J. S., Thal, D., Bates, E., Hartung, J. P., . . . Reilly, J. S.

(1993). The MacArthur communicative development inventories: User’s guide and technical

manual. San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Group.

Franco, F., & Butterworth, G. (1996). Pointing and social awareness: Declaring and request-

ing in the second year. Journal of Child Language, 23, 307–336.Freeberg, T. M., King, A. P., & West, M. J. (1995). Social malleability in cowbirds (Moloth-

rus ater artemisiae) - species and mate recognition in the first 2 years of life. Journal of

Comparative Psychology, 109, 357–367.Goldin-Meadow, S., Goodrich, W., Sauer, E., & Iverson, J. (2007). Young children use their

hands to tell their monthers what to say. Developmental Science, 10, 778–785.Goldstein, M. H., King, A. P., & West, M. J. (2003). Social interactions shapes babbling:

Testing parallels between birdsong and speech. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences, 100, 8030–8035.Goldstein, M. H., & Schwade, J. A. (2008). Social feedback to infants’ babbling facilitates

rapid phonological learning. Psychological Science, 19, 515–523.


Goldstein, M. H., Schwade, J. A., & Bornstein, M. H. (2009). The value of vocalizing: Five-

month-old infants associate their own noncry vocalizations with responses from caregivers.

Child Development, 80, 636–644.Goldstein, M. H., Schwade, J. A., Briesch, J., & Syal, S. (2010). Learning while babbling: Pre-

linguistic object-directed vocalizations indicate a readiness to learn. Infancy, 15, 362–391.Goldstein, M. H., & West, M. J. (1999). Consistent responses of human mothers to prelin-

guistic infants: The effect of prelinguistic repertoire size. Journal of Comparative Psychol-

ogy, 113, 52–58.Golinkoff, R. M. (1986). “I beg your pardon?”: The preverbal negotiation of failed messages.

Journal of Child Language, 13, 455–476.Green, J. A., Jones, L. E., & Gustafson, G. E. (1987). Perception of cries by parents and

nonparents: Relation to cry acoustics. Developmental Psychology, 23, 370–382.Gros-Louis, J., West, M. J., Goldstein, M. H., & King, A. P. (2006). Mothers provide differ-

ential feedback to infants’ prelinguistic sounds. International Journal of Behavioral Develop-

ment, 30, 112–119.Gros-Louis, J., West, M. J., & King, A. P. (2010). Comparative perspectives on the missing

link: Communicative pragmatics. In M. S. Blumberg, J. H. Freeman, & S. R. Robinson

(Eds.), The oxford handbook of developmental behavioral neuroscience (pp. 684–707). New

York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Gros-Louis, J., & Wu, Z. (in prep.) Maternal and paternal responsiveness to prelinguistic

directed vocalizations and its relation to language and pragmatic development.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1975). Learning how to mean: Explorations into the development of lan-

guage. London: Edward Arnold.

Harding, C. G. (1983). Setting the stage for language acquisition: Communication develop-

ment in the first year. In R. M. Golinkoff (Ed.), The transition for prelinguistic to linguistic

communication (pp. 93–113). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Harding, C. G., & Golinkoff, R. M. (1979). The origins of intentional vocalizations in prelin-

guistic infants. Child Development, 50, 33–40.Hoff-Ginsburg, E. (1998). The relation of birth order and socioeconomic status on chil-

dren’s language experience and language development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19,

603–629.

Hollingshead, A. B. (1975). Four factor index of social status. Unpublished manuscript,

Department of Sociology, Yale University, New Haven, CT.

Hsu, H. C., & Fogel, A. (2001). Infant vocal development in a dynamic mother-infant com-

munication system. Infancy, 2, 87–109.Hsu, H. C., & Fogel, A. (2003). Social regulatory effects of infant nondistress vocalization on

maternal behavior. Developmental Psychology, 39, 976–991.Hsu, H. C., Fogel, A., & Messinger, D. S. (2001). Infant non-distress vocalization during

mother-infant face-to-face interaction: Factors associated with quantitative and qualitative

differences. Infant Behavior and Development, 24, 107–128.Iverson, J. M., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2005). Gesture paves the way for language. Psycholog-

ical Science, 16, 367–371.Iverson, J., & Thal, D. (1998). Communicative transitions: There’s more to the hand than

meets the eye. In A. Wetherby, S. F. Warren & J. Reichle (Eds.), Transitions in prelinguistic

communication (pp. 59–86). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not)

and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434–446.Jones, S. E., & Zimmerman, D. H. (2003). A child’s point and the achievement of intention-

ality. Gesture, 3, 155–185.


Keller, H., Lohaus, A., Volker, S., Cappenberg, M., & Chasiotis, A. (1999). Temporal contin-

gency as an independent component of parenting behavior. Child Development, 70,

474–485.Keller, H., & Scholmerich, A. (1987). Infant vocalizations and parental reactions during the

first 4 months of life. Developmental Psychology, 23, 62–67.Kent, R. D. (1981). Articulatory-acoustic perspectives on speech development. In R. E. Stark

(Ed.), Language behavior and early childhood (pp. 105–126). New York, NY: Elsevier.

King, A. P., West, M. J., & Goldstein, M. H. (2005). Nonvocal shaping of avian song devel-

opment: Parallels to human speech development. Ethology, 111, 101–117.Kishimoto, T., Shizawa, Y., Yasuda, J., Hinobayashi, T., & Minami, T. (2007). Do pointing

gestures by infants provoke comments from adults? Infant Behavior and Development, 30,

562–567.Kuhl, P. (2003). Human speech and birdsong: Communication and the social brain. Proceed-

ings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100, 9645–9646.Kuhl, P. K., & Meltzoff, A. N. (1996). Infant vocalizations in response to speech: Vocal imita-

tion and developmental change. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 100, 2425–2438.Laakso, M.-L., Poikkeus, A.-M., Katajam€aki, J., & Lyytinen, P. (1999). Early intentional

communication as a predictor of language development in young toddlers. First Language,

19, 207–231.Landry, S. H., Smith, K. E., Miller-Loncar, C. L., & Swank, P. R. (1997). Predicting cogni-

tive language and social growth curves from early maternal behaviors in children at vary-

ing degrees of biological risk. Developmental Psychology, 33, 1040–1053.Liszkowski, U., Albrecht, K., Carpenter, M., & Tomasello, M. (2008). Infants’ visual and

auditory communication when a partner is or is not visually attending. Infant Behavior and

Development, 31, 157–167.Liszkowski, U., Carpenter, M., Henning, A., Striano, T., & Tomasello, M. (2004). Twelve-

month-olds point to share attention and interest. Developmental Science, 7, 297–307.Locke, J. L. (1993). The child’s path to spoken language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

Locke, J. L. (1996). Why do infants begin to talk? Language as an unintended consequence.

Journal of Child Language, 23, 251–268.Masur, E. F. (1983). Gestural development, dual-directional signaling, and the transition to

words. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 12, 93–109.McCune, L., Vihman, M. M., Roug-Hellichius, L., Delery, D. B., & Gogate, L. (1996).

Grunt communication in human infants. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 110, 27–37.Mcquaid, N. E., Bibok, M. B., & Carpendale, J. I. M. (2009). Relation between maternal

contingent responsiveness and infant social expectations. Infancy, 14, 390–401.

Miller, J. L., & Gros-Louis, J. (2013). Socially guided attention influences infants’ communi-

cative behavior. Infant Behavior and Development, 36, 627–634.Miller, J. L., & Lossia, A. K. (2013). Prelinguistic infants’ communicative system: Role of

caregiver social feedback. First Language, 33, 433–448.Nicely, P., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., & Bornstein, M. H. (1999). Mothers’ attuned responses to

infant affect expressivity promote earlier achievement of language milestones. Infant Behav-

ior and Development, 22, 557–568.Ninio, A., & Bruner, J. (1978). The achievement and antecedents of labeling. Journal of Child

Language, 5, 1–15.Ninio, A., & Snow, C. E. (1996). Pragmatic development: Essays in developmental science.

Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Ninio, A., Snow, C. E., Pan, B. A., & Rollins, P. R. (1994). Classifying communicative acts

in mother-infant interaction. Journal of Communication Disorders, 27, 158–187.


Oller, D. K. (1980). The emergence of the sounds of speech in infancy. In G. Yeni-Komshian,

J. Kavanagh & C. Ferguson (Eds.), Child phonology, Vol 1: Production (pp. 93–112). New

York, NY: Academic Press.

Oller, D. K., Buder, E. H., Ramsdell, H. L., Warlaumont, A. S., Chorna, L., & Bakeman, R.

(2013). Functional flexibility of infant vocalization and the emergence of language.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(16), 6318–6323.Oller, D. K., Eilers, R. E., & Basinger, D. (2001). Intuitive identification of infant vocal

sounds by parents. Developmental Science, 4, 49–60.Paavola, L., Kunnari, S., & Moilanen, I. (2005). Maternal responsiveness and infant inten-

tional communication: Implications for the early communicative and linguistic develop-

ment. Child: Care, Health and Development, 31, 727–735.Papousek, H., & Bornstein, M. H. (1992). Didactic interactions: Intuitive parental support of

vocal and verbal development in human infants. In H. Papousek, U. Jurgens, & M.

Papousek (Eds.), Nonverbal vocal communication: Comparative and developmental

approaches (pp. 209–229). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Papousek, M. (1989). Determinants of responsiveness to infant vocal expression of emotional

state. Infant Behavior and Development, 12, 507–524.Papousek, M. (1992). Early ontogeny of vocal communication in parent-infant interactions.

In H. Papousek, U. Jurgens, & M. Papousek (Eds.), Nonverbal vocal communication: Com-

parative and developmental approaches (pp. 230–261). New York, NY: Cambridge Univer-

sity Press.

Rollins, P. R. (2003). Caregivers’ contingent comments to 9-month-old infants: Relationships

with later language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 221–234.Schieffelin, B. B. (1983). Looking and talking: The functions of gaze direction in the conver-

sations of a young child and her mother. In E. Ochs, & B. B. Schieffelin (Eds.), Acquiring

conversational competence (pp. 50–65). London: Routledge & Kegan.

Smith, V. A., King, A. P., & West, M. J. (2000). A role of her own: Female cowbirds, Mol-

othrus ater, influence the development and outcome of song learning. Animal Behaviour,

60, 599–609.Streeck, J. (2009). Gesturecraft: The manu-facture of meaning. The Netherlands: John Benja-

mins Publishing Co..

Sugarman, S. (1984). The development of preverbal communication. In R. Schiefelbusch, &

J. Pickar (Eds.), The acquisition of communicative competence (pp. 23–67). Baltimore, MD:

University Park Press.

Surian, L., Baron-Cohen, S., & Van der Lely, H. (1996). Are children with autism deaf to

Gricean maxims? Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 1, 55–71.Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Bornstein, M. H., & Baumwell, L. (2001). Maternal

responsiveness and children’s achievement of language milestones. Child Development, 72,

748–767.Tanguay, P. E., Robertson, J., & Derrick, A. (1998). A dimensional classification of autism

spectrum disorder by social communication domains. Journal of the American Academy of

Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 37, 271–277.Tomasello, M., & Farrar, M. J. (1986). Joint attention and early language. Child Develop-

ment, 57, 1454–1463.Trevarthen, C. (1974). Conversations with a two-month-old. New Scientist, 2, 230–235.Trevarthen, C. (2001). Infant intersubjectivity: Research, theory, and clinical applications.

Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42, 3–48.Tronick, E. (1989). Emotions and emotional communication in infants. American Psycholo-

gist, 44, 112–119.


Vallotton, C. D. (2009). Do infants influence their quality of care? Infants’ communicative

gestures predict caregivers’ responsiveness. Infant Behavior & Development, 32, 351–365.Weinberg, M. K., Tronick, E. Z., Cohn, J. F., & Olson, K. L. (1999). Gender differences in

emotional expressivity and self-regulation during early infancy. Developmental Psychology,

35, 175–188.West, M. J., & King, A. P. (1988). Female visual displays affect the development of male

song in the cowbird. Nature, 334, 244–246.West, M. J., King, A. P., & Arberg, A. A. (1988). The inheritance of niches: The role of eco-

logical legacies in ontogeny. In E. M. Blass (Ed.), Handbook of behavioral neurobiology,

vol. 9: Developmental psychobiology and behavioral ecology (pp. 41–62). New York, NY:

Plenum Press.

West, M. J., & Rheingold, H. (1978). Infant stimulation of maternal instruction. Infant Beha-

vior and Development, 1, 205–215.

Wetherby, A. M., Cain, D. H., Yonclas, D. G., & Walker, V. G. (1988). Analysis of inten-

tional communication of normal children from the prelinguistic to the multiword stage.

Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 31, 240–252.White, D. J., King, A. P., Cole, A., & West, M. J. (2002). Opening the social gateway: Early

vocal and social sensitivities in brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater). Ethology, 108,

23–37.Wu, Z., & Gros-Louis, J. (2014). Infants’ prelinguistic communicative acts and maternal

responses: Relations to linguistic development. First Language, 34, 72–90.Yoder, P. J., & Warren, S. F. (2001). Intentional communication elicits language-facilitating

maternal responses in dyads with children who have developmental disabilities. American

Journal on Mental Retardation, 106, 327–335.


Maternal Responsiveness and the Development of...

Documents

Transcript of Maternal Responsiveness and the Development of...