Deviant Maternal Input

8/6/2019 Deviant Maternal Input

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/deviant-maternal-input 1/24

T H E I N F L U E N C E O F D E V I A N T M A T E R N A L

I N P U T O N T H E D E V E L O P M E N T O F

L A N G U A G E D U R I N G T H E

P R E S C H O O L Y E A R S

NAOMI B. SCHIFF

M ontclair State C ollege, Up per M ontcIair, N ew Jersey

Language development of five two-year-old hearing children of deaf parents wasstudied longitudinally. These results were compared with the norm al language de-velopmental literature, and ana lyzed in relation to the f orm of the mothers' ora l input.Three of the dea f mo thers were le ss than 15~ intelligible and their M LU w as lessthan 2.0. The children spent less than 20 hours w eekly with n orm al speakers. Fre-quency and proportion measurements were us ed to com pare these children s utter-ances with those of children from normal-hearing households studied by Lois Bloomand Ro ger Brown. Th e obse rved children's utterances contained sim ilar categories ofseman tic-syntactic relations and as m an y syn tactic utterance typ es as children fromhearin~ households. Furthermore, the ch ildre n were a ppropriately acquiring gram-matical morphemes in relation to their M LU . The overwhelming majority of the

children's utterances a dhered to a subject-verb-object order of constituents, and dis-course interaction (the ability to add information to another's utterance ) was de-veloping. The resu lts indicate tha t children , when cognitively ready, need littleexposure to the norm al mo del language to learn to spea k during the early stages ofdevelopment.

I n v e s t i g a t i o n s f r o m t h e 1 9 6 0 s o f n o r m a l c h i l d d e v e l o p m e n t h a v e r e v e a l e d a n

a p p a r e n t u n i v e rs a l c o n s is t e n c y c o n c e r n i n g s o m e a s p e c t s o f e a rl y l a n g u a g e d e -

v e l o p m e n t . F i r s t , t h e m a j o r i t y o f c h i l d r e n ' s f i r s t s y n t a c t i c u t t e r a n c e s a p p e a r t o

b e o r d e r e d r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e l a n g u a g e t h e y a r e l e a r n i n g , a l t h o u g h t h e p r e -

f e r r e d o r d e r o f c o n s t i t u e n t s m a y n o t b e s u b j e c t - v e r b - o b j e c t . S e c o n d , t h e s e -

r n a n t i c r e l a t i o n s e n c o d e d i n c h i l d r e n ' s e a r l y s y n t a c t i c u t t e r a n c e s a r e s i m i l a r(Bates , 1976; Bloom, 1970 , 1973; Bowerman, 1973; Braine, 1963 , 1976; Brown,

1973; Kernan, 1969; Slobin, 1966, 1971).

B l o o m , L i g h t b o w n a n d H o o d ( 1 9 7 5 ) o b s e r v e d a s e q u e n c e o f d e v e l o p m e n t

o f c a t e g o r i e s o f s e m a n t i c - s y n t a c t i c r e l a t i o n s i n t h e s p e e c h o f t h e c h i l d r e n t h e y

s t u d i e d . U t t e r a n c e s t h a t c o d e d t h e e x i s t e n c e , n o n - e x i s t e n c e , a n d r e c u r r e n c e o f

o b j e c t s w e r e t h e e a r l i e s t r e l a t i o n s e n c o d e d . W i t h i n t h e g r o u p o f r e l a t i o n s

i d e n t if i e d a s " v e r b " c a t e g o r ie s , a c t i o n e v e n t s ( a c t i o n a n d l o c a t i v e a c t i o n ) p r e -

c e d e d s t a t e e v e n t s ( s t a t e , l o c a t i v e s t a t e a n d n o t i c e ) .

A l t h o u g h c h i l d r e n a p p e a r t o b e s i m i la r i n t h e i r s e m a n t ic k n o w l e d g e , t w o

d i f f e r e n t s y s t e m s o f g r a m m a t i c a l r e g u l a r i t y w e r e d i s c o v e r e d b y B l o o m e t a l

( 1 9 7 5 ) . W h e n t h e c h i l d r e n t h e y s t u d i e d b e g a n t o c o m b i n e w o r d s , t w o o f t h e

581



chi ldren used pr imar i ly pronouns to encode ac t ion , loca t ion , and possess ion

re la t ions , whi le the o ther two used pr imar i ly nouns . Ei ther a predominant

nom ina l or pronomina l p a t te rn in chi ldren 's ea r l ies t speech is a lso appa rent in

da ta repor ted by H uxley (1970) and N elson (1973, 1975).

Th e sys temat ic order of the d eve lopm ent of 14 gramm at ica l morphem es w as

identif ied by Brown (1973) , and confirmed by de Vil l iers and de Vfll iers

(1973) . Al though the ra te of deve lopment d i f fe red f rom chi ld to chi ld , the

order of emergence was essentia l ly the same: present progressive; in and on;

plural; i r regular past; possessive; uncontracted copula; ar t ic les; regular past;regula r th i rd person; i r regula r th i rd p erson; uncon trac ted auxi liary ; co ntrac ted

copula and contrac ted auxil ia ry .

T h e R o l e o f L i n g u i s t i c I n p u t

Imi ta t ion has h is tor ica l ly been thought to p lay an impor tant func t ion in

learnin g (Gu il laume, 1968; Jenkins a nd Palermo, 1964; Leo pold, 1 949; Lew is,

1951; Nelson, 1 973 ; M ow rer, 19 60; Piaget, 196 2; Sinclair , 1 971 ; Staats, 1971),a l though imi ta t ion as a required mechanism for acquis i t ion of language has

been ques t ioned (Bloom, Hood, an d Lightbow n, 19 74; Ervin , 196 4; Kem p

an d D ale , 1973; Ram er, 1976) . Bloom et a l (1974) mo re precisely def ined the

na ture of imi tat ion , whe n i t does occur, in lea rn ing language . Th ey found tha t

chi ldren spontaneously imi ta ted p r imar i ly those gramm at ica l an d lexiea l i temsthey were in the process of acquir ing , and not those they knew wel l or knew

nothing about . In a la te r s tudy, Bloom, Rocissano and Ho od (1976) fo und th a timi ta t ion decreased as chi ldren adv anced in the i r l inguis t ic abi li ty , wh i le con-

t ingent speech ( such as, the abi l i ty to converse) increased . Cont ingen t speech

deve loped as chi ldren lea rned to use the verb re la t ion of the previous adul t

sentence to fornaulate their own message. Shapiro, Roberts , and Fish (1970)a lso found tha t th is abi l i ty to synthes ize words used by o thers in pr ior mes-

sages increases with age in the normal d~velopment of language.

However , specif ic aspects of l inguist ic input that are necessary for normal

language to deve lop du r ing the preschool years have not b een c lea r ly defined .Recen t s tudies have shown tha t adul ts m odify the i r speech to children , tha t i t

i s s impler than the i r speech to o ther adul ts an d lacking in gram mat ica l e r rorsBroen, 1972; Drach, 1969; Pfuderer , 1969; Phill ips, 1973; Remick, 1973; Sachs,

Brown and Sa le rmo, 1972 ; and Snow, 1971 , 1972) . C hi ldren a re there fore

thou ght to abs t rac t the s t ruc ture of the i r language f rom the regula r it ies in the

s t ream of speech they hear .I f the grammat ica l i ty of u t te rances and regula r i ty of input a re impor tant

factors for language acquisi t ion, i t wou ld seem that children from linguist ically-

handicapped households ( for example f rom deaf households) would be s ig-

n i f icant ly handicapped. Except for tw o contradic tory anecdota l repor ts of hear -

ing chi ldren of deaf parents by Lenneberg (1967) and Ervin-Tr ipp (1971) ,

there has been no research on the e f fec t of deaf speech on language deve lop-me nt before the age of 3 wh en paren t inp ut i s cons idered to be most impor tant .

582 Journ al o~ Spee ch and Hea ring Research 22 581-60 3 Septem ber 1979



Lenneberg observed that language onset was never delayed, a l though Ervin-

Tripp observed two chi ldren who had not learned to produce or understandspeech by three y ears of age, even though they wa tched te levision. Len neberg

argued that the normal development of these chi ldren supported a nat ivist

view of language acquisition and minimized the role of linguistic input. Ervin-

Tripp claimed that the delayed development of the chi ldren she observed

argu ed for the im portanc e of face to face linguistic inp ut from norm al speakers.

Studies of children beyond the age of 3 also have yielded contradictory

evidence concerning th e effects of the parents ' speech on their children's

speech developm ent (Brelje, 1971; Critchley, 1967; M ayberry , 1976; Sach s and

Johnson, 19 72; Sch iff and Ventry, 1976; Todd , 1972). Th e results of thesestudies show that while some normal-hearing children of deaf parents appear

to hav e speech o r languag e difficulty, others develop normally, a nd the factors

contributing to this variation are largely unknown.The pu rpose of this s tudy was (1) to compare the language development of

five two-year-old hearing children of deaf parents with the language develop-

ment of normal children reported in the developmental l i terature described

above; and (2) to study the discourse interactions of these children with their

mothers and with a hearing adult to determine the effect of the mothers' de-

fective speech on the children's abili ty to process and learn from the mothers'

oral language. Th e specific questions to b e answ ered by this study a re as

follows:

(1) I s the propor t ional d is t r ibut ion of the seman t ic-syntact ic re la t ions enco ded inthese ch i ld r en ' s u tt e r ances s imi l a r t o tha t f ound in the messages o f ch i ld r en f romhear ing env i ronmen t s?(2) Are the forms these chi ldren use to code the sem ant ic re la t ions d i f ferent f romthose used by ch i ld r en f rom hear ing env i ronmen t s i n t e rms o f t he fo l lowing :

9 the order ing of subject -verb-object re la t ionships?9 the sequence o f deve lopmen t o f Brown ' s 14 g r amm at i ca l morphem es?9 the p r ed om inan t u se o f p ronomina l o r nom ina l r e f e rences fo r li ngu i s t i c r ep re -

sentat ion?(3) Are the oral d iscourse pat terns of these chi ld ren s imi lar to those of chi ldre nf rom hear ing env i ronmen t s , and do they va ry accord ing to whe ther t he r ec ip i en t i shea r ing o r dea f i n t e rms o f t he fo l lowing :

9 imi ta t ions?

9 categor ies of cont inge nt speech?(4 ) Does the m other s ' speech con ta in g r am mat i ca l morphem es and sys t emat icorder ing of const i tuents?

M E T H O D

Sub/ec ts

Five caucasian children, th ree boys (John , Ro n, and S eth) and two girls

(Lisa an d M ona), between the ages of 22-28 months were chosen for s tudy

from a group of children referred for an evaluation program at Teachers Col-

lege for hearing ch ildren of d eaf parents. T hey were the firs t five childrenwh o w ere referred and m et the following criteria for subject selection:

SCHn~F: Language~Deviant Material Input 583



(1) 18-30 months of age:(2) norm al hearing sensitivity;(3) unremarkable birth, med ical and developmental histories;(4) norm al peripheral speech mechanism;( 5 ) no hearing adults living n the home;( 6 ) no older siblings iving n the home;(7) no more than one oral languageused in the home.

The c ond i t ion o f the o r a l m e c ha n i sm wa s de te r m ine d th r ough obse r va t ion

by the inves t iga tor , an ASHA cer t i f ied speech- language pa thologis t . Normal-

hear ing sensit ivi ty (250-4000 Hz at 15 dB in the better ear , ANSI-1969) was

de te rm ined by a ce rt i fied audio logis t a t the Teachers Col lege Speech and Hear -

ing Cl in ic . Audiograms were obta ined f rom two chi ldre r t us ing headse ts who

we r e c ond i t ione d to p l a y a ud iom e t ry . Thr e e c h i ld r e n wh o w ou ld no t c oope r ate

f o r p l a y a ud iom e t r y we r e t e s t e d in sound f i eld u s ing C ond i t ione d O r ie n ta t ion

R e spone s Aud iom e t r y ( C OR ) .Al l of the chi ldren came f rom ski l led working c lass fami l ies . Al l of the

parents were congent ia l ly deaf , wi th the except ion of John 's fa the r who be-

came deaf dur ing h is preschool years . Al l of the mothers had comple ted 12th

grade edu ca t ion , pr ima r i ly in deaf schools. O ne fa ther (of Ron) ha d o nly an

e igh th - g r a de e duc a t ion , a nd one f a the r ( o f John) c om ple te d th r e e ye a r s o f

col lege a t Ga l laude t . Two of the mothers had a t tended schools where manua l

l a ngua ge wa s use d ( m othe r s o f John a nd L i sa ) wh i l e the o the rs a t t e nde d o r a l

schools . A ll of the fa th ers a t ten de d m an ua l schools for the deaf .

The pa r e n t s r e po r t e d c om m un ic a t ing wi th e a c h o the r w i th Am e r ic a n S ign

La ngua ge ( AS L) , bu t r e po r t e d us ing bo th s ign a nd o r a l l a ngua ge wi th the i rc h i ld r e n . The a m o un t o f t im e spe n t we e k ly in the c om pa ny o f he a r ing spea ker s

f luc tua ted be tween 10 to 20 hours pe r week for four ch i ldren , and be tween 5

to 15 hours a week for one chi ld (Ro n) . Th e f luc tua t ion in f igures i s pr ima r i ly

caused b y f luc tua tion in the am oun t of t ime the chi ldren spent w i th the i r hear -

ing g randparen ts on week-ends . Al l v is i t ing t imes were inc luded regardless of

whe ther the chi ldren were involved in d i rec t in te rac t ion . None of the mothers

worked and a l l of the chi ldren spent most of each day in the company of the i r

mothers . Al l of the chi ldren wa tched te lev is ion approxim ate ly two hours da i ly .

In te l l ig ib i li ty and M LU of the m others, and age of each chi ld a re sum mar-

ized in Table 1 . Th ree of the f ive mothers (of John, Ron, and Se th) were

judg ed to be less than 15~ in te l l ig ib le and to have a M LU of le ss than 2 .0 .

In te l l ig ib i l i ty was de te rm ined in the fo l lowing way. Twenty - two sentences

f rom the Bar ley Speechreading Tes t ( 1971, Form B) were read by th e mothe rs

and were recorded. F ive d i f fe rent judges t ransc r ibed the sentences and the

TABLE 1. Descriptio n of subjects.

]ohn Lisa Mona Ron Seth,

Age (in m onth s) at first session 22 25.5 23 24 28MLU of dea f mo ther 1.80 2.19 3.5 1.48 1.98Mother's intelligib ility 6~ 86~; 66~; 14~ 6~

584 1ournal of Speech and Hearing Research 22 581-603 September 1979



pre c e n t o f i n t e ll i g ib i l it y w a s d e t e rmi ne d f rom t he m e a n n um be r o f c o r re c t ly

ident i f i ed words f rom a to ta l o f 117 .

M L U w a s d e t e r m i n e d b y a v e r a g i n g t h e m o r p h e m e s p e r u t t e r a n c e fr o m t h r e e

v i de o t a pe s o f t he mo t he r a nd c h i l d ( t he f i r s t , m i dd l e , a nd l a s t ) . A ny s ound

w h i c h o c c u r r e d i n a n a p p r o p r i a t e p o s i t i o n t o b e c o u n t e d a s a m o r p h e m e i n

s t a nda rd E ng l i s h , w a s c oun t e d a s a morphe me i n t he mo t he r s ' da t a . F o r e x -

a mpl e e ve n t hough t he " s " phone me i s ge ne ra l l y phono l og i c a l l y s ubs t i t u t e d

fo r o r omi t t e d i n de a f s pe e c h , i f a ny phone me oc c u r r e d t o i nd i c a t e p l u r a l s ,

c on t r a c t e d c opu l a , t h i rd pe r s on r e gu l a r , a nd s o on , t he s e w e re c oun t e d a s

s e p a r a te m o r p h e m e s .

Procedures

E a c h c h i l d w a s v i de o t a pe d a t home fo r ha l f -hou r s e s s i ons , a pp rox i ma t e l y

onc e a mon t h fo r a m i n i mum o f s i x mon t hs . A l l r e c o rd i ngs w e re ma de us i ngt he S O N Y A V 3400 po r t a pa k un i t . T o ob t a i n more i n fo rma t i on f rom c h i l d r e n

w h o m i gh t no t s how m uc h l i ngu is t ic c ha n ge d u r i ng a s i x -mon t h pe r iod , i t w a s

de c i de d t o obs e rve a ny c h i l d w hos e M L U w a s no t g r e a t e r t ha n 2 .5 a t t he s i x th

obs e rva t i on fo r t h r e e a dd i t i ona l s e s s i ons . T w o c h i l d r e n ( J ohn a nd R on) r e -

qu i r e d more t ha n s i x mon t hs o f obs e rva t i on a nd w e re e a c h obs e rve d fo r a p -

p rox i ma t e l y t e n mon t hs .

Each ha l f -hour v ideotape ses s ion was d iv ided in to two sec t ions of approxi -

ma t e l y 15 mi nu t e s e a c h , one i n w h i c h t he c h i l d i n t e r a c t e d w i t h t he mo t he r ,

a nd one i n w h i c h t he c h i l d i n t e r a c t e d w i t h a he a r i ng a du l t ( t he i nve s t i ga t o r ) .

T he o rde r i n w h i c h t he a du l t s i n t e r a c t e d w i t h t he c h i l d w a s ro t a t e d f rom s e s -

sion to session.

T he i nve s t i ga t o r f o l l ow e d t he s a me obs e rva t i ona l p roc e dure s fo r e l i c i t i ng

u t t e r a nc e s a s ou t l i ne d by B l oom (1970) . T he mo t he r s w e re t o l d t o p l a y w i t h

t he c h i l d a s s he u s ua l l y d id , a n d n o t t o be c onc e rne d i f t he c h i l d d i d no t t a lk .

N o o t he r a t t e mp t s w e re ma de t o in f l ue nc e t he m o t he r 's be ha v i o r . I f it a ppe a re d

t ha t he r be ha v i o r w a s i n f l ue nc e d by t he c a me ra ( fo r i n s t a nc e f f s he r e qu i r e d

na m i ng be ha v i o r e xc lus ive l y f rom t he c h i l d ) , a t t he ne x t obs e rva t i on s e ss ion ,

t he mo t he r w a s a ga i n t o l d t o be ha ve na t u r a l l y . S he w a s r e a s s u re d t ha t t he

chi ld was doing wal l and not to be conceerned i f he d id not speak f requent ly

dur ing the v ideo- tap ing ses s ion .

Analysis of the Data

M ot he r , c h i l d , a nd i nve s t i ga t o r u t t e r a nc e s a nd r e l a t e d c on t e x t ua l i n fo rma -

t ion f rom 36 v i de o t ape s w e re t r a ns c r i be d b y t he i nve s t i ga t o r a nd t w o a s si st a nt s.

T w o ou t o f t h r e e t r a ns c r i be r s w e re r e qu i r e d t o a g re e fo r a n u t t e r a nc e t o be

c ons i de re d i n t e l l i g i b l e . T he t r a ns c r i p t i on ru l e s u s e d w e re r e po r t e d i n B l oom

a n d L a h e y ( 1 9 7 8 ) .

M L U w a s de t e rmi ne d fo r e a c h obs e rva t i on s e s s i on . R u l e s fo r de t e rmi n i ng

M L U w e r e a d a p t e d f r om B r o w n ( 1 9 7 3 ), a n d w e r e th e s a m e a s t h o se u s e d b yB l oom, H ood , a nd L i gh t bow n (1975) .

SCruFF: Language~Deviant Ma terial In p u t 585



Semant ic -Syntac t ic Re la t ions . A l l t h e c h i l d r e n ' s m u l t i - w o r d u t t e r a n c e s w e r e

c a t e g o r iz e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e m e a n i n g s t h a t w e r e e n c o d e d . T h e s e m a n t ic -

s y n t a c t i c c a t e g o r ie s a n d p r o c e d u r e s u s e d f o r c a te g o r i z a t i o n w e r e t h o s e r e p o r t e d

b y B l o o m e t al ( B l o o m , H o o d a n d L i g h t b o w n , 1 9 7 4 ; B l oo m , L i g h t b o w n a n d

H o o d , 1 9 7 5 ) . A n y s e m a n t i c - s y n t a c t i c r e l a t i o n w h i c h w a s n o t i d e n t i f i e d b y

B l o o m e t a l ( 1 9 7 5 ) a n d e m e r g e d f r o m t h e o b s e r v e d d a t a w a s c a t e g o r i z e d a c -

c o r d i n g t o t h e m e a n i n g t h a t w a s r e p r e s e n t e d . U t t e r a n c e s w h i c h c o u l d n o t b e

a s s i g n e d t o a n y c a t e g o r y w e r e c a t e g o r i z e d a s e q u i v o c a l , a n o m a l o u s , o r u n d e -

t e r m i n e d . U t t e r a n c e t y p e s w e r e c a t e g o r i z e d r a t h e r t h a n u t t e r a n c e t o k e n s . T h a t

i s , a n u t t e r a n c e w a s c o u n t e d o n l y o n c e r e g a r d l e s s o f h o w m a n y t i m e s i t o c -

c u r r e d i n a s p e e c h s a m p l e , if t h e s e m a n t i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ( s u c h a s c a t e g o r i z a -

t i o n ) o f t h e u t t e r a n c e w a s t h e s a m e e a c h t i m e i t o c c u r r e d .

T h e f r e q u e n c i e s a n d p r o p o r t i o n s o f t h e c a t e g o r i e s o f s e m a n t i c - s y n t a c t ic r e l a -

t i o n s w e r e c o m p a r e d w i t h r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d w i t h f o u r n o r m a l c h i l d r e n ( B l o o m

e t a l , 1 9 7 5 ) . T h e r e l a t i v e f r e q u e n c i e s f o r e a c h o b s e r v a t i o n s e s s i o n o f b o t h t h e

n o r m a l a n d t h e o b s e r v e d g r o u p w e r e g r o u p e d a c c o r d i n g t o s t a g e s o f d e v e l o p -

m e n t a n d f u n c t i o n . T h e s t a g e s w e r e t h o s e i d e n t i f i e d b y B r o w n ( 1 9 7 3 ) a s E a r l y

S t a g e 1 ( M L U b e t w e e n 1 . 0 a n d 1 . 5 ) ; L a t e S t a g e 1 ( M L U b e t w e e n 1 . 5 a n d

2 . 0 ) ; S t a g e 2 ( M L U b e t w e e n 2 .0 a n d 2 .5 ) ; a n d S t a g e I I I ( M L U b e t w e e n 2 . 5

a n d 3 . 0 ) .

B e c a u s e B l o o m e t a l ( 1 9 7 5 ) f o u n d a d e v e l o p m e n t a l p r o g r e s s i o n o f t h e v e r b

c a t e g o r i e s i n t h e i r d a t a , t h e i r r e l a t i v e f r e q u e n c i e s w e r e a n a l y z e d s e p a r a t e l y

f r o m t h e n o n - v e r b c a t e g o r i e s . V e r b c a t e g o r i e s i n c l u d e d a c t i o n , l o c a t i v e a c t i o n ,

loca t ive s ta te , s t a te , no t ice , and in ten t ion re la t ions . The noaa -ve rb ca tegor ie sw h i c h w e r e c o m p a r e d w e r e t h o s e w h i c h r e p o r t e d l y m a n i f e s t e d d e v e l o p m e n t a l

c h a n g e i n t h e B l o o m e t al, d a t a ( e x i s t e n c e , n e g a t i o n , r e c u r r e n c e , a t t r i b u t i o n ,

p o s s e s s i o n , W h q u e s t i o n s , p l a c e , a c t i o n p l u s p l a c e , d a t i v e , a n d i n s t r u m e n t ) .

The Form o f the Chi ldren ' s and Mothers" Ut terances . F r e q u e n c y a n d p r o -

p o r t i o n m e a s u r e s a l s o w e r e u s e d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e u s e o f p r o n a r n i n a l o r

n o m i n a l r e f e r e n c e a n d t h e o r d e r i n g o f s e n t e n c e c o n s t i t u e n t s . T h e p r o p o r t i o n s

o f p r o n o u n s a n d n o u n s u s e d b y t h e f o u r c h i l d re n w h o s e M L U w a s l es s t h a n 2 .0

w a s d e t e r m i n e d i n a c t i o n , l o c a t i o n a n d p o s s e s s i o n r e l a t i o n s . T h e p r o p o r t i o n o f

u t t e r a n c e s w h i c h m a i n t a i n e d t h e s u b j e c t - v e r b - o b j e c t o r d e r o f c o n s t i t u e n t s w a s ,

c a l c u l a t e d f r o m u t t e r a n c e t y p e s i n t h e c h i l d r e n ' s a n d m o t h e r s ' s p e e c h .T h e a p p e a r a n c e o f g r a m m a t i c a l m o r p h e m e s w i t h i n o b l i g a t o r y c o n t e x t s w a s

d e t e r m i n e d u s i n g t h e a c q u i s i ti o n c r it e r ia e s ta b l i s h e d b y B r o w n ( 1 9 7 3 ) . T h e

c o n te x ts i n w h i c h a g r a m m a t i c a l m o r p h e m e w a s o b l ig a t o r y w e r e d e t e r m i n e d

f r o m o n e t r a n s c r i p t f o r e a c h o f t h e c h i l d r e n , a n d t h e n t h e p r o p o r t i o n a l a p -

p e a r a n c e o f t h a t m o r p h e m e i n t h o se r e q u i r e d c o n t ex t s w a s c o m p u t e d . T h r e e

t a p e s w e r e a n a l y z e d f o r e a c h m o t h e r ( f i r s t , m i d d l e , a n d l a s t ) . P h o n o l o g i c a l

d i s t o r t i o n s f o r m o r p h e m e s w e r e c o u n t e d i n t h i s a n a l y s i s .

Discourse Re la t ions . D i s c o u r s e d e v e l o p m e n t w a s i n v e s t i g a t e d u s i n g t h e

c a t e g o r i e s a n d p r o c e d u r e s o u t l i n e d b y B l o o m , R o c i s s a n o , a n d H o o d ( 1 9 7 6 ) .

A l l o f t h e c h i l d r e n ' s u t t e r a n c e s w e r e c a t e g o r i z e d a s t o w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e y

w e r e p r e c e d e d b y a n a d u l t u t t e r a n c e . T h o s e u t t e r a n c e s w h i c h f o l l o w e d a n

586 1ournal o[ Speech and Hearing Research 22 581-603 September 1979



a d u l t u t t e r a n c e ( . ad j a c en t s p e e c h ) w e r e t h e n d i v i d e d i n t o t w o g r o u p s , th o s e

t h a t w e r e r e l a t e d t o t h e a d u l t u t t e r a n c e b y t o p i c a n d t h o s e t h a t w e r e u n r e l a t ed .

T h o s e u t t e r a n c e s w h i c h w e r e r e l a t e d w e r e s u b d i v i d e d i n t o t w o c a te g o ri e s,

t h o s e t h a t w e r e i m i t a t io n s a n d t h o s e t h a t w e r e c o n t i ng e n t . C o n t i n g e n t u t -

t e r a n c e s w e r e t h o s e c h i l d u tt e r a n c e s t h a t s h a r e d t h e s a m e t o p i c w i t h t h e p r e-

c e d i n g u t t e r a n c e a n d a d d e d i n f o r m a t i o n t o i t. I m i t a t i o n s s h a r e d t h e s a m e t o p i c

w i t h t h e p r e c e d i n g a d u l t u t t e r a n c e b y r e p e a t i n g a ll o r p a r t w i t h n o c h a n g e .

I m i t a t e d u t t e r a n c e s w e r e s u b d i v i d e d i n t o t w o c a t e g o r ie s , t h o s e t h a t w e r e s p o n -

t a n e o u s i m i t a t io n s o f t h e a d u l t u t t e r a n c e , a n d t h o s e t h a t w e r e e l i c i t ed i m i t a -

t io n s ( i m i t a t i o n s r e q u e s t e d b y t h e a d u l t ) . T h e r e l a t iv e f r e q u e n c y o,f a d j a c e n t

u t t e r a n c e s w h i c h w e r e c o n t i n g e n t, a n d s p o n t a n e o u s a n d e l i c it e d i m i t a t i o n s

w e r e c o m p a r e d w i t h r es u l ts o b t a i n e d b y B l o o m , R o c i s sa n o , a n d H o o d ( 1 9 7 6 ) .

T h e u t t er a n c e s w h i c h w e r e c o n t i n g e n t w e r e f u r t h e r d i v i d e d i n t o t w o c a te -

g o r ie s : ( 1 ) t h o s e w h i c h w e r e c o n t e x tu a l l y c o n t i n g e n t , a n d ( 2 ) t h o s e w h i c hw e r e l i n g u i s t i c a l l y c o n t i n g e n t . D i f f e r e n c e s i n c o n t e x t u a l l y a n d l i n g u i s t i c a l l y

c o n t i n g e n t u t t e r a n c e s w e r e c o m p a r e d i n t h e c h i l d re n ' s s p e e c h t o t h e in -

v e s t i g a t o r a n d t o t h e m o t h e r s . C o n t e x t u a l l y c o n t i n g e n t u t t e r a n c e s w e r e t h o s e

c o n t i n g e n t u t t e r a n c e s w h i c h f o l l o w e d f r o m t h e s i t u a ti o n o r a c t i o n in t h e p re -

c e d i n g s p e e c h e v e n t , b u t w e r e n o t g r a m m a t i c a l l y s u b o r d i n a t e t o o r n e c e s s a ri l y

d e p e n d e n t u p o n t h e p r io r a d u l t u tt e ra n c e . F o r e x a m p le , A d u l t U t t e r a n c e : Y o u

t a k e c ar e o f t h e b a b y ( h o l d i n g u p a b a b y d o l l ) , C h i l d U t t e r a n c e : S h e w a n t

m y m o m m y . L i n g u i s t i c a l ly c o n t i n g e n t u t t e r a n c e s , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , w e r e

g r a m m a t i c a l l y s u b o r d i n a t e . T h e s e w e.r e c o n t i n g e n t u tt e r a n c e s w h i c h w e r e

g r a m m a t i c a l l y r e l a t e d t o t h e p r i o r a d u l t u t t e r a n c e i n t e r m s o f l e xi c al a n d s t ru c -t u r a l c o n t i n u i t ie s . T h e r e w e r e s e v e r a l c a t e g o r i e s o f l i n g u i s t i c c o n t i n g e n t u t -

t e r a n c e s a n d t h e s e a r e d e fi n e d b e l o w :

(1) In traclausal speech: u t terances which add information to the adult u t terancewith in the same c lause s tructure and with the same verb re la t ion as the pr ioradult u t terance. For example ,Adult Utterance: Who's gonna walk up?

Child Utterance: Daddy gonna walk up a l l the s teps here .(2) In terc lausal speech: u t terances in which information is added by the chi ld to

the adult 's pr ior u t terance with another clause that is grammatically sub-ordinate to the c lause of the adult u t terance. For example ,

Adult Utterance: Why is she crying?Child Utterance: because she wants to ea t?

(3) Recodings: u t terances that repeat par t or a l l of the pr ior adult u t terance andchange i ts form without a dding to or a l ter ing i ts m eaning. For example ,Ad ult Utterance: He sa ys he doesn ' t want to go.

Child Utterance: no wanna go.(4) Requested R epeti tions: u t terances which fo l low the ad ult 's request for a

repet i t ion of a previous chi ld u t terance which the adult d id not unders tand. Forexample,

Child Utterance: br ing th is t ra in .Adu l t Ut te rance : Wha t?

Child Utterance: br ing the t ra in .

SCHIFF" Language~D eviant Material Input 587



R E S U L T S

Sema nt i c -Syn tac t i c Re la t ions

Th e data consisted of 7,463 spontaneous ut terances, excluding imm ediate

repetitions of the same utterance. Approximately 0.89 of those utterances we re

intel ligible. Using the pro cedures and categories out l ined by Bloo m , Ligh t-

bow n, and H oo d (1 975 ), 0.94 of the semantic-syntactic relationships containe d

within m ult i-word ut terances could be identified. One addit ional category not

reported by Bloom et a l (1975) was observed: t i re category represent ing

identi ty relat ions (such as, "da dd y a man"; "yon m om my "). The observed

group ta lked abon t ident i ty re la tions app roximately 0 .02 of the t ime.

The progression of MLU over t ime is depicted in Figure 1, which reveals

t SETH

........ LISA

3 .6 - - - - - JOH N

3 .4 - - - - , R ON

3 2~ ~ MO NA

~ 3 .0 .

~ 2 .8 .

~ 2 .6-

0 2 .4 . . . .

. . . . . . . . " "2.2.

z r

. j 2 .0 ' ~ . . . ~ . - ' ~ . . - . ~ . . ,

1.8 / , . ~ . ~ _ _ ~ . _ _ . . . .

1 .6 ~ ' / t~ . . . ;~r 9 % _ _ I

1 . 4 ~ / / " % ' ~ "~ /

1 . 2 1 "

4 8 12 16, i | ,

20 24 28 32 36

TIME N WEEKS

F IC U RE 1 . T h e p r o g r e s s i o n o f M e a n L e n g t h o f U t t e r a n c e o v e r ti m e .

40 44

that a l l of the chi ldren's MLUs increased with t ime. However, the ra te of de-

velopm ent was slower for John and Ron. T hese two chi ldren we.re observed

for nine sessions (40 weeks), because MLU had not passed 2.5 after approxi-

mate ly 6 months of obse~a t ion .

In Table 2 are summarized the proportions of the categories of sernantic-

syntactic relations in the total sample of the relations of the observed group

and the chi ldren studied by Bloom et a] (1975). H owever, re la tions from only

two of Mona 's t ranscript ions were categorized because her MLU during thefirs t observat ion had equaled or surpassed that of both groups of chi ldren

588 lour na l of Speech and Hearing Research 22 581-6 03 September 1979



TABLE 2. Proportion of different sem antic-syntactic re lation s in the tota l samp le of theobserved and comparat ive groups.*

Observed Group Comparative Group

John Lisa Mo na Ron Seth Eric Gia Kathryn PeterAction 0.13 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.11 0.19 0.30 0.23 0.18Locat ive

Action 0.14 0.11 0.20 0.20 0.12 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.13Loc ative State 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.05State 0.05 0.13 0.04 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.02 0.06 0.02Notice 0.09 0.04 0.03 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01Intention 0 .0 1 0.06 0.15 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.07 0.05 0.01Existence 0.10 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.06Neg ation 0.06 0.09 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.04 0.03Recurrence 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.08Possession 0 .0 1 0.03 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.08 0.05Attribution 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.11

W h Questions 0.12 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.03Plac e 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.04Action -t- Place 0.02 0.00 0 . 0 1 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01Dative 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00Instru m ent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Ide ntity 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Other* * 0.12 0.12 0.07 0.09 0.16 0.07 0.04 0.05 0.11Equ ivoca l 0 .0 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00Un determ ined 0.09 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.11 0.13 0.06 0.07 0.10Tota l Num ber

of Relations 878 874 499 652 1295 1694 1995 2717 1014

*Data for comparat ive group were obtained from resul ts

and Hood ( 1975 ) .**Stereotype, routine, greeting, conjunction, affirmation,

repor t ed by Bloom, Lightbown

manner and t ime.

d u r i n g t h e i r la s t o b s e r v a t i o n s . S h e h a d r e a c h e d a M L U o f 3 .0 a t 2 3 m o n t h s

o f a g e . B e c a u s e M L U w a s u s e d as: t h e i n d e x o f li n g u i s ti c m a t u r i t y b y w h i c h

t o c o m p a r e t h e s e m a n t i c - s y n t a c t i c r e la t io n s , a d d i t i o n a l c a t e g o r i z a t io n s f r o m

M o n a w e r e n o t c o n s i d e r e d n e c e s s a r y .

T h e v e r b c a t e g o r i e s ( a c t i o n , l o c a t i v e a c t i o n , l o c a t i v e s ta t e , s ta t e , n o t i c e a n d

i n t e n t i o n ) a c c o u n t e d f o r a n a v e r a g e o f 0.5 1 i n t h e o b s e r v e d d a t a , a n d f o r 0 .4 6

i n t h e B l o o m e t a l d a t a ( 1 9 7 5 ) . T h e v e r b c a t e g o r i e s p l u s t h e c a t e g o r ie s t h a t

m a d e r e f e r e n c e t o o b j e c ts ( e x i s te n c e , n e g a t i o n , r e c u r r e n c e , p o s s e s si o n , a t tr i b u -t i o n ) a c c o u n t e d f o r a n a v e r a g e o f 0.7 4 of t h e r e l a t io n s i n t h e o b s e r v e d d a t a ,

w h i l e t h e y a c c o u n t e d f o r a n a v e r a g e o f 0 .7 7 i n t h e B l o o m e t a l ( 1 9 7 5 ) d a t a .

W h q u e s t i o n s a n d t h e c a t e g o r ie s t h a t w e r e s u b o r d i n a t e t o t h e a c t i o n r e l a ti o n s

( i n s t r u m e n t , d a t i v e , a n d a c t i o n p l u s p l a c e ) w e r e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r 0 .0 9 of t h e

r e l a ti o n s in t h e o b s e r v e d g r o n p , a n d 0 .0 4 i n t h e B l o o m e t a l d a ta . T h e o t h e r

r e l a ti o n s r e p r e s e n t i n g s t e r e o t y p e , r o u t i n e , g r e e t i n g , v o c a t i v e , c o n iu n c t i o n , a f -

f i rm a t i o n , m a n n e r a n d t i m e a c c o u n t e d f o r 0 .1 1 i n t h e o b s e r v e d d a t a , a n d f o r

0 . 07 i n t h e B l o o m e t a l d a t a . ( F o r d e f i n it i o n s o f c a t e g o r i e s s e e B l o o m , H o o d ,

a n d L i g h t b o w n , 1 97 4; a n d B l o o m , L i g h t b o w n a n d H o o d , 1 9 7 5 .) A s i n t h e

B l o o m e t a l ( 1 9 7 5 ) d a t a , th e t o t a l n u m b e r o f r e l at io n s o f e a c h o b s e r v e d c h i l d

i n c r e a s e d o v e r t i m e .

SCHIFF: Language~Deviant Material Input 589



T o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e o b s e r v e d c h i l d r e n u s e d a s m a n y d i f f e r e n t w o r d

c o m b i n a t i o n s a s t h e B l o o m e t a l ( 1 9 7 5 ) c h i l d r e n ( t h e c o m p a r a t i v e g r o u p ) , t h e

a v e r a g e n u m b e r o f i n t e l l i g i b l e s e m a n t i c - s y n t a c t i c r e l a t i o n s ( u t t e r a n c e t y p e s )

p e r o n e - h a l f h o u r s e g m e n t f o r e a c h g r o u p w a s c o m p a r e d . I t w a s f o u n d t h a t t h e

o b s e r v e d c h i l d r e n u s e d m o r e s y n t a ct ic u t t e r a n c e t y p e s i n a o n e - h a lf h o u r p e r i o d

t h a n t h e c o m p a r a t i v e g r o u p .

T h e p r o p o r t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f r e l a t i o n s w i t h i n t h e v e r b c a t e g o r i e s w e r e

c o m p a a 'e d w i t h t h e B l o o m e t a l ( 1 9 7 5 ) d a t a . T h e r e l a t i v e f r e q u e n c y o f u t -

t e r a n c e t y p e s w i t h i n e a c h v e r b c a t e g o r y f o r e a c h c h i l d i n b o t h g r o u p s w a s

d e t e r m i n e d . T h e r a n g e s o f t h e p r o p o r t i o n s f o r e a c h g r o u p a n d e a c h c a t e g o r y

a t t h r e e s t a g e s o f d e v e l o p m e n t a r e s u m m a r i z e d i n T a b l e 3 . B e c a u s e o f l a r g e

TABLE 3. Ra ng e of propo rtions of the V erb Ca tegories of the observed and comp arativegroups at three stages of development.*

Late Stage I Stage 2 Stage 3

Verb Com- Com- Com-Ca teg orie s Observed parative** Observed p a ra t i v e Observed parat ive

Action 0 .19-0 .40 0 .41 -0 .6 5 0 .26 -0 .2 7 0 .39 -0 .51 0 .25 -0 .3 1 0 .43-0 .44Loca tive Ac t ion 0 .23-0 .39 0 .22-0 .35 0 .23-0 .29 0 .15-0 .34 0 .18-0 .33 0 .19-0 .22Loca tive S t a t e 0 .04 -0 .07 0 .05-0 .14 0 .03-0 .12 0 .05-0 .14 0 .04- 0 .07 0 .05-0 .08Sta te 0 .11-0 .23 0 .0 3-0 .14 0 .12 -0 .2 4 0 .04 -0 .0 9 0 .0 6-0 .28 0 .08-0 .16Notice 0 .07-0 .20 0 .00 -0 .0 6 0 .09 -0 .1 5 0 .01 -0 .0 2 0 .04 -0 .1 6 0 .02-0 .14Intention 0 .00-0 .04 0 .0 0-0 .03 0 .06 -0 .1 3 0 .03 -0 .2 3 0 .11 -0 .2 5 0 .03-0 .13

*Proportions wer e determined from the total num ber of eac h child 's utterance typeswithin the Ve rb Categories at eac h stage of development.

**Data for Com parative Gro up w ere determined from results repo rted by Bloom et al(1975).

i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a b i l i t y a m o n g t h e c h i l d r e n i n e a c h g r o u p , t h e r a n g e s o f t h e t w o

g r o u p s o v e r l a p p e d f o r m o s t o f t h e c a t e g o r i e s a t e a c h s t a g e . H o w e v e r , t h e

g r e a t e s t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e t w o g r o u p s o c c u r r e d f o r t h e a c t i o n c a t e g o r y a t

a l l s t a g e s o f d e v e l o p m e n t , w i t h t h e c o m p a r a t i v e g r o u p u s i n g m o r e a c t i o n

v e r b s . T h e o b s e r v e d g r o u p t e n d e d t o t a l k l e s s a b o u t t h e i r a c t i o n s a n d m o r e

a b o u t s t a t e a n d n o t i c e r e l a t i o n s . D e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t t h e o b s e r v e d g r o u p

t a l k e d a b o u t a c t i o n r e l a t i o n s l e s s t h a n t h e c o m p a r a t i v e g r o u p , b o t h g r o u p s e n -c o d e d a c t i o n e v e n ts ( a c t i o n a n d l o c a t i v e a c t i o n ) m o r e t h a n n o n - a c t io n e v e n t s

( s t a te , loca t ive s t a t e and no t i ce ) du r ing a l l s t ages o f deve lopment .

T h e n o n - v e r b c a t e go r ie s c o n s i d e r e d t o b e i m p o r t a n t d e v e l o p m e n t a l l y i n t h e

B l o o m e t a l ( 1 9 7 5 ) d a t a w e r e s im i l a r ly c o m p a r e d a t th r e e s t a g e s o f d e v e l o p -

me n t . Ex am ina t io n o ,f these re su l t s in Ta b le 4 revea l s tha t the g rea te s t d i f -

f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n g r o u p s o c c u r r e d i n S t a g e 1 , w i t h t h e o b s e r v e d g r o u p u s i n g

m a n y m o r e W h q u e st io n s , a n d t h e c o m p a r a t i v e g r o u p u s i n g m o r e a t t ri b u t i v e

r e l a t i o n s . I n a d d i t i o n , w h i l e t h e o b s e r v e d g r o u p t a l k e d a b o u t l o c a t i v e s t a t e

r e l a t i o n s ( s u c h a s , " D a d d y s i t t i n g i n c h a i r " ) , t h e y d i d n o t t a l k a b o u t p l a c e

on ly ( such a s , " in cha i r " , "on i t " ) .

I n s u m m a r y , h e a r i n g c h i l d r e n o f d e a f p a r e n t s n o t o n l y u s e d e s s e n t i a l l y t h e

590 1ourn al of Speech and Hearing Research 22 581-603 September 1979



TABLE 4. R ange of proportions of Non -Verb C ategories of the observed and com parativegroups at three stages of development.*

Late Stage I Stage 2 Stage 3

Non-Verb Com- Corn- Corn-Ca tegor i e s O b se rv ed para ti ve** Observed pa ra t i v e Observed para ti ve

E xiste nc e 0 .2 0 -0 .48 0 .0 9 -0 .2 2 0 .1 6 -0 .2 5 0 .0 9 -0 .1 9 0 .0 0 -0 .1 9 0 .17 -0.1 8Ne ga tion 0 .0 0 -0 .18 0 .0 4 -0 .1 3 0 .1 5 -0 .2 8 0 .0 5 -0 .1 3 0 .1 5 -0 .3 9 0 .09 -0 .1 5R ec ur re nc e 0 . 0 0 - 0 . 1 5 0 . 0 8 - 0 . 3 4 0 . 0 8 - 0 . 1 5 0 . 0 7 - 0 . 1 8 0 . 0 2 - 0 . 1 5 0 .0 7 -0 .0 8Possession 0 .01-0 .08 0 .0 1-0 .25 0 .0 4-0 .11 0 .1 5-0 .27 0 .0 0- 0 . 24 0 .05-0.24A ttr ib utio n 0 . 0 3 - 0 . 1 7 0 . 2 4 - 0 . 4 2 0 . 2 0 - 0 . 2 1 0 . 1 8 - 0 . 2 8 0 . 1 1 - 0 . 2 9 0 .1 9 -0 .3 0W h Q u e st io n s 0 . 2 0 - 0 . 4 6 0 . 0 1 - 0 . 1 1 0 . 0 9 - 0 . 1 6 0 . 0 6 - 0 . 0 9 0 . 1 2 - 0 . 1 8 0 .1 4 -0 .1 9P la ce 0 .0 0 -0 .00 0 .0 3 -0 .0 6 0 .0 0 -0 .0 2 0 .0 2 -0 .1 1 0 .0 0 -0 .0 2 0 .00 -0.0 5Ac tio n + P la ce 0 .0 0 -0 .0 5 0 .0 0 -0 .0 6 0 .0 0 -0 .0 0 0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 0 .0 3 -0 .0 5 0 .0 1 -0 .02Da tive 0 .00 -0.08 0 .0 0 -0 .0 5 0 .0 4 -0 .0 7 0 .0 1 -0 .0 2 0 .0 1 -0 .0 7 0 .02 -0.0 4In str um e nt 0 . 0 0 - 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 - 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 - 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 - 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 - 0 . 0 0 0 .0 0 -0 .0 0

*Proportions were determ ined from the total num ber of each child's utterance typ es with-in Non-Verb Categories at each stage of development. Categories which did not appear inthe B loom et al (1975 ) data and those which were not considered to be important develop-mentally were excluded.

**Data for Com parative Gro up were determined from r esults reported by Bloom et al( 1975 ).

s a m e c a t e g o r i e s o f s e m a n t i c - s y n t a c t i c r e l a t i o n s i n t h e i r m e s s a g e s , b u t t h e y

u s e d a t l e as t a s m a n y s e m a n t i c - s y n t a c t ic r e l a ti o n s a s d i d c h i l d r e n f r o m h e a r i n g

e n v i r o n m e n t s . I n o t h e r w o r d s , t h e o b s e r v e d g r o u p d i d n o t u s e o n l y a f e w

s t e r e o t y p e d p h r a s e s t o e n c o d e t h e s e m a n t i c - s y n t a c t i c r e l a t i o n s . T h e p r o p o r -

t i o n a l re p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f t h e c a t e go r i e s w e r e s i m i l ar in t w o i m p o r t a n t r e s p e c ts :( 1 ) T h e v e r b c a t e g o r i e s a n d t h e c a t e g o r i e s t h a t m a d e r e f e r e n c e t o o b j e c t s

a c c o u n t e d f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y 0 .7 5 o f t h e s y n t a c t i c u t t e r a n c e s o f b o t h g r o u p s ;

a n d ( 2 ) W i t h i n t h e v e r b c a t e g o ri e s b o t h g r o u p s u s e d m o r e a c t io n t h a n n o n -

a c t i o n v e r b s . H o w e v e r , t h e r e w e r e d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e p r o p o r t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a -

t i o n o f s o m e o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l c a t e g o r i e s a t d i f f e r e n t s t a g e s o f d e v e l o p m e n t .

O r d e r i n g o f S u b i e c t - V e r b - O b l e c t C o n s t i tu e n t s

T h e o v e r w h e l m i n g m a i o r i t y o f t h e c h i l d r e n ' s u t t e r a n c e s w e r e s y s t e m a t i c a l l y

c o m b i n e d . O n l y 0 . 0 3 o r l e s s o f t h e s y n t a c t i c u t t e r a n c e s o f a n y c h i l d v i o l a t e dt h e s u b i e e t - v e r b - o b i e e t o r d e r o f c o n s t i t u e n t s .

U s e o f P r o n o m i n a l o r N o m i n a l R e f e r e n c e s f o r L i n g u i s ti c R e p r e s e n t a t i o n

A p r e d o m i n a n t p r o n o m i n a l o r n o m i n a l p a t t e r n o f e n c o d i n g s e n t e n c e c o n -

s t i t u e n t s w h e n M L U w a s l e s s t h a n 2 . 0 w a s p r e s e n t o n l y i n t h e d a t a f o r S e t h

a n d L i s a . T h e y u s e d n o u n s m o r e o f t e n t h a n p r o n o u n s d u r i n g t h e i r f i r s t o b -

s e r v a t i o n s e s s i o n , e n c o d i n g m o r e t h a n 0 . 7 0 o f a g e n t s , o b j e c t s a n d p l a c e s a s

n o u n s . A f t e r M L U p a s s e d 2 . 0, l ik e t h e B l o o m e t al ( 1 9 7 5 ) c h i l d r e n , S e t h , L i s a ,

a n d M o n a u s e d p r e d o m i n a n t l y p r o n o u n s t o e n c o d e a g e n t s a n d n o u n s t o e n -

c o d e o b j e ct s. N o d a t a w e r e a v a i l a b l e f o r M o n a p r i o r t o a M L U o f 2 .0 . J o h n

SCHIFF: Language~Deviant Material Input 59 1



a n d R o n d i d n o t u s e e i t h e r n o u n s o r p r o n o u n s p r e d o m i n a n t l y , b u t f r o m t h e

b e g i n n i n g t e n d e d t o c o d e m o v e r s a n d a g e n t s a s p r o n o u n s a n d a f f e c t e d o b j e c t s

a s n o u n s .

D e v e l o p m e n t o f G r a m m a t i c a l M o r p h e m e s

T h e c h i l d r e n ' s u s e o f g r a m m a t i c a l m o r p h e m e s w i t h i n o b l i g a t o r y c o n t e x t s i s

s u m m a r i z e d i n T a b l e s 5 a n d 6 . E x a m i n a t i o n o f T a b l e 5 r e v e a l s t h a t t h e t w o

TABLE 5. Num ber a nd Proportions of g ramm atical morphe mes in obligatory contexts intwo children's speech sam ple during Stage 1 (M LU = 1.5-2.0).*

]ohn Ron

Morphe mes n * * M + * ** n M +

present progressive 9 7 (0.78 ) 2 0in, on 18 10 (0.56) 5 4 (0.75)plural 6 4(0.67) 5 1(0.20)past irregular 2 2 6 3 (0.50 )possessive 0 0 0 0unco ntractible copu la 5 5 ( .0 ) 20 14 ( 0.70 )articles 37 9(0 .24) 24 11(0.46)past regular 0 0 1 0third person regular 2 1 3 0third person irregular 0 0 0 0uncontractible aux. 0 0 0 0contractible copula 27 6 ( 0.22 ) 8 2 ( .25 )contractible aux. 1 0 1 0

*Proportions are give n in parentheses w hen there w ere fiv e or mo re obligatory contextsfor a morpheme to o ccu r. Proportions represent the frequency of oc currenc o of themorpheme within the obligatory contexts.

**n = numb er of obligatory contexts for each morphe me for each child.***M + = the number of occurrences of the morpheme.

c h i l d r e n w h o s e M L U s t a y e d b e lo w 2 .0 d u r i n g t h e o b s e r v a t io n p e r i o d w e r e

d e v e l o p i n g s o m e g r a m m a t i c a l m o r p h e m e s . A l t h o u g h g r a m m a t i c a l m o r p h e m e s

a r e n o t e x p e c t e d t o b e a c q u i r e d d u r i n g S t a g e 1 , t h e r e s u lt s a r e p r e s e n t e d h e r e

t o s h o w t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n w e r e d e v e l o p i n g m o r p h o l o g i c a l l y . E x a m i n a t i o n o fT a b l e 6 r e v e a l s t h a t t h r e e c h i l d r e n i n S t a g e 3 h a d r e a c h e d t h e c r i t e r i o n o f

90% a c q u i s i t i o n w i t h i n o b l i g a t o r y c o n t e x ts ( B r o w n , 1 9 73 ) f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g

g r a m m a t i c a l m o r p h e m e s : p r e s e n t p r o g r e s s i v e , i n a n d o n , a n d t h e p l u r a l . T h e y

w e r e t h e o n l y m o r p h e m e s t h a t r e a c h e d 90% a c q u i s i t i o n b y S t a g e 3 i n t h e

s p e e c h o f a l l t h r e e c h i l d r e n s t u d i e d b y B r o w n .

T o c o m p a r e t h e s e q u e n c e o f d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e g r a m m a t i c a l m o r p h e m e s

f o r t h e o b s e r v e d c h i l d r e n w i t h B r o w n ' s d a t a ( 1 9 7 3 ) , t h e p r o p o r t i o n s o f

m o r p h e m e s f o r w h i c h f i v e o b l i g a t o r y c o n t e x t s o c c u r r e d w e r e r a n k e d f o r e a c h

c h i l d . O n l y t h e t h r e e c h i l d r e n w h o p a s s e d S t a g e i w e r e i n c l u d e d i n t h i s a n a l y -

s is . A m i n i m u m o f fi ve o b l i g a t o r y c o n te x t s w a s c o n s i d e r e d n e c e s s a r y i n o r d e r

t o c a l c u l a t e a p r o p o r t io n . T h i s w a s t h e s a m e c r i t e r i o n a s t h e o n e u s e d b y

59 2 1ournal o[ Speech and Hearing Research 22 581-603 Septembe r 1979



TABLE 6. Nu m ber an d proportions of gram m atical morphem es in obligatory contexts inthree children s speech samples durin g S tage 3 (M L U -----2 .5-3 .0) .*

Lisa Mona Seth

Morphemes n ** M + * * * n M + n M +pre sen t progressive 11 10( 0.91 ) 11 11 1.0 ) 17 17 ( 1.0 )in , on 12 11(0 .92) 14 13(0 .9 3) 15 14(0 .93)plura l 14 13(0 .93 ) 9 9(1 .0) 23 21(0 .91 )past irregular 5 2( 0.40 ) 6 5( 0.83 ) 7 5( 0.71 )possessive 2 2 5 4 ( 0.80 ) 0 0uncon tractible copula 4 3 2 2 23 23 1.0 )articles 49 27 ( 0.55 ) 65 47 ( 0.72 ) 81 64 ( 0.79 )pas t r egu la r 0 0 6 0 (0 .00 ) 8 3 (0 .38 )th ird person regular 22 0 ( 0 .00 ) 15 3 (0 .20) 15 4 0 .27)th i rd pe rson i r regu la r 15 0 (0 .00 ) 5 0 (0 .00 ) 8 3 (0 .38 )unco ntractible auxiliary 0 0 2 2 0 0

contract ib le copula 36 19(0 .53) 29 1 9(0 .66 ) 31 22 (0 .71 )contractible auxiliary 6 4 ( 0.67 ) 10 6 ( 0.60 ) 30 17 ( 0.57 )

*Proportions a re given in parentheses w hen th ere w ere five or more obligatory contextsfor each morpheme to occur . Proport ions represent the f requency of occurrence of themorpheme within the obligatory contexts.

**number of obligatory contexts for each morpheme for each child.***M+ = the number of occurrences of the morpheme.

d e V i l li er s a n d d e V i ll ie r s ( 1 9 7 3 ) . A S p e a r m a n r a n k c o r r e l a ti o n o f t h e a v e r a g e

o f t h e r a n k s o f t h e t w o g r o u p s r e v e a l e d a n 0 . 87 c o rr e la t io n . T h i s c o r r e l a t i o n

w a s t h e s a m e a s t h a t o b t a i n e d b y B r o w n w h e n h e c o m p a r e d h i s d a t a w i t h t h e

d a t a f r o m a g r o u p o f 2 1 c h i l d r e n f r o m n o r m a l h e a r i n g h o m e s s t u d i e d b yd e V i l li e rs a n d d e V i l l ie r s ( 1 9 7 3 ) .

Deve lopment o f Discourse Re la t ions

A c h i - s q u a r e a n a l y s is w i t h Y a t e s c o r r e c ti o n o r F i s h e r E x a c t T e s t w e r e u s e d

t o t e s t a l l o f t h e f o l l o w i n g d i f f e r e n c e s i n d i s c o u r s e r e l a t i o n s .

T h e f o u r c h i l d r e n w h o w e r e o b s e r v e d f r o m S t a g e 1 w e r e f o u n d t o d e c r ea s e

i n t h e i r u s e o f s p o n t a n e o u s i m i t a t i o n s o v e r t i m e , w h i l e t h e r e l a t i v e f r e q u e n c y

o f c o n t i n g e n t s p e e c h i n c r e a s e d a s t h e c h i l d r e n d e v e l o p e d l a n g u a g e . T h i s t r e n d

o f d e v e l o p m e n t w a s p r e s e n t i n t h e d is c o ur s e w i t h t h e d e a f m o t h e r s a n d w i t ht h e h e a r i n g i n v es t ig a t or . A t r e n d c o u l d n o t b e d e t e r m i n e d f o r M o n a b e c a u s e

s h e w a s a l r e a d y i n S t a g e 3 w h e n s h e w a s f ir st o b s e r v e d . T h e p r o p o r t i o n s o f

s p o n t a n e o u s i m i t a t io n s a n d c o n t i n g e n t u t t e r a n c e s i n e a c h s a m p l e o f a d j a c e n t

s p e e c h a r e s u m m a r i z e d i n T a b l e 7 . A s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n f r e q u e n c i e s b e -

t w e e n f i rs t a n d l a st o b s e rv a t i o n s o f c o n t i n g e n t u t t e r a n c e s w a s f o u n d f o r e a c h

o f t h e c h i l d r e n w i t h p < 0 . 0 0 2 ( X ~ = 9 .6 , 1 9 .2 , 2 9 .8 , a n d 1 5 . 3 ) . A s i g n i f i c a n t

d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n f i r s t a n d l a s t o b s e r v a t i o n s f o r s p o n t a n e o u s i m i t a t i o n w a s

f o u n d w i t h p < 0 .0 0 1 f o r t h r e e c h i l d r e n ( X 2 = 1 9 .1 , 1 8. 3, a n d 2 2 . 6 ) , a n d

p < 0 . 0 2 f o r o n e c h i l d ( X 2 = 5 . 7 ) .

T h r o u g h o u t t h e o b s e r v a t i o n p e r i o d , t h e m a j o r i t y o f c h i l d u t t e r a n c e s w h i c h

f o l lo w e d a d u l t u t t e ra n c e s ( a d j a c e n t s p e e c h ) w e r e r e l a t e d to t h a t u t te r a n c e b y

ScrttFr: Language~D eviant M aterial Inpu t 593



TA~aL~ 7 . Num be r o f a d j a c e n t u t t e ra nc e s a nd p rop o r t i ons o f t he s e u t t e ra nc e s t h a t we res pon t a ne ous i m i t a t i ons a nd c on t i nge n t i n t he s a m p l e s o f fou r c h i l d re n . *

Num ber of Adjacent Spontaneous Cont ingentUtterances Imitations Spee ch

Sample John Lisa Ron Seth John Lisa Ron Seth John Lisa Ron Seth

123456789

68 132 91 70 0 .31 0 .25 0 .30 0 .16 0 .22 0 .43 0 .40 0 .44

113 140 49 143 0 .27 0 .19 0 .29 0 .17 0 .19 0 .53 0 .33 0 .62106 165 63 159 0 .21 0 .22 0 .21 0 .18 0 .34 0 .53 0 .44 0 .55134 117 78 160 0 .25 0 .25 0 .24 0 .16 0 .47 0 .51 0 .49 0 .55116 173 85 114 0 .16 0 .21 0 .22 0 .12 0 .45 0 .58 0 .55 0 .55125 170 130 162 0 .16 0 .14 0 .15 0 .08 0 .48 0 .62 0 .52 0 .72126 - 150 - 0 .13 - 0 .18 - 0 .62 - 0 .45 -110 - 125 - 0 .11 - 0 .21 - 0 .53 - 0 .51 -131 - 164 - 0.07 - 0.07 - 0.56 - 0.75 -

*Ad j a c e n t s pe e c h a l s o i nc l ude d e l i c i t e d i m i t a t i ons a nd u t t e ra nc e s wh i c h we re un re l a t e d

t o t he p r i o r u t t e ra nc e .

TABLE 8 . P ropo r t i on o f u t t e ra nc e s wh i c h w e re r e l a t e d t o t he a d u l t u t t e ra nc e s i n t he t o t a ls a n l p l e o f a d j a c e n t s pe e c h .

Total ProportionNum ber o f wh i ch wasAdjacent Related

Utterances Utterances

Chi ldren H.A.* M.** H.A . M.

Proportion of Related Utterances in Ea ch C ategory

Co ntingen t Spontaneous ElicitedSpeech Imitat ion Imitat ion

H.A. M. H.A. MI H.A. M.

J oh n 717 312 0 . 62 0 . 72 0 . 46 0 . 44 0 . 16 0 . 23 0 . 00 0 . 06

Li s a 414 483 0 . 78 0 . 80 0 . 58 0 . 50 0 . 19 0 . 22 0 . 01 0 . 08M ona 158 105 0 .78 0 .81 0 .56 0 .51 0 .22 0 .30 0 .00 0 .00R on 693 242 0 . 76 0 . 72 0 . 60 0 . 29 0 . 16 0 . 27 0 . 00 0 . 17Se th 586 222 0 .78 0 .74 0 .67 0 .45 0 .11 0 .27 0 .00 0 .01

* H . A . = H e a r i n g ad u l t* * M. = Mo t he r

t o p i c ( t h a t i s , t h e y w e r e i m i t a t e d o r c o n t i n g e n t ) . I n T a b l e 8 a r e s u m -

m a r i z e d t h e p r o p o r t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f r e l a t e d u t t e r a n c e s i n t h e t o t a l

s a m p l e o f a d j a c e n t s p e e c h f o r a l l c h i l d r e n . T h e s e p r o p o r t i o n s r e p r e s e n t t h e

f r e q u e n c y o f o c c u r r e n c e o f u t t e r a n c e s i n e a c h c a t e g o r y i n t h e t o t a l s a m p l ea n d a r e n o t a n a v e r a g e o f t h e p r o p o r t i o n s f o r e a c h s e ss io n . T h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t

r e s u l t s s u m m a r i z e d i n T a b l e 8 a r e as f o l l o w s :

( 1 ) T h e c h i l d r e n u s e d p r o p o r t io n a l l y as m a n y r e l a t e d u tt e r a n c e s w i t h t h e i r m o t h er sa s t he y d i d w i t h t he he a r i n g a du l t . One c h i l d (R on ) u s e d s l i gh t l y l e ss , bu t t h i s d if -fe ren ce was no t s igni f icant a t p > 0 .05 ( x 2 = 1 .4) .(2 ) P ropo r t i ona l l y , t he c h i l d re n we re s pon t a ne ous l y im i t a t i ng t he i r m o t he r s ' s pe e c h

a t l e a s t a s o f t e n a s t h e y i m i t a t e d t h e h e a r i n g a d u l t . R o n a n d S e t h i m i t a t e d t h e i r

m o t he r s s i gn i f i c a n t l y m ore t ha n t he he a r i ng a d u l t w i t h p < 0 . 001 (x 2 = 17 . 5 a nd3 3 . 9 ) a n d t h e r e f o r e u s e d f e w e r c o n t i n g e n t u t te r a n c e s w i t h t h e i r m o t h e rs .

T a b l e 9 s u m m a r i z e s t h e n u m b e r a n d p r o p o r t i o n o f c a t e g o r i e s o f c o n t i n g e n t

u t t e r a n c e s i n t h e s p e e c h o f t h e c h i l d r e n w i t h t h e i r m o t h e r s a n d w i t h a h e a r i n g

5 94 Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 22 581 -603 S e p t e m be r 1979



TABL~ 9. Proportion of categories of contingent spee ch used with a h earing ad ult a ndwith the deaf mother in the total sample.

Proport ion Proport ion

Total which was which wasNumber o[ C on tex tua l LinguisticContingent Contingent ContingentUttera nces Speech Speech

Children H.A.* M.** H.A. M. H.A. M.

Proportion o~ Linguistic ContingentSpeech by C ategory

Intraclausal Interclausal Others***

H.A. M. H.A. M. H.A. M.

Joh n 331 136 0 . 2 1 0 . 1 1 0 . 7 9 0 . 8 9 0 . 2 3 0 . 4 5 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 5 6 0 .4 4L isa 240 243 0 . 1 6 0 . 1 0 0 . 8 5 0 . 9 0 0 . 3 2 0 . 5 1 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 2 0 . 4 9 0 .3 7M ona 88 54 0 . 3 2 0 . 2 8 0 . 6 8 0 . 7 2 0 . 1 9 0 . 2 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 4 8 0 .5 0R on 418 69 0 . 1 0 0 . 0 3 0 . 9 0 0 . 9 7 0 . 2 4 0 . 3 6 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 6 6 0 .6 1S eth 391 100 0 . 1 0 0 . 1 9 0 . 9 0 0 . 8 1 0 . 2 3 0 . 2 6 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 6 5 0 .5 4

*H.A. = Hearing adult

**M. = Mother***Included in the gro up of other linguistic contingent utterances were yes /no responses,requested rep etitions in response to questions from ad ults, and recodings.

a d u l t . T h e r e w a s l i tt l e d if f e re n c e i n t h e p r o p o r t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f l i n g u i s ti c

a n d c o n t e x t u a l c o n t i n g e n t u t t e r a n c e s u s e d w i t h e i t h e r a d ul t. H o w e v e r , o f t h o s e

u t t e r a n c e s w h i c h w e r e l i n g u i s t i c a l l y c o n t i n g e n t , p r o p o r t i o n a l l y m o r e i n t r a -

c l a u s a l u t t e r a n c e s w e r e u s e d w i t h t h e m o t h e r s t h a n w i t h a h e a r i n g a d u l t .

T h i s d i f f e r e n c e w a s s i g n i f i c a n t f o r t h r e e c h i l d r e n ( J o h n , L i s a a n d R o n ) w i t h

p < 0 .0 5 (X ~ = 2 0.5 , 1 7 .9 an d 4 .3 ) . O f t h e co n t in g e n t u t t e r an ces , i n t r ac l a u sa l

s p e e c h w a s c o n s i d e r e d b y B l o o m e t a l ( 1 9 7 6 ) t o be , t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t d e -v e l o p m e n t a l l y d u r i n g t h e e a r ly s ta g e s ( 1 - 3 ). F e w i n t e r c la u s a l r e l a ti o n s a p -

p e a r e d i n t h e o b s e r v e d c h i l d r e n ' s s p e e c h . H o w e v e r , i n t e r c l a u s a l s p e e c h w a s

n o t e x p e c t e d b e c a u s e it d i d n o t d e v e l o p u n t i l S t a g e 5 i n t h e B l o o m e t a l ( 1 9 6 7 )

d a t a .

O r d e r i n g o [ C o n s t i t u e n t s a n d G r a m m a t i ca l M o r p h e m e s i n t h e M o t h er s" S p e e c h

T h e o r d e r o f s u b j e c t - v e r b - o b j e c t c o n s t i t u e n t s a n d p r o p o r t i o n o f g r a m m a t i c a l

m o w h e m e s w e r e i n v e s t ig a t e d in t h e m o t h e r s ' s p e e ch . T h e d a t a f o r t h e m o t h e r s

w e r e o b t a i n e d f r o a n t h r e e s a m p l e s f o r e a c h m o t h e r ( f i r s t , m i d d l e , a n d l a s tt r a n s c r i p t s ) a n d c o n s i s t e d o f 2 , 2 5 2 u t t e r a n c e s . O n l y 0 . 0 2 o f t h e s y n t a c t i c u t -

t e r a n c e s w e r e c o n s i d e r e d t o v i o l a t e a s u b j e c t - v e r b - o b j e c t o r d e r i n g o f c o n -

s t i t u e n t s . T h e n u m b e r a n d p r o p o r t i o n s o f g r a m m a t i c a l m o r p h e m e s i n o b l i g a -

t o r y c o n te x ts a r e s u m m a r i z e d i n T a b l e 10. O n l y t h e m o t h e r s o f M o n a a n d R o n

p r o d u c e d a n y o f t h e g r a m m a t i c a l m o r p h e m e s i n 9 0 ~ o f t h e c o n t e x t s i n w h i c h

t h e y w e r e r e q u i r e d . G r a m m a t i c a l m o r p h e m e s , f o r t h e m o s t p a r t , w e r e o m i t t e d

f r o m a ll o f th e, m o t h e r s ' s p e e c h . W h e n g r a m m a t i c a l m o r p h e m e s d i d o c c u r,

o t h e r fo r m s w e r e o f t e n o m i t te d . F o r e x a m p l e , w h e n t h e m o t h e r s r e f e r r e d t o

o b j e c t s t h e y s o m e t i m e s u s e d a r t i c l e s ( f o r i n s t a n c e "a b a l l " ) b u t , w i t h t h e e x -

c e p t i o n o f M o n a ' s m o t h e r , r a r e l y u s e d d e i c t i c f o r m s ( f o r i n s t a n c e , "Her e ' s a

car , " "'That 's a b a l i " ) .

SCHIFF: Language~Deviant M ateriaI Inpu t 59 5



T ABL E 1 0 . Nu m b er a n d p r o p o r t io n s o f g r am m at i ca l m o r p h e m es in o b l ig a to r y co n tex t s i nth e m o th e r s ' sp eech sam p le s .*

John Lisa Mona

Morphemes n ** M + * * * n M + n M +

Ron Seth

n M + n M +

p r e sen t p r o g r e ss iv e 1 0 2 ( 0 .2 0 ) 1 2i n , o n 1 1 4 ( 0 . 3 6 ) 6p l u r a l 6 2 ( 0 . 3 3 ) 1 0p as t i r r eg u la r 5 1( 0 . 2 0 ) 4possess ive 0 0 6u n co n t r ac t ib l e

c o p u l a 6 1 ( 0 . 1 7 ) 6a r t ic l e s 2 6 7 ( 0 .2 7 ) 9 3p as t r eg u la r 1 0 4th i r d p e r so n r eg u la r 4 1 4th i r d p e r so n

ir regu la r 0 0 1u n co n t r ac t ib l eaux i l ia ry 3 1 10

co n t r ac t ib l e co p u la 5 2 2 2 ( 0 .4 2 ) 8 9co n t r ac t ib l e

aux i l ia ry 2 0 4

4 ( 0 . 3 3 ) 1 3 1 1 ( 0 . 8 5 ) 1 4 1 1 ( 0 . 7 9 ) 1 1 2 ( 0 . 1 8 )3 ( 0 . 5 0 ) 2 1 1 6 ( 0 . 7 6 ) 5 2 ( 0 . 4 0 ) 5 2 ( 0 . 4 0 )8 ( 0 . 8 0 ) 1 9 1 7 ( 0 . 9 0 ) 5 5 ( 1 . 0 ) 5 2 ( 0 . 4 0 )1 4 2 1 1 3 15(0.83) 1 1 0 0 0 0

3 ( 0 . 5 0 ) 1 1 1 0 ( 0 . 9 1 ) 4 2 6 2 ( 0 . 3 3 )7 2 ( 0 . 7 7 ) 1 0 1 9 2 ( 0 . 9 1 ) 5 0 9 ( 0 . 1 8 ) 6 8 1 6 ( 0 . 2 4 )

0 6 3 ( 0 .5 0 ) 0 0 1 11 2 6 1 4 ( 0 . 5 4 ) 1 1 0 ( 0 . 0 0 ) 9 4 ( 0 . 4 4 )

0 5 2 ( 0 .4 0 ) 0 0 2 0

2 ( 0 . 2 0 ) 6 4 ( 0 . 6 7 ) ~ 0 0 3 04 4 ( 0 . 4 9 ) 5 6 4 9 ( 0 . 8 8 ) 3 8 1 7 ( 0 . 4 5 ) 2 0 5 ( 0 . 2 5 )

2 1 7 9 ( 0 . 5 3 ) 0 0 9 0 ( 0 . 0 0 )

* Da ta we r e o b ta in ed f r o m th r ee sam p le s f o r e ach m o th e r ( f i r s t , m id d le an d l a s t ) .P r o p o r t io n s a r e g iv en in p a r en th ese s wh en th e r e we r e f i v e o r m o r e o b l ig a to r y co n tex t s f o re a c h m o r p h e m e t o o c cu r. P r o p o r ti o n s r e p re s e n t t h e f r e q u e n c y o f o c c u r r e nc e o f t h e m o r p h e m ewi th in t h e o b l ig a to r y co n tex t s .

: : n ~rn+ ber t ~ :bnhugma o:y o~O ~::trSr : r : ao~ht~:m~ohr~n~:m e.

D I S C U S S I O N

Despi t e the poor in t e l l ig ib i l i t y and the l imi t ed o ra l l i ngu i s t i c compe tency o f

some of the mothe rs in the p resen t s tudy , the o ra l l anguage deve lopment o f

a l l o f the ch i ld ren in th i s s tudy pa ra l l e l ed the repor t ed l anguage deve lopment

of ch i ld ren f rom h om es wi th hea r ing pa ren t s . Th e re su l ts o f th i s s tudy ind ica te

tha t two-yea r -o ld ch i ld ren f rom homes wi th l imi t ed l ingu i s t i c inpu t t a lk abou t

the sam e k inds o f th ings a s do ch i ld ren f rom norm al homes , and do so us ing

many d i f fe ren t syn tac t i c combina t ions . They know someth ing abou t o rde r ing

sen tence cons t i tuen t s , l ea rn some grammat ica l morphemes , a re deve lop ingcont ingen t speech and a re no t g ross ly de layed .

Differences in Developm ent

To say tha t t he l angua ge deve lopm ent o f the ch i ld ren in th i s s tudy pa ra l l e l ed

tha t o f norm al ch i ld ren i s no t to say tha t t hey we re una f fec ted by the i r mo the rs '

l imi ted l inguist ic abi l i t ies . Al though essent ia l ly the same semant ic-syntac t ic

r e l a ti o n s a s h a v e b e e n o b se r v e d in c h i ld r e n f r o m h e a r i n g h o m e s w e r e f o u n d i n

the obse rved g roup ' s u t t e rances , t he p ropor t iona l r epresen ta t ions o f some of

the ca tegor i e s o f seman t i c -syn tac t ic r e la t ions we re d i f feren t f rom tho se re -

p o r t e d b y B l o o m e t a l ( 1 9 7 5 ) . T wo o f t h e c h i l d r e n ( Jo h n a n d R o n ) , wh o se

5 9 6 lournal o~ Speech and H earin g Research 2 2 5 8 1 - 6 0 3 Sep tem b er 1 9 7 9



mothers ' M LU were u nd er 2 .0 and had in te l l ig ib i l i ty scores th a t w ere less than

15~ we r e s lowe r in the i r r a t e o f de ve lopm e n t tha n the o the r c h i ld r e n in the

s tudy. Both rem ained in S tage i fo r approximate ly 10 months . Th e th i rd chi ld

(Se th) was a r t except iona l ch i ld : for example , he had lea rned to read sen-

tences by the t ime he was 2~ . In addi t ion , ne i the r John nor Ron deve loped a

p r e dom ina n t p r onom ina l o r nom ina l sys t e m o f r e f e r e nc e du r ing th i s pe r iod .

However , i t is not c lear a t this t ime that any of these dif ferences ref lect more

than normal va r ia t ions in deve lopment .

Semant ic -Syntac t ic Re la t ions . Al though the c a te gor y o f ide n t i ty wa s no t

present in th e u t te rances of the chi ldren s tudied by Bloom e t a l (1975) , i t was

observed in the u t te rances of o ther ch i ldren f rom norma l homes . Brown (1973)

repor ted tha t the chi ldren he s tudied occas iona l ly expressed "an opera t ion of

classif icat ion" du rin g Stage 1. I t is not su rpr is ing th at tho se categories whic h

ra re ly appear dur ing the ea r ly s tages ( such as , da t ive , ins t rument , p lace , andident i ty ) may n ot app ear a t a l l in indiv idu a l samples of ch i ldren ' s u t te rances .

Some of the o ther d i ffe rences in prop or t ion of the indiv id ua l ca tegories a re

less easy to expla in ( such as, the lower propor t ion of a t t r ibut io n an d possess ion

and grea te r propor t ion of Wh ques t ions in the observed chi ldren ' s da ta ) .

Fur ther s tudy of a grea te r number of ch i ldren f rom hea t ing homes as we l l i s

needed to determine the signif icance of these dif ferences.

N omi na l o r P r onomi na l P a t t e r n and R a t e o f De v e l opme n t . A re la t ionship

be twe e n a p r e dom ina n t nom ina l o r p r onom ina l e nc od ing pa t t e r n a nd the

deafness of the parents d id not emerge f rom the resul t s of th is s tudy. I t was

ant ic ipa ted tha t ch i ldren f rom deaf households would have a l imi ted lex icon,and would , the re fore , adopt a pronomina l sys tem of re fe rence enabl ing them

to use only a few words in com bina t ion to express the semant ic - syntac t ic re la -

t ions . For example , not much vocabula ry would be needed to represent a l l

affected objects as " i t" in re la t ion to verbs. However , the two children (Lisa

and Se th) who d id appear to use a predominant form of re fe rence , pre -

dom ina n t ly u se d nouns , no t p r onouns .

Al though the f unc t ion o f e i the r a p r e dom ina n t p r onom ina l or nom ina l

pa t t e r n o f e nc od ing i s no t ye t known , the two c h i ld r e n ( John a nd R on) in

th is s tudy who d id no t a dop t e i the r pa t t e r n ha d a s lowe r r a t e o f de ve lopm e n t

than the o ther ch i ldren . W heth er the lack of such a sys tem is re la ted to s lowerdeve lopment , or i s mere ly another va r ia t ion in normal ch i ld language remains

to be e xp lo r e d in bo th no r m a l a nd l a ngua ge d i so r de r e d c h i ld r e n . The r e i s

evidence tha t a t leas t one group of language d isordered chi ldren (Down's

S yndr om e ) use a p r e dom ina n t sys t e m o f e i the r nouns o r p r onouns ( Ta m a r i ,

1978) . Other fac tors which a f fec t ra te of deve lopment were not inves t iga ted .

For example , the mothers" ab i l i ty to match the i r l inguis t ic input to the chi l -

dren 's conc eptu al s tyle ( Nelson, 1973) w as not co nsidered in this invest igation.

Al though John a n d R on 's r a t e o f de ve lopm e n t was s lowe r tha n tha t o f the

othe r child ren in this s tudy, there is not suff ic ient eviden ce to indicate a delay

in de ve lopm e n t in c om pa r i son wi th r e por t s o f c h i ld r e n in the no r m a l de -

ve lopm enta l li te ra ture . Al l of the ch i ldren repor tedly sa id the i r f i rs t words by

SCHIFF: Language~Deviant Material lnput 597



t h e t i m e t h e y we r e 2 4 m o n t h s o l d . Mc C a r t h y ( 1 9 5 4 ) r e p o r t e d a n a v e r a g e

Mean Length o f Sen tence o f 3 .1 a t 30 months o f age . Accord ing to these av-

e rages , John and Ron cou ld poss ib ly be cons ide red to be de layed in deve lop-

m e n t a t 3 0 m o n t h s o f ag e wh e n t h e i r M L U wa s a p p r o x i m a t e ly 2 . 0 . Ho w e v e r ,

Ne l son (1973) repo r t ed a M LU range o f 1.80-4 .46 in 18 norm al ch i ld ren aged

3 0 m o n t h s . On e o f t h e c h i l d r e n ( Sa r a h ) s t u d i e d b y B r o wn d i d n o t p a s s i n t o

Stage 2 un t i l she was 32 mo nths o ld . In the Ne l son s tudy as we l l a s in p rev ious

s tud ies (McCar thy , 1954) , r a t e o f l anguage acqu i s i t ion has been cor re l a t ed

w i th sex , w i th boys be ing s lower.

Other Differences. Al t h o u g h p h o n o l o g i c a l a n d p h o n a t o r y a n a l y se s we r e n o t

wi th in the scope o f th i s s tudy , i t was obse rved tha t none o f the ch i ld ren

a d o p t e d d e a f v o ic e q u a l i ty a n d o n l y o n e c h i ld ( R o n ) s e e m i n gl y a d o p t e d d e a f

a r t i cu la t ion and s t re ss pa t t e rns . Th i s one ch i ld spen t l e ss t ime wi th hea r ing

adu l t s than d id the o the r ch i ld ren , and was more o f t en a sked to imi t a t e by h i smothe r . Seven teen pe rcen t o f Ron ' s u t t e rances tha t were re l a t ed to h i s

mo the r ' s speech were e l i c i ted imi t a tions , (h i s mo the r a sked h im to repea t a f t e r

h e r ) , a t l e a s t t w i c e a s m a n y a s o c c u r r e d w i t h a n y o f t h e o t h e r c h i l d r e n ' s

u t t e rances w i th the i r mothe rs . W hi le a ll the o the r ch i ld ren , f rom in fancy pe r iod

on , r epor t ed ly spe n t be tw een 10-20 hours week ly w i th hea r ing peop le , Ron , fo r

approx ima te ly h i s f i r s t 2~ yea rs spen t on ly f ive to seven hours week ly wi th

hea r ing peop le . Af te r tha t t ime he spen t approx ima te ly 10 to 15 hours wi th

hea r ing peop le . However , t he p ropor t ion o f t ime spen t in the company of hea r -

ing pe r sons d id no t cor re l a t e wi th speech p rob lems obse rved in o the r hea r ing

ch i ld ren o f dea f pa ren t s (Sch if f and V ent ry , 1976).

The Role o f Maternal L inguis t ic Input

The s imi la r i t i e s be tween the ch i ld ren ' s imi t a t ions and d i scourse pa t t e rns

wi t h h e a r i n g a n d d e a f sp e a k er s su g g e s t th a t t h e y w e r e l e a r n in g o r a l la n g u a g e

f rom the i r dea f m othe rs a s we l l a s f rom n orm al speakers . I f imi t a t ion does p lay

some ro le in langu age l ea rn ing (Bloom e t a l, 1974 ; Ram er , 1976) , t hen th e

ch i ld ren ' s imi t a t ions o f the i r dea f mothe rs ind ica ted tha t t hey were u t i l i z ing

l ingu i s t i c in fo rma t ion f rom the i r mothe rs ' u t t e rances to communica te wi th

them, and p robab ly to l ea rn l anguage a s we l l . In add i t ion , t he ch i ld ren ' st e n d e n c y t o r e sp o n d t o t h e i r m o t h e r s ' sp e e c h w i t h u t t e r a n c e s t h a t we r e r e -

l a t ed and lingu i s ti ca lly con t inge n t (g ramm at ica l ly subo rd ina te ) ind ica ted

tha t they were p rocess ing the fo rm and con ten t o f the i r mothe rs ' messages . Al l

o f the ch i ld ren used p ropor t iona l ly more in t rae lausa l u t t e rances wi th the i r

m o t h e r s t h a n t h e y d i d w i t h a h e a r i n g a d u l t . T h e f a c t t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n we r e

add ing in forma t ion to the ve rb re l a t ions o f the i r mothe rs ' u t t e rances ind ica ted

t h a t t h e y we r e u s i n g f o r m s f r o m t h e i r m o t h e r s ' sp e e c h t o c r e a t e t h e i r o wn

sen tences . For example , when Se th ' s mothe r a sked , "Wha t you want?" Se th

r e sp o n d e d , " I w a n t AB C . " W h e n L i sa 's m o t h e r a sk e d , " W h o d r iv e t h e c a r ? "

Li sa rep l i ed , "Woman dr ive the ca r . "

W h a t c o m p o n e n t s t h e n o f li n g ui st ic i n p u t a r e i m p o r t a n t f o r la n g u a g e t o d e -

59 8 Iourn al of Speech and Hearing Research 22 581-603 Septem ber 1979



v e l o p n o r m a l l y ? S o m e a s p e c t s o f t h e m o t h e r - c h i l d l i n g u i s t i c i n t e r a c t i o n w h i c h

a p p e a r e d t o p l a y a r o l e i n t h e s e c h i l d r e n 's l a n g u a g e, d e v e l o p m e n t a r e d i s c u s se d

b e l o w .

B e c a u s e A m e r ic a n S ig n L a n g u a g e ( A S L ) d o e s n o t d e p e n d o n w o r d o r d e r

( B e l l u g i a n d F i s c h e r , 1 9 7 2 ; S t o k o e, 1 9 7 0 ), a n d b e c a u s e t h e s e m o t h e r s r e -

p o r t e d l y c o m m u n i c a t e d w i t h t h e i r c h i l d r e n u s i n g a c o m b i n a t i o n o f A S L a n d

o r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n , i t w a s a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n ' s u t t e r a n c e s m i g h t

v e r y w e l l b e r a n d o m l y o r i n c o n si s te n t ly o r d e r ed . H o w e v e r , t h is p r o v e d n o t t o

b e s o . F u r t h e r m o r e , o n l y 0 .0 2 o f t h e m o t h e r s ' u t t e r a n c e s w e r e c o n s i d e r e d t o

v i o l a t e a s u b j e c t - v e r b - o b j e c t o r d e r i n g o f c o n s t i t u e n t s . I t a p p e a r s t h a t d e s p i t e

t h e i r l i n g u i s t ic li m i t a ti o n s , t h e m o t h e r s s y s t e m a t i c a l ly o r d e r e d t h e i r u t t e r a n c e s

t o c o r ff o rm t o s p o k e n E n g l i s h . T h e r e f o r e , i t i s n o t s u r p r i s in g t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n 's

u t t e r a n c e s a l s o w e r e o r d e r e d . A r e l a ti o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e o r d e r i n g o f s e n t e n c e

c o n s t i t u e n t s i n t h e m o t h e r ' s s p e e c h , a n d t h e o r d e r i n w h i c h s u b j e c t s , v e r b s ,

a n d o b j e c t s w e r e c o m b i n e d i n t h e s e n t e n c e s o f t h e c h i l d a l s o h a s b e e n o b -

s e r v e d b y B o w e r m a n ( 1 9 7 3 ) a n d K l e in ( 1 97 4 , c i t e d i n S n o w , 1 9 7 7 ).

I t w a s m o r e s u r p r is i n g t h a t t h e c h i l d re n w e r e a p p r o p r i a t e ly a c q u i r in g g r a m -

m a t i e a l m o r p h e m e s i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e i r M L U . O n l y t h e m o t h e r s o f M o n a a n d

R o n p r o d u c e d a n y o f t h e g r a m m a t i c a l m o r p h e m e s i n a t l e a s t 9 0 ~ o f t h e c o n -

t e xt s i n w h i c h t h e y w e r e r e q u i r e d . M o s t o f t h e g r a m m a t i c a l m o r p h e m e s a p -

p e a r e d i n f e w e r t h a n 5 0 ~ o f r e q u i r e d c o n t e x t s i n t h e m o t h e r s ' s p e e c h . N e v e r -

t h e l e s s , L i s a , M o n a , a n d S e t h h a d a c q u i r e d p r e s e n t p r o g r e s s i v e , i n a n d o n ,

a n d t h e p l u r a l i n S t a g e 3. T h e s e w e r e t h e o n l y m o r p h e m e s t h a t r e a c h e d 9 0 ~

acquisition by S t a g e 3 i n t h e s p e e c h o f a l l t h r e e c h i l d r e n s t u d i e d by B r o w n( 1 9 7 3 ). T h e r e f o r e, t h e y w e r e o n l y t h r e e m o r p h e m e s e x p e c t e d t o b e a c q u i r e d

d u r i n g S t a g e 3 i n t h i s s t u d y . W i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f t h e p l u r a l i n M o n a ' s

m o t h e r ' s s p e e c h , t h e g r a m m a t i c a l m o r p h e m e s w h i c h w e r e a c q u i r e d i n t h e

s p e e c h o f t h e c h i l d r e n w e r e n o t a c q u i r e d i n t h e s p e e c h o f t h e i r m o t h e r s .

T h e r e i s li t t le r e s e a r c h w h i c h d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t a s p e c if ic li n g u i s t ic a s p e c t

o f t h e m o t h e r ' s v e r b a l i n p u t i s d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o t h e c h i l d ' s l i n g u i s t i c c o r n -

p e t e n c e w i t h a f o r m . H o w e v e r , N e w p o r t , G l e i t m a n , a n d G l e i t r n a n ( 1 9 7 7 )

f o u n d a c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e u s e o f d e i x i s ( s u c h a s , " ' T h e r e i s a ba l l" ;

" T h o s e a r e a p p l e s " ) a n d t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f n o u n i n f l e c t i o n s . T h e m o t h e r s i n

t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y t e n d e d t o n a m e r e f e r e n t s , b u t w i t h o n t u s i n g d e i x i s . H o w -e v e r, M o n a 's m o t h e r u s e d p r o p o r t i o n a ll y m o r e d e i c ti e u t t e r a n c e s t h a n t h e

o t h e r m o t h e r s , a n d M o n a d i d u s e m o r e n o u n i n f l e c t i o n s ( p l u r a l s a n d p o s s e s -

s iv e s ) t h a n a n y o f t h e o t h e r c h i ld r e n . N e v e r t h el e s s, S e t h a n d L i s a a c q u i r e d

p l u r a l s w i t h s e e m i n g l y l i t t l e e x p o s u r e t o d e i c t i e u t t e r a n c e s . L e s s t h a n 2 ~ o f

t h e i r m o t h e r s ' u t t e r a n c e s c o n t a i n e d d e i x i s .

O t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s o f m o t h e r s ' l a n g u a g e h a v e s h o w n t h a t a l t h o u g h t h e

s a m e g r a m m a t i c a l s t r u c t u r e s p r o d u c e d by a c h i l d a l s o a p p e a r i n t h e m o t h e r ' s

s p e e c h ( B o w e r m a n , 1 9 7 3 ; B r o w n a n d H a n l o n , 1 9 7 0 ; B r o w n , C a z d e n a n d

B e l l u g i , 1 9 6 9 ) , t h e f r e q u e n c y o f e x p o s u r e t o a p a r t i c u l a r f o r m d o e s n o t d e -

t e r m i n e t h e o r d e r o f e m e r g e n c e o f t h a t f o r m ( B r o w n , 1 9 7 3 ) . I n th e study re -p o r t e d h e r e , a l l o f t h e s a m e m o r p h e m e s p r o d u c e d b y t h e c h i l d r e n o c c a s i o n a l l y

SCHIFF: Language~Deviant M aterial In pu t 599



appeared in the i r mothers speech , a l though they were not a lways cor rec t ly

produced ( for ins tance , phonologica l d is tor t ions and subs t i tu t ions oceur red) .

The g r a m m a t ic a l m or phe m e s m os t fr e que n t ly u se d by the m othe r s we r e a r-

t ic les and the uneontrae t ib le copula . These were a lso the most f requent forms

in the speech of the parents repor ted in Brown (1973) . However , ne i the r of

the se m or phe m e s we r e a c qu i r e d in the spe e c h o f a ny o f the c h i ld r e n in th i s

study.

Thus , the resul t s of th is s tudy conf i rm Brown's f indings concerning f requenc y

of exposure . In addi t ion , they a lso show tha t mothers ' incons is tency in us ing

gr a m m a t ic a l m or phe m e s in c od ing c onc r e te in f o r m a t ion a bou t the he r e a nd

now is wi th in the l inguis tic capabi l i ty of many deaf speakers . Th e m others in

th is s tudy apparent ly w ere able to comm unica te adequa te l inguis t ic informa-

t ion concerning sensor imotor exper ience to the i r two-year -o lds , even though

they w ere only comm unica t in g in one , two and three wo rd sentences .I f mothers ' l imi ted ora l language nega t ive ly a f fec ts language deve lopment ,

i t is l ikely to d o so dur ing the la ter s tages. All of the child ren in this s tud y ap-

p r oa c he d o r su r pa s se d the i r m o the r s ' M LU be f o r e the y we r e th r e e ye a r o ld .

Al tho ugh s im ple r l inguis t ic forms a re suff ic ien t to code the l inguis t ic informa-

t ion tha t a two-year -o ld needs to deve lop the founda t ions of language , the

deaf mothers may not have suf f ic ien t s )mtae t ie knowledge or lex ica l i tems to

code the inform at ion the i r ch i ldren need w hen they a re o lder .

The resul t s of th is s tudy indica te tha t hear ing chi ldren of deaf pa rents do

no t ne e d to h e a r m uc h " nor m a l" la ngua ge to l e a r n to e nc ode those c ogn i tive

re la tionships they have lea rned d ur ing the sensor imotor pe r iod . I t appears tha tthese chi ldren wi l l deve lop language normal ly f f they a re in contac t wi th

hear ing speakers for a minimum of f ive to 10 hours weekly and watch some

te levis ion . Al l tha t they need f rom the i r mothers i s some te legraphic speech

which i s ordered in to subjec t -verb-objec t re la t ionships and i s re la t ive to con-

text . Th e preschool ch i ld , when cogni t ive ly ready, can acquire those l inguis t ic

f o rm s w h ic h h i s m o the r p r oduc e s in f r e que n t ly w i th l i tt l e exposu re to n o r m a l

speakers.

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T

This s tud y is based on the author's doctoral dissertation and was fu lly supported by agrant f rom the Erw in Kugel Foundation to the Department of Speech Pathology andAudiology at Teachers College. I should especially like to thank Lois Bloom wh ose insight-ful and constructive criticism greatly strengthened thi s work. I wou ld also like to thankthe following people for the ir contributions to this stud y: Ira Ventry, Herbe rt Terrace,Owen W hitby, Lo is Hood, Ka rin Lifter, N ick Schiavetti, M argaret Lahey , Stephen Myers,Rence G reene, Voldie McCarthy, Phyllis Gomperts, and Dav e Fo gg. A ve ry special thankyou goes to the five children and the ir mo thers who pa rticipated in th is study. Requestsfor reprints should be sen t to Nao mi Schiff, Depa rtment of C omm unication Sciences andDisorders, M ontclair State C ollege, Uppe r M ontclair, New Jersey, 07043.

R E F E R E N C E S

Barley Speechreading Te st, C.I.D. Everyd ay Sentences. In Jeffers, j. and Barley, M.Speechreading (Lipreading). Springfield, Ill.: Charles C Thom as (1971 ).

600 Iour na l o~ Speech and Hearing Research 22 581-603 September 1979



BATES,E ., Language and Contex t. New Y o rk : Acad em ic P r e s s ( 1 9 7 6 ) .BELLUCI, U. , an d FISCHER, S. , A com par ison o f s ign langua ge and spoke n langu age . Cogni -

tion, 1 , 1 7 3 - 2 0 0 ( 1 9 7 2 ) .BLOOM, L., Language deve lopment : form and func t ion in emerging grammars . C a m b r i d g e ,

M ass . : M . I .T . P r e s s , Resea r ch M o n o g r ap h s No . 5 9 ( 1 9 7 0 ) .

BLOOM, L., O ne word at a time: the use of single-word utterances before syntax. T h eH a g u e : M o u t o n ( 1 9 7 3 ) .

BLOOM, L. , HOOD, L. , a nd LmHTBOWN, P. , Im i ta t ion in lan guag e deve lopm ent : i f , w hena n d w h y . Cognitive Psychology, 6 , 3 8 0 - 4 2 0 ( 1 9 7 4 ) .

BLOOM, L. , an d LAHEY, M . , Language Deve lopment and Language D isorders . N e w Y o r k :J o h n W i l e y a n d S o ns , I n c . ( 1 9 7 8 ) .

BL OOM , L . , L m HT BOW N, P . , an d Ho o D, L . , S t r u c tu r e an d v a r i a t i o n in ch i ld l an g u ag e .Monographs of the Socie ty for Research in Chi ld Development , 40 , 2 , Ser ia l No . 160( 1975 ) .

BLOOM, L. , ROCISSANO, L. , a nd HooD, L . , A dul t -ch i ld d iscourse : dev elop m ent in re la t ionto in f o r m a t io n p r o cess in g in ch i ld l an g u ag e . Cognitive Psychology, 8 , 5 2 1 - 5 5 2 ( 1 9 7 6 ) .

BOWERMAN, M., Early syntactic d evelop men t: a cross linguistic study wi th special referenceto Finnish. C a m b r i d g e , E n g l a n d : C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s it y P r e s s ( 1 9 7 3 ) .

BOW ERM AN, M . F . , D ev e lo p m e n t o f co n cep t s u n d e r ly in g l an g u ag e . I n R . L . Sch ie f e lb u scha n d L . L . L l o y d ( E d s . ) , Language perspectives-acquisition retardation and intervention.Bal t im o r e : Un iv e r s i t y Pa r k P r e ss ( 1 9 7 4 ) .

BRAINE , M . , T h e o n to g en y o f E n g l i sh p h r a se s t r u c tu r e : t h e f i r s t p h ase , Language , 39, 1-13( 1963 ).

BaA ~E , M . , Ch i ld r en ' s f ir s t wo r d co m b in a t io n s . Monographs of the Society for Research inChi ld Deve lopment , 41 , 1 , Ser ies No. 164 (1976) .

BRELJE, H. W., A s tudy of the re lat ionship be tween ar t iculat ion and vocabulary of hear ingimpaired parents a n d the ir normally hear ing chi ldren. Un p u b l i sh ed d o c to r a l d i s se r t a t i o n ,Un iv e r s i t y o f Po r t l an d ( 1 9 71 ) .

BROEN, P., The verbal env ironment of the language- learning chi ld. W a s h i n g t o n , D . C . :A S H A M o n o g r a p h 1 7 ( 1 9 7 2 ) .

BROWN, R., A first lang uag e: the early stag es. C a m b r i d g e , M a s s . : H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i ty P re s s

( 1 9 7 3 ) .BROWN, R. , CAZDEN, C. , an d BELLUGI, U. , T he ch i ld ' s g ram m ar f rom I to I I I . In J . P . H i l l

( E d . ) , Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology ( Vo l . 2 ) , M in n eap o l i s : Un iv . o fM in n . P r e s s , 2 8 - 7 3 ( 1 9 6 9 ) .

BROW N, R . , a n d HANL ON, C . , De r iv a t io n a l co m p lex i ty an d o r d e r o f a cq u i s i t i o n in ch i lds p e e ch . I n J. H a y e s ( E d . ) , Cognit ion and the deve lopment of language . New Yo r k :W i l e y ( 1 9 7 0 ) .

Cr~ITCHLEY, E. , La ngu age dev elop m ent o f hear in g ch i ld ren in a deaf env i ro nm ent . I . Dev .Med. Chi ld Neur . , 9 , 2 7 4 - 2 8 0 ( 1 9 6 7 ) .

DE VILLmaS, J . G. , and DE VmLIERS, P . A . , A cross-sec t ional s tu dy of t he acqu is i t ion o fg r a m m a t i c a l m o r p h e m e s . 1. Psychol. Res., 2 , 2 6 7 - 2 7 8 ( 1 9 7 3 ) .

DRACH, K . N . , T h e l an g u ag e o f t h e p a r en t : a p i lo t s tu d y . I n The structure of l inguistic in-put to chi ldren, ~Vo r k in g p ap e r n o . 1 4 , L an g u ag e Beh av io r Resea r ch L ab o r a to r y ,

Be r k e l ey : U n iv e r s i t y o f Ca l i f o r n ia ( 1 9 6 9 ) .E RVIN, S . , I m i t a t i o n a n d s t r u c tu r a l ch an g e in ch i ld r en ' s lan g u ag e . I n E . H . L e r m eb e r g

( E d . ) , New direc t ions in the s tudy of language . Cam b r id g e , M ass . : M . I .T . P r e s s ( 1 9 6 4 ) .ERVxN-TtaxPP, S . , On o verv iew of theor ies o f g ram m at ica l deve lopm ent . In D. I . S lob in

( E d . ) , The ontogenesis of grammar, a theoretical symposium. New Yo r k : Acad em icPress ( 1971 ) .

GUILLAUME, P., Imitation in children. Ch icag o : Un iv e r s i t y o f Ch icag o P r e ss ( 1 9 6 8 ) .HUXLE Y, R . , T h e d ev e lo p m e n t o f t h e co r r ec t u se o f su b iec t p e r so n a l p r o n o u n s in tw o ch i l -

d r en . I n G . B . F lo r e s d ' Ar ca i s an d W . J . M . L ev e l t ( E d s . ) , Advances in Psycholinguistics.New Yo r k : Am er i can E l sev ie r , 1 4 1 - 1 6 5 ( 1 9 7 0 ) .

JENKINS, J . , an d PALERMO, D. , M edia t io n proc esses an d the acqu is i t ion o f l ingu is t ic s t ruc -tu r e . I n U . BeUu g i an d R . Br o w n ( E d s . ) , The acquis i t ion of language . Monographs ofthe Socie ty for Research in Chi ld Development , 29 , 1 , Ser ia l No . 92 (1964) .

KEMP, J . C . , and DAL E, P. S . , Spontaneous imitation and free speech: a grammatical com-parison. Pap e r p r e sen ted to t h e So c ie ty f o r Resea r ch in Ch i ld Dev e lo p m e n t , Ph i l ad e lp h ia ,( 1 9 7 3 ) .

SCHIFF: Language~Dev iant Mate r ia l Input 601



•ERNAN, K . T ., The acquisit ion o~ language by Samoan children. Do c to r a l d i s se r t a t i o n , Un i -v e r s i t y o f Ca l i f o r n i a , Be r k e l ey ( 1 9 6 9 ) .

KL E IN, R . , W o r d o r d e r : D u tch ch i ld r en an d th e i r m o th e r s . Publication 9, Insti tute Ior Gen-eral Linguistics, U n i v e r s it y o f A m s t e r d a m ( 1 9 7 4 ) .

LENNEBEnC, E. H ., Biological Joundations oJ language. N e w Y o r k : W i l e y ( 1 9 6 7 ) .

LEOPOLD, W . F., Speech development of a bil ingual child ( Vo l . 3 ) . E v an s to n , I I 1. : No r th -wes t e r n U n iv e r s i t y P r e s s ( 1 9 4 9 ) .

L E wis , M . M . , Infant speech, a study oJ the beginnings o~ language. N e w Y o rk : H u m a n i t ie sPres s ( 1951 ) .

M CCART HY, D . , L an g u ag e d ev e lo p m e n t i n ch i ld r en . I n L . Ca r m ich ae l ( E d . ) , Manual oJChild Psychology. N e w Y o r k : W i l e y ( 1 9 5 4 ) .

MAYBERnY, R. , An as sessm ent o f some ora l and m anu al- lang uag e sk i ll s o f hea r ing c h i ld re no f d ea f p a r en t s . Amer. ann. DeaJ, 1 2 1 , 5 0 7 - 5 1 2 ( 1 9 7 6 ) .

MOWRER, O. H., Learning theory and the symbolic processes. N e w Y o rk : W i l e y ( 1 9 6 0 ) .NELSON, K. , St ru c ture a nd s t ra te gy in learn ing to ta lk . Mo nograph s oJ the Society [or Re-

search in Child Development, Un ivers i ty o f Chicago Press , 38 , 1 -2 , Ser ia l No . 149 (1973) .NEL SON, K . , T h e n o m in a l sh i f t i n sem an t i c - sy n tac t i c d ev e lo p m en t . Cog. Psychol . , 7 , 461-

4 7 9 ( 1 9 7 5 ) .

NEWPORT, E . L . , G LEITMAN, H. , and GLmTM AN, L. R. , M other , I ' d ra the r d o i t m ysel f :so m e e f f ec t s an d n o n - e f f ec t s o f m a te r n a l sp eech . I n C . E . Sn o w an d C . A . Fe r g u so n( E d s . ) , Talking to Chi ldren. N e w Y o rk : C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i ty P r e s s ( 1 9 7 7 ) .

PFUDEn ER, C . , So m e su g g es t io n s fo r a sy n tac t i c ch a r ac t e r i za t io n o f b a b y t a lk s ty l e . I n T h estructure oJ linguistic input to children. W o r k i n g p a p e r N o . 1 4 , L a n g u a g e - B e h a v i o r R e -sea r ch L ab o r a to r y , U n iv e r s i t y o f Ca l i fo r n i a a t Be r k e l ey ( 1 9 6 9 ) .

PHm m PS, J . , Sy n tax an d v o cab u la r y o f m o th e r s ' sp eech to y o u n g ch i ld r en : ag e an d sexco m p ar i so n s . Child Dev., 44, 1 8 2 - 1 8 5 ( 1 9 7 3 ) .

P~CET, J . , Pla y, dreams and imitation in childhood ( C . G a t t e g n o a n d F . M . H o d g s o n ,Trans . ) . N ew York : No r ton ( 1962 ) .

RAMER, A. , The funct ion of imi ta t ion in ch i ld language . J. Speech Hearing Res. , 19 , 700-7 1 6 ( 1 9 7 6 ) .

REMICK, H., M atern al speech to ch ildren during langua ge acquisition. W a s h i n g t o n , D . C . :

E R I C C l e a r i n g H o u s e f o r L i n g u i s t i c s , E D 0 7 2 8 6 3 ( 1 9 7 3 ) .SACHS, J. , BnOWN, R. T., an d SALERMO, R. A., Adults speech to children. P a p e r g i v e n a t t h e

I n t e r n a t io n a l Sy m p o s iu m o n F i r s t L an g u ag e Acq u i s i t i o n , F lo r en ce , I t a ly , Sep tem b er( 1972 ) .

SACHS, J., an d JOHNSON, M ., Language developm ent in a hearing child oJ deaJ parents.P a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t t h e I n t e rn a t i o n a l S y m p o s i u m o n F i r s t L a n g u a g e A c q u i s it io n , F l o r en c e ,I t a l y ( 1 9 7 2 ) .

SCHIFF , N . , a n d VE NT nY, I ., C o m m u n ica t io n p r o b lem s in h ea r in g ch i ld r en o f d ea f p a r en t s .1. Speech Hearing Dis. , 4 1 , 3 4 8 - 3 5 8 ( 1 9 7 6 ) .

SCHLESXNCER, I . M ., Pro du ctio n of uttera nce s an d la ng ua ge a cqu isit ion. In D . I . Slo bin( E d . ) , The ontogenesis oJ grammar. New Yo r k : Acad em ic P r e s s ( 1 9 7 1 ) .

SHAPmO, T. , ROBERTS, A. , and FISH , B. , Imi ta t io n a nd echoing in yo ung sch izo phren icch i ld r en . 1. Am. Acad. child Psychi. , 9 , 4 2 1 - 4 4 0 ( 1 9 7 0 ) .

StNCLAm-DE ZWAnT, H. , D evelo pm enta l psych ol ingu is t ics . In D . E lk ind an d J . H . Fla vel l( E d s . ) , Studies in cognitive development. New Yo r k: Ox f o r d Un iv e r s i t y P r e s s ( 1 9 6 9 ) .

SINCLXIR-DE ZWAr~T, H. , Sensor i -mo tor a c t ion pa t te rns as a cond i t ion fo r the acqu is i t ion o fs y n ta x . In R . H u x l e y a n d E . I n g r a m ( E d s . ) , Language acquisit ion: models and methods.New Yo r k: Acad em ic P r e s s ( 1 9 7 1 ) .

Sn~CL Am -DE Z W AaT , H . , L an g u ag e acq u i s i t io n an d co g n i t i v e d ev e lo p m en t . I n T . E . M o o r e( E d . ) , Cognitive development and the acquisit ion of language. N e w Y o r k : A c a d e m i cPress ( 1973 ) .

SLOBIN, D . I . , T h e acq u i s i t io n o f Ru ss i an a s a n a t iv e l an g u ag e . I n F . Sm i th an d G . A .M i l l e r ( E d s . ) , The genesis oJ language. Cam b r id g e , M ass . : M . I .T . P r e s s ( 1 9 6 6 ) .

SLOBXN, D . I . , Dev e lo p m en ta l p sy ch o l in g u i s ti c s . I n W . D . D in g w a l l ( E d . ) , A survey oJlinguistic science. C o l l e g e P a r k , M d . : U n i v e r s it y o f M a r y l a n d P r es s ( 1 9 7 1 ) .

SL Om N, D . I ., Co g n i t i v e p r e req u i s i t e s f o r t h e d ev e lo p m en t o f g r am m ar . I n C . A . Fe r g u s o na n d D . I . S l o b i n ( E d s . ) , Studies of child language development. New Yo r k : Ho l t , R in e -h a r t an d W in s to n ( 1 9 73 ) .

6 0 2 1ourn al oJ Speech and Hea ring Research 2 2 5 8 1 - 6 0 3 Sep tem b er 1 9 7 9



SNOW, C. E. , Language acquis i t ion and mother 's speech to ch i ldren . Doctoral dissertat ion,McG iU U nivers i ty ( 1971 ) .

SNOW, C. E. , M other ' s speech to chi ldren learning language . Chi ld Dev . , 43, 549-565 (1972) .SNOW, C. E. , Mo thers ' speech research: f rom in pu t to interac tion. C . E. S now and C. A.

F e r g u s o n ( E d s . ) , Talking to Chi ldren . New York : C ambr i dge Uni ve rs i t y P re s s (1977) .

ST~TS, A. W. , Linguis t ic -menta l i s t i c theory versus an explana tory S-R learning theory ofl anguage deve l opment . In D. I . S l ob i n (Ed . ) , Th e ontogenesis o~ grammar. N e w Y o r k :Acad emic Press ( 1971 ) .

STO~OE, W . C . , The s tudy of s ign language . W ashington, D.C . : ERIC Clear ing House ~orLinguistics, E D 0 3 7 7 1 9 ( 1 9 7 0 ) .

TXMa~U, P., Lan guag e acquis i tion in Do wn 's Syndr om e children: the deve lopm ent o~ [ormand meaning . Doctora l di sser ta t ion, Teachers Col lege (1978) .

TODD, P. H., hr. , From sign language to speech: d elay ed acquisi t ion o~ En glish by a hear-ing child o[ dea[ parents. Do ctora l di sser ta t ion, Univers i ty of Cal i fornia a t Berke ley( 1 9 7 2 ) .

Received March 20, 1978.Accept ed December 28 , 1978 .

SCHIFF: Language~Dev ian t Ma ter ia l Inpu t 603



1979;22;581-603 J Speech Hear Res Naomi B. Schiff

of Language During the Preschool Years

The Influence of Deviant Maternal Input on the Development

eshttp://jslhr.asha.org/cgi/content/ abstract/22/3/581#otherarticl

you can access for free at:This article has been cited by 1 HighWire-hosted article(s) which

This information is current as of July 30, 2011

http://jslhr.asha.org/cgi/content/abstract/22/3/581located on the World Wide Web at:

This article, along with updated information and services, is

http://jslhr.asha.org/cgi/content/abstract/22/3/581#otherarticles


http://jslhr.asha.org/cgi/content/abstract/22/3/581




Documents

Deviant Maternal Input