Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-glrdx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T13:42:51.715Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Referential style at thirteen months: why age-defined cross-sectional measures are inappropriate for the study of strategy differences in early language development

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

Julian M. Pine  and
Elena V. M. Lieven
Julian M. Pine*
Affiliation:
University of Dundee
Elena V. M. Lieven
Affiliation:
University of Manchester
*
Department of Psychology, University of DundeeUK.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examines the relationship between cross-sectional measures of referential style taken at 1;1 and measures based on the first 50 words in 12 first-born children. Since no significant relationship is found it is argued that age-defined cross-sectional measures are inappropriate for the study of strategy differences in early language development because they confound such differences with variation due to differences in development level.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , October 1990 , pp. 625 - 631
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Bates, E., Bretherton, I. & Snyder, L. (1988). From first words to grammar: individual differences and dissociable mechanisms Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Bretherton, I., McNew, S., Snyder, L. & Bates, E. (1983). Individual differences at twenty months: analytic and holistic strategies in language acquisition. Journal of Child Language 10. 293–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, R. (1974). Performing without competence. Journal of Child Language 1. 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldfield, B. A. & Snow, C. E. (1985). Individual differences in language acquisition. In Berko-Gleason, J. (eds), The development of language Columbus, OH: Merrill.Google Scholar
Lieven, E. V. M. (1989). The linguistic implications of early and systematic variation in child language development. Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, K. (1973). Structure and strategy in learning to talk. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 38. No. 149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, K. (1981). Individual differences in language development implications for development and language. Developmental Psychology 17. 170–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, K. E., Baker, N. D., Denninger, M., Bonvillian, J. D. & Kaplan, B. J. (1985). Cookie versus Do-it-Again: imitative-referential and personal-social-syntactic-initiating language styles in young children. Linguistics 23. 433–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, S. L., Bayles, K. & Bates, J. E. (1986). Mother and child interaction and children's speech progress: a longitudinal study of the first two years. Merril-Palmer Quarterly 32. 1–20.Google Scholar
Peters, A. M. ( 1977). Language learning strategies: does the whole equal the sum of the parts? Language 53. 560–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, A. M. (1983). The units of language acquisition Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. & Todd, J. (1983). Joint attention and lexical acquisition style. First Language 4, 197–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar