Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Infant engagement and early vocabulary development: a naturalistic observation study of Mozambican infants from 1;1 to 2;1*

  • J. DOUGLAS MASTIN (a1) and PAUL VOGT (a1)
Abstract
Abstract

This study analyzes how others engage rural and urban Mozambican infants during naturalistic observations, and how the proportion of time spent in different engagements relates to infants' language development over the second year of life. Using an extended version of Bakeman and Adamson's (1984) categorization of infant engagement, we investigated to what extent a detailed analysis of infant engagement can contribute to our understanding of vocabulary development in natural settings. In addition, we explored how the different infant engagements relate to vocabulary size, and how these differ between the two communities. Results show that rural infants spend significantly more time in forms of solitary engagement, whereas urban infants spend more time in forms of triadic joint engagement. In regard to correlations with reported productive vocabulary, we find that dyadic persons engagement (i.e. interactions not about concrete objects) has positive correlations with vocabulary measures in both rural and urban communities. In addition, we find that triadic coordinated joint attention has a positive relationship with vocabulary in the urban community, but a contrasting negative correlation with vocabulary in the rural community. These similarities and differences are explained, based upon the parenting beliefs and socialization practices of different prototypical learning environments. Overall, this study concludes that the extended categorization provides a valuable contribution to the analysis of infant engagement and their relation to language acquisition, especially for analyzing naturalistic observations as compared to semi-structured studies. Moreover, with respect to vocabulary development, Mozambican infants appear to benefit strongest from dyadic Persons engagement, while they do not necessarily benefit from joint attention, as tends to be the case for children from industrial, developed communities.

Copyright
Corresponding author
Address for correspondence: J. Douglas Mastin, Stanford UniversityDevelopmental Psychology, Language Learning Lab, 50 Serra Mall, Margaret Jacks Building, Stanford, CA 94305. E-mail: mastjd@gmail.com
Footnotes
Hide All

This research was funded by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) with a VIDI grant (number 276-70-018) awarded to PV. We thank Afra Alishahi, Eve Clark, and Fons Maes for their invaluable comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. Many thanks to Wona Sanana, Associação Communitário Ambiente da Mafalala, and the local research assistants for their support in Mozambique. Finally, our gratitude goes to all participants involved in this study.

Footnotes
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

M. Abels , H. Keller , P. Mohite , H. Mankodi , J. Shastri , S. Bhargava , S. Jasrai & A. Lakhani (2005). Early socialization contexts and social experiences of infants in rural and urban Gujarat, India. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 36, 717–38.

L. B. Adamson , R. Bakeman & D. F. Deckner (2004). The development of symbol-infused joint engagement. Child Development 75(4), 1171–87.

N. Akhtar & M. A. Gernsbacher (2007). Joint attention and vocabulary development: a critical look. Language and Linguistic Compass 1(3), 195207.

R. Bakeman & L. B. Adamson (1984). Coordinating attention to people and objects in mother–infant and peer–infant interaction. Child Development 55(4), 1278–89.

M. E. Barton & M. Tomasello (1991). Joint attention and conversation in mother–infant–sibling triads. Child Development 62, 517–29.

M. H. Bornstein , L. R. Cote , S. Maital , K. Painter , S.-Y. Park , L. Pascual , …, & A. Vyt (2004). Cross-linguistic analysis of vocabulary in young children: Spanish, Dutch, French, Hebrew, Italian, Korean, and American English. Child Development 75(4), 1115–39.

M. H. Bornstein & D. L. Putnick (2012). Cognitive and socioemotional caregiving in developing countries. Child Development 83(1), 4661.

S. Eisenbeiss (2010). Production methods in language acquisition research. In E. Blom & S. Unsworth (eds), Experimental measures in language acquisition research, 1134. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

A. R. Feinstein & D. V. Cicchetti (1990). High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 43(6), 543–9.

L. Fenson , P. S. Dale , J. S. Reznick , E. Bates , D. Thal & S. Pethick (1994).Variability in early communicative development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 59(5), 1185.

L. Fenson , S. Pethick , C. Renda , J. L. Cox , P. S. Dale & J. S. Reznick (2000). Short-form versions of the MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories. Applied Psycholinguistics 21, 95116.

A. Fernald , V. A. Marchman & A. Weisleder (2012). SES differences in language processing skill and vocabulary are evident at 18 months. Developmental Science 16, 234248.

S. Grantham-McGregor , Y. B. Cheung , S. Cueto , P. Glewwe , L. Richter & B. Strupp (2007). Developmental potential in the first 5 years for children in developing countries. The Lancet 369(9555), 6070.

P. M. Greenfield (2009). Linking social change and developmental change: shifting pathways of human development. Developmental Psychology 45(2), 401–18.

E. Hoff (2006). How social contexts support and shape language development. Developmental Review 26, 5588.

C. Houston-Price , E. Mather & E. Sakkalou (2007). Discrepancy between parental reports of infants’ receptive vocabulary and infants’ behavior in a preferential looking task. Journal of Child Language 34(4), 701–24.

D. A. Junker & I. J. Stockman (2002). Expressive vocabulary of German–English bilingual toddlers. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 11(4), 381–95.

R. A. LeVine , S. Dixon , S. LeVine , A. Richman , P. H. Leiderman , C. H. Keefer & T. B. Brazelton (1994). Childcare and culture: lessons from Africa. New York: Cambridge University Press.

E. Lieven (1994). Crosslinguistic and crosscultural aspects of language addressed to children. In C. Gallaway & B. J. Richards (eds), Input and interaction in language acquisition (pp. 56–73). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

E. Lieven & S. Stoll (2013). Early communicative development in two cultures: a comparison of the communicative environments of children from two cultures. Human Development 56, 178206.

M. Morales , P. Mundy , C. E. F. Delgado , M. Yale , D. Messinger , R. Neal & H. K. Schwartz (2000). Responding to joint attention across the 6- through 24-month age period and early language acquisition. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 21(3), 283–98.

D. Salomo & U. Liszkowski (2013). Sociocultural settings influence the emergence of prelinguistic deictic gestures. Child Development 84(4), 1296–307.

L. Shneidman & S. Goldin-Meadow (2012). Language input and acquisition in a Mayan village: How important is directed speech? Developmental Science 15(5), 659–73.

B. I. Strassmann (2011). Cooperation and competition in a cliff-dwelling people. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108, 10894–901.

M. Tomasello , M. Carpenter , J. Call , T. Behne & H. Moll (2005). Understanding and sharing intentions: the origins of cultural cognition. Behavioural and Brain Sciences 28, 675735.

M. Tomasello & M. J. Farrar (1986). Joint attention and early language. Child Development 57(6), 1454–63.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Journal of Child Language
  • ISSN: 0305-0009
  • EISSN: 1469-7602
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-child-language
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×
Type Description Title
PDF
Supplementary Materials

Mastin and Vogt supplementary material
Mastin and Vogt supplementary material 1

 PDF (157 KB)
157 KB

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 9
Total number of PDF views: 68 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 272 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 29th March 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.