The Relationship Between Maternal Language Measures and Language Development in Toddlers With Expressive Vocabulary Delays

Abstract

This study examined the relationship between variation in maternal language and variation in language development in a group of 12 children with expressive vocabulary delays. Mothers and their children participated in a parent-mediated intervention that adhered to the interactive model of language intervention. This intervention model arises out of social interactionist accounts of language acquisition and maintains that maternal language input has facilitatory effects on child development. The purpose of this study was to examine two compatible explanations for the facilitatory effects of maternal linguistic input in this intervention model: the responsivity hypothesis and the structural hypothesis. The responsivity hypothesis maintains that linguistic input that is semantically contingent on the child’s vocal or verbal utterances, or responsive to the child’s focus, facilitates language learning. The structural hypothesis posits that structural features of maternal language input that are just one step above the child’s abilities promote language learning. The results of this study indicated robust relationships between maternal use of imitation and expansion at Time 1 and measures of child language at Time 2. These results provided support for the effects of responsive language input on the language abilities of this sample of late talkers. These results have implications for social interaction theory and confirm the import of responsive input as viable intervention techniques for young children with expressive vocabulary delays.

Maternal verbal responsiveness and directiveness: consistency, stability, and relations to child early linguistic development

“…Maternal responsiveness refers to a mother's ability to perceive her child's signals accurately and respond to them promptly, contingently, and appropriately (Bornstein et al, 1999). It has often been shown to be associated with child language outcomes (Bornstein et al, 1999;Girolametto et al, 1999Girolametto et al, , 2002Hoff & Naigles, 2002;Kaiser & Hancock, 2003;Masur et al, 2005;Roberts & Kaiser, 2011). In turn, constantly redirecting the child's focus of attention and also attempts to command and control the child's behaviour have been considered characteristics of directive interactive style (Della Corte et al, 1983;Hoff & Naigles, 2002;Masur et al, 2005).…”

“…This line of research is important, not least because it is closely related to speech and language therapy, in particular to interactive models of language intervention (e.g. Ciccone, Hennessey & Stokes, 2012;Gibbard, Coglan & MacDonald, 2004;Girolametto, Weitzman, Wiigs & Pearce, 1999;Kaiser & Hancock, 2003;Roberts & Kaiser, 2011).…”

Mothers’ and infants’ responses to their partners’ spontaneous action and vocal/verbal imitation

“…Not only children's, but also mothers', vocal and/or verbal imitation is predictive of language development, both for children who are typically developing (Masur, Flynn, & Eichorst, 2005; Tamis-LeMonda, Bornstein, & Baumwell, 2001) and for those with language delays (Girolametto, Weitzman, Wiigs, & Pearce, 1999). For example, mothers' higher rates of vocal/ verbal imitation at 13 months are associated with children's more rapid acquisition of 50-word lexicons and early combinatorial speech (Tamis-LeMonda et al, 2001).…”

Small Groups, Big Gains: Efficacy of a Tier 2 Phonological Awareness Intervention With Preschoolers With Early Literacy Deficits

“…Girolametto, Weitzman, Wiigs, and Pearce (1999) reported medium correlations between mothers' use of recasts and children's language development. Baxendale and Hesketh (2003) reported that the children of parents who recast at a higher rate made greater gains than those of parents who recast at a lower rate, regardless of whether the parents had been trained in the parent-training program or in individual sessions.…”

“…Analysis of data from individual studies has generally found that differing rates of recasts are associated with differing degrees of progress on proximal outcome measures (Girolametto et al, 1999;Hassink & Leonard, 2010) but that the relationship may be complex and may change as the child becomes more proficient with a target structure (Fey et al, 1993). Evidence suggests that targeting a rate of approximately 0.8-1.0 recast/min may be beneficial (Camarata et al, 1994;Fey et al, 1999).…”