Table 5.4
Therefore, the interactionist perspective on language development points to the dynamic and reciprocal influence of biology and context. Infants are equipped with biological propensities and information processing capacities that permit them to perceive and analyze speech and learn to speak. Infants are motivated to communicate with others, and language is a tool for communication. Interactions with others provide important learning experiences, which help infants expand their language capacities and learn to think in ways similar to members of their culture (Fitneva & Matsui, 2015). The accompanying feature, Cultural Influences on Development, discusses cultural differences in infant-directed speech. Theories of language development are summarized in Table 5.4.
Cultural Influences on Development
Culture and Language Development in Infancy
Parents from different cultures vary in how often they respond to their infants, but parental response patterns that are warm, consistent, and contingent on infant actions predict positive language development in infants across cultures.
Spencer Robertson/Newscom
Infant-directed speech has been documented in many languages and cultures (Bryant, Liénard, & Barrett, 2012; Kuhl et al., 1997). Comparisons of mothers from Fiji, Kenya, and the United States show the use of high-pitched speech, which is characteristic of infant-directed speech, with infants (Broesch & Bryant, 2015). The pattern of infant-directed speech is similar across cultures such that adults can discriminate it from adult-directed speech even while listening to a language they do not speak. For example, when adults in the Turkana region of northwestern Kenya listened to speech produced in English by American mothers, they were able to discriminate between infant-directed and adult-directed speech, suggesting that infant-directed speech is recognizable to adults of many cultures (Bryant, Liénard, & Barrett, 2012). Despite this, adults of different cultures vary in their interactions with infants.
Cultures differ in the use of infant-directed speech. For example, in Samoa, infants are not addressed directly by caregivers until they begin to crawl. Parents tend to interpret their vocalizations as indicators of physiological state rather than as attempts to communicate. Because of the status hierarchy in Samoa, child-directed speech is uncommon in adults because it would reflect someone of higher status (i.e., an adult) adjusting his or her speech to someone of lower status (Ochs & Schieffein, 1984). Instead, older children are tasked with responding to infants’ utterances, and it is largely older children who talk with infants (Lieven & Stoll, 2010). Similarly, the Kaluli of Papua New Guinea do not engage in infant-directed speech (Fitneva & Matsui, 2015). Infants are held oriented outward rather than toward the mother. When infants are addressed by others, the mother speaks for the infant in a high-pitched voice but does not use simplified language. Only when children themselves begin to talk do parents start talking to them, and then they focus on teaching them what to say (Ochs & Schieffein, 1984).
Although parents from different cultures vary in how often they respond to their infants, parental response patterns that are warm, consistent, and contingent on infant actions are associated with positive language development in infants across cultures (Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2014). For example, in a study of six cultural communities, mothers from Berlin and Los Angeles were more likely to respond to infant nondistress vocalizations and gazes than were mothers from Beijing and Delhi, as well as Nso mothers from various cities in Cameroon. In contrast, Nso mothers responded more often to infant touch than did mothers from other cultures. Although parental responsiveness may look different and take different forms across cultures, its benefits generalize across families from varying cultural communities and socioeconomic strata (Rodriguez & Tamis-LeMonda, 2011).
Culture even shapes the types of words that infants learn. In Asian cultures such as those of Japan, China, and Korea that stress interpersonal harmony, children tend to acquire verbs and social words much more quickly than do North American toddlers (Gopnik & Choi, 1995; Tardif et al., 2008). In another study, U.S. mothers responded to infant object play more than social play, whereas Japanese mothers responded more to social play (Tamis-LeMonda, Bornstein, Cyphers, Toda, & Ogino, 1992). For example, North American infants’ first words tend to include more referential language, or naming words such as ball, dog, cup, and the like, while Japanese infants tend to use more expressive language, or words that are used mainly in social interaction, such as please and want (Fernald & Morikawa, 1993). Italian-, Spanish-, French-, Dutch-, Hebrew-, and English-speaking infants tend to display a preference for using more nouns than verbs (Bassano, 2000; Bornstein et al., 2004; de Houwer & Gillis, 1998; Maital, Dromi, Sagi, & Bornstein, 2000; Tardif, Shatz, & Naigles, 1997). Cultures vary in common practices and contexts of infant-directed communication, yet all infants learn language, supporting the powerful role of maturation.
What Do You Think?
What might influence the cultural differences in which parents interact with infants and thereby influence language development? Consider physical surroundings, resources, and a culture’s economy. How might outside factors influence parent–child interactions that support language development?
Infancy represents an important time for development that illustrates the interaction of biology, maturation, and the sociocultural context. Infants are equipped with early and rapidly emerging capacities to move and control their bodies, sense the world around them, and learn and think. However, interactions with their sociocultural context strengthen and modify infants’ capacities in every domain of development. In turn, babies’ actions influence elements of their sociocultural context. Infants’ active role in their own cognitive development cannot be denied. Infants also play an active role in their socioemotional development, as discussed in Chapter 6.
Thinking in Context 5.4
1 What role do other domains of development hold in influencing infants’ language development? Consider motor development, perception, and cognition. How might advances in these domains influence infants’ emerging language abilities?
2 Referring to Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model (see Chapter 1), identify factors that influence language acquisition. Specifically, identify examples of macrosystem and mesosystem factors that might play a role in language. How might the exosystem influence language acquisition? Macrosystem?
Apply Your Knowledge
Researchers use a variety of methods to study infant cognition:
In one experiment, an infant looks longer at an expected, seemingly impossible event that occurs: A board appears to move through a box.
An infant is shown a toy, then the overhead lights are turned off, hiding the toy from his sight. The infant successfully reaches for the toy.
An infant watches as a researcher covers a toy with a blanket. The infant reaches for the blanket and uncovers the toy.
An infant watches