Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T07:52:30.894Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A further look at the motherese hypothesis: a reply to Gleitman, Newport & Gleitman*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

David Furrow  and
Katherine Nelson
David Furrow*
Affiliation:
Mount Saint Vincent University
Katherine Nelson*
Affiliation:
City University of New York
*
David Furrow, Department of Psychology, Mount Saint Vincent University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, BM 2J6;
Katherine Nelson, Ph.D. Program in Developmental Psychology, The Graduate School and University Center of the City University of New York, 33 West 42nd Street, New York, NY 10036–8099, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Notes and Discussion
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , February 1986 , pp. 163 - 176
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

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.)

Footnotes

*

Order of authorship was alphabetically determined. We would like to thank Rudy Kafer and Norman Uhl for helpful comments on the contents of this paper.

References

REFERENCES

Anastasi, A. (1961). Psychological testing. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Barnes, S., Gutfreund, M., Satterly, D. & Wells, G. (1983). Characteristics of adult speech which predict children's language development. JChLang 10. 65–84.Google ScholarPubMed
Brown, R. (1973). A first language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Furrow, D., Nelson, K. & Benedict, H. (1979). Mothers' speech to children and syntactic development: some simple relationships. JChLang 6. 423–42.Google ScholarPubMed
Gleitman, L., Newport, E. & Gleitman, H. (1984). The current status of the motherese hypothesis. JChLang 11. 43–79.Google ScholarPubMed
Graves, Z. & Glick, J. (1978). The effect of context on mother–child interaction: a progress report. The Quarterly Newsletter of the Institute of Comparative Human Development 2 (3).Google Scholar
Lucariello, J. & Nelson, K. (1982). Situational variation in mother–child interaction. Paper presented at the International Conference on Infant Studies,Austin, Texas.Google Scholar
Nelson, K., Engel, S. & Kyratzis, A. (in press). The evolution of meaning in context. JPrag.Google Scholar
Newport, E., Gleitman, H. & Gleitman, L. (1977). Mother, I'd rather do it myself: some effects and non-effects of maternal speech style. In Snow, C. & Ferguson, C. (eds), Talking to children: language input and acquisition. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Nunnally, J. & Durham, R. (1975). Validity, reliability, and special problems of measurement in evaluation research. In Struening, E. and Guttentag, M. (eds), Handbook of evaluation research. Vol. 1. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
Pluchick, R. (1983). Foundations of experimental research. Third edition. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Wexler, K. & Culicover, P. (1980). Formal principles of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Wiggins, J. (1973). Personality and prediction: principles of personality assessment. Reading, MA: Addison–Wesley.Google Scholar