UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Communicative acts of young children in structured elicitation contexts MacLachlan, Shannon Lee 2007

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_2007-0495.pdf [ 8.09MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0100960.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0100960-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0100960-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0100960-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0100960-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0100960-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0100960-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0100960-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0100960.ris

Full Text

C O M M U N I C A T I V E A C T S O F Y O U N G C H I L D R E N IN S T R U C T U R E D E L I C I T A T I O N C O N T E X T S by S H A N N O N L E E M A C L A C H L A N B . S c . Hons . , T h e Universi ty of Brit ish C o l u m b i a , 2000 D. L ing. , T h e Universi ty of Brit ish C o l u m b i a , 2005 A T H E S I S S U B M I T T E D IN P A R T I A L F U L F I L L M E N T O F T H E R E Q U I R E M E N T S F O R T H E D E G R E E O F M A S T E R O F S C I E N C E in T H E F A C U L T Y O F G R A D U A T E S T U D I E S (Audiology and S p e e c h Sc iences ) T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A Ju ly 2007 © S h a n n o n L e e M a c L a c h l a n , 2007 A B S T R A C T Communicative Acts in Young Children in Structured Elicitation Contexts T h e relat ionship between communica t ion ski l ls over t ime, and the knowledge that ear ly intervention improves a chi ld 's long-term ou tcome, reinforces the need for val id and rel iable m e a s u r e s of young chi ldren's communica t ion ski l ls. T h e current study eva luated communica t ion abil i t ies of 34 chi ldren (1;5 - 2;0), s o m e with and s o m e without family hjstory of language delay. T h e major purpose w a s to document rate, d i scourse type (initiation or response) , mode , and s p e e c h act type in these chi ldren's communica t ion and determine age or gender d i f ferences. A seconda ry object ive w a s to determine whether s tandard ized language test s c o r e s corre lated with communica t ive act data . Predic t ions were that direct ives and asser t i ves would be the most frequent s p e e c h acts and s tandard ized language sco res would correlate with s p e e c h act da ta . Ch i ld ren part ic ipated in a structured play s e s s i o n a s part of a larger longitudinal study. A n exper imenter p resented a ser ies of toys and at tempted to elicit communica t ion from the chi ld with minimal prompt ing. Da ta were audio- and v ideo- taped, then orthographical ly t ranscr ibed and c o d e d accord ing to whether the utterance w a s communica t ive or not, where the chi ld 's focus of attention lay, whether an utterance w a s an initiation or response , and in what the mode and what the function of communica t ion were . Ut terance function w a s def ined accord ing to s p e e c h act theory, def ined by Sea r l e and Vande rveken (1985) and modi f ied by K l incans (1991; J o h n s o n & K l incans , 1999). Ch i ld ren commun ica ted at an ave rage rate of 8.6 ut terances/ minute. Initiations inc reased with chi ld age , a l though there w a s much variabil ity a m o n g chi ldren and a c r o s s activit ies; r esponses were not related to chi ld age . M o d e differed by activity, with verbal izat ions related to increasing chi ld age . T h e most frequent s p e e c h act types were , in order, direct ive, asser t ive , and express ive , with ut terances c o d e d 'amb iguous ' between direct ives and asser t i ves in f requency. Signi f icant correlat ions were found between s p e e c h act da ta and s tandard testing sco res for: initiations and P L S - A C , verbal izat ions and P L S - A C , and asser t i ves and P L S - A C , P L S - E C , and CDI sco res . T h e s e results, particularly the relat ionship be tween asser t i ves and language sco res , sugges t that s p e e c h act ana lys is c a n contr ibute to the val id and rel iable evaluat ion of communica t ion ski l ls in structured contexts of chi ldren under age 2;0 and a lso predict s o m e language abil i t ies of chi ldren at this difficult-to-test age . T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S A B S T R A C T ii T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S iii LIST O F T A B L E S . vi LIST O F FIGURES vii A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S viii C H A P T E R 1: Introduction and review of the literature 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Study Goals 2 1.3 Young Children's Communication: Past Research 3 1.3.1 Ear ly Language Deve lopment in Y o u n g Chi ld ren 3 1.3.2 Soc ia l Commun ica t i on by Typical ly Deve lop ing a n d L a n g u a g e Impaired Y o u n g Chi ld ren L e s s than T w o Y e a r s O ld .. .3 1.4 Observation and Analysis of Child Language 15 1.4.1 S tandard Tes ts and Too ls 16 1.4.2 Elicitation of Commun ica t i ve S a m p l e s 20 1.4.3 C o d i n g S c h e m a s t o A n a l y z e El ic i tat ions 21 1.5 Critical Analysis of Existing Systems 26 1.5.1 R e s p o n s e to Cr i t ic isms 27 1.5.2 Backg round Investigations to the Current Study: K l incans (1991) and S ing (2002) .28 1.6 Bas is for the Current Study .29 1.6.1 Cod ing S y s t e m ..' .......29 1.6.2 R e s e a r c h Ques t ions 30 C H A P T E R 2: METHOD 33 2.1 Overview of the Study 33 2.2 Participants 33 iii 2.2.1 Backg round Longitudinal S tudy :.. . .33 2.2.2 Current Study 34 2.3 Data Collection 35 2.3.1 Longitudinal S tudy T a s k s at 18 months 35 2.3.2 Structured Interaction T a s k 35 2.3.3 Structured Interaction S e s s i o n Record ing 37 2.4 Transcription . ...37 2.4.1 Reliabi l i ty of Transcr ip t ion 38 2.5 Coding 38 2.5.1 Inter-Rater Reliabil i ty: C o d i n g Commun ica t i ve Ac t s 38 2.5.2 Intra-rater Reliabil i ty: C o d i n g Commun ica t i ve Ac t s . . 39 2.5.3 Ut terance Commun ica t i ve or Non-Commun ica t i ve in Intent 39 2.5.4 F o c u s of Attention 40 2.5.5 Ut terance in R e s p o n s e to / Ut terance Initiated 41 2.5.6 M o d e of C o m m u n i c a t i o n . 42 2.5.7 l l locutionary Point 45 2.5.8 C o d i n g S y s t e m Modi f ica t ions. . 60 2.6 Data Analysis 61 2.6.1 Overv iew : ...61 2.6.2 Effect of A g e , G e n d e r , and T a s k on Ch i ld ren 's Commun ica t i on 61 2.6.3 Relat ionship be tween Convent iona l A s s e s s m e n t and S p e e c h Act Da ta 62 C H A P T E R 3 63 Results 63 3.1 Overview ...63 3.2 Communicative Abilities 63 3.2.1 Ut terance Commun ica t i ve or Non-Commun ica t i ve in Intent 6 3 3.2.2 F o c u s of Attention 64 3.2.3 Ut terance in R e s p o n s e to/ Ut terance Initiated 64 3.2.4 M o d e of Commun ica t i on 65 3.2.5 l l locutionary Point 65 3.3 Relationship between Conventional Assessment and Speech Act Data.... 68 C H A P T E R 4: Discussion 69 4.1 Overview 69 4.2 Summary of Results 69 4.3 Detailed Discussion of Coded Topics 71 4.3.1 Ra te of Commun ica t ion in Structured Elicitat ion Con tex ts 71 4.3.2 Ut terance in R e s p o n s e to / Ut terance Initiated . . . . . .73 4 .3 .3 M o d e of Commun ica t i on . . . . 75 4.3.4 S p e e c h Act Funct ions 79 4.4 Summary 79 4.5 Methodological Limitations..... 79 4.5.1 Inter-rater Reliabil i ty :. 80 4.5.2 Cod ing Commun ica t i ve Ac t s 81 4.5.3 Cons i s t ency A c r o s s Ch i ld ren 82 4.5.4 U s e of S tandard ized T e s t s ve rsus Non-S tandard El ici tat ions 82 4.6 Future Directions and Clinical Implications 83 4.7 Conclusion 83 R E F E R E N C E S .99 APPENDIX 1 104 v LIST O F T A B L E S Tab le 1.1: C lass i f ica t ion S c h e m e constructed by K l incans (1991) 85 Tab le 2 .1 : S u m m a r y of Ch i ld Character is t ics 86 Tab le 2 .2 : Mu l len , P reschoo l L a n g u a g e S c a l e , a n d McAr thur C D I S c o r e s 86 Tab le 3 .1 : Ra tes of Commun ica t i ve Ut terances per Minute in each Activity 87 Tab le 3.2: Corre lat ion between A g e and Commun ica t i ve Ut te rances per Unit T ime 87 Tab le 3.3: R a t e s of Non-Commun ica t i ve Ut terances per Minute in e a c h Activity (for ut terances that remained in transcripts) 87 Tab le 3.4: S u m m a r y of Stat ist ics re: Initiations and R e s p o n s e s in e a c h Activity per Minute 87 Tab le 3.5: Relat ionship between Initiations and R e s p o n s e s and Ch i ld A g e : . . . .88 Tab le 3.6: M o d e of Commun ica t ion - Number of T i m e s per Minute of Activity 88 T ab le 3.7: Re la t ionsh ip be tween M o d e of Commun ica t i on a n d A g e 89 Tab le 3.8: l l locutionary Points - Number of T i m e s per Minute of Act iv i ty. . . 89 Tab le 3.9: Corre la t ions between l l locutionary Ac t s and A g e 89 v i LIST O F FIGURES Figure 3.1: Percent of Ut terances O n - T o p i c with Exper imenter 's T o y s by A g e ..90 F igure 3.2: Number of Ut terances by A g e 90 F igure 3.3: Book Activity: Initiations and R e s p o n s e s A c r o s s Chi ld ren 91 F igure 3.4: W h a l e Activity: Initiations and R e s p o n s e s A c r o s s Chi ld ren 91 F igure 3.5: Bubb les Activity: Initiations and R e s p o n s e s A c r o s s Chi ld ren . . .92 F igure 3.6: Book Activity - Voca l i za t ions , Verba l iza t ions , and Point per Minute .92 F igure 3.7: W h a l e Activity - R e a c h i n g , and Ho ld Out / G i v e per Minute 9 3 F igure 3.8: W h a l e Activity - Voca l i za t ions and Verba l iza t ions per Minute 9 3 F igure 3.9: Bubb les A c t i v i t y - R e a c h i n g , Voca l i za t ions , and Verba l iza t ions per Minute 94 F igure 3.10: Asser t i ves per Minute A c r o s s Al l Act ivi t ies 94 F igure 3 .11: Number of Asser t i ves per Minute by Activity . . . .95 F igure 3.12: Direct ives per Minute A c r o s s Al l Act ivi t ies 95 F igure 3.13: Number of Direct ives per Minute by Activity 96 F igure 3.14: Exp ress i ves per Minute A c r o s s Al l Act ivi t ies 96 F igure 3.15: Number of Exp ress i ves per Minute by Activity 97 F igure 3.16: Amb iguous per Minute A c r o s s Al l Act ivi t ies 97 F igure 3.17: Var iat ion in Rate of A m b i g u o u s Ac t s between activit ies in 10 randomly se lec ted chi ldren 98 F igure 4 .1 : z -sco re data for Mul len, P L S , and CDI a s s e s s m e n t s , compa red with the number of communica t ive ut terances per minute of ten randomly se lec ted part ic ipants 98 v i i A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S J I would like to exp ress my s incere gratitude to my thes is superv isor , Dr. Ba rba ra M a y Bernhardt , for bel ieving this w a s a project that could be f in ished, for shar ing in s o m e of the cod ing of communica t ive ac ts , and for add ing laughter, curiosity, and fun to the p rocess . I a m very grateful for her crit ical adv ice and editorial comments , a s wel l a s her unfail ing support and encouragement . M a n y thanks to Dr. Caro lyn J o h n s o n for her generous t ime, her perspect ives and expert ise in cod ing communica t ion acts , and for her insights in deve lop ing and complet ing this thes is project. A l s o a big thank-you to Dr. Ju l ie Scot t for her response to all my emai ls , for shar ing up-to-date information on the overal l project and my samp le of chi ldren, and for her much -apprec ia ted methodolog ica l and statistical support ! I would a lso like to extend my appreciat ion to Dr. S tek fa Mar inova -Todd for her contr ibut ions to the quality and complet ion of this project. Last ly, two very spec ia l thank you 's to L i sa K l incans who, in col laborat ion with Caro l yn J o h n s o n , deve loped the cod ing sys tem upon which this thesis is b a s e d , and to T r a c e y S ing for providing a pilot study to this work. Without their hard work, this project wou ld have been much more difficult. Th is project w a s greatly ass i s ted by a Major Col laborat ive Heal th R e s e a r c h Gran t f rom N S E R C . to the dog sitters and walkers , cookers , c leaners , and sani ty-mainta iners. much love and many thanks. C H A P T E R 1 I N T R O D U C T I O N A N D R E V I E W O F T H E L I T E R A T U R E 1.1 Introduction A web sea rch for the term 'chi ld deve lopment ' returns over 118 mill ion related Internet s i tes in under four s e c o n d s . M a n y of these s i tes a lso include information relevant to language deve lopment ; in fact, another quick sea rch with ' language deve lopment ' a s the sea rch term y ie lds 269 mill ion s i tes. T h e s e s i tes range f rom large assoc ia t ion webs i tes , s u c h a s the A m e r i c a n S p e e c h and Hear ing Assoc ia t i on , to smal ler retail organizat ions that sel l toys to 'acce lera te ' chi ld deve lopment . Th is topic is a lso targeted in the popular med ia , a s is evident from quotat ions on the Nat ional L i teracy Trust 's (NLT) websi te in the U K (2006). For examp le , Dr. Sa l ly W a r d (2000, ci ted on N L T , 2006) s a y s "There is no greater gift that you c a n give your chi ld at the beginning of life than the ability to communica te . " Ernest L. Boyer (1991, c i ted on N L T , 2006) , speak ing on the Ready To Learn initiative, s a y s "Every chi ld, to be educat ional ly success fu l , needs a language-r ich envi ronment, one in which adul ts speak wel l , l isten attentively, and read a loud every day" . A n d finally, Bye rs -B rown & E d w a r d s (1989, ci ted on N L T , 2006) s a y s "Chi ldren who are unable to commun ica te effectively through language or to use language a s a bas is for further learning are hand icapped socia l ly , educat ional ly a n d , a s a c o n s e q u e n c e , emotional ly". Al l of these sou rces e m p h a s i z e the importance of ear ly communica t ion deve lopment to ensure a chi ld 's soc ia l , educat iona l , and emot ional s u c c e s s . F rom the shee r proliferation of access ib l e information on this topic, it is readi ly apparent that our soc iety is conce rned about language deve lopment in young chi ldren. Th is conce rn about ear ly chi ld language deve lopment is justif ied in the ev idence presented by the research literature; it is wel l documen ted that chi ldren's ear ly communica t i ve abil i t ies are corre lated with their later language abil i t ies (Brady, S teep les , & F l e m i n g , 2 0 0 5 ; Ca landre l l a & Wi lcox , 2000) . For examp le , M c C a t h r e n , Yode r , and War ren (1999) reported that, in chi ldren between the a g e s of 1 ;5 and 2 ; 10 with mild to modera te intellectual de lays , rate of vocal izat ion, rate of voca l iza t ions with consonan ts , and rate of voca l iza t ions u s e d interactively were posit ively corre lated with express ive vocabu lary one year later be tween the a g e s of 1 ;5 and 2; 10. S t o e l - G a m m o n (1998) s tates that later s p e e c h and language deve lopments are corre lated with p re -speech voca l iza t ions. Mundy and G o m e s (1998) addit ional ly found that ear ly 1 non-verbal communica t ion ski l ls were related to later l anguage ability. In part icular, ear ly ability to initiate joint attention w a s predict ive of later language product ion ski l ls and early responding to joint attention w a s predict ive of later language comprehens ion levels . Therefore , it is important to be ab le to measu re chi ldren 's communica t ion capabi l i t ies in ear ly deve lopment accurate ly and precisely . It is a lso important to cons ider that ch i ldren 's communica t ion ability c a n be an important index of their cognit ive deve lopment , b e c a u s e many cognit ive impairments co -occur with language impairment. A s s u c h , it b e c o m e s n e c e s s a r y to evaluate young chi ldren's communicat ion capabi l i t ies accurate ly , in order to know which chi ldren are deve lop ing a s expec ted , and which chi ldren are likely to deve lop language and/or other cognit ive de lays (Brady et a l . , 2005) . Th is is part icularly important for very young chi ldren, b e c a u s e it is often true that the earl ier that support se rv i ces c a n be prov ided, the greater the impact will be on the chi ld 's long-term ou tcome. N u m e r o u s ways exist to evaluate a chi ld 's communica t ive capabi l i t ies, i.e., a s s e s s i n g a chi ld 's phono log ica l , syntact ic, and/or semant ic knowledge and ski l ls. A n addit ional way of evaluat ing a chi ld 's language abil it ies has to do with the w a y s in which a chi ld is ab le to use language, that is, what funct ions, or acts , a chi ld can ach ieve us ing his or her exist ing verbal and non-verbal m e a n s of communica t ion . 1.2 Study Goa l s T h e pr imary goa ls of the current study were to document the w a y s in wh ich chi ldren between 17 and 24 months of age commun ica te and to invest igate methods of observ ing and ana lyz ing chi ldren's language-re la ted communica t ive behav iours . Th i s study contr ibutes to the exist ing literature by character iz ing the range of communica t ive abil i t ies of 34 chi ldren, a cons iderab ly larger number than usual ly s tud ied in research of this nature. A s it is well documen ted in the literature that young chi ldren 's language abil i t ies are corre lated with their later communica t ion capabi l i t ies (Calandre l la & Wi lcox , 2000 ; Brady, S teep les , & F leming , 2005) , this character izat ion of a range of young chi ldren's abil i t ies is an important s tep towards d iagnos ing language impairment at a younger a g e than is currently poss ib le . Th is study will a l so contr ibute to the exist ing literature by investigating two methods of character iz ing young chi ldren 's ut terances: s tandard ized testing instruments ve rsus non-s tandard ized observat ion of ch i ldren 's communica t ive gestures , m o d e s of communica t ion , and funct ions of communica t ion . Chap te r I rev iews the literature on young chi ldren's communica t ion deve lopment , present ing data from studies on both typical ly and atypical ly deve lop ing chi ldren and f o c u s e s on the verbal and non-verbal communica t ive capabi l i t ies of young chi ldren. T h e quest ions ra ised and hypo theses fo rmed a s a result of this review are presented at the end of Chap te r 1. Chap te r 2 2 desc r ibes how the da ta for this study were co l lected and ana lyzed , including the h ierarchical dec is ion-mak ing sys tem that w a s u s e d . Chap te r 3 presents the results of this study, wh ich are then d i s c u s s e d in Chap te r 4. 1.3 Young Children's Communication: Past Research T h e study of language e n c o m p a s s e s a broad range of doma ins , i.e., phonology, semant i cs , syntax and pragmat ics : Sec t ion 1.3.1 briefly d i s c u s s e s the first three of these topics; sect ion 1.3.2, the focus of this thes is , d i s c u s s e s the last in greater detai l . 1.3.1 Early Language Development in Young Children Pau l (2007) notes a number of character is t ics of l anguage deve lopment before age 2. Ch i ld ren tend to show an ave rage product ion vocabu lary of between 50 to 100 words at 1 ;6 years and 200-300 words at 2;0 years (Pau l , 2007) . Ear ly semant i c relat ionships inc lude understanding and producing agent-act ion/object, act ion-object / locat ion, enti ty- location, p o s s e s s o r - p o s s e s s i o n , demonstrat ive-ent i ty, and attribute-entity relat ions. In terms of the phonolog ica l form of ear ly words at age 1 ;6, Pau l (2007) notes that chi ldren are typically producing words with s o m e of the consonan ts used in babbl ing. By age 2, chi ldren typical ly are producing nine to ten word-init ial and five to s ix word-f inal consonan ts , 7 0 % of which match the adult target. Both monosy l lab ic words ( C V , C V C ) and s o m e disyl labic words are in the chi ld 's repertoire. Ear ly syntact ic relat ionships be tween words begin to emerge between 1 ;6 and 2;0; two-word ut terances emerge and word order b e c o m e s increasingly consistent , a l though there are few grammat ica l markers exist before a g e 2;0 (Pau l , 2007) . 1.3.2 Social Communication by Typically Developing and Language Impaired Young Children Less than Two Years Old T h e study of communica t ive pragmat ics conce rns the funct ions and f requency of communica t ion , ski l ls in d iscourse (such a s turn-taking and top ic-maintenance) , and modif icat ion of s p e e c h for different conversat ion partners. Th is sect ion presents a review of the literature in pragmat ics that is conce rned with chi ldren's funct ional use of language. S tud ies are g rouped into two major sec t ions : communica t ive mode and communica t ive funct ion. T h e s e subtop ics are speci f ical ly a d d r e s s e d b e c a u s e much of the prev ious research in this a rea h a s u s e d these dist inct ions. In addi t ion, it is important to cons ider communica t ive mode and communica t ive function separate ly , b e c a u s e a chi ld may be able to verbal ize (a 'h igh' mode of communicat ion) but unable to exp ress many different communica t ive funct ions, and the 3 oppos i te . Th is information is invaluable in treatment of language impairment. Note that the fol lowing d i scuss ion f ocuses on genera l f indings of the studies to provide an overv iew. Further detai l on cod ing s c h e m e s leading to those f indings are d i s c u s s e d in the last sect ion of the chapter , a s background for the current study methodology. (The pilot study for the current study (S ing, 2002) is not d i s c u s s e d in this sec t ion , but rather at the end of the chapter , a s a prelude to the research quest ions and predict ions for the current study.) 1.3.2.1 M o d e of Commun ica t i on R e s e a r c h f indings concern ing different m o d e s of communica t ion are briefly p resen ted here; first, the nonverbal m o d e s and then the verbal m o d e s . M o d e of communica t ion desc r i bes the manner or way in which communica t ion took p lace—ges tu re , g a z e , voca l iza t ion, or verbal izat ion. M a n y of the studies p resented here will a l so be d i s c u s s e d in 1.3.2.2. Fol lowing this d i scuss ion , two studies are presented. T h e first study cons iders variabil ity be tween chi ldren's deve lopment of communica t ive m o d e s and the s e c o n d study cons iders predictabil i ty of a chi ld 's deve lopment of different communica t ive m o d e s over t ime. Non-Verba l Commun ica t i on : Ges tu re Ges tu re is a c o m m o n mode of communica t ion in typical deve lopment . G e s t u r e s include act ions s u c h a s point ing, reach ing, show ing , wav ing , nodding or shak ing the h e a d , and many other natural fo rms that der ive mean ing from the context in which they are p roduced (e.g., a chi ld lifting his/her a rms to a parent to indicate the des i re to be p icked up). A number of researchers have studied the deve lopment and function of gesture in young chi ldren. T o p b a s , Mav is and E r b a s (2003), in their s tudy of 16 Turk ish infants a g e d 1 ;3 to 3;0 (8 typical ly deve lop ing , 8 language delayed) found that communica t ion occur red by gesture 7 5 % of the t ime in typically deve lop ing chi ldren between 1;1 and 1;3. In chi ldren with language de lay, by contrast, communicat ion occur red by gesture 9 0 % of the t ime in chi ldren at age 2;0. Typica l ly deve lop ing chi ldren used much less gesture by 1;6 to 2;0 years , with only 5 % of ut terances be ing gestures. However , 5 5 % of the ut terances were still by gesture in chi ldren with language de lay between 2;6 and 3;0 years . F ranco and Butterworth (1996) set out to evaluate the communica t ive funct ion of ges tures in varying communica t ion contexts. T h e y invest igated the use of point ing, reach ing and other indicative ges tures by 47 chi ldren a g e d 1 ;0-1 ;6 years o ld . Thei r s tudy u s e d two different exper imenta l condi t ions: a referential condit ion where chi ldren were expec ted to share interest in the event with an adult, and an instrumental condit ion where the chi ldren were expec ted to request help from the adult. F ranco and Butterworth (1996) found that their sub jects 4 (1 ;0-1 ;6) pointed, but d id not reach, in the referential condit ion (where they were expec ted to share interest in an event with an adult). Ch i ld ren pointed and reached in the instrumental condit ion (where they were expec ted to request help from the adult). F ranco and Butterworth (1996) conc luded that pointing by young chi ldren funct ions a s a declarat ive communica t ive act. They found no c h a n g e in modal i ty of indication (from pointing to reaching) a s the chi ldren got older. F ranco and Butterworth's (1996) f inding that chi ldren at 1;0-1;6 c a n use an appropr iate gesture ('point' ve rsus ' reach and point') in referential ve rsus instrumental exper imenta l condi t ions s p e a k s to the high level of express ive communica t ive c o m p e t e n c e that very young chi ldren c a n p o s s e s s . Th is is particularly meaningfu l g iven the large samp le s ize from which the authors draw conc lus ions . L i szkowsk i , Carpenter , Henn ing , St r iano, and Tomase l l o (2004) further invest igated early pointing behaviour by 12-month-olds to test whether infants point to sat isfy themse lves only, to ga in an adult 's attention and emot ion for themse lves , to direct an adult 's attention to an object, or to share attention and interest in the object. T h e s e hypo theses were p o s e d to answer the quest ions of whether infants are capab le of either or both proto- imperat ive and proto-declarat ive point ing. Proto- imperat ive pointing is pointing for which the infant u s e s the adult a s a tool to ga in a c c e s s to an object (e.g., pointing to request an item). Proto-declarat ive point ing is point ing for which the infant u s e s an object to gain the adult 's attention (e.g., pointing to share attention and interest in a book) . M u c h of the exist ing literature (e.g., Carpenter , Nage l l , and Tomase l l o , 1998; Bretherton, M c N e w , and Beegh ly -Smi th , 1981; Leung and Rhe ingo ld , 1981 , c i ted in L i szkowsk i et a l . , 2004) sugges ts that both proto-declarat ive and proto-imperat ive points emerge a round 12 months of age , with proto-declarat ive points slightly predat ing proto-imperat ive points. HOwever, Moore and C o r k u m (1994, c i ted in L i szkowsk i et a l . , 2004) sugges t that infants do not ga in proto-declarativity until 1 ;6. L i szkowsk i et a l . (2004) conc luded that the infants were point ing with a dual purpose : to direct the adult 's attention, and to elicit a comment from the adult about the event. Th is dual motive conc lus ion w a s consis tent with the literature ci ted above that infants c a n produce a proto-declarat ive point at 12 months. In a related study, C r a i s , Doug las , and C o x C a m p b e l l (2004) u s e d Ba tes ' s (1976) definit ions of imperat ive and declarat ive and a l igned them with Bruner 's (1981) behaviour regulat ion and joint attention funct ions, respect ively. T h e s e authors report that declarat ive point ing to request joint attention and act ion or information from the soc ia l partner occur red 2 months before imperat ive pointing to request act ions (e.g., chi ld points to the door a s a request to go out). C r a i s et a l . (2004) a lso reported that declarat ive giving (joint attention function) 5 occur red 1.5 months before imperat ive giving (behaviour regulat ion function). T h e dist inct ions these authors made between different types of the s a m e gesture are extremely deta i led, if a little difficult to fol low. Rei l ly, Ead ie , Bav in , W a k e , Prior, Wi l l i ams, Bretherton, Barrett, and U k o u m u n n e (2006). found that even younger chi ldren than the o n e s presented above (0;8 - 1 ;0) were us ing communica t ion strategies effectively, including emot ional indicators and eye g a z e (as d i s c u s s e d in the next sec t ion , 7 5 % of the chi ldren). A smal le r percentage of the chi ldren were us ing natural ges tures (5-46% depend ing on the gesture), but more than 8 0 % were voca l iz ing with intent to obtain attention or help. By 1 ;0, the chi ldren 's ski l ls had a d v a n c e d in all a reas , part icularly in the use of gesture. In summary , typically deve lop ing chi ldren were ab le to use gesture (pointing and/or reaching) appropriately by 1;0 to 1;3 years of age to gain attention, sha re interest, elicit commen ts , and request help. Dur ing this t ime per iod, gestures are the chi ldren 's pr imary mode of communica t ion and , for s o m e types, gestures were the so le mode of communica t ion (e.g., direct attention to self, greet ing, and request for object were commun ica ted complete ly with gesture before 1 ;3 ; T o p b a s et a l . , 2003) . By contrast, chi ldren with deve lopmenta l de lay use gesture a s their only mode of communica t ion approximate ly s e v e n months longer than their typically deve lop ing s a m e - a g e peers (until 2;0), with gesture often remaining their dominant m ode of communica t ion until 3;0. Non-Verba l Commun ica t i on : G a z e Y o u n g chi ldren a lso use g a z e to commun ica te . F ranco and Butterworth (1996) s tud ied g a z e in young chi ldren. T h e s e authors found that the t iming of v isual check ing (defined a s g a z e to the soc ia l partner that co inc ided with a gesture but not with the partner speak ing immediate ly prior to the gaze) with pointing differed accord ing to the chi ld 's age ; v isual check ing occur red immediate ly after pointing at 1 ;0, v isual check ing occur red during point ing at 1 ;2, and v isual check ing occur red before pointing at 1 ;4. T h e t iming of v isual check ing with reaching a lso differed accord ing to the chi ld 's a g e ; at 1 ;0, v isual check ing occur red before, after and dur ing the reach , but by 1 ;2, it occur red nearly exc lus ive ly dur ing the reach . F ranco and Butterworth (1996) state that v isua l check ing at different t ime points within a gestural s e q u e n c e se rves three separa te funct ions: to direct the partner to an interesting event, to c h e c k for a partner 's attention, and/or to sha re an internal state. That is, the c h a n g e s in t iming of v isual check ing that occurs with chi ldren a s they a g e al lows them to gain a range of ski l ls in soc ia l communica t ion interact ions. F ranco and Butterworth (1996) a l so conc lude that point ing and reaching are intentional gestures even at this young age , b e c a u s e 4 7 % of point ing ges tures 6 and 3 1 % of reaching ges tures were assoc ia ted with v isual g a z e to an adult by the a g e of 1;0. T h e amount of v isual check ing to an adult with pointing inc reased with age (65% at 1 ;6), but v isua l check ing to an adult with reaching remained constant with a g e . However , it is somewha t quest ionable whether the t iming of v isual check ing after, during or before pointing truly c h a n g e s the function of the point in the way F ranco and Butterworth (1996) sugges t (to direct partner, check for attention, or share internal state). In addi t ion, F ranco and Butterworth (1996) def ined a gesture a s intentionally communica t i ve accord ing to p resence or a b s e n c e of g a z e . Acco rd ing to B lake , M c C o n n e l l , Horton, and B e n s o n (1992) eye g a z e d o e s not a c c o m p a n y the majority of ges tures exhibi ted by chi ldren under 2 yea rs of age . Th i s f inding impl ies F ranco and Butterworth (1996) may not have attributed communica t ive intent to ut terances that were , in fact, communica t ive . Verba l Commun ica t i on : Voca l iza t ion and Verbal izat ion A s noted earl ier, chi ldren are typically voca l iz ing and verbal iz ing in the s e c o n d year with communica t ive intent. In terms of relative use of vocal izat ion ve rsus verbal izat ion and a g e , T o p b a s , Mav is and E r b a s (2003) found that vocal izat ions and verbal izat ions were u s e d between 1 ;3 and 1 ;6 and verbal izat ions were the dominant mode of communica t ion u s e d between 1 ;6 and 2;0. Pau l (2007) notes that preverbal communica t ion d e c r e a s e s and word use i nc reases with increas ing age between 1;6 and 2;0. Pau l (2007) a lso reports a m e a n rate of 7.5 ut terances per minute in free play between 1 ;6 and 2;0. Further to rate and funct ion, in an exper imenta l context, Lichtert (2003) found that chi ldren p roduced an ave rage of two ut terances e a c h time an item w a s offered in a proto-imperat ive condi t ion. A n ave rage of two ut terances w a s a l so found in a proto-declarat ive exper iment (Lichtert, 2003) . However , there w a s a large amount of variat ion in number of ut terances, even when cons ider ing age of the chi ldren. Lichtert (2003) found a greater number of ut terances in the proto-declarat ive condit ion than in the proto- imperat ive condi t ion. In the proto- imperat ive exper iment , the ave rage number of ut terances gradual ly i nc reased l inearly with the a g e of the chi ld. In the proto-declarat ive exper iment , the ave rage number of ut terances fo rmed a curvi l inear trend with a g e . At age 1;6, the m e a n number of el ici ted ac ts w a s 1.7; at a g e 2;0, 1.0; and at age 2;6, 3.4. In summary , vocal izat ions and verbal izat ions s e e m to gain communica t ive intent be tween 1;3 and 1;6, with verbal izat ions becoming more frequent than voca l iza t ions a s a chi ld a g e s . T h e number of ut terances per minute in free play may be a s high a s 7.5 per minute, a l though activity type may affect the chi ld 's product ion of ut terances. 7 Variabil i ty in M o d e of Commun ica t i on Acquis i t ion Ch i ld ren acqu i re m o d e s of communica t ion at different t imes in their individual deve lopment and may not initially be ab le to use a new mode a c r o s s all act ivi t ies. C a s b y and C u m p a t a (1986) invest igated the level of mode of communica t ion in 11 young (n = 1) or severe ly l anguage-de layed chi ldren (n = 10), between the a g e s of 1 ;6 to 3;3, dur ing activit ies that el ici ted intentional communica t ion . T h e authors desc r ibed chi ldren 's mode of communica t ion on a f ive-i tem ordinal sca le (the Protocol for the A s s e s s m e n t of Prel inguist ic Intentional Commun ica t i on - P A P I C ( C a s b y and C u m p a t a , 1986). T h e y found a great range in chi ldren's m o d e s of communica t ion between 1 ;6 and 3;3 and between a g iven chi ld 's per formance on different tasks . T h e youngest chi ld in the study (1 ;6, not language delayed) ach ieved the highest M L U (mean length of utterance = 1.60) and m e a n s on the P A P I C were between 1.5 and 3.05 with high points of 4 on both of these tasks . T h e s e sco res represent the highest sco res ach ieved by a s ingle chi ld in the study. T h e oldest chi ld in the s tudy (3;3, language- impai red) a lso ach ieved a relatively large M L U va lue (1.42), and m e a n s on the P A P I C were be tween 0.71 (highest va lue 1) and 3.46 (highest va lue 4) when rated on the ordinal sca le . O n e addit ional chi ld with language impairment rece ived an M L U of less than 1. Th is study s h o w s that typical ly deve lop ing chi ldren a s young a s 1 ;0 c a n use objects to gain a c c e s s to an adult 's attention, and that typically deve lop ing chi ldren a s young a s 1 ;6 c a n commun ica te v ia quite sophis t icated m o d e s of communicat ion (such a s verbal iz ing) . However , the variabil ity in age , M L U , and m e a n and highest level m o d e s of communica t ion reached on the C a s b y and C u m p a t a ordinal sca le highlights the potential for great variabil ity between and within chi ldren on tasks that measu re early language deve lopment . A l though it is interesting to know that chi ldren at s u c h a young age are capab le of these m o d e s of communica t ion , it is equal ly important to cons ider if the m e a s u r e s inform us about the chi ld 's ability to exp ress their communica t ive intention. Further to the C a s b y and C u m p a t a study, it is important to quest ion whether M L U w a s an appropr iate way to measu re a chi ld 's language complexi ty, g iven that M L U c a n be inf luenced in a variety of different ways , including by add ing words , increas ing morphology, or responding/ imitat ing to an adult 's d iscourse (Johnston, 2005) . A l though the quantitative result in terms of M L U may be equivalent, one cou ld argue e a c h of these examp les s a y s someth ing different about the chi ld 's language capabi l i t ies. In addi t ion, the ordinal sca le desc r ibed by C a s b y and C u m p a t a (1986) exc lus ive ly desc r ibes the chi ld 's mode of communica t ion , not the sophist icat ion of their communica t ion . W h e n compar ing chi ldren of different language abil i t ies, part icularly different chi ldren with language impairment, it s e e m s a s though sophist icat ion, rather than length or mode , would be a more relevant var iable to measu re . 8 Predictabi l i ty in Deve lopment of M o d e of Commun ica t i on Conce rn i ng impl icat ions of communica t ive mode for later language deve lopment , Ca landre l l a and Wi l cox (2000) at tempted to predict a chi ld 's deve lopment of communica t ive mode by their ability at T ime 1. T h e s e authors dev i sed a cod ing sys tem to c lass i fy the communica t ive abil i t ies of 25 young chi ldren (1 ;5 to 3;2) with Down S y n d r o m e or another deve lopmenta l de lay. E a c h chi ld commun ica ted at a prel inguist ic language level 9 5 % of the t ime at the initiation of the study. T h e chi ldren were v ideotaped every 6 months over the cou rse of one year dur ing naturalistic play s e s s i o n s with their mothers (three observat ion sess ions ) . Ca landre l l a and Wi l cox (2000) u s e d regress ion ana lys is to determine which T ime 1 and T ime 2 factors (6 months later) were corre lated with communica t ive ski l ls at T ime 3 (one year later). T h e y did not f ind signif icant predictors at T ime 1 of the chi ldren's language comprehens ion or product ion s c o r e s at T ime 3 (one year later) on the S e q u e n c e d Inventory of Commun ica t i on Deve lopmen t -Rev i sed ( S I C D - R ; Hedr ick, Prather, and Tob in , 1984). However , they did f ind signif icant relat ionships be tween a chi ld 's rate of intentional non-verbal communica t ion with and without coord inated attention at T ime 1 and their language ski l ls (comprehens ion and production) and rate of different symbo l product ions at T i m e 3. Ra te of gestural indicating behaviour at T ime 1 did not predict language ou tcome at T ime 3, but rate of gestural indicating behaviour at T ime 2 did predict language ou tcome at T ime 3 G i v e n that all chi ldren in the study were operat ing at a prel inguist ic level 9 5 % of the t ime at T ime 1, it is not surpr is ing that T ime 1 factors (e.g., gestural indicat ing, S I C D - R score) did not predict language comprehens ion or product ion at T ime 3. It s e e m s that the behav iours Ca landre l l a and Wi l cox (2000) ci ted at T ime 1 (non-verbal intentional communica t ion , coord inated attention) that were predict ive of language ou tcome at T ime 3 are more representat ive of the abil i t ies expec ted in " 9 5 % prel inguist ic chi ldren." G i v e n that the chi ldren a d v a n c e d in their communicat ion abil it ies between T ime 1 and T ime 2, we would expect T ime 2 behav iours to be better predictors of behaviour at T ime 3. T h e s tud ies d i s c u s s e d above indicate that chi ldren do use a variety of m o d e s to commun ica te before age 2, with variabil ity a c r o s s chi ldren in terms of verbal and non-verbal communica t ive modes . Intentional communicat ion is well documen ted to appea r between 0;10 and 0;11 (see e.g. , S u g a r m a n , 1983). A n d young chi ldren are highly proficient at se lect ing appropr iately between var ious gesture types. 9 1.3.2.2 Funct ions of Commun ica t i on Commun ica t i ve funct ions of young chi ldren have a lso been a focus of research . Th is sect ion cons iders deve lopment of communica t ive funct ions over t ime, the inf luence of sett ing or interaction type on communica t ion , whether different types of chi ldren (e.g., young , severe ly language delayed) are capab le of intentional communica t ion , and whether different types of chi ldren (e.g., typical ly deve lop ing and language delayed) have d i f ferences in product ion of communica t ive ac ts . Th is review will begin with a brief descr ipt ion of the f indings from three of the early s tud ies on this topic. T h e literature about typically deve lop ing chi ldren 's funct ions of communica t ion will then be d i s c u s s e d , fo l lowed by a d i scuss ion about the deve lopment of funct ions of communica t ion in chi ldren with language impairment. Dore 's (1973) dissertat ion research appl ied a s p e e c h act ana lys is to the communica t ion deve lopment of two chi ldren, beginning when the chi ldren were 1;3. Dore (1973) adap ted the s p e e c h act taxonomy of Aust in and Sear le to be ab le to descr ibe deve lopment in form and function of chi ldren's intentional communica t ion a s they p rog ressed from pre-l inguist ic communica t ion to more convent ional forms. Dore (1973) conc luded i l locutionary force a n d proposi t ional content deve loped independent ly in young chi ldren, b a s e d on his observat ion of different rates and different orders of the two types of skil l deve lopment in the two ch i ldren. M c S h a n e (1980) and Bruner (1981) bel ieved communica t ive funct ions deve loped a s a result of soc ia l interact ions, a s chi ldren matured and recogn ized that their own communica t i ve behav iours cou ld affect the behav iours of others. M c S h a n e (1980) charac ter ized the communica t ive funct ions of s ix chi ldren between the a g e s of 1;0 and 2;0, accord ing to whether the act funct ioned a s a regulat ion (to request), s tatement (to name or g ive information), exchange (to announce giving or receiving), persona l (to state one ' s intention or feel ing), or conversat ion (d iscourse component ) . Bruner 's (1981) sys tem identif ied three genera l funct ions of communica t ion that ar ise during a chi ld 's first year (at approx imate ly 8-9 months) : soc ia l interaction (to direct or maintain another 's attention on onesel f ) , behav iour regulat ion (to regulate another 's act ions) , and joint attention (to direct another 's attention). B e c a u s e of the f requency with which two terms in part icular are u s e d in this set of l iterature, they are re-def ined here. C a s b y and C u m p a t a (1986) and Lichtert (2003) both u s e d Ba tes et a l . 's (1975, 1977) definit ions of protodeclarat ive ac ts a s those in wh ich the chi ld u s e s objects to ga in an adult 's attention, and protoimperative ac ts a s those in wh ich the chi ld u s e s the adult to ga in a c c e s s to objects. T h e s e two funct ions are common ly s tud ied in young chi ldren 's communica t ion b e c a u s e they are a m o n g the earl iest types of communica t ion to deve lop a n d b e c a u s e they are eas i ly unders tood by the chi ld 's non-verbal act ions. 10 T w o examp les of s tud ies of typical ly deve lop ing chi ldren 's communica t ive funct ions are C ra i s , Doug las , and C o x C a m p b e l l (2004) and R y c k e b u s c h and M a r c o s (2004). C r a i s et a l . documen ted the communicat ive ges tures of 12 typical ly deve lop ing chi ldren between 0;6 and 2;0, a s reported by parents. T h e purpose of their s tudy w a s to provide detai ls about the order of deve lopment of communica t ive funct ions a s the chi ldren a g e d . C ra i s et a l . prov ided e a c h chi ld 's parent with a gesture recording form ( G R F ) that co r responded to the chi ld 's age for every 2 months the chi ld part ic ipated in the study. Eight or nine communica t ive behav iours were l isted on e a c h G R F that were predicted by prev ious research to occur dur ing the two-month age interval. Paren ts were a s k e d to note the context and age at wh ich a behaviour first occur red , when the behaviour w a s u s e d three or more t imes, when it w a s u s e d consistent ly , and when and how it genera l i zed to new si tuat ions. C r a i s et a l . (2004) c la imed that communicat ive funct ions (as e x p r e s s e d by gesture) relating to behaviour regulation (i.e., protodeclarat ive) emerged between 0;4 and 1;7 yea rs of age ; request ing objects (i.e., protoimperative) emerged between 0;4 to 1 ;6 (mean = 0;9;1), request ing act ions emerged between 0;4 to 1;7 (i.e., protoimperative) (mean = 0;9;15), and protest ing emerged between 0;3 to 1 ;6 (mean = 0;8;22). Commun ica t i ve funct ions to do with soc ia l interaction emerged between 0;4 and 1 ;9 years ; regulating soc ia l g a m e s emerged between 0;4 and 1 ;9 (mean = 0;9; 19) and representat ional ges tures (unclear whether this would be cons ide red protoimperat ive or protodeclarat ive) emerged between 0;6 and 1; 10 (mean = 1 ;1 ;23). Commun ica t i ve funct ions related to establ ishing joint attention emerged between 0;4 and 1;11; commen ts (i.e., protodeclarat ive) emerged be tween 0;9 and 1;11 (mean = 1;3;18) and requests for information (emerged between 0;4 and 1;6 (mean = 10;19). T h e results of C r a i s et a l . (2004) co r respond with s o m e previous f indings in this a rea of chi ld language research , but there are s o m e notable d i f ferences. Imperative behav iours in the C r a i s et a l . (2004) study tended to p recede declarat ive behav iours , in agreement with Vygo tsky ' s (1962; c i ted in C r a i s et a l . , 2004 , p. 688) argument and other researcher ' s f indings (Perucchin i and C a m a i o n i , 1993; Z inober and Mar lew, 1985; c i ted in C r a i s et a l . 2004 , p. 688) . However , the authors (Cra is et a l . , 2004) a lso state that many of the communica t ive funct ions and behav iours studied emerged some t imes months earl ier than previously reported, i.e., at age 4 months, when chi ldren are most l ikely pre-intentional in their vocal izat ion and movement . Intentional communica t ion is well documen ted to c o m m e n c e around 0;10 or 0;11 with chi ldren 's ability to look at both an adult and an object in the s a m e act (see S u g a r m a n , 1983, for more detail). Th i s attribution of communica t ive intent to pre-babbl ing infants w e a k e n s the f indings of the. C r a i s et al (2004) study. 11 C r a i s et a l . (2004) attribute s o m e of these d i f ferences to methodolog ica l cons iderat ions (e.g., parent ve rsus cl in ic ian report ing, home ve rsus lab envi ronment) , but a l so note that the famil iar context wou ld have removed the need for the chi ld to genera l ize a communica t i ve function and behaviour beyond the sett ing in which it w a s initially learned. In addi t ion, these authors note that parental interaction style and di f ferences in fill ing out the forms may have contr ibuted to s o m e of the var iat ion. Th is is a reasonab le assumpt ion about the study l imitations. T h e authors needed to be more careful about the notion of communica t ive intent when ascr ib ing function to chi ld vocal izat ion or movement . R y c k e b u s c h and M a r c o s (2004) studied communica t ive ac ts of chi ldren a g e s 1;3 to 2;5. T h e s e authors u s e d a non-s tandard ized method to c lass i fy ch i ldren 's communica t ion behav iours dur ing mother-toddler and father-toddler play in two different play si tuat ions: a bui lding activity and free play. Dur ing the different play s e s s i o n s , R y c k e b u s c h and M a r c o s (2004) were fol lowing a theory of s p e e c h acts (see Sec t ion 1.4.3). T h e y found that the m e a n number of s p e e c h act types acts p roduced (in approx imate ly 8 - 1 2 minutes each) by the chi ldren in the 1 ;6 to 1 ;11 age group w a s a s fol lows: 49 asser t i ves , 32 requests , a n d 16 exp ress i ves . R y c k e b u s c h and M a r c o s ' s (2004) results a lso show that by the t ime a chi ld is 1 ;5, parent 's gender may inf luence the chi ld 's s p e e c h act types. Ch i ld ren u s e d direct ive s p e e c h ac ts more frequently with fathers than with mothers, i r respect ive of play si tuat ion. In addi t ion, by the t ime chi ldren were 1 ;10, parent 's gender inf luenced cho ice of toys. Type of p lay a lso inf luenced s p e e c h act cho ice ; act ion requests and express ive communica t ive acts were more frequent with a bui lding activity and information requests were more frequent in free play. R y c k e b u s c h a n d M a r c o s (2004) conc luded that chi ldren adapt s p e e c h behav iours to match character is t ics of their interlocutor and the context. T h e s e results are important to cons ider when undertaking a study of chi ld language; not only is it important to account for cons is tency in chi ld and exper imenter character is t ics, but R y c k e b u s c h and M a r c o s (2004) have demonst ra ted the need to cons ider both gender of the interlocutor a n d type of play. It is interesting to note that the d i f ferences in s p e e c h acts p roduced were more sal ient in s o m e age groups and with s o m e s p e e c h act types than with others. A number of researchers have invest igated function of communica t ion in chi ldren with deve lopmenta l de lays of one type or another a s d i s c u s s e d below. In the study ment ioned above of 1 young and 10 severe ly language-de layed chi ldren (1;6 to 3;3), C a s b y and C u m p a t a (1986) invest igated whether these chi ldren were capab le of intentional communica t ion . T h e y found chi ldren 's intentional communica t ion abil i t ies be tween 1 ;6 and 3;3 var ied in s o m e respects , yet were relatively s table in others. T h e younges t chi ld in 12 the study (1;6, not l anguage delayed) comp le ted both proto-declarat ive and proto- imperat ive tasks with a highly ranked mode of communica t ion on the C a s b y and C u m p a t a (1986) ordinal cod ing sca le . T h e oldest chi ld in the study (3;3, language- impaired) a l so comp le ted both proto-declarat ive and proto-imperative tasks , but ach ieved a lower ranked ave rage mode of communica t ion . Addit ional ly, a s e c o n d chi ld with language impairment comple ted both declarat ive and imperat ive tasks and s c o r e d , on ave rage , a level 4 on mode of commun ica t ion . T h e lack of variat ion in the chi ldren's ability to perform the proto-declarat ive and proto-imperat ive tasks sugges ts chi ldren older than 1 ;6, whether developmenta l ly de layed or not, shou ld be capab le of (proto-)declarative and (proto-)imperative tasks . (Chi ldren without language impairment are likely capab le of non-proto declarat ive and imperat ive tasks at this age ; that is, a s their vocabulary and syntact ic abil i t ies deve lop , they b e c o m e capab le of true s p e e c h acts) . Th is statement shou ld most likely be qual i f ied by add ing that no other signif icant restrictions exist, such a s the ability to carry out purposeful movement . In another study d i s c u s s e d above including chi ldren with language de lay, T o p b a s et a l . (2003) studied 16 Turk ish infants a g e d 1;3 to 3;0 (8 with language delay) ; the authors at tempted to determine whether the communica t ive interact ions of chi ldren with normal language deve lopment differed from chi ldren with de layed language deve lopment . T h e chi ldren were obse rved in a university centre after a 10-minute warm-up play s e s s i o n and a 15-minute naturalist ic play s e s s i o n in which the chi ld p layed with their parent. T h e 15-minute structured play s e s s i o n used 'communicat ion temptat ions' in which the exper imenter tried to encou rage a natural response from the chi ld (Wetherby and Rodr iguez , 1992). T o p b a s et a l . (2003) found that typically deve lop ing Turk ish infants tended to deve lop communica t ive intentions be tween 1;1 and 2;0 in the s e q u e n c e : request object, protest, direct attention (self), respond , request act ion, and comment . Typical ly deve lop ing Infants were ab le to protest and request objects between 1 ;1 and 1 ;3 and could direct attention to themse lves by 1 ;3 (with gestures) . Ch i ld ren with de layed language used gesture to protest by age 2;0, and this occur red twice a s frequently a s s e e n in typically deve lop ing chi ldren between 1;1 and 1;3. In addi t ion, T o p b a s et a l . (2003) found that chi ldren with language de lay tended to produce more behav iours relating to soc ia l interaction, rather than joint attention. Ch i ld ren with language de lay b e g a n initiating joint attention at 1 ;8 and seek ing attention at 2;0. Respond ing emerged around 3;0. Th is work sugges ts chi ldren with language de lay deve lop communica t ion funct ions in approx imate ly the s a m e s e q u e n c e , but later than typical ly deve lop ing chi ldren. Extend ing the investigation of communica t ive funct ion to the deaf, Lichtert (2003) studied 18 normal ly deve lop ing but profoundly deaf toddlers at 1;6, 2;0, and 2;6 yea rs of a g e with a purpose of examin ing the elicit ing potential of a proto- imperat ive and a proto-declarat ive 13 task (the most c o m m o n dist inction eva luated, a s noted above) . T h e tasks u s e d by Lichtert (2003) were related to those desc r ibed by C a s b y and C u m p a t a (1986). In the first exper iment , the toddlers were presented with prob lems (intended to elicit proto- imperat ive communicat ions) that they were unable to so lve on their own. T h e communica t ive ut terances the chi ldren used to enlist an adult 's help were recorded. In the s e c o n d exper iment , the toddlers were presented with a ser ies of v ideo-c l ips intended to elicit proto-declarat ive commun ica t ions . S o m e of the tasks that were intended to elicit proto-declarat ives were different f rom the ones u s e d by C a s b y and C u m p a t a (1986) b e c a u s e a pilot s tudy s h o w e d that the tasks C a s b y and C u m p a t a (1986) used frequently frustrated the chi ldren and were success fu l in elicit ing commun ica t ions only about 5 0 % of the t ime. Lichtert (2003) conc luded that proto- imperat ives a n d proto-declarat ives c a n be success fu l l y el ici ted in deaf chi ldren at 1;6, 2;0, and 2;6 years . Lichtert acknow ledged the trade-off that exists when elicit ing language (as o p p o s e d to naturalist ic observat ions) , but noted the invaluable contr ibution of elicitation tasks to quickly est imate the deve lopmenta l level of a chi ld, s u c h a s the highly-structured context and the short t ime-span required for da ta col lect ion. In another 2 0 0 3 study, Dromi reported on the communica t ion acts of 4 3 deaf chi ldren of hear ing parents be tween 0;8 and 4 ;1 , aga in b a s e d on parent report. Paren ts fi l led out a quest ionnaire about chi ldren's prel inguist ic communica t ion dur ing caregiv ing contexts, i.e., when the chi ld 's bas ic needs were met by the parents (e.g., d iaper ing, feed ing, etc), and during social-rout ine play contexts (e.g., peek -a -boo g a m e , story tell ing). Dromi found a number of signif icant posit ive correlat ions: between independent behav iours (behaviours a chi ld d o e s without request ing ass i s tance from an adult, soli tary act ions) , col laborat ion with adul ts a n d point ing; between col laborat ion with adul ts, point ing, and other gestures ; be tween pointing and other gestures ; and a lso between pointing and vocal izat ions. Dromi (2003) notes that the correlat ion be tween pointing and other gestures w a s not assoc ia ted with a d v a n c e d prel inguist ic behav iours , verbal izat ions or s ign ing, a s would be expec ted for hear ing chi ldren; rather, pointing and gestures were assoc ia ted with less a d v a n c e d behav iours s u c h a s independent behav iours and col laborat ion with adul ts. S h e sugges ts that these correlat ions might have been related to the low language level of the part icipants in the study and the late onset of intervention. Dromi (2003) conc ludes from this that the deaf chi ldren in the study did not fol low the typical transit ion of prel inguist ic to l inguistic behav iours a s expec ted in hear ing chi ldren, poss ib ly due to subt le d i f ferences in dyad ic interact ions between hear ing parents and deaf ch i ldren. Speci f ica l ly , Dromi (2003) notes the tendency for hear ing parents to dominate and initiate conversa t ions ( Jamieson , 1994, 1998; M e a d o w - O r l a n s and S p e n c e r , 1996; S p e n c e r and Gut f ruend, 1990; c i ted in Dromi , 2003) . Dromi 's f indings (unlike those of the T o p b a s et a l . , 2 0 0 3 study) are important to cons ider 14 b e c a u s e they cal l into quest ion whether chi ldren with s o m e deve lopmenta l l anguage de lays or d isorders will fol low the l inguistic deve lopmenta l trajectory of typical ch i ldren. T h e information g iven in this sect ion is a richer kind of information than that p resented in the previous sec t ion . Not only do we know how chi ldren are communica t ing , but we a l so get s o m e s e n s e of chi ldren's intentions in communica t ing . A s shown by C a s b y a n d C u m p a t a (1986), chi ldren older than 1 ;6 are typically ab le to produce both proto- imperat ive and proto-declarat ive types of intentional communica t ion . R y c h e b u s c h and M a r c o s (2004) spec i f ied slightly more , stat ing that chi ldren are capab le of asser t i ves , requests , and exp ress i ves before age 1 ;6. T o p b a s e t a l . (2003) gave an even greater level of detail in their study of Turk ish infants; these authors stated that typically deve lop ing chi ldren deve loped communica t ive intentions between 1;1 and 2;0 to request objects, protest, direct attention (self), respond , request act ion, and comment (in that order). Ch i ld ren with language de lay deve loped these intentions in approximate ly the s a m e order, but at a later age . It appea rs that chi ldren who are typically deve lop ing tend to acqui re the ability to exp ress different communica t ive mean ings in advance of chi ldren who have a senso ry hand icap (such a s dea fness ) , or those who are global ly de layed , language de layed , or syndromic . It is a lso apparent f rom these d i scuss ions that, a s researchers , it is very important to cons ider the envi ronmenta l context surrounding elicitation si tuat ions and to cons ider validity and cons is tency in our s o u r c e s of information. T h e next sect ion cons iders s teps back from the brief overv iew of f indings presented in this sec t ion , and d i s c u s s e s how chi ldren's language deve lopment (particularly for the topics d i s c u s s e d in this sect ion) can be obse rved and ana lyzed . A s noted, the context of elicitation and source of information are crucia l cons iderat ions. 1.4 Observation and Analysis of Child Language Standard ized and criterion referenced m e a s u r e s for evaluat ing chi ld language have contr ibuted to our understanding of early communica t ion in chi ldren in both research and cl inical sett ings. Al ternat ive methods (different types of communica t ive sampl ing) have a l so contr ibuted information about language deve lopment . Th is sect ion first desc r ibes severa l s tandard and non-s tandard tools (some of which are u s e d in the current study) b e c a u s e of their f requent use by speech - l anguage pathologists and early ch i ldhood spec ia l is ts , and then d i s c u s s e s the i ssue of communica t ive s a m p l e s . 15 1.4.1 Standard Tests and Tools A c o m m o n s tandard ized test u s e d to eva luate young chi ldren's language is the P reschoo l Language S c a l e - Fourth Edit ion ( P L S - 4 , Z i m m e r m a n , Steiner, & P o n d , 2002) . T h e P L S - 4 is descr ibed here b e c a u s e it w a s one of the tools se lec ted for the longitudinal s tudy of wh ich the current study is a part. T h e P L S - 4 has two s c a l e s , Audi tory C o m p r e h e n s i o n (AC) a n d Exp ress i ve Commun ica t i on ( E C ) , which add together to give a total language sco re for the test. T h e test is admin is tered by a c l in ic ian, who a s k s the chi ld or parent severa l ques t ions targeted at the chi ld 's deve lopmenta l age . B a s a l level is ach ieved when the chi ld answers four consecu t i ve quest ions correctly; cei l ing is ach ieved when the chi ld answers s e v e n consecut i ve quest ions incorrectly. For chi ldren under 2 (the age group for the current study), the P L S - 4 a s k s the chi ld to produce at least five different consonant s o u n d s (phonology), point to famil iar p ictures a n d body parts (semant ics) , imitate and use severa l words (phonology, semant ics ) , comprehend ve rbs in context (syntact ic/ lexical comprehens ion) , babb le us ing the intonation pattern of an adult (phonology), and s h o w and object to and request an object from others (pragmatics). Th i s test d o e s not appea r to evaluate syntact ic abil i t ies at this age . W e know from stud ies rev iewed briefly above that chi ldren in this age group are expec ted to have deve loped 200 to 300 words by 2;0, have es tab l ished early semant i c and syntact ic relat ionships and use a variety of communica t ive m o d e s and funct ions. A s c a n be s e e n , the P L S - 4 m e a s u r e s the chi ld 's phonology, semant i cs , and pragmat ic abil i t ies in a very rudimentary way. T h e McAr thur -Ba tes Commun ica t ion Deve lopment Inventory (CDI, F e n s o n et a l . , 1993) is another common ly u s e d tool for evaluat ing chi ldren 's language under age 2 and w a s a l so used in the longitudinal study for which the current study is a part. T h e chi ld 's parent may comple te this a s s e s s m e n t a lone, b e c a u s e it is s imply a checkl is t of vocabu lary i tems and ph rases the chi ld unders tands or s a y s . T h e McAr thur CDI d o e s not solicit information on a chi ld 's phonology, syntax or pragmat ic abil i t ies. O n e sca le that d o e s set out to a s s e s s ear ly pragmat ic communica t ion is the Commun ica t i on and Symbo l i c Behav iour S c a l e s Deve lopmenta l Prof i le ( C S B S - D P ; Wetherby and Pr izant , 2002) , a non-s tandard ized instrument with a careg iver quest ionnai re and a structured c l in ic ian-administered communica t i ve elicitation. T h e structured elicitation task for the current study is b a s e d on the methodology of the C S B S - D P . T h e purpose of the C S B S - D P is to eva luate an infant or toddler 's emot ion and eye g a z e , communica t ion , gestures , s o u n d s , words , unders tanding and object use behav iours , with the assumpt ion that these behav iours are predict ive of later language deve lopment (Wetherby and Pr izant , 2002) . T h e chi ld is p resented with severa l ' communicat ion temptat ions, ' (i.e., a situation intended to elicit commun ica t ion , e .g. , 16 placing a c l osed jar of bubb les near the child), and response behav iours are c o d e d accord ing to their social-af fect ive, communica t ive funct ion/means, and symbol ic behav iour d imens ions . A n act ion is c o d e d a s communica t ive if a gesture, vocal izat ion, or verbal izat ion is d i rected to an adult and used a s a communica t ive s ignal to se rve a communica t ive funct ion. E a c h of the 20 sca les measu red in the C S B S - D P is def ined in the manua l , and behav iours are exempl i f ied on an accompany ing v ideotape. A similar but l ess wel l -known tool is A s s e s s i n g Linguist ic Behav iou rs ( A L B ; O l s w a n g , S t o e l - G a m m o n , C o g g i n s , & Carpenter , 1987), another commerc ia l ly ava i lab le test to evaluate ski l ls of developmenta l ly young chi ldren. There are five s c a l e s : the first two s c a l e s , cognit ive an tecedents to word mean ing and language comprehens ion , are obse rved dur ing interact ions with the examiner ; the last three s c a l e s , play, communicat ive intention, and language product ion, are obse rved during free play with toys. E a c h sca le has severa l subcomponen t s and there may be severa l tasks within e a c h subcomponent . A chi ld 's abil i t ies are sco red within e a c h task accord ing to the criteria es tab l ished for that part icular task. For examp le , within the cognit ive an tecedents to word mean ing sca le , there are subcomponen ts to the sca le for nominat ion, agent , and locat ion knowledge. Within the nominat ion task, an individual chi ld 's behaviour wou ld be sco red on the highest level of ability f rom the criteria: manipulate, show, give, point, voca l ize /verba l ize , or label . Within the agent task, the chi ld 's behav iour wou ld be sco red on the highest level of ability f rom the criteria for that task: s ingle recipient act, nondirect ive multiple recipient act, direct ive multiple recipient act, direct ive multiple recipient act with persistent or c lear request ing behaviour and verbal izat ion of agent and/or act ion. In this way, e a c h category, subcomponent , and task has its own unique communica t ive act cod ing sys tem. A c o m m o n cr i t ic ism of s tandard tools for a s s e s s i n g ch i ld language is that they frequently fail to a s s e s s multiple aspec t s of language (thereby requiring multiple tests to evaluate language competence) . In particular, s tandard tests are particularly poor at a s s e s s i n g pragmat ic ability (Adams , 2002 ; ci ted in P a u l , 2007 , p.4). For a chi ld 's results to be interpreted with any validity, the chi ld must be adequate ly simi lar in character to the norming s a m p l e that w a s u s e d in test construct ion. Cr i ter ion-referenced tools (such a s the.CDI or C S B C ) differ sl ightly f rom s tandard ized ' tests' in that they ask whether a chi ld can perform to a certain level of compe tence , without necessar i l y compar ing the chi ld 's per formance with that of their peers . Both the C S B C and the A L B are ab le to comment on the chi ld 's communica t ive mode and funct ion more than the P L S , but neither type of test prov ides information about a chi ld 's per fo rmance in a complete ly naturalist ic context. 17 T h e next sect ion d i s c u s s e s u s e s of s tandard and cr i ter ion-reference tools beyond the single-point static a s s e s s m e n t , that is, telling more about their predict ive power concern ing a chi ld 's future language ski l ls and relat ionships with other var iab les. Th is sect ion is inc luded here b e c a u s e the current study u s e s both s tandard tools and observat ional a s s e s s m e n t a s part of a longitudinal investigat ion of ch i ldren 's language deve lopment f rom age 18 months to 4 years . 1.4.1.1 E x a m p l e s of S tandard Instrument U s e Rei l ly et a l . (2006) u s e d the Commun ica t ion and Symbo l i c Behav iou r S c a l e s (Wetherby and Pr izant , 2003) with 1911 infants at a g e s 0;8 and 1 ;0 a s part of a prospect ive, longitudinal, populat ion- level study. Rei l ly et a l . 's (2006) hypothes is w a s that the per iod be tween 0;8 and 2;0 (the full age s p a n of their study) is an important per iod for language deve lopment and that ear ly intervention targeting chi ldren during this per iod would be benef ic ia l . T h e authors note that a pr imary motivation for them to study the communicat ion deve lopment of s u c h young chi ldren is the current tendency for language impairment to be d iagnosed when chi ldren are 3;0 years or older, mean ing that intervention frequently starts late and many chi ldren are left with last ing language and a c a d e m i c impacts (Reil ly et a l . , 2006) . T h e y found the st rongest predictor of C S B S sco re at 1 ;0 w a s C S B S sco re at 0;8. Rei l ly et a l . (2006) a lso found that while female gender w a s related to higher C S B S sco res , twin birth, being advan taged (judged by geograph ic locale) , a n d family history of language de lay were predict ive of lower C S B S s c o r e s at 0;8 and 1 ;0. F e n s o n , Da le , and Rezn i ck (1993) sugges t that the relat ionship between soc ia l /economic advan tage and low language s c o r e s may be due to more conservat ive reporting from parents with higher educat ion levels. In Rei l ly et a l . 's (2006) study, however , family and maternal factors were not corre lated with chi ldren 's pre-l inguist ic communica t ive deve lopment . Another study that l inked the C S B S to a different s tandard measu re w a s Brady, S teep les , and F lemming (2005). T h e communica t ive behav iours of 45 chi ldren between 3 and 6 years of age with seve re de lays in language product ion were examined using the S e q u e n c e d Inventory of Commun ica t i ve Deve lopmen t -Rev i sed (Hedr ick et a l . , 1984) and the Commun ica t i on Tempta t ions sect ion of the Commun ica t ion and Symbo l i c Behav iour S c a l e s ( C S B S ; Wetherby and Pr izant , 2003) . In their investigat ion of the effects of prel inguist ic level on initiating requests and commen ts and repair ing communica t ion b reakdowns in scr ipted interact ions, Brady et a l . , (2005) c h o s e to code communica t ive behav iours accord ing to their mode (i.e., gesture type, voca l iza t ion, spoken word, or s ign), funct ion (i.e., request, comment , other) and whether communica t ion b reakdowns were or were not reso lved by the chi ldren. They found that the chi ldren's language comprehens ion and product ion s c o r e s predicted chi ldren 's 18 c o m m e n t s and that the chi ldren's communica t ion product ion level predicted initiation of requests , when the authors control led for chi ld IQ. Leve ls of communica t ion product ion were not related to repair of communicat ion b reakdowns . In another study l inking different types of s tandard a s s e s s m e n t with communica t ion s c a l e s , Mundy and G o m e s (1998) u s e d three commerc ia l l y avai lab le tools to invest igate whether different types of joint attention predicted language comprehens ion by 24 infants a g e d 1 ;2 to 1 ;5 . T h e s e authors u s e d the Reyne l l Deve lopmenta l L a n g u a g e S c a l e s (Reynel l and Grabe r , 1990) to measu re language product ion and comprehens ion , the Bay ley S c a l e s of Infant Deve lopment - l l (Bayley, 1969, 1994) to measu re cogni t ive deve lopment , and a short vers ion of the Ear ly Soc ia l -Commun ica t i on S c a l e s ( E S C S , Seiber t , H o g a n , and Mundy, 1982; Mundy and H o g a n , 1996) to measu re non-verbal communica t ion skil l deve lopment . T h e E S C S reports on ski l ls s u c h a s initiating and responding to others ' initiation of joint attention, initiating and responding to behaviour regulat ion, and initiating and responding to others ' initiations of soc ia l interaction (Mundy and G o m e s , 1998). T h e authors noted that joint attention ski l ls are an important a rea to cons ider when evaluat ing language deve lopment , b e c a u s e deve lopment of joint attention ski l ls reflects maturat ion of soc ia l , cognit ive, and self-regulatory abi l i t ies. After a per iod of four months, Mundy and G o m e s (1998) retested the chi ldren's abil i t ies with the E S C S and found signif icant d i f ferences between chi ldren 's joint attention and non-verbal communica t ion ski l ls. T h e y addit ional ly found that ear ly non-verbal communica t ion ski l ls were related to language ability at fol low-up (16 w e e k s fol lowing initial testing). In part icular, ear ly ability to initiate joint attention w a s predict ive of later language product ion sco res , and early respond ing to joint attention initiations w a s predict ive of later l anguage comprehens ion levels . Mundy and G o m e s (1998) highl ighted (a) the importance of recogniz ing different types of joint attention (e.g., pointing to s h o w vs . request) when attempting to correlate ear ly non-verbal behav iours to later communica t ive acts and (b) the large amount of variabil ity be tween young chi ldren in their language and language growth, mak ing early predict ion of language de lay a difficult task. By choos ing s u c h a representat ive array of test ing mater ia ls, the authors at tempted to gain information on many aspec t s of language deve lopment . Th is tactic w a s useful within a research si tuat ion, particularly b e c a u s e all three s h o w different aspec t s of communica t ion deve lopment . However , it is somewha t unl ikely that a cl in ic ian not assoc ia ted with a research project would have adequa te t ime to pursue three different test ing instruments with one client. T h e sect ion prompts the quest ions : H o w well do the results correlate be tween different methods of ana lys is of chi ldren's commun ica t ion? Is there a combinat ion of s tandard ized and/or 19 non-s tandard ized instruments that represents chi ldren's communica t ion abil i t ies more fairly and accura te ly? H o w well do the results of current tools predict ch i ldren 's language level over t ime? 1.4.2 Elicitation of Communicative Samples In addit ion to us ing than s tandard and cr i ter ion-referenced tools, researchers and cl in ic ians attempt to elicit communica t ion s a m p l e s from chi ldren to examine their communica t ive behaviour . Elicit ing s u c h s a m p l e s from young chi ldren c a n be a difficult task. P a u l (2007) d i s c u s s e s two structured methods for doing this: el icited imitation and el ic i ted product ion. El ic i ted imitation occurs when the chi ld is a s k e d to repeat an utterance after a mode l . Th is method has been cr i t ic ized for the unnatural way in which language is el ic i ted, a n d b e c a u s e chi ldren do not s e e m to produce the s a m e kinds of errors in an imitated context a s they do in natural s p e e c h (Pau l , 2007) . El ic i ted product ion attempts to set up ' a context for communica t ion in a way that encou rages the target behaviour . Th is is s imi lar to the way Wethe rby and Pr izant (2003) u s e d the term 'communicat ion temptat ion' to descr ibe a situation in wh ich an adult at tempts to elicit a chi ld 's communica t ion by withholding a des i red item until an appropr iate communica t ion occurs . T h e major d isadvan tage of elicitation app roaches is that a chi ld may not p roduce all the language componen ts of interest. However , P e n a , Qu inn , and Iglesias (1992) sugges t that dynamic a s s e s s m e n t methods, including scaf fo ld ing, may be u s e d to guide product ion of the des i red forms. Commun ica t i ve s a m p l e s may a lso be el ici ted with min imal inf luence of the exper imenter or parent, that is, the chi ld is just v ideotaped or aud io taped in natural ist ic play or conversat ion interact ions with peers or adul ts. T h e advan tage of naturalist ic sampl ing (compared with structured elicitation) is that the behaviour the chi ld p roduces is more likely to represent the chi ld 's true per formance in typical dai ly set t ings. T h e d isadvan tage of naturalist ic samp l ing (compared with structured elicitations) is that it may take an ex tended per iod of t ime for the chi ld to produce the form the researcher or cl inician is interested in, if he or s h e ever p roduces s u c h a form. In a naturalistic context, ch i ldren 's communica t ion partners may a l so differ widely in interaction style, which c a n affect the chi ldren's per formance and m a k e between-chi ldren a n a l y s e s more cha l leng ing. Th is sect ion reminds us of the need to cons ider the way in wh ich communica t ion da ta are co l lec ted. If da ta are el ic i ted, the researcher needs to ask : A re the activit ies u s e d to elicit communica t ion representat ive of a chi ld 's natural s p e e c h output? D o e s the activity s k e w the chi ld 's output toward or away from part icular communicat ive intent ions? 20 1.4.3 Coding Schemas to Analyze Elicitations O n c e a communica t ive samp le has been col lected and t ranscr ibed (whether f rom a structured or unstructured elicitation context), s o m e method of cod ing the da ta must be se lec ted or deve loped . S o m e of the earl iest work c lassi fy ing adult communica t ion w a s a c c o m p l i s h e d by Aust in and his student, Sea r le , in the 1960s and early 1970s . Aus t in , and then Sea r l e , d iv ided s p e e c h ac ts into five different ca tegor ies : asser t ives , direct ives, exp ress i ves , c o m m i s s i v e s and declarat ives (Sear le and V a n d e r v e k e n , 1985). Sear le and Vande rveken (1985) def ined asser t i ves a s commen ts about 'the state of the world, ' d i rect ives a s having the in tended goa l of getting s o m e o n e to do someth ing ; exp ress i ves a s giving the speake r ' s thoughts about a proposi t ion, commiss i ves a s commit t ing the speake r to future act ions, and dec lara t ives a s modifying 'the state of the wor ld, ' s imply by their p ronouncement by a person of status. S o m e examp les of the var ious types of s p e e c h acts are a s fol lows: (1) asser t ive - T h i s is a toy: (2) directive - C a n you p a s s me the toy; (3) express ive - W o w ! (in response to a toy); (4) commiss i ve -I'l l c lean up the toys; and (5) dec larat ives -I hereby rename this toy Mr. B a n a n a the Monkey . Sea r le ' s c lassi f icat ion of the funct ion of s p e e c h acts w a s fo l lowed by severa l other ear ly at tempts to categor ize chi ldren's communica t ion , such a s the sys tems posi ted by Dore (1973), Tough (1977) and M c S h a n e (1980). Ninio and S n o w (1996) provide an overv iew of these app roaches to cod ing chi ld language. Acco rd ing to Ninio and S n o w (1996), Dore ' s cod ing sys tem is the most s imi lar to Sea r l e ' s work, in that it a l so d iv ides communica t ion ac ts by their i l locutionary force at the utterance level , y ielding communica t ion categor ies s u c h a s request ives, asser t ives , respons ives , regulat ives, exp ress i ves and performat ives (p. 20) . Ninio and S n o w (1996) sugges t that Tough ' s ana lys is sys tem is unlike Sea r l e and Dore 's ca tegor ies , b e c a u s e it b a s e s s o m e of its dist inct ions on the chi ld 's thought p r o c e s s e s and is most appropr iate for descr ib ing the communica t ion of older ch i ldren. Th is sys tem def ines four categor ies : direct ive, interpretive, projective, and relational (Ninio and S n o w , p. 20) . M c S h a n e ' s ana lys is , accord ing to Ninio and S n o w (1996), is a lso different, b e c a u s e it ca tegor i zes s p e e c h ac ts accord ing to the activity in which the chi ld is involved, us ing regulat ion, statement, exchange , persona l and conversat ion a s its s p e e c h act categor ies (p. 20). Dore 's (1973) descr ipt ive sys tem is explicit ly b a s e d on Sea r l e ' s in the way it def ines categor ies within a conversat iona l exchange . W h e n compar ing the two s y s t e m s , we s e e that Dore 's category of request ives (solicit information or act ions) is approx imate ly equivalent to Sea r l e ' s category of direct ives (to try to get the Hearer to do someth ing) . Dore ' s performat ives (accompl ish and establ ish acts/ facts by be ing said) are a lso approximate ly equivalent to Sea r l e ' s dec larat ives, r enamed from Aust in 's 'performatives' (to bring about a c h a n g e in the 21 future state of affairs). Dore and Sea r l e ' s concep ts of asser t i ves (Dore: report facts , state rules, convey att i tudes, etc.; Sea r le : to s a y 'how things are') are approximate ly equivalent . Simi lar ly, their ca tegor ies for exp ress i ves (Dore: non-proposi t ional ly convey att i tudes or repeat others; Sea r le : to exp ress persona l attitude or psycho log ica l attitude about a state of affairs) are approximate ly equa l , a l though Sear le d o e s not recogn ize ' repeat others ' a s a type of s p e e c h act. In addi t ion, Sear le d o e s not recognize either the respons ive (supply sol ic i ted information or acknow ledge remarks) or regulative (control persona l contact and conversat iona l flow) funct ions put forth by Dore , b e c a u s e these are d i scourse funct ions, not s p e e c h act funct ions; and Dore d o e s not recognize the commiss i ve (to commit the s p e a k e r to a future cou rse of action) category of Sea r le , probably b e c a u s e young chi ldren are not capab le of commit t ing themse lves to future act ions. Tough ' s (1977) analyt ic sys tem is cons iderab ly different f rom Sea r l e ' s and Dore ' s in the way it de f ines category dist inct ions. Rather than bas ing these dec is ions whol ly on the communica t ive funct ion of the utterance, Tough ' s sys tem w e a v e s back and forth be tween communica t ive funct ion and perspect ive of the speaker . For examp le , al though Tough ' s category of direct ives is def ined more broadly than Sea r l e ' s d i rect ives or Dore 's request ives (in that it inc ludes both self and other directing), it is cons is tent with the idea of getting s o m e o n e to 'do someth ing . ' However , Tough ' s category of project ives d o e s not have a s p e e c h act funct ion in the s a m e way; rather, this appears to be a category about the chi ld 's own thoughts, in that it inc ludes predict ing, empathet ic , and imaginat ing (sic) a s its subcategor ies . It shou ld be noted that Tough w a s interested in chi ldren's commun ica t ions in a schoo l sett ing. M c S h a n e (1980) a lso s e e m s to switch perspect ives within his sys tem. A l though Ninio and S n o w (1996) argue that M c S h a n e ca tegor izes s p e e c h ac ts accord ing to the activity in wh ich the chi ld is involved, it might a lso be a rgued that M c S h a n e ' s cod ing sys tem lacks cons is tency in the type of behaviour c o d e d . T h e s a m e definit ion a s Sear le and Dore use for communica t ive funct ions s e e m s to be used in M c S h a n e ' s regulat ion (approximately equivalent to Sea r l e ' s direct ives) and statement (approximately equivalent to Sea r l e ' s asser t ives) categor ies , but M c S h a n e appea rs to deviate from this definit ion of communica t ive functionality in the further categor ies . Rather , M c S h a n e ' s use of exchange to m e a n giving and receiv ing, persona l to m e a n do ing , determinat ion, refusal and protest, and conversat ion to m e a n imitation, answer , fol low-on and quest ion sugges t these categor ies have a d i scourse , rather than a communica t i ve , funct ion. A l though the Dore (1973), Tough (1977) and M c S h a n e (1980) mode ls are different f rom one another and from Sear le ' s , they are va luab le to cons ider in that each attempts to ca tegor i ze s p e e c h accord ing to s o m e hierarchical sys tem. In this way, ut terances and/or act ions may be 22 a s s i g n e d to categor ies and subca tegor ies with varying deg rees of certainty; this w a s cons ide red to be a useful strategy for the present study for those ins tances in which a chi ld 's ut terance and/or act ion would not be easi ly a s s i g n e d to any part icular category. S i n c e the work of Aus t in , Sea r l e , Vande rveken , Dore , Tough and M c S h a n e , many other cod ing sys tems have been used to categor ize communica t ive behav iours . A brief overv iew of severa l other recent sys tems used for cod ing the communica t ive behav iours of young chi ldren is presented in the next sec t ion , starting with cod ing sys tems most s imi lar to prev ious cod ing sys tems , that is, those that code for mode of communica t ion , fo l lowed next by s y s t e m s that are b a s e d on the communicat ive funct ion of an utterance and , finally, by those in wh ich da ta have been col lected on both function and mode of communica t ion . B e c a u s e most s tud ies have been previously d i s c u s s e d , only highl ights of the informal cod ing s c h e m a s are inc luded be low a s a prelude to the d i scuss ion of more formal and hierarchical s c h e m e s outl ined in the subsequen t sec t ions that were the bas is for the current study. 1.4.3.1 C o d i n g S c h e m e s : M o d e of Commun ica t i on Th is sect ion g ives examp les of three bas ic cod ing s c h e m e s for mode of commun ica t ion , focus ing on those m o d e s that are c o m m o n to many of the s tudies. In order to c lassi fy gestural and verbal behav iours , C a s b y and C u m p a t a (1986) deve loped a 5-item ordinal sca le (the P A P I C ) to capture the highest mode of intentional communica t ion exhibi ted by the chi ld dur ing var ious elicitation tasks . Thei r ordinal cod ing sca le inc luded: 1) no response , 2) gesture or pointing to an adult or object with deict ic g a z e , 3) gesture or pointing to an adult or object with vocal izat ion, 4) verbal izat ion to an adult or object (may include gesture), and 5) verbal izat ion with convent ional words or ph rases . C a s b y and C u m p a t a (1986) c la imed that this cod ing sys tem a l lowed them to document the full range of a chi ld 's communica t ion ability f rom non-communicat ive to fully communica t i ve , and e m p h a s i z e d early g a z e , gesture, and vocal /verbal abil i t ies of a chi ld. T h e y asser ted that it a l so a l lowed m e a n and range of intentional communica t ion da ta to be determined for e a c h chi ld, and for reliability between raters to be ach ieved . F ranco and Butterworth (1996) studied the m o d e s of communica t ion for 4 7 chi ldren a g e d 1 ;0 -1 ;6. T h e researchers c o d e d for p resence /absence of gestures , and when a gesture w a s present , co l lected information on v isual check ing and vocal izat ions. Coord inat ion of gesture and g a z e w a s noted, b e c a u s e the authors hypothes ized that coordinat ion of gesture and g a z e may signify more sophis t icated communica t ion ac ts than those without synchron ized ges tures and g a z e . Within the category of gestures , F ranco and Butterworth subca tegor i zed ges tures by point ing (finger-point and arm-point) and reaching behav iours , and within the category of v isual 2 3 check ing , they noted the t iming of g a z e to the adult and number of ep i sodes in which the infant looked to the partner on two or more occas i ons . In a further investigation of point ing, L i szkowsk i et a l . (2004) set out to determine whether infants were capab le of either or both proto- imperat ive and proto-declarat ive point ing. L iszkowsk i et a l . (2004) tested the react ions of chi ldren under four different exper imenter react ion condi t ions: joint attention (comments about the event and looks back and forth be tween the event and the child), face (comments about the chi ld and only looks at the chi ld 's face) , event (no commen ts and looks only at the event) and ignore (no commen ts and did not look at either the chi ld 's face or the event). C o d e s and measu remen ts f ocused on the chi ld 's looking to the exper imenter before and during or after a point, and f requency, durat ion, and latency of point ing. In summary , data on mode of communica t ion general ly inc ludes information on body ges tures (such a s pointing and reaching), voca l izat ions, verbal izat ions and eye g a z e . 1.4.3.2 C o d i n g S c h e m e s : Funct ion of Commun ica t i on Th is sect ion g ives an examp le of a cod ing s c h e m e descr ib ing the function of a communica t ive behav iour that der ives from s p e e c h act theory. Other s c h e m a s are d i s c u s s e d in the next sec t ion , b e c a u s e they focused more equal ly on mode and funct ion. R y c k e b u s c h and M a r c o s (2004) c lass i f ied chi ldren's communica t ion behav iours (ages 1 ;3 to 2;5) dur ing mother-toddler and father-toddler play in two different play si tuat ions: a bui lding activity and free play. T h e c lassi f icat ion sys tem they used to study the chi ldren 's ut terances w a s c lose ly related to Sear le and Vande rveken ' s (1985) f ive s p e e c h act ca tegor ies ; however , R y c k e b u s c h and M a r c o s (2004) u s e d only the asser t ive , direct ive, express ive , and m isce l l aneous (which inc luded commiss ives ) ca tegor ies . Addit ional ly, R y c k e b u s c h and M a r c o s (2004) subd iv ided direct ive s p e e c h ac ts into three port ions: act ion requests , information requests , and attention requests, arguing that this w a s n e c e s s a r y for the pu rposes of their study. Asser t i ve and express ive ac ts were not further d is t inguished. 1.4.3.3 C o d i n g S c h e m e s : Both Funct ion and M o d e Th is sect ion prov ides three examp les of s tud ies that eva luated both the mode of communica t ion and the function of the utterance. S tud ies vary in the detail of m o d e s and funct ions c o d e d , with s c h e m a s reflecting the purpose of the study more than deriv ing from any strong theoret ical bas is . O n e a rea of interest in chi ldren's ear ly communica t ive behaviour is joint attention. Ca landre l l a and Wi l cox (2000) d is t inguished between three types of commun ica t i ons /modes 24 accord ing to whether a given instance of communica t ion referred to an object or event and/or involved joint attention with an adult. Ca landre l la and Wi l cox ' s (2000) first category w a s intentional nonverbal communica t ion in which the chi ld used a referential gesture ( reach, show, point, give) and/or vocal izat ion (the modes) to refer to an object or event in the envi ronment whi le engag ing in joint attention with an adult partner (the funct ions). Thei r s e c o n d category of c lassi f icat ion inc luded soc ia l interaction s igna ls , in which ges tures and/or vocal izat ions (mode) did not refer to an immediate object or event, but e n g a g e d the joint attention of an adult (function). The i r third category w a s gestural indicating behav iours (mode), in which the chi ld referred to an immediate object or event (function), but did not include joint attention with an adult. Ca landre l l a and Wi l cox (2000) a lso co l lected information on verbal izat ions and s igns (mode). S p o k e n words were def ined a s having a consis tent phonolog ica l form and s o u n d -mean ing relat ionship, shar ing one consonant with the adult form or hav ing an identif iable phonolog ica l p rocess and being p roduced in at least two different contexts. S i g n s were required to approx imate the convent ional s ign , be consis tent in their s ign -mean ing relat ionship, and be p roduced in at least two different contexts. C r a i s et a l . (2004) adapted Bruner 's (1981) c lassi f icat ion sys tem of three genera l communica t ive funct ions and eight speci f ic intentions in cod ing of ch i ldren 's ear ly communica t ive at tempts. Joint attention (a focus in the Ca l landre l la and Wi l cox study above) w a s a l so a focus in the Bruner s c h e m a , which desc r ibed three broad intentional communica t ive funct ions: behaviour regulation (i.e., ac ts for regulat ion of another 's behaviour) , soc ia l interaction (i.e., ac ts to ga in and/or maintain another 's interaction with onesel f ) , and joint attention (i.e., ac ts to guide another 's attention to a speci f ic object or event) (1981). T h e eight speci f ic intentions Bruner (1981) def ined were subd iv is ions of these broad communica t ive funct ions; that is, the speci f ic intentions of request ing objects, request ing act ions, and protest ing to regulate behaviour were s e e n a s communica t ive ac ts with a behav iour regulat ion funct ion. Commen t i ng and request ing information were speci f ic intentions comple ted for a joint attention funct ion, and representat ional gestures, attention seek ing , and soc ia l g a m e s were per formed to elicit a soc ia l interaction funct ion. C r a i s et a l . (2004) hypothes ized that a gesture hierarchy might be useful to dist inguish be tween a chi ld who is a 'late talker' and one who is exper ienc ing an actual language delay. A gestural h ierarchy cou ld be used to dist inguish chi ldren who s h o w symbo l format ion deficits (late onset of words) f rom those with a more genera l late onset of intentional communica t ion (at a gestural level). A s noted earl ier, the C r a i s et a l . (2004) study appea rs to attribute intentional communica t ion to very young chi ldren (4-6 months of age) , suggest ing that the parent reporting led to s o m e over-interpretation of the funct ions of the chi ld 's movemen ts and voca l iza t ions. 25 Dromi 's (2003) s tudy of 4 3 deaf chi ldren a lso focused on ges tures (mode), cod ing them a s either deict ic or referential in funct ion. Deict ic gestures were def ined a s ges tu res that establ ish joint attention and indicate interest in an object or event (as in Iverson & Tha i , 1998). S u c h gestures inc luded showing , reach ing, giv ing, and point ing, and were further c o d e d a s contact ve rsus distal ges tures (Bates, C a m a i o n i , & Vol terra, 1975). Contac t deict ic ges tu res impl ied phys ica l contact be tween communica t ion partners (e.g., push ing a hand away to indicate refusal), and distal gestures did not (e.g., pointing to an object to indicate des i re ; Ba tes e t a l . , 1975). Deict ic gestures were a l so c lass i f ied a s imperat ive or declarat ive sub- types (function): an imperat ive deict ic gesture w a s cons ide red to regulate behav iour (e.g., request an act ion or object) and a declarat ive deict ic gesture w a s cons ide red a m e a n s of establ ish ing joint attention (e.g., direct attention to an object). Referent ia l gestures were a l so ca l led representat ional gestures , and were ges tures that incorporated semant ic content and es tab l ished a referent. Referent ia l ges tures were further d iv ided into object- re lated/symbol ic referential ges tures , which had a non-convent ional symbo l ic nature (e.g., danc ing to request the radio be turned on), and convent ional referential ges tures , which had a socia l ly def ined symbol ic nature (e.g., wav ing to s a y goodbye) (Cra is et a l . , 2004) . F rom this comp lex set of c o d e s , after e a c h per iod of parent observat ion, the ch i ldren 's act ions were div ided into prel inguist ic ca tegor ies of behav iours and s u m m e d and a v e r a g e d . T h e chi ld 's per formance w a s then ass i gned to a prel inguist ic level of funct ioning: cry ing, independent behav iours , col laborat ion with an adult, point ing, ges tures , voca l iza t ions , words , and s igns , all loosely assoc ia ted with deict ic or referential gesture types. For examp le , Dromi (2003) def ined 'col laborat ion with an adult ' a s a gesture that involved mutual engagemen t between the chi ld and an adult and direct phys ica l manipulat ion by the chi ld of another to ach ieve goa ls , but with no direct express ion of communica t ive intent to the adult. Independent behav iours were def ined a s non-communica t ive independent behav iours , s u c h a s looking for a lost toy without any ass i s tance from an adult. 1.5 Critical Analysis of Existing Systems A summary of the s p e e c h act behav iours that were c o d e d by severa l of the above -ment ioned researchers is p resented in Append ix 1. F rom this, we c a n s e e that a great variety of m o d e s and funct ions, and methods of da ta col lect ion, have been u s e d to document communica t ion in young chi ldren. Ninio, S n o w , P a n , and Rol l ins (1994) present a cogent account of the cr i t ic isms that sur round the diversity of cod ing s c h e m e s in the field of chi ld language deve lopment . T h e main 26 conce rns these authors exp ress include a lack internal cohe rence , appropr ia teness, or theoret ical bas is for the cod ing s c h e m e s being uti l ized. T h o s e arguments are out l ined below. Ninio et a l . (1994) def ine internal cohe rence a s a failure to differentiate between levels of ana lys is or specif ic i ty between categor ies . Wh i le s o m e sys tems do capture a full array of information at one level of ana lys is (e.g., Dore , 1973), Ninio et a l . (1994) state that many sys tems do not capture a full array of information at one level of ana lys is , nor do they capture information at more than one level of ana lys is (e.g., funct ional vs . d iscourse levels) . Th is type of detai l is important to account for the full range of a communica to r ' s abil i t ies. Ninio et a l . (1994) a lso argue that cod ing sys tems require a theoret ical foundat ion for the number and type of s p e e c h acts d is t inguished. T h e level to which all ca tegor ies are div ided shou ld be dr iven f rom the quest ions p o s e d of the data ; if one category requires an addit ional level of detai l , the hierarchy of categor izat ion and d is t inct iveness shou ld be m a d e explicit (Ninio e t a l . , 1994, p. 164). Addit ional ly, many of the we l l -used behaviour cod ing sys tems (such a s Ba tes et a l . , 1979; Dore , 1973; M c S h a n e , 1980) were des igned for communica to rs at a speci f ic age or ability level and may, therefore, not be appropr iate to use a c r o s s the l i fespan, in longitudinal research or with people who have vary ing levels of ability a c r o s s language doma ins . Another feature of many of the previously exp la ined cod ing sys tems is that they fail to cons ider the point of v iew from which cod ing is to take p lace (Ninio et a l . , 1994). Fol lowing Sea r l e ' s argument (n.d., c i ted in Ninio et a l . , 1994, p. 165) that the intended act of the speake r is not necessar i l y the s a m e a s what is inferred by the l istener, Ninio et a l . (1994) sugges t cod ing sys tems must establ ish the perspect ive from which da ta is to be c o d e d , that is, whether data will be c o d e d a s the intended communica t ion or the ach ieved communica t ion . It is interesting that most of the studies reported above fai led to incorporate the recommendat ions set out by Ninio et a l . , even though Ninio et a l . pub l ished their cr i t ic isms many years prior to the majority of the s tud ies d i s c u s s e d here. 1.5.1 Response to Criticisms A s a response to these cr i t ic isms, Ninio and W h e e l e r (1984) at tempted to deve lop a c lassi f icat ion sys tem with "internal cohe rence " that had a strong theoret ical bas i s and w a s appropr iate for all communica t ion s a m p l e s . T h e full Ninio and W h e e l e r (1984) sys tem conta ins a 63-i tem taxonomy of s p e e c h act c o d e s and categor ies o rgan ized into groups by major pragmat ic force. T h e twelve major categor ies that dist inguish a m o n g the effect of an utterance on an interchange include direct ives and responses , s p e e c h el ici tat ions and responses , commi tments and responses , declarat ions and responses , mark ings and responses , s ta tements 27 and responses , ques t ions and responses , per fo rmances, evaluat ions, d e m a n d s for clari f icat ion, text edit ing and vocal izat ions. E a c h of these twelve categor ies is c o m p o s e d of more speci f ic s p e e c h acts , which c a n be u s e d accord ing to the goa ls of a part icular research project. A major fault of the Ninio and W h e e l e r (1984) sys tem is that, a l though they advoca te for internal cohe rence in a cod ing sys tem, the authors themse lves comb ine levels of ana lys is within one sys tem. For examp le , within the category direct ives and responses , Ninio and W h e e l e r (1984) include 'agree to carry out act requested or p roposed by another ' . Th is is inappropriate b e c a u s e direct ives are typically def ined within S p e e c h Ac t Theory a s an attempt to get the Hearer to DO someth ing . Th is examp le (agree to carry out act reques ted or p roposed by another) is more congruent with the Sea r l e category of commiss i ves , wh ich are acts that commit the S p e a k e r to a future cou rse of act ion. In addi t ion, 'direct ives and responses ' do not consti tute a s p e e c h act category; ' r esponses ' is a d iscourse category. For examp le , a response cou ld be a statement, a request for clari f ication, or an agreement to do (just to name a few poss ib le s p e e c h acts) . 1.5.2 Background Investigations to the Current Study: Klincans (1991) and Sing (2002) T h e current study bui lds on a research program initiated by K l incans (1991; J o h n s o n & K l incans , 1999). K l incans compa red s p e e c h ac ts in one s ighted boy and his bl ind identical twin. S h e uti l ized a cod ing s c h e m a b a s e d on Sea r l e and V a n d e r v e k e n (1985), compar ing and contrast ing her sys tem with that of Ninio and Whee le r (1984). K l incans inc luded the ca tegor ies and subca tegor ies presented in Tab le 1.1 in her c lassi f icat ion s c h e m e ; further detai ls are presented in chapter 2 . T h e di f ferences between the K l incans (1991; J o h n s o n & K l incans , 1999) and Ninio and W h e e l e r (1984) sys tems help make the dist inct ions be tween categor ies c learer (based on S p e e c h Act Theory) and demonst ra te its theoret ical bas i s and internal cohe rence . T h e K l incans and J o h n s o n sys tem w a s adap ted by S ing (2002) in a pilot s tudy to which the present study is related, with S ing (2002) slightly truncating the K l incans and J o h n s o n cod ing sys tem to account for d i f ferences between the a g e s of the chi ldren in their s tud ies . S ing (2002) s tud ied 18 chi ldren between the a g e s of 1;4 and 1;10, with 8 chi ldren having immediate family history of language de lay and 10 infants having no s u c h history. S ing (2002) c o d e d type and f requency of communica t ive behav iours and mode of communica t ion , and whether the act w a s initiated or w a s a response in seven different activit ies des igned to elicit communica t ion : act ivat ing two wind-up toys; taking objects from a bag ; engag ing in ball p lay, then withholding the bal l ; pointing to a te levis ion; b lowing bubb les , then c los ing the jar; act ivat ing a c a u s e - a n d -effect toy; and looking at books with the caregiver . S ing ' s purpose in evaluat ing the communica t i ve behaviour of these chi ldren w a s to character ize the communica t ion of chi ldren in 28 this a g e range and to evaluate whether the s p e e c h acts of chi ldren with family history of language impairment differed from those of chi ldren without family history of language impairment. T h e main f indings of the S ing (2002) study were that chi ldren with and without family history of language impairment were simi lar in their communica t ive abil i t ies (that is, within this samp le s i ze , the family history group did not have more chi ldren with communica t ion de lays than the group with no history of language impairment). Direct ive and asser t ive s p e e c h ac ts were most c o m m o n and chi ldren's ave rage rate of communica t ion w a s 6.48 ac ts per minute. Addit ional ly, S ing (2002) found that chi ldren with more spon taneous words and a higher rate of communica t ive acts per minute had inc reased language product ion sco res , a higher number of communica t ive ac ts , and more asser t ive commun ica t ions than chi ldren who had fewer spon taneous words and a lower rate of communica t ion . Th is is suppor ted by the f inding that her part ic ipants ' Reyne l l (Reynel l , 1977) language comprehens ion sco res corre lated with d i scourse category and rate of communica t ion . S ing presents a few poss ib le con founds encountered during her research . S h e s ta tes that exper imenta l and control g roups may have been less different (in terms of risk and parental conce rn about language delay, etc.) than previously thought and addit ional ly ques t ions whether birth-order status and number of s ib l ings might affect chi ldren's s p e e c h act product ions. T h e current study at tempted to strengthen S ing ' s efforts by clarifying definit ions of chi ldren 'at risk of language delay ' in terms of their family history of l anguage de lay. A greater number of chi ldren were s tud ied, and cons is tency in birth-order between g roups w a s main ta ined. 1.6 Basis for the Current Study 1.6.1 Coding System Al though it has shown to be difficult to dev ise a s p e e c h act c lassi f icat ion sys tem that has a strong theoret ical bas is , is internally coherent , and appropr iate for use with a variety of indiv iduals and si tuat ions, the ability to descr ibe the types of communica t ive ac ts chi ldren perform is an important goal towards enabl ing c o m m o n understanding between pract i t ioners in chi ld deve lopment (Ninio & S n o w , 1996), and toward earl ier d iagnos is of language de lay. Th is sys tem must include a set of categor ies that differentiate be tween types of commun ica t ions , plus s o m e systemat ic way of ass ign ing ins tances of communica t ion to communica t i ve ca tegor ies (Ninio & Snow , 1996). K l incans (1991; J o h n s o n & K l incans , 1999) and S ing (2002) deve loped and used sys tems that sat isfy Ninio and S n o w ' s (1996) criteria. For this reason , these sys tems form the bas is for the communica t ive cod ing sys tem deve loped for the current thes is . 29 In addit ion to the quest ions ar is ing from the S ing (2002) pilot s tudy results noted above , two addit ional aspec ts of the K l incans (1991) and S ing (2002) cod ing sys tems were ques t ioned : the cod ing of amb iguous communica t ive ac ts and the hierarchical levels within e a c h set of major categor ies . Regard ing ambiguity, the quest ion remained whether it wou ld be poss ib le to sub-ca tegor ize amb iguous i l locutionary force a s one of two opt ions (e.g., whether a direct ive w a s a request for information or act ion, or whether an act w a s a directive or asser t ive) . Regard ing hierarchical relat ionships be tween levels of specif ic i ty, o n c e a communica t ion act w a s determined to be long to a category b a s e d on major i l locutionary force (e.g., direct ive), the quest ion w a s whether this cou ld be further sub-d iv ided (as a directive to ach ieve act ion, ga in information, attention, or permiss ion)? If the act cou ld be c o d e d to the sub- i l locut ionary force level , cou ld it be determined whether the act cou ld be c o d e d to a further level of prec is ion (e.g., if the act w a s direct ive, for information, w a s the chi ld seek ing new information, or information for clarif ication). (See Chap te r 2 for further d iscuss ion. ) 1.6.2 Research Quest ions T h e current study fo l lowed a research program (Kl incans, 1991; S i n g , 2002) in this topic a rea , and w a s a direct fol low-up to the S ing (2002) pilot study. T h e genera l lack of information about chi ldren's communicat ive ac ts in the s e c o n d year of life, and the lack of cohe rence in var ious cod ing sys tems for communica t ive acts by chi ldren led to the fol lowing research quest ions and predict ions for the current study. Ques t ion O n e : How do chi ldren a g e d 1 ;5 to 2;0 commun ica te in structured elicitation contex ts? Speci f ica l ly : a . Wha t is the chi ldren's rate of communica t ion in structured elicitation contex ts? B a s e d on prev ious s tud ies (Pau l , 2007 ; R y c k e b u s c h and M a r c o s , 2004 ; and S ing , 2002) rate of communica t ion w a s predicted to be be tween 5 and 8 ut terances per minute. b. D o the chi ldren tend to respond to or initiate commun ica t ions in structured elicitation contex ts? It w a s predicted that chi ldren would initiate more frequently with age , but that the types of activit ies conduc ted may affect this deve lopmenta l tendency (S ing , 2002) . c. Wha t is the preferred mode of communica t ion for chi ldren a g e d 1 ;5 to 2;0 in structured elicitation contex ts? 30 It w a s ant ic ipated that non-verbal ges tures such a s point ing, reach ing and showing would be present in all ch i ldren, regard less of age , but that more symbol ic forms of communica t ion , s u c h a s verbal izat ions and manua l s ign , may only be present in the older chi ldren b a s e d on the research presented above and C a s b y and C u m p a t a ' s ordinal sca le of communica t ion deve lopment . d . Wha t are the most frequent s p e e c h act types used by the chi ldren in structured elicitation contex ts? It w a s expec ted that direct ives and asser t i ves wou ld be the most frequently occurr ing type of s p e e c h act p roduced and declarat ive and commiss i ve ac ts wou ld be the least frequently occurr ing type of s p e e c h acts a c r o s s ch i ldren, b a s e d on the work of R y c k e b u s c h and M a r c o s (2004) a n d the a g e s of the chi ldren with respect to the definit ional requirements for c o m m i s s i v e s a n d dec larat ives. In addi t ion, it w a s expec ted that direct ives wou ld be more frequent than asser t i ves , g iven the f indings in S ing ' s (2002) pilot s tudy (which u s e d simi lar elicitation methods) . However , g iven that R y c k e b u s c h and M a r c o s ' (2004) found asser t i ves were more frequent than direct ives (with a simi lar a g e group), this predict ion is uncerta in. Wetherby and Rodr iquez (1992) sugges t d i f ferences in communica t ion may be the result of structured ve rsus unstructured contexts . e. D o e s age or gender affect the communica t ive behaviour of chi ldren between 1 ;5 a n d 2;0 in structured elicitation s e s s i o n s a s m e a s u r e d by s p e e c h ac t s? It w a s expec ted that girls would be slightly more a d v a n c e d in their commun ica t ions , a s compa red to s a m e a g e boys , b a s e d on Rei l ly et a l . 's (2006) f inding that fema le chi ldren sco red higher than male chi ldren on the C S B S a s s e s s m e n t . It w a s a l so ant ic ipated that chi ldren would b e c o m e more competent commun ica to rs a s a g e inc reased . T h e primary goal of the current project w a s descr ipt ive, that is, to add to the literature on chi ldren's language deve lopment by document ing the types, range, and f requency of communica t ive behav iours in young second-born chi ldren (1 ;5 to 1 ;11) a s they occur red in structured communica t ive interact ions with a s ingle exper imenter . A wide range of deve lopmenta l s e q u e n c e s and t imings w a s expec ted , b a s e d on the confl ict ing results be tween s tud ies and the variat ion noted by Mundy and G o m e s (1998). Structured tasks were c h o s e n for observat ion of young chi ldren 's communica t ive ac ts (1) b e c a u s e they a l low greater s tandard izat ion of the exper imenter 's interactions a c r o s s chi ldren, and thus 'between-chi ldren ' compar i son of communica t ion behav iours without variabil i ty in partner interaction style a s a 31 poss ib le con found (Ryckebusch and M a r c o s , 2004 ; Yont , S n o w , and V e r n o n - F e a g a n s , 2003) , and (2) b e c a u s e the current study w a s a fol low-up to a pilot s tudy (S ing, 2002) , wh ich examined communica t ion in similar contexts. Ques t ion T w o : D o e s chi ldren's per formance on structured elicitation tasks match their per formance on s tandard ized or cr i ter ion-referenced tools (i.e., the P L S and CDI sco res ) ; in terms of statist ical or descr ipt ive ana lys i s? T h e quest ion here is whether s tandard tools match a chi ld 's communica t ion in less formal elicitation s a m p l e s (even structured elicitations). Ult imately, this answers what methods are most rel iable and val id for evaluat ing a chi ld 's language deve lopment . T y p e s , range, and f requency of communica t ive ac ts were predicted to relate with other ind ices of deve lopment , s u c h a s s tandard ized tests of language and deve lopment (as noted in S ing , 2002 ; Mundy and G o m e s , 1998). B e c a u s e the s tandard tests of language and deve lopment used in this study are different f rom those used by S ing (2002) or Mundy and G o m e s (1998), it is uncertain whether this predict ion would be conf i rmed. 32 C H A P T E R 2 M E T H O D 2.1 Overview of the Study Thirty-four ch i ldren, a g e s 1 ;5 to 2;0, part ic ipated in a structured play s e s s i o n a s part of a larger longitudinal study. A n exper imenter p resented the chi ld with a ser ies of toys and at tempted to elicit communica t ion from the chi ld with minimal prompt ing. Da ta were audio- and v ideo- taped, then t ranscr ibed orthographical ly and c o d e d accord ing to whether the utterance w a s communica t ive or not, where the chi ld 's focus of attention lay, whether an utterance w a s an initiation or a response , and what the mode and function of communica t ion were . T h e c o d e d da ta were ana lyzed for f requency and correlat ion with results f rom standard language m e a s u r e s , family history of language impairment, age , and gender . Th is chapter prov ides detai ls of the method used in the study. 2.2 Participants 2.2.1 Background Longitudinal Study T h e part ic ipants from the current study were a sub-group from 91 chi ldren who are taking part in a longitudinal s tudy evaluat ing early detect ion of language delay. T h e purpose of the background study w a s to determine which of severa l evaluat ion techn iques most rel iably predicts language de lay in young chi ldren. In order to do this, e a c h of the 91 chi ldren w a s eva luated at three different a g e s (18 months, 3 years , and 4 years) , and their language ski l ls at 3 years a n d 4 years were compa red with their task per formance at 18 months. T h e current study, which charac ter izes the communica t ive compe tence of chi ldren at 18 months, represents an initial s tep towards the goa l of the longitudinal study. Ch i ld ren were recruited through adver t isements p laced in communi ty locat ions, s u c h a s newspape rs , l ibraries, and at parent-chi ld g roups . Addit ional ly, chi ldren who had s ib l ings or another f i rst-degree family member with language de lay were recruited through local health Units and S - L P c l in ics. B e c a u s e s ib l ings of a chi ld with language de lay have an inc reased l ikel ihood of a lso having a language de lay (Nei ls and A r a m , 1986; Spi tz , Ta l la l , F lax , & B e n a s i c h , 1997; Tombl in , 1989), chi ldren with family history of language de lay were speci f ica l ly recruited to increase the l ikel ihood that chi ldren with language de lay would be inc luded in the samp le obse rved in the longitudinal study. S ib l ings with language de lay were de f ined by having 3 3 s e e n , either currently or in the past, a S p e e c h - L a n g u a g e Pathologist ( S L P ) for any s p e e c h and/or language related impairment T h e chi ldren who part ic ipated in the longitudinal study were primarily f rom communi t ies in southwest Brit ish C o l u m b i a . Cr i ter ia for exc lus ion from this study inc luded having less than 8 0 % Eng l ish language exposure , fai l ing a tympanometry sc reen ing , or having another identif iable condit ion (such a s a sensor ineura l hear ing loss or cerebra l palsy) . O n ave rage , the group of chi ldren had exposure to Eng l ish only in the home accord ing to parent report (range 80-100%) . 2.2.2 Current Study Only chi ldren with older s ib l ings were se lec ted for inclusion in the current study from the 91 chi ldren recruited for the larger study (n = 34). Th is criterion for inclusion w a s set to rule out a hypothes is ra ised in S ing ' s (2002) pilot s tudy for this project. S ing (2002) sugges ted birth order may have been a contributing factor to not f inding signif icant d i f ferences between the s p e e c h ac ts of her exper imental and control g roups . Se lec t ing chi ldren with one or more older s ib l ings prov ided s o m e cons is tency in deve lopmenta l envi ronment be tween chi ldren in the study, a n d removed the poss ib le con found of birth-order from relat ionships that might emerge . E leven of the 34 chi ldren in the study had older s ib l ings with no prev ious d iagnos is of l anguage delay. Th is group cons is ted of f ive male and s ix female chi ldren, a g e s 17 to 21 months (mean=18.8 months). Three of the chi ldren had two older s ib l ings (7, 9, and 34); n ine of the chi ldren had only One older sibl ing (14, 24, 32 , 4 1 , 58 , 68 , 74, and 78) . T h e s ib l ings ' a g e s var ied between 2;6 and 11 years of age . Twenty- three of the 34 chi ldren in the study had older s ib l ings with prev ious d iagnos is of l anguage de lay (and had at tended speech - l anguage therapy). Th is group cons is ted of 10 ma le and 13 female chi ldren, a g e s 17 to 24 months (mean=19.7 months) . T w o chi ldren had four older s ib l ings, with one sibl ing from e a c h set having a language de lay (11 and 59); one chi ld had three older s ib l ings, with one having a language de lay (87); two chi ldren had two older s ib l ings, with one of e a c h sibl ing set having a language de lay (4 and 31); one chi ld had two older s ib l ings, with both s ib l ings having a language de lay (90); and 17 chi ldren had only one older s ib l ing, all of whom had a language de lay (3, 6, 30 , 33 , 35 , 39 , 60 , 62 , 6 3 , 69 , 75 , 79 , 80 , 8 1 , 84, 85 , and 86). T h e sib l ings' a g e s var ied from 3 to 21 years of age . Ch i ld character is t ics are l isted in T a b l e s 2.1 and 2.2. However , chi ldren with and without family history of language de lay were not t reated a s two groups in our ana l yses b e c a u s e an independent s a m p l e s t-test s h o w e d no differentiation between groups b a s e d on s tandard ized language sco res , initiations ve rsus responses , mode , or i l locutionary point. Th is is consis tent with f indings by S ing (2002) and Scott (unpubl ished). 34 All of the chi ldren that were inc luded in the present study were tested a s part of the longitudinal study in a health unit, a university psycho logy lab, a mobi le test ing van , or their homes . T w o visits were schedu led one to two w e e k s apart. 2.3 Data Collection 2.3.1 Longitudinal Study Tasks at 18 months T h e chi ldren part ic ipated in severa l tasks at 18 months, including a v ideotaped 10-15-minute structured play s e s s i o n with a trained chi ld language researcher and a 10-15 minute unstructured play s e s s i o n with one parent. In addit ion, chi ldren part ic ipated in a word learning task (looking response paradigm) (Werker, C o h e n , L loyd, C a s a s o l a , & Stager , 1998), and were tested with the Mul len F ine Motor and V isua l Recept ion s c a l e s (Mul len, 1995) and the P reschoo l Language S c a l e - 4 ( P L S - 4 , Z i m m e r m a n , Steiner, & P o n d , 2002) . Paren ts a l so fil led out the McAr thur -Ba tes Commun ica t i on Deve lopment Inventory (CDI , F e n s o n et a l . , 1993) W o r d s and G e s t u r e s form or W o r d s and S e n t e n c e s form. Tab le 2.2 s h o w s results of the Mul len , P L S - 4 and MacAr thu r -Ba tes CDI tests conver ted to z - sco res (raw and s c a l e d s c o r e s avai lab le from the author). T h e z - s c o r e s were ca lcu la ted us ing percent i le ranks from test-speci f ic norms; thus, the ca lcu la ted z - sco res took chi ld age into a c c o u n t / T h e z - s c o r e s were u s e d in order to be ab le to compare a c r o s s tests in statist ical ana l yses and determine whether h igh- and low-performing groups on the s tandard ized tasks would differ in per formance in communica t i ve ac ts (as predicted at the end of the introduction). T h e chi ldren who per formed on ave rage at one s tandard deviat ion above the m e a n or greater were 7, 60 , 69 and 78. Part ic ipants who per formed at one s tandard deviat ion above the m e a n or greater on two or more of the language tests (i.e., P L S - 4 A C , P L S - 4 E C , McAr thur CDI) were 6, 7, 60 , and 78 . T h e chi ldren who per formed on ave rage at one s tandard deviat ion be low the m e a n or greater were 3 3 , 39 and 90 . Part ic ipants who per formed at one s tandard deviat ion below the m e a n or greater on two or more of the language tests (i.e., P L S - 4 A C , P L S - 4 E C , McAr thur CDI) were 9, 33 , and 8 1 . Di f ference in per formance in communica t ive acts w a s expec ted between the h igh- and low-performing groups on the s tandard ized tasks , with d i f ferences reflecting the predict ions made at the end of the introduction (age a lso being taken into account) . 2.3.2 Structured Interaction Task T h e chi ld 's parent w a s normal ly present dur ing the structured interaction task. T h e chi ld and parent were sea ted at 90° at a smal l table, a l though, occas iona l ly , the chi ld w a s sea ted in the parent 's lap. T h e exper imenter w a s sea ted 180° from the chi ld. T h e exper imenter p resented a se r ies of toys us ing minimal language but providing many scena r i os des igned to elicit communica t ion from the chi ld (e.g., putting the lid back on the bubb les while the chi ld w a s still 35 interested in playing). T h e mater ia ls presented during the structured interaction s e s s i o n inc luded a book, a killer wha le puppet, two toy phones , bubb les and a robot. At any t ime, only the toy that w a s in use w a s visible to the chi ld. E a c h structured interaction s e s s i o n w a s approximately 8 minutes in durat ion. For the current study, the book, wha le , and bubb les activit ies were used to character ize communica t ive interact ions. T h e phone activity w a s not inc luded b e c a u s e it w a s very difficult to determine whether a chi ld us ing the phone w a s playing out the well known 'what you do whi le on the phone ' script, or whether they were us ing the phone with intent to commun ica te to another person , whether present in the room or not. T h e robot activity w a s a lso not inc luded b e c a u s e many chi ldren were afraid of the robot and did not commun ica te when it w a s present. T h e robot a lso tended to greatly reduce the communica t ive interact ions of the chi ldren who did play with it b e c a u s e it w a s a highly st imulat ing and noisy toy. T h e exper imenter began e a c h s e s s i o n by ask ing the parent to remain a s quiet a s poss ib le dur ing the play interact ions, s o it cou ld be s e e n how the chi ld used language independent ly. T h e exper imenter then p laced on the table an a lphabet board book with p a g e s cor respond ing to e a c h letter of the a lphabet . If the chi ld reached for the book, it w a s g iven to him/her. T h e chi ld had one to two minutes to play with the book. If the chi ld did not reach for the book, the exper imenter opened it in front of the chi ld and si lently began pointing to pictures to try to interest the chi ld in the book. A l though book reading is not exact ly a neutral activity (i.e., there is a 'known' routine and adult r esponses affect ch i ldren 's express ive behav iour (Ninio and Bruner, 1976) it w a s inc luded here, a s book reading is a famil iar activity to many chi ldren in this age range. After a few minutes, or if the chi ld s h o w e d disinterest in the book, the exper imenter removed it. S h e then presented the whale puppet by wear ing it on her hand and ' sw imming ' it through the air in front of herself a n d the chi ld whi le making a 'whoosh ing ' s o u n d . If the chi ld reached for the wha le , it w a s g iven to him/her. T h e chi ld w a s g iven about 1 minute to play with the puppet. If the chi ld did not reach for the whale , the exper imenter s q u e a k e d a no ise-maker in the puppet a s an attempt to engage the chi ld 's interest. T h e chi ld w a s then offered the puppet and shown how to make it squeak . After a few minutes, or if the chi ld s h o w e d disinterest in the wha le , the exper imenter put it away and p laced a rotary style toy phone on the table in front of herself. Th i s task w a s not inc luded in the ana l yses presented here. After the phone task, the exper imenter brought out a conta iner of bubb les . T h e exper imenter removed the lid, b lew bubb les once or twice, rep laced the wand and container lid and p laced the jar on the table in front of herself. If the chi ld indicated interest in the bubb les , the exper imenter b lew more bubb les . Th is s e q u e n c e w a s repeated severa l t imes (for about 1 minute) if the chi ld w a s interested in the bubb les . If the chi ld w a s not 36 interested in the bubb les , the exper imenter moved the bubble jar c loser to the chi ld or b lew a few more bubb les , in an attempt to interest the chi ld in the toy. After a few minutes, the exper imenter put the bubb les away and put a toy robot on the table. T h e exper imenter act ivated the robot by push ing on its a rm, which c a u s e d the robot's mouth to open and shut and make a clattering no ise. Th is w a s the s e c o n d task that w a s not inc luded in the ana lys is descr ibed here. W h e n the chi ld w a s f in ished with the robot and if the chi ld had p layed somewha t with all of the other i tems, the structured interaction s e s s i o n w a s f in ished. If the chi ld had not shown interest when an item w a s introduced the first t ime, it w a s often re- introduced at the end of the s e s s i o n . If the chi ld s h o w e d interest in the item at that t ime, the chi ld w a s given approximate ly a minute to play with it. If the chi ld did not s h o w interest in the i tem, it w a s put away. T h e parent and chi ld were then g iven instructions for another task in the longitudinal study. 2.3.3 Structured Interaction Session Recording Both v ideo- and audio-casset te record ings were m a d e of the structured interaction s e s s i o n s a s part of the data col lect ion for the longitudinal study. V ideo record ings were made us ing one S o n y Digital H a n d y c a m v ideo c a m e r a . Digital aud io record ings were m a d e with a T a s c a m D A - 2 0 D A T Recorder , a T O A True Diversity Rece i ve r (model WT-4810 ) and two T O A wi re less lapel m ic rophones (model W M - 4 3 1 0 ) . Dur ing all exper imenta l tasks , the chi ld wore one microphone (typically d raped over the chi ld 's chai r or worn on a ch i ld -s ized vest at ches t level) and the parent wore the other. 2.4 Transcription T h e present author t ranscr ibed e a c h chi ld 's structured interaction play samp le f rom v ideo record ings of the s e s s i o n to use a s a guide for further ana l yses . Ut terances, gestures , eye g a z e and other potential forms of communica t ion were recorded with a d iscrete number and the t ime a long the tape that the act occur red in order to al low consis tent intra- and inter-coder identif ication of a particular communicat ive act. T h e observat ions were hand-written on separa te forms for e a c h chi ld. E a c h of the chi ld 's u t terances/act ions w a s written on a new line that co r responded to a unique number . If the parent or exper imenter 's ut terances/act ions prompted or were c lose ly related to the chi ld 's next ut terance/act ion, the adult 's ut terance/act ion w a s written first and the chi ld 's ut terance/act ion fo l lowed it on the s a m e transcript l ine. In the fol lowing text, this term 'ut terance/act ion' refers to a s ingle line of vocal izat ion, verbal izat ion, gesture, and/or eye g a z e that w a s recorded on the structured interaction s e s s i o n transcript. 37 2.4.1 Reliability of Transcription After the chi ldren's s e s s i o n s were initially t ranscr ibed, the present author c h e c k e d e a c h for cor rec tness and comp le teness against a D A T audio- record ing of the s a m e s e s s i o n . Addit ional ly, for 2 0 % of the chi ldren, structured interaction s e s s i o n s were t ranscr ibed by an addit ional independent observer and eva luated for inter-rater reliability us ing C o h e n ' s k a p p a . T h e transcripts p roduced by the secondary transcr iber were compa red to those of the primary transcr iber. Data were cons ide red equivalent between the two transcripts if both pr imary and secondary t ranscr ibers had inc luded the s a m e ins tances of communica t ive ac ts , i.e., voca l izat ions, verbal izat ions and/or gestures , whether t ranscr ibed on the s a m e or different l ines on the transcript. Inter-rater transcript reliability w a s k= 0.66. Nei ther t ranscr iber had knowledge of individual chi ldren's family history of language de lay dur ing transcr ipt ion. Intra-rater reliability w a s not ca lcu la ted for the transcripts b e c a u s e the transcr ipts were rev iewed and rev ised many t imes before and during the coding of communica t ion ac ts , and a lso b e c a u s e the transcript w a s only used a s a guide to behav iours , not a strict dictat ion of behav iours that did or did not occur . That is, if the coders not iced that a communica t i ve act w a s miss ing on the transcript, they were ab le to modify the transcript at the t ime of cod ing . 2.5 Coding Fol lowing transcript ion, each chi ld 's v ideo- recorded structured interaction s e s s i o n w a s rev iewed and each utterance/act ion w a s c lass i f ied a long f ive d imens ions : ut terance a s communica t ive or non-communicat ive in intent, focus of attention, utterance initiated ve rsus in response to a person or context, mode of communica t ion , and i l locutionary point. C lass i f ica t ion of the chi ld 's u t terances/act ions a long these d imens ions w a s m a d e after reviewing e a c h s e g m e n t on the v ideotape severa l t imes. 2.5.1 Inter-Rater Reliability: Coding Communicative Acts For a randomly se lec ted 2 0 % of the 34 chi ldren involved in this study, a s e c o n d independent observer (in addit ion to the author) coded ut terances a s communica t ive or non-communica t ive in intent, p lus provided c o d e s for focus of attention, ini t iated/respondent, mode of communica t ion , i l locutionary point and strength of affect. Neither t ranscr iber had knowledge of any chi ld 's posit ive or negat ive family history of language de lay at the t ime of cod ing . Inter-rater reliability w a s k = .75 for utterance in response to or ut terance initiated, k = .73 for mode of communica t ion , and k = .67 for i l locutionary point. F o c u s of attention w a s not incorporated in these a n a l y s e s b e c a u s e the first and s e c o n d coders were us ing different operat ional definit ions for this category when cod ing communica t ive ac ts . O n c e the first and s e c o n d code rs ag reed on a methodology, the inter-rater agreement in this category w a s near-38 perfect. It is important to note that typical points of d isagreement between the first and s e c o n d coder inc luded ins tances when one coder felt conf ident in cod ing an act a s intentional, whi le the s e c o n d coder felt it w a s amb iguous . 2.5.2 Intra-rater Reliability: Coding Communicative Acts In addit ion to inter-rater reliability, the first coder did a bl ind re-coding of the s a m e 2 0 % of the 34 chi ldren. Intra-rater reliability w a s k= .92 for ut terance in response to or utterance initiated, k = .88 for mode of communica t ion , and k = .78 for i l locutionary point, including whether an utterance w a s communicat ive or not communica t i ve . F o c u s of attention w a s not looked at in terms of intra-rater reliability b e c a u s e the methodology c h a n g e d between first and s e c o n d cod ings . 2.5.3 Utterance Communicative or Non-Communicative in Intent Utterance/act ions that were t ranscr ibed during the initial transcript ion phase , but subsequent ly not cons ide red communica t ive were exc luded from the data at this point. T h e dec is ion regarding the ex is tence of or lack of communica t ive intent w a s b a s e d on the coder ' s interpretation of the chi ld 's intent of an ut terance/act ion. Th is interpretation w a s b a s e d on c u e s s u c h a s hand and body gestures, facial exp ress ions , and intonation in voca l and verbal ut terances. In addi t ion, S ing ' s (2002) definit ion of intentionality w a s adopted , which had been adap ted from Ba tes (1976), Ba tes et a l . (1979), Hard ing & Gol inkoff (1979), Fos ter (1990), S a c h s (2001), and Wetherby , Y o n c l a s , & Bryan (1989). S ing (2002) def ined an intentionally communica t ive act in the fol lowing way: 1) "The chi ld g a z e s toward and/or adjusts body orientat ion toward the communica t ion partner, and/or physical ly contacts the communica t ion partner before, after, or whi le gestur ing and/or voca l iz ing ; the chi ld may alternate looking between an object/activity and the communica t ion partner. 2) T h e chi ld pers ists in his/her behaviour(s) when not unders tood or until the response des i red is ach ieved , and may modify his/her behaviour(s) in (an) attempt(s) to commun ica te more clearly. 3) T h e chi ld waits for a response from the Hearer after producing a communica t ive act. T h e chi ld u s e s consistent or r i tualized (or convent ional) gestures and/or voca l iza t ions in speci f ic si tuat ions, i.e., the chi ld a lways u s e s the sound "uh" when s /he wants someth ing . 4) A communica t ive act b e g a n when one or more of the above criteria w a s met, and terminated when the chi ld 's attention shifted to a different event or topic, or w h e n 39 the adult took a turn, or when the chi ld made further attempt(s) to commun ica te ( including communicat ion for the original purpose) . " (S ing, 2002 , p. 46) In the present study, S ing ' s definition w a s interpreted s o that if any one of the four condi t ions were met, the utterance/act ion w a s cons ide red communica t ive . A s s u c h , eye contact w a s not required for an utterance/act ion to be cons ide red communica t ive . Th is is consis tent with B lake , M c C o n n e l l , Horton, and B e n s o n ' s (1992) f indings. T h e s e authors found that even though eye g a z e did not a c c o m p a n y the majority of gestures exhibi ted by chi ldren under 2 yea rs of age , they were ab le to categor ize gestures by communica t ive intent with a high degree of inter-rater reliability (B lake et a l . , 1992). In s o m e ins tances, it w a s not poss ib le to clear ly def ine an act a s communica t ive or non-communica t ive . W h e n this occur red , the act w a s def ined in one of two ways : 1) likely to be communica t ive , but with unknown i l locutionary point, or 2) likely to be non-communicat ive . Acco rd ing to the above definit ion, the fol lowing two ins tances were not cons ide red communica t ive : 1) a chi ld reached to touch a bubble without interacting with another pe rson ; 2) a chi ld touched a book page without looking at anyone , or expect ing a response from anyone . Th is w a s in contrast to a situation in which a chi ld pointed to a picture, labe led it, p a u s e d and moved on to the next picture. T h e latter event w a s cons ide red communica t ive accord ing to S ing ' s definit ion, parts 2 and 3. In addit ion to the above si tuat ions, an instance w a s exc luded from being recogn ized a s communica t ive if it w a s felt that the instance w a s inappropriate to ca tegor ize within a S p e e c h Ac t f ramework b e c a u s e it lacked a s p e e c h act role. A l though this w a s rare, a s an examp le , ' m h m m ' w a s not ass i gned a s p e e c h act code when it per formed a d i scourse , rather than s p e e c h act, role. Th is might have occur red when the vocal izat ion ("mhmm") funct ioned for the benefit of the hearer (e.g., "I'm still l istening" - d iscourse role), rather than if it w a s used to commun ica te mean ing from the speake r to the hearer (e.g., "I agree with you " - s p e e c h act role). 2.5.4 Focus of Attention W h e n cod ing the chi ldren's ut terances/act ions, ' focus of attention' w a s used to refer to the object or activity a round which the chi ld 's interest w a s f o c u s e d . Th is w a s not necessar i l y s y n o n y m o u s with the direction of a chi ld 's eye g a z e . For examp le , if a chi ld pointed to a picture in the book and looked at his or her parent, the focus of the chi ld 's attention w a s cons ide red to be the book. Other foci of attention inc luded the whale , (phone), bubb les , (robot), D A T ves t /mic rophone (that the chi ld and parent wore), the parent, exper imenter , and c a m e r a / pe rson with the c a m e r a . In addi t ion, an 'other' category w a s u s e d to account for less frequent 40 foci of attention, such a s a man who s n e e z e d in the adjacent room or an unknown person walk ing down the corridor. 2.5.5 Utterance in Response to / Utterance Initiated 'Ut terance initiated / in response to' w a s u s e d to descr ibe the context surrounding an instance of communicat ion by a chi ld. A n utterance/act ion w a s 'initiated' when it w a s not prompted by another person or envi ronmenta l event. A chi ld 's ut terance/act ion w a s recorded a s 'in response to' when it appea red a s though it w a s prompted by another person or envi ronmental event. Poss ib l e sou rces of prompts inc luded the parent, the exper imenter , contextual c u e s and other. A chi ld 's ut terance/act ion w a s cons ide red 'in response to the parent or exper imenter ' when the chi ld responded to someth ing the parent or exper imenter did or sa id a s him/herself . For examp le , when the parent or exper imenter sa id 'apple ' and/or pointed to a picture of an app le in the book, the chi ld 's subsequen t utterance 'apple ' w a s c o d e d 'in response to PIE.' Similar ly, if the parent or exper imenter pointed or otherwise d i rected the chi ld 's attention to an object and the chi ld then commen ted on the object, the chi ld 's ut terance w a s c o d e d 'in response to PIE: However , if the parent or exper imenter el ici ted an utterance/act ion when performing not a s him/herself , the ut terance/act ion w a s c o d e d 'in response to contextual cue . ' Th is sub -category w a s normally reserved for contextual c u e s within the immediate envi ronment . Fo r examp le , when 'swimming ' the wha le in front of the chi ld prompted the chi ld to s a y 'whale, ' this utterance w a s c o d e d 'in response to C C b e c a u s e the chi ld w a s react ing to the act ion of the whale . Simi lar ly, if b lowing bubb les prompted the chi ld to g a z e at his or her parent and point at the bubb les excitedly, this w a s c o d e d 'in response to C C b e c a u s e the chi ld w a s not respond ing to the exper imenter a s herself, but to the object the exper imenter had p roduced . However , when a chi ld protested to the exper imenter when s h e put the bubb les away after hav ing b lown them for a few minutes, this w a s c o d e d 'in response to E ' b e c a u s e the chi ld w a s responding directly to the act ions of the exper imenter . A n utterance w a s not c o d e d 'in response to C C if the chi ld w a s manipulat ing the context by himself or herself. For examp le , if the chi ld d ropped the whale puppet and sa id 'oops, ' or w a s turning p a g e s in the book independent ly and comment ing on the pictures without input f rom E or P, or c h o s e to comment on someth ing the exper imenter w a s wear ing , these were not c o d e d 'in response to C C T h e s e examp les were c o d e d 'initiated,' b e c a u s e the comment w a s prompted by an act ion or internal thought p rocess of the chi ld, not by another person or env i ronmenta l event. 41 Events that cou ld not be c lass i f ied a s 'in response to P or E or C C were c o d e d 'in response to other' or ' C N C (could not code) ' . If an event outs ide the testing room prompted an ut terance/act ion (e.g., the no ise of a chi ld cry ing in the wait ing room), this w a s c o d e d 'in response to other. ' If an event occur red where it w a s unc lear whether the ut terance/act ion w a s 'in response to' one thing or another (e.g., the chi ld responded to someth ing but w a s out of v iew of the camera) , the event w a s g i v e n ' C N C 2.5.6 Mode of Communicat ion ' M o d e of communica t ion ' w a s c o d e d using the four ca tegor ies : voca l iza t ion, verbal izat ion, gesture and eye g a z e . M o d e s of communica t ion were c o d e d only if an ut terance/act ion w a s previously determined to be communica t ive in nature (see sect ion 2.5.3). 2.5.6.1 Voca l iza t ion and Verbal izat ion Voca l i za t ions were t ranscr ibed 'voc, ' and inc luded inconsistent s o u n d s that the coder cou ld not interpret a s c h i l d ' w o r d s ' o r protowords that consistent ly indicated mean ing . Verba l iza t ions were orthographical ly t ranscr ibed, and inc luded sound-combina t ions that were used consistent ly to indicate mean ing , in addit ion to all u t terances that were interpretable (in Engl ish) . If the utterance w a s not interpretable in Eng l i sh , an attempt at phonet ic transcript ion w a s m a d e , or the utterance w a s t ranscr ibed a s 'verb'. Addit ional ly, s o m e chi ldren u s e d manua l s ign language. Th is w a s t ranscr ibed a s ' M S + the chi ld 's in tended mean ing ' . Vegetat ive s o u n d s (such as grunting with effort) were not inc luded a s either voca l iza t ions or verbal izat ions. Nei ther vocal izat ion nor verbal izat ion w a s sub-ca tegor ized further. If it w a s unc lear whether an utterance shou ld be cons ide red a vocal izat ion or verbal izat ion, it w a s cons ide red a vocal izat ion. 2.5.6.2 Ges tu re G e s t u r e s were sub-ca tegor ized accord ing to the type of gesture: point, reach , hold out, g ive /push away , wave , nod head , s h a k e head , hands up, a rms up, manua l s ign , facial exp ress ion , and other (e.g., c l imbing on the table to get c loser to a toy, or rocking back and forth on the chai r to indicate exci tement) . Point 'Point ' w a s def ined a s an instance when the chi ld ex tended one or more f ingers towards an item of interest in an attempt to indicate that item to another person in the room. Th is inc luded both proximal and distal point ing. Strict dec is ions were not m a d e regarding whether a point occur red or did not occur b a s e d on the number of f ingers or which f ingers were u s e d , b e c a u s e of the variabil ity in f ine motor coordinat ion in chi ldren at this age . However , if the chi ld 42 u s e d the hand without s e e m i n g to have a goa l of interacting with another pe rson , this w a s not cons ide red an instance of communica t ion and the hand movement w a s , therefore, not cons ide red a point. For examp le , if a chi ld touched a page in the book, did not look at any pe rson , sub-voca l i zed ' nana ' with flat intonation, and turned the page before an adult commen ted , this movement w a s not cons ide red communicat ive a n d , therefore, w a s not inc luded on the cod ing data sheets . R e a c h ' R e a c h ' w a s def ined a s an instance in which the chi ld ex tended his or her arm(s) with communica t ive intent toward an object to gain a c c e s s to that object, but cou ld not a c c e s s it b e c a u s e it w a s out of the chi ld 's ability to obtain. Th is category did not include ins tances in which a chi ld cou ld reach and obtain an object without interacting with another pe rson , un less a communica t ive act involving another person clear ly occur red . For example , if the bubb les were on the table and the chi ld eas i ly ex tended his/her a rms to pick them up, this w a s not c o d e d a s a communica t ive reach . If the chi ld easi ly ex tended his/her a rms to pick up the bubb les while looking at the exper imenter with a quest ion ing facial exp ress ion , the facial express ion that commun ica ted the chi ld 's quest ion about whether s h e or he w a s a l lowed to play with the toy w a s c o d e d a s a communica t ive act (see below), but the arm movement that required no communica t ion to obtain the bubb les w a s not c o d e d . However , if the chi ld required and requested ass i s tance to reach the toy, the act ion of reaching w a s cons ide red communica t i ve . Th is w a s most apparent when the chi ld pa i red the arm gesture with s o m e vocal izat ion (e.g., "uh uhl") or verbal izat ion (e.g., "want it!"). Hold Out 'Hold out' w a s def ined a s an instance in which the chi ld held an object or body part s o it w a s visible to and attracted the attention of another person in the room in an attempt to commun ica te someth ing to that pe rson . T h e chi ld did not rel inquish control of an object dur ing a 'hold out.' Rather , the apparent purpose of this gesture w a s to s h o w the object to another pe rson . If the chi ld moved an object in proximity to another person without the purpose of showing it to s o m e o n e (e.g., ' s w a m ' the wha le away from him or herself and incidental ly towards another person) , this w a s not cons ide red a communica t ive gesture and w a s not c o d e d on the data sheets . Occas iona l l y this gesture w a s a c c o m p a n i e d by the verbal izat ion ' look! ' G i v e G i v e ' w a s def ined a s an instance in which the chi ld p icked up an object, m o v e d it towards another person in the room, and purposeful ly gave control of the object to another 4 3 person with the intent to commun ica te someth ing to that pe rson . For examp le , the item w a s cons ide red a 'give' if a chi ld handed the bubble wand to an adult, communica t ing to the adult that more bubbles shou ld be b lown. However , if the chi ld moved an object toward another person and the adult ga ined control of the object without the chi ld intending to commun ica te someth ing or rel inquish control (e.g., the chi ld ' s w a m ' the wha le towards the adult and the adult pul led the puppet off the chi ld 's hand a s the chi ld w a s cont inuing to ' sw im' the wha le around) this w a s not cons ide red communica t ive and w a s not inc luded on the cod ing da ta shee ts . Th is m ode of communicat ion w a s def ined in the direct ion of chi ld to adult; that is, the chi ld gave an adult an object or toy. W a v e ' W a v e ' w a s def ined a s a relatively open -handed back and forth or up and down movemen t of either hand directed towards another person in greet ing. E v e n though toys are non-animate, wav ing to the whale puppet w a s inc luded in this category b e c a u s e it w a s a s s u m e d the chi ld w a s communica t ing with intent during the pretend interaction that he or s h e w a s having with the tOy. N o d H e a d 'Nod head ' w a s def ined a s an up and down movement of the head , general ly in response to a quest ion, s tatement or act ion. Th is gesture indicated agreement with a prev ious quest ion, statement, or act ion. S h a k e H e a d ' S h a k e head ' w a s def ined a s a s ide- to-s ide movement of the head , general ly in response to a quest ion, statement or act ion. Th is gesture indicated d isagreement with a preced ing quest ion, statement or act ion. H a n d s Up ' H a n d s up' w a s def ined a s an instance in which the chi ld communicat ive ly ges tured to another person with their pa lms fac ing up at a mid-chest height. A n adult 's interpretation of this gesture might b e ' w h a t ' s next? or ' I don't know. ' A r m s Up 'A rms up' w a s def ined a s an instance in which the chi ld ges tured communicat ive ly with their a rms ex tended over or near their h e a d towards another person . Ch i ld ren frequently pai red this gesture with the v e r b a l i z a t i o n s ' u p ' o r ' w a n t up. ' 44 - Manua l S ign Manua l s igns (e.g., Amer i can S ign L a n g u a g e - A S L ) were g rouped with gestures for the pu rposes of this paper b e c a u s e this a l lowed cod ing of dual-modal i ty commun ica t ions (i.e., a chi ld verbal iz ing and s ign ing s imul taneously) . Th is sub-category of gestures inc luded both act ions that a chi ld used a s in a s tandard A S L lex icon, plus modif icat ions of A S L s igns that a chi ld used with consis tent mean ing . For example , convent ional use of A S L s igns inc luded si tuat ions in which the chi ld touched the f ingers of both 'and ' hands in front of the ches t with pa lms fac ing down to commun ica te 'more ' (Flodin, 2004) . A n examp le of a non-s tandard use of s ign inc luded a situation where a chi ld consistent ly f lapped his a rms in front of his ches t to m e a n 'bubble. ' Fac ia l Exp ress ion Fac ia l exp ress ions were c o d e d a s gestures when they funct ioned to commun ica te information with intent. A n examp le of this type of gesture inc luded when a chi ld s topped looking at the book momentar i ly to smi le at the exper imenter . Th is instance s e e m e d to commun ica te sat isfact ion from the chi ld to the adult about their current activity. In addit ion, chi ldren frequently f rowned while push ing an object off the table. T h e s e ins tances commun ica ted that the chi ld 's to lerance for the activity had exp i red. Other A n addit ional sub-category 'other' w a s u s e d for cod ing all other communica t ive ges tures that were not accoun ted for by the other ten categor ies . A n examp le of this occur red when a chi ld c rawled a c r o s s the table to obtain a toy. 2.5.7 lllocutionary Point For the purpose of this paper , s p e e c h acts were def ined using Sea r l e and Vande rveken ' s (1985) five categor ies of i l locutionary force: asser t i ves , d i rect ives, commiss i ves , exp ress i ves , and dec larat ives. A n attempt w a s made to sub-ca tegor ize these broad levels accord ing to the guide l ines d i s c u s s e d by Ninio et a l . (1994) (see sect ion 1.4). T h e work of J o h n s o n and K l incans (1999), K l incans (1991), and S ing (2002) signif icantly in f luenced the taxonomy desc r ibed here. In contrast to much of the exist ing s p e e c h act l iterature, but in a c c o r d a n c e with J o h n s o n and K l incans ' (1999), K l incans ' (1991), and S ing ' s (2002) work, ut terances were a s s i g n e d i l locutionary force when gesture and/or eye g a z e ach ieved communica t ion without a voca l or verbal component . Non-verba l gesture, eye g a z e , and intonation were a lso u s e d to help 45 dist inguish i l locutionary force of ut terances that inc luded voca l or verbal componen ts . T h e s e dec is ions were made b e c a u s e of the chi ldren 's young a g e s and low verbal language abi l i t ies. 2.5.7.1 Asser t i ve Sear le and Vande rveken desc r ibed asser t i ves a s s p e e c h acts in which the S p e a k e r s a y s 'how things are. ' In this form of i l locutionary act, the speake r be l ieves or commi ts to someth ing be ing the c a s e (the sinceri ty condit ion) and the direct ion of fit is words-to-wor ld. A l though asser t i ves are frequently desc r ibed from the viewpoint of the speake r producing the asser t ion (e.g., "it's co ld in here"), an asser t ion may a l so be def ined a s agreement (or d isagreement) with the asser t ion of another (e.g., "it's co ld in here" . . . " yes , it is"). Th ree sub-categor ies of asser t ive i l locutionary ac ts were def ined: descr ibe , identify / label , and agree with another 's asser t ion . Asser t i ve - Descr ibe 'Desc r ibe ' w a s def ined by K l incans , a s a "descr ipt ive utterance relating to an activity or event, object or a state of affairs," stating that ". . . the proposit ion may relate to the chi ld 's 'real world reality' or a state of affairs within a 'make bel ieve reality'" (1991, p. 41) . T h e s e definit ions were adopted and then three third-level ca tegor ies were created to permit further speci f icat ion: activity or event, object, and state of affairs. 'Asser t ive - descr ibe - activity or event ' w a s used for communica t ive acts that descr ibed immediate occur rences . A n examp le of this cou ld have been during play with the wha le if a chi ld sa id 'whale 's sw imming . ' 'Asser t ive - descr ibe - object ' w a s u s e d to code communica t ive ac ts that desc r ibed an actual object. A n examp le of this type of utterance w a s when a chi ld sa id "soft" whi le touching the whale puppet. 'Asser t ive - descr ibe - state of affairs' w a s u s e d for communica t ive acts that desc r ibed the genera l state of things. A n examp le of this would be if a chi ld sa id 'fun' whi le blowing bubb les with the exper imenter . In this si tuat ion, the chi ld would be giving his or her point of v iew for how things were at the t ime. 'Asser t ive - descr ibe - amb iguous ' w a s the c o d e for communica t ive acts in which the act cou ld be descr ibed a s any or more than one of 'activity or even t , "ob jec t ' or 'state of affairs. ' A n examp le of this occur red when the chi ld sa id "more bubbles! " after the exper imenter pul led the bubble container back out of the toy bag . In this situation, it w a s unclear whether the chi ld 's exc lamat ion related to the activity 'more blowing bubb les ' or the object 'more bubb les in the air.' 46 Asser t i ve - Identify / Labe l For the current report, the c o d e 'identify / label ' sub-category of asser t ions fo l lowed the definition of K l incans (1991): (this category includes) listing (e.g., naming toys a s they are be ing put away) and count ing (e.g., count ing all of the like objects on a page in a picture book) . It differs from (describe) only in that the (identify / label) act cons is ts of s e q u e n c e s or se r ies of like objects ( including numbers , days of the week, etc.) that are not l inked syntact ical ly. Ges tu r ing , such a s pointing at e a c h instance of an i tem, may a c c o m p a n y the utterance act. Th is act may be el ici ted by adul ts, or by certain activit ies. It may be el icited by another speaker ' s uttering "What ' s that?" or s o m e variat ion thereof. It often a c c o m p a n i e s rout inized activit ies like book- read ing or c lean-up time without instigation by an adult. If this activity is el ici ted by an adult Hearer , the chi ld may look at the adult after e a c h utterance for conf irmation or approva l . . . In order to be an instance of communica t ive identi f icat ion/ label ing, the utterance must occur within a potentially interactive context, i.e., the chi ld must be in proximity to the Hearer , and must not be e n g a g e d in non-interact ive play. (K l incans 1991 , p. 43) Three third-level ca tegor ies were a lso c reated to permit further speci f icat ion: activity or event, object and state of affairs. T h e definit ions for these third-level ca tegor ies were simi lar to the above definit ions ( 'assert ive - descr ibe ' ) , but differed accord ing to the quality of the communica t ive ac ts (i.e., identify / label , rather than descr ibe) . A n examp le of an 'assert ive - identify / label - activity or event ' occur red when a parent a s k e d "what 'cha do ing?" dur ing the time the chi ld w a s playing with the wha le . In response , the chi ld repl ied "swimming. " Th is w a s cons ide red to be subtly different f rom an 'asser t ive -descr ibe - activity or event. ' A communica t ive act w a s c o d e d a s 'asser t ive - desc r ibe - activity or event ' when a more comple te descr ipt ion w a s g iven by the chi ld for the event (e.g., "wha le 's swimming") . A communica t ive act w a s c o d e d a s 'assert ive - identify / label - activity or event ' when the chi ld gave a truncated label for his or her act ions (e.g., "swimming") . A n examp le of an 'assert ive - identify / label - object ' occur red when a chi ld sa id "book" a s the book w a s p laced on the table. A n 'assert ive - identify / label - state of affairs' occur red when a parent a s k e d "how's your d iaper?" and the chi ld repl ied "wet." Another examp le of this type occur red when a chi ld d ropped a toy on the floor and sa id "uh oh. " „ A s above , if it w a s c lear that an utterance/act ion w a s an 'asser t ive - identify / labe l " but w a s unc lear whether it w a s an 'activity or event, ' 'object ' or 'state of affairs,' the coder des igna ted the utterance/act ion a s 'assert ive - identify / label - ambiguous . ' A n examp le of this 47 occur red when a chi ld sa id "bubbles! " after the exper imenter pul led the bubble conta iner out of the toy b a g . In this si tuat ion, it w a s unc lear whether the chi ld w a s exc la iming about the activity 'blowing b u b b l e s ' o r the ob jec t ' bubb le jar.' Asser t i ve - A g r e e with another 's asser t ion K l incans (1991) desc r ibed this form of Asser t i ve a s " a chi ld asser ts that a prev ious utterance is true; this inc ludes providing confirmation of one 's own asser t ions , and aff irmations of other 's asser t ions . . . the chi ld may use explicit, mood less forms of ag reement s u c h a s yes, yeah and mhm, or exp ress agreement/conf i rmat ion through partial or comple te repetit ions, mit igated repetit ions, and/or paraphrase . " (pp. 43-44) Th is category w a s further spec i f ied into ' a g r e e ' a n d ' d i s a g r e e ' i n the current cod ing sys tem. A n examp le of this type of s p e e c h act occur red when , dur ing the book activity, the exper imenter labe led an item in the book, and the chi ld sa id " yeah" or repeated the label . A hypothet ical examp le of this type cou ld have occur red if a parent a s k e d "this is fun, isn't it?" and the chi ld responded "yep." Asser t i ve - A m b i g u o u s Th is category indicated communica t ive ac ts in wh ich it w a s unc lear whether the utterance/act ion funct ioned to 'descr ibe ' or ' identify/ label ' . Th is w a s u s e d in addit ion to 'assert ive - descr ibe - amb iguous ' and 'assert ive - identify/label - amb iguous . ' 2.5.7.2 Direct ives Sea r l e and Vande rveken desc r ibed direct ives a s s p e e c h acts commit ted by the S p e a k e r with the purpose of getting the Heare r to D O someth ing . In this form of i l locutionary act, the speake r wants / w i shes / des i res someth ing to be the c a s e (the sincer i ty condit ion) and the direction of fit is world-to-words. Ques t i ons are inc luded in this i l locutionary point; they are a request to S A Y , a s a subcategory of request to do. K l incans (1991) desc r ibed s e v e n sub types of requests in which the S p e a k e r at tempted to get the Hearer to do someth ing : give information, give an object, give permiss ion , g ive attention, part icipate in a family routine, be alert and stop doing someth ing (p. 46). K l incans (1991) desc r i bes direct ives a s : the chi ld wants the Hearer to 'do ' A . T h e chi ld 's ut terance may include gesture and/or reach ing. A c lear indication that an utterance w a s intended a s a request behaviour is that the chi ld waits for a response , either verbal or behav ioura l , f rom the Hearer , and is l ikely to repeat the request if the Heare r d o e s not respond a s 48 des i red . If the intended per locut ionary effect is ach ieved , the chi ld may be sat isf ied by (the) Hearer 's response and c e a s e ' request ing ' K l incans 1991, p. 46) K l incans ' sub types and definit ions form the bas is for the four ca tegor ies used here: attention, information, act ion and permiss ion . ' B e alert' w a s not inc luded in the present taxonomy b e c a u s e this w a s v iewed a s the S p e a k e r attempting to get the Hearer to give attention or act ion. 'S top doing someth ing ' w a s a lso not inc luded in the present taxonomy b e c a u s e this w a s v iewed a s the S p e a k e r giving the Hearer a request for act ion, even though the des i red response w a s a cessa t ion of activity. Direct ive - Attention For the category 'directive-attention,' the K l incans (1991) definit ion w a s adop ted . K l incans desc r ibed a directive for attention as : ...the chi ld address( ing) a proximal or nonprox imal Heare r with the intention of getting the Hearer to pay attention or part icipate in interact ion.. . T h e chi ld be l ieves the Hearer is not attending or nearby, but that he is capab le of hear ing and fulfilling the request. T h e chi ld may use the Hearer ' s name to elicit attention. T h e utterance may have inc reased loudness and sy l labic lengthening. T h e chi ld waits for a response from the Hearer (Dun lea 1989: 125). l l locutionary uptake may be indicated by the Hearer ' s verbal or behaviora l acknow ledgement of the chi ld 's request; the Hearer may move c loser to the chi ld or s ignal physical ly that he is nearby and attending. If the Hearer d o e s not at tend, the chi ld is l ikely to cont inue to request attention. (K l incans 1991, p. 49) A n examp le of a 'directive - attention' occur red when a chi ld u s e d a famil iar name for their parent ("Mom"), or when they pointed and g a z e d at an object whi le voca l iz ing (e.g., chi ld pointed to a picture, sa id "uh! uh!" and looked at the parent). T h e category 'directive - attention' w a s not further spec i f ied in the current cod ing s c h e m e . Direct ive - Information T h e ' information' sub-category of direct ives w a s def ined a s fol lows in K l i ncans (1991) and fo l lowed here: the chi ld attempts to get the Hearer to s a y X . . . the chi ld is s incere in a request for information only when he d o e s not know, or has forgotten, the answer to the quest ion he a s k s . Of ten, communica t ive ac ts that appear to be requests for information (by virtue of syntax, and semant ic and proposi t ional content) are actual ly indirect requests for attention or at tempts to maintain one ' s turn in a 49 conversat iona l si tuat ion. It is important, then, to d ist inguish between real quest ions , in which the chi ld honest ly s e e k s the information requested, and ' impos to r 'ques t ions , which look like the real thing but se rve s o m e function other than to request informat ion.. . T h e chi ld indicates sinceri ty by acknowledg ing or comment ing on the Hearer ' s response , or by persist ing if the des i red per locut ionary effect is not ach ieved . (K l incans 1991 , p. 51) Three sub-ca tegor ies of 'directive - information' i l locutionary ac ts were a lso def ined in this study: 'directive - information' ac ts that request new information, known information, and clari f icat ion. 'Direct ive - information - new' w a s the code for communica t ive ac ts during which the chi ld requested information that w a s unknown previously. A n examp le of this type of act occur red when a chi ld sa id "what 's that?" after the wha le w a s first int roduced. Another examp le of this type occur red when a chi ld looked at his parent whi le do ing the 'hands-up ' gesture. T h e parent interpreted this gesture/eye g a z e to m e a n ' w h a t ' s next? ' 'Direct ive - information - known ' indicated communica t ive acts in which the chi ld requested information that w a s a l ready known. A n examp le of this type of act occur red when a chi ld pointed and verba l ized "what 's that?" immediate ly after his parent had labeled the s a m e object of interest in the book. Th is type of act w a s a l so indicated when a chi ld repeatedly pointed to the s a m e object in the book, even though the exper imenter had previously n a m e d that object. 'Direct ive - information - clar i f icat ion' w a s u s e d to def ine communica t ive ac ts in which the chi ld requested further information on a topic that w a s d i s c u s s e d previously. A n examp le of this type of utterance w a s if the chi ld sa id "little bubb le?" after popping a smal l bubble. In this si tuat ion, it appea red a s though the chi ld knew the object w a s a bubble, but wanted to clarify its s i ze . Th is type of act w a s a lso indicated when a chi ld pointed to a ball in the picture book (the parent labeled it 'ball '), then the chi ld pointed to another ball picture and g a z e d at the parent (the parent aga in labeled it 'ball '), then the chi ld pointed to a third ball picture and g a z e d at the parent. In this example , the parent interpreted the chi ld 's ges tures a s ask ing whether all three pictures were bal ls. If it w a s c lear that an utterance/act ion w a s a 'directive - information, ' but w a s unc lear whether it w a s for new information, known information or clari f ication, the communica t ive act w a s des igna ted 'directive - information - amb iguous . ' D i r e c t i v e - Act ion K l incans (1991) def ined a sub-ca tegory of direct ives a s : 50 the chi ld attempts to get the Hearer to provide an object . . . he be l ieves he c a n and shou ld have (the object), and that the Hearer c a n give it to, or get it for, h im. . . T h e chi ld 's utterance may take the form of a s ingle word or longer utterance, naming or indicating the des i red object, and may be a c c o m p a n i e d by reaching or point ing. Genera l l y the chi ld waits for the des i red response , and may persist in request ing if it is not obta ined. Explicit markers of this request are 'give me ' and 'I want. ' (K l incans 1991 , p. 48) For the pu rposes of the current report, 'directive - act ion ' w a s def ined differently from Kl incans" (1991) category 'directive - act ion ' in that the current taxonomy inc luded direct ives for act ion sub-ca tegor ized by giv ing, show ing , performing and taking. 'Direct ive - act ion - g ive ' w a s used to code communicat ive acts in a simi lar way to the way in which K l incans (1991) def ined 'directive - act ion ' (i.e., the chi ld at tempts to get the Hearer to provide him/her with an object). A n examp le of this type of utterance occur red when a chi ld voca l i zed "uh! uh!" whi le she pointed to and reached for the puppet on the table. Another examp le of this type occur red when the exper imenter sa id " Y o u want more toys? " and the chi ld nodded aff irmation. 'Direct ive - act ion - show ' indicated communica t ive acts in wh ich the chi ld at tempted to get the Hearer to s h o w him or her an object without attempting to appropr iate the object. A n examp le of this type of communicat ive act occur red when a chi ld pul led on the parent 's a rm to bring the wha le puppet c loser to himself or herself s o s /he cou ld s e e it. A s e c o n d examp le of this type occur red when a parent a s k e d "do you want to s e e it?" when the wha le w a s p laced on the table. T h e chi ld shook their h e a d to indicate 'no' and the parent a s interpreted this a s the chi ld not want ing to s e e it. 'Direct ive - act ion - perform' w a s used to identify communica t ive acts in which the chi ld at tempted to have the Hearer perform an act ion. A n examp le of this type of utterance w a s when a chi ld sa id "more!" after the bubb les had been c a p p e d and p laced on the table. In this si tuat ion, it w a s obv ious that the chi ld wanted the adult to make more bubb les . A non-verbal examp le of this type of communicat ive act occur red when a chi ld asser t ive ly handed the bubble w a n d to the exper imenter while gaz ing between the bubble jar and the exper imenter . Th is gesture w a s interpreted to m e a n 'perform the act ion of blowing more bubb les . ' 'Direct ive - act ion - take' indicated communicat ive ac ts in wh ich the chi ld at tempted to get the Hearer to take an object. A n examp le of this communica t ive act occur red when a chi ld handed the book to the exper imenter and sa id "no want." Here , it w a s c lear the chi ld wanted the exper imenter to take the book. Another examp le of this type of communica t ive act occur red when a chi ld pul led the wha le puppet off the exper imenter 's hand and firmly p laced it on the 51 table in front of the exper imenter . Th is w a s interpreted a s the chi ld want ing the exper imenter to stop the activity and take the wha le away . If it w a s c lear that a communicat ive act indicated 'directive - act ion, ' but it w a s unc lear whether the act indicated give, show, perform or take, or if the communica t ive act indicated more than one of g ive, show, perform or take, the act w a s des igna ted 'directive - act ion -amb iguous . ' A n examp le of this occur red when a chi ld sa id "bubbles! " a s the exper imenter tried to put down the bubble jar after blowing a few bubb les . Th is exc lamat ion cou ld have been interpreted in many ways , including a s a 'directive - act ion - g ive ' (i.e., 'give me more objects that are bubbles ' ) , and a 'directive - act ion - perform' (i.e., 'do the act of b lowing more bubbles ' ) . It w a s a s s i g n e d to the communicat ive category 'directive - act ion - amb iguous ' (and the ca tego ry 'asse r t i ve - identify/label - ambiguous ' ) . Direct ive - Pe rm iss ion A s in K l incans (1991), a category 'd i rect ive-permission' w a s inc luded and fo l lowed the K l incans (1991) definit ion. K l incans (1991) def ined direct ives for permiss ion a s the chi ld want ing to perform A , but bel ieving s /he cannot until s /he obtains permiss ion to do so . K l incans (1991) a d d s a caut ion: A problemat ic examp le of [attempting to get the Hearer to give permiss ion for the S p e a k e r to do an act, A] is [when children] ask each other 's permiss ion by tagging " kay? " or "okay? " to indirect direct ive ut terances, e .g. , [child G ask ing chi ld B] "we cou ld build them now, kay (child) B ? " . , . [Chi ld G] d o e s not likely bel ieve that he requires his brother 's permiss ion in the context of col laborat ive play (if in any) , or that [child B] p o s s e s s e s a power of authority over h im. . . [When 'directive - permission' ] - resembl ing ut terances occur , the context and utterance must indicate genuine preparatory and sinceri ty condi t ions for the utterance to be cons ide red an act (in this category) . If not, markers like kay may serve a s d iscourse funct ions to s ignal complet ion of the S p e a k e r ' s turn, or - a s in the examp le above - may function to "soften" a directive to ga in comp l iance (K l incans 1991 , p. 49). T w o sub-ca tegor ies of 'directive - permiss ion ' i l locutionary ac ts were def ined for use in this study: those that required permiss ion to have and those that required permiss ion to do. 'Direct ive - permiss ion - to have ' indicated communica t ive ac ts in wh ich the chi ld requested permiss ion to gain a c c e s s to an object, s u c h a s a toy. A n examp le of this type of communica t i ve act occur red when a chi ld sa id "want that" and looked at the bubble wand while the exper imenter w a s blowing bubb les . Another examp le occur red when a chi ld looked at the exper imenter with ra ised eyebrows after the exper imenter p laced a toy within reach on the 52 table. In this si tuat ion, it appea red a s though the chi ld w a s looking for permiss ion to p lay with the toy. Direct ive - permiss ion - to do ' w a s used for communica t ive ac ts in wh ich the chi ld requested permiss ion to perform an act ion with a toy. A n examp le of thjs type of utterance w a s when a chi ld reached part way to the bubb les , then looked up at the exper imenter . In this si tuat ion, it s e e m e d that the chi ld w a s check ing that she or he w a s a l lowed to play with the toy. W h e n it w a s c lear that an utterance/act ion w a s a 'directive - permiss ion , ' but unc lear whether it w a s 'to have ' or 'to do, ' the ut terance/act ion w a s des igna ted 'directive - permiss ion -amb iguous . ' A n examp le of this occur red when a chi ld indicated the bubble w a n d and sa id , " C a n I try?" In this scenar io , it s e e m e d that the chi ld wanted to have the w a n d to do the act of b lowing the bubb les . Directive - A m b i g u o u s A communica t ive act cou ld a lso be des ignated 'directive - amb iguous ' . Th is category indicated an act that funct ioned a s a directive in that it tried to get the Hearer to do someth ing , but w a s used when it w a s unclear whether the S p e a k e r w a s trying to get the Hearer to g ive attention, information, act ion or permiss ion . Th is frequently occur red during the book reading activity when a chi ld pointed to a picture, looked at the parent or exper imenter and uttered "uh! " In this si tuat ion, it w a s unclear whether the chi ld w a s request ing the adul ts to attend to the picture or supply information about the picture. A n attempt w a s made to speci fy which of the four sub-ca tegor ies of direct ives w a s involved in each instance of ambiguity. For examp le , ambigui t ies between request ing attention and request ing information were ca tegor ized separate ly f rom ambigui t ies between request ing attention and request ing act ion. 2 .5.7.3 C o m m i s s i v e s Sear le and Vande rveken descr ibe commiss i ves a s s p e e c h acts commit ted by the S p e a k e r with the purpose of committ ing him/herself to s o m e future cou rse of act ion. In this form of i l locutionary act, the speake r is intending for someth ing to be the c a s e (the sinceri ty condit ion) and the direction of fit is world-to-words. K l incans (1991) presents the difficulty that has been previously encountered in s u b -categor iz ing commiss i ve s p e e c h acts : O n e problem encountered in dev is ing the [Kl incans] taxonomy is the apparent inequali ty of posit ive and negat ive commiss i ve ac ts (negative in the s e n s e that the future act ion to which the S p e a k e r commi ts has negat ive c o n s e q u e n c e s for either the S p e a k e r or the Hearer ; posit ive acts denote des i rab le c o n s e q u e n c e s ) . . . T h e point of a commiss i ve act is to commi t the S p e a k e r to a 53 future act ion, commitment implying obl igat ion to perform the stated act ion. However , whi le Sear le and Vande rveken include the act of threatening in the commiss i ve c l ass , they add that one of the di f ferences between threatening (negative) and promis ing (a posit ive commiss ive ) is the a b s e n c e of obl igation to carry out a threat, whe reas the S p e a k e r is bound to fulfill a p romise , p ledge, or vow (1985: 193). T o s a y that a commiss i ve act d o e s not entail obl igat ion, however , den ies , by definit ion, its identity a s a member of the commiss i ve ca tegory . . . (K l incans 1991, p. 60). In addi t ion, K l incans states: Current theory recogn izes the psycho log ica l state of a commiss i ve a s that of intention, but the present condit ion doesn ' t permit a sat isfactory dist inction between an asser t ive statement about a future sel f-act ion (e.g., I'm going sw imming tomorrow) and a commiss i ve statement of intention, posit ive or negat ive. For the pu rposes of (the K l incans study), it is a s s u m e d that the definit ion of condi t ions govern ing the commiss i ve c l a s s is in need Of rev is ion, pe rhaps to include a spec i f ied min imum degree of obl igat ion that must be present in order to judge an il locution a s commiss i ve (K l incans 1991 , p. 60). Therefore, in the present study, commiss i ve s p e e c h acts were strictly def ined a s those ac ts that commit the S p e a k e r to a future course of act ion, s imi lar to the way in wh ich direct ives attempt to commi t the Hearer to a future act ion. Th is reso lved the difficulty in d ist inguishing be tween commiss i ve and asser t ive s p e e c h acts in that asser t i ves were cons ide red to give s tatements of the S p e a k e r ' s belief about current or ongoing states or si tuat ions (without altering future states of 'doing'), whi le commiss i ve s p e e c h acts were cons ide red to affect future states of 'do ing ' . A s s u c h , in this study, the seconda ry and tertiary levels of commiss i ve s p e e c h acts were def ined in a simi lar way to those def ined for directive s p e e c h ac ts (see 2.4.7.2). Three s e c o n d -level categor ies were def ined: attention, information and act ion, p lus the option to c o d e an utterance/act ion a s amb iguous if it cou ld not be exp la ined by one of these categor ies . C o m m i s s i v e - Attention ' C o m m i s s i v e - attention' w a s u s e d to indicate a communica t ive act in which a chi ld commun ica ted the intention to give attention to someth ing at a future point in t ime. A n examp le of this type of act would be if a chi ld sa id , "I'll look in a moment, " in response to a bid for his or her attention. Th is category w a s not a s s i g n e d further levels of dist inct ion. 54 C o m m i s s i v e - Information ' C o m m i s s i v e - information' w a s sub-ca tegor ized into 'new, ' ' known, ' 'clari f ication, ' and 'ambiguous, ' fol lowing the definit ions given for 'directive - information, ' but altering the 'do-er ' from the Hearer to the Speake r . ' C o m m i s s i v e - information - new' indicated a communica t ive act in which a chi ld commun ica ted that he or s h e would tell unknown information to the Hearer at s o m e future point. A n examp le of this type of act wou ld be if a chi ld sa id to his or her communica t ion partner: "I'll tell you in a minute." ' C o m m i s s i v e - information - known ' w a s used for communica t ive ac ts in wh ich a chi ld commun ica ted that he or she would tell known information to the Hearer at s o m e future point. A n examp le of this type of act would be if a chi ld sa id to his or her communica t ion partner: "I'll tell you aga in in a minute." ' C o m m i s s i v e - information - clari f ication' indicated a communica t ive act in which a chi ld commun ica ted that he or she would clarify information to the Hearer at s o m e future point. A n examp le of this type of act would be if a chi ld indicated to his or her communica t ion partner: "I'll re-explai i i that in a way that it will be eas ier to unders tand in a minute." W h e n it w a s c lear that an utterance/act ion w a s a ' commiss ive - information, ' but unc lear whether it w a s for new or known information or for clari f icat ion, the communica t ive act w a s c lass i f ied a s ' commiss ive - information - amb iguous . ' C o m m i s s i v e - Act ion ' C o m m i s s i v e - ac t ion ' w a s sub-ca tegor ized into 'give, ' ' show, ' 'perform' and 'ambiguous , ' fol lowing the definit ions g iven for 'directive - act ion, ' but, aga in , altering the 'do-er ' from the Hearer to the Speake r . ' C o m m i s s i v e - act ion - g ive ' indicated a communica t ive act in wh ich the chi ld commit ted him/herself to giving an object at s o m e point in the future. A n examp le of this type of act wou ld be if a chi ld sa id to his or her communica t ion partner: "I'll g ive it to you in a minute." ' C o m m i s s i v e - act ion — show ' w a s u s e d for communica t ive ac ts in which the chi ld commit ted him/herself to showing an object at s o m e point in the future. A n examp le of this type of act would be if a chi ld sa id to his or her communica t ion partner: "I'll show it to you in a minute." ' C o m m i s s i v e - act ion - perform' indicated a communica t ive act in wh ich the chi ld commit ted him/herself to performing an act ion at s o m e point in the future. A n examp le of this type of act would be if a chi ld sa id to his or her communica t ion partner: "I'll make the wha le swim in a minute." 55 If it w a s c lear that an utterance/act ion w a s a ' commiss ive - act ion, ' but w a s unc lear whether it w a s to give, show or perform, the ut terance/act ion w a s des igna ted ' commiss ive -act ion - ambiguous . ' C o m m i s s i v e - Perm iss ion T w o sub-ca tegor ies of ' commiss ive - permiss ion ' i l locutionary ac ts were def ined for use in this study: those that required permiss ion to have and those that required permiss ion to do , aga in , altering t h e ' d o - e r ' f r o m the Hearer to the Speake r . ' C o m m i s s i v e - permiss ion - to have ' indicated a communicat ive act in which the chi ld commit ted him/herself to giving permiss ion to have at s o m e point in the future. A n examp le of this type of act would be if a chi ld sa id to his or her communica t ion partner: "I'll let you have that in a minute." ' C o m m i s s i v e - permiss ion - to do indicates a communica t ive act in which the chi ld commit ted him/herself to giving permiss ion to perform an act ion at s o m e point in the future. A n examp le of this type of act would be if a chi ld sa id to his or her communica t ion partner: "I'll let you play with the book in a minute." W h e n it w a s c lear that an utterance/act ion w a s a ' commiss ive - permiss ion, ' but unc lear whether it w a s 'to have ' or 'to do, ' the ut terance/act ion w a s des igna ted ' commiss ive -p e r m i s s i o n - a m b i g u o u s . ' C o m m i s s i v e - Amb iguous In addit ion to ' commiss ive - attention,' ' commiss ive - information, ' ' commiss ive - act ion, ' and ' commiss ive - permiss ion , ' a communica t ive act cou ld be des ignated ' commiss ive -amb iguous . ' Th is category w a s u s e d when it w a s c lear the act funct ioned a s a commiss i ve in that the S p e a k e r commit ted to do someth ing , but it w a s unc lear whether s/he commit ted to give attention, information, act ion or permiss ion . A l though 'promise/ threaten' and 'agree to do/refuse to do ' are frequently used a s sub -categor ies of commiss i ves , they were not inc luded in the present taxonomy, b e c a u s e it w a s felt that these cou ld be accoun ted for within the categor ies above . That is, if a chi ld p romised to c lean up the toys, or, commit ted to c lean ing up the toys a s a future course of act ion (i.e., ' commiss i ve - act ion - perform'), these were s e e n a s funct ional equiva lents. 2.5.7.4 Exp ress i ves Sea r l e and Vande rveken desc r ibed exp ress i ves a s s p e e c h ac ts commit ted by the S p e a k e r with the purpose of express ing psycho log ica l state. In this form of i l locutionary act, the 56 s p e a k e r wants / w ishes / des i res someth ing to be the c a s e (the sinceri ty condit ion) and the direct ion of fit is null . T w o sub-ca tegor ies of express ive i l locutionary ac ts were def ined for use in this study: 'mark soc ia l interaction' and 'express persona l attitude / affective state. ' Exp ress i ve - Mark Soc ia l Interaction 'Mark soc ia l interaction' w a s def ined in K l incans (1991) a s fo l lows and adopted in the current study. S h e states: T h e chi ld attempts to exp ress personal attitude toward a state of affairs us ing a socia l ly accep tab le , convent ional fo rm. . . . T h e acts of greet ing, apo log iz ing , thanking, congratulat ing, say ing goodbye , excus ing onesel f , etc., all exp ress persona l attitude about a change in the state of affairs of either the S p e a k e r or Hearer . T h e preparatory condit ion requires that the chi ld be react ing to true proposi t ional content, and the sinceri ty condit ion is that (s/)he has the feel ing e x p r e s s e d in the act. Proposi t ional content condi t ions are general ly const ra ined to the types of soc ia l exp ress ions above ; however , these may take id iosyncrat ic (child language) fo rms. . . such a s " T a " for thank you. T h e chi ld typical ly utters a convent iona l ized express ive form, such a s Hi, Goodbye, Thanks, Sorry, Excuse me, etc. W h e n appropr iate, the utterance may be a c c o m p a n i e d by gesture (e.g., waving) . T h e context involves a c h a n g e in the state of affairs appropr iate to the express ion u s e d , e.g. , hello upon arr iving, or another 's arr iva l . . . (K l incans 1991 , p. 66) A n examp le of an 'express ive - mark soc ia l interaction' occur red in the current study when a chi ld sa id "H i " and waved , when greet ing one of the exper imenters . Another communica t ive act in this category occur red when a chi ld communicat ive ly sa id "Thank yoU" upon receiv ing one of the toys from the exper imenter . Th is category w a s not further spec i f ied . Exp ress i ve - E x p r e s s Pe rsona l Att i tude/ Affect ive State K l incans (1991) a lso presents a descr ipt ion of ' express persona l attitude / affective state' , adopted for the current study and descr ibed a s fol lows: T h e chi ld utters word(s) to exp ress attitude / affective state, either directly (e.g., I'm mad at you! or That makes me sad), or indirectly, us ing mood less ut terances and suprasegmenta l features s u c h a s emphat ic s t ress and intonation (e.g., oh no! uttered with an exaggera ted intonation and inc reased loudness) . . . T h e chi ld must have the psycho log ica l state which is e x p r e s s e d a s part of the sinceri ty condit ion of the utterance for it to be a s incere act. Const ra in ts on proposi t ional content are that the utterance exp ress an emot ive state or attitude about the proposi t ional content, P , but not about other internal states s u c h a s hunger and fat igue (which would be c lass i f ied a s asser t ive) , and that it exp ress attitude toward P without stating P . . . the proposit ion may be stated in comp lex i l locutionary ac ts (i.e., ut terances conta in ing more than one i l locution).. . Fac ia l express ion may be helpful in determining the p resence of true express ive i l locutionary force. (K l incans 1991, p. 66) For the current study, an examp le of an 'express ive - persona l attitude / affective state' occur red when a chi ld sa id "no like" whi le pointing to the wha le . Another examp le occur red when a chi ld f rowned and turned away or cr ied whi le interacting with a toy. Th is category w a s not further spec i f ied . Exp ress i ve - A m b i g u o u s In addit ion to 'express ive - mark soc ia l interaction' and 'express ive - persona l attitude / affective state, ' the coder cou ld des ignate an ut terance/act ion a s 'express ive - amb iguous . ' Th is category w a s used when it w a s c lear an utterance/act ion funct ioned a s an express ive , but it w a s unc lear wh ich type. Th is occur red when a chi ld w a s voca l iz ing while p laying with the wha le . In this si tuat ion, it w a s not poss ib le to determine whether the chi ld w a s happy about playing with the whale or whether the chi ld w a s greeting the toy. 2.5.7.5 Dec larat ives Sea r l e and Vande rveken descr ibed dec larat ives a s s p e e c h ac ts commit ted by the S p e a k e r with the purpose of bringing about a c h a n g e in the future state of affairs. In this form of i l locutionary act, the speake r m a k e s someth ing true by stat ing it (declar ing it) (the sinceri ty condit ion) and the direction of fit is both words- to-wor lds and world-to-words. K l incans adds to this definition by say ing "the chi ld (needs to) be in a posit ion where he has the requisite type of authority to effect a c h a n g e in the state of affairs; for ch i ldren, this authority is usual ly der ived in play si tuat ions, or in interact ions with peers or s ib l ings" (K l incans 1991 , p. 54). Th ree sub-categor ies of declarat ive i l locutionary ac ts were def ined for use in this study, including declarat ions to do with soc ia l interact ion, g a m e s , and ownersh ip . Declarat ive - Soc ia l Interaction T h e definition for 'Declarat ive - soc ia l interact ion' w a s adopted from K l incans a s indicating communica t ive acts that enac ted a new soc ia l reality a s a result of their 58 pronouncement (1991, p. 56). E x a m p l e s of dec larat ions given by K l incans (1991, p. 56) inc luded the chi ld declar ing "we're partners this t ime" or "you're the leader." Declarat ive - G a m e s For the current study, 'Declarat ive - g a m e s ' indicated communica t ive ac ts in which the chi ld at tempted to direct play or detai ls of play by mak ing a declarat ion a s in K l i ncans (1991, p. 55). Success fu l ach ievement of a 'declarat ive - g a m e s ' s p e e c h act resul ted in a c h a n g e in the way a g a m e w a s p layed. A n examp le of a communica t ive act from this category would have been if a chi ld sa id "ok, now you make the whale swim over here," while p lay ing with the whale puppet. Declarat ive - Ownersh ip 'Declarat ive - ownersh ip ' indicated communicat ive ac ts in which the chi ld at tempted to gain ownersh ip of an item by declar ing the item be longed to him or her. A n examp le of a 'declarat ive - ownersh ip ' occur red in the book activity when a chi ld refused to g ive the book back to the exper imenter and dec la red "Mine! , " in order to maintain control over the item. Declarat ive - A m b i g u o u s In addit ion to 'declarat ive - soc ia l interaction,' 'declarat ive - game, ' and 'declarat ive -ownersh ip , ' the coder could des ignate an utterance/act ion a s 'declarat ive - amb iguous , ' Th is category w a s used when it w a s c lear an utterance/act ion funct ioned a s a declarat ive, but it w a s unclear which type. 2.5.7.6 Mult iple C o d e s E a c h communica t ive act w a s c lass i f ied into one or more of the above ca tegor ies , accord ing to the coder ' s interpretation of the chi ld 's intent in communica t ing . 2.5.7.7 A m b i g u o u s In addit ion to the possibi l i ty of cod ing a communica t ive act a s amb iguous within e a c h of the s p e e c h act ca tegor ies , a communica t ive act w a s c o d e d 'amb iguous ' in the higher- level category if it w a s unclear which of two or more i l locutionary fo rces w a s most appropr iate. Th is is consis tent with the work of K l incans (1991) who used this category when the verbal and non-verbal contexts of a situation did not permit resolut ion be tween poss ib le i l locutionary points. A n attempt w a s m a d e to code which of the five i l locutionary points w a s involved in e a c h instance of ambiguity; that is, ambigui t ies between direct ives and asser t ives were ca tegor ized separate ly f rom ambigui t ies between asser t i ves and exp ress i ves . 59 A n examp le of ambiguity at this level of the taxonomy occur red when a chi ld c l o s e d the book, the exper imenter re-opened it and the chi ld shut it aga in . T h e s e c o n d c los ing of the book w a s c o d e d 'amb iguous - d i r /ass/expr, ' b e c a u s e this communica t ive act might have commun ica ted any of the fol lowing intents: 'Stop showing me the book' (directive - act ion s h o w (negative)), T m done ' (assert ive - descr ibe - state of affairs), or 'I don't like this anymore ' (express ive - persona l attitude/affective state). B e c a u s e it w a s not c lear that all three i l locutionary points were relevant to descr ibe the communica t ive act and that no one of the three possibi l i t ies clear ly desc r ibed the communica t ive act, it w a s g iven the code 'amb iguous -d i r /ass/expr . ' Another examp le of this type occur red when a chjld stated "no" a s the exper imenter w a s showing a chi ld the wha le . Th is utterance cou ld be c lass i f ied a s any or all of direct ive, asser t ive , or express ive , s o w a s c lass i f ied a s 'amb iguous - d i r /ass/expr . Ch i ld ren 's ut terances/act ions were a s s i g n e d to two addit ional ca tegor ies c reated to handle greater levels of ambiguity. T h e first of these, 'unl ikely to be communica t ive , ' w a s u s e d when it s e e m e d the chi ld w a s not intentionally commun ica t ing . T h e s e c o n d category, 'unknown, ' w a s used when it appea red a s though an utterance/act ion se rved a communica t ive purpose , but it w a s not poss ib le to determine what the purpose may have been . 2.5.7.8 Uncodab le Fol lowing K l incans (1991), communica t ive acts were ca tegor ized a s 'uncodab le ' if the utterance or key port ions of the utterance were unintell igible, if it w a s unclear whether an utterance/act ion w a s by the chi ld or another speake r or if the chi ld w a s out of v iew of the v ideo c a m e r a . 2.5.8 Coding System Modifications Through the p r o c e s s e s of determining inter-rater and intra-rater reliability, it b e c a m e apparent that s o m e of the categor ies or levels of dist inction out l ined in Chap te r 1 were unreal ist ic or imposs ib le to use with chi ldren of the a g e s p a n examined in this study. Speci f ica l ly , the p roposed sub-ca tegor ies (new, known, clarify) under direct ive-information were removed from the cod ing sys tem. Th is w a s dec ided b e c a u s e it w a s not poss ib le for a coder unfamil iar with e a c h individual chi ld to judge what type of information request (new, known, clarify) the chi ld had made . It w a s a lso dec ided the default sub-category of asser t i ves in this study would be identify/label b e c a u s e s o many chi ldren lacked the verbal ski l ls n e c e s s a r y to differentiate an assert ive- ident i fy/ label from an asser t i ve-descr ibe s p e e c h act. Acco rd ing to the initial exper imenta l protocols, eye g a z e w a s recorded on the cod ing da ta shee ts when it se rved a communicat ive funct ion. Th ree sub-categor ies of eye g a z e were u s e d : s ing le , dyad ic and triadic. S ing le eye g a z e w a s def ined a s an instance of communica t ive 60 eye g a z e in which the chi ld f ocused on only one of the parent or the exper imenter or a toy, but not a combinat ion of these. Dyad ic eye g a z e w a s def ined a s an instance of communica t ive eye g a z e in wh ich the chi ld f ocused on two of the parent, the exper imenter or the toy, in s u c c e s s i o n . Tr iadic eye g a z e w a s def ined a s an instance of communica t ive eye g a z e where the chi ld f ocused on two or three of the parent, the exper imenter or the toy, with a g a z e shift occurr ing twice (e.g., the chi ld looked at the parent, shifted g a z e to the toy, shif ted g a z e back to the parent). J u d g m e n t s were conservat ive ly m a d e when ass ign ing communica t ive intent to eye g a z e and in ass ign ing ins tances of eye g a z e to the dyad ic and triadic categor ies . A n instance of eye g a z e that w a s cons ide red communica t ive occur red when the bubb les were p laced on the table after the exper imenter had blown s o m e . In this instance, the chi ld looked at the parent, back to the bubb les , and then back to the parent. T h e eye g a z e w a s c o d e d triadic. Instances where the chi ld appea red to be ' check ing ' whether the adult w a s attending were a lso cons ide red communicat ive (similar in intent a s if the chi ld w a s able to s a y 'hey, are you looking?' ) . Instances where the chi ld w a s looking at the adult only b e c a u s e s h e or he w a s communica t ing with the adult were not cons ide red communica t ive . Unfortunately, very low levels of inter-rater reliability (/c=0.34 to k=0.6A) were ach ieved when cod ing g a z e b e c a u s e it w a s difficult to be certain where the chi ld w a s actual ly looking (e.g., at the bubb les the exper imenter w a s holding, or at the exper imenter 's face) . T o ach ieve a greater degree of certainty, a s e c o n d c a m e r a would have been useful {as in Lichtert, 2003) . A s s u c h , eye g a z e w a s not inc luded in the final ana l yses . 2.6 Data Analysis 2.6.1 Overview Subject da ta were entered into Microsoft Exce l for Mac® Serv i ce R e l e a s e 1 (Microsoft Corpora t ion , 1985-2001) . Da ta were ana l yzed with S P S S 12.0 Gradua te Student Ve rs i on . I will briefly descr ibe the methodology for ana lys is here. 2.6.2 Effect of Age, Gender, and Task on Children's Communication T o determine whether a chi ld 's a g e corre lated with a c h a n g e in i l locutionary ac ts , number of communica t ive ut terances per minute, ratio of initiations to r esponses or mode of communica t ion , P e a r s o n Produc t -Moment Corre la t ions were conduc ted . T o determine whether i l locutionary point w a s affected by gender of the chi ld, or whether there w a s a main effect of task, repeated m e a s u r e s A N O V A s were conduc ted with s e x a s a between-sub jects factor and task a s the within-subjects factor. 61 2.6.3 Relationship between Conventional Assessment and Speech Act Data T o determine whether chi ldren's s tandard ized or cr i ter ion-referenced test s c o r e s corre lated with their s p e e c h act da ta , P e a r s o n Produc t -Moment Corre la t ions were conduc ted . 62 C H A P T E R 3 R E S U L T S 3.1 Overview T h e purpose of this study w a s to character ize the communica t ive ac ts of young chi ldren and to determine whether chi ldren with and without family history of language de lay cou ld be differentiated accord ing to the types of their interact ions. In this chapter , e a c h quest ion p o s e d at the end of Chap te r 1 will be answered in turn, starting with Ques t ion 1 in Sec t ion 3.2. Ques t ion 2 is answe red in Sec t ion 3.3. 3.2 Communicative Abilities Sect ion 3.2 will s p e a k to the topics o rgan ized a s Ques t ion 1 at the end of the Introductory Chap te r (Chapter 1). T h e s e quest ions inc luded: H o w do young chi ldren commun ica te? Wha t is the rate of communica t ion? D o chi ldren tend to respond to or initiate commun ica t ions? W h a t is the preferred mode of commun ica t ion? W h a t are the most f requent s p e e c h act t ypes? D o e s task affect s p e e c h ac ts p roduced? D o e s age or s e x affect ch i ldren 's communica t ive behaviour a s measu red by s p e e c h ac t s? 3.2.1 Utterance Communicative or Non-Communicative in Intent O n average , the chi ldren in this study p roduced 8.57 communica t ive ut terances per minute, a l though there w a s a great amount of variabil ity be tween chi ldren (Table 3.1). Th is variabil ity w a s not due to the chi ldren's age (Table 3.2). M a n y of the chi ldren's transcripts conta ined a smal l number of ut terances that were de termined, upon coding accord ing to the criteria in 2 .4 .2 .1 , to be non-communica t ive in intent. T h e m e a n number of non-communicat ive ut terances w a s slightly over 1.00 ut terances/minute in e a c h activity (Table 3.3). However , this measu re may not be accura te in compar ing ch i ldren 's communica t ive abil i t ies, b e c a u s e the goal of transcript ion w a s not to include ut terances that were unlikely to be communica t ive in intent. That is, a chi ld whose non-communica t ive ut terances were unambiguous ly not communica t ive may not have had a s many ins tances inc luded on the initial transcript that w a s subsequent ly u s e d a s the bas is for cod ing . A chi ld whose ut terances were more difficult to character ize a s clear ly communica t ive ve rsus non-6 3 communicat ive may have had more ins tances of ac ts inc luded on the transcript that needed to be exc luded at the cod ing s tage. T h e m e a n number of ut terances chi ldren gave during the three activit ies in the structured interaction s e s s i o n of interest to this study w a s 55.80. Ch i ld ren var ied be tween 17 and 108 ut terances, with a s tandard deviat ion of 23 .80 . 3.2.2 Focus of Attention In genera l , the toy that the exper imenter w a s showing or giving to the chi ld w a s the topic of the chi ld 's ut terances. Of the 34 chi ldren in this study, 21 chi ldren 's ut terances were 1 0 0 % about the exper imenter 's toys. A n addit ional f ive chi ldren mainta ined attention on the exper imenter 's toys during 9 5 % or more of their ut terances (Figure 3.1). T h e m e a n proport ion of on-topic ut terances w a s 9 4 . 5 0 % , with a s tandard deviat ion of 10.60. T h e min imum proport ion of on-topic ut terances w a s 5 4 . 2 0 % . T h e number of off-topic ut terances var ied f rom zero to 22 .0 , with 3.12 a s the m e a n and 6.42 a s the s tandard deviat ion. Neither attention to topic nor number of ut terances w a s related to chi ld age (Figure 3.2) 3.2.3 Utterance in Response to/ Utterance Initiated Chi ldren initiated communica t ive acts more frequently in the book activity (mean = 9.10) than in the whale or bubb les activit ies (mean = 3.63 and 3.15, respect ively) (Table 3.4). T h e number of initiations in the bubb les activity w a s posit ively corre lated with the number of initiations per minute in both the book (/f34) = .521, p = .002) and wha le (/{31) = .423, p = .018) activit ies, however the number of initiations per minute in the book activity w a s not correlated with the number of initiations per minute in the whale activity (r(31) = .315, p = .085). Ch i ld ren 's r esponses per minute to ac ts initiated by the context or another person were roughly equivalent a c r o s s activit ies (means = 2.10, 2 .61 , and 3.61 respect ively) (Table 3.4). T h e number of r esponses per minute w a s not corre lated between any of the activit ies, i.e., r esponses per minute in the book activity were not corre lated with responses per minute in the whale activity, etc. T h e greatest number of initiations per minute w a s 20 during the book activity (child 3); the max imum number of initiations per minute in both the wha le and bubb les activit ies w a s lower than that s e e n with the book, e.g. , only 8.48 initiations per minute with the wha le . Ch i ld ren 58, 39 , 87, 9, and 41 did not initiate at all in the wha le activity. T h e max imum number of r esponses per minute w a s , in contrast to the initiations, relatively consis tent ac ross activit ies, with 8.57 during the book, 6.92 during the wha le , a n d 10.08 during the bubble activit ies. 64 Figures 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5 s h o w the variabil ity in different chi ldren's initiations and responses per minute (the chi ldren are not ordered in any signif icant way a long the x-ax is) . If a chi ld did not initiate or respond during an activity, a gap is shown or bar is m iss ing . A g e w a s posit ively corre lated with number of initiations per minute in the wha le (r(31) = .383, p = .033) and bubb les (r(34) = .571 , p = .000) activit ies, and with the total number of initiations per minute ac ross activit ies (r(34) - .360, p = .036). A g e w a s not corre lated with number of initiations per minute in the book activity (r(34) = .302, p = .083), nor with r e s p o n s e s per minute in any activity (r(34) = - .007, p = .968) (Table 3.5). 3.2.4 Mode of Communication During the book activity, the predominant m o d e s of communica t ion were pointing (mean = 6.09), vocal izat ions (mean = 3.47); and verbal izat ions (mean = 5.95). However , chi ldren var ied greatly (Figure 3.6) (pointing s .d . = 5.27, vocal izat ions s . d . = 3.47, verbal izat ions s .d . = 5.95). Dur ing the whale activity, the predominant m o d e s of communica t ion were reaching (mean = 1.23), hold out/give (mean =1 .68) , vocal izat ions (mean = 2.71), and verbal izat ions (mean = 1.50). A s in the book activity, a great dea l of variat ion w a s s e e n a c r o s s individual chi ldren (Figure 3.7 and F igure 3.8) ( reaching s .d . = 1.37, hold out/give s .d . = 1.40, voca l iza t ions s .d . = 2 .51 , verbal izat ions s .d . = 2.39). Dur ing the bubb les activity, the predominant m o d e s of communica t ion were reaching (mean = 1.44), voca l iza t ions (mean = 2.43), and verbal izat ions (mean = 3.32). A s in the other two activit ies, individual chi ldren var ied greatly (Figure 3.9) ( reaching s .d . = 1.60, voca l iza t ions s .d . = 2 .26, verbal izat ions s .d . = 3.39). Tab le 3.6 s h o w s the m e a n , s tandard deviat ion, and max imum and min imum acts per minute for each communica t ive mode . No type of gesture corre lated with chi ld age (r(34) = .194, p = .271), nor did vocal izat ions correlate with chi ld a g e (r(34) = - .269, p = .125). Verba l iza t ions per minute were posit ively corre lated with chi ld a g e in months (r(34) = .487, p = .004) (Table 3.7). 3.2.5 lllocutionary Point 3.2.5.1 Asser t i ves Chi ld ren p roduced asser t ive s p e e c h acts on ave rage 2.62 t imes per minute (s.d. = 2.25). However , a great dea l of variat ion w a s s e e n ac ross chi ldren (Figure 3.10). T o determine whether chi ldren differed in their product ion of asser t i ves ac ross tasks , a repeated m e a s u r e s A N O V A w a s conduc ted with sex (male ve rsus female) a s the be tween 65 subjects factor and task (book ve rsus whale ve rsus bubbles) a s the within subjects factor. Asser t i ves were p roduced signif icantly more frequently with the book activity (F(2,60) = 24 .853 , p = .000) than with the whale or bubb les activit ies (Figure 3.11). Ch i ld ren p roduced a m e a n number of asser t i ves of 5 .43 t imes per minute with the book (s.d. = 4.80) ve rsus 0.74 and 0.92 t imes per minute with the whale and bubb les , respect ively (Table 3.8). G e n d e r w a s not a signif icant factor for number of asser t i ves produced (F(2,60) = .253, p = .777). 3.2.5.2 Direct ives Chi ld ren p roduced directive s p e e c h ac ts on ave rage 5.37 t imes per minute (s.d. = 2.42). However , a great dea l of variat ion w a s s e e n ac ross chi ldren (Figure 3.12). T o determine whether chi ldren differed in their product ion of direct ives a c r o s s tasks , a repeated m e a s u r e s A N O V A w a s conduc ted with s e x (male ve rsus female) a s the be tween subjects factor and task (book ve rsus whale ve rsus bubbles) a s the within sub jects factor. The re w a s a main effect of task on the number of direct ives p roduced (F(2,60) = 3 .345, p = .042) (Figure 3.13). Ch i ld ren produced a m e a n number of d i rect ives of 6.41 t imes per minute with the book (s.d. = 4.27), 4 .59 t imes per minute with the wha le (s.d. = 3.86), and 4 .68 t imes per minute with the bubb les (s.d. = 2.36) (Table 3.8). G e n d e r w a s not a signif icant factor for number of d i rect ives p roduced (F(2,60) = 1.27, p = .35). 3.2.5.3 C o m m i s s i v e s Very few chi ldren in this a g e group p roduced commiss i ve s p e e c h acts dur ing the three activit ies s tud ied. None were p roduced during the book activity, and two chi ldren (62 and 86, both 1;7 years) may have p roduced a s ingle commiss i ve e a c h during each of the whale and bubb les activit ies. Th is g ives m e a n rates of product ion of 0.028 acts per minute dur ing the wha le activity (s.d. = 0.16) and 0.017 acts per minute dur ing the bubb les activity (s.d. = 0.099). B e c a u s e the number p roduced w a s s o low, it w a s not poss ib le to determine whether a main effect of task ex is ted, or if s e x of the chi ld affected commiss i ve product ion. 3.2.5.4 Exp ress i ves Chi ld ren p roduced express ive s p e e c h acts on ave rage 2.12 t imes per minute (s.d. = 1.54). However , a great dea l of variat ion w a s s e e n a c r o s s chi ldren (Figure 3.14). T o determine whether chi ldren differed in their product ion of exp ress i ves a c r o s s tasks , a repeated m e a s u r e s A N O V A w a s conduc ted with s e x (male ve rsus female) a s the be tween subjects factor and task (book ve rsus whale ve rsus bubbles) a s the within sub jects factor. N o main effect of task occur red with the exp ress i ves s p e e c h ac ts the chi ldren p roduced in this 66 study (Figure 3.15). Ch i ld ren p roduced a m e a n number of exp ress i ves of 1.57 t imes per minute with the book (s.d. = 2.71), 2.61 t imes per minute with the whale (s.d. = 3.90), and 2 .65 t imes with the bubb les (s.d. = 2.06) (Table 3.8). T h e chi ldren's s e x had no signif icant effect on number of asser t i ves produced (F(2,60) = 1.272, p = .288). 3.2.5.5 Dec larat ives N o chi ldren in this samp le p roduced declarat ive s p e e c h ac ts dur ing the three activit ies s tud ied. O n e chi ld (#3, 1;11 years) may have produced a s ingle declarat ive dur ing the bubb les activity, a l though it is difficult to differentiate between this act a s a declarat ive ve rsus a direct ive. B e c a u s e the number p roduced w a s effectively ze ro , it w a s not poss ib le to determine whether a main effect of task ex is ted, or if s e x of the chi ld af fected declarat ive product ion. 3.2.5.6 Mult iple C o d e s Directive-attention acts were p roduced in combinat ion with other i l locutionary ac ts 4 8 % of the t ime. Express ive acts were p roduced in combinat ion with other i l locutionary ac ts approximate ly 5 1 % of the t ime. N o other i l locutionary points were consistent ly p roduced with another act. 3.2.5.7 A m b i g u o u s Chi ld ren p roduced amb iguous s p e e c h acts on ave rage 2.70 t imes per minute (s.d. = 2.05). However , a great dea l of variat ion w a s s e e n ac ross chi ldren (Figure 3.16). T o determine whether chi ldren differed in their product ion of amb iguous acts ac ross tasks , a repeated m e a s u r e s A N O V A w a s conduc ted with s e x (male ve rsus female) a s the between subjects factor and task (book ve rsus whale ve rsus bubbles) a s the within sub jects factor. The re w a s a main effect of task on the number of amb iguous acts p roduced (F(2,60) = 6.246, p = .003) (Figure 3.17). Ch i ld ren p roduced a m e a n number of amb iguous acts 1.88 t imes per minute with the book (s.d. = 1.15), 4 .59 t imes per minute with the wha le (s.d. = 3.08), and 2.78 t imes per minute with the bubb les (s.d. = 2.43) (Table 3.8). T h e chi ldren 's sex had no signif icant effect on number of amb iguous acts p roduced (F(2,60) = 0.792, p = .458). Relat ionship between A g e and l l locutionary Fo rce A g e did not correlate with any i l locutionary point, except dec larat ives - however , b e c a u s e only one declarat ive w a s p roduced during the three activit ies inc luded in this s tudy this result w a s not cons ide red a val id correlat ion (Table 3.9). 67 3.3 Relationship between Conventional Assessment and Speech Act Data Sec t ion 3.3 a d d r e s s e s the s e c o n d quest ion that w a s p o s e d at the end of the Introductory Chap te r (Chapter 1). Th is quest ion w a s : D o chi ldren's s tandard ized or cr i ter ion-referenced test sco res correlate with their s p e e c h act da ta? T h e number of asser t ives per minute a chi ld p roduced w a s signif icantly related to e a c h of their P L S - A C , P L S - E C , and CDI Product ion s c o r e s (/(34) = .359, p = .037; r{34) = .392, p = .022; and Af31) = .520, p = .003, respect ively) . T h e number of direct ives per minute a chi ld p roduced w a s a lmost , but not signif icantly, related to their P L S - A C score (^34) = .333, p = .055). T h e number of direct ive, declarat ive, express ive , commiss i ve , or amb iguous s p e e c h acts per minute a chi ld p roduced were not signif icantly related to a chi ld 's other P L S and CDI sco res . 68 C H A P T E R 4 D I S C U S S I O N 4.1 Overview T h e purposes of this study were to character ize the communica t ive ac ts of young chi ldren in structured elicitation contexts and to invest igate methods of observ ing and ana lyz ing chi ldren's language-re la ted behav iours . In this chapter , a brief review of the results will be presented, a long with a d i scuss ion of their re levance and connect ion to exist ing literature. Th is sect ion will conc lude with study l imitations, cl inical impl icat ions, and further di rect ions for research . 4.2 Summary of Results A brief overv iew of results for e a c h of the quest ions p o s e d at the end of Chap te r 1 is g iven in this sect ion a s a background for the fol lowing d i scuss ion . S o m e of the key f indings of this study for e a c h of the topics examined are a s fol lows: Ques t ion O n e : How do young chi ldren commun ica te in structured elicitation contex ts? a . Wha t is the rate of communica t ion of chi ldren 1 ;5 to 2;0 in structured elicitation contex ts? T h e chi ldren in the current study p roduced a m e a n rate of 8.57 communica t ive acts per minute (s.d. = 3.81), with a higher rate of ac ts per minute in the book- read ing activity (11.4). Th is ave rage rate of communica t ive ac ts w a s higher than expec ted . b. Do chi ldren 1 ;5 to 2;0 in structured elicitation contexts tend to respond to or initiate commun ica t ions? A c r o s s chi ldren, there w a s a m e a n rate of initiations of 5.7 per minute and a m e a n rate of r esponses of 2.8 per minute. Ch i ld ren initiated more within the book- read ing activity. It w a s expec ted there would be variat ion in rate of initiations and responses between activit ies (as in S i n g , 2002) ; however , signif icant d i f ferences were only found in rate of initiation be tween activit ies in this study. It w a s a lso expec ted that age would be related to rate of r esponses and initiations. O u r f inding w a s that age related to initiations in the wha le and bubb les activi t ies, but not in the book activity, and it w a s not at all related to r esponses . 69 c. Wha t is the preferred mode of communica t ion for chi ldren 1 ;5 to 2;0 in structured elicitation contex ts? G e s t u r e s were p roduced at an average rate of 6.1 per minute ac ross all activit ies. Voca l i za t ions were produced 3.0 t imes per minute and verbal izat ions were p roduced 4.1 t imes per minute. It w a s ant ic ipated that gestures , voca l iza t ions, and verbal izat ions would be related to chi ld age . However , it w a s found that only verbal izat ions were related to chi ld age . d . Wha t are the most frequent s p e e c h act types use by chi ldren 1 ;5 to 2;0 in structured elicitation contexts? T h e most frequent s p e e c h ac ts g iven by the chi ldren in this study were direct ives (5.37 t imes/min), fo l lowed by asser t i ves (2.62 t imes/min), and exp ress i ves (2.12 t imes/min) . C o m m i s s i v e s and declarat ives were rarely u s e d , if at al l . It shou ld be noted that 2.7 communica t ive ac ts per minute were c o d e d amb iguous . T h e exist ing literature predicted direct ives and asser t ives would be the most c o m m o n s p e e c h act types in chi ldren of this age . e. D o e s a g e or s e x affect chi ldren's (1 ;5 to 2;0) communica t ive behaviour in structured elicitation s e s s i o n s a s measu red by s p e e c h ac ts? Nei ther a g e nor s e x affected chi ldren 's product ion of s p e e c h ac ts in structured elicitation s e s s i o n s . In this study, it w a s found that a great dea l of variabil ity ex is ted a m o n g activit ies and chi ldren in terms of their rates of communica t ion , tendenc ies towards initiation or response , and m o d e s and s p e e c h act types of communica t ion . For examp le , s tandard deviat ions for the asser t ive s p e e c h act type were 4 .80 in the book activity and 1.56 in the bubb les activity (see table 3.8 for more s tandard deviat ion va lues) . Further detai led d i scuss ion of these topics is p resented fol lowing a brief d i scuss ion of the s e c o n d quest ion in the study. Ques t ion Two : a . D o e s chi ldren's per formance on structured elicitation tasks correlate with their per formance on s tandard ized or cr i ter ion-referenced tools (i.e., the Mul len, P L S , and CDI scores ) , in terms of statistical or qualitative ana lys i s? Ra te of communica t ion w a s not related to the chi ld 's Mu l len , P L S , or CDI s c o r e s . Initiations per minute were signif icantly corre lated with the P L S - A C sco res (r(34) = .340, p = .049), but none of the other evaluat ions. Th is w a s in contrast to S ing (2002), who found rate of communica t ion w a s signif icantly corre lated with her subjects ' raw and s tandard s c o r e s on the 70 Verba l C o m p r e h e n s i o n sect ion of the Reyne l l Deve lopmenta l L a n g u a g e S c a l e s (Reynel l , 1977). A l though s h e did not explicit ly reported this, it is a s s u m e d S ing found no correlat ion between rate of communica t ion and McArthur CDI sco res . In the current study, the only potential re lat ionships (although very weak tendenc ies) were for low P L S - E C or McAr thur GDI Product ion s c o r e s to be related to a low number of communica t ive ut terances. Di f ferences between the two s tud ies cou ld reflect individual d i f ferences or the different language m e a s u r e s u s e d . Further, r esponses per minute were not related to any of the evaluat ions. Nei ther ges tures nor voca l iza t ions were related to the chi ldren's Mu l len , P L S , or CDI s c o r e s , but verbal izat ions were signif icantly related to the P L S - A C (/f34) = .514, p = .002), P L S - E C (^34) = .586, p = .000), and CDI scores( / i31) = .636, p = .000). T h e s e results are not unexpec ted , a s both the P L S and CDI evaluat ions rely heavi ly on a chi ld 's verbal ability. The re w a s a signif icant correlat ion between the number of asser t i ves per minute a chi ld p roduced and his/her P L S - A C , P L S - E C , and CDI Product ion sco res (/{34) = .359, p = .037; r{34) = .392, p = .022; and /f31) = .520, p = .003, respect ively) . Simi lar ly, B rady et a l . (2005) found that a chi ldren's language comprehens ion and product ion sco res (as m e a s u r e d by the S I C D - R and C S B S ) predicted chi ldren's commen ts and initiation of requests , when the authors control led for chi ld IQ. In the current study, the rate of direct ives a chi ld p roduced w a s a lmost , but not signif icantly, related to that chi ld 's P L S - A C sco re (A{34) = .333, p = .055) (but not other language sco res ) . Corre lat ions were not signif icant for the other s p e e c h act types. T h e s e results sugges t that s tandard ized tests and s p e e c h act data are not entirely unrelated w a y s of examin ing young chi ldren's communica t ion abil i t ies, but neither do they perfectly predict e a c h other. N o n e of the s p e e c h act data w a s related to Mul len s c o r e s . Th is is not entirely surpr is ing b e c a u s e the Mul len is a measu re of motor ski l ls, and the ski l ls m e a s u r e d in this study were more interactive and communica t ive nature. 4.3 Detailed Discussion of Coded Topics T h e fol lowing sect ion will d i s c u s s each of the f indings for the var ious topics in greater depth, including the results surrounding the major ca tegor ies of cod ing : communica t ive or non-communica t ive , focus of attention, initiations ve rsus responses , m o d e s , and i l locutionary points. 4.3.1 Ra te of Commun ica t ion in Structured Elicitation Contex ts T h e chi ldren in the current study p roduced a m e a n rate of 8.57 communicat ive ac ts per minute (s .d. = 3.81). S ing (2002), in the pilot to this study, found a m e a n rate of 6.48 communica t i ve acts per minute (s.d. = 1.54) in a structured context. S ing (2002) u s e d different 71 activit ies to elicit communica t ion from the part icipants in her study, s o we would not expect to s e e identical results (see sect ion 1.4.2). R y c k e b u s c h and M a r c o s (2004) found similar rates of s p e e c h act product ion to those found in S ing (2002) in their s tudy of typical ly deve lop ing F rench toddlers be tween the a g e s of 1 ;8 and 1 ;11 years . In R y c k e b u s c h and M a r c o s (2004), toddlers ave raged approx imate ly 6.6 acts per minute whi le p laying with a bui lding toy and 5.7 acts per minute whi le e n g a g e d in free play with either parent. A l though S ing ' s (2002) and R y c k e b u s c h and Marcos ' (2004) rates of s p e e c h act product ion are slightly lower than the m e a n rate reported here, in fact, the m e a n number of ac ts per minute in this study during the wha le and bubble activit ies were 6.3 and 6.8, respect ively. B e c a u s e the number of s p e e c h acts per minute p roduced by the chi ldren during the book activity ave raged 11.4, the m e a n number of communica t ive acts reported here appea rs slightly higher than the m e a n s reported by both S ing (2002) and R y c k e b u s c h and M a r c o s (2004). Ninio and Bruner (1976) d i scuss picture-book reading and the similarity this activity has to a structured communica t ion in terchange. B a s e d on v ideo da ta from one mother-infant dyad , Ninio and Bruner obse rved little differentiation of the mother 's ut terances during book reading, but that the mother accep ted a wide variety of activit ies by the chi ld a s the chi ld 's communica t ive 'turn'. T h e s e authors a lso noted that if the mother gave feedback (an imitation, laugh, or comment) after the chi ld 's ut terance, the chi ld w a s 40 - 4 5 % likely to repeat their utterance, when the mother 's feedback w a s posit ive. W h e n the mother 's f eedback w a s negat ive, the chi ld w a s 9 % less likely to reply. In this study, feedback w a s g iven during the book activity typically by acknowledg ing the chi ld 's utterance ('yes', 'mhmm' , or ' yes , bear ' ) . F e e d b a c k w a s not g iven a s frequently dur ing the other two activit ies. G i v e n Ninio and Bruner 's (1976) f indings and the nature of this study, it is not unexpec ted to s e e the slightly i nc reased rate of ut terances during the book activity. There w a s cons iderab le variat ion in the rate of communica t ion in genera l . O n e chi ld commun ica ted less than once per minute (58). Three chi ldren commun ica ted less than twice per minute (9, 33 , 39), f ive chi ldren less than three t imes per minute (4, 4 1 , 59 , 63 , 80), s ix chi ldren less than four t imes per minute (30, 3 1 , 32 , 69 , 74 , 78 , 90). Four chi ldren commun ica ted more than s e v e n t imes per minute (3, 35 , 84, 85). T h e variat ion in rate of communica t ion w a s not exp la ined by the chi ldren's a g e or deve lopmenta l status a s determined by the Mul len, P L S , and CDI tests. In fact, there w a s often variat ion ac ross a s ingle chi ld 's results on the five indices of deve lopment (Figure 4.1). C a s b y and C u m p a t a (1986) a lso found no correlat ion with age for ch i ldren 's intentional communica t ion be tween the a g e s 1 ;6 and 3;3. T h o s e authors reported (among other var iables) m e a n and highest ach ievement on an ordinal sca le that measu red mode of communica t ion . C a s b y and 72 C u m p a t a (1986) found the youngest chi ld in their study (1 ;6) ach ieved the highest rankings on the ordinal sca le for mode , while the oldest chi ld in the study (3;3) ach ieved much lower levels on the ordinal sca le for mode . B e c a u s e all chi ldren were equal ly famil iar with the exper imenta l envi ronment, we further suspec t that variat ion in rate of communica t ion w a s not related to d i f ferences between chi ldren in exposure to the exper imenta l sett ing, a l though chi ldren may have var ied in their relative a ler tness and attention for the task (during long testing s e s s i o n s for their age) . 4.3.2 Ut terance in R e s p o n s e to-/ Ut terance Initiated T h e status of an utterance a s an initiation or response var ied cons iderab ly a c r o s s chi ldren and tasks and , thus, the d iscuss ion f ocuses on that var iat ion. 4.3.2.1 Var iat ion ac ross Chi ldren T h e rate of initiations per minute var ied greatly be tween chi ldren in this study (0-20 initiations per minute, s .d . = 5.41 with the book and s .d . = 2.36 with the bubbles) . B e c a u s e each utterance cou ld only result from a chi ld initiating or a s a response to someth ing (i.e., not both) we expec ted that there wou ld be s o m e sort of trade-off between the rates of initiating and responding in one s ingle chi ld. The re w a s cons iderab le variat ion be tween chi ldren in their tendenc ies toward initiating or respond ing. Conf i rming this expectat ion, five chi ldren initiated more than five t imes more often than they responded . Fifteen chi ldren initiated more than twice a s often than they responded . S ix chi ldren initiated slightly more frequently than respond ing. S e v e n chi ldren responded more frequently than they initiated. T h e s e results are different from those found by S ing (2002), who noted that all subjects initiated more than respond ing, with the ave rage proport ion of initiations equal to .77 and the ave rage proport ion of responses equa l to .22. However , S ing a lso found s o m e variat ion a m o n g her subjects ' initiation ve rsus response proport ions: the chi ld who initiated most often in her study initiated 9 2 % of the t ime and responded 8 % of the t ime, but the chi ld who initiated the least often in her study initiated 5 5 % of the t ime and responded 4 2 % of the t ime (the rest of the full proport ion w a s accoun ted for by ambiguity). T h e s e di f ferences may be the result of d i f ferences in the definit ions of initiation and response in the two s tud ies. In the present study, commen ts that were el icited fol lowing the non-verbal presentat ion of an item by the exper imenter would have been c lass i f ied a s 'in response to contextual cue ' . Acco rd ing to S ing ' s defini t ions, however , this s a m e comment wou ld have been c lass i f ied a s an initiation. Th is under l ines the importance of knowing the definit ion of the terms 'initiation' and ' response ' when interpreting results concern ing this aspec t of communica t ion . 7 3 4.3.2.2 Var iat ion ac ross tasks Activity type af fected type of communica t ion a s response or initiation. Seventy -n ine percent of chi ldren made many more initiations dur ing the book activity (9.10 ac ts per minute) than either of the other two activit ies (3.63 and 3.15 ac ts per minute). Th is variat ion between tasks may be due to the nature df the activit ies. T h e book conta ined many different pictures of objects typical ly famil iar to a young chi ld. In contrast, the wha le and bubble activit ies conta ined only one or a few different i tems, s o the chi ld may have had fewer different things to say . T h e nature of the whale and bubb les activit ies w a s more interactive; b e c a u s e of this, the p ressure to initiate or the opportunity to initiate communica t ion , may have been l essened . It is a l so poss ib le that chi ldren felt the need to comment on pictures in the book b e c a u s e of pre-condit ioning to the soc ia l script of what one "does with books" (Ninio and Bruner, 1976). In addi t ion, the chi ld may have felt addit ional p ressure to commen t b e c a u s e both the parent and exper imenter were wait ing expectant ly for the chi ld to gesture, voca l i ze , or verba l ize while he or she exp lored the book, and if the chi ld fai led to comment on the book, the parent and exper imenter si lently pointed to pictures. T h e rate and types of communica t ion in the whale and bubb les activit ies may have thus been more representat ive of the chi ld 's natural tendenc ies in communicat ive interact ion, keep ing in mind that the elicitation context is still not typical. R y c k e b u s c h and M a r c o s (2004) note similar variat ion in ch i ldren 's s p e e c h act behav iour due to ' type-of-play' factors (i.e., p lay with a bui lding toy or free play), and in their study, a lso found variat ion in chi ldren's s p e e c h behaviour correlated with parent gender (which may be roughly corre lated with parent interaction style). O n e of the few posit ive corre lat ions with age in the study w a s initiations per minute in the whale and bubb les activit ies. It is poss ib le that initiations per minute were not corre lated with age in the book activity b e c a u s e of high p ressure to perform, and/or high levels of prompting by the exper imenter . T h e number of r esponses per minute w a s more consis tent a c r o s s activit ies, likely b e c a u s e the exper imenter (and parent) at tempted to elicit communica t ion from the chi ld at a simi lar rate a c r o s s activit ies. A l though the exper imenter pointed at pictures in the book activity at a relatively regular interval if the chi ld w a s not readily naming objects, the exper imenter w a s a lso ab le to cue language from the chi ld in the other two activit ies by way of communica t ion temptat ions. T h e f requency of communica t ion temptation a c r o s s all three activit ies s e e m e d relatively simi lar but this w a s not conf i rmed with quantitative da ta from the ch i l d ren /Fu tu re invest igat ion of the exper imenter in f luences on the tasks a long with relative rate of initiations and responses may reveal more about this aspec t of the study. T h e lack of posit ive corre la t ions between responses per minute 74 and a chi ld 's a g e , poss ib ly aga in , reflects the context: the rate of r esponses by definit ion d e p e n d e d on the rate at which the exper imenter (and parent) prompted or a s k e d quest ions. 4.3.3 M o d e of Commun ica t i on M o d e of communica t ion w a s a lso quite var iable be tween chi ldren and between activit ies (see Tab le 3.6 for m e a n , s tandard deviat ion, and max imum and min imum ac ts per minute for each communica t ive mode) . On ly verbal izat ions corre lated with a g e , partially conf i rming our initial predict ions. T h e f inding that verbal izat ions would b e c o m e more c o m m o n with a g e w a s expec ted , g iven that verbal izat ions over take vocal izat ions dur ing the natural deve lopmenta l p rocess . T h e a b s e n c e of signif icant relat ionships be tween gesture type and age or vocal izat ion and age w a s not ant ic ipated. However , g iven the variabil ity in a g e (within a narrow range) a c r o s s the chi ldren in the study and the variabil ity of ability present at any given a g e , these results are not entirely surpr is ing. Addit ional ly, it is poss ib le that the chi ldren in this study were too a d v a n c e d in their communicat ive ski l ls to have shown m u c h differentiation in gestur ing due to age . Sta ted differently, there w a s an insufficient number of chi ldren communica t ing at a low enough level to invest igate any trends in gesture deve lopment over t ime. Th is hypothes is is suppor ted by the s tud ies in sect ion 1.3.2.1 that documen ted m u c h of chi ld gesture a s develop ing before a g e 1 ;6. After age 1 ;3, it appea rs that voca l iza t ions and then verbal izat ions b e c o m e more c o m m o n m o d e s of communica t ion . Further commentary on the var ious m o d e s and their interaction for individual chi ldren fol lows in sect ion 4.3.3.1 and 4.3.3.2 below. T h e variat ion in most c o m m o n mode of communica t ion s e e n with the different activity types is a lso not surpr is ing; the chi ldren's tendency to point dur ing the book activity is interpreted by the parent a s an act ive response to the parent 's d ia logue, and se rves to further the communica t ive exchange (Ninio and Bruner, 1976). Fur thermore, holding out and giving dur ing the puppet activity is consis tent with shar ing attention and interest in a novel object, and reaching to ga in a c c e s s to more bubb les dur ing the bubb les activity is a logical (and highly effective) m e a n s of communicat ing one ' s des i re . 4.3.3.1 Ges tu re compa red with other m o d e s Look ing at the m o d e s used by individual chi ldren who gestured frequently and infrequently, s o m e potential t rends appea red in terms of relation of gesture to other m o d e s . For the part ic ipants gestur ing at the highest f requency (34, 8 1 , and 84 , with rates of 12.98, 10.95, and 11.25 ges tures per minute), rates of vocal izat ion were respect ively 9 .31 , 5.0, and 6.71 voca l iza t ions per minute, and for verbal izat ion were 2.94, 2.86, and 8.29 verbal izat ions per minute. T h e s e proport ions sugges t that part icipants 34 and 81 were largely still in gestura l /vocal 75 s tages of deve lopment , whi le 84 w a s more a d v a n c e d , communica t ing with all three m o d e s more equal ly. Simi lar ly, participant 80 p roduced only ges tures and no voca l iza t ions or verbal izat ions. For the part ic ipants gestur ing at the lowest f requency (9, 32 , 33 , 39 , and 58, with rates of 2 .41 , 2 .25, 2 .21 , 0.66, and 0.48 gestures per minute respect ively) , rate of voca l iza t ions w a s a lso low (0.54, 4 .06, 1.55, 3.09, and 0.24 vocal izat ions per minute, respect ively) with most having no verbal izat ions (0, 2 .48, 0, 0, and 0 verbal izat ions per minute respect ively) . Ch i ld ren 9, 33 , 39 , and 58 had the lowest ave rage rates of intentional communica t ion overal l (child 32 ranked 7 t h in rate of communica t ion in the study). G i ven the c o m m o n f inding that ear ly communica t ion skill is related to later language ability (S toe l -Gammon , 1988; Mundy & G o m e s , 1998) part ic ipants 9, 33 , 39, and 58 (and poss ib ly 80) might be expec ted to cont inue to have low language per formance later on . 4.3.3.2 Voca l iza t ion compared with other m o d e s Look ing at the m o d e s of communica t ion u s e d by individual chi ldren who voca l i zed frequently and infrequently, s o m e potential t rends appea red in terms of relation of vocal izat ion to other modes . Part ic ipants 24, 34, 35 , and 84 p roduced the most voca l iza t ions in the study. They dif fered, however , in their relative proport ion of other m o d e s . T w o part icipants (24, 34) had a relative ba lance between gesture and vocal izat ion rate per minute, (7 and 7 for 24 ; 13 and 9 for 34) but a lmost no verbal izat ions per minute (0 and 3). In contrast, part ic ipants 35 and 84 s h o w e d a lmost equa l proport ions of gestures , voca l izat ions, and verbal izat ions per minute (9, 8, and 8 respect ively for chi ld 35 ; and 1 1 , 7 , and 8 for chi ld 84). Th is sugges ts that part ic ipants 35 and 84 were at a p lace in their communicat ion deve lopment where they were relatively st rong commun ica to rs a c r o s s all three modal i t ies, whe reas part ic ipants 24 and 34 may have been producing high numbers of vocal izat ions b e c a u s e they had not yet begun to use verbal izat ion a s a main mode of communica t ion . T h e chi ldren who p roduced a relatively even proport ion of all m o d e s of communica t ion were 1;7 (child 35 , chi ld 84). T h e chi ldren who p roduced a high number of voca l iza t ions but relatively fewer verbal izat ions were 1 ;6 (child 24) and 1 ;7 (child 34). Th is suppor ts the f inding that age w a s not related to mode of communica t ion . For chi ldren who produced the least amount of vocal izat ion (children 7, 9, 14, 58 , 60 , 79 , and 80), there were different patterns relative to other modes . O n e chi ld (participant 7) p roduced few ges tures or voca l iza t ions per minute (4, 0 respect ively), but 7.5 verbal izat ions per minute. Part ic ipants 14 and 79 produced 0.5 vocal izat ions per minute and participant 60 p roduced 0.0 voca l iza t ions per minute; however , 14, 79 , and 60 used both gestures (8, 7, 4 per minute respect ively) and verbal izat ions (8, 12, 6 respect ively) . F rom the above proport ions, it is probable that part ic ipants 7, 14, 60 , and 79 produced voca l iza t ions at a lower rate than other 76 chi ldren b e c a u s e they were ab le to verba l ize their needs (i.e., there w a s a trade-off be tween voca l iz ing and verbal iz ing for these chi ldren). However , chi ldren 9 and 58 and 80 do not s h o w this s a m e trade-off, that is, the lack of vocal izat ion w a s l inked to lack of communica t ion overal l . 4 .3.3.3 Verbal izat ion and Other M o d e s S e v e n chi ldren (3, 6, 14, 60 , 84, 85 , 86) appea red to be strong commun ica to rs in e a c h of the three modes . A l though they tended to produce a high rate of gestures , a lower rate of voca l izat ions, and a high rate of verbal izat ions, it is probable that the low rate of voca l iza t ions p roduced w a s b e c a u s e these chi ldren cou ld adequate ly exp ress their needs verbal ly. In contrast, four chi ldren (9, 33 , 39 , and 58) p roduced very few commun ica t ions per minute in any mode (as noted previously above) . F rom these data it appea rs that chi ldren 9, 33 , 39 , and 58 were weak communica to rs overal l before age 2;0, Of the other chi ldren who s h o w e d lower verbal izat ions, part ic ipants 24 , 4 1 , 63 and 90 appea red to be pre-verbal , b e c a u s e they commun ica ted relatively frequently with voca l iza t ions and gestures and minimal ly or not at all (participant 90) verbal ly. Ch i ld 80 appea red to be s o m e w h e r e be tween two groups in that s h e gestured about a s frequently a s the other ch i ldren, but p roduced no verbal izat ions or voca l izat ions. It w a s ant ic ipated that a s chi ldren got older, there wou ld be a genera l trend toward an increas ing proportion of verbal izat ions and a concomitant d e c r e a s e in proport ion of voca l izat ions. T h e statistically signif icant posit ive relat ionship found between verbal izat ions per minute and age w a s consis tent with expectat ions and repl icated other f indings in the literature. T o p b a s , Mav is , and E rbas ' (2003) found that, in normally deve lop ing chi ldren, voca l iza t ions were more common ly u s e d between 1 ;3 and 1 ;6 and verbal izat ions were more c o m m o n in chi ldren older than 1 ;6. Pau l (2007) a lso reported that typically deve lop ing younger chi ldren (< 1 ;6) tend to have more vocal izat ions than verbal izat ions and typically deve lop ing older chi ldren (> 2;0) tend to use more verbal izat ions than voca l iza t ions. In spite of the statist ical concur rence of the current s tudy 's da ta with these prev ious s tud ies, the current data do not, however , s h o w a c lear pattern in the individual chi ldren's communica t ive abil i t ies g iven their a g e s . T h e chi ldren who p roduced a smal l rate of both vocal izat ions and verbal izat ions ranged in a g e from 1 ;5 (child 58) to 1 ;7 and 1 ;9 (child 84 , 80, and 9). S imi lar age ranges were not iced for all the other relative proport ions of m o d e s . T h e chi ldren who p roduced the greatest rate of voca l iza t ions and relatively fewer verbal izat ions were a g e d 1;7 (participants 24 and 90). T h e chi ldren who p roduced a high rate of verbal izat ion and a lower rate of vocal izat ion ranged in age from 1 ;6 (child 14) to 1 ;7 (child 86) to 1 ;9 (child 60). Thus , a l though there w a s a statistically signif icant posit ive correlat ion be tween rate of verbal izat ion and increas ing a g e , it is important to 77 note the variability and over lap in the a g e s of the chi ldren between groups. Th is variat ion appea rs to differ from the trend toward increas ing sophist icat ion in mode of communica t ion with age that is reported by s u c h authors a s T o p b a s et a l . (2003), but it is u n c o m m o n for pub l ished s o u r c e s to present variat ion in individual ch i ldren 's sco res , s imply due to s p a c e constra ints. T h e statistically signif icant relat ionship found in this study between age and mode holds true, but there is a lso individual variat ion between chi ldren a long the genera l trend line. 4.3.4 S p e e c h Act Funct ions A s noted in 4.2, the most frequent s p e e c h ac ts p roduced by the chi ldren in this study were direct ives (5.37 t imes/min), fo l lowed by asser t i ves (2.62 t imes/min), and exp ress i ves (2.12 t imes/min), with ut terances c o d e d 'ambiguous ' occurr ing 2.7 t imes per minute. C o m m i s s i v e s and dec larat ives were rare. Nei ther age nor s e x predicted the f requency of product ion of part icular s p e e c h acts ; however , the relat ionship be tween directive s p e e c h ac ts and a g e w a s near ly signif icant (/f34) = .33, p = .056). T h e s e f indings are in keep ing with our predict ions that chi ldren in this a g e group would more common ly produce direct ives and asser t ives than express ives , commiss i ves , or dec larat ives, and with the f indings in the literature. S ing (2002) reported results s imi lar to our own: chi ldren p roduced direct ives most frequently, fo l lowed by asser t i ves , exp ress i ves , and c o m m i s s i v e s . A similar pattern w a s a lso found by R y c k e b u s c h and M a r c o s (2004), who noted that chi ldren produced asser t i ves most frequently, fo l lowed by requests , then exp ress i ves . M c S h a n e (1980) a lso bel ieved the foundat ion of communica t ion a rose from interacting soc ia l ly with another person - therefore, the types of intentional communica t ion that involve exp ress ing one ' s self to another (i.e., d irect ives, asser t ives , express ives) wou ld logical ly be expec ted to ar ise first. Dore 's (1973) f indings a lso Concur with those reported in this study, a l though he recogn ized s o m e variat ion between chi ldren in the order of acquis i t ion of different s p e e c h act types. T h e rate of product ion of ut terances that could not be unambiguous ly c o d e d (i.e., those c o d e d ' a m b i g u o u s ' ) is not c lear from the literature. It is difficult to determine whether these results are consis tent with the f indings of other researchers with respect to proto- imperat ive (i.e., the infant uses the adult a s a tool to ga in a c c e s s to an object) and proto-declarat ive ut terances (i.e., the infant uses an object to ga in the adult 's attention). Ba tes (1976) recogn ized these two types of ut terances a s precursors to the use of funct ional s p e e c h . C r a i s et a l . 's (2004) use of these terms is b a s e d on the definit ions g iven by Ba tes (1976). C ra i s et a l . found that chi ldren request objects, request act ions, and protest between 0;4 and 1 ;7, with a m e a n age of deve lopment of 0;8;22 (proto-imperative). S h e a l so reported that regulating g a m e s and soc ia l interact ions deve loped between 0;6-1;10, with a 78 m e a n age of deve lopment of 1;1;23 (proto-declarative), and that joint attention (including comment ing and information requests) deve loped between 0;4-1;6, with a m e a n age of deve lopment of 0;10;19 (proto-declarative). Th is predicts chi ldren would first acqui re request/protest, then joint attention, then soc ia l interact ion/regulat ion. T h e category request/protest loosely a l igns with the definit ion of d i rect ives u s e d here; the category of joint attention similar ly loosely a l igns with the definition of direct ives u s e d here, and the category of soc ia l interaction/regulation loosely co r responds to exp ress i ves and dec larat ives a s def ined in this study. T h e current study did find that more direct ives were p roduced than exp ress i ves or dec larat ives in the structured interact ions, but this d o e s not agree with the predict ion that proto-declarat ive ut terances predate proto-imperative ut terances a s presented by L i szkowsk i et a l . (2004). A few chi ldren in this study p roduced far fewer directive and asser t ive acts per minute than other chi ldren in the study, including chi ldren 9, 3 3 , 39 , and 58. In addi t ion, Ch i ld 9 per formed poorly on all s tandard m e a s u r e s of ability (Mul len, P L S , and CDI ) , chi ldren 3 3 and 39 per formed poorly on the s tandard language m e a s u r e s , and chi ld 58 per formed within the normal range on all s tandard tests. G i v e n that chi ldren in this age range typical ly p roduce both directive and asser t ive i l locutionary points, the trend in these chi ldren may be relevant in early predict ion of language delay. 4.4 Summary Th is sect ion g ives a brief summary of the f indings desc r ibed above . Ch i ld ren in this study had a m e a n rate of communica t ive ut terances of 8.57. A greater rate of ut terances per minute w a s s e e n in the book reading activity, and it is hypothes ized that this w a s due to the nature of adult feedback during book reading activit ies. Proport ion of initiations ve rsus responses w a s highly var iable ac ross the chi ldren inc luded in this study. T h e s e data are slightly different f rom those reported by S ing (2002), likely due to d i f ferences in definit ions be tween the two studies. M o d e of communica t ion var ied somewhat a c r o s s tasks , and verbal izat ions were more c o m m o n with increas ing age . Direct ives and asser t i ves were the most frequent types of s p e e c h ac ts , exp ress i ves did occur , but commiss i ves and dec larat ives rarely occur red . Th is result w a s expec ted , g iven the f indings of other literature on the topic. 4.5 Methodological Limitations Four main methodologica l cha l lenges were recogn ized during the cou rse of this study: determining inter-rater reliability, cod ing s p e e c h ac ts , account ing for d i f ferences between 79 parents, and using s tandard ized or criterion referenced tests to represent a chi ld 's 'true' communica t ion ability. T h e s e cha l lenges are d i s c u s s e d below. 4.5.1 Inter-rater Reliabil i ty A tendency present in the literature for cod ing communica t ive acts has been to ensure inter-rater reliability by having the two principle coders code acts independent ly, then d i s c u s s points of non-agreement until agreement has been reached . Not only is this pract ice t ime-consum ing , but it may not give an accura te representat ion of an individual 's clarity in transmitt ing information. N icho las , G e e r s , and Rol l ins (1999) present a very interesting argument against point by point agreement , stating that in cod ing communicat ion of less ski l led communica to rs , poorer inter-coder agreement may be an index of higher levels of ambigui ty in the chi ld 's communica t ion . Forc ing agreement be tween code rs may inappropriately inflate the degree to which we bel ieve chi ldren are unders tood. Seve ra l authors have used C o h e n ' s k a p p a (coefficient for agreement corrected for chance) to report inter-rater reliability, and a s a relative index of conf idence of their data . S o m e examp les of these studies fol low for compar i son with the current study. Lichtert (2003), in a study of intentional communica t ion of deaf ch i ldren, ach ieved a k a p p a of .81 when determining whether ut terances were proto- imperat ive and .82 in determining whether ut terances were proto-declarat ive. Iverson and G o l d i n - M e a d o w (2005) used C o h e n ' s kappa to determine inter-rater reliability about whether gesture-p lus-word combinat ions were complementary (i.e., showing a referent that matches the accompany ing word , e.g. , pointing to f lowers whi le say ing 'f lowers') or supp lementary (showing a referent to give different but related information about the referent) and ca lcu la ted kappa statist ics of .92 and 1.0, respect ively, for these dec is ions . O z c a l i s k a n and G o l d i n - M e a d o w (2005) u s e d C o h e n ' s kappa to determine reliability in their s tudy of ges tu re -speech co-deve lopment between 1;2 and 1;10. T h e s e authors ca lcu la ted kappa of .76 for identifying gestures , .86 for ass ign ing mean ing to those gestures , and .96 to .98 for cod ing semant ic relat ions between s p e e c h a n d gesture. F ranco and Butterworth (1996) ca lcu la ted C o h e n ' s kappa in the range of .8 to .9 whi le check ing inter-rater reliability in their study of the effects of situation on gesture, v isua l check ing , and vocal izat ion in chi ldren 1;0 to 1 ;6. D idow and E c k e r m a n ach ieved k a p p a of .96 for detect ing a codab le verbal response , .81 for determining whether a response w a s relevant (choice of y e s , no, ambiguous) , 1.0 for determining how a response w a s relevant (choice of central ly, tangential ly, minimally), and .85 for dist inguishing act ions that descr ibe from those that regulate. T h e cha l lenge in s imply quot ing C o h e n ' s kappa a s an index of reliability of a study is that the va lues themse lves have very little mean ing . A l though the inter-rater kappa va lues ach ieved 80 in this study (k = .75 for utterance in response to or utterance initiated, k = .73 for mod e of communica t ion , k= .67 for i l locutionary point) are lower than the va lues quoted by other authors, the data generated in this study may be more rel iable than the C o h e n ' s coeff ic ients would appear , g iven that intra-rater reliability w a s high (k= .92 for utterance in response to or utterance initiated, k = .88 for mode of communica t ion , and k= .78 for i l locutionary point) and that all the da ta used in statist ical ana l yses w a s genera ted by the s a m e pr imary coder . Hav ing the pr imary coder train the s e c o n d coder more extensively to improve inter-rater reliability quot ients would not have affected the reported results of this study, but wou ld certainly be useful in document ing our methodology for future use . Addit ional ly, it is important to note that points of d isagreement between the first and s e c o n d coder typically occur red when one coder felt conf ident in cod ing an act a s intentional, whi le the s e c o n d coder felt it w a s amb iguous . Rare ly did a d isagreement involve two i l locutionary ca tegor ies . T h e first coder tended to code ac ts more conservat ive ly than the s e c o n d coder (i.e., c o d e d more acts a s amb iguous) , thereby ass ign ing an intentional i l locutionary point to a chi ld 's utterance only when it w a s very c lear that this intention ex is ted. H a d exper imenta l des ign required the two coders to a s s i g n one i l locutionary point to an utterance, even when one w a s not c lear ly super ior , this would have h idden the degree to which a given chi ld 's ut terances were amb iguous , and inflated our est imat ion of the chi ld 's ability to make him or herself unders tood (recall N icho las , G e e r s , & Rol l ins, 1999). 4.5.2 C o d i n g Commun ica t i ve Ac t s A great dea l of uncertainty is inherent in cod ing communica t ive intentions of very young chi ldren, s imply due to the immaturity of communica t ive abil i t ies in chi ldren at these a g e s . M a n y of the chi ldren in this study were at pre-verbal or early verbal s tages of communica t ion . Th is inc reases the difficulty of cod ing a s p e e c h act b e c a u s e of the many poss ib le communica t ion interpretations any g iven gesture may have . For examp le , a point c a n m e a n ' look here, ' 'wow,' 'more, ' etc. In order to account for this methodolog ica l difficulty, there were explicit different levels of c o d e s to document amb iguous communicat ive ac ts , and two i l locutionary points were a l lowed to be recorded for one act, if it w a s felt the chi ld had a dual purpose in producing the act. Of cou rse , any interpretation of another 's purpose in communica t ing will inc lude s o m e degree of non-quant i f iable error imposed by the coder . T h e c lassi f icat ion sys tem u s e d in this study w a s adequa te to c lass i fy all of the chi ldren 's ut terances - and the different categor ies avai lable to code deg rees of ambigui ty were usefu l . T h e ability to code one utterance for multiple communica t ion intentions w a s important, b e c a u s e 81 chi ldren in this age category appear ab le to intend multiple mean ings in their i l locutionary ac ts . A n improvement to the sys tem u s e d in this study would be to have an addit ional few categor ies to account for ambiguity within an i l locutionary point category. 4 .5 .3 Cons i s t ency A c r o s s Chi ld ren B e c a u s e every family has a unique and es tab l ished pattern of teach ing and elicit ing knowledge (as well a s overal l individual interaction patterns), it is difficult to ensure cons is tency in parental interaction a c r o s s the chi ldren in this study. W e at tempted to acknow ledge this variabil ity by recording whether a commen t w a s in response to the parent, and limit this variabil ity by ask ing parents to remain a s quiet a s poss ib le , but we did observe variabil i ty in the level of parental interaction with the chi ld. It w a s particularly difficult to code a chi ld 's behav iour when a parent a s k e d a leading quest ion , s u c h a s 'do you want to b low? ' or 'do you want to put it on your hand? ' In these si tuat ions, if a chi ld answered 'yes, ' they were not only commit t ing the parent to a future act ion, but a lso commit t ing themse lves to a future act ion - a s p e e c h act type that chi ldren in this age group do not normally p roduce. 4.5.4 U s e of S tandard ized Tes ts ve rsus Non-S tandard El ic i tat ions T h e McArthur CDI a s s e s s m e n t is a parent report of a chi ld 's comprehens ion and product ion vocabulary . D rawbacks of this type of a s s e s s m e n t are that it d e p e n d s on the accu racy of the parent report, and only prov ides information about a chi ld 's vocabu lary , not the chi ld 's ability to commun ica te . T h e P L S - 4 w a s a lso u s e d in this study to a s s e s s chi ldren 's language comprehens ion and product ion. However , b e c a u s e of the age range of chi ldren in this study, this evaluat ion primarily eva luates play ski l ls, vocabu lary comprehens ion , and s p e e c h sound deve lopment . T h e chi ld can a lso be eva luated on his or her ability to show and request. Neither of these tests is adequa te to evaluate the communica t ive capabi l i t ies (as o p p o s e d to s p e e c h capabi l i t ies) of pre-verbal chi ldren or those who are s low in deve lop ing words and sounds . V iew ing chi ldren's communica t ion from a non-s tandard ized perspect ive has s o m e other advan tages over these s tandard ized or cr i ter ion-referenced tests. Non-s tandard a s s e s s m e n t s c a n be faster to administer , may inc rease chi ld part icipation b e c a u s e they are more fun and chi ldren are less aware of being eva luated, and can provide opportunit ies to judge s p e e c h intelligibility and pragmat ic ski l ls, in addit ion to vocabulary . Fur thermore, including s p e e c h act evaluat ion in a non-standard a s s e s s m e n t a l lows a researcher or c l in ic ian to evaluate whether a chi ld is ab le to ach ieve more than request ing and showing (direct ive-act ion-show and direct ive-82 information), that is, the cl inician c a n determine whether the chi ld is capab le of multiple funct ions in communica t ion . 4.6 Future Directions and Clinical Implications Due to the smal l number of chi ldren, heterogeneity in a g e of the chi ldren, and lack of strong statist ical support for our techn iques, this study primari ly se rves a s a reminder of the inadequacy of s tandard ized testing and a s encouragement to invest igate different ways of quantifying chi ldren's communica t ion . Future research direct ions cou ld include increas ing samp le s i ze , increas ing homogenei ty a m o n g the chi ldren, and invest igat ing further l inks between rates or z - sco res of communicat ive ac ts and chi ldren's p rogress over t ime. In addit ion, g iven the poss ib le inf luence parent and exper imenter variabil ity may have had on chi ldren's ut terances, future invest igat ions shou ld likely include ana lys is of the adult 's inf luence on the chi ldren 's s p e e c h acts due to prompt ing. V iew ing chi ldren's communica t ion abil i t ies from a s p e e c h act f ramework se rves to b roaden our perspect ive of what e lements are important in communica t ion - not just words and phrase length, but a lso the ways in which a person c a n commun ica te us ing language. C l in ic ians must remain vigilant to these d i f ferences when a s s e s s i n g communica t ion in young chi ldren, particularly if we hope to obtain a reasonab le est imate of a chi ld 's actual abil i t ies. 4.7 Conclusion This study invest igated the use of a s p e e c h act h ierarchy in character iz ing communica t ive ac ts by young chi ldren. For this purpose, a h ierarchical sys tem w a s dev i sed b a s e d on the work of Sear le and Vande rveken (1986), J o h n s o n and K l incans , (1999), K l i ncans (1991), S ing (2002), and the crit ical ana lys is of cod ing sys tems by Ninio, Snow , P a n , and Rol l ins (1994). In the study, signif icant correlat ions were found between s p e e c h act data and s tandard testing sco res for: initiations and P L S - A C , verbal izat ions and P L S - A C , and asser t i ves and P L S - A C , P L S - E C , and CDI sco res . T h e s e f indings, particularly the relat ionship be tween asser t i ves and language sco res , sugges t that s p e e c h act ana lys is a lone (without s tandard testing) may be a useful way to evaluate chi ldren's communica t ion ski l ls in structured contexts. O n e of the most interesting f indings of this study is that within the s ingle structured interaction s e s s i o n , cho ice of activity c lear ly impacted the communica t ive acts of the chi ldren. T h e book activity el ici ted many asser t ive commen ts , and the types of interaction (i.e., mode and initiations ve rsus responses) around the book were relatively simi lar a c r o s s chi ldren, a l though there w a s individual variabil ity. It is likely that a chi ld 's success fu l part icipation in the book activity is indicative of his or her early l i teracy ski l ls, a s much a s it is indicative of early communica t ion 8 3 ability. T h e whale puppet activity, in contrast, el ici ted a broader spec t rum of communica t i ve ac ts , likely b e c a u s e the soc ia l rules about interacting around a puppet are less rigidly def ined than the soc ia l rules about book reading. T h e s e two short activit ies in combinat ion may prove useful for a s s e s s i n g communicat ive ac ts in young chi ldren, by providing chi ldren with var ied opportunit ies to demonst ra te their communica t ive ski l ls a c r o s s a range of m o d e s and funct ions. M u c h remains to be learned about the communica t ion of young chi ldren. Th is study, and those that p recede it, support a more d iverse approach to a s s e s s i n g chi ldren 's language deve lopment than using the s tandard tools that are currently avai lab le. S p e e c h act ana lys is has contr ibuted detai led information about the communica t ion abilit ies of the chi ldren involved at the first t ime-point of a longitudinal study. Da ta from the later t ime-points will further e luc idate the re levance and importance of the information ga ined in the current invest igat ion, i.e., the predict ive va lue of the var ious observat ions. 84 T A B L E S A N D F I G U R E S Tab le 1.1: C lass i f icat ion S c h e m e constructed by K l incans (1991) Asser t i ves descr ipt ive ut terance of an activity, event, object, or state of affairs identif ication / label ing ag ree with prev ious proposit ion d isagree with previous proposit ion Direct ives request to do an act other than: routine give object at tend warn of danger prohibit act ion of Hearer g ive permiss ion request information request clarif ication Dec larat ives dec la re a new state of affairs regulate pretend play / g a m e s regulate other g a m e s regulate soc ia l interact ions refusal / rejection of another 's declarat ion appropriat ion accep tance / approva l of another 's declarat ion C o m m i s s i v e s promise threaten to d o agree to do or let do refuse to do or let do o f f e r / s h o w Exp ress i ves mark soc ia l routine / event exp ress affective state / attitude Non-i l locut ionary d i scourse funct ion Commun ica t i on and family routine L a n g u a g e U s e gestural communica t ion Non-communica t i ve / repeat/ imitate previous utterance Non-interact ive deferred imitation L a n g u a g e U s e non-interact ive verbal izat ion Other amb iguous i l locutionary point uncodeab le incomplete utterance S o u r c e : K l incans , 1991 85 Tab le 2 .1 : S u m m a r y of Ch i ld Character is t ics N=34 N u m b e r Ma le N u m b e r F e m a l e A g e range (in months) M e a n a g e (in months) 11 children - no sibling with 5 6 17-21 18.8 history of language delay 2 3 chi ldren - s ibl ing with 10 13 17-24 19.7 history of language de lay Tab le 2.2: Mul len, P reschoo l Language S c a l e , and McAr thur CDI S c o r e s Chi ld ID Mul len V isua l Mul len F ine P reschoo l P reschoo l Commun ica t i ve Recept ion z - Motor z - S c o r e L a n g u a g e L a n g u a g e Deve lopment S c o r e S c a l e - 4 S c a l e - 4 Inventory Audi tory Exp ress i ve Product ion C o m p r e h e n s i o n Commun ica t i on z - S c o r e z - S c o r e z - S c o r e 3* -0.1 0.2 0 .3750 0.6875 -0 .8110 4* -1.8 -1.3 -0 .8750 0.8750 0 .0425 6* 0.9 0.6 1.0625 -0 .6875 1.5129 7 0.8 0.8 1.1250 1.0000 0 .9287 9 -0.3 -0.1 -0 .1250 -1 .1875 -1 .0416 11* -1.4 0.6 -0 .5625 0.2500 -0 .5639 14 -0.2 1.9 0 .6875 0.5000 0 .8833 24 -0.4 0.2 -0 .5625 -0 .2500 -0 .9390 30* -0.9 0.4 -1 .6250 0.2500 -0.0751 3 1 * 0.0 -0 .3 -1 .1875 -0 .2500 -0.7931 32 -0.2 0.4 -0 .1250 0.2500 0.0500 3 3 * -0.9 0.8 -2 .0000 -1 .3125 -0 .7522 34 -0.6 0.4 -0 .3750 -0 .2500 -0 .5126 35 * 1.0 0.2 0 .3750 0.6875 0 .1445 39* -0.2 0.4 -1 .6250 -0 .8750 -0 .7105 41 1.5 -0.1 0 .1250 -0 .5000 -0 .3563 58 0.9 0.8 1.8125 0.6875 -0 .3154 59* -0.6 -0.5 -0 .3750 0 .6875 -0 .4598 60* 1.1 -0.1 1.4375 1.5000 2 .3529 62* 0.7 1.4 -0 .1250 0.8750 0.3424 6 3 * -0.2 -0.6 -0 .8750 -0 .2500 -0 .2842 68 -0.7 0.2 0 .9375 -1 .1875 -0 .8973 69* 0.7 1.4 0 .6875 0.8750 1.7703 74 1.2 -0.1 0 .3750 0.2500 -0.4501 7 5 * -2.5 -1.2 0 .1250 0.2500 -0 .5736 78 1.3 1.4 1.1250 1.0000 7 9 * 0.0 1.0 0 .1250 0.8750 8 0 * -0.4 0.2 -0 .1250 -0 .0625 -1 .1257 Tab le 2.2: Mul len, P reschoo l L a n g u a g e S c a l e , and McAr thur CDI S c o r e s Ch i ld ID Mul len V isua l Mul len F ine P reschoo l P reschoo l Commun ica t i ve Recept ion z- Motor z - S c o r e L a n g u a g e L a n g u a g e Deve lopment S c o r e S c a l e - 4 S c a l e - 4 Inventory Audi tory C o m p Exp ress i ve Product ion z - S c o r e C o m m z - S c o r e z - S c o r e 8 1 * 0.4 0.2 0 .1250 -1 .1875 -1 .1049 84* 0.4 0.2 -0 .3750 0.5000 85* 0.0 0.6 0 .1250 0 .6875 -0 .3757 86* 1.3 0.6 0 .3750 0 .5000 0 .0507 87* -0.4 -0.7 -0 .8750 -0 .2500 -0 .7619 90* -0.4 -0.7 -1 .6250 -0 .5000 -0 .8869 * Ch i ld ren with family history of language de lay Tab le 3.1: R a t e s of Commun ica t i ve Ut terances per Minute in e a c h Activity Book W h a l e Bubb les A v e r a g e M e a n 11.36 6.34 6.82 8.57 S . D . 5.92 4 .56 3.97 3.81 Max imum 22.64 21.81 18.26 15.78 Min imum 0.00 0.00 0.62 1.20 Tab le 3.2: Corre lat ion be tween A g e and Commun ica t i ve Ut te rances per Unit T i m e Commun ica t i ve Ut terances/Minute Corre lat ion with A g e ? Book 434)= .337, p=.051 N o W h a l e 434)= .042, p=.811 N o Bubb les 434)= .187, p=.288 N o Tab le 3.3: R a t e s of Non-Commun ica t i ve Ut terances per Minute in e a c h Activity (for ut terances that remained in transcripts) Book W h a l e Bubb les A v e r a g e M e a n 1.17 1.08 1.00 1.05 S . D . 1.02 1.70 1.11 0.72 M a x i m u m 4.14 7.14 5.36 3.36 Min imum 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tab le 3.4: S u m m a r y of Stat ist ics re: Initiations and R e s p o n s e s in e a c h Activity per Minute Book W h a l e Bubb les Initiations R e s p o n s e s Initiations R e s p o n s e s Initiations R e s p o n s e s per minute per minute per minute per minute per minute per minute M e a n 9.10 2.10 3.63 2.61 3.15 3.61 S . D . 5.41 2 .23 2.46 2.04 2.36 2.49 M a x i m u m 20.00 8.57 8.48 6.92 8.48 10.08 M in imum 0 0 0 0 0 0.56 87 Tab le 3.5: Relat ionship be tween Initiations and R e s p o n s e s and Ch i ld A g e Corre la t ion with A g e ? Ini t iat ions/Minute f{34)=.360, p=.036 Y e s R e s p o n s e s / Minute A{34)= - .007, p=.968 No Tab le 3.6: M o d e of Commun ica t i on - Number of T i m e s per Minute of Activity Activity M e a n S . D . M a x i m u m Min imum Ges tu re : Point Book 6.09 5.27 18.46 0 W h a l e 0.48 1.09 4.62 0 Bubb les 0.95 1.04 3.58 0 Average 2.99 2.47 7.89 0 Ges tu re : R e a c h Book 0.10 0.39 2 .07 0 W h a l e 1.23 1.37 3.95 0 Bubb les 1.44 1.60 7.57 0 Average 0.97 0.88 4.47 0 Ges tu re : Ho ld Out / G i v e Book 0.73 1.83 8.57 0 W h a l e 1.68 1.40 5.45 0 Bubb les 0.28 0.51 1.82 0 Average 0.60 0.46 1.66 0 Ges tu re : Non-verba l Book 0.43 1.01 4.70 0 Convent iona l * W h a l e 0.17 0.43 1.71 0 Bubb les 0.40 0.71 3.30 0 Average 0.39 0.62 2.38 0 Ges tu re : Fac ia l Exp ress ion Book 0.24 0.51 2 .07 0 W h a l e 0.59 1.17 5.45 0 Bubb les 0.94 1.07 3.41 0 Average 0.61 0.68 2.90 0 Ges tu re : Other Book 0.38 1.01 5.26 0 W h a l e 0.41 0.79 2 .73 0 Bubb les 0.84 1.54 5.87 0 Average 0.52 0.63 2.41 0 Ges tu re : Total Book 7.98 5.36 19.34 0 W h a l e 4.57 2.88 10.91 0 Bubb les 4.88 2.49 9.90 0 Average 6.09 2.90 12.98 0.48 Vocal iza t ion Book 3.47 3.68 12.40 0 W h a l e 2.71 2.51 7.27 0 Bubb les 2 .43 2.26 8.57 0 Average 2.98 2.37 9.31 0 Verbal izat ion Book 5.95 5.53 20 .75 0 W h a l e 2.14 4.29 21 .82 0 Bubb les 3.32 3.39 11.74 0 Average 4.09 3.65 12.20 0 Al l Voca l /Ve rba l Book 9.42 6.12 22 .64 0 W h a l e 4 .85 4 .47 21 .82 0 Bubb les 5.74 3.83 13.70 0 Average 7.07 4.05 15.36 0 *Non-verba l convent ional ges tures include nod head , s h a k e head , hands /a rms up, wave , and manua l s ign Tab le 3.7: Relat ionship between M o d e of Commun ica t i on and A g e M o d e of Commun ica t i on Corre lat ion with A g e ? Pointing/ Minute 434)= .162, p=.359 N o R e a c h i n g / Minute 434)= .101 ,p= .569 N o Ho ld ou t /G ive / Minute 434)= .223, p=.204 N o Non-verba l Conven t i ona l /M inu te 434)= - .131 , p=.459 N o Fac ia l Exp ress i on / Minute /f34)= .019, p=.917 N o Other / Minute 434)= . 061 ,p= .733 N o Voca l i za t ions / Minute 434)= - .269, p=.125 N o Verba l iza t ions / Minute 434)= .487, p=.004 Y e s Tab le 3.8: l l locutionary Points - Number of T i m e s per Minute of Activity Activity M e a n S . D . M a x i m u m Min imum Asser t i ves Book 5.43 4.80 18.46 0.00 W h a l e 0.74 1.68 8.08 0.00 Bubb les 0.92 1.56 8.48 0.00 Average 2.62 2.25 8.68 0.00 Direct ive Book 6.41 4 .27 13.61 0.00 W h a l e 4 .59 3.86 21 .82 0.00 Bubb les 4 .68 2.36 8.41 0.00 Average 5.37 2.42 9.53 0.96 C o m m i s s i v e Book 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 W h a l e 0.03 0.16 0.90 0.00 Bubb les 0.02 0.10 0.58 0.00 Average 0.01 0.06 0.26 0.00 Express i ve Book 1.57 2.71 13.68 0.00 W h a l e 2.61 3.90 21 .82 0.00 Bubb les 2 .65 2.06 8.70 0.00 Average 2.12 1.54 6.56 0.00 Declarat ive Book 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 W h a l e 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bubb les 0.02 0.11 0.62 0.00 Average 0.01 0.06 0.34 0.00 A m b i g u o u s Book 1.43 1.53 8.04 0.00 W h a l e 1.88 1.15 5.53 0.00 Bubb les 4.59 3.08 15.00 0.00 Average 2.78 2.43 8.57 0.00 Tab le 3.9: Corre la t ions between l l locutionary A c t s and A g e l l locutionary Point Correlation with A g e ? Directives 434)= .33, p=.056 No C o m m i s s i v e s 434)= - .066, p=.713 Insufficient Da ta Asse r t i ves 434)= .302, p=.083 N o Dec lara t ives 434)= .402 ,p= .019 Insufficient Da ta Exp ress i ves 434)= .017, p=.925 N o A m b i g u o u s 434)= - .108, p=.545 N o Figure 3.1: Percent of Ut terances On -Top i c with Exper imenter 's Toys by A g e * T h e 22 month old who is on-topic only 5 4 % of the t ime is chi ld #4 Figure 3.2: Number of Ut terances by A g e 120 i to I 100 c "E co • xi O i_. Q . Q . ro 80 60 40 in O c ro o5 20 ti 3 • • -• | • • • • • • • • • • - • • - • • • • W • 16 17 18 19 20 21 Age in Months 22 23 24 25 90 Figure 3.3: Book Activity: Initiations and R e s p o n s e s A c r o s s Chi ldren I Book: Initiations per Minute B B o o k : Responses per Minute 20 B 15 c 0) 9 E 3 kJk I C T T (D N O) ^ • r r o T - c M ( T t m o ) T - o o o ) o t M ( o e o o ) ^ - u ) o o o ) O T - ^ t m i o s o T - C \ I C O C O C O C O C O C ^ C ^ T f l f ) i r 5 C O C D C D C D C D r ^ r ^ N . r ^ C O C O O O C O O O O O O ) Child ID Figure 3.4: Wha le Activity: Initiations and R e s p o n s e s A c r o s s Chi ld ren I Whale: Initiations per Minute • Whale: Responses per Minute o o ^ c o r ^ o > T - T t T t o r - c s i c ^ T f i n o ) T - o o o ) o c N j c o c o c T ) ^ i o o o a > g T - ^ u 2 T - ^ C N i c o c o c o c o c o o o c o ^ i n i r j c o c o c D u s c D r ^ r ^ r ^ - i ^ c o c o c o o o Child ID co o 00 CO CT) Figure 3.5: Bubb les Activity: Initiations and R e s p o n s e s A c r o s s Chi ldren • Bubbles: Initiations per Minute • Bubbles: Responses per Minute Figure 3.6: Book Activity - Voca l iza t ions , Verbal izat ions, and Point per Minute • V o c / T i m e MVerb/Time CIPoin t /Min coTfcor^05T-TjTto^cNico^ino)^coc3)ocNicococn^rir)coc3)OT-^j-incDr^o T - T - C N J C O C O C ^ C O O O C O C O T f i r j t O C D C D C D C D C D r ^ r ^ r ^ r ^ C O C O C O C O C O O O O ) Chi ld ID 92 Figure 3.7: W h a l e Activity - Reach ing , and Hold Out/ G i v e per Minute I Reach/Time D H o l d Out, Give/Time 1 4 0> o Q. O u. 0) § 2 I 1 C O ' t l D S O T - T f ^ f O T - C ^ C O ^ - i n O T - C O O O C M C O O O O J I - l f i C O m O T - ^ - t O t D S O T - T - P J C O C O C O C O C O C O C O ^ - l f i l f l t O ( O t D C D C D S N S S O O O O O O O O O O O O O ) Child ID Figure 3.8: Wha le Activity - Voca l iza t ions and Verbal izat ions per Minute IVoc/Time B Verb/Time 10 03 c 0> CL 05 CO ID ["-- CT> >«r o T -• i - CM CO CO c \ jcO'^- ino5- t -coo)oc\ jcooocnr j - incx50 )OT -Tf in C O C O C O C O C O - ^ - t n i O C D C O C D C D C O N - h - I ^ I ^ O O O O C O O O ( D S O oo oo en Child ID Figure 3.9: Bubb les Activity - Reach ing , Voca l i za t ions , and Verbal izat ions per Minute • Reach/T ime • V o c / T i m e • V e r b / T i m e 14 n 12 -2 10 -p ) ^ ( O N O ) ^ - T r ^ r o i - c N c o ^ i n o ) T - ( o o ) o c N n o o o ) ^ i o o o o ) O T - ^ i n ( o s o T - T - c s i o o c r > c o c o c r > c ^ c O T f i o i o c 0 « D c o c o c o r ^ Child ID Figure 3.10: Asser t i ves per Minute A c r o s s Al l Act iv i t ies • Assert ives/Min (all activities) 10 T 8 Child ID 94 Figure 3.11: Number of Asser t i ves per Minute by Activity CD 3 5 8.4 to CD > 3 CD ° CO CO < o 2 1— 0 . Q § 1 Book W h a l e Bubb les Activity A v e r a g e Figure 3.12: Direct ives per Minute A c r o s s Al l Activi t ies I Directives/Min (all activities) 10 CD 3 C CD CL CD . Q E 3 I CO CO S O ) T - ^ O T - C N C T * LO O ) 1 - CO C5) O CM CO C O d l T f L n c O f f i O r - T t l f i C D N O T - T - c M c o c ^ c o c o c o c o c o T f i n i n c o c o c o c o c o r ^ r ^ r ^ r ^ o o c o r o Child ID 95 Figure 3.13: Number of Direct ives per Minute by Activity F igure 3.14: Exp ress i ves per Minute A c r o s s Al l Act iv i t ies 10 I 6 0 Q_ 03 . O E 3 IExpressives/Min (all activities) n ^ t o s o j T - ^ - ' t o ^ - c N n ^ m c s T - c D O i o CN co o o o i T f i n f f l o i O T - ^ m t o s o T - T - c N c o c o c o c o c o c o c o ' ^ - m m co co c o t o c o r ^ i ^ i ^ i ^ o o c o c o c o c o c o c n Child ID 96 Figure 3.15: Number of Exp ress i ves per Minute by Activity 3 C 03 rs a. 2 CO CD > to CO CD i CL X UJ •5 1 ' 1_ CD . Q E 3 • Book W h a l e B u b b l e s Activi ty A v e r a g e Figure 3.16: Amb iguous per Minute A c r o s s Al l Act ivi t ies • Ambiguous/Min 10 -I- : : : 8 CD 3 C O ^ C O S O J T - ^ - ^ O T - C N C O ^ i n O J T - C O C S O C N C O C O C J J ^ l O O O O J O T - ^ l O C O S O T - T - i N c o c o c o c o n c o c o ^ i n i n c o c D c o c o c o s s s s o o c o c o c o c o o o o ) Child ID 97 Figure 3.16: Var iat ion in Rate of Amb iguous Ac t s between activit ies in 10 randomly se lec ted chi ldren • B o o k • W h a l e • B u b b l e s C h i l d ID Figure 4 .1 : z -sco re data for Mul len, P L S , and CDI a s s e s s m e n t s , compared with the number of communicat ive ut terances per minute o f t en randomly se lec ted part icipants • Mullen V R • Mullen F M • P L S A C B P L S E C • McArthur CDI • C o m m U t t / M i n 2.000 -2.000 J = 3 4 6 11 30 32 41 58 68 74 Chi ld ID 98 R E F E R E N C E S Ba tes , E. (1976). Language and context: The acquisition of pragmatics. N e w York : A c a d e m i c P r e s s . Ba tes , E . , Ben ign i , L , Bretherton, I., C a m a i o n i , L , and Vol terra, V . (1977). F rom gesture to the first words : O n cognit ive and soc ia l prerequis i tes. In M. Lewis and L. R o s e n b l u m (Eds.) , Origins of Behaviour: communication and language. N e w York : Wi ley . Ba tes , E. , C a m a i o n i , L., and Vol terra, V . (1975). T h e acquis i t ion of performat ives prior to s p e e c h . Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 2 7 , 2 0 5 - 2 2 6 . Bay ley , N . (1969, 1994). Manual for the Bayley Scales of Infant Development-/1. N e w York : Psycho log ica l Corporat ion. B lake , J . , M c C o n n e l l , S . , Horton, G . , and B e n s o n , N. (1992). T h e gestural repertoire and its evolut ion over the s e c o n d year . Early Development and Parenting, 1, 127-136. Brady, N . , S teep les , T., and F leming , K. (2005). Effects of prel inguist ic communica t ion levels on initiation and repair of communica t ion in chi ldren with disabi l i t ies. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 48, 1098-1113 . Bruner , J . (1981). T h e socia l context of language acquis i t ion. Language and Communication, 1,155-178. Ca landre l la , A . , and Wi lcox , M. (2000). Predict ing language ou tcomes for young prel inguist ic chi ldren with deve lopmenta l de lay. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 43, 1061-1071 . C a s b y , M. , and C u m p a t a , J . (1986). A protocol for the a s s e s s m e n t of prel inguist ic intentional communica t ion . Journal of Communication Disorders, 19, 251-260 . C ra i s , E. , D a y Doug las , D., and C o x C a m p b e l l , C . (2004). T h e intersect ion of the deve lopment of ges tures and intentionality. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 47, 678-694 . D idow, S . , and E c k e r m a n , C . (2001). Todd ler peers : F rom nonverbal coord inated act ion to verbal d iscourse . Social Development, 10{2), 170-188. 99 Dore, J . (1973). The development of speech acts. A n n Arbor , M ich igan : Universi ty Microf i lms. Dore , J . (1977). Ch i ld ren 's i l locutionary ac ts . In Freed le , R. (Ed.), Discourse Relations: comprehension and production (pp. 227-244) . Hi l lsdale, N . J . : Lawrence Er lbaum A s s o c i a t e s . Dromi , E . (2003). A s s e s s m e n t of prel inguist ic behav iors in deaf ch i ldren: Paren ts a s col laborators. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 8(4), 367 -382 . F e n s o n , L , Da le , P. , Rezn i ck , J . , Tha i , D., Ba tes , E. , Har tung, J . , Peth ick, S . , & Rei l ly, J . (1993). The MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories: User's guide and technical manual. S a n Diego: S ingular Pub l ish ing G roup . F lodin, M. (2004). Signing Illustrated: The complete learning guide. N e w York : T h e Berke ley Publ ish ing G roup . F ranco , F., and Butterworth, G . (1996). Point ing and soc ia l a w a r e n e s s : Dec lar ing and request ing in the s e c o n d year . Journal of Child Language, 23, 307-336 . Hedr ick, D., Prather, E. , and Tob in , A . (1984). Sequenced Inventory of Communication Development-Revised. Seat t le : Universi ty of Wash ing ton P r e s s . Iverson, J . , and Tha i , D. (1998). Commun ica t i ve transit ions: The re ' s more to the hand than meets the eye . In Wetherby , A . , W a r r e n . S . , and Re ich le , J . (Eds. ) , Transitions in prelinguistic communication. Bal t imore: Pau l H. B rookes . Iverson, J . , and Go ld i n -Meadow, S . (2005). Ges tu re p a v e s the way for language deve lopment . Psychological Science, 16(5), 367 -371 . J o h n s o n , C . E. , & K l incans , L. (1999). Language use by a blind chi ld and his s ighted identical twin. P a p e r presented in a S y m p o s i u m on Pragmat ic Deve lopment in Atypical Ch i ld ren . VII t h International C o n g r e s s for the Study of Ch i ld L a n g u a g e , Universi ty of the B a s q u e Country , S a n Sebas t ian -Donos t ia , B a s q u e Country , S p a i n , Ju ly . Johns ton , J . (2005). Turning R e s e a r c h into Pract ice : A gu idebook to language intervention with chi ldren (pp. 109-119): U . B . C . K l incans , L. (1991). Speech act development by a blind child. Universi ty of Brit ish C o l u m b i a , Vancouve r , B C . Lichtert, G . (2003). A s s e s s i n g intentional communicat ion in deaf toddlers. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 8(1), 43-56 . L i szkowsk i , U. , Carpenter , M. , Henn ing , A . , Str iano, T., and Tomase l l o , M. {2004). Twe lve-month-o lds point to share attention and interest. Developmental Science, 7(3), 297-307 . M c C a t h r e n , R., War ren , S . , and Yode r , P. (1996). Prel inguist ic predictors of later language deve lopment . In R. C o l e , P. Da le , and D. Tha i (Eds.) , Advances in assessment of communication and language (pp. 57-76). Bal t imore: Pau l H. B rookes . M c C a t h r e n , R., Yode r , P. , and W a r r e n , S . (1999). T h e relat ionship between prel inguist ic vocal izat ion and later express ive vocabu lary in young chi ldren with deve lopmenta l de lay. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 42(A), 915-924 . M c S h a n e . J . (1980). Learning to talk. Cambr i dge : C a m b r i d g e Universi ty P r e s s . Mu l len , E . (1995). Mullen Scales of Early Learning: AGS Edition. B loomngton , M N : P e a r s o n A s s e s s m e n t s . Mundy , P. , and G o m e s , A . (1998). Individual d i f ferences in joint attention skill deve lopment in the s e c o n d year . Infant Behaviour and Child Development, 21(3), 469 -482 . Mundy , P. , and H o g a n , A . (1996). A preliminary manual for the Abridged Early Social Communication Scales. Universi ty of Miami Psycho log ica l Department . Nat ional L i teracy Trust. (2006). Useful quotes on the importance of early language. Ret r ieved Oc tober 12, 2006 , from http:/ /www.l i teracvtrust.orq.uk/talktovourbaby/quotes.html Nei ls , J . , and A r a m , D. (1986). Fami ly history of chi ldren with deve lopmenta l l anguage d isorders . Perceptual and Motor Skills, 63, 655-658 . N icho las , J . , G e e r s , A . , and Rol l ins, P . (1999). Inter-rater reliability a s a reflection of ambigui ty in the communica t ion of deaf and normal ly-hear ing chi ldren. Journal of Communication Disorders, 32, 121-134. Ninio, A . , and Bruner, J . (1976). T h e ach ievement and antecedents of label ing. Journal of Child Language, 5, 1-15. Ninio, A . , and S n o w , C . (1996). Pragmatic development: essays in developmental science. Boulder , Co lo rado : Wes tv i ew P r e s s . Ninio, A . , S n o w , C , P a n , B., and Rol l ins, P . (1994). C lass i fy ing communica t ive ac ts in chi ldren's interact ions. Journal of Communication Disorders, 27, 157-187. Ninio, A . , and Whee le r , P. (1984). Funct ions of s p e e c h in mother-infant interaction. In F e a g a n s , L., Ga rvey , C , and Gol inkoff , R. (Eds. ) , The Development of Communicative Competence (pp. 196-207). Norwood , N . J . : Ab lex . 101 Ozga l i s kan , S . , and Go ld i n -Meadow, S . (2005). Ges tu re is at the cutting edge of ear ly language deve lopment . Cognition, 96, B101 -113 . P a u l , R. (2007). Language Disorders: from infancy through adolescence, assessment and intervention (3 ed.). St. Lou is , M issour i : E lsev ier . P e n a , E. , Qu inn , R., and Iglesias, A . (1992). T h e appl icat ion of dynamic methods to language a s s e s s m e n t : a nonb iased procedure. The Journal of Special Education, 26(3), 269 -280 . Rei l ly, S . , Ead ie , P. , Bav in , E. , W a k e , M. , Prior, M. , Wi l l iams, J . , Bretherton, L., Barrett, Y . , and U k o u m u n n e , O . (2006). Growth of infant communica t ion be tween 8 and 12 months: A populat ion study. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 42(2006), 764-770 . Reyne l l , J . (1977). Reynell Developmental Language Scales (Revised). W indsor : N F E R . Reyne l l , J . , and Gruber , C . (1990). Reynell Developmental Language Scales: US Edition. L o s A n g e l e s , Cal i forn ia: Wes te rn Psycho log ica l Se rv i ces . R y c k e b u s c h , C , and M a r c o s , H. (2004). S p e e c h ac ts , soc ia l context and parent-toddler play be tween the a g e s of 1 ;5 and 2 ;3 . Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 883-897. Sear le , J . , and Vande rveken , D. (1985). Foundations of illocutionary logic. C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e Universi ty P r e s s . Seiber t , J . , H o g a n , A . , and Mundy , P. (1982). A s s e s s i n g interactional competenc ies : T h e early soc ia l communica t ion sca les . Infant Mental Health Journal, 3, 244 -245 . S i n g , T. (2002). Communicative abilities in children between 16 and 22 months. Universi ty of Brit ish C o l u m b i a , Vancouver , B C . Spi tz , R., Ta l la l , P. , F lax, J . , and B e n a s i c h , A . (1997). Look who 's talk ing: A prospect ive study of famil ial t ransmiss ion of language impairments. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 40, 990 -1001 . S t o e l - G a m m o n , C . (1998). S o u n d s and words in ear ly language acquis i t ion: T h e relat ionship between lexical and phonolog ica l deve lopment . In R. Pau l (Ed.) Exploring the Speech-Language Connection (pp. 25-52) . Bal t imore: Pau l H. B rookes Pub l ish ing C o . S u g a r m a n , S . (1983). Children's early thought: Developments in classification. N e w York , N Y : Cambr i dge P r e s s . Tombl in , J . (1989). Famil ia l concentrat ion of deve lopmenta l language impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 54, 287-295 . 102 T o p b a s , S . , Mav is , I., and E rbas , D. (2003). Intentional communica t ive behav iours of Turk ish-speak ing chi ldren with normal and de layed language deve lopment . Child: Care, Health and Development, 29(5), 345 -355 . Tough , J . (1977). The development of meaning. N e w York : Ha ls ted P r e s s . Werker , J . , C o h e n , L , L loyd, V . , C a s a s o l a , M. , and Stager , C . (1998). Acquis i t ion of word-object assoc ia t ions by 14-month-old infants Developmental Psychology 34(6), 1289-1309 . Wetherby and Pr izant (2003). CSBS Manual: Communication and Symbolic Behavious Scales manual - normed edition. Bal t imore: Pau l H. B rookes Publ ish ing C o m p a n y . Wetherby , A . , and Rodr iguez , G . (1992). Measu remen t of communica t ive intentions in normal ly deve lop ing chi ldren during structured and unstructured contexts. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35:130-138. Yoder , P., and W a r r e n , S . (1999). Materna l responsivi ty media tes the relat ionship be tween prel inguist ic intentional communica t ion and later language. Journal of Early Intervention, 22, 126-136. Yont , K., S n o w , C , and V e r n o n - F e a g a n s , L. (2003). T h e role of context in mother-chi ld interact ions: A n ana lys is of communica t ive intents e x p r e s s e d during toy play and book reading with 12-month-o lds. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 435-454 . Z i m m e r m a n , I., Ste iner, V . , & P o n d , R. (2002). PLS-4: Preschool Language Scale - 4th edition. S a n Anton io , T X : T h e Psycho log ica l Corporat ion. 103 A P P E N D I X 1 S u m m a r y of types of behav iours that have been c o d e d in the literature AUTHOR CODING S Y S T E M R E C O R D E D . . . Sear le (1960-70's) locutionary, i l locutionary (primary and secondary types) , per locut ionary Sear le and Vande rveken ' s (1985) asser t ive , direct ive, express ive , commiss i ve , or declarat ive Dore (1973) request ive, asser t ive, respons ive , regulat ive, express ive , or performative (types of i l locution at utterance level) Tough (1977) direct ive, interpretive, projective, or relational (cognit ive level) M c S h a n e (1980) regulat ion, statement, exchange , persona l , or conversat ion (activity level) R y c k e b u s c h and M a r c o s (2004) asser t ive , directive (action requests , information requests , and . attention requests) , express ive , or m isce l l aneous Ca l lendre l la and Wi l cox (2000) intentional nonverbal communica t ion acts , soc ia l interaction s igna ls , or gestural indicating behav iours C ra i s , Doug las , and C o x C a m p b e l l (2004) deict ic vs . referential ges tures ; behav iour regulat ion (request ing objects, request ing act ions, and protesting), soc ia l interaction (representat ional gestures , attention seek ing , and soc ia l games) , or joint attention (comment ing and request ing information) T o p b a s , Mav is , and E r b a s (2003) regulat ing, soc ia l interaction, or joint attention behav iours (some sub- types spec i f ied simi lar to C r a i s et a l . , 2004) C a s b y and C u m p a t a (1986) i l locutionary force and level of intentional communica t ion (gesture, g a z e , verbal izat ion/vocal izat ion to adult (ordinal scale)) L i szkowsk i , Carpenter , Henn ing , Str iano, and T o m a s e l l o (2004) proto- imperat ive vs . proto-declarat ive pointing Dromi (2003) deict ic (establ ish joint attention, e .g . showing , reach ing, g iv ing, and pointing - either contact or distal) vs . referential gesture F ranco and Butterworth (1996) gesture, v isual check ing , and vocal izat ion 104 S u m m a r y of types of behav iours that have been c o d e d in the literature, cont inued. Lichtert (2003) i l locutionary force and level of intentional communica t ion (as in C a s b y and C u m p a t a (1986), but modi f ied for use with deaf toddlers) Brady, S teep les , and F lemming (2005) gesture, vocal izat ion, spoken word , or s ign (topography), request, comment , or other (function), and were communica t ion b reakdowns reso lved Wetherby and Pr izant (2002) C S B S - D P eye g a z e , communica t ion , gesture, sounds , words , unders tand ing, or object use behaviour O l s w a n g , S toe l -G a m m o n , C o g g i n s , and Carpen te r (1987) A L B level of ability on task speci f ic criterion on subtests : cognit ive an tecedents to word mean ing , language comprehens ion , play, communica t ive intention, and language product ion Mundy and G o m e s (1998) Reyne l l Deve lopmenta l Language S c a l e s - recept ive and express ive language age Bay ley S c a l e s of Infant Deve lopment - l l - cognit ive deve lopment Ear ly Soc ia l Commun ica t i on S c a l e s - non-verbal communica t ion ski l ls 105 U B C The University of British Columbia Office of Research Services Behavioural Research Ethics Board Suite 102, 6190 Agronomy Road, Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z3 o CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL - MINIMAL RISK AMENDMENT PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Uanet F. Werker IDEPARTMENT: UBC/Arts/Psychology, Department of UBC BREB NUMBER: HO1-80266 INSTITUTION(S) WHERE RESEARCH WILL BE CARRIED OUT: Institution Site U B C (Other locations where the research will be conducted: Ubbotsford Health Unit, spare audiology room. Point Grey Site CO-INVESTIGATOR(S): Linda Siegel parolyn E. Johnson Barbara M. Bernhardt Uulianne Scott SPONSORING AGENCIES: Canadian Language and Literacy Research Network (CLLRNet) - Networks of Centres of Excellence (NCE) - "Early Detection of Language Delay - 3rd Year Undergraduate Research Assistant Award Placement" Natural Sc iences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Networks of Centres of Excellence (NCE) - "Early Detection of Language Disorders in Genetically and Perinatally High-Risk Infants" U B C Human Early Learning Partnership (HELP) - "Early Detection of Language Delay: Age 4 Follow-up" - "Relationship of Early (Word Learning and Later Language Abilities in Preschoolers" - "Early Detection of Language Disorders in Genetically and Perinatally High-Risk Infants" PROJECT TITLE: Detection of Language Delay: Age 4 Follow-up Expiry Date - Approval of an amendment does not change the expiry date on the current UBC BREB approval of this study. An application for renewal is required on or before: July 6, 2007 AMENDMENT(S): AMENDMENT APPROVAL DATE: May 9, 2007 N/A The amendment(s) and the document(s) listed above have been reviewed and the procedures were found to be acceptable on ethical grounds for research involving human subjects. Approval is issued on behalf of the Behavioural Research Ethics Board and signed electronically by one of the following: Dr. Peter Suedfeld, Chair Dr. Jim Rupert, Associate Chair Dr. Arminee Kazanjian, Associate Chair Dr. M. Judith Lynam, Associate Chair Dr. Laurie Ford, Associate Chair 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0100960/manifest

Comment

Related Items