ARTICLE

FIRST
LANGUAGE
Copyright © 2005 SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi)
www.sagepublications.com Vol 25(2): 173–195 (200506) DOI: 10.
1177/0142723705050341

The functions of maternal verbal responses to

prelinguistic infants as predictors of early
communicative and linguistic development
Leila Paavola,1 University of Oulu, Finland Sari
Kunnari,1 University of Oulu, Finland Irma
Moilanen,2 University of Oulu, Finland Matti
Lehtihalmes,1 University of Oulu, Finland

ABSTRACT
Maternal overall verbal responsiveness to prelinguistic infants at 0;10 was
analysed by categorizing responses according to their function. In addition, the
predictive validity of the response categories to the child’s communicative and
linguistic development at 1;0 was examined. The participants were 27 Finnish-
speaking mothers and their first-born infants. The results indicated several
predictive relations between the functions of maternal verbal responses and
child communicative and linguistic development, while maternal overall verbal
responsiveness seemed to imply aspects of verbal style only modestly. Child co
ntributions that may account for relationships between maternal interaction
and child linguistic development were also considered. The results are discussed
with reference to maternal interactional sensitivity.

KEYWORDS
Child-directed speech; early vocabulary; individual differences; intersubjectivity; mother-
infant play; prelinguistic communication; symbolic play
 FIRST VOLUME 25 ISSUE 2
LANGUAG
E

INTRODUCTION
In evaluating early communicative and linguistic development, the aspects of social
interaction and pragmatics are inevitably foremost (Wetherby & Prizant, 1993). The
social-pragmatic view of language development regards children as active participants
in interaction who gradually learn to use more sophisticated and conventional means
to communicate and also begin to understand others as intentional agents, all of which
are constitutive elements of language itself (Bates, 1976; Bloom & Lahey, 1978). In
particular, it has been argued that the emergence of intentional communication at
about nine months of age drives the acquisition of language (e.g., Bloom, 1993). In
turn, the need of infants to sustain intersubjectivity with other persons and thereby
locate themselves in a social world drives the development of intentionality. Hence, the
quality and nature of the interactional contexts, especially mother-infant interaction,
contribute to the successful acquisition of early communicative and linguistic skills (e.
g., Bruner, 1983; Dunham & Dunham, 1995; Laakso, Poikkeus, Katajamäki & Lyytinen,
1999; Vygotsky, 1934/1986). In the present study, maternal verbal responses to
prelinguistic infants were analysed and their predictive validity to subsequent early
communicative and linguistic development was examined. In addition, we considered
the infants’ contributions in early conversational interactions that may affect maternal
verbal interactive style.
The supporting role of maternal responsiveness for children’s advances in language
has been reported widely (Baumwell, Tamis-LeMonda & Bornstein, 1997; Bornstein &
Tamis-LeMonda, 1989; Bornstein, Tamis-LeMonda & Haynes, 1999; Landry, Smith,
Miller-Loncar & Swank, 1997; Tamis-LeMonda, Bornstein & Baumwell, 2001). Mothers’
ability to create contingent and reciprocating interactional structure facilitates especially
infants’ social understanding of adults as intentional agents (Tomasello, 1995).
However, measures of responsiveness have not been found to be as strong predictors
of child language outcomes as might have been expected. In most of these studies,
responsiveness is measured in terms of contiguity of response, i.e., promptness or,
more generally, frequency of responses (Bornstein & Tamis-LeMonda, 1997). This
might be misleading, since the absence of any qualitative assessment of maternal
responses may significantly distinguish contiguity of response from sensitive
responsiveness (see Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters & Wall, 1978). For example, mothers
similar in their overall amount of responsiveness may differ in their ability to fine-tune
the verbal input appropriately to the child’s level of development.
Mothers’ speech to their children (CDS: child-directed speech) has been found to be
syntactically simple and redundant, usually containing large proportions of questions,
directives and imperatives (Snow, 1977). In addition, CDS tends to be high-pitched and to
have an exaggerated intonational pattern. The role of CDS in language acquisition has
been investigated in many studies. For example, predictive relations have been reported
involving maternal use of short utterance lengths, as well as ‘here and now’ language (
Furrow, Nelson & Benedict, 1979), yes/no questions (Furrow et al., 1979; Gleitman,
Newport & Gleitman, 1984) and labelling objects (Masur, 1982, 1997; Stevens, Blake,
Vitale & MacDonald, 1998). In addition, directive interactive style, particularly a frequent
use of prescriptives that redirect the infant’s focus of attention as opposed to following it,
has been found to hinder language acquisition (Akhtar, Dunham &

174
 PAAVOLA ET AL.: VERBAL RESPONSES TO PRELINGUISTIC INFANTS

Dunham, 1991; Della Corte, Benedict & Klein, 1983; Tomasello & Farrar, 1986).
However, in the very early stages of communicative development, when an active role
of the mother as an interaction initiator is needed (Menyuk, Liebergotts & Schultz, 1995;
Snow, 1977), infants may benefit from directive and controlled structuring of their play (
Pine, 1992; Saxon, 1997; Tamis-LeMonda & Bornstein, 1989; see Vygotsky’s ‘zone of
proximal development’, 1934/1986).
Studies on CDS have usually evaluated utterances without considering whether
they act as interaction initiators or as responses. One fruitful way to continue
investigating the relations between social interactional factors and child language
development might be to analyse CDS together with the overall frequency of
responses (TamisLeMonda et al., 2001). In addition, since there is evidence of the
predictive value of prelinguistic skills with regard to later language development (e.g.,
Camaioni, Castelli, Longobardi & Volterra, 1991; Laakso et al., 1999; Thal, Tobias &
Morrison, 1991; Tomasello, 1995), it would also be important to analyse the
characteristics of CDS to prelinguistic infants in detail and examine their contributions
to the development of early communicative and linguistic skills. Maternal speech may
indeed be even more influential around the onset of word production than at later
stages of language development, at least when productive vocabulary is concerned (
Barrett, Harris & Chasin, 1991). Studies that have observed children at the age of 1;6
or 2;0 may have looked for the effects of CDS too late (Hampson & Nelson, 1993).
Individual differences in maternal speech and conversation behaviours are evident
and to a certain extent quite stable (Dunham & Dunham, 1995; McDonald & Pien, 1982;
Olsen-Fulero, 1982; Stevens et al., 1998). For example, maternal conversational style
may be characterized by relative dominance of either conversation-eliciting or directive
behaviour. Nevertheless, it is also important to consider the impact of child
characteristics – such as age and developmental level – on early conversational
interactions (Baldwin, 1995; Bloom, 1993; D’Odorico, Salerni, Cassibba & Jacob, 1999;
Murray & Trevarthen, 1986; Snow, 1977, 1986; Tomasello 1995; Yoder & Kaiser, 1989).
Maternal speech to young infants has been found to be more complicated than speech
to older infants (e.g., Murray, Johnson & Peters, 1990; Snow, 1977). In the beginning,
mothers try to teach conversation-like turn-taking behaviours and, once their children
begin to use gestures to communicate intentionally and to comprehend words, mothers
start to simplify their language in an attempt to teach new words. The use of directives (
Smolak, 1987) and affect-salient speech (Bornstein, Tal, Rahn, Galperin, et al., 1992)
has also been found to decrease as children grow older. Individual differences in early
communicative and linguistic skills may also influence maternal behaviour, so that they
subsequently alter the maternal effect on further language development. For example,
infants’ intentional communication is likely to elicit language-facilitating maternal
responses (Yoder & Warren, 2001), and intensive infant vocalizations might influence
mothers to provide more favourable verbal input (D’Odorico et al., 1999).
Hence, consistent CDS effects may be impossible to demonstrate unless individual
differences among children are taken into account (Hampson & Nelson, 1993).
However, the mere fact that a certain kind of maternal verbal response may have been
elicited by child communicative behaviour does not rule out the possibility that the
response may then have an effect upon later child development, but the effects might
be different in different children due to individual variation in early communicative and

175
 FIRST VOLUME 25 ISSUE 2
LANGUAG
E

linguistic development. There are possibly some specific elements of verbal responses
that affect certain outcomes in children at specific periods in development (Bornstein &
Tamis-LeMonda, 1997; Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2001). Moreover, maternal abilities to
respond to infants’ signals promptly, contingently and appropriately may be especially
influential in promoting early communicative and linguistic skills among children who are
initially lower in these capacities (see Baumwell et al., 1997; Landry et al., 1997). All in
all, the individual characteristics of both infants and mothers make a relevant
contribution to the first steps of language acquisition (D’Odorico et al., 1999).
In the present study we aimed to investigate the functional characteristics of
maternal verbal responses to prelinguistic infants around the time the infants have
begun to communicate intentionally and to comprehend words. We examined whether
any of these characteristics are typical for highly responsive mothers and, in addition,
whether they are influenced by individual differences in infants’ abilities to participate in
verbal/vocal dialogue. Finally, we investigated the predictive validity of the functions of
maternal verbal responses to early child communicative and linguistic development.
Thus, the specific research questions that were addressed in this study were the
following: What kinds of functions are typical for maternal verbal responses to
prelinguistic infants? Are there any relations between overall verbal responsiveness and
the functions of verbal responses? Does an infant’s amount of vocalizations during
interaction affect the functions of maternal verbal responses? Are there any predictive
relations between the functions of maternal verbal responses and various aspects of
early child communicative and linguistic development?

METHOD

Participants

The participants were recruited from the maternity ward in the University Hospital of
Oulu, Finland. They were 27 Finnish-speaking mothers and their first-born infants (13
boys and 14 girls), who were full term at birth after normal pregnancy and delivery. For
practical reasons, in order to be included in this study the families also had to live in the
City of Oulu or in the vicinity. Families meeting these criteria were selected on the basis
of their willingness to participate.
The mothers’ average age at childbirth was 26 years (SD = 4.5). The educational
level of the mothers was classified into three categories according to the Finnish
educational system (see Statistical Yearbook of Finland 2001). The mothers were well
educated, having completed an average of 17 years (SD = 3.7) of schooling; 17 of them
had a tertiary education (e.g., polytechnic, university) and 10 mothers had an upper
secondary education (e.g., senior secondary school, vocational and professional
education institutions). Households were of middle to upper socioeconomic status
based on the occupational status of the parents, which ranged from lower-level salaried
employees to employers. In 19 families at least one of the parents was an upper-level
salaried employee. Maternal educational level and socioeconomic status were
unrelated to any mother and child measures in this sample. Therefore they were not
considered further in the analyses.

176
 PAAVOLA ET AL.: VERBAL RESPONSES TO PRELINGUISTIC INFANTS

Procedure
Measures of mother-infant interaction and maternal speech
The samples of mother-infant interaction were collected by the first author during home
visits at the infant’s age of 0;10. Twenty-minute dyadic sessions, considered
representative of free play using a standard set of toys, were videotaped. The set of
toys was adapted from the free-play segment of the Early Relational Assessment (
Clark, 1985) including, for example, a toy telephone, some building blocks, a doll and a
couple of picture books. Mothers were instructed to interact with their children in the
way they usually did.
Transcripts were prepared from the first 15 minutes of each video session, applying
a slightly modified method of Menyuk et al. (1995). From the transcripts, the proportions
of maternal verbal responses to infant communicative acts were calculated. A maternal
verbal response was defined as a meaningful change in the mother’s verbal or vocal
behaviour which was contiguous and contingent on the child exhibiting a vocal or
exploratory act (see Baumwell et al., 1997; Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2001). In order for a
maternal activity to be credited as responsive, it had to occur within a 5-second period
following the child act. As an example, if the child looked at a ball and the mother said ‘
ball’, the mother was credited with responding. For the infant, we recorded the total
number of vocalizations.
For the present study, the maternal verbal responses from each of the 15-minute
transcriptions were categorized according to their communicative intent/function. A
coding scheme containing 19 categories (see Appendix) was developed after a
thorough inspection of the literature, but the main consideration was to capture the
various different qualities of maternal verbal responses in this particular sample. The
labels and definitions of these categories were derived with some slight modifications
from three earlier studies in particular (Della Corte et al., 1983; Iacono, Chan & Waring,
1998; Kloth, Janssen, Kraaimaat & Brutten, 1998). All the categories were defined so
that each utterance could be placed into one of them. In order to measure maternal
communicative style independent of the amount of communication, the proportions of
each category to the total number of maternal verbal responses were counted.
The analysis procedure was carried out by the first author. To test the reliability of
the codings of maternal verbal responses, 10% of the samples were randomly selected
and reanalysed independently by the second author. The percentages of agreement in
identifying maternal responses and in categorizing them were 92 and 87, respectively.

Child language measures

Early language development was assessed at the age of 1;0. Information on children’s
phrase and vocabulary comprehension, vocabulary production, and use of early actions
and gestures was gathered from parental reports by using the Finnish version of the
MacArthur Communicative Developmental Inventory (MCDI; Fenson, Dale, Reznick,
Bates, et al., 1994; Lyytinen, 1999). The younger children’s form of the MCDI, which is
designed for children aged 8–16 months, was used in this study. In addition, early
communicative, social affective and symbolic skills were assessed in a laboratory setting
by using the Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scales (CSBS; Wetherby & Prizant,

177
 FIRST VOLUME 25 ISSUE 2
LANGUAG
E

1993). This includes direct sampling of communicative behaviour with an examiner in

the presence of the parent. Derived from videotape codings, six cluster scores (
communicative functions, gestural, vocal and verbal communicative means,
reciprocity, social-affective signalling) were computed from 18 functional
communication scales. One cluster score (symbolic) was computed from 4 scales
measuring symbolic development. A communication composite score, CSBS-Total, is
based on the sum of the scale scores for the 18 communication scales. The CSBS has
not been standardized into Finnish. Therefore, for the present analysis we used the
raw cluster scores instead of standard score or percentile rank equivalents based on
the original standardization. Procedures for sampling behaviour as well as scoring
procedures of the CSBS were performed by the first author. Another coder also trained
in the use of this method reanalysed 20% of the study sample to test inter-coder
reliability, which averaged 0.90 using Cohen’s kappa. The agreement was fair (0.38) in
only one of the 22 scales, behaviour regulation included in the cluster communicative
function. For the rest of the scales the kappa values indicated at least good
agreement, as they ranged from 0.58 to 1.00.

RESULTS

The results are reported in three sections. First, we report descriptive statistics.
Secondly, we examine the relations of the functional categories of maternal verbal
responses both to the proportional frequency measures of maternal verbal responses
and to the amount of infant vocalizations. Thirdly, we report the results of the
examinations of the predictive validity of the maternal verbal response categories to
the measures of early child communicative and linguistic skills. The same kind of
pattern of statistical analyses was used in both the second and third sections. First,
Pearson product-moment correlations were used as preliminary analyses. Thereafter,
based on these correlations, the selection of independent variables for subsequent
hierarchical multiple regression analyses was carried out. Since there were only 27
participants, in addition to which a few variables were not quite normally distributed,
the contributions of each independent variable were verified by performing two
additional sets of regression analyses. For the first of these sets, independent
variables were dichotomized. For the second additional set of regression analyses,
both independents and dependents were dichotomized and then logistic regression
analyses were performed. In all the regression analyses the forward stepwise method
was used. The cutpoints needed to dichotomize the variables were defined by viewing
the histograms as well as the list of frequency distribution of the values of each
variable. The possible effects of gender were also taken into account and examined by
comparing means (Student’s test for unpaired cases).

Descriptive statistics
The proportional frequency of maternal verbal responses averaged 0.61 (SD = 0.13).
The variation was considerable, ranging from 0.37 to 0.87. Table 1 presents descriptive
statistics for the functional categories of maternal verbal responses. In interacting with

178
 PAAVOLA ET AL.: VERBAL RESPONSES TO PRELINGUISTIC INFANTS

Table 1 Means, standard deviations and ranges for the functional categories of
maternal verbal responses

Category M SD Range

Yes/no questions 0.08 0.04 0.01–0.18

Tag 0.01 0.01 0.00–0.03
Requests for information 0.01 0.01 0.00–0.06
Requests for clarification or confirmation 0.01 0.02 0.00–0.05
Test questions 0.04 0.03 0.00–0.13
Mand-models 0.02 0.02 0.00–0.05
Descriptions 0.23 0.08 0.05–0.42
Displaced speech 0.01 0.01 0.00–0.05
Attention devices 0.02 0.01 0.00–0.05
Permission requests/suggestions 0.04 0.02 0.00–0.12
Commands/warnings 0.07 0.07 0.02–0.16
Social play 0.05 0.03 0.02–0.16
Conventional social expressions 0.03 0.03 0.00–0.12
Naming objects and people 0.12 0.07 0.02–0.24
Imitations 0.03 0.03 0.00–0.12
Affirmatives 0.06 0.04 0.01–0.21
Compliments 0.02 0.03 0.00–0.09
Negations/criticisms 0.01 0.02 0.00–0.07
Fillers 0.15 0.08 0.01–0.29

a 10-month-old infant, the mothers in this sample used proportionally the highest
amount of Descriptions as responses. Another two categories quite frequently used
were Naming objects and people, and Fillers. Fillers refer to little words such as ‘uh oh’
(see Appendix). As for the question categories, their proportions were very small except
for Yes/no questions, which were quite frequently used. However, the variation in
almost all the categories was great. Also, in the amount of infant vocalizations at 0;10 in
play, the variation was great, ranging from 16 to 119. On average, infants produced 52.
33 (SD = 28.92) vocalizations. Descriptive statistics for the child language measures at
1;0 are presented in Table 2.

The relations of the functional categories of maternal verbal

responses to the overall verbal responsiveness and the amount of
infant vocalizations in free play
From the 19 functional maternal verbal response categories Mand-models (r = 0.42, p =
0.029) correlated positively, while Displaced speech (r = –0.53, p = 0.005) and
Commands/warnings (r = –0.41, p = 0.032) correlated negatively with the proportional

179
 FIRST VOLUME 25 ISSUE 2
LANGUAG
E

Table 2 Means, standard deviations and ranges for the child language measures at 1;0

Category M SD Range

MCDI
Phrases understood 14.65 6.16 2–23
Vocabulary comprehension 102.27 62.39 11–227
Vocabulary production 9.42 7.41 1–23
Total gestures 29.77 9.36 14–47

CSBS
Communicative function 10.59 1.74 6–13
Communicative means – gestural 10.07 2.48 4–14
Communicative means – vocal 10.85 2.13 8–15
Communicative means – verbal 5.52 0.51 5–6
Reciprocity 11.00 1.84 8–14
Social-affective signalling 8.59 1.31 6–11
Symbolic behaviour 10.26 1.75 6–14
CSBS total 56.63 7.30 42–70

frequencies of maternal verbal responses. Based on these correlations, which served

as preliminary analyses, the independents for subsequent regression analyses were
selected (see Table 3). Using the stepwise method, Displaced speech and then also
Commands/warnings were entered into the regression model. Both additional sets of
regression analyses verified the inverse predictive validity of Displaced speech to
overall verbal responsiveness. As for the amount of infant vocalizations during play,
none of the maternal verbal response categories correlated with it. Therefore, no further
statistical analyses were performed. Even if not statistically significant, it might be worth
mentioning that there was a slight negative relationship between infant vocalizations
and maternal Descriptions. In addition, infant’s gender had some effect on the functions
of maternal verbal responses: the mothers of daughters presented higher proportions of
Requests for clarification or confirmation (p = 0.015, 95% CI 0.003 to 0.027), and there
also seemed to be a trend for them to use smaller proportions of Commands/ warnings
than the mothers of sons (p = 0.052, 95% CI –0.056 to 0.0002).

The predictive validity of the functions of maternal verbal

responses to child language measures
The results of the correlational analyses between the functional categories of maternal
verbal responses and child language measures are presented in Tables 4 and 5. Again,
these results formed the basis for the selection of independents for regression analyses.
As for gender effects, the MCDI test results indicated that girls produced more words

180
 PA
Table 3 Summary of hierarchical regression analyses for the functions of maternal verbal responses predicting overall verbal responsiveness AV
OL
A
ET
AL
Independents 8 SE 8 β
95% CI 8 Independents Independents .:
VE
Analysis 1 Analysis 2 Analysis 3 RB
AL
RE
SP
Step 1 adjusted R2 = 0.25 Step 1 Step 1 ON
Displaced speech –5.430 1.751 –0.53** –9.036 to –1.823 Displaced speech Displaced speech SE
S
TO
PR
Step 2 adjusted R2 = 0.35 ELI
NG
Displaced speech –4.969 1.642 –0.48** –8.358 to –1.581 UI
Commands/warnings –1.254 0.566 –0.35* –2.423 to –0.085 STI
C
IN
Note. Analyses 1 to 3 refer to different sets of regression analyses, where original values of each variable were used, then independents were dichotomized, and FA
NT
finally both independents and dependents were dichotomized and logistic regression analyses were performed, respectively. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 S

iai

182

Table 4 Pearson product-moment correlations between the functions of maternal verbal responses and the MCDI
FIRST
LANGU
AGE
Phrases understood Vocabulary comprehension Vocabulary production Total gestures

VOL
Yes/no questions 0.23 0.40* 0.54** 0.41*
UME
25
Tag –0.03 0.02 0.22 0.08 ISSU
E2
Requests for information 0.15 0.08 0.24 –0.08
Requests for clarification or confirmation 0.02 –0.11 0.13 0.05
Test questions –0.20 –0.25 –0.05 –0.12
Mand-models –0.30 –0.13 0.24 –0.34
Descriptions –0.15 –0.13 –0.46* –0.03
Displaced speech –0.30 –0.35 –0.04 –0.10
Attention devices –0.35 –0.43* –0.17 –0.32
Permission requests/suggestions 0.12 0.26 0.44* 0.33
Commands/warnings –0.12 –0.31 –0.43* –0.10
Social play 0.36 0.27 0.19 0.40*
Conventional social expressions 0.05 0.08 0.22 0.18
Naming objects or people 0.41* 0.49* 0.38 0.23
Imitations –0.20 –0.25 –0.11 –0.24
Affirmatives –0.02 0.05 –0.24 –0.39
Compliments 0.37 0.28 –0.01 0.35
Negations/criticisms –0.13 –0.23 –0.26 –0.23
Fillers –0.19 –0.24 –0.01 –0.29

* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01

 Table 5 Pearson product-moment correlations between the functions of maternal verbal responses and the CSBS

Communicative Gestural Vocal Verbal Reciprocity Social-affective Symbolic CSBS

function signalling behaviour total

Yes/no questions 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.21 0.12 0.10 0.33 0.18
Tag 0.11 0.32 0.14 0.09 0.05 0.07 0.16 0.21
Requests for information –0.09 –0.17 –0.20 0.09 –0.13 –0.06 –0.14 –0.20
Requests for clarification or –0.14 –0.22 –0.10 –0.25 –0.19 0.36 0.09 –0.14
confirmation
Test questions 0.08 –0.08 0.07 –0.10 –0.18 0.06 –0.03 –0.03
Mand-models –0.25 –0.23 –0.01 –0.10 –0.25 –0.02 –0.25 –0.21
Descriptions 0.05 –0.03 –0.24 –0.36 –0.10 –0.18 –0.09 –0.15
Displaced speech –0.49** –0.23 –0.08 –0.11 –0.41* –0.47* –0.13 –0.41*
Attention devices 0.04 –0.08 0.12 –0.17 –0.04 –0.21 –0.25 –0.04
Permission requests/ suggestions 0.15 0.12 0.45* 0.41* 0.01 –0.10 0.25 0.22

Commands/warnings –0.16 –0.03 0.03 –0.02 0.01 0.29 –0.16 0.01

Social play 0.35 0.32 0.12 0.38* 0.42* 0.22 0.30 0.40*
Conventional social 0.16 0.24 0.41* 0.34 0.17 0.21 0.18 0.34
expressions
Naming objects or people 0.49** 0.45* 0.34 0.21 0.48* 0.22 0.29 0.54**
Imitations –0.06 –0.04 –0.19 –0.32 –0.06 0.39* 0.08 –0.05
Affirmatives –0.13 –0.18 –0.39* 0.05 0.03 –0.04 –0.22 –0.20
Compliments 0.07 –0.02 –0.23 –0.17 –0.01 0.23 0.16 –0.03
Negations/criticisms –0.11 –0.46* –0.02 –0.20 –0.29 –0.09 –0.10 –0.29
Fillers –0.38* –0.20 –0.09 –0.03 –0.27 –0.48* –0.37 –0.34

* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01

183
 FIRST VOLUME 25 ISSUE 2
LANGUAG
E

than boys at 1;0 (o = 0.025, 95% CI 0.88–11.90). Therefore, in subsequent analyses of

the predictors of vocabulary production, gender was included as an independent
variable.
The results of the hierarchical multiple regression analyses indicated several specific
predictive relations between different functional categories of maternal verbal responses
and the aspects of early child communicative and linguistic development. Table 6
shows the predictors of the MCDI test results. Maternal Naming was the strongest
predictor of early receptive language skills. These relations were also verified by
additional sets of regression analyses. Moreover, vocabulary comprehension was
inversely predicted by maternal use of Attention devices as responses. As for
vocabulary production, it was predicted by maternal use of Yes/no questions and
female gender. In addition, Descriptions and Commands/warnings may also have some
inverse predictive validity. Finally, the MCDI composite score of early actions and
gestures was to some extent predicted by Yes/no questions.
The results of the hierarchical multiple regression analyses of the functions of maternal
verbal responses and the CSBS test results are shown in Table 7. Infants’ activity to
produce communicative acts in general during the CSBS test procedure, which is
implicated in the measure communicative function, was inversely predicted by Displaced
speech and positively predicted by Naming. As for the various different means to
communicate during the test procedure, the gestural ones were inversely predicted by
maternal use of Negations/criticisms, and both the vocal and verbal ones by maternal use
of Permission requests/suggestions as responses. Moreover, maternal responses that
were categorized as Social play predicted verbal communicative means. Also
Conventional social expressions as responses may have some predictive validity as far as
infants’ use of vocal communicative means is concerned. Naming and Social play
predicted infants’ reciprocity. As for the infants’ social-affective signalling, it was inversely
predicted by maternal use of Fillers as responses. This relationship was verified by
additional regression analyses. Moreover, social-affective signalling was predicted by
Imitations and inversely predicted by Displaced speech. Similarly to the predictors of infant
reciprocity, the CSBS-Total was predicted by maternal Naming and Social play.

DISCUSSION

In the present study we aimed to investigate qualitative aspects of maternal responses

by categorizing contingent verbal responses according to their function. Firstly, we
wanted this study to serve as an inventory of the functions of maternal verbal
responses to prelinguistic infants. We attempted to formulate as detailed a category
system as possible to capture all the various kinds of functional characteristics found
in this sample. In addition, we aimed to examine whether highly responsive mothers
could be characterized by a consistent pattern of verbal behaviour. We also
considered individual differences in the abilities of infants to participate in verbal/vocal
dialogue that may affect the functions of maternal verbal responses. Finally, we
examined the contributions of the functional verbal response categories to subsequent
early child communicative and linguistic development.

184
 Table 6 Summary of hierarchical regression analyses for the functions of maternal verbal responses predicting the MCDI test results

Dependent/independents Analysis 1 8 SE 8 β
95% CI 8 Independents Analysis 2 Independents
Analysis 3

Phrases understood PAA

Step 1 adjusted R2 = 0.14 Step 1 Step 1 VOL
A
Naming 37.495 16.864 0.41* 2.689–72.301 Naming Naming ET
AL.:
Vocabulary comprehension Step 1 VER
BAL
adjusted R2 = 0.21 Step 1 Step 1 RES
PON
Naming 453.033 163.282 0.49* 116.035–790.031 Naming Naming SES
TO
Step 2 adjusted R2 = 0.38 PRE
LIN
Naming 448.923 145.279 0.49** 148.391–749.456 GUI
Attention devices –1809.323 668.741 –0.43* –3192.719 to –425.926 STI
C
INF
Vocabulary production ANT
Step 1 adjusted R2 = 0.30 Step 1 Step 1 S
Yes/no questions 102.567 32.293 0.54** 35.917–169.216 Descriptions Commands
Step 2 adjusted R2 = 0.42 Step 2 Step 2
Yes/no questions 90.625 30.530 0.48** 35.917–169.216 Descriptions Commands
Gender (female) 5.130 2.355 0.35* 0.259–10.001 Commands Descriptions

Total gestures
Step 1 adjusted R2 = 0.14 – –
Yes/no questions 97.931 44.262 0.41* 6.578–189.283

N o t e . An al y ses 1 t o 3 r ef e r t o differ ent sets of r egr ession analyses, w here original values of each variable were used, then independents were dichot o m i z e d , a n d f i n a l l y
b o th in d e p e n d e n t s a n d dependents wer e dichotomized and logistic r egression analyses were performed, respectively. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01

185
186

Table 7 Summary of hierarchical regression analyses for the functions of maternal verbal responses predicting the CSBS test results FIRST
LANGUA
GE
Dependent/independents 8 SE 8 β
95% CI 8 Independents Independents
Analysis 1 Analysis 2 Analysis 3
V
Communicative function Step 1 OL
U
adjusted R2 = 0.21 Step 1 Step 1 M
E
Displaced speech –66.667 23.629 –0.49** – 115.332 to –18.002 Naming Naming 25
IS
Step 2 adjusted R2 = 0.31 SU
Displaced speech –49.838 23.530 –0.37* – 98.401 to –1.275 E2
Naming 9.574 4.528 0.37* 0.228–18.920
Gestural
Step 1 adjusted R2 = 0.18 – –
Negations –67.000 26.147 –0.46* – 120.850 to –13.150
Vocal
Step 1 adjusted R2 = 0.17 Step 1 –
Permission requests Verbal 37.989 15.298 0.45* 6.482–69.496 Social
expressions
Step 1 adjusted R2 = 0.13 – –
Permission requests 8.376 3.734 0.41* 0.685–16.066
Step 2 adjusted R2 = 0.24
Permission requests 7.989 3.502 0.39* 0.762–15.216
Social play 5.984 2.818 0.36* 0.168–11.801

(continued)
 Table 7 (continued)

Reciprocity
Step 1 adjusted R2 = 0.20 Step 1 Step 1
Naming 13.368 4.838 0.48* 3.404–23.332 Social play Social play
Step 2 adjusted R2 = 0.38 Step 2 PAA
VOL
Naming 13.997 4.259 0.51** 5.206–22.787 Social play A
Social play 26.487 9.170 0.45** 7.561–45.413 Naming ET
AL.:
Social-affective signalling Step 1 VER
BAL
adjusted R2 = 0.20 Step 1 Step 1 RES
PON
Fillers –8.234 3.005 –0.48* – 14.423 to – 2.046 Fillers Fillers SES
Step 2 adjusted R2 = 0.35
TO
PRE
Fillers –8.527 2.721 –0.50** – 14.142 to – 2.912 LIN
GUI
Imitations 18.161 7.096 0.41* 3.516–32.805 STI
Step 3 adjusted R2 = 0.44
C
INF
Fillers –5.948 2.757 –0.35* –11.652 to –0.244 ANT
S
Imitations 19.426 6.576 0.44** 5.823–33.029
Displaced speech –37.432 16.500 –0.37* – 71.564 to – 3.299
CSBS-total
Step 1 adjusted R2 = 0.27 Step 1 Step 1
Naming 59.578 18.422 0.54** 21.637–97.519 Naming Naming
Step 2 adjusted R2 = 0.44 Step 2
Naming 61.982 16.190 0.57** 28.568–95.397 Naming
Social play 101.348 34.857 0.43** 29.406–173.289 Social play

N o t e . An a l yses 1 t o 3 r ef e r t o differ ent sets of r egr ession analyses, where original values of each variable were used, then independents were dichoto m i z e d , a n d f i n a l l y
bo th in d e p endent s a n d dependents wer e dichotomized and logistic r egression analyses were performed, respectively. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01

187
 FIRST VOLUME 25 ISSUE 2
LANGUAG
E

Variation in maternal verbal behaviour was great, suggesting that the mothers may
have had different aims in interacting with their infants (see Dunham & Dunham, 1995;
McDonald & Pien, 1982; Olsen-Fulero, 1982; Stevens et al., 1998). On average, the
mothers used proportionally the highest amount of Descriptions, which might be typical
for maternal speech to a prelinguistic infant. Early conversations are highly dependent
on mothers who, in order to initiate or maintain interaction, interpret and impute
meaning to just about any kind of infant action, e.g., by commenting on them (Menyuk
et al., 1995). In addition, except for Yes/no questions, most of the mothers used hardly
any questions, which contradicts earlier findings on CDS (e.g., Snow, 1977). This might
be another characteristic typical of CDS to prelinguistic infants, who are not yet
expected to give a verbal answer to any questions. As for the Yes/no questions
category, it is important to note that even if it is commonly used in coding structural
rather than functional elements of utterances, in this sample Yes/no questions were
coded separately, because they seemed to have a somewhat different function from
questions more explicitly requesting either some new information or a specific structure.
Besides being used in an attempt to build a conversation-like structure, Yes/no
questions appeared to be used to name or describe something.
From a total of 19 different functional verbal response categories, only two were
related to overall frequency of verbal responses. This finding supports the assumption
that mothers may differ in many ways in their interactive behaviour, regardless of their
similarity in overall responsiveness (Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2001). But our finding that
the frequency of responses was negatively related to Displaced speech might imply that
mothers high on overall responsiveness have the ability to fine-tune verbal responses
so that they are appropriate for the developmental level of a prelinguistic infant by
choosing ‘here and now’ topics (see Menyuk, 1988; Stevens et al., 1998). Displaced
speech, as defined in this study, refers to responses that are conceptually related to the
infant’s prior action, but which still describe something not in the immediate situation or
something that happened in the past or will happen in the future. In addition, the
frequency of responses was negatively related to Commands/warnings, suggesting that
mothers high on responsiveness may be more motivated to elicit conversation than to
direct the behaviour of their child.
Quite interestingly, the amount of infant vocalizations during play did not influence
the functions of maternal verbal responses. However, there seemed to be a trend for a
negative relationship between the amount of infant vocalizations and maternal use of
Descriptions. It is possible that mothers of infants who use a lot of vocal communicative
means have already started to simplify their language, as has been suggested to
happen around the onset of language (e.g., Murray et al., 1990; Snow, 1977). In
addition, some differences in maternal speech may be explained by infant’s gender (
Stevens et al., 1998). In the present study the mothers directed higher proportions of
Requests for clarification or confirmation to daughters but higher proportions of
Commands/warning to sons. Subsequently, at 1;0 there was a significant gender
difference in word production favouring girls. In several earlier studies girls have been
found to score higher than boys in vocabulary measures of language (e.g., Fenson et al
., 1994; Reznick & Goldfield, 1992; Reznick & Goldsmith, 1989). If future investigators
replicate our finding that gender-related differences in maternal speech exist already
during the prelinguistic period, it might be worth considering whether gender

188
 PAAVOLA ET AL.: VERBAL RESPONSES TO PRELINGUISTIC INFANTS

differences in early language acquisition are partly explained by the quality and nature
of mother-infant interaction. However, it is important to note that in the present study
there were no gender differences found in the rest of the measures of early
communicative and linguistic skills.
As for maternal responsiveness and subsequent child language development, our
results give support to the assumption that certain aspects of responsiveness are more
predictive than others (Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2001). As a predictor of language
outcomes, the overall frequency measure of responses is likely to be too robust.
However, in the present study both functional verbal response categories that were
negatively related to the frequency of responses were also found to have some inverse
predictive validity to early communicative and linguistic skills. Firstly, Displaced speech
inversely predicted infants’ general activity in communicative behaviour during the
CSBS test procedure, suggesting that mothers who used mostly ‘here and now’
language made it easier for their infants to participate in early communicative
interactions. Frequent displays of emergent communicative capacities may also be
explained by motivational factors related to intersubjectivity (Bloom, 1993), as well as to
emotional security (Murray & Yingling, 2000). The inverse predictive validity of
Displaced speech also to social-affective signalling might indeed imply that highly
responsive mothers have an ability to monitor and match their behaviours according to
the emotional states of their infants (see Stern’s ‘affect attunement’, 1985).
To sum up, our results suggest that highly responsive mothers are able to consider
the point of view of their infants (see the definition of sensitivity by Ainsworth et al.,
1978). In addition, by attempting to elicit conversation rather than directing infants’
behaviour, highly responsive mothers may support the development of early word
production, since in the present study Commands/warnings may have had some
inverse predictive validity to vocabulary production (cf. Akhtar et al., 1991; Della Corte
et al., 1983; Tomasello & Farrar, 1986). Another finding associated with maternal
directiveness and attention-directing strategies was that Attention devices inversely
predicted vocabulary comprehension. However, as expected, the proportions of
Attention devices used as responses were very small. As for Permission
requests/suggestions, which also aim to direct or guide infants’ actions, albeit
implicitly, they were found to predict infants’ use of vocal and verbal communicative
means. The opposite direction of the predictive validity of Commands/warnings and
Permission requests/suggestions cannot be explained by differences in maternal use
of directives that either follow or direct infants’ attention (cf. Akhtar et al., 1991), since
as responses they were by definition related to something the infant was already
engaged in. Like scaffolding (Bruner, 1983), Permission requests/suggestions may
reflect the mother’s sensitive involvement with the task and her child and also positive
commitment to fostering the infant’s development (Laakso et al., 1999; Stevens et al.,
1998). Our findings support the assumption that it is important to distinguish between
different kinds of directives and attention-directing strategies in evaluating their
predictive validity to language development (Pine, 1992; Stevens et al., 1998).
In our view, several predictive relations found in the present study could be explained
by considering the characteristics of maternal interactional sensitivity, which in earlier
studies has also been found to contribute to the development of early intentional
communication (Laakso et al., 1999). In this vein, it might be important to consider not

189
 FIRST VOLUME 25 ISSUE 2
LANGUAG
E

only maternal sensitive activity, e.g., in sharing the infant’s attention and simplifying the
task appropriately, but also the role of shared affect in relation to language acquisition (
Bloom, 1993; Nicely, Tamis-LeMonda & Bornstein, 2000; Stern, 1985). In the present
study, functional characteristics of maternal verbal responses that were categorized as
Social play predicted infant activity in communicative behaviour and reciprocity as well
as the use of verbal communicative means during the CSBS test procedure. Moreover,
Conventional social expressions, which may often be connected to social play, e.g.,
social toy play involving accepting a toy and then offering to return it, predicted to a
certain extent infants’ use of vocal communicative means. Perhaps mothers who
interact with their infants in a playful manner are especially skilful in fine-tuning the
structure of interaction so that the infant is not only able to participate in interaction but
also remains at an optimal affective state (Laakso et al., 1999). Interactional sensitivity
may also be reflected in mothers’ general interest in social play. However, according to
our results the functions of maternal verbal responses did not predict infant skills in
symbolic play. Only the MCDI test composite score of early actions and gestures, which
is derived from assessing some symbolic play skills in addition to communicative
gestures, was to some extent predicted by Yes/no questions. Instead, our assumption
that maternal sensitivity is reflected in the predictive relations between maternal verbal
response categories and early child communicative and linguistic skills found in this
study is further supported by our findings of inverse predictive validity of Negations/
criticisms and Fillers to infants’ use of gestural communicative means and social-
affective signalling, respectively. Moreover, maternal Imitations of infants’ utterances,
which in turn may reflect mothers’ active observation of infant behaviour and sharing
subjective states, predicted social-affective signalling. Maternal fostering of infants’
interest in and understanding of interpersonal communication by affectively attuned
responses is needed to motivate infants in order to put their emergent symbolic
capacities in the service of communication (Bloom, 1993; Stern, 1985).
Around the onset of language, children are likely to benefit from a simple structure of
maternal input (Furrow et al., 1979). This assumption is verified by our finding that
Naming of objects or people was by far the strongest predictor of both receptive skills
and early communicative behaviour (cf. Masur, 1982, 1997; Stevens et al., 1998). In
addition, Yes/no questions, which in this study sample were not only eliciting a yes or
no response but also seemed to have the function of naming or describing something,
had some predictive validity to vocabulary production. The inverse predictive relation
between Descriptions and vocabulary production, as indicated by additional sets of
regression analyses, might be explained by infants’ individual differences in a similar
way to the slightly negative relation between Descriptions and the amount of infant
vocalizations in play.
The observations presented in this paper are based on multiple hierarchical regression
analyses with quite a considerable number of independent variables and a small sample.
Therefore – even though we made an effort to verify the predictive relations found in the
initial regression analyses by dichotomizing the variables and then performing two
additional sets of regression analyses – the results should be interpreted with caution. In
addition, our findings may not be applicable to other age groups, situations or populations.
However, the main purpose of the present study was to explore maternal verbal
responses to prelinguistic infants to form a basis for further research.

190
 PAAVOLA ET AL.: VERBAL RESPONSES TO PRELINGUISTIC INFANTS

In spite of apparent limitations, the present study still provided a valuable contribution
to our understanding of maternal responsiveness and subsequent child language
development. Firstly, the functions of verbal responses to prelinguistic infants seemed to
have some specific characteristics; however, the variation was great. In an attempt to
explore contributions of the infants in early conversational interactions that may affect
maternal behaviour we chose to observe mother-infant free-play sessions around the
time the infants have begun to communicate intentionally. However, according to our
findings the differences between the mothers could not be explained by the infants’
individual differences in their abilities to participate in verbal/vocal dialogue, even if they
were apparent. As for predictors of later linguistic outcomes, specific dimensions of
responsiveness predicted specific aspects of language, while there may also be some
characteristics of verbal responses that hinder language development. However, a high
overall frequency of responses may still to some extent reflect maternal ability to fine-
tune verbal input appropriately to infants’ developmental level, as well as motivation to
elicit conversation. Finally, this study suggested that maternal interactional sensitivity,
which might be especially important for prelinguistic development (Laakso et al., 1999),
might be reflected in several predictive relations found. At least these particular functions
of verbal responses could be considered appropriate as far as supporting early child
communicative and linguistic development is concerned.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was supported by grants from the Alma and K. A. Snellman Foundation, Oulu,
Finland; the Emil Aaltonen Foundation, Finland; the Finnish Konkordia Fund, Finland; and the
University of Oulu, Finland. We also thank the personnel of the Maternity Ward of the Oulu
University Hospital for co-operation in recruiting the participants to this study. Special thanks are
also due to Tanja Aspegren for scoring part of the CSBS test material to assess interrater reliability,
biostatistician Risto Bloigu for help with the statistical analyses, Anna Vuolteenaho for reviewing the
language, and the families who participated in the study.

NOTES

1. Department of Finnish, Information Studies and Logopedics, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland
2. University Clinic of Child Psychiatry, Department of Pediatrics, University of Oulu, Oulu,
Finland

REFERENCES

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E. & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A
psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Akhtar, N., Dunham, F. & Dunham, P. J. (1991). Directive interactions and early vocabulary
development: The role of joint attentional focus. Journal of Child Language, 18, 41–49. Baldwin,
D. A. (1995). Understanding the link between joint attention and language. In C. Moore

191
 FIRST VOLUME 25 ISSUE 2
LANGUAG
E

& P. J. Dunham (Eds), Joint attention: Its origins and role in development (pp. 131–158).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Barrett, M., Harris, M. & Chasin, J. (1991). Early lexical development and maternal speech: A
comparison of children’s initial and subsequent uses of words. Journal of Child Language, 18,
21–40.
Bates, E. (1976). Language and context: The acquisition of pragmatics. New York: Academic
Press.
Baumwell, L., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. & Bornstein, M. H. (1997). Maternal verbal sensitivity and
child language comprehension. Infant Behavior and Development, 20, 247–258.
Bloom, L. (1993). The transition from infancy to language: Acquiring the power of expression.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bloom, L. & Lahey, M. (1978). Language development and language disorders. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Bornstein, M. H., Tal, J., Rahn, C., Galperín, C. Z., Pêcheux, M.-G., Lamour, M., Toda, S., Azuma, H.
, Ogino, M. & Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. (1992). Functional analysis of the contents of maternal
speech to infants of 5 and 13 months in four cultures: Argentina, France, Japan, and the United
States. Developmental Psychology, 28, 593–603.
Bornstein, M. H. & Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. (1989). Maternal responsiveness and cognitive
development in children. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Maternal responsiveness: Characteristics
and consequences (pp. 49–61). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bornstein, M. H. & Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. (1997). Maternal responsiveness and infant mental
abilities: Specific predictive relations. Infant Behavior and Development, 20, 283–296.
Bornstein, M. H., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. & Haynes, O. M. (1999). First words in the second
year: Continuity, stability, and models of concurrent and predictive correspondence in
vocabulary and verbal responsiveness across age and context. Infant Behavior and
Development, 22, 65–85.
Bruner, J. (1983). Child’s talk: Learning to use language. New York: Norton.
Camaioni, L., Castelli, M. C., Longobardi, E. & Volterra, V. (1991). A parent report instrument for
early language assessment. First Language, 11, 345–359.
Clark, R. (1985). The parent-child early relational assessment. Instrument and manual. University
of Wisconsin Medical School, Department of Psychiatry. Madison, WI: Wisconsin University Press.
Della Corte, M., Benedict, H. & Klein, D. (1983). The relationship of pragmatic dimensions of
mothers’ speech to the referential-expressive distinction. Journal of Child Language, 10,
35–43.
D’Odorico, L., Salerni, N., Cassibba, R. & Jacob, V. (1999). Stability and change of maternal speech to
Italian infants from 7 to 21 months of age: A longitudinal study of its influence on early stages of
language acquisition. First Language, 19, 313–346.
Dunham, P. J. & Dunham, F. (1995). Optimal social structures and adaptive infant development. In
C. Moore & P. J. Dunham (Eds), Joint attention: Its origins and role in development (pp. 159–
188). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fenson, L., Dale, P. S., Reznick, J. S., Bates, E., Thal, D. & Pethick, S. J. (1994). Variability in
early communicative development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 59 (5, Serial No. 242).
Furrow, D., Nelson, K. & Benedict, H. (1979). Mothers’ speech to children and syntactic development:
Some simple relationships. Journal of Child Language, 6, 423–442.
Gleitman, L., Newport, E. & Gleitman, H. (1984). The current status of the motherese hypothesis.
Journal of Child Language, 11, 43–79.
Hampson, J. & Nelson, K. (1993). The relation of maternal language to variation in rate and style of
language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 20, 313–342.
Iacono, T. A., Chan, J. B. & Waring, R. (1998). Efficacy of a parent-implemented early language

192
 PAAVOLA ET AL.: VERBAL RESPONSES TO PRELINGUISTIC INFANTS

intervention based on collaborative consultation. International Journal of Language and

Communication Disorders, 33, 281–303.
Kloth, S., Janssen, P., Kraaimaat, F. & Brutten, G. J. (1998). Communicative styles of mothers
interacting with their preschool-age children: A factor analytic study. Journal of Child
Language, 25, 149–168.
Laakso, M.-L., Poikkeus, A.-M., Katajamäki, J. & Lyytinen, P. (1999). Early intentional communication
as a predictor of language development in young toddlers. First Language, 19, 207–231.
Landry, S. H., Smith, K. E., Miller-Loncar, C. L. & Swank, P. R. (1997). Predicting cognitive-language
and social growth curves from early maternal behaviors in children at varying degrees of biological
risk. Developmental Psychology, 33, 1040–1053.
Lyytinen, P. (1999). MCDI-testi: Varhaisen kommunikaation ja kielen kehityksen
arviointimenetelmü. [MCDI test: An assessment method for early communicative and language
development]. Jyväskylä, Finland: University of Jyväskylä and the Niilo Mäki Institute.
Masur, E. F. (1982). Mothers’ responses to infants’ object-related gestures: Influences on lexical
development. Journal of Child Language, 9, 23–30.
Masur, E. F. (1997). Maternal labelling of novel and familiar objects: Implications for children’s
development of lexical constraints. Journal of Child Language, 24, 427–439.
McDonald, L. & Pien, D. (1982). Mother conversational behaviour as a function of interactional
intent. Journal of Child Language, 9, 337–358.
Menyuk, P. (1988). Language development: Knowledge and use. New York: Harper Collins.
Menyuk, P., Liebergotts, J. & Schultz, M. (1995). Early language development in full-term and
premature infants. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Murray, A. D., Johnson, J. & Peters, J. (1990). Fine-tuning of utterance length to preverbal infants:
Effects on later language development. Journal of Child Language, 17, 511–525.
Murray, A. D. & Yingling, J. L. (2000). Competence in language at 24 months: Relations with
attachment security and home stimulation. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 161, 133–140.
Murray, L. & Trevarthen, C. (1986). The infant’s role in mother-infant conversations. Journal of Child
Language, 13, 15–29.
Nicely, P., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. & Bornstein, M. H. (2000). Mothers’ attuned responses to infant
affect expressivity promote earlier achievement of language milestones. Infant Behavior and
Development, 22, 557–558.
Olsen-Fulero, L. (1982). Style and stability in mother conversational behaviour: A study of individual
differences. Journal of Child Language, 9, 543–564.
Pine, J. M. (1992). Maternal style at the early one-word stage: Re-evaluating the stereotype of the
directive mother. First Language, 12, 169–186.
Reznick, J. S. & Goldfield, B. A. (1992). Rapid changes in lexical development in comprehension
and production. Developmental Psychology, 28, 406–412.
Reznick, J. S. & Goldsmith, L. (1989). A multiple form word production checklist for assessing
early language. Journal of Child Language, 16, 91–100.
Saxon, T. (1997). A longitudinal study of early mother-infant interaction and later language
competence. First Language, 17, 271–281.
Smolak, L. (1987). Child characteristics and maternal speech. Journal of Child Language, 14,
481–492.
Snow, C. E. (1977). The development of conversation between mothers and babies. Journal of
Child Language, 4, 1–22.
Snow, C. E. (1986). Conversations with children. In P. Fletcher & M. Garman (Eds), Language
acquisition (2nd ed., pp. 69–89). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Statistical Yearbook of Finland 2001 (2001). Vol. 96. Hämeenlinna, Finland: Karisto.
Stern, D. N. (1985). Interpersonal world of the infant: A view from psychoanalysis and
developmental psychology. New York: Basic Books.

193
 FIRST VOLUME 25 ISSUE 2
LANGUAG
E

Stevens, E., Blake, J., Vitale, G. & MacDonald, S. (1998). Mother-infant object involvement at
9 and 15 months: Relation to infant cognition and early vocabulary. First Language, 18,
203–222.
Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. & Bornstein, M. H. (1989). Habituation and maternal encouragement of
attention in infancy as predictors of toddler language, play, and representational competence.
Child Development, 60, 738–751.
Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Bornstein, M. H. & Baumwell, L. (2001). Maternal responsiveness and
children’s achievement of language milestones. Child Development, 72, 748–767.
Thal, D., Tobias, S. & Morrison, D. (1991). Language and gesture in late talkers: A 1-year follow-
up. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 604–612.
Tomasello, M. (1995). Joint attention as social cognition. In C. Moore & P. J. Dunham (Eds), Joint
attention: Its origins and role in development (pp. 103–129). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tomasello, M. & Farrar, J. (1986). Joint attention and early language. Child Development, 57,
1454–1463.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1934/1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wetherby, A. M. & Prizant, B. M. (1993). Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scales. Manual –
Normed edition. Chicago: Applied Symbolix.
Yoder, P. J. & Kaiser, A. P. (1989). Alternative explanations for the relationship between maternal
verbal interaction style and child language development. Journal of Child Language, 16, 141–
160.
Yoder, P. J. & Warren, S. F. (2001). Intentional communication elicits language-facilitating maternal
responses in dyads with children who have developmental disabilities. American Journal of
Mental Retardation, 106, 327–335.

APPENDIX

Definitions of the categories used for maternal verbal responses

1. Yes/no questions: Questions that elicit a yes or no response and, besides

attempting to build a conversational turn-taking structure, they appear to be used
to name or describe something (Is that a ball?; Is this ball red with white dots?)
2. Tag: Statements followed by a question or an utterance naming or describing
something and similarly to the function of yes/no questions they appear to be
used to maintain interaction (This baby doll is sleepy, isn’t it?)
3. Requests for information: Requests for information that the adult does not have (
What do you want to do next?)
4. Requests for clarification or confirmation: Attempts to ensure that the adult has
understood the child or to clarify something that was not understood (Is it this
teddy bear you are trying to reach?; What did you say?)
5. Test questions: Used to elicit a specific structure (What is it?; How does a dog
bark?)
6. Mand-models: Requests a specific structure and then provides a model (What is
this? A giraffe)
7. Descriptions: Statements describing a person’s behaviour, actions, feelings, etc., or
an object or an event present in the immediate situation (You are patting the dog;
The ball is bouncing)

194
 PAAVOLA ET AL.: VERBAL RESPONSES TO PRELINGUISTIC INFANTS

8. Displaced speech: Descriptions about something not present in the immediate

situation or descriptions of past and future events that were, however,
conceptually related to the infant’s prior act (Grandma has got two big dogs;
Yesterday we saw a big truck driving on the road)
9. Attention devices: Statements eliciting the child’s attention (Look!; See this thing
here?)
10. Permission requests/suggestions: Statements seeking acceptance for an action of
the speaker or suggesting what the child could do (Shall we play with the cars?;
Would you like to look at this book?)
11. Commands/warnings: Statements directing or inhibiting the child’s physical
behaviour (Throw the ball to Mummy; Watch out!)
12. Social play: Interacting with the child in a playful manner (Peek-a-boo; making
noises)
13. Conventional social expressions: Polite, conventional expressions used in
social interactions (Thank you; You’re welcome)
14. Naming objects and people: Utterances containing one word or the word
preceded by a demonstrative (Ball; That’s a ball)
15. Imitations: Direct and immediate imitation of all or part of the child’s previous
vocalization or a word attempt.
16. Affirmatives: Statements that agree with a previous utterance or action of the
child (Yes; Hmhm, with a rising intonation contour)
17. Compliments: Giving explicit positive feedback on the behaviour of the child (
That’s good; Well done)
18. Negations/criticisms: Statements denying the child’s previous utterance or action
or giving explicit negative feedback on the behaviour of the child (No, it does not
go that way; Stupid boy)
19. Fillers: Words not conveying any referential meaning and appear to be used as
automatic responses (Uh oh; Mm)

ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE

Leila Paavola,
Department of Finnish, Information Studies and Logopedics,
PO Box 1000, FIN-90014 University of Oulu, Finland
E: leila.paavola@oulu.fi

195