Language, Interaction, and Acquisition

Future talk and lexical input. A study with two social groups from Argentina
--Manuscript Draft--

Manuscript Number:

Full Title: Future talk and lexical input. A study with two social groups from Argentina

Short Title: Future talk and lexical input. Social differences

Article Type: Article

First Author: Celia Renata Rosemberg, Ph.D.

Other Authors: Florencia Alam, BA

Alejandra Stein, PhD

Corresponding Author: Celia Renata Rosemberg, Ph.D.

CONICET
Buenos Aires, Ciudad Autonoma de Buenos Aires ARGENTINA

Keywords: future talk; temporal vocabulary; lexical input; sociocultural differences; acquisition

Manuscript Classifications: 10: First language acquisition, child bilingualism

Abstract: The study analyzes the future talk that 4-year-old Argentinean children, from
marginalized urban neighborhoods and middle-income families, produce and have the
opportunity to hear in natural discourse at their homes. The analysis considers the
temporal and sequential terms that: a) children use to textualize future accounts and b)
constitute the linguistic input in their homes. The analysis assumes that the child
develops knowledge about temporal and sequential expressions as they are used by
others and as the child uses them herself (Nelson, 2007). Findings show that children
from marginalized urban neighbourhoods include less temporal and sequential terms
per account than middle-income children. These differences correlate with differences
in the input of both groups. The qualitative analysis shows differences in the
interactional and discursive patterns of use of the terms in the homes of both groups of
children.

Author Comments: This paper is submitted in the framework of ELA 2012 Special Issue

Suggested Reviewers:

Order of Authors Secondary Information:

Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
*Manuscript

Future talk and lexical input. A study with two social groups from Argentina
1
2
3 Abstract
4
5
6
The study analyzes the future talk that 4-year-old Argentinean children, from marginalized
7
8 urban neighborhoods and middle-income families, produce and have the opportunity to hear in
9
10 natural discourse at their homes. The analysis considers the temporal and sequential terms that:
11
12
a) children use to textualize future accounts and b) constitute the linguistic input in their homes.
13 The analysis assumes that the child develops knowledge about temporal and sequential
14
15 expressions as they are used by others and as the child uses them herself (Nelson, 2007).
16
17
Findings show that children from marginalized urban neighbourhoods include less temporal and
18 sequential terms per account than middle-income children. These differences correlate with
19
20 differences in the input of both groups. The qualitative analysis shows differences in the
21
22 interactional and discursive patterns of use of the terms in the homes of both groups of children.
23
24
25 Key words: future talk, temporal vocabulary, lexical input, sociocultural differences,
26
27 acquisition
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1. Introduction
1
2
3 This study explores the relationship between the temporal and sequential terms used by 4-year-
4
5 old children from different social groups in order to textualize narrative sequences of future
6
actions, and the temporal language that they have the opportunity to hear in natural discourse in
7
8 family and community contexts.
9
10 Representation of the future in discourse projects events that have not occurred yet. It may
11
12
involve planning and hypothetical thinking; it takes the child beyond immediate experience. The
13 possibility of projecting a future in time as well as the possibility of reconstructing the past are,
14
15 in a certain sense, universal and biological (Atance & O’Neill 2001; Nelson 1989, 1996, 2007;
16
17
Tulving 1999). But time, in its dimensions of duration, sequence, frequency, and localization, is
18 inherent to the experience of children, and these temporal dimensions occur inside and between
19
20 the events that the child experiences regularly. These dimensions are not directly observable. On
21
22 the contrary, the child must abstract the temporal concepts from the events. The child must also
23 coordinate her own comprehension of time with the socio-cultural and linguistic systems
24
25 through which time is ordered and measured. As Nelson sustains (1989, 1996, 2007), language
26
27 permits the child to conceptualize the most abstract aspects of temporality, which are
28 inaccessible to experience.
29
30 Therefore, the acquisition of time concepts results not only from human cognitive and linguistic
31
32 organization, but also via knowledge mediated through cultural artifacts and models expressed
33 by way of linguistic forms and social interaction (Friedman 1990; Hudson 2002, 2006; Nelson
34
35 1989, 1996, 2007). The concept of time is itself a social construction, and it is conveyed to
36
37 children through language. Building representations about past and future events, and sharing
38 them with others, are both main developments of the preschool years.
39
40 The child gradually develops conceptual knowledge about temporal and sequential expressions
41
42 as they are used by others in discourse and activity contexts, and as the child uses them herself
43 (Levy & Nelson 1994; Nelson 1996, 2007). At the same time experience with linguistic forms
44
45 permits the child a greater comprehension of temporal concepts relevant in the contextualized
46
47 activities (Nelson 1996, 2007).
48 Diverse research performed with children with different native languages, such as Spanish, and
49
50 English has demonstrated that the acquisition of the temporal vocabulary begins as soon as the
51
52 basic grammatical forms of time and aspect within the system of verbal inflection have begun to
53 develop (Berman & Slobin 1994; Nelson 1989; Uccelli 2009). In Spanish the temporal
54
55 information is codified through a variety of lexical items such as adverbs, connectors,
56
57 prepositions and other expressions.
58 Sebastian and Slobin (1994), and Slobin and Bocaz (1988), in their analysis of the production of
59
60 stories via a story of images, Frog, where are you? using children speakers of peninsular
61
62
63
64
65
 Spanish and the variants spoken in Chile and Argentina, found that 3 year-old children
1
employed temporal aspect markers that signal results and reoccurrence such as ya (already) otra
2
3 vez (again) and the connective subordination cuando (when) in order to mark that one action
4
5 occurred immediately before another, or to express simultaneity. At 4 years old, while narrating
6
the sequence of images, the children employed the deictic marker acá (here), accompanied by
7
8 markers of sequence such as luego (later), entonces (then), and después (after). This suggests
9
10 that the children are anchoring in the deixis of localization while they try to use these markers of
11
12
sequence.
13 Other studies have focused on young children’s use of temporal terms when narrating stories
14
15 about frequent events, recalling past experiences, or anticipating future events, either by the
16
17
children individually, or in collaboration with their mother or other caretaker. As Sachs (1983)
18 has sustained, the necessity of decontextualization of the immediate situation of the here and
19
20 now that these narratives require, provokes a greater use on the part of the child of the linguistic
21
22 resources that allow the construction of the narration. Among these, temporal terms are
23 particularly relevant, because temporality constitutes a crucial dimension of the narration
24
25 (Lavob 1972, 1997).
26
27 By the end of the second year or during the third year, children can verbalize a sequence of
28 regular events and can, in this scripted context, make use of temporal terms (French & Nelson
29
30 1985; Levy et al. 1994). When the parents help the children to remember a past situation, and
31
32 when they narrate the activities that they plan to perform in the future, the children familiarize
33 themselves with the temporal vocabulary (Hudson 2002, 2006; Nelson 1989, 1996, 2007). The
34
35 remembered or anticipated event constitutes a context in with the child can start to develop a
36
37 comprehension of the temporal terms and start to use them, in ways that are first restricted and
38 bound to the discourse contexts in which they were previously heard (Nelson 1989).
39
40 This “use before meaning” (Nelson 1996), extends gradually: the interactional situations grant
41
42 the child opportunities to adjust the meaning and the use of these terms. This gradual
43 progression is observed in longitudinal studies. In her analysis of a child’s monologues at
44
45 bedtime, Nelson (1989) identified the early use, at 24 months, of adverbial terms, connectors,
46
47 and other temporal expressions such as later, then, when, yesterday, today, after, one day and
48 another day. These early uses reiterated pragmatic and discursive conversational patterns that
49
50 the child had previously experienced with her parents and other caretakers.
51
52 The results of Ucelli’s (2009) study on the construction of temporality in the narratives of past
53 personal experiences, using data from two Spanish speaking children between 2 and 3 years old,
54
55 coincide with Nelson’s observations. The temporal terms start to be used early on, and
56
57 consolidate when the system of verbal inflection is established. Moreover, both studies indicate
58 a marked increase of temporal forms when the children are close to turning 3 years old, and the
59
60 integration, at this moment, of different linguistic forms to mark temporality within a narrative.
61
62
63
64
65
 Children’s talk about the future has been less studied than their talk about the past (Hudson
1
2006), even though parents seem to talk with their children about the future as much as they talk
2
3 about the past (Lucariello & Nelson 1987). In the beforementioned longitudinal study, Nelson
4
5 (1989), identifies not only monologues referring to past experiences, but also, starting at 24
6
months, anticipations of future situations that have their base in the elaborations of what the
7
8 child heard in her conversations with her parents.
9
10 This relationship between the language that configures the children’s past and future accounts
11
12
and the language that they hear from adults, is also identified by Hudson (2002, 2006) in her
13 analysis of conversations regarding past and future events induced in dyads composed of
14
15 mothers and 2:6 and 4 year-old-children. In the conversations about future events, the mothers
16
17
employed a greater quantity of conventional temporal terms than in the conversations about the
18 past. Probably, this is due to the fact that, in the conversations about future events, the
19
20 participants do not share a representation of the event that is the topic of conversation, and
21
22 therefore the temporal and sequential terms become more important for the linguistic
23 construction of the future event. Hudson (2006) also observes that at 4 years of age the quantity
24
25 of temporal terms used by the children correlates positively with the quantity used by their
26
27 mothers.
28 A growing body of research (Blom, Paradis & Sorenson Duncan 2012; Hart & Risley 1995;
29
30 Hoff 2006; Hurtado, Marchman & Fernald 2008; Kern & Dos Santos 2011; Küntay & Slobin
31
32 2002; Lieven 2010; Tomasello 2003; Fernald, Marchman & Weisleder 2013; Weisleder &
33 Fernald 2011; Weizman & Snow 2001), has suggested that many features of child language
34
35 development are linked to a child’s linguistic experience. In particular, this research has
36
37 demonstrated the importance of certain qualitative and quantitative characteristics of input for
38 children’s development of diverse lexical and grammatical aspects. Likewise, the results of
39
40 Hudson (2002, 2006) studies on the use of temporal terms in future and past collaboratively
41
42 produced accounts also provide evidence of the impact of child directed language. However, as
43 these studies analyzed induced situations of conversation, they do not characterize the
44
45 relationship between the infant’s use of temporal terms and the linguistic input and experiences
46
47 in every day interactions.
48 Furthermore, the research by Nelson (1996) and Uccelli (2009), as well as the research by
49
50 Hudson (2002, 2006), have focused exclusively on middle-income children, and therefore do
51
52 not consider the eventual linguistic differences among children from different socio-cultural and
53 economic groups, with regards to quantity, diversity, and patterns of use of temporal terms. Nor
54
55 do they consider the possible impact of these differences in the terms used by the children. The
56
57 importance of analyzing these aspects is evident when one takes into account the results of other
58 research demonstrating that although the quantity and the quality of the lexical surround differs
59
60 between families from a similar social group, differences between socio-economic groups are
61
62
63
64
65
 marked (Hart et al. 1995; Hoff-Ginsberg 1998; Huttenlocher, Haight, Bryk, Seltzer & Lyons
1
1991). That is why this study focuses on the temporal expressions heard and used by children
2
3 from two different socio-cultural groups. The analysis considers the temporal and sequential
4
5 terms that 4-year-old Argentinean children from two socio-cultural groups -children from
6
marginalized urban neighborhoods and children from middle-income families with university
7
8 education- use to textualize spontaneous narratives, and its relationship with the temporal and
9
10 the sequential terms in the input. The analysis also considers the interactional and discourse
11
12
pattern that characterize the input in which these temporal and sequential terms were used in
13 their homes and communities.
14
15
16 2. Method
17
18
19 2.1. The data
20
21
22
23 Thirty-seven 4-years-old Argentinean children from two different social groups (age 4:5)
24 participated in this study: 1) 18 children from middle-income families with university
25
26 education; 2) 19 children that live with their families in extremely poor communities,
27
28 marginalized urban populations (villas de emergencia)1. They are mostly migrants from the
29 North of Argentina or from neighboring countries (Bolivia, Peru, Paraguay). The adults had a
30
31 low level of literacy (they completed seven or fewer years of schooling).
32
33
34 2.2. Data collection
35
36
37
38 Each child was observed for 12 hours, distributed over three or four days, interacting with
39 his/her family members, friends, and neighbors at home. Some situations were also recorded in
40
41 which the children interacted with these people in another place not far from their home. An
42
43 observer took context notes and made audio recordings of all of the interactions. The observer
44
did not promote conversation or specific activities, but responded to the participants’ comments
45
46 and questions in order to avoid generating a tense atmosphere that would disturb the natural
47
48 setting.
49
The interactions recorded in these spontaneous situations were transcribed according to the
50
51 CHAT format (Code for the Human Analysis of Transcripts) and using the standards stipulated
52
53
54
55
56 1
These “villas de emergencia” are characterized by precarious housing, which has mostly been built from
57
wood and salvaged materials, and insufficient or inexistent infrastructure services. Although most of the
58
neighborhoods have drinkable water connections, they all lack sewer and natural gas lines. In many cases
59
they are illegally connected to the power grid, since the inhabitants do not have the resources to pay for
60
service. The neighborhood is accessed by narrow dirt- or cement-floored corridors.
61
62
63
64
65
 by the CHILDES system (Child Language Data Exchange System) (MacWhinney & Snow
1
1985).
2
3 The data analyzed consists of:
4
5 a) 228 hours of spontaneous situations (including play, hygiene, and mealtime situations)
6
recorded in the homes of the 19 children from marginalized urban populations and 216 hours of
7
8 spontaneous situations (play, hygiene, meal) recorded in the homes of the 18 children from
9
10 middle-income populations.
11
12
b) 250 episodes of child talk about future events produced in spontaneous situations by the same
13 children: 104 produced by the marginalized urban group and 146 by the middle-income group.
14
15 The units of analysis are interactive episodes that include a child’s contribution of at least two
16
17
utterances referring to a future event.
18
19
20 2.3. Data analysis
21
22
23 Transcripts were analyzed using the Computerized Language Analysis (MacWhinney et al.
24
25 1985). The program was used to make the following quantitative measurements:
26
27 -The total amount, tokens, and the different types of temporal and sequential terms that children
28 from the two social groups were exposed to.
29
30 -The temporal and sequential terms they used in their future accounts.
31
32 For the data of each group of children indices that analyze the quantity and diversity of temporal
33 and sequential terms spoken by the children in relation to the quantity of narratives were
34
35 constructed.
36
37 The correlation (Pearson’s R) was determined between the quantity of temporal and sequential
38 terms used in the textualization of the narrative by the children of each of the social groups, and
39
40 those that formed the input in their homes.
41
42 Temporal and sequential terms that were only used by the children from middle-income homes,
43 but appeared in the input of both social groups were identified. The four terms that were most
44
45 used by the children from middle-income homes, but that were not used by the children of the
46
47 other group, were selected: a bit (un rato/un ratito), minute/ minutes (un minuto/‘minutos), the
48 day (el día), always (siempre). An analysis was performed with the object of identifying factors
49
50 of the input that, beyond the frequency of use of the term, could account for the differences
51
52 between both groups of children with regard to the utilization of these terms in the textualization
53 of the future accounts. The sequences of exchange in which these terms were used were
54
55 identified, and the six previous and subsequent turns were considered. An analysis was
56
57 performed in order to characterize the sequences according to the following aspects:
58 1) Discursive context: if the term was used in a narrative, argument, explanation,
59
60 description, or instruction.
61
62
63
64
65
 2) The temporality (present, past, or future) of the clause in which the term was used.
1
3) The temporality of the event referred to in the sequence.
2
3 4) The participation of the child in the interactive situation (specifically, whether the
4
5 interlocutor spoke directly to the child, or the interlocutor spoke to another participant
6
and the young child participated verbally in the exchange, or if the interlocutor spoke to
7
8 another participant and the child did not participate verbally).
9
10 5) The interactional function of the utterance: if the term was used in an assertion,
11
12
directive, or elicitation.
13
14
15 3. Results
16
17
18 3.1. Children’s future accounts
19
20
21
22 Results showed differences in the temporal language used in the textualization process of future
23 accounts by the children from marginalized urban neighborhoods (MUN), and by the children
24
25 from middle-income families with university education (MI). Children from marginalized urban
26
27 neighborhoods included less temporal and sequential terms per account than the children from
28 middle-income families (temporal terms: MUN: 0.5 vs. MI: 1.07; sequential terms: MUN: 0.59;
29
30 MI: 1.02). The differences between the groups with regard to temporal terms are statistically
31
32 significant (ANOVA; F(1,36) = 7.53, MSE = 0.399, p < .01). The diversity of temporal and
33 sequential terms used by middle-income children per account was also higher than the diversity
34
35 observed in low-income children (temporal terms: MUN: 0.32 vs. MI: 0.69; sequential terms:
36
37 MUN: 0.37 vs. MI: 0.38). The differences between the groups with regard to the diversity of
38 temporal terms per account are also statistically significant (ANOVA; F (1,36) = 7.95, MSE =
39
40 0.159, p < .01). These results are shown in Figure 1.
41
42
43 ---------------------
44
@Insert Figure 1
45
46 ----------------------
47
48
49 3.2. The lexical input: The temporal and sequential terms in daily situations
50
51
52 The same pattern that was observed with regard to the use of temporal and sequential terms in
53
54 children’s future accounts was also observed in the vocabulary that the two groups of children
55
56 had the opportunity to hear during natural situations in their homes and communities: the
57 middle-income children heard a greater quantity and diversity of temporal terms and sequences
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 in their homes than the children that live in marginalized urban neighborhoods. These results are
1
presented in Figure 2.
2
3
4
5 ---------------------
6 @Insert Figure 2
7 ----------------------
8
9
10 The differences in the quantity of the temporal and sequential terms heard by the middle-income
11
12 children and by the marginalized urban children were statistically significant (ANOVA;
13
14 temporal terms: F(1, 36) = 13.77, MSE = 3531.5, p < .01; sequential terms: F(1,36) = 7.7, MSE =
15 10268.4, p < .01). The differences in the diversity of temporal and sequential terms that both
16
17 groups of children had the opportunity to hear are statistically significant as well (ANOVA;
18
19 temporal terms F(1, 36) = 166, MSE = 8.4, p < .01); sequential terms, F(1,36) = 0.141, MSE
20
=1456.4, p < .01).
21
22
23
24 3.3. Exploring the relationship between the temporal terms used by the children and the
25
input at home
26
27
28
29 The statistical analysis of the relationship between temporal and sequential terms used by the
30
children from each group in their narrative accounts of future events, and the frequency in
31
32 which these terms appeared in the input in the homes of each social group, showed a significant
33
34 and positive correlation in both groups (MI: r = .66, p < .001; MUN: r = .69, p < .001). It was
35
36
observed that some temporal terms that were used by children from middle-income homes, but
37 not by children from marginalized urban populations, were part of the linguistic input of
38
39 children from both groups.
40
41 An analysis was therefore carried out in order to identify other aspects -besides the frequency of
42 the terms in the input- that could account for the differences in the use of the terms by the
43
44 children from both groups. The qualitative analysis shows a series of aspects relative to the
45
46 interactional and discursive contexts in which the terms were used, and that seem to vary in the
47 two social groups. As mentioned in the methodology, these aspects are the discursive context -
48
49 narrative, argumentation, explanation, description, or instruction- in which the terms were used;
50
51 the temporality -present, past, or future- of the clause; the temporality of the event that was
52 being referred to in the sequence; the participation of the child in the interactive situation, and
53
54 the interactional function of the utterance -assertion, directive, or elicitation-. A statistic analysis
55
56 was performed in order to consider the association between these aspects that characterize the
57 input and social group.
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 The results presented in Table 1 show a significant association between the social group and the
1
discursive context. In the marginalized urban homes it was observed that temporal terms were
2
3 used in a greater proportion during narratives (54.28%) and argumentations (18.73%), whereas
4
5 in the middle-income groups, they were used most often in narrations (44.73%) and instructions
6
(36.46%), (χ2(4) = 63.32, p < .001., Cramer’s V = .32, p < .001).
7
8
9
10 ---------------------
11 @Insert Table 1
12 ----------------------
13
14
15 The results, however, did not show an association between the social group and the temporality
16
17 of the clause in which the term was included. In both social groups, more than 70% of the
18
19 temporal terms were produced in present-tense clauses (χ2(2) = 3.17, p = .21, Cramer’s V= .07, p
20
= .21). In contrast, the analysis demonstrated a significant association between the social group
21
22 and the temporality of the event that was being referred to in the interaction in which the term
23
24 was used. In both social groups, the term was primarily used in conversations about a present
25
event (MUN: 56.18% and MI: 53.08%). However, in the group of middle-income children, a
26
27 greater proportion of situations were observed in which the term was used in order to make
28
29 reference to a future event (29.22%). In the homes of the marginalized urban populations, the
30
term was used in a greater proportion of situations in order to refer to a past event (23.11%)
31
32 (χ2(2) = 6.68, p < .05, Cramer’s V = .10, p < .05.). These results are presented in Tables 2 and 3,
33
34 respectively.
35
36
37 -----------------------------
38 @Insert Tables 2 and 3
39 -----------------------------
40
41
42
43 When the characteristics of the interactive situation in which the term was used were
44
considered, it was observed that in the majority of the situations recorded in middle-income
45
46 homes, the temporal terms were used in utterances in which the interlocutor spoke directly to
47
48 the child (69.17%). However, in the homes of the marginalized urban populations, half of the
49
situations in which the temporal terms were used were utterances in which the child was present
50
51 during exchanges that took place among other people (50%). The Chi square analysis
52
53 demonstrated that both variables -social group and interactional situation- are significantly
54
55
associated (χ2(2) = 68.37, p < .001). The correlation index, although low, also proved significant
56 (Cramer’s V = .33, p < .001). These results are presented in Table 4.
57
58
59
60
---------------------
61
62
63
64
65
 @Insert Table 4
1 ----------------------
2
3
4 Lastly, the relationship between the social group and the function of the utterance containing the
5
6 temporal term was also analyzed. In the middle-income homes, there were a higher proportion
7
8 of cases in which the terms were used as part of a directive than in the marginalized urban
9 populations (34.58% versus 19.73%). These findings are presented in Table 5.
10
11
12
13 ---------------------
14 @Insert Table 5
15 ----------------------
16
17
18 The statistic Chi Square showed that both variables -social group and function of the
19
20 intervention- are significantly associated (χ2(2) = 21.65, p < .001). The correlation index,
21
22 although low, also proved significant (Cramer’s V = .18, p < .001).
23
24
25 4. Discussion
26
27
28 In concurrence with the results of other studies that have focused on the use of temporal terms
29
30 in fictional narratives elicited by means of images (Sebastian et al. 1994; Slobin et al. 1988), or
31
32 in the framework of stories of personal experience (Uccelli 2009), this research demonstrates
33 that at 4 years of age, Spanish-speaking children can make use of diverse types of temporal and
34
35 sequential terms in order to produce narrative sequences that anticipate a future event.
36
37 The considerable number of temporal terms recorded in the children’s speech when discussing
38 the future could be attributed to the fact that, as indicated previously by Hudson (2006), in
39
40 conversations about the future, the participants cannot recover a past event as context for the
41
42 comprehension or the production of the narrative sequence. Nor can the participants
43 contextualize the narrative using a sequence of images. That is why the temporal and sequential
44
45 terms are particularly important for the linguistic creation of an anticipated event.
46
47 Although all of the children that constitute the sample of this study used temporal and sequential
48 terms, the results of the analysis demonstrated significant differences between the children from
49
50 middle-income households and the children from marginalized urban populations regarding the
51
52 quantity of tokens, and types of these terms that they used while narrating future accounts. The
53 data obtained from this study provides new empirical evidence with respect to the differences in
54
55 quantity and diversity of the vocabulary between children from different social groups;
56
57 differences that were registered in research recorded in other languages (Hart et al. 1995; Hoff
58 2006).
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 Coincidently, with what was observed by Hart & Risley (1995) and Hoff (2006), these
1
differences in the quantity and diversity of the temporal and sequential terms used in the future
2
3 accounts correspond to significant differences in the quantity and diversity of these terms in the
4
5 input that both groups of children receive in their homes. The results demonstrated a positive
6
and significant correlation between the frequency of use of these terms by children from each of
7
8 the two groups in their future accounts, and the frequency with which these terms appear in the
9
10 input, providing new empirical evidence of the relation between frequency in the input and
11
12
lexical learning (Blom et al. 2012; Hoff 2006; Huttenloncher et al. 1991; Lieven 2010;
13 Tomasello 2003; Weizman et al. 2001).
14
15 It is worth mentioning, however, that the analysis demonstrated that some terms that were used
16
17
by children from middle-income homes in their accounts, but that were not used by the children
18 from marginalized urban populations, do appear with similar frequency in the input that both of
19
20 these groups of children hear in their homes. The results of the qualitative analysis allow the
21
22 identification of the factors of the interactional and discursive contexts that could contribute to
23 an understanding of these differences between the two groups.
24
25 Indeed, in the recorded exchanges of both social groups, we identified differences in certain
26
27 aspects such as the discursive context, the temporality of the event that was being referenced,
28 the participation of the young child in the interactional situation, and the function of the
29
30 utterance that contained the temporal term. The statistic analysis demonstrated that these factors
31
32 are significantly associated with the social group. These factors allow a characterization of the
33 interactional and discursive pattern that shape the situation in which these temporal terms were
34
35 used.
36
37 The exchanges in which the children from marginalized urban populations heard these temporal
38 terms were, for the most part, narrations or arguments, generally, concerning present events or
39
40 eventually past events. The terms were generally used during assertions directed to an
41
42 interlocutor distinct from the child. As it has been demonstrated in other research, some of these
43 aspects characterize the communicative interactions of low-income children or children from
44
45 minority groups. For example, Authors (2008, 2011), demonstrated the relationship between
46
47 narration and argumentation in the exchanges in which children from marginalized urban
48 neighborhoods like those analyzed in this research participated. Tomasello (2003) and
49
50 Weisleder and Fernald (2011), indicate that the participation of the children as listeners in the
51
52 exchanges, and not as direct interlocutors, constitutes a characteristic of the communicative
53 interactions of minority groups or groups with a low social economic level.
54
55 In the homes of the children from middle-income families the temporal terms were also used in
56
57 exchanges, principally, referring to present events. However, in these families, a higher
58 proportion of exchanges that referred to a future event than in the families from marginalized
59
60 urban populations was recorded. To a certain extent, this could account for the fact that the
61
62
63
64
65
 children from this group use more temporal terms to textualize their future accounts. In line
1
with Nelson’s research (1989, 1996), the children tend to use this type of terms in the
2
3 framework of discursive and pragmatic patterns similar to those to which they were exposed to.
4
5 In the recorded exchanges in this social group, the temporal terms were used in the greatest
6
percentage of opportunities in the context of instructions that take the function of directives.
7
8 In this way, the results of this research, referring specifically to temporal terms, coincide with
9
10 the results of other studies (Küntay et al. 2002; Lieven 2010; Nelson 1996; Weizman et al.
11
12
2001; among others), which demonstrate that in order to account for children’s vocabulary
13 production, it is important to take into account not only the frequency of the appearance of the
14
15 term in the input but also other aspects of the discursive adult-child interaction in which the
16
17
linguistic forms are embedded.
18
19
20 REFERENCES
21
22 Authors. (2008).
23 Authors. (2011).
24
25 Atance, C.M., & O'Neill, D.K. (2001). Episodic future thinking. Trends in Cognitive Sciences
26
27 12, 533-539.
28 Berman, R.A. & Slobin, D.I. (1994). Relating events in narrative: a crosslinguistic
29
30 developmental study. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
31
32 Blom, E., Paradis, J. & Sorenson Duncan, T. (2012). Effects of input properties, vocabulary size
33 and L1 on the development of third person singular -s in child L2 English. Language
34
35 Learning 62(3), 965-994.
36
37 Fernald, A., Marchman, V.A., Weisleder, A. (2013). SES differences in Language processing
38 skill and vocabulary are evident at 18 month. Developmental Science 16(2), 234-248.
39
40 French, L.A. & Nelson, K. (1985). Young children's knowledge of relational terms. New York:
41
42 Springer.
43
Friedman, W. (1990). About time: Inventing the fourth dimension. Cambridge, MA: The MIT
44
45 Press.
46
47 Hart, B. & Risley, T.R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young
48
American children. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
49
50 Hoff, E. (2006). Environmental supports for language acquisition. In D. K. Dickinson & S. B.
51
52 Neuman (eds.), Handbook of Early Literacy Research, Vol. 2 (163-172). New York: The
53
Guilford Press.
54
55 Hoff-Ginsberg, E. (1998). The relation of birth order and socioeconomic status to children’s
56
57 language experience and language development. Applied Psycholinguistics 19(4), 603-629.
58
59
Hudson, J.A. (2002). Do you know what we're going to do this summer? Mother's talk to young
60 children about future events. Journal of Cognition and Development 3, 49-71.
61
62
63
64
65
 Hudson, J.A. (2006). The development of future time concepts through mother - child
1
conversation. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 52, 70-95.
2
3 Hurtado, N., Marchman, V.A., & Fernald, A. (2008). Does input influence uptake? Links
4
5 between maternal talk, processing speed and vocabulary size in Spanish-learning children.
6
Developmental Science 11, 31-39.
7
8 Huttenlocher, J., Haight, W., Bryk, A., Seltzer, M. & Lyons, T. (1991). Early vocabulary
9
10 growth: relation to language input and gender. Developmental Psychology 27(2), 236-248.
11
12
Kern, S. & Dos Santos, C. (2011). Input et acquisition du lexique en français: rôle de la
13 fréquence et de la densité de voisinage. Travaux de didactique du français langue
14
15 étrangère 65/66, 53-70.
16
17
Küntay, A. & Slobin, D.I. (2002). Putting interaction back into child language: Examples from
18 Turkish. Psychology of Language and Communication 6, 5-14.
19
20 Labov, W. (1972). The transformation of experience in narrative discourse. In W. Labov (ed.)
21
22 Language in the inner city: Studies on the black English vernacular (354-396).
23 Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
24
25 Labov, W. (1997). Some further steps in narrative analysis. Journal of Narrative and
26
27 Life History 7, 395-415.
28
29 Levy, E. & Nelson K. (1994). Words in discourse: a dialectical approach to the acquisition of
30 meaning and use. Journal of Child Language 21, 367-389.
31
32 Lieven, E. (2010). Input and first language acquisition: evaluating the role of frequency. Lingua
33
34 120, 2546-2556.
35 Lucariello, J. & Nelson, K. (1987). Remembering and planning talk between mothers and
36
37 children. Discourse Processes 10, 219-235.
38
39 MacWhinney, B. & Snow, C.E. (1985). The child language data exchange system. Journal of
40 Child Language 12, 271-295.
41
42 Nelson, K. (1989). The linguistic construction of self in time. In K. Nelson (eds.), Narratives
43
44 from the crib (284-308). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
45 Nelson, K. (1996). Language in cognitive development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46
47 Nelson, K. (2007). Young minds in social worlds. Experience, meaning and memory.
48
49 Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
50 Sachs, J. (1983). Talking about there and then: the emergence of displaced references in parent-
51
52 children discourse. In K.E. Nelson (eds.) Children`s language. Volume 4 (1-28). New
53
54 York: Gardener Press.
55 Sebastián, E. & Slobin D. (1994). Development of linguistic forms: Spanish. In Ruth Berman &
56
57 Dan Slobin (eds.), Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study.
58
59 (157-186). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
60
61
62
63
64
65
 Slobin, D.I. y Bocaz, A. (1988). Learning to talk about movement though time and space: the
1
development of narrative abilities in Spanish and English. Lenguas Modernas 15, 5-24.
2
3 Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language. A usage – based theory of language
4
5 acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6
Tulving, E. (1999). On the uniqueness of episodic memory. In L.G. Nilsson & H.J.
7
8 Markowitsch (eds.), Cognitive Neuroscience of Memory (11-42). Gottingen: Hogrefe &
9
10 Huber.
11
12
Uccelli, P. (2009). Emerging temporality: past tense and temporal/ aspectual markers in Spanish
13 speaking children’s intra-conversational narratives. Journal of Child Language 36, 929-
14
15 966.
16
17
Weisleder, A. & Fernald, A. (2011). Variation in early language experiences influences
18 processing and language growth. 24th Annual Cuny Conference on Human Sentence
19
20 Processing, Stanford University, Palo Alto, United States, 24-26th 2011.
21
22 Weizman, Z.O. & Snow, C. (2001). Lexical input as related to children’s vocabulary
23 acquisition: Effects of sophisticated exposure and support for meaning. Developmental
24
25 Psychology 17, 265-279.
26
27
28 Résumé
29
30
31
32 La recherche analyse le futur discours des enfants argentins de 4 ans, qui habitent les quartiers
33 urbains marginalisés et des ceux qui appartiennent à la clase moyenne. L'analyse, a profité de
34
35 l’opportunité d’écouter le discours naturel employé à la maison. Lors, elle porte sur les
36
37 modalités temporelles et séquentielles qui 1) sont utilisées par les enfants pour construire le
38 texte du récit des événements futurs et b) constituent l'input linguistique chez eux. L'analyse part
39
40 du fait que les enfants développent leurs apprentissages des expressions temporelles et
41
42 séquentielles qui sont utilisées par d'autres personnes et dont eux mêmes peuvent s’en servir
43 (Nelson, 2007). Les résultats de la recherche nous montrent que les enfants issus des quartiers
44
45 urbains marginalisés emploient dans leurs récits moins de termes temporels et séquentiels des
46
47 événements futurs que ceux de la clase moyenne. Ces différences se montrent corrélatives avec
48 les différences dans l'input des deux groupes. L'analyse qualitative a montré les différences
49
50 dans les patrons discursifs et interactionnelles dans lequel ces termes sont utilisés chez les deux
51
52 groupes d'enfants.
53
54
55 Figures and tables
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 Figure 1. Quantity and diversity of temporal (TT) and sequential terms (ST) used by the
25
children per account
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Figure 2. The lexical input: Quantity and diversity of temporal (TT) and sequential terms
55
56 (ST) in daily situations
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
Social group
3 MUN MI
4
5 Narrative 136 54.18% 167 44.77%
6
7 Argumentation 46 18.33% 15 4.02%
8 Instruction
9 40 15.94% 136 36.46%
10 Discursive context
Description 29 11.55% 45 12.06%
11
12 Explanation
13 0 0.00% 10 2.68%
14
15 Total 250 100% 373 100%
16
17
18 Table 1. Social group and discursive context
19
20
21
22
23 Social group
24
25 MUN MI
26
27 Past 46 18.40% 52 13.94%
28
29
30 Present 179 71.60% 272 72.92%
31 Clause temporality
32 Future 25 10.00% 49 13.14%
33
34
35 Total 250 100% 373 100%
36
37
38
39 Table 2. Clause temporality and social group
40
41
42
43
44 Social group
45
46 MUN MI
47
48 Past 58 23.11% 66 17.69%
49
50
51 Present 141 56.18% 198 53.08%
52 Event temporality
53
Future 52 20.72% 109 29.22%
54
55
251 100 373 100
56 Total
57
58
59
60 Table 3. Event temporality and social group
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3 Social group
4
5 MUN MI
6
7
8 Interlocutor to child 94 37.45% 258 69.17%
9
10
Interlocutor to another
11 participant - child
Interactive 30 11.95% 9 2.41%
12 participated
13 situation Interlocutor to another
14 participant - child did
15
127 50.60% 106 28.42%
not participate
16 251 100% 373 100%
17 Total
18
19
20
21 Table 4. Interactive situation and social group
22
23
24
25
26 Social group
27
28 MUN MI
29
30 Assertives
31 175 69.72% 204 54.69%
32
33 Interactional Directives 45 17.93% 129 34.58%
34
35 function
Elicitation 31 12.35% 40 10.72%
36
37
38 Total 251 100% 373 100%
39
40
41 Table 5. Interactional function and social group
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65