dependent variables: parents were superior to non parents [t(22) = 5.06, P < .001, on ratings and t(22) = 3.24, p < .001, on words); mothers did better than fathers [t( 10) = 3.17, RICHARD M. WEIST and PAT STEBBINS p < .01, on ratings and t(10) = 3.11, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebr. 68508 P < .01, on words (not a male-female The utterances of six preschool children were recorded and used as stimuli in artifact j ]'; parents were better able to a perception task. The parents of the recorded children and adults with no understand their own children than recent exposure to children listened to the utterances and judged the meaning of other children [t(l1) = 7.43, P < .001, the stimuli. Parents were more proficient than non parents, and this difference on ratings and t(l1) = 7.41, P / .001, was not limited to the parents' superior knowledge of their own children's on words). The comparison of parents ideolects. It was argued that there is a sense in which adults with an extensive vs nonparents is complicated by the fact that one-sixth of the parents' exposure to children's language may be considered to be bilinguals. responses were based on utterances of One of the most consistent themes utterances were chosen for each child their own children. The parents' that reoccurs in reviews of language based on the clarity of the recording. responses on other children were development research (e.g., Brown, The meaning of each utterance was compared with those of non parents, 1970; McNeill, 1970; Menyuk, 1971) determined by the context in which it and parents maintained a significant is that the language of children is occurred, and when the context was advantage [t(22) = 1.72, P < .05). essentially different from the language insufficient, the child was questioned. Table 1 shows that the most accurate of adults and that there are Only utterances for which a meaning performance achieved by parents on considerable regularities in the child's had clearly been determined were their own children reached only language development. These use d . A random sequence was 55.5%. This is undoubtedly a low observations have been made on all determined for the 120 selected estimate of parents' capacity to aspects of language. One syntactic utterances, and the utterances were understand their children because both example of this claim is found in transferred directly to an experimental linguistic and nonlinguistic context Klima & Bellugi's (1966) Stage 3 in tape. The experimental utterances were eliminated in this study. the development of the negation and were spaced 9 sec apart. DISCUSSION question. The auxiliary emerges in this These results support the hypothesis The 120 stimuli were presented one stage independent of its former link at a time to an individual adult S. The that the child's language is essentially with the negation. The interrogative Ss were told that the utterances of different from that of the adult. The transformation which involves a several children would be played and child's language, like the language of a permutation of the auxiliary occurs in that their task was to report the linguistic community, is a language the yes/no question in a manner which meaning of what they heard. The Ss that must be learned. In this were told not to try to mimic the experiment, the parents demonstrate is similar to the adult usage, e.g., "Does the kitty stand up," but the utterances, and it was again that they have learned enough about same transformation does not occur in emphasized that S was to convey to E children's language in general to the Wh question, e.g., "What he can the meaning of the utterances. The Ss exceed the performance of non parents ride in." Similar support for the above were asked to give their responses in who lack experience with the claim is found in phonological 9 sec, but told that they could have language. The parent is better able to (Jakobson & Halle, 1956) and more time if necessary. The utterances understand his (or her) own child than semantic (Bever, 1971) research. The were never repeated for S. Two tape other children. This may indicate that present research is based on the recorders were used, one to present the language of each child is marked premise that if the child is speaking a the stimuli and one to record Ss' by unique features. It is also possible that the children were in different language which differs from the adult's responses. After the experiment was stages of development and parents language, and the adult can understand what the child says, then the adult completed, E transcribed Ss' were responding to regularities at shares a bilingual relationship with the responses. One graduate student and those stages. The corpus was not large child. This argument is confirmed if three undergraduate psychology enough, nor the analysis extensive parents are better able to understand students rated the extent to which the enough, to establish stages of the utterances of children than persons 24 Ss reported the correct meaning of development. The greater experience without recent contact with children. the 120 utterances on a 10-point scale. that mothers have with the language of METHOD Interrater reliability ranged from r = children was manifest in their superior The Ss were 12 parents, 6 mothers .91 to .94. There were two dependent performance as compared to fathers . and 6 fathers, from the University of variables: the number of words correct This research demonstrates, in Nebraska-Lincoln community and 12 and the average rated meaning. addition to these facts about children's college students who were enrolled in RESULTS language, a technique that can be used introductory psychology classes and All of the relevant comparisons (see to determine what parents know about who had not had any recent contact Table 1) were significant on both their children's language which with young children. The speech of six children was tape-recorded. One child Table 1 came from each of the six Average Number of Words Correctly Reported and Average Meaning mother-father pairs who were Ss in the Ratings for Parent and N onparent Ss experiment. The taping sessions for Meaning Ratings each child averaged about 4 h. Ten Parent 3.32 Mother 3.71 Own 5.18 Nonparent 2.25 single-word and 10 multiple-word Father 2.85 Other
Adult perception of children's speech*
2.99
Words Reported
Parent "This research was supported by a University of Nebraska Research Council summer fellowship.
Psychon. ScL, 1972, Vol. 27 (6)
127.67
Mother 147.50 Father 107.83
Own Other
55.5%·
Nonparent
96.33
30.6% --------
*Percent based on the number of words from a parent's child
359
differentiates them from other adults who have not had recent contact with this linguistic community. Further research is needed to discover the relative contribution of phonological, syntactic, and semantic aspects of children's language to the parent-child bilingual relationship. BEVER,
360
T.
REFERENCES G. The cognitive basis for
linguistic structures. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition language.
and
the
deueiop men t
of
New York: Wiley. 1970. Pp. 279-362. BROWN, R. Psvch olinguistics. New York: Free Press, 1970. JAKOBSON, J .. & HALLE, M. Fundamentals of language. The Hague: Mouton, 1956. KLIMA, E. S., & BELLUGI, U. Syntactic regularities in the speech of children. In J. Lyons and R. Wales (Eds.), P s y c h 0 l i n g u istic papers. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh Pp.183-207.
University
Pr ..ss,
1966.
McNEILL. D. The acquisition of language. New York: Harper & Row, 1970.
MENYUK,
P.
development
of
The acquisition and language. Englewood
Cliffs. N.J: Prentice-Hall, 1971.
Psychon. Sci., 1972, Vol. 27 (6)