儿童引导式言语是否能促进所有领域的语言发展?现有证据的研究空间分析

IF 5.7 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL
Vera Kempe , Mitsuhiko Ota , Sonja Schaeffler
{"title":"儿童引导式言语是否能促进所有领域的语言发展?现有证据的研究空间分析","authors":"Vera Kempe ,&nbsp;Mitsuhiko Ota ,&nbsp;Sonja Schaeffler","doi":"10.1016/j.dr.2024.101121","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Because child-directed speech (CDS) is ubiquitous in some cultures and because positive associations between certain features of the language input and certain learning outcomes have been attested it has often been claimed that the function of CDS is to aid children’s language development in general. We argue that for this claim to be generalisable, superior learning from CDS compared to non-CDS, such as adult-directed speech (ADS), must be demonstrated across multiple input domains and learning outcomes. To determine the availability of such evidence we performed a study space analysis of the research literature on CDS. A total of 942 relevant papers were coded with respect to (i) CDS features under consideration, (ii) learning outcomes and (iii) whether a comparison between CDS and ADS was reported. The results show that only 16.2% of peer-reviewed studies in this field compared learning outcomes between CDS and ADS, almost half of which focussed on the ability to discriminate between the two registers. Crucially, we found only 20 studies comparing learning outcomes between CDS and ADS for morphosyntactic and lexico-semantic features and none for pragmatic and extra-linguistic features. Although these 20 studies provided preliminary evidence for a facilitative effect of some specific morphosyntactic and lexico-semantic features, overall CDS-ADS comparison studies are very unevenly distributed across the space of CDS features and outcome measures. The disproportional emphasis on prosodic, phonetic, and phonological input features, and register discrimination as the outcome invites caution with respect to the generalisability of the claim that CDS facilitates language development across the breadth of input domains and learning outcomes. Future research ought to resolve the discrepancy between sweeping claims about the function of CDS as facilitating language development on the one hand and the narrow evidence base for such a claim on the other by conducting CDS-ADS comparisons across a wider range of input features and outcome measures.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48214,"journal":{"name":"Developmental Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273229724000054/pdfft?md5=94ba734189a5f4e8b08b34f6e987edd1&pid=1-s2.0-S0273229724000054-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does child-directed speech facilitate language development in all domains? A study space analysis of the existing evidence\",\"authors\":\"Vera Kempe ,&nbsp;Mitsuhiko Ota ,&nbsp;Sonja Schaeffler\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.dr.2024.101121\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Because child-directed speech (CDS) is ubiquitous in some cultures and because positive associations between certain features of the language input and certain learning outcomes have been attested it has often been claimed that the function of CDS is to aid children’s language development in general. We argue that for this claim to be generalisable, superior learning from CDS compared to non-CDS, such as adult-directed speech (ADS), must be demonstrated across multiple input domains and learning outcomes. To determine the availability of such evidence we performed a study space analysis of the research literature on CDS. A total of 942 relevant papers were coded with respect to (i) CDS features under consideration, (ii) learning outcomes and (iii) whether a comparison between CDS and ADS was reported. The results show that only 16.2% of peer-reviewed studies in this field compared learning outcomes between CDS and ADS, almost half of which focussed on the ability to discriminate between the two registers. Crucially, we found only 20 studies comparing learning outcomes between CDS and ADS for morphosyntactic and lexico-semantic features and none for pragmatic and extra-linguistic features. Although these 20 studies provided preliminary evidence for a facilitative effect of some specific morphosyntactic and lexico-semantic features, overall CDS-ADS comparison studies are very unevenly distributed across the space of CDS features and outcome measures. The disproportional emphasis on prosodic, phonetic, and phonological input features, and register discrimination as the outcome invites caution with respect to the generalisability of the claim that CDS facilitates language development across the breadth of input domains and learning outcomes. Future research ought to resolve the discrepancy between sweeping claims about the function of CDS as facilitating language development on the one hand and the narrow evidence base for such a claim on the other by conducting CDS-ADS comparisons across a wider range of input features and outcome measures.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48214,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Developmental Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273229724000054/pdfft?md5=94ba734189a5f4e8b08b34f6e987edd1&pid=1-s2.0-S0273229724000054-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Developmental Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273229724000054\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Developmental Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273229724000054","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

由于儿童引导式言语(CDS)在某些文化中无处不在,而且语言输入的某些特征与某些学习结果之间的正相关关系已得到证实,因此人们经常声称儿童引导式言语的功能是帮助儿童的语言发展。我们认为,要使这种说法具有普遍性,就必须在多个输入领域和学习结果中证明,与成人指导言语(ADS)等非 CDS 相比,CDS 的学习效果更佳。为了确定是否存在此类证据,我们对 CDS 的研究文献进行了研究空间分析。共对 942 篇相关论文进行了编码,涉及 (i) 所考虑的 CDS 特征、(ii) 学习效果和 (iii) 是否对 CDS 和 ADS 进行了比较。结果显示,该领域只有 16.2% 的同行评议研究对 CDS 和 ADS 的学习效果进行了比较,其中近一半的研究侧重于两种登记册的分辨能力。最重要的是,我们发现只有 20 项研究比较了 CDS 和 ADS 在形态句法和词汇语义特征方面的学习成果,而在语用和语外特征方面没有任何研究。尽管这 20 项研究初步证明了某些特定的形态句法和词汇语义特征具有促进作用,但总体而言,CDS 与 ADS 对比研究在 CDS 特征和结果测量方面的分布非常不均衡。对拟声、语音和音素输入特征的强调不成比例,而音域辨别又是结果,这使我们不得不警惕 CDS 在输入领域和学习结果的广度上促进语言发展这一说法的普遍性。未来的研究应该通过在更广泛的输入特征和结果测量中进行 CDS-ADS 比较,来解决一方面关于 CDS 促进语言发展功能的笼统说法与另一方面这种说法的狭隘证据基础之间的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Does child-directed speech facilitate language development in all domains? A study space analysis of the existing evidence

Because child-directed speech (CDS) is ubiquitous in some cultures and because positive associations between certain features of the language input and certain learning outcomes have been attested it has often been claimed that the function of CDS is to aid children’s language development in general. We argue that for this claim to be generalisable, superior learning from CDS compared to non-CDS, such as adult-directed speech (ADS), must be demonstrated across multiple input domains and learning outcomes. To determine the availability of such evidence we performed a study space analysis of the research literature on CDS. A total of 942 relevant papers were coded with respect to (i) CDS features under consideration, (ii) learning outcomes and (iii) whether a comparison between CDS and ADS was reported. The results show that only 16.2% of peer-reviewed studies in this field compared learning outcomes between CDS and ADS, almost half of which focussed on the ability to discriminate between the two registers. Crucially, we found only 20 studies comparing learning outcomes between CDS and ADS for morphosyntactic and lexico-semantic features and none for pragmatic and extra-linguistic features. Although these 20 studies provided preliminary evidence for a facilitative effect of some specific morphosyntactic and lexico-semantic features, overall CDS-ADS comparison studies are very unevenly distributed across the space of CDS features and outcome measures. The disproportional emphasis on prosodic, phonetic, and phonological input features, and register discrimination as the outcome invites caution with respect to the generalisability of the claim that CDS facilitates language development across the breadth of input domains and learning outcomes. Future research ought to resolve the discrepancy between sweeping claims about the function of CDS as facilitating language development on the one hand and the narrow evidence base for such a claim on the other by conducting CDS-ADS comparisons across a wider range of input features and outcome measures.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Developmental Review
Developmental Review PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL-
CiteScore
11.00
自引率
3.00%
发文量
27
审稿时长
51 days
期刊介绍: Presenting research that bears on important conceptual issues in developmental psychology, Developmental Review: Perspectives in Behavior and Cognition provides child and developmental, child clinical, and educational psychologists with authoritative articles that reflect current thinking and cover significant scientific developments. The journal emphasizes human developmental processes and gives particular attention to issues relevant to child developmental psychology. The research concerns issues with important implications for the fields of pediatrics, psychiatry, and education, and increases the understanding of socialization processes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信