Pitch and Communicative Intent in Mother's Speech: Adjustments for Age and Sex in the First Year

By Christine Kitamura, Denis K. Burnham. 2003

256 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Pharmacy

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8ce556ea63d437aae0ca7510cb3f21e399602320

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

1. J. Mesman
2. Maria Spinelli
3. M. Fasolo
4. Melanie Soderstrom
5. Catherine T. Best
6. Michael D. Tyler
7. Judit Gervain
8. Lynne Vernon-Feagans

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

1. Maria Spinelli
2. M. Fasolo
3. J. Mesman
4. Catherine T. Best
5. Michael D. Tyler
6. Judit Gervain
7. K. Byers‐Heinlein
8. Elena Lieven

In Pharmacy

1. Tricia Striano
2. Maria Spinelli
3. Melanie Soderstrom
4. M. Fasolo
5. J. Mesman

Citations in the corpus

• Maternal speech to infants at 1 and 3 months of age (2005, background): “Prior research on maternal speech to preverbal infants mainly focused on prosodic and semantic adjustments to infant age and interactional context (e.g.,Kitamura & Burnham, 2003; Stern, Spieker, Barnett, & MacKain, 1983).”
• Does prosody make the difference? A meta-analysis on relations between prosodic aspects of infant-directed speech and infant outcomes. (2017, background): “Singh, Morgan, and Best (2002) confirmed this hypothesis, showing that the only condition in which infants prefer IDS compared to ADS is when IDS was rated positive and ADS neutral.”
• Beyond babytalk: Re-evaluating the nature and content of speech input to preverbal infants (2007, background): “I have deliberately avoided discussion of equally important issues such as the affective properties of ID speech (e.g. Fernald, 1989; Kitamura & Burnham, 2003; Singh, Morgan, & Best, 2002) or pragmatic aspects of word learning (e.g. Hollich, Hirsh-Pasek, & Golinkoff, 2000), to focus on the…”
• Quantifying Sources of Variability in Infancy Research Using the Infant-Directed-Speech Preference (2020, background): “Nevertheless, the general acoustic pattern of IDS is readily identifiable to adult listeners (Fernald, 1989; Grieser & Kuhl, 1988; Katz, Cohn, & Moore, 1996; Kitamura & Burnham, 2003).”
• Nonnative and second-language speech perception : commonalities and complementarities (2007, background): “For example, along with prosodic properties that convey positive emotion and affiliation (e.g., Kitamura & Burnham, 2003; Singh, Morgan, & Best, 2002), infant-directed speech (IDS) also contains hyper-articulated vowels (Andruski, Kuhl, & Hayashi, 1999; Kuhl et al., 1997).”
• Increased brain activity to infant-directed speech in 6-and 13-month-old infants. (2007, background): “Kitamura and Burnham (2003) showed that mothers indeed adjust their pitch and other aspects of prosody to match their child’s age and developmental status across the first year of life.”
• Mother and father language input to young children: Contributions to later language development. (2006, background): “…language learning through, for example, simplified language that is less complex grammatically, more redundant, and with a higher pitch and exaggerated intonation pattern (Fernald et al., 1989; Kavanaugh & Jirkovsky, 1982; Kitamura & Burnham, 2003; McRoberts & Best, 1997; Rondal, 1980; Snow, 1977).”