THE
FUNCTION IN CHILD
OF IMITATION LANGUAGE
ANDRYA L. H. RAMER
William Paterson College, New ]ersey
The use and function of imitation were examined for seven children in the early syntactic period of language acquisition. The use of imitation was determined by the percent of syntactic imitation out of total syntactic output. Based on this measure, the children were divided according to whether they used imitations minimally, moderately, or extensively. The function of imitative repertoires was investigated by examining the lexical, syntactic, semantic, and communicative-interactional aspects of language as they were reflected in imitation. The analyses revealed that degree of imitation interacted with function of imitation in the acquisition process. Management implications are discussed. The use and function of imitation in child language have been continuing concerns of modem psycholinguistic research. Research in the 1960s revealed that a child's imitations were not grammatically progressive but instead reflected the child's productive language ability (Fraser, Bellugi, and Brown, 1963; Ervin, 1964; Rodd and Braine, 1970). The intense impact of generative transformational grammars influenced this early research since some generative grammarians had claimed that imitation has only a minimal effect on language acquisition because: (1) what had to be acquired were deep structures and transformational rules, (2) neither deep structures nor transformational rules were recoverable from surface forms, and (3) imitations were based upon these surface forms. These claims regarding imitative behavior were enhanced by the case study of a boy who, for physiological reasons, was unable to speak but who understood complexities in English grammar (Lenneberg, 1962). The implication of this report was that since imitation could not have occurred and yet language structure was acquired, imitation must not have played a role in the acquisition process. Ervin (1964) found that in imitation, children deleted those structural components that they did not ordinarily employ in spontaneous productions. Unstressed segments, articles, prepositions, auxiliaries, pronouns, and grammatical markers were omitted at the two-word stage both for spontaneous and imitative utterances. This result was confirmed by Rodd and Braine (1970) when they found that imitation was in accord with grammatical competence. The results of both Ervin (1964) and Rodd and Braine (1970) were based upon distributional analyses of spontaneous and imitative utterances. Since that time distributional analyses have been reexamined with the determination 700
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 11/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
that they are not refined enough to reflect the intricacies of child language (Bloom, 1970; Brown, 1973). Further, the distinction between theoretical linguistics and psycholinguistics has become clear enough that psycholinguists have developed their own notions of language that encompass a broader view than the purely sy~tactic constraints of the early transformational-generative grammars. With the advent of new techniques for analysis of child language, the negative conclusion regarding grammatical progressivity in child imitations has recently been opened for reexamination. Dale (1972) stated that the question of grammatical progressivity in child imitation must be more closely examined specifically with regard to the role of imitation in articulatory and lexical development. Slobin and Welch (1973), in a paper dealing with elicited imitation (as opposed to freely occurring imitations), discussed the role of adult expansions of children's spontaneous utterances especially in the cases where the expansions were imitated. This was of considerable interest since when the mother expanded a child's utterance, she added just those functors that the child ordinarily deleted. The child's imitation which followed, then included the functors. In these cases, the imitations were grammatically progressive. Although the results of elicited imitation tasks should not be directly compared with findings of research based on freely collected corpora, Slobin and Welch's findings have been suggestive. 1 Bloom, Hood, and Lightbown (1974), following this line of reasoning, attempted to determine the extent and function of imitation in early language development. The results of this study indicated that different children employed imitation to different degrees. Of six children, two rarely imitated. One imitated those adult utterances which included lexical items that he had not been observed to produce spontaneously. Three other children imitated adult utterances which contained novel semantic-syntactic relations. For the four children who frequently imitated, the imitative utterances served different functions. The authors concluded that although imitative behavior involved the active processing of language, it was not necessary for such processing. Early researchers who dealt with imitation in child language argued that imitation was not important for language acquisition and later researchers like Bloom et aI. (1974) indicated that it was not necessary. Why then, would it occur? Perhaps, both style of acquisition and function of imitation must be considered in relation to developmental stage since both the role and nature of imitation have been shown to change as development progresses. For example, Love and Parker-Robinson (1972) found that four to six year olds were dependent upon functors in elicited imitation tasks using nonsense words, while Ervin (1964) had found that two year olds did not imitate functors. 1It is important to note here that although elicited imitation tasks are in some ways parallel to spontaneously occurring imitations, this is not always the case. For example, Bloom (1974) indicates that in some instances spontaneous nonimitative utterances produced in context have an advantage over elicited imitations. The presence of an intent to communicate in spontaneous utterances which is absent in elicited imitation results, in at least some cases, in greater complexity for spontaneous utterances than for ideally matched imitative ones. RAMER: Imitation
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 11/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
701
These studies indicated that imitation changed with development. However, research reported by Bloom et al. (1974) revealed that imitation differed from child to child at the same stage of development. Perhaps, the function and nature of imitation may differ from utterance to utterance in the same child at the same stage of development. Since imitative repertoires do seem to occur in normal children at specific points in development, the questions to be asked are: 1. If they occur, why? 2. How can these imitations facilitate the development of language in all children regardless of their dependence on imitation? To answer these questions, the current research was undertaken. In this study, imitative utterances were analyzed in terms of six possible lexical, syntactic, semantic, and communicative-interactional functions and then compared to subsequent usage of that particular form in later observational sessions. The comparison of first imitative usage to later spontaneous production was meant to indicate whether those forms which were initially imitated later became productive in spontaneous speech. The expectation was that this would occur presumably because imitative utterances would be at the leading edge of linguistic advancement. METHOD
Subiects The data employed in this research were obtained as part of a larger study on language acquisition in the early syntactic period. Of the seven children who served as subjects in this study, four were girls and three were boys. Two of the girls and two of the boys had one older sibling each, while the remaining three children were first born. All seven children were from upper middle class homes in which at least one parent, but in most cases both, were professionally employed outside of the home. All children were first seen prior to the onset of syntactic productions and all were between 1-3 and 1-5 years at the first observational session.
Procedure Of the seven children who served as subjects in this study, six were seen individually in their homes for approximately two hours every three weeks by the author. Each of these sessions was recorded on an Ampex cassette recorder using a nondirectional standing microphone. This procedure allowed the children freedom of movement and made it possible to place the entire recording apparatus at some distance from the field of play. To maintain the naturalistic setting, the children were allowed relative freedom to explore their environ702 Journal of Speech and Hearing Research
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 11/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
19 700-717 1976
merit. In most cases the child determined the content of the taping session. The mothers (or in some instances the housekeeper) typically were in and out of the play room. For each child, on some occasion the child's father was also part of the play session. Older siblings were occasionally included in the taping as well. Although most of each taped session involved play, there were instances of toilet behavior and feeding situations. The children seemed to consider the investigator to be a very unusual playmate who allowed the child a constant focus of attention. Generally, the investigator was recognized from session to session and was greeted with delight. The seventh child was obtained through the Albert Einstein Medical Center Research Nursery. This child, also middle class with professionally employed parents, attended the nursery four mornings weekly. Her behavior in the nursery setting with her mother and the regular nursery school teacher was recorded on videotape. For this child, biweekly 45-minute language samples were taken during free play. There was no direct contact between the investigator and the mother or child but the investigator observed each taping session through a one-way mirror. Language samples were taken from all the children beginning at mean length of utterance (MLU) 1.0 and continuing until the child's productions reached an MLU of approximately 2.0. The corpora obtained were transcribed including contextual information, and Bloom's technique (1970) was employed for determining semantic intent. A N A L Y S I S OF T H E DATA General Concerns
Imitations were defined as those utterances in which the child produced all or part of an immediately preceding utterance by another speaker. In all cases, the child's production did not add to or change the model utterance except to delete part of it. These imitated utterances were analyzed in three ways. The first analysis aimed to determine the frequency with which imitative utterances appeared in the total corpora collected for each child. This analysis served to determine first, if different children at the same stage of development imitated adult models with the same frequency. Second, all freely occurring imitative utterances were categorized according to a set of six lexical, semantic, syntactic, and interactional-communicative functions which they were presumed to serve. Third, there were also utterances in which the child was specifically asked by the mother to imitate or in which imitative behavior was encouraged. In these cases, the child was engaged by the mother in a rote language game or routine. To qualify as a rote routine, the particular language interaction had to occur at least five times in the corpora in a situation reflective of an ongoing interaction. In all cases the mother initiated the interaction by asking a particular question or making a specific statement that signaled the onset of the rote routine. The frequency with which these rote routines occurred resulted RAMER: Imitation
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 11/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
703
in the child's utterances becoming memorized patterns and not constructed forms. Rote routines were not categorized according to function but were examined separately by comparing the complexity of the rote patterns to the complexity of freely occurring imitations and spontaneous productions at the same and at later stages of development. Appendix A lists and defines each of the presumptive functions for freely occurring imitative utterances and also indicates information regarding the analyses of imitative utterances which were classed as rote routines.
Extent of Imitation To determine the amount of imitation each child employed, a computation involving percentage of imitation was undertaken. The percentage of syntactic imitations for each child was calculated on the basis of the child's total syntactic output in all observational sessions. This calculation resulted in a figure indicating the percentage of syntactic imitation out of the total syntactic output. A percentage figure was employed in this analysis since the actual size of the corpora varied significantly from child to child.
Function of Imitation Each of the imitative utterances in the collected corpora was analyzed in terms of six possible functions. This was done to examine the role that imitation played in language acquisition for the seven children studied. The first four categories dealt with the possibility of grammatical progressivity in child imitation for semantic and syntactic development. The final two categories dealt with the interactional and communicative functions language. Lexical Growth. Imitative utterances were considered to serve this function if any of the substantive lexical items in the imitation occurred less than five times in all the previously collected data. This includes both single word and syntactic utterances. The limited number of occurrences prior to the imitation may be considered to result from either a lack of experience with the lexical item itself or alternately from a lack of contact with the object, action, or event to which the lexical item refers. In either case, the imitation may assist the child in either mastery of the lexical item or in focusing on the concept to which it refers. 2 Thus, in order to determine ff imitative usage assists in later spontaneous usage, each imitative utterance which contained a novel lexical item was compared to later spontaneous occurrences of that lexical item. Development of Semantic Categories. Each syntactic utterance was analyzed in terms of its semantic function. The semantic categories employed in this analysis were drawn from Bloom (1970, 1973), Antinucci et al. (1972) 2I do not mean to imply here that imitation allows for concept learning. That must be done by some other means. But, the imitation could conceivably allow for the practice of a poorly known lexical item if the concept were already established. 704 ]ournal of Speech and Hearing Research
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 11/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
19 700-717 1976
and McNeill (1968). These categories are described in Table 1. An imitative utterance was considered to aid semantic development if the category expressed in the utterance had not previously been specified in spontaneous utterances at least twice. The relatively infrequent occurrence prior to imitation may be taken to indicate a lack of productive knowledge or ability. Corn-
TABLE 1. Semantic categories.
Semantic Category
Description
Utterance
Relevant Context
Genitive
Indication of possession.
"Mommy bun"
Child observed mother eating a bun. Is asked, "Whose bun is it?"
Attributive
The first element specifies an attribute of the second element.
"Rubber ball"
Child selected a rubber ball from a collection of balls.
Locative
Indication of location.
"In bed"
Child's response to question "Where's Mommy?"
Temporal
Indication of time.
"Heavy now"
Child tried to lift a bin of blocks.
Manner
Indication of the way in which an action occurred.
"Other way"
Said after child tried to put a block into the wrong part of the shape box.
Instrumental
Indication of inanimate causal object.
"Nail in hammer"
As child pounded a toy nail with a hammer.
Explicit deixis
Specific indicator pointer.
"That one"
When asked, "Which book do you want?" child pointed to a specific book.
Quantitative
Indication of number.
"Two spoon"
Child played with several spoons.
Recurrence
Indication of repetition.
"More juice"
Child finished his juice and held out his cup to his mother.
Dative
Indication of indirect recipient of action.
"Give me this'"
Child to observer when he couldn't reach the hammer.
Agent
Indication of animate initiator of action.
"Mommy hit"
When mother child.
Action
Indication of action.
"Baby fall"
When a doll fell off the bed.
or
spanked
RAMER: Imitation
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 11/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
the
705
TABLE 1. ( Cont. )
Semantic Category
Description
Utterance
Relevant Context
Patient
Indication of direct recipient of action.
"Eat soup"
As child is eating soup.
State
Indication of state of being.
"Sleep now"
Child pretends to sleep by placing head on bed.
Indicative
Taking note of an object or person.
"See ball"
Child notices a ball in comer of room.
Rejection
Refusal of offered object or action.
"No banana"
Mother asksl "'Do you want a banana?"
Nonexistence
Indication of the absence of an object or person that had previously been present.
"Ball gone"
A ball rolls under the sofa.
Denial
Indication of the falsity of a previous statement.
"No pot"
Child~lays with a pot pretending it is a pool. Observer calls it a pot.
Conjunctive
Indication of more than one referent or simultaneous aspects of same referent.
"Shoe sock"
Observer asked "What do you wear on your feet?"
Disjunctive
Indication of either/or relationship between two referents.
"'Bunny either"
Child imitated the observers statement, "Don't give it to me from the cat or the bunny either."
parison of imitative occurrence to later spontaneous usage was e m p l o y e d to d e t e r m i n e if these i n f r e q u e n t l y occurring imitative semantic categories w e r e l a t e r used spontaneously. Increased Structural Complexity. All syntactic utterances, b o t h spontaneous and imitative, we r e categorized into one of four o r d e r e d groupings b a s e d u p o n the n u m b e r a n d expansion of grammatical relations produced. T h e grammatical relations e m p l o y e d in this analysis were subject, verb, a n d c o m p l e m e n t ( i n c l u d i n g direct and indirect objects as well as adverbs, adverbial phrases, prepositions, prepositional phrases, a n d predicate adjectives). G r o u p 1 utterances, considered to be the least complex syntactic construction type, specified only one grammatical class expanded. An expansion was considered to be the use of m o r e t h a n a single lexical item as the specification of a g r a m m a t i c a l r e l a t i o n ? G r o u p 2 utterances we r e considered to be the next mo s t complex aThese included verb expansions composed of two verbs which are considered in transformational grammars to be derived from two separate sentence nodes. Although the presumed derivation, in theoretical terms, would make utterances of this type the most complex rather than the least, this presumed theoretical complexity apparently does not match 706 1ournal of Speech and Hearing Research
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 11/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
19 700-717
1976
and involved the combination of two grammatical relations, neither of which were expanded. Group 3 utterances were composed of two grammatical relations in which one relation was expanded. Group 4 utterances encompassed the final and most complex construction studied and involved the combination of all three grammatical relations in one utterance: subject -t- verb + complement. Table 2 lists and describes each of these syntactic utterance types TABLE 2. Examples of utterance analysis for functional categories of structural complexity and grammatical relations. Groups 1. Expanded subject
Utterance~Example "Rocking chair"
Expanded verb
"Want go"
Expanded complement
"In there"
2. Subject + verb
"Mommy come"
Subject + complement
"Daddy hospital"
Verb + complement
"Play sand"
Relevant Context A rocking chair bumped Marjorie in the head, the examiner asked, "What bumped you?" Emily was standing at the front door to her apartment after her sister had left. After Greg had put money in a box. David S. grabbed his mother and pulled her into the room. The examiner asked Danielle, "Where does Daddy work?" Mar~orie is asked by her mother, "'What does Margie do at school?"
3. Expanded subject + verb Expanded subject + complement Expanded verb + complement Subject + expanded verb Subject + expanded complement Verb + expanded complement
"Her foot stuck"
"See boat outside"
Danielle put the Raggedy Ann doll into the carriage. David N. points out the window to the boats on the river.
4. Subject + verb + complement
"Snoopy fall down"
As Snoopy fell off the motorcycle.
"The money inside" "Want see that" "Baby go sleep" "Raggy this carriage"
Marjorie to her mother when the doll's foot got stuck. Emily to the examiner when the money had fallen into the radiator. Greg pushed his sister away from the guinea pig cage. Emily put her doll into its bed.
and groupings. Imitative utterances were iudged to serve the purpose of increasing structural complexity if the imitation was classed in a grouping which had not occurred at least two times previously in spontaneous utterances. It is possible that these imitated constructions appeared infrequently either because they were common utterance types which the child was in the process of mastering or because they were infrequent utterance types with which the child was not familiar. In either case, comparison of imitative occurrence to the child's notions of complexity since utterances of this type were found to occur early in syntactic development. RAMER: Imitation
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 11/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
707
later spontaneous usage was employed to determine if these infrequently occurring imitative syntactic forms were later used spontaneously. Mastering Grammatical Markers. This analysis examined morphological grammatical markers for pluralization, possession, third person singular present tense, present participle forms, and past tense. Both spontaneous and imitative utterances were examined for the presence of these markers. An imitation was judged as serving the purpose of mastering a new grammatical marker if it contained one of these morphological forms and the form had not previously occurred in spontaneous productions at least twice. As with other function categories, comparisons were made between first occurrence in imitation and later spontaneous usage. Labeling Action. Imitative utterances which served this function were signaled by the adult's preceding utterance and by the child's response. Prior to the occurrence of these imitations, the adult speaker requested or directed the child to act. While carrying out the action, the child produced an utterance which structurally and lexically was a partial or complete imitation of the adult string. In these cases, the child was using the adult's words and structure to label the actions which he was accomplishing. Thus, instead of constructing a novel utterance to label his actions, he merely employed the adult utterance without modification. Lack of Comprehension of Adult Request or Command. Imitations which seemed to occur for this reason were also produced after an adult's request or direction but, in these cases, the child did not act appropriately. Instead of the appropriate response, the child imitated a portion of the adult's request or command. In all of these cases examination of the adult's utterance revealed at least one of the two following phenomena: (1) at least one lexical item in the adult's utterance had never been observed to occur in the collected corpora for the child and thus may not have been known or (2) the structure of the adult's string involved a complex syntactic construction never observed in the collected corpora for the child and possibly not comprehended. It appeared that the child knew a response was required but since he did not know how to respond he merely imitated the adult's production. The evidence for this category rested with the child's lack of response and the possible lexicaI or structural complexity of the adult's model utterance, or both. RESULTS
General Trends The extent and function of imitative utterances can only be determined in relation to general trends in language growth. Thus, Table 3 indicates specific information regarding each child's developmental progression beginning with the first sample at which syntactic utterances were produced. This table indicates, for each sample taken, the child's age, the time in weeks from the emergence of syntax, the MLU for the sample as well as the total number of 708 Journal of Speech and Hearing Research
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 11/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
19 700-717 1976
TABLE 3. General developmental data.
Subiec~
Age Time (Months) (Weeks)
Total Corpus MLU Size
Total Total Syntactic Imitative Utterances Ut~rances
Greg
21 22 23 24 24.3 25.2 26.2 27.1
4 8 12 15 18 22 25
1.01 1.02 1.05 1.10 1.08 1.18 1.55 1.92
77 123 192 284 204 417 273 181
1 3 12 20 18 69 116 112
1 1 4 -
Danielle
18.1 19 19.2 20.1 21.1 22.1
3 5 8 12 16
1.10 1.16 1.36 1.50 1.88 1.95
222 198 242 245 375 433
20 25 80 83 262 230
1 8 5
Maqorie
19.1 19.3 20 20.3
2 3 6
1.39 1.77 1.73 2.13
133 92 164 189
53 49 89 75
4 2 4 5
Emily
19.3 20.3 21.2 22.2 23 23.2 24 24.2
4 7 11 13 15 17 19
1.06 1.22 1.26 1.40 1.28 1.46 1.79 2.01
97 142 211 192 132 253 181 114
7 29 48 66 50 89 110 71
2 4 3 10 2 3 5
David N.
16 17 18 19 20 20.3 21.1 22.1 23.1 24 25
4 8 12 16 19 21 25 29 32 36
1.18 1.02 1.03 1.10 1.29 1.25 1.25 1.15 1.31 1.39 2.05
67 98 98 133 235 274 358 671 402 529 387
4 2 3 17 58 29 42 39 78 134 279
2 1 5 1 3 2 13 16
David S.
19 20 21 22 23 24 24.3 25 26
4 8 12 16 20 23 24 28
1.13 1.16 1.18 1.19 1.29 1.18 1.56 1.84 2.32
167 164 122 141 238 255 238 212 130
17 15 20 12 67 46 114 233 98
6 5 3 3 6 13 14 10 9
Lisa
16.2 17.2 18.2 19.2
4 8 12
1.03 1.23 1.78 1.99
102 160 223 366
4 35 132 231
4 15 15 35
RAMER: Imitation
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 11/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
709
syntactic utterances, imitative utterances, and the total corpus size including single-word utterances. Review of Table 3 reveals that general developmental language trends differed considerably from child to child at the same stage of development. Based upon the differences displayed in Table 3, it would not be surprising if differences in extent and function of imitation also occurred. Extent of Imitation. The analysis dealing with extent of imitation revealed that the children exhibited different degrees of dependence upon imitation and rote-routine behavior. Five of the children employed only imitations. Two of these five children depended upon imitations minimally. The imitations accounted for 1.75 of the total syntactic output for Greg and 2.05 of the total syntactic output for Danielle. Three children produced moderate amounts of imitative utterances. Marjorie's imitations accounted for 5.6% of her total syntactic output while David N. and Emily employed imitations 6.3 and 6.45, respectively. Two of the children employed both imitations and rote routines and were heavily dependent upon them. Imitations and rote routines accounted for 17.0~ of Lisa's syntactic output. David S. produced imitations and rote routines 13.25 of the time. Function of Imitation. Analysis of the functional imitative categories revealed that the more dependent the child was on imitation, the greater the number of categories needed to account for all the uses of the imitative utterances. For Greg and Danielle, both minimally dependent upon imitations, three functional categories accounted for all their imitative productions. Marjorie, David N., and Emily were moderately dependent upon imitations and four categories each accounted for all of their imitations. Five or all six functional categories were needed to account for the imitative utterances produced by David S. and Lisa, the two children who were most heavily dependent upon imitative behavior. Analysis of the frequency of occurrence of the six functional imitative categories revealed some general tendencies as displayed in Table 4. First, the functional category dealing with lexical growth occurred the most frequently for all children regardless of their dependence upon imitation. The percentage of usage of this category ranged from 72.8 to 62.65. Thus, this category, which functioned to incorporate new vocabulary items and allowed TABLE 4. Percent of imitative utterances according to function served. Functions
Lexical growth Label action Lack comprehension Semantic categories Grammatical markers Structural complexity
Lisa DavidS.
Emily
Subjects DavidN. Mariorie Danielle Greg
63.2~; 6 3 . 3 5 62.6% 12.75 16.8~; 9.4~ 8.95 10.6% 14.9~; 6.85 6.25 12.8~ 2.5~ 2.7~ . . 5.1~ . . .
68.0~ 8.8~ 10.0~ 13.25 . .
710 1ournal of Speech and Hearing Research
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 11/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
69.7~; 66.9~ 9.4~ 18.0~ 10.75 15.05 10.2~ . . . .
72.8~; 18.2~ 9.1~ -
19 700-717 1976
practice of combinatorial properties of lexical items, was the most frequent function that could be attributed to imitative utterances. From this finding it is clear that imitation may serve some function in lexical growth and that this function is pervasive. Thus, it appears that lexical growth and imitation may be related. However, the nature of this relationship is unclear since it is possible that imitation is really a by-product of the learning process rather than its cause. This is essentially true for all of the associations found between imitation and the presumptive functions analyzed. The methods of analysis employed here are not capable of determining which of these possibilities are correct, they can only indicate that there is a clear association. The frequency of occurrence analysis revealed that the two functional categories which served a communicative or interactional function were also present in the data for all children. They only occurred moderately often. The percentage of usage for the categories which labeled an action or indicated a lack of comprehension of an adult request or command ranged from 18.2 to 8.8~. Thus, the data revealed that although lexical functions were most often served by imitative utterances, communicative functions also appear related to imitation. Table 4 displays the finding that for the seven children studied, regardless of the degree of dependence upon imitation, lexical and communicative-interactional aspects of language were most often served by the imitations produced. All other functional categories occurred in imitative productions only for those children who exhibited either moderate or extreme degrees of dependence upon imitation. The functional category dealing with semantic development was present in the data for all the children except Greg and Danielle. These two children depended upon imitations only minimally with imitations accounting for 1.7 and 2.0~ of their total syntactic output, respectively. Syntactic categories were still further restricted and occurred for fewer of the children and in smaller percentages of occurrence. There were two categories which served syntactic functions. The functional category which dealt with grammatical markers occurred in the data for David S. and Lisa. They both employed imitative repertoires extensively while the category dealing with structural complexity occurred only for imitated utterances produced by Lisa. She had been the most dependent upon imitation of all the children studied. Lisa's data displayed other interesting aspects with regard to grammatical progressivity in imitation. This was especially true in terms of structural complexity. The first instances of syntactic constructions which she produced were imitative. In fact, at the first session in which syntax was produced, the only recorded syntactic constructions were imitations. At this session there was no evidence that Lisa was capable of dealing with syntax except imitatively. Thus, Lisa's data displayed an overall tendency toward the use of imitation as a means of attaining higher levels of complexity. The pattern which emerged suggested that first Lisa employed a particular structure imitatively and at the next session it became productive
R~.a:
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 11/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
Imitation
711
spontaneously. This was true at the onset of syntactic utterances, for the first utterances which expressed grammatical relations, and for negative constructions. The implication of the rank ordering of functional categories was that the more often imitation was employed by a child, the more functions the imitative repertoires served. There also appeared to be a general sequence of occurrence of imitative function such that certain uses of imitation occurred for all children and occurred most frequently. Other functions emerged only when imitation was employed more often, and still other functions were reserved for the most generalized dependence upon imitation. This sequence is displayed in Appendix B and reveals that it was not the case that the children who imitated extensively merely imitated more frequently with their imitations serving the same purposes as moderate or minimal imitators. Instead, as proportion of imitation increased, the child employed imitation in a number of different ways not observed in the data of less highly imitative children. The results of this study dealing with function of imitation can be directly linked to the findings of Bloom et al. (1974). Bloom et al. in examining imitative vs spontaneous utterances for six children also found differing proportions of imitation to spontaneous production with a match-up of proportion to function. Since the system of determining proportion of imitation in the Bloom et al. study differed from the system employed here, the absolute percentage figures are not comparable although the proportions across the groups of children are. Bloom et al. found that two children rarely imitated; however, no further analysis of these children's infrequent imitations was undertaken. Of the other four, the three children with the highest proportion of imitation to spontaneous production appeared to employ imitation "for learning the semantic-syntactic relations in multiword utterances" (Bloom et al., 1974, p. 413). The fourth imitating child had the lowest proportion of imitations to spontaneous productions, and imitation appeared to be lexically motivated for both single-word and multiword utterances. Thus, for the four imitating children studied by Bloom et al. and the seven children studied here, higher frequency of imitation was linked to semantic and syntactic function while a lower frequency was linked to lexical function. Comparison o[ Imitation and Later Spontaneous Production. As noted earlier, each imitative utterance was assessed for function based upon infrequent, nonproductive use in relation to later spontaneous, productive occurrence. The comparison of functional categories for imitation with later spontaneous usage of these same forms indicated that at the next observational session those forms which had previously been imitative only, became productive spontaneously. Thus, the expectation that imitative utterances would be at the leading edge of development was indeed observed in the children studied regardless of their dependence upon imitation. From the results of this research it can be stated with confidence that imitation occurs, in most instances, just prior to spontaneous usage. Of concern however, is the relationship between the first imitation and the later spon712 Journal o[ Speech and Hearing Research
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 11/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
19 700-717 1976
taneous usage. It is not clear that this is a cause-and-effect relationship with imitation causing spontaneous production, although that is a possibility. It is more likely, however, that the imitation is a means of practicing for spontaneous production. And, in order for imitation to occur at all, there must be some prior set of occurrences. In all likelihood, this prior set of occurrences is a previously established knowledge of the concept underlying the word or grammatical structure. Thus, imitation may not be a means of learning but a means of practicing what has already been learned. Imitation and Speed of Acquisition. Since there were differing degrees of dependence upon imitation and different functions served in imitation, it was necessary to consider the possibility that imitation may have had some effect on speed of syntactic acquisition. The relevant data, as detailed i~ Talkie 3~ indicate that degree o{ imitation appears unrelated to speed of acquisition. For example, both Lisa and David S. were the most dependent on imitation yet their speed of acquisition differed greatly. Lisa progressed from a mean length of utterance (MLU) of 1.03 to 1.99 in three months. This was anaong the shortest periods for all the children studied. David S. required seven months to make essentially the same progression. Greg, the child who employed imitation the least frequently, moved from an MLU of 1.01 to 1.92 in six and one half months. Thus, whatever functions imitation may have served, it was not necessary for rapid syntactic advancement, nor was it a hindrance to rapid syntactic development. It appears that frequency of usage for imitation reveals a style of dealing with language acquisition which appears to be unrelated to speed of acquisition. Rote Routines. The two children who imitated most frequently were those children who also employed rote routines. These routines involved a language interaction game that was played so regularly that the child's responses constituted memorized forms. David S. and his mother played two different rote routines which occurred a total of 34 times in his corpora. He employed the rote string "Where is it?" 15 times during four sessions. However, the productive nonimitative use of where questions did not emerge until several months later. Further, copulas were never used in any of the recorded sessions except as part of this rote routine. Thus, these utterances were structurally more complex than any spontaneous utterance in the same corpus. They were not a newly emerging form but far more advanced than any spontaneous production. The same can be said for David's other rote routine. David and his mother often engaged in a language routine which took the following form: Mother: Who do you love? I love Jill. David: I love Jill. Mother: Who else do you love? I love... David: I love Mommy. Mother: Who else do you love? I love... David: I love Daddy. This language routine occurred at three separate taping sessions as well as several times during informal observation. The subject + verb + complement PtAMER:
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 11/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
Imitation 713
structure of these utterances was more complex than any spontaneous utterances. This same structure did not emerge in spontaneous productions until two months later. The routinized nature of both the "I love . . . . " and "Where is it?" strings created rote-memorized utterances which exceeded David's normal productive facility with such structures. These utterances were not constructed forms but were memorized as units. There appeared to be something essentially different about single-occurrence imitations and often-repeated rote productions although on the surface both were imitative. Although David produced a small number of imitative utterances which were structurally more complex than his spontaneous utterances, in all cases, these imitations were on the leading edge of his emerging grammar. They occurred imitatively in one session and by the next session, three weeks later, they were productively employed in spontaneous utterances. This was not the case with rote routines. Where questions, copula forms, and subject + verb + complement structures did not emerge spontaneously until several months after their first rote occurrence. Lisa also produced a single rote routine. She used how questions with the forms: "How you daddy?" (nine times); "How you do?" (five times); and "How you grandma Pearl?" (seven times). These utterances were each said as part of a different speech event and each occurrence of the same utterance was signaled by the same maternal action and utterance. For example, "How you daddy?" was always produced while looking at a picture of a man in a book while "How you grandma Pearl?" was always produced during play with a toy phone. These utterances were significant in several ways. First, these utterances expressed complex notions not usually expressed at this point in development. Lisa produced no other wh- questions in all the recorded data yet in this rote routine she employed a relatively late developing form ( Bellugi, 1965). Second, at the same session at which she produced one of these utterances she was asked a how question by the examiner. She was asked, "How do you open the surprise box?" She responded, "open 'prise box," giving no indication that she comprehended the question. Although the intent of this how question differed from those which occurred in her rote routines, some essential similarities in meaning were present. Finally, these utterances were only partial imitations of adult strings in which some aspects of the complex structure were reduced to the child's level of functioning (that is, she deleted the copula and auxiliary forms neither of which ever occurred in any spontaneous utterances or single-occurrence imitations). These utterances indicated that memorized forms may in some ways be significantly more complex than spontaneous utterances or single-occurrence imitations. This probably resulted from their repetitive nature. Also, the use of these relatively more sophisticated structures did not indicate an underlying competence with these forms, only a productive ability. Finally, even in memorized rote forms, there may be some accommodation to the child's actual level of functioning.
714 Journal o[ Speech and Hearing Research
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 11/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
19 700-717 1976
DISCUSSION
Conclusions This research provided several interesting insights into language development. First, not all children employed imitation to the same extent indicating possible differences in the approach to language-learning tasks. Second, degree of dependence upon imitation appears related to function of imitation. Third, the degree of dependence upon imitative repertoires is not related to speed of syntactic acquisition. Thus, imitation did not play a role in speeding up the language acquisition process. When imitations did occur, they were not random but served a ling'uistic or communicative function. Further, the occurrence of imitative behavior, although it did not hasten the acquisition process, did appear to be one means or strategy that some children employ in the acquisition of language. If this strategy was employed, imitation occurred only with those linguistic forms which were on the verge of being acquired. This was true except when the forms were memorized rote productions. Memorized forms apparently did nothing to further productive linguistic development. Imitation, then, may be viewed as a possible mechanism for learning or practice which, when it occurs, assists in development. However, imitation cannot be considered a requisite for language acquisition in all children. Management Implications. The implication of the above findings can be related to management techniques which often are dependent upon imitative tasks. Based upon these findings, management strategies which encourage imitation probably will work best for all children at the level of vocabulary growth. However, beyond this, imitative strategies in management should be selectively employed. The selection process is probably best viewed in terms of the individual child's tendency to imitate. Thus, language assessment should include information regarding the extent of imitation that the child usually employs. Further, the use of elicited imitation as a management technique must be employed with considerable care. Attention must be paid to the relationship between those utterances in which an imitation is elicited and those which are spontaneously produced. This is especially true in light of Bloom's (1974) finding that elicited imitations are in some cases less complex than spontaneously produced utterances because communicative intent, motivation, and contextual cues are not present when the imitation is elicited. Imitations should be employed to encourage systematic sequential development in order to avoid the appearance of rote-memorized forms. Although rote memorization may serve to encourage the automatic free-flow of language, it apparently has very little to do with productive spontaneous development of new linguistic forms. A schematization of the acquisition process can be developed based upon these findings and their implications. It appears that there is a tripartite operational system involved in acquisition. First, the learning of a language
RAMER:
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 11/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
Imitation 715
structure or concept must take place by direct contact which allows for the constructive process. Second, practice of the language structure or concept may take place, perhaps by imitation. Finally, automatic response may occur, at least partially, as a result of memorization. This, of course, argues very strongly for a developmental psycholinguistic approach to language management. In such an approach, the clinician is guided both by the child's current level of language functioning and by knowledge of normal developmental milestones. This, in turn, presumes that sigeech pathologists must be quite sophisticated regarding the nature, sequence, and process of language acquisition. ACKNOWLEDGMENT' Requests for reprints should be sent to Andrya L. H. Ramer, 180 West End Avenue, New York, New York 10023. REFERENCES
ANTINUCCI,F., Semantics o[ Child Speech Coding Manual. Berkeley, Calif.: Berkeley CrossLinguistic Language Development Project ( 1972 ). BELLUCI, U., The development of interrogative structures in children's speech. In K. Riegel (Ed.), The Development of Language Functions. Ann Arbor: Michigan Language Development Program, Report No. 8 (1965). BLOOM, L., Language Development: Form and Function in Emerging Grammars. Cambridge: MIT Press (1970). BLOOM, L., One Word at a Time: The Use of Single Word Utterances before Syntax. The Hague: Mouton ( 1973 ). BLOOM, L., Talking, understanding and thinking. In R. Schiefelbusch and L. Lloyd (Eds.), Language Perspectives: Acquisition, Retardation and Intervention. Baltimore: University Park Press (1974). BLOOM, L., HOOD,L., and LICHTBOWN,P., Imitation in language development: If, when and why. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 380-420 ( 1974 ). BROWN, R., A First Language. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press (1973). DALE, P. S., Language Development: Structure and Function. Hinsdale, Ill. : Dryden Press ( 1972 ). EnviN, S. M., Imitation and structural change in children's language. In E. H. Lenneberg (Ed.), New Directions in the Study of Language. Cambridge: MIT Press (1964). FRASEn, C., BELLUCI,U., and BnOWN, R., Control of grammar in imitation, comprehension and production. J. verb. Learn. verb. Behav., 2, 121-135 (1963). LENNEBERC, E. H., Understanding language without ability to speak: A case report. J. Abnorm. soc. Psychol., 65, 419-425 (1962). LOVE, J. M., and PARKER-ROBINSON,C., Children's imitation of grammatical and ungrammatical sentences. Child Dev., 2, 43 ( 1972 ). MCNEILL, D., A question in semantic development: What does a child mean when he says 'No'? In E. M. Zale (Ed.), Con[erence on language and language behavior, Ann Arbor, Michigan 1966. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts (1968). RODD, L. T., and BRAINE, M. D. S., Children's imitations of syntactic constructions as a measure of linguistic competence. J. verb. Learn. verb. Behav., 10, 430-441 (1970). SLOBIN, D. I., and WELCH, C. A., Elicited imitation as a research tool in developmental psycholinguistics. In C. A. Fergueson AND D. I. Slobin (Eds.), Studies of Child Language Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston (1973). Received May 8, 1975. Accepted May 17, 1976. 716 Journal o[ Speech and Hearing Research
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 11/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
19 700-717 1976
APPENDIX
A
Analyses of imitated utterances. Analysis 1-Frequency of imitation The frequency of infitation was computed as the percent of imitative syntactic utterances in all collected corpora out of the total number of syntactic utterances produced from the emergence of syntax until an MLU of approximately 2.0 was achieved. Analysis 2-Function of imitation Imitative utterances were determined to serve one of the following categories based upon their infrequent occurrence prior to imitation. This was then compared to their subsequent spontaneous production.
1. Semantic function: Lexical growth-Syntactic utterances containing infrequently occurring lexical items.
2. Semantic function: Development of semantic categories-Syntactic utterances containing infrequently occurring semantic categories of knowledge.
3. Syntactic function: Increased structural complexity-Syntactic utterances specifying infrequently occurring grammatical utterance types.
4. Syntactic function: Mastering grammatical markers-Syntactic utterances containing infrequently occurring grammatical morphological markers.
5. Communicative function: Labeling action-Imitations of adult commands or requests produced at the time of action.
6. Communicative function: Lack of comprehension-Imitations of adult requests of commands produced in lieu of action. Analysis 3-Rote routines Memorized, often repeated, imitative utterances which constituted part of a language game played by parent and child. These imitative types were compared both to other imitations and to spontaneous productions.
APPENDIX
B
Use of functional categories for imitation in relation to degree of dependence upon imitation.
Minimal
Degree of Imitation Moderate
Extensive
Lexieal
Lexical
Lexical
CommunicativeInteractional
CommunicativeInteractional
CommunicativeInteractional
Semantic
Semantic Syntactic RAMER :
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 11/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
Imitation
717
FUNCTION IN CHILD
OF IMITATION LANGUAGE
ANDRYA L. H. RAMER
William Paterson College, New ]ersey
The use and function of imitation were examined for seven children in the early syntactic period of language acquisition. The use of imitation was determined by the percent of syntactic imitation out of total syntactic output. Based on this measure, the children were divided according to whether they used imitations minimally, moderately, or extensively. The function of imitative repertoires was investigated by examining the lexical, syntactic, semantic, and communicative-interactional aspects of language as they were reflected in imitation. The analyses revealed that degree of imitation interacted with function of imitation in the acquisition process. Management implications are discussed. The use and function of imitation in child language have been continuing concerns of modem psycholinguistic research. Research in the 1960s revealed that a child's imitations were not grammatically progressive but instead reflected the child's productive language ability (Fraser, Bellugi, and Brown, 1963; Ervin, 1964; Rodd and Braine, 1970). The intense impact of generative transformational grammars influenced this early research since some generative grammarians had claimed that imitation has only a minimal effect on language acquisition because: (1) what had to be acquired were deep structures and transformational rules, (2) neither deep structures nor transformational rules were recoverable from surface forms, and (3) imitations were based upon these surface forms. These claims regarding imitative behavior were enhanced by the case study of a boy who, for physiological reasons, was unable to speak but who understood complexities in English grammar (Lenneberg, 1962). The implication of this report was that since imitation could not have occurred and yet language structure was acquired, imitation must not have played a role in the acquisition process. Ervin (1964) found that in imitation, children deleted those structural components that they did not ordinarily employ in spontaneous productions. Unstressed segments, articles, prepositions, auxiliaries, pronouns, and grammatical markers were omitted at the two-word stage both for spontaneous and imitative utterances. This result was confirmed by Rodd and Braine (1970) when they found that imitation was in accord with grammatical competence. The results of both Ervin (1964) and Rodd and Braine (1970) were based upon distributional analyses of spontaneous and imitative utterances. Since that time distributional analyses have been reexamined with the determination 700
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 11/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
that they are not refined enough to reflect the intricacies of child language (Bloom, 1970; Brown, 1973). Further, the distinction between theoretical linguistics and psycholinguistics has become clear enough that psycholinguists have developed their own notions of language that encompass a broader view than the purely sy~tactic constraints of the early transformational-generative grammars. With the advent of new techniques for analysis of child language, the negative conclusion regarding grammatical progressivity in child imitations has recently been opened for reexamination. Dale (1972) stated that the question of grammatical progressivity in child imitation must be more closely examined specifically with regard to the role of imitation in articulatory and lexical development. Slobin and Welch (1973), in a paper dealing with elicited imitation (as opposed to freely occurring imitations), discussed the role of adult expansions of children's spontaneous utterances especially in the cases where the expansions were imitated. This was of considerable interest since when the mother expanded a child's utterance, she added just those functors that the child ordinarily deleted. The child's imitation which followed, then included the functors. In these cases, the imitations were grammatically progressive. Although the results of elicited imitation tasks should not be directly compared with findings of research based on freely collected corpora, Slobin and Welch's findings have been suggestive. 1 Bloom, Hood, and Lightbown (1974), following this line of reasoning, attempted to determine the extent and function of imitation in early language development. The results of this study indicated that different children employed imitation to different degrees. Of six children, two rarely imitated. One imitated those adult utterances which included lexical items that he had not been observed to produce spontaneously. Three other children imitated adult utterances which contained novel semantic-syntactic relations. For the four children who frequently imitated, the imitative utterances served different functions. The authors concluded that although imitative behavior involved the active processing of language, it was not necessary for such processing. Early researchers who dealt with imitation in child language argued that imitation was not important for language acquisition and later researchers like Bloom et aI. (1974) indicated that it was not necessary. Why then, would it occur? Perhaps, both style of acquisition and function of imitation must be considered in relation to developmental stage since both the role and nature of imitation have been shown to change as development progresses. For example, Love and Parker-Robinson (1972) found that four to six year olds were dependent upon functors in elicited imitation tasks using nonsense words, while Ervin (1964) had found that two year olds did not imitate functors. 1It is important to note here that although elicited imitation tasks are in some ways parallel to spontaneously occurring imitations, this is not always the case. For example, Bloom (1974) indicates that in some instances spontaneous nonimitative utterances produced in context have an advantage over elicited imitations. The presence of an intent to communicate in spontaneous utterances which is absent in elicited imitation results, in at least some cases, in greater complexity for spontaneous utterances than for ideally matched imitative ones. RAMER: Imitation
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 11/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
701
These studies indicated that imitation changed with development. However, research reported by Bloom et al. (1974) revealed that imitation differed from child to child at the same stage of development. Perhaps, the function and nature of imitation may differ from utterance to utterance in the same child at the same stage of development. Since imitative repertoires do seem to occur in normal children at specific points in development, the questions to be asked are: 1. If they occur, why? 2. How can these imitations facilitate the development of language in all children regardless of their dependence on imitation? To answer these questions, the current research was undertaken. In this study, imitative utterances were analyzed in terms of six possible lexical, syntactic, semantic, and communicative-interactional functions and then compared to subsequent usage of that particular form in later observational sessions. The comparison of first imitative usage to later spontaneous production was meant to indicate whether those forms which were initially imitated later became productive in spontaneous speech. The expectation was that this would occur presumably because imitative utterances would be at the leading edge of linguistic advancement. METHOD
Subiects The data employed in this research were obtained as part of a larger study on language acquisition in the early syntactic period. Of the seven children who served as subjects in this study, four were girls and three were boys. Two of the girls and two of the boys had one older sibling each, while the remaining three children were first born. All seven children were from upper middle class homes in which at least one parent, but in most cases both, were professionally employed outside of the home. All children were first seen prior to the onset of syntactic productions and all were between 1-3 and 1-5 years at the first observational session.
Procedure Of the seven children who served as subjects in this study, six were seen individually in their homes for approximately two hours every three weeks by the author. Each of these sessions was recorded on an Ampex cassette recorder using a nondirectional standing microphone. This procedure allowed the children freedom of movement and made it possible to place the entire recording apparatus at some distance from the field of play. To maintain the naturalistic setting, the children were allowed relative freedom to explore their environ702 Journal of Speech and Hearing Research
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 11/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
19 700-717 1976
merit. In most cases the child determined the content of the taping session. The mothers (or in some instances the housekeeper) typically were in and out of the play room. For each child, on some occasion the child's father was also part of the play session. Older siblings were occasionally included in the taping as well. Although most of each taped session involved play, there were instances of toilet behavior and feeding situations. The children seemed to consider the investigator to be a very unusual playmate who allowed the child a constant focus of attention. Generally, the investigator was recognized from session to session and was greeted with delight. The seventh child was obtained through the Albert Einstein Medical Center Research Nursery. This child, also middle class with professionally employed parents, attended the nursery four mornings weekly. Her behavior in the nursery setting with her mother and the regular nursery school teacher was recorded on videotape. For this child, biweekly 45-minute language samples were taken during free play. There was no direct contact between the investigator and the mother or child but the investigator observed each taping session through a one-way mirror. Language samples were taken from all the children beginning at mean length of utterance (MLU) 1.0 and continuing until the child's productions reached an MLU of approximately 2.0. The corpora obtained were transcribed including contextual information, and Bloom's technique (1970) was employed for determining semantic intent. A N A L Y S I S OF T H E DATA General Concerns
Imitations were defined as those utterances in which the child produced all or part of an immediately preceding utterance by another speaker. In all cases, the child's production did not add to or change the model utterance except to delete part of it. These imitated utterances were analyzed in three ways. The first analysis aimed to determine the frequency with which imitative utterances appeared in the total corpora collected for each child. This analysis served to determine first, if different children at the same stage of development imitated adult models with the same frequency. Second, all freely occurring imitative utterances were categorized according to a set of six lexical, semantic, syntactic, and interactional-communicative functions which they were presumed to serve. Third, there were also utterances in which the child was specifically asked by the mother to imitate or in which imitative behavior was encouraged. In these cases, the child was engaged by the mother in a rote language game or routine. To qualify as a rote routine, the particular language interaction had to occur at least five times in the corpora in a situation reflective of an ongoing interaction. In all cases the mother initiated the interaction by asking a particular question or making a specific statement that signaled the onset of the rote routine. The frequency with which these rote routines occurred resulted RAMER: Imitation
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 11/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
703
in the child's utterances becoming memorized patterns and not constructed forms. Rote routines were not categorized according to function but were examined separately by comparing the complexity of the rote patterns to the complexity of freely occurring imitations and spontaneous productions at the same and at later stages of development. Appendix A lists and defines each of the presumptive functions for freely occurring imitative utterances and also indicates information regarding the analyses of imitative utterances which were classed as rote routines.
Extent of Imitation To determine the amount of imitation each child employed, a computation involving percentage of imitation was undertaken. The percentage of syntactic imitations for each child was calculated on the basis of the child's total syntactic output in all observational sessions. This calculation resulted in a figure indicating the percentage of syntactic imitation out of the total syntactic output. A percentage figure was employed in this analysis since the actual size of the corpora varied significantly from child to child.
Function of Imitation Each of the imitative utterances in the collected corpora was analyzed in terms of six possible functions. This was done to examine the role that imitation played in language acquisition for the seven children studied. The first four categories dealt with the possibility of grammatical progressivity in child imitation for semantic and syntactic development. The final two categories dealt with the interactional and communicative functions language. Lexical Growth. Imitative utterances were considered to serve this function if any of the substantive lexical items in the imitation occurred less than five times in all the previously collected data. This includes both single word and syntactic utterances. The limited number of occurrences prior to the imitation may be considered to result from either a lack of experience with the lexical item itself or alternately from a lack of contact with the object, action, or event to which the lexical item refers. In either case, the imitation may assist the child in either mastery of the lexical item or in focusing on the concept to which it refers. 2 Thus, in order to determine ff imitative usage assists in later spontaneous usage, each imitative utterance which contained a novel lexical item was compared to later spontaneous occurrences of that lexical item. Development of Semantic Categories. Each syntactic utterance was analyzed in terms of its semantic function. The semantic categories employed in this analysis were drawn from Bloom (1970, 1973), Antinucci et al. (1972) 2I do not mean to imply here that imitation allows for concept learning. That must be done by some other means. But, the imitation could conceivably allow for the practice of a poorly known lexical item if the concept were already established. 704 ]ournal of Speech and Hearing Research
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 11/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
19 700-717 1976
and McNeill (1968). These categories are described in Table 1. An imitative utterance was considered to aid semantic development if the category expressed in the utterance had not previously been specified in spontaneous utterances at least twice. The relatively infrequent occurrence prior to imitation may be taken to indicate a lack of productive knowledge or ability. Corn-
TABLE 1. Semantic categories.
Semantic Category
Description
Utterance
Relevant Context
Genitive
Indication of possession.
"Mommy bun"
Child observed mother eating a bun. Is asked, "Whose bun is it?"
Attributive
The first element specifies an attribute of the second element.
"Rubber ball"
Child selected a rubber ball from a collection of balls.
Locative
Indication of location.
"In bed"
Child's response to question "Where's Mommy?"
Temporal
Indication of time.
"Heavy now"
Child tried to lift a bin of blocks.
Manner
Indication of the way in which an action occurred.
"Other way"
Said after child tried to put a block into the wrong part of the shape box.
Instrumental
Indication of inanimate causal object.
"Nail in hammer"
As child pounded a toy nail with a hammer.
Explicit deixis
Specific indicator pointer.
"That one"
When asked, "Which book do you want?" child pointed to a specific book.
Quantitative
Indication of number.
"Two spoon"
Child played with several spoons.
Recurrence
Indication of repetition.
"More juice"
Child finished his juice and held out his cup to his mother.
Dative
Indication of indirect recipient of action.
"Give me this'"
Child to observer when he couldn't reach the hammer.
Agent
Indication of animate initiator of action.
"Mommy hit"
When mother child.
Action
Indication of action.
"Baby fall"
When a doll fell off the bed.
or
spanked
RAMER: Imitation
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 11/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
the
705
TABLE 1. ( Cont. )
Semantic Category
Description
Utterance
Relevant Context
Patient
Indication of direct recipient of action.
"Eat soup"
As child is eating soup.
State
Indication of state of being.
"Sleep now"
Child pretends to sleep by placing head on bed.
Indicative
Taking note of an object or person.
"See ball"
Child notices a ball in comer of room.
Rejection
Refusal of offered object or action.
"No banana"
Mother asksl "'Do you want a banana?"
Nonexistence
Indication of the absence of an object or person that had previously been present.
"Ball gone"
A ball rolls under the sofa.
Denial
Indication of the falsity of a previous statement.
"No pot"
Child~lays with a pot pretending it is a pool. Observer calls it a pot.
Conjunctive
Indication of more than one referent or simultaneous aspects of same referent.
"Shoe sock"
Observer asked "What do you wear on your feet?"
Disjunctive
Indication of either/or relationship between two referents.
"'Bunny either"
Child imitated the observers statement, "Don't give it to me from the cat or the bunny either."
parison of imitative occurrence to later spontaneous usage was e m p l o y e d to d e t e r m i n e if these i n f r e q u e n t l y occurring imitative semantic categories w e r e l a t e r used spontaneously. Increased Structural Complexity. All syntactic utterances, b o t h spontaneous and imitative, we r e categorized into one of four o r d e r e d groupings b a s e d u p o n the n u m b e r a n d expansion of grammatical relations produced. T h e grammatical relations e m p l o y e d in this analysis were subject, verb, a n d c o m p l e m e n t ( i n c l u d i n g direct and indirect objects as well as adverbs, adverbial phrases, prepositions, prepositional phrases, a n d predicate adjectives). G r o u p 1 utterances, considered to be the least complex syntactic construction type, specified only one grammatical class expanded. An expansion was considered to be the use of m o r e t h a n a single lexical item as the specification of a g r a m m a t i c a l r e l a t i o n ? G r o u p 2 utterances we r e considered to be the next mo s t complex aThese included verb expansions composed of two verbs which are considered in transformational grammars to be derived from two separate sentence nodes. Although the presumed derivation, in theoretical terms, would make utterances of this type the most complex rather than the least, this presumed theoretical complexity apparently does not match 706 1ournal of Speech and Hearing Research
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 11/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
19 700-717
1976
and involved the combination of two grammatical relations, neither of which were expanded. Group 3 utterances were composed of two grammatical relations in which one relation was expanded. Group 4 utterances encompassed the final and most complex construction studied and involved the combination of all three grammatical relations in one utterance: subject -t- verb + complement. Table 2 lists and describes each of these syntactic utterance types TABLE 2. Examples of utterance analysis for functional categories of structural complexity and grammatical relations. Groups 1. Expanded subject
Utterance~Example "Rocking chair"
Expanded verb
"Want go"
Expanded complement
"In there"
2. Subject + verb
"Mommy come"
Subject + complement
"Daddy hospital"
Verb + complement
"Play sand"
Relevant Context A rocking chair bumped Marjorie in the head, the examiner asked, "What bumped you?" Emily was standing at the front door to her apartment after her sister had left. After Greg had put money in a box. David S. grabbed his mother and pulled her into the room. The examiner asked Danielle, "Where does Daddy work?" Mar~orie is asked by her mother, "'What does Margie do at school?"
3. Expanded subject + verb Expanded subject + complement Expanded verb + complement Subject + expanded verb Subject + expanded complement Verb + expanded complement
"Her foot stuck"
"See boat outside"
Danielle put the Raggedy Ann doll into the carriage. David N. points out the window to the boats on the river.
4. Subject + verb + complement
"Snoopy fall down"
As Snoopy fell off the motorcycle.
"The money inside" "Want see that" "Baby go sleep" "Raggy this carriage"
Marjorie to her mother when the doll's foot got stuck. Emily to the examiner when the money had fallen into the radiator. Greg pushed his sister away from the guinea pig cage. Emily put her doll into its bed.
and groupings. Imitative utterances were iudged to serve the purpose of increasing structural complexity if the imitation was classed in a grouping which had not occurred at least two times previously in spontaneous utterances. It is possible that these imitated constructions appeared infrequently either because they were common utterance types which the child was in the process of mastering or because they were infrequent utterance types with which the child was not familiar. In either case, comparison of imitative occurrence to the child's notions of complexity since utterances of this type were found to occur early in syntactic development. RAMER: Imitation
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 11/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
707
later spontaneous usage was employed to determine if these infrequently occurring imitative syntactic forms were later used spontaneously. Mastering Grammatical Markers. This analysis examined morphological grammatical markers for pluralization, possession, third person singular present tense, present participle forms, and past tense. Both spontaneous and imitative utterances were examined for the presence of these markers. An imitation was judged as serving the purpose of mastering a new grammatical marker if it contained one of these morphological forms and the form had not previously occurred in spontaneous productions at least twice. As with other function categories, comparisons were made between first occurrence in imitation and later spontaneous usage. Labeling Action. Imitative utterances which served this function were signaled by the adult's preceding utterance and by the child's response. Prior to the occurrence of these imitations, the adult speaker requested or directed the child to act. While carrying out the action, the child produced an utterance which structurally and lexically was a partial or complete imitation of the adult string. In these cases, the child was using the adult's words and structure to label the actions which he was accomplishing. Thus, instead of constructing a novel utterance to label his actions, he merely employed the adult utterance without modification. Lack of Comprehension of Adult Request or Command. Imitations which seemed to occur for this reason were also produced after an adult's request or direction but, in these cases, the child did not act appropriately. Instead of the appropriate response, the child imitated a portion of the adult's request or command. In all of these cases examination of the adult's utterance revealed at least one of the two following phenomena: (1) at least one lexical item in the adult's utterance had never been observed to occur in the collected corpora for the child and thus may not have been known or (2) the structure of the adult's string involved a complex syntactic construction never observed in the collected corpora for the child and possibly not comprehended. It appeared that the child knew a response was required but since he did not know how to respond he merely imitated the adult's production. The evidence for this category rested with the child's lack of response and the possible lexicaI or structural complexity of the adult's model utterance, or both. RESULTS
General Trends The extent and function of imitative utterances can only be determined in relation to general trends in language growth. Thus, Table 3 indicates specific information regarding each child's developmental progression beginning with the first sample at which syntactic utterances were produced. This table indicates, for each sample taken, the child's age, the time in weeks from the emergence of syntax, the MLU for the sample as well as the total number of 708 Journal of Speech and Hearing Research
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 11/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
19 700-717 1976
TABLE 3. General developmental data.
Subiec~
Age Time (Months) (Weeks)
Total Corpus MLU Size
Total Total Syntactic Imitative Utterances Ut~rances
Greg
21 22 23 24 24.3 25.2 26.2 27.1
4 8 12 15 18 22 25
1.01 1.02 1.05 1.10 1.08 1.18 1.55 1.92
77 123 192 284 204 417 273 181
1 3 12 20 18 69 116 112
1 1 4 -
Danielle
18.1 19 19.2 20.1 21.1 22.1
3 5 8 12 16
1.10 1.16 1.36 1.50 1.88 1.95
222 198 242 245 375 433
20 25 80 83 262 230
1 8 5
Maqorie
19.1 19.3 20 20.3
2 3 6
1.39 1.77 1.73 2.13
133 92 164 189
53 49 89 75
4 2 4 5
Emily
19.3 20.3 21.2 22.2 23 23.2 24 24.2
4 7 11 13 15 17 19
1.06 1.22 1.26 1.40 1.28 1.46 1.79 2.01
97 142 211 192 132 253 181 114
7 29 48 66 50 89 110 71
2 4 3 10 2 3 5
David N.
16 17 18 19 20 20.3 21.1 22.1 23.1 24 25
4 8 12 16 19 21 25 29 32 36
1.18 1.02 1.03 1.10 1.29 1.25 1.25 1.15 1.31 1.39 2.05
67 98 98 133 235 274 358 671 402 529 387
4 2 3 17 58 29 42 39 78 134 279
2 1 5 1 3 2 13 16
David S.
19 20 21 22 23 24 24.3 25 26
4 8 12 16 20 23 24 28
1.13 1.16 1.18 1.19 1.29 1.18 1.56 1.84 2.32
167 164 122 141 238 255 238 212 130
17 15 20 12 67 46 114 233 98
6 5 3 3 6 13 14 10 9
Lisa
16.2 17.2 18.2 19.2
4 8 12
1.03 1.23 1.78 1.99
102 160 223 366
4 35 132 231
4 15 15 35
RAMER: Imitation
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 11/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
709
syntactic utterances, imitative utterances, and the total corpus size including single-word utterances. Review of Table 3 reveals that general developmental language trends differed considerably from child to child at the same stage of development. Based upon the differences displayed in Table 3, it would not be surprising if differences in extent and function of imitation also occurred. Extent of Imitation. The analysis dealing with extent of imitation revealed that the children exhibited different degrees of dependence upon imitation and rote-routine behavior. Five of the children employed only imitations. Two of these five children depended upon imitations minimally. The imitations accounted for 1.75 of the total syntactic output for Greg and 2.05 of the total syntactic output for Danielle. Three children produced moderate amounts of imitative utterances. Marjorie's imitations accounted for 5.6% of her total syntactic output while David N. and Emily employed imitations 6.3 and 6.45, respectively. Two of the children employed both imitations and rote routines and were heavily dependent upon them. Imitations and rote routines accounted for 17.0~ of Lisa's syntactic output. David S. produced imitations and rote routines 13.25 of the time. Function of Imitation. Analysis of the functional imitative categories revealed that the more dependent the child was on imitation, the greater the number of categories needed to account for all the uses of the imitative utterances. For Greg and Danielle, both minimally dependent upon imitations, three functional categories accounted for all their imitative productions. Marjorie, David N., and Emily were moderately dependent upon imitations and four categories each accounted for all of their imitations. Five or all six functional categories were needed to account for the imitative utterances produced by David S. and Lisa, the two children who were most heavily dependent upon imitative behavior. Analysis of the frequency of occurrence of the six functional imitative categories revealed some general tendencies as displayed in Table 4. First, the functional category dealing with lexical growth occurred the most frequently for all children regardless of their dependence upon imitation. The percentage of usage of this category ranged from 72.8 to 62.65. Thus, this category, which functioned to incorporate new vocabulary items and allowed TABLE 4. Percent of imitative utterances according to function served. Functions
Lexical growth Label action Lack comprehension Semantic categories Grammatical markers Structural complexity
Lisa DavidS.
Emily
Subjects DavidN. Mariorie Danielle Greg
63.2~; 6 3 . 3 5 62.6% 12.75 16.8~; 9.4~ 8.95 10.6% 14.9~; 6.85 6.25 12.8~ 2.5~ 2.7~ . . 5.1~ . . .
68.0~ 8.8~ 10.0~ 13.25 . .
710 1ournal of Speech and Hearing Research
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 11/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
69.7~; 66.9~ 9.4~ 18.0~ 10.75 15.05 10.2~ . . . .
72.8~; 18.2~ 9.1~ -
19 700-717 1976
practice of combinatorial properties of lexical items, was the most frequent function that could be attributed to imitative utterances. From this finding it is clear that imitation may serve some function in lexical growth and that this function is pervasive. Thus, it appears that lexical growth and imitation may be related. However, the nature of this relationship is unclear since it is possible that imitation is really a by-product of the learning process rather than its cause. This is essentially true for all of the associations found between imitation and the presumptive functions analyzed. The methods of analysis employed here are not capable of determining which of these possibilities are correct, they can only indicate that there is a clear association. The frequency of occurrence analysis revealed that the two functional categories which served a communicative or interactional function were also present in the data for all children. They only occurred moderately often. The percentage of usage for the categories which labeled an action or indicated a lack of comprehension of an adult request or command ranged from 18.2 to 8.8~. Thus, the data revealed that although lexical functions were most often served by imitative utterances, communicative functions also appear related to imitation. Table 4 displays the finding that for the seven children studied, regardless of the degree of dependence upon imitation, lexical and communicative-interactional aspects of language were most often served by the imitations produced. All other functional categories occurred in imitative productions only for those children who exhibited either moderate or extreme degrees of dependence upon imitation. The functional category dealing with semantic development was present in the data for all the children except Greg and Danielle. These two children depended upon imitations only minimally with imitations accounting for 1.7 and 2.0~ of their total syntactic output, respectively. Syntactic categories were still further restricted and occurred for fewer of the children and in smaller percentages of occurrence. There were two categories which served syntactic functions. The functional category which dealt with grammatical markers occurred in the data for David S. and Lisa. They both employed imitative repertoires extensively while the category dealing with structural complexity occurred only for imitated utterances produced by Lisa. She had been the most dependent upon imitation of all the children studied. Lisa's data displayed other interesting aspects with regard to grammatical progressivity in imitation. This was especially true in terms of structural complexity. The first instances of syntactic constructions which she produced were imitative. In fact, at the first session in which syntax was produced, the only recorded syntactic constructions were imitations. At this session there was no evidence that Lisa was capable of dealing with syntax except imitatively. Thus, Lisa's data displayed an overall tendency toward the use of imitation as a means of attaining higher levels of complexity. The pattern which emerged suggested that first Lisa employed a particular structure imitatively and at the next session it became productive
R~.a:
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 11/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
Imitation
711
spontaneously. This was true at the onset of syntactic utterances, for the first utterances which expressed grammatical relations, and for negative constructions. The implication of the rank ordering of functional categories was that the more often imitation was employed by a child, the more functions the imitative repertoires served. There also appeared to be a general sequence of occurrence of imitative function such that certain uses of imitation occurred for all children and occurred most frequently. Other functions emerged only when imitation was employed more often, and still other functions were reserved for the most generalized dependence upon imitation. This sequence is displayed in Appendix B and reveals that it was not the case that the children who imitated extensively merely imitated more frequently with their imitations serving the same purposes as moderate or minimal imitators. Instead, as proportion of imitation increased, the child employed imitation in a number of different ways not observed in the data of less highly imitative children. The results of this study dealing with function of imitation can be directly linked to the findings of Bloom et al. (1974). Bloom et al. in examining imitative vs spontaneous utterances for six children also found differing proportions of imitation to spontaneous production with a match-up of proportion to function. Since the system of determining proportion of imitation in the Bloom et al. study differed from the system employed here, the absolute percentage figures are not comparable although the proportions across the groups of children are. Bloom et al. found that two children rarely imitated; however, no further analysis of these children's infrequent imitations was undertaken. Of the other four, the three children with the highest proportion of imitation to spontaneous production appeared to employ imitation "for learning the semantic-syntactic relations in multiword utterances" (Bloom et al., 1974, p. 413). The fourth imitating child had the lowest proportion of imitations to spontaneous productions, and imitation appeared to be lexically motivated for both single-word and multiword utterances. Thus, for the four imitating children studied by Bloom et al. and the seven children studied here, higher frequency of imitation was linked to semantic and syntactic function while a lower frequency was linked to lexical function. Comparison o[ Imitation and Later Spontaneous Production. As noted earlier, each imitative utterance was assessed for function based upon infrequent, nonproductive use in relation to later spontaneous, productive occurrence. The comparison of functional categories for imitation with later spontaneous usage of these same forms indicated that at the next observational session those forms which had previously been imitative only, became productive spontaneously. Thus, the expectation that imitative utterances would be at the leading edge of development was indeed observed in the children studied regardless of their dependence upon imitation. From the results of this research it can be stated with confidence that imitation occurs, in most instances, just prior to spontaneous usage. Of concern however, is the relationship between the first imitation and the later spon712 Journal o[ Speech and Hearing Research
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 11/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
19 700-717 1976
taneous usage. It is not clear that this is a cause-and-effect relationship with imitation causing spontaneous production, although that is a possibility. It is more likely, however, that the imitation is a means of practicing for spontaneous production. And, in order for imitation to occur at all, there must be some prior set of occurrences. In all likelihood, this prior set of occurrences is a previously established knowledge of the concept underlying the word or grammatical structure. Thus, imitation may not be a means of learning but a means of practicing what has already been learned. Imitation and Speed of Acquisition. Since there were differing degrees of dependence upon imitation and different functions served in imitation, it was necessary to consider the possibility that imitation may have had some effect on speed of syntactic acquisition. The relevant data, as detailed i~ Talkie 3~ indicate that degree o{ imitation appears unrelated to speed of acquisition. For example, both Lisa and David S. were the most dependent on imitation yet their speed of acquisition differed greatly. Lisa progressed from a mean length of utterance (MLU) of 1.03 to 1.99 in three months. This was anaong the shortest periods for all the children studied. David S. required seven months to make essentially the same progression. Greg, the child who employed imitation the least frequently, moved from an MLU of 1.01 to 1.92 in six and one half months. Thus, whatever functions imitation may have served, it was not necessary for rapid syntactic advancement, nor was it a hindrance to rapid syntactic development. It appears that frequency of usage for imitation reveals a style of dealing with language acquisition which appears to be unrelated to speed of acquisition. Rote Routines. The two children who imitated most frequently were those children who also employed rote routines. These routines involved a language interaction game that was played so regularly that the child's responses constituted memorized forms. David S. and his mother played two different rote routines which occurred a total of 34 times in his corpora. He employed the rote string "Where is it?" 15 times during four sessions. However, the productive nonimitative use of where questions did not emerge until several months later. Further, copulas were never used in any of the recorded sessions except as part of this rote routine. Thus, these utterances were structurally more complex than any spontaneous utterance in the same corpus. They were not a newly emerging form but far more advanced than any spontaneous production. The same can be said for David's other rote routine. David and his mother often engaged in a language routine which took the following form: Mother: Who do you love? I love Jill. David: I love Jill. Mother: Who else do you love? I love... David: I love Mommy. Mother: Who else do you love? I love... David: I love Daddy. This language routine occurred at three separate taping sessions as well as several times during informal observation. The subject + verb + complement PtAMER:
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 11/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
Imitation 713
structure of these utterances was more complex than any spontaneous utterances. This same structure did not emerge in spontaneous productions until two months later. The routinized nature of both the "I love . . . . " and "Where is it?" strings created rote-memorized utterances which exceeded David's normal productive facility with such structures. These utterances were not constructed forms but were memorized as units. There appeared to be something essentially different about single-occurrence imitations and often-repeated rote productions although on the surface both were imitative. Although David produced a small number of imitative utterances which were structurally more complex than his spontaneous utterances, in all cases, these imitations were on the leading edge of his emerging grammar. They occurred imitatively in one session and by the next session, three weeks later, they were productively employed in spontaneous utterances. This was not the case with rote routines. Where questions, copula forms, and subject + verb + complement structures did not emerge spontaneously until several months after their first rote occurrence. Lisa also produced a single rote routine. She used how questions with the forms: "How you daddy?" (nine times); "How you do?" (five times); and "How you grandma Pearl?" (seven times). These utterances were each said as part of a different speech event and each occurrence of the same utterance was signaled by the same maternal action and utterance. For example, "How you daddy?" was always produced while looking at a picture of a man in a book while "How you grandma Pearl?" was always produced during play with a toy phone. These utterances were significant in several ways. First, these utterances expressed complex notions not usually expressed at this point in development. Lisa produced no other wh- questions in all the recorded data yet in this rote routine she employed a relatively late developing form ( Bellugi, 1965). Second, at the same session at which she produced one of these utterances she was asked a how question by the examiner. She was asked, "How do you open the surprise box?" She responded, "open 'prise box," giving no indication that she comprehended the question. Although the intent of this how question differed from those which occurred in her rote routines, some essential similarities in meaning were present. Finally, these utterances were only partial imitations of adult strings in which some aspects of the complex structure were reduced to the child's level of functioning (that is, she deleted the copula and auxiliary forms neither of which ever occurred in any spontaneous utterances or single-occurrence imitations). These utterances indicated that memorized forms may in some ways be significantly more complex than spontaneous utterances or single-occurrence imitations. This probably resulted from their repetitive nature. Also, the use of these relatively more sophisticated structures did not indicate an underlying competence with these forms, only a productive ability. Finally, even in memorized rote forms, there may be some accommodation to the child's actual level of functioning.
714 Journal o[ Speech and Hearing Research
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 11/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
19 700-717 1976
DISCUSSION
Conclusions This research provided several interesting insights into language development. First, not all children employed imitation to the same extent indicating possible differences in the approach to language-learning tasks. Second, degree of dependence upon imitation appears related to function of imitation. Third, the degree of dependence upon imitative repertoires is not related to speed of syntactic acquisition. Thus, imitation did not play a role in speeding up the language acquisition process. When imitations did occur, they were not random but served a ling'uistic or communicative function. Further, the occurrence of imitative behavior, although it did not hasten the acquisition process, did appear to be one means or strategy that some children employ in the acquisition of language. If this strategy was employed, imitation occurred only with those linguistic forms which were on the verge of being acquired. This was true except when the forms were memorized rote productions. Memorized forms apparently did nothing to further productive linguistic development. Imitation, then, may be viewed as a possible mechanism for learning or practice which, when it occurs, assists in development. However, imitation cannot be considered a requisite for language acquisition in all children. Management Implications. The implication of the above findings can be related to management techniques which often are dependent upon imitative tasks. Based upon these findings, management strategies which encourage imitation probably will work best for all children at the level of vocabulary growth. However, beyond this, imitative strategies in management should be selectively employed. The selection process is probably best viewed in terms of the individual child's tendency to imitate. Thus, language assessment should include information regarding the extent of imitation that the child usually employs. Further, the use of elicited imitation as a management technique must be employed with considerable care. Attention must be paid to the relationship between those utterances in which an imitation is elicited and those which are spontaneously produced. This is especially true in light of Bloom's (1974) finding that elicited imitations are in some cases less complex than spontaneously produced utterances because communicative intent, motivation, and contextual cues are not present when the imitation is elicited. Imitations should be employed to encourage systematic sequential development in order to avoid the appearance of rote-memorized forms. Although rote memorization may serve to encourage the automatic free-flow of language, it apparently has very little to do with productive spontaneous development of new linguistic forms. A schematization of the acquisition process can be developed based upon these findings and their implications. It appears that there is a tripartite operational system involved in acquisition. First, the learning of a language
RAMER:
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 11/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
Imitation 715
structure or concept must take place by direct contact which allows for the constructive process. Second, practice of the language structure or concept may take place, perhaps by imitation. Finally, automatic response may occur, at least partially, as a result of memorization. This, of course, argues very strongly for a developmental psycholinguistic approach to language management. In such an approach, the clinician is guided both by the child's current level of language functioning and by knowledge of normal developmental milestones. This, in turn, presumes that sigeech pathologists must be quite sophisticated regarding the nature, sequence, and process of language acquisition. ACKNOWLEDGMENT' Requests for reprints should be sent to Andrya L. H. Ramer, 180 West End Avenue, New York, New York 10023. REFERENCES
ANTINUCCI,F., Semantics o[ Child Speech Coding Manual. Berkeley, Calif.: Berkeley CrossLinguistic Language Development Project ( 1972 ). BELLUCI, U., The development of interrogative structures in children's speech. In K. Riegel (Ed.), The Development of Language Functions. Ann Arbor: Michigan Language Development Program, Report No. 8 (1965). BLOOM, L., Language Development: Form and Function in Emerging Grammars. Cambridge: MIT Press (1970). BLOOM, L., One Word at a Time: The Use of Single Word Utterances before Syntax. The Hague: Mouton ( 1973 ). BLOOM, L., Talking, understanding and thinking. In R. Schiefelbusch and L. Lloyd (Eds.), Language Perspectives: Acquisition, Retardation and Intervention. Baltimore: University Park Press (1974). BLOOM, L., HOOD,L., and LICHTBOWN,P., Imitation in language development: If, when and why. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 380-420 ( 1974 ). BROWN, R., A First Language. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press (1973). DALE, P. S., Language Development: Structure and Function. Hinsdale, Ill. : Dryden Press ( 1972 ). EnviN, S. M., Imitation and structural change in children's language. In E. H. Lenneberg (Ed.), New Directions in the Study of Language. Cambridge: MIT Press (1964). FRASEn, C., BELLUCI,U., and BnOWN, R., Control of grammar in imitation, comprehension and production. J. verb. Learn. verb. Behav., 2, 121-135 (1963). LENNEBERC, E. H., Understanding language without ability to speak: A case report. J. Abnorm. soc. Psychol., 65, 419-425 (1962). LOVE, J. M., and PARKER-ROBINSON,C., Children's imitation of grammatical and ungrammatical sentences. Child Dev., 2, 43 ( 1972 ). MCNEILL, D., A question in semantic development: What does a child mean when he says 'No'? In E. M. Zale (Ed.), Con[erence on language and language behavior, Ann Arbor, Michigan 1966. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts (1968). RODD, L. T., and BRAINE, M. D. S., Children's imitations of syntactic constructions as a measure of linguistic competence. J. verb. Learn. verb. Behav., 10, 430-441 (1970). SLOBIN, D. I., and WELCH, C. A., Elicited imitation as a research tool in developmental psycholinguistics. In C. A. Fergueson AND D. I. Slobin (Eds.), Studies of Child Language Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston (1973). Received May 8, 1975. Accepted May 17, 1976. 716 Journal o[ Speech and Hearing Research
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 11/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
19 700-717 1976
APPENDIX
A
Analyses of imitated utterances. Analysis 1-Frequency of imitation The frequency of infitation was computed as the percent of imitative syntactic utterances in all collected corpora out of the total number of syntactic utterances produced from the emergence of syntax until an MLU of approximately 2.0 was achieved. Analysis 2-Function of imitation Imitative utterances were determined to serve one of the following categories based upon their infrequent occurrence prior to imitation. This was then compared to their subsequent spontaneous production.
1. Semantic function: Lexical growth-Syntactic utterances containing infrequently occurring lexical items.
2. Semantic function: Development of semantic categories-Syntactic utterances containing infrequently occurring semantic categories of knowledge.
3. Syntactic function: Increased structural complexity-Syntactic utterances specifying infrequently occurring grammatical utterance types.
4. Syntactic function: Mastering grammatical markers-Syntactic utterances containing infrequently occurring grammatical morphological markers.
5. Communicative function: Labeling action-Imitations of adult commands or requests produced at the time of action.
6. Communicative function: Lack of comprehension-Imitations of adult requests of commands produced in lieu of action. Analysis 3-Rote routines Memorized, often repeated, imitative utterances which constituted part of a language game played by parent and child. These imitative types were compared both to other imitations and to spontaneous productions.
APPENDIX
B
Use of functional categories for imitation in relation to degree of dependence upon imitation.
Minimal
Degree of Imitation Moderate
Extensive
Lexieal
Lexical
Lexical
CommunicativeInteractional
CommunicativeInteractional
CommunicativeInteractional
Semantic
Semantic Syntactic RAMER :
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 11/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
Imitation
717
