first words

[Barbara Zurer Pearson]

Dear All,

I wanted to get in on the fun, too!
My daughter's first word (at about 7 1/2 months,
i.e. after her birth, Brian) was a very elaborate
and unmistakable sign for "all gone" which could be
done with two hands, or one, if for example I was
holding her so that one arm was not available for the sign.

We could put together a number of guidelines for
deciding on first words, but they probably
don't take into consideration the many
variations on reference and intention that
an autistic child would show. Wrt to word form.
I believe "M," Deuchar's daughter, whose lexicon is
in her book with Quay, had among her first
words "mm-mm"--which doesn't have a real vowel, but
which she used consistently for referring to a specific
object.

I don't think one would consider faithfulness to
the adult target as a criterion for quite some time.

Cheers,
Barbara

On Sep 13, 2006, at 5:35 PM, Deborah Gibson wrote:

> I’m interested in the definition of ‘word’ in a child’s first word, as 
> I’m researching my autistic son’s delayed language acquisition.  He 
> had many unconventional early ‘words’; for example, intentional 
> vocalisations, such as squeaks and growls, and lexical signs (taught 
> and invented), that were consistent in form and meaning but which did 
> not contain speech sounds.  His first word (at 3.1.25) with speech 
> sounds was “Daddy’ [d«d«d«d«], which was whispered as were all his 
> early words that contained speech sounds.  I am unsure of the criteria 
> for determining word status in both his signs and his early 
> productions, and in differentiating ‘real’ words from what are 
> variously termed as phonetically under-specified sound patterns, 
> phonetically consistent forms, protowords, non-words, marginal words, 
> performatives, pre-lexical terms, situational words, indices of 
> meaning etc!   I have a few questions that will help me to establish 
> which of his early words qualify as real words, in order to compare 
> his lexical development in terms of rate, vocabulary count, 
> compilations of early semantic categories, and the timing of his word 
> spurt to those of studies of typical children.
>
>  My questions are:  Is the definition of a ‘word’ in child language 
> acquisition determined by form or consistent meaning, or both?  If by 
> form, how close to adult pronunciation does it have to be to be a 
> word?  Can a ‘word’ include an unconventional non-speech vocalization, 
> like an imitation of an animal sound, or a gesture, or must it fall 
> within the speech sounds of the native language and be a recognizable 
> approximation of adult pronunciation, subject to the motor 
> articulation skills and emerging phonological rules of the child?  To 
> be a ‘word’, can it be comprehensible to the only the child’s 
> intimates, or understandable to more than the child’s immediate 
> circle?
>
> If being a ‘word’ depends on having a regular extension of the word’s 
> meaning, will an intentional non-speech sound or gesture with 
> consistent context-bound meaning that is understood by the child’s 
> intimates qualify?  Or, at the other end of the spectrum, must the 
> ‘word’ have conventional adult extensions of meaning to be considered 
> a ‘real word’? Will possessing some extensions of the adult meaning, 
> even if irregular and underextended, suffice?   My question boils down 
> to this:  What are the various criteria for determining where on the 
> continuum, between the two milestones of the onset of intentional 
> vocalizations and the word spurt, do researchers distinguish 
> vocalization from word?
>
> I’m sorry this is such a long post, and I hope it doesn’t go beyond 
> the limits of this board!
>
> Deborah Gibson
> Ph.D student
> Dept of Language and Literacy
> Faculty of Education
> UBC
> debgibson at telus.net
>
*****************************************
Barbara Zurer Pearson, Ph.D
Research Associate, Project Manager
University of Massachusetts
Amherst MA 01003

Tel: 413.545.5023

bpearson at research.umass.edu
http://www.umass.edu/aae/