Discussion
The purpose of this study was to adapt and validate MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventory (MCDI) in Malayalam. For the present study, 160 parents of infants aged eight months to fifteen months were administered MCDI test-part 1 words and gestures. Say Malayalam version….The study findings are discussed under two sections. Section 1 is developmental trend in early words understanding and productionand section 2 is developmental trend in gestures.
Best services for writing your paper according to Trustpilot
Section 1: Developmental trend in early words understanding and production.
The developmental trend was explored in terms of early signs of understanding, understanding of phrases, imitation, labelingand vocabulary comprehension and production.
Early signs of understanding
The development of rudimentary signs of understanding language in very young infants were studied in terms of response to name call, response to “no” and response to “where is mommy/daddy”. In the present study it was observed that 100% of the infants exhibited a positive response to name call by 8 months which is also observed by Mandel, Jusczyk and Pisoni (1995).
With respect to response to “no” it was observed that around 60% of the infants gave a positive response at eight months and by 15 months 100% positive response was observed. Similarly in consonance with the present study Shipley and McAfee (1998) reported that an infant will start to respond to “no” between seven to twelve months.
In present study, in terms of response to “where is mommy/daddy”, more than 80 % of children exhibited a positive response at 8 months of age. This value increased to 100% in age between 15 -16 months. Tincoff and Jusczyk (1999) discovered that infants relate word to its referent even at six months of age and reported that six month olds looked longer at mommy when asked “where’s mommy?” and longer at daddy when asked “where’s daddy?”.
Fenson et al. (1993) reported that a child who doesn’t show any of these early signs of understanding can be at a risk. Seeking information on above three signs of early understanding is very useful for parents whose children are very young or developing slowly for their age.
Understanding of phrases
In the present study comprehension of 25 item phrase list was checked for all the infants between ages eight to fifteen months. In the present study rResults showed that the mean number of common phrases understood increased from 6.25±5 (group I) to 20.34±4 (group VIII). However no significant increase in score was noted between group II-III and group VI-VII. In this section few phrases like ‘this little piggy’, ‘want to go for a ride’ were avoided when the questionnaire was adapted from the original to the Malayalam version as it was linguistically and culturally inappropriate. Hence these items were deleted from the orginal …. Combile the para
Supporting the present study Fenson et al. (1999) reported that children start use short phrases to by the end of first year and comprehension of words and phrases precedes production before 15 months. Gosse, Paul, Chawarska, and Volkmar (2006) reported that scores on the ‘understanding phrases’ section of the CDI can be useful, at a screening level, for differentiating toddlers likely to be showing ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorders) from those likely to have DD (Developmental Delay). These findings make it clear that many young infants understand a considerable number of phrases and thus it is an important aspect to be assessed for language development.
Imitation and labeling
With respect to imitation of words or parts of sentences and labeling or naming of things, a developmental trend was noted. In terms of imitation in present study it was observed that 16% of infants in the group I were able to imitate which was increased to 40% in group II. By 16 months 86% of infants could imitate words and phrases they hear. Meltzoff and Moore (1983) and Hanna and Meltzoff (1993) reported that imitation is observed in a newborn it continues to develop in the first two years of life. Masur and Eichorst (2002) concluded in their study that the ability of the infants to imitate new words and actions is a strategy used to acquire and master linguistic and motoric new behaviors. Bates (1988) and Masur and Eichorst (2002) reported that early rates of verbal imitation can predict later expressive vocabulary skills in typical children. Snow (1989) and Bates, Bretherton and Snyder (1988) reported that infants who exhibit more early spontaneous verbal imitation skills will have larger concurrent vocabularies when assessed with maternal reports.
With respect to labeling, in the present study only 4.2% of children in group I could label or name things they came across. By 15 months the percentage is seen to rise to 75.9. sSimilar findings were observed by Balaban and Waxman (1997) and Waxman (1999). Dale (1980) and Bates, Camaioni, and Volterra (1975) reported that labeling is achieved between nine to ten months.
It was observed is it in the present study???? that at eight-nine months only 4% of infants showed labeling skills whereas 16% of infants could imitate. The same trend was observed across the age groups. Thus at each age groups imitating speech was reported to be more common than labeling. Similar finding was observed in study done by Fenson et al. (1993)
Vocabulary development (comprehension and expression)
The present study also compared performance on vocabulary development interms of comprehension and expression of 19 lexical categories. Due to cross linguistic variations, some words such as penguin, pony, cheerios, cheese, raisin, spaghetti, pizza, shovel, snow, baby sitter’s name were excluded and words like house fly, mosquito, dragon fly, crow, idli, dosa, tea, road were included. Few words representing animal sounds and sound effects were modified. Give examples………..
Analysis in terms of vocabulary comprehension indicated that the mean number of words understood by children in group I was 27.33 words which exceeded to 185.10 words at group VIII. Similar to the findings of the present study Roberts, Burchinal, and Durham (1999), Feldman et al. (2000) reported that the CDI raw scores on vocabulary comprehension increased with age. Similarly Fenson et al. (1993) reported that the mean number of words understood in eight and sixteen months were approximately 30 and 190 words respectively.
In present study in terms of vocabulary production the mean number of words produced by children between age eight to nine months was 1.29±2 which increased to 72.55±55 at age 15 to 16 months. Similar finding reported by Fenson et al. (1993) where vocabulary scores increased from approximately 3 to 65 words with age.
The difference between the groups for both vocabulary comprehension and vocabulary expression was found to be statistically significant on one way ANOVA analysis. The findings illustrated that word comprehension is always in advance of word production. This is a similar finding were reported by Chairman, Drew, Baird, and Baird (2003), Goldin-Meadow, Seligman and Gelman (1976) and Benedict (1977).
In current study, a rapid increase in vocabulary is observed from group V to group VI. Similar finding was reported by Fenson et al. (1993). This is contradictory to the study done by Shu, Xing and Li (2008) where they reported that there is a slow growth from 12 to 16 months following which there will be a rapid increase which they called the “vocabulary spurt” phenomenon. Bloom (2004) challenged this notion of a vocabulary spurt, arguing instead that lexical acquisition is a continuous process with a relatively stable rate of change. They concluded that early vocabulary development is a reliable predictorof children’s later language skills.In the present study at 10 months there is a decrease in the mean number of words produced and understood. This could be attributed to lesser sample size.
Choi and Bowerman (1991) and Gopnik and Meltzoff (1984) suggested that linguistic differences could affect semantic development and cognitive development and significant differences in the lexivcl devpt between English n koreanlanguages(. Choi and Gopnik (1995)) in their study compared the lexical development and reported a statistically significant difference between the languages English and Korean. Contradicting this finding a study done by Au, Dapretto, and Song (1994) failed to find a difference in verbs and nouns between Korean and English speakers. Choi (1991) reported that the lexical development between Korean and Japanese-speaking children are similar. Caselli et al. (1995) using MCDI found that the early semantic development of Italian-speaking children was closer to that of English speakers. These differences in lexical development between languages is because Korean and Japanese languages are much more closely related to each other than to English, and Italian and English are much more closely related to each other than to Korean, as explained by Gopnik, Choi and Baumberger (1996). Thus the lexical development can be influenced by the cross linguistic variations. And this will depend on the similarity in the languages. Since Dravidian languages differ syntactically and semantically from Indo-European languages it is important to develop language specific inventory. Fenson et al. (1984) reported that lexical inventories are considered as an appropriate measure of the development of a particular language, only if norming is done in that language.
Section 2: Developmental trend in gestures
The present study focused on emergence of early and later gestures. Early gesture is defined as the gesture which appears at the beginning. They can be called as deictic gestures. It involves gestures such as giving, requesting, showing and pointing. Late gesture is defined as Representational/conventional gestures which typically emerge later, have a form and meaning that is either culturally defined or defined in the context of particular caregiver-child interactions (Sandercock, 2013). In the present study, the data shows a statistically significant result in gestural growth with age which is in consonance with findings reported by Fenson et al (1993).
In the present study with respect to early gestural development by nine month of age it was observed that infants were able to extend arm to show something he/she is holding and reaching out, giving a toy or object that he/she is holding, and pointing at some interesting object or event. Similar findings were reported in the literature ( by Bates and & Dick, (2004), Capone and & McGregor (2004) and Morissette and &Ricard, (1995). However, Masur (1983) reported that the giving gesture is achieved by 13 months which is contradictory to the present study finding. In the present study the gesture waving “bye bye” is observed by 9 months which is in consonance with the literature supported by the findings observed by( Crais et al., (2004), Shipley and &McAfee ,(1998); and Veena and & Bellur, (2013).
Similar to the findings reported by Crais et al. (2004) and Shipley and McAfee (1998), in the present study from 11 months up to 13 months of age, 50 % of infants achieved more complex gestures such as extending his/her arm upward to signaling a wish to be picked up, shaking head indicating ‘no’ and requesting something by extending arm and opening and closing hand. In the present study at 13 months of age infant developed one more gesture of blowing kisses from a distance which is supported by the findings by Veena and Bellur (2013) and Crais et al. (2004). In present study, by 14 months of age infants were able to perform gestures such as nodding head to say yes and by 15 – 16 months all gestures had emerged.
In present study with respect to games and routines, it was observed that at eight months positive responses were observed for the game playing peekaboo and other common games. Till 10 months the same responses were observed. In 11- 13 months age range more complex games such as dancing develops. Similar finding were obtained by Veena and Bellur (2013) that “dancing to music” emerged between nine and 14 months. In present study by 14 months singing developed and only by 15 months infants were able to play “cooking”. It is therefore important to analyze games and routines because it forms an important part of the early social interactive basis for communicative development (Burner, 1977).
With respect to later gesture development, in present study, in eight months of age the infant had achieved gestures with objects like throwing a ball, eating with a spoon and drinking from a cup containing liquid. By nine- ten months of age, the infant developed one more gesture; putting telephone to the ear which is similar to the findings quoted by Bates, Benigni, Bretherton, Camaioni, and Volterra (1979). By 11 months of age, in present study, two more gesture developed i.e. combing/brushing own hair and brushing teeth. By 12 months, infants developed gestures like wiping face or hands with a towel, putting a hat, pushing a toy car/truck and stirring with a spoon pretending there is liquid in a mug. By 13 months, they develop gestures such as putting on a necklace, bracelet or a watch, putting on a shoe or socks and pouring liquid from one container to another. By 14 months, they developed gestures such as lay head on hands and squeeze eyes shut as if sleeping and blow to indicate something is hot. During 15 months of age, the infant acquired, and holding a plane and making it fly. All actions with objects were achieved as per MacArthur communicative development inventory (Fenson et al., 1993) except one gesture which did not develop until 15 months of age that is sniffing flower.
In current study, in terms of gestures of pretending to be a parent, till 10 months no gestures are developed?. By 12 months of age, the first gestures pretending the parent are, kissing/hugging the doll, putting it to sleep and rock it to sleep. As the infant grew from 11 months to 13 months of age, some more gestures were seen in them such as feeding with spoon, patting the doll. By 14 months, they develop the gesture pushing it on a movable vehicle. Rest gestures were attained by 14 months of age which includes feeding with bottle, brushing/combing the dolls hair and wiping its face or hands. Similar developmental trend was observed by Fenson et al. (1993).
In present study, with respect to gestures of imitating other adult actions, the first gestures which developed are gesture of reading and trying to use the phone at 11 months of age. At 12 months, the infant begins to write with a pen, pencil or marker. As the infant grow, one more gesture is acquired by13 months of age that is gesturing as riding a bike/starring of the car. At 14 months, the infant developed gestures such as; putting key in door or lock,sweeping with a broom / mop and trying to put on glasses. By 15-16 months, gestures like cleaning with a cloth, and watering plants are achieved. Gestures like playing musical instruments and washing dishes were just emerging by 16 months of age. The gesture ironing clothes is not achieved even at 15 months. These finding are in correlation with the observation made by Fenson et al. (1993) and Kern and Geraldine (2000). Few gestures of imitating other adult action was added in the new questionnaire like using phone and ironing clothes after the familiarity check. Also gestures like pounding with hammer, attempting to use saw, typing at a computer, vacuuming and digging with a shovel was removed when the original questionnaire was adapted to the Malayalam version as they were culturally inappropriate.?????
With respect to pretending observed in infants, in present study, a steady increase in the percentage of pretending, from a starting point of 0% at eight months to a maximum of 37% at 15 months is observed. In group III, percentage observed was 0%. This can be the result of the usage of small sample size. This developmental trend is comparable to the trends for other languages: Fenson et al. (1993) in American English, Eriksson and Berglund (1998) in Swedish and Kern and Geraldine (2000) in French.
The finding of the present study showed that overall early and later gestural development was maximum at around 12 months of age. These findings are supported by several researches on gestures (Butterworth & Morissette, 1996; Camaioni, Perucchini, Bellagamba, & Colonnesi, 2004) which ????or who find out reported that infants start to communicate intentionally through gestures towards the end of their first year. One of the possible reasons, for increase in gestures with increasing age could be the development of understanding of the surrounding, improvement in vocabulary comprehension and vocabulary production. Studies have suggested that with increasing age, the use of gestures or vocalizations alone decreases as gesture–vocalization combinations increase until a point when the infants are at 15 months (Carpenter et al., 1988; Wetherby, Cain, Yonclas, & Walker, 1988). Similar findings were reported by Bates et al. (1995) and Fenson et al. (1993, 1994) that development of gestures is correlated with production and even more with comprehension of words. Mitchell et al. (2006) in his study concluded that gestural deficits may be apparent earlier than language deficits and may, therefore, represent more sensitive markers for early detection in language assessment.
Iverson, Capirci, Volterra, and Goldin-Meadow (2008) studied the deictic and representational gestural development between Italian and American children. Findings reported that there is a difference in gestural usage between languages. Thirumalai (2003) had reported that Indians use fewer gestures, as gestures are not encouraged and are suppressed in Indian tradition. Thus it is important to consider the cross cultural variations in the gestural repertoire of young infants. Early gestures were not modified when the original MCDI was adapted and validated into the Malayalam version. This was supported by the findings of Callaghan, Moll, Rakoczy, Warneken, Liszkowski, Behne, & ??and Tomasello (2011) who reported that development of imitation, gaze following, pointing occur at very similar ages independent to the variation in the culture. But pretence and symbolic skills of children clearly reflected cultural differences. Also, Lieven and Stoll (2013) found no difference between cultures in the onset of pointing and imitation or of reaching, requesting and offering. Thus in the present study modifications were done only for later gestures.
