Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of Guelph]On: 21 November 2014, At: 13:45Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Early Child Development and CarePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gecd20
Fathers' speech to infantsTheano Kokkinaki aa Department of Psychology , University of Crete , 74 100,Rethymnon – Gallos, Crete , GreecePublished online: 05 Sep 2012.
To cite this article: Theano Kokkinaki (2013) Fathers' speech to infants, Early Child Developmentand Care, 183:7, 1005-1025, DOI: 10.1080/03004430.2012.712041
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2012.712041
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Fathers’ speech to infants
Theano Kokkinaki∗
Department of Psychology, University of Crete, 74 100, Rethymnon – Gallos, Crete, Greece
(Received 31 May 2012; final version received 11 July 2012)
Primary objective: This longitudinal and naturalistic study aimed to investigatesystematically the focus, the thematic sequences, the complexity and the speechacts of paternal infant-directed speech. Method and procedure: Towards thisgoal, 11 infant–father dyads were video-recorded in spontaneous interactions athome from the second to the sixth month of infants’ lives. Main results: Infant-focused speech (particularly infant attention and emotion thematic sequences)and dyad-focused paternal speech (clarification requests and ‘sharing’ ofbehaviour thematic sequences) were dominant. Paternal infant-directed thematicsequences were expressed through numeric repetitions and in open-endedquestions more often than any other complexity and speech act category.Conclusions: The results are discussed in the frame of the Theory of InnateIntersubjectivity.
Keywords: paternal infant-directed speech; infancy; focus categories; thematicsequences; speech acts
Introduction
The aim of the present naturalistic and longitudinal study was to investigate systema-tically the focus, the thematic sequences, the complexity and the speech acts of paternalinfant-directed speech in a Greek sample from the second to the sixth month of infants’lives.
Adult–infant-directed speech has been found to have specific characteristics thatdifferentiate it from adult-directed speech. This modified speech is characterised bysimplified syntax, shorter utterances, restricted vocabulary, utterance repetition, pho-netic modifications and specific prosodic features. Both mothers and fathers similarlymodify their speech when addressing young infants. The specific characteristics ofinfant-directed speech have been interpreted as contributing to mutually engaging inter-actions (Fernald, 1989; Jacobson, Boersma, Fields, & Olson, 1983; Kitamura, Thana-vishuth, Burnham, & Luksaneeyanawin, 2002; Kruper & Uzgiris, 1987; Papousek,Papousek, & Bornstein, 1985; Snow, 1977).
There are a number of studies that have researched paternal child-directed speech(Abkarian, Abkarian, & Dworkin, 2003; Golinkoff & Ames, 1979; Hladik &Edwards, 1984; Lanvers, 2004; Lipscomb & Coon, 1983; Malone & Guy, 1982;McLaughlin, Schutz, & White, 1980; Pancsofar & Vernon-Feagans, 2006; Rowe,Coker, & Pan, 2004). By contrast, research on paternal speech to preverbal infantshas been rare and it has been carried out mainly through comparisons with maternal
# 2013 Taylor & Francis
∗Email: [email protected]
Early Child Development and Care, 2013Vol. 183, No. 7, 1005–1025, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2012.712041
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
uelp
h] a
t 13:
45 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
infant-directed speech. The sparse literature on gender differences in speechcharacteristics of younger infants has focused mainly on the prosodic featuresand suggests that men/fathers may make the same prosodic modifications asmothers do, but to a slightly lesser extent, possibly due to men’s lower averagepitch compared with women’s voice (Fernald et al., 1989; Shute & Wheldall,1999; Soderstrom, 2007). Restricted evidence comparing the focus, the complex-ity, the syntax and the age effect on certain features of paternal and maternalinfant-directed speech shows similarities, differences and inconsistencies thatcan be summarised as follows:
(1) The amount of maternal and paternal infant-directed speech differs; mothersproduce significantly more utterances than fathers (Pecheux, Labrell, & Pistorio,1993), or fathers issue more utterances and use more words than mothers (Walker& Armstrong, 1995); (2) Mothers and fathers alike seemed to speak to themselvesin many cases, reflecting the parents’ focus of attention, evaluations, intentions andbeliefs in relation to their infants’ behaviour, action-like persons, state, feelings oreven thoughts (Kruper & Uzgiris, 1987; Papousek, Papousek, & Haekel, 1987).Parents of both sexes commented twice as much on the mood and physical aspectsof their infant girl as on those of their infant boy (Pecheux et al., 1993). Thoughno gender differences have been observed in the overall frequency of mind-relatedcomments (Lundy, 2003), fathers produced more attentive utterances to toddlersthan mothers (Rondal, 1980), and they rendered more comments related toproblem-solving (over infant thought, knowledge and desire comments, infantemotional engagement and comments related to speaking for the infants) thanmothers and mothers demonstrated more comments related to speaking from theirinfants’ perspectives (Lundy, 2003); (3) Both parents use linguistically simple,non-demanding, redundant utterances, typically with fewer than three words orfewer than four syllables when talking to their three-month-old infants (Papouseket al., 1987). Phillips and Parke (cited in Parke & Tinsley, 1981) observed similarrates of repetition in fathers’ and mothers’ speech to newborn and three-month-oldinfants. At eight months, mothers used more repetitions than fathers (Walker & Arm-strong, 1995). The speech of both parents contains many questions and a smaller pro-portion of directives. In the course of the first year, fathers use ‘real’ questions (thespeaker wants some information which the addressee is believed to have) and ‘rhe-torical’ questions (the speaker assumes that either everyone knows or no oneknows the answer) (Reissland, 1998), and at eight months, paternal ‘real’ questionspredominate over maternal ones (Walker & Armstrong, 1995). At three and ninemonths, there is no significant parent gender effect on the number of questions(Kruper & Uzgiris, 1987). Fathers, more than mothers, failed to acknowledge theirchildren’s utterances, asked clarification questions, assumed a directive role inresponse to their children’s violations and treated the conversation like a task to beaccomplished in an adequate manner (Pellegrini, Brody & Stoneman, 1987, citedby Kornhaber & Marcos, 2000; Rondal, 1980; Rowe et al., 2004). The mother of a19-month-old infant boy used more interactional language (used to keep conversa-tions going), while the father used more regulatory language (giving commands)(Matychuk, 2005); and (4) In the course of early infancy, no differences in speechas a function of the age have been observed in infants, though with age, parentsbecome less concerned with immediate problems and more aware of their infants’own performances (Pecheux et al., 1993). Alternatively, infant age significantlyand differentially affects maternal and paternal content of speech (Kruper &
1006 T. Kokkinaki
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
uelp
h] a
t 13:
45 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
Uzgiris, 1987). This comparison provides evidence that in the course of infancy,similarities between maternal and paternal infant-directed speech seem to outweighthe differences. While certain features – such as the amount of speech, the mind-related comments and the age effect – remain controversial (to the researcher’sknowledge), paternal clarification requests have not been studied prior to 1.6 yearsof a child’s life.
Studying spontaneous paternal infant-directed speech expressed within free father–infant interaction in a Greek sample is important because it will expand our understand-ing on: (a) the social use of paternal language in adult–infant communication, and notsolely its linguistic characteristics, given the communicative function of voice in itselfand that it partakes in crucial ways in the shaping of linguistic meaning; (b) the sourcesof influence from multiple caregivers, other than mothers, in order to consider the lin-guistic properties of infant-directed speech in a cultural context that has not beenexplored before; (c) the link between fathers’ language input in early infancy and chil-dren’s later expressive language skills; (d) the way repeated past experiences withpaternal child-directed speech shapes children’s knowledge, expectations and acts;(e) the talking styles of men, given that it differs from those of women; and (f) theway the features of father–infant relationship may affect multi-participant conversa-tional contexts, given that the characteristics of father–child relationship have beenrelated to prosocial interaction between siblings (Abkarian et al., 2003; Gratier &Trevarthen, 2007; Kasuya & Uemura, 2005; Kornhaber & Marcos, 2000; Pancsofar &Vernon-Feagans, 2006; Soderstrom, 2007).
The Theory of Innate Intersubjectivity, within the framework of which the presentstudy was carried out, proposes that infants are endowed with a cerebral system thatenables direct perception of interests and feelings in another person and responsive attu-nement permitting delicate, emotionally regulated engagements. This presupposes thatinfants are able to exhibit to others at least the rudiments of individual intentionality(subjectivity) and adapt or fit this subjective control to the subjectivity of others.Infants are endowed with motives to use the motives of other persons in ‘conversa-tional’ negotiation of purposes, emotions, experiences and meanings. Infants andtheir parents are thus in immediate sympathetic contact. The process in which mentalactivity – including motives, intentions and emotions – is transferred betweenminds is called intersubjectivity (Braten & Trevarthen, 2007; Trevarthen, 1979,1998, 1999).
The present study was undertaken with four main hypotheses: (1) paternal infant-directed speech will be infant- and dyad-focused rather than father- and other-focused; (2) infant internal state category, particularly infant attention and emotions,will prevail among the other infant-focused thematic sequences; (3) clarifications ofmeaning and questions will predominate over the other verbal responses of dyad-focused category and speech acts, respectively; and (4) infant age will affect combi-nations of focus categories, thematic sequences, complexity and speech acts throughwhich paternal infant-directed speech is expressed. The verification of the abovehypotheses would imply that paternal infant-directed speech constitutes the connectionbetween the infants’ emotional states and emotional state words which provides anautomatic attempt to explain or comment on an intense identification or empathywith the infants’ motives, especially any that appear to be aimed at communicationwith the parent. In addition, what fathers say in words to their infants may be rich ininformation about the active psychological link between them and their infants. Clari-fications of meaning and questions may reflect fathers’ eagerness to share what the
Early Child Development and Care 1007
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
uelp
h] a
t 13:
45 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
infants ‘think’ and do or intend to do and ‘incompleteness’ or openness of theirexpressed states of feeling anticipating a particular range of possible emotionalexpressions by infants. Age-related changes in paternal speech content may indicateinfant periodic motivational re-organisations reflected on what fathers say as theirinfants develop more complex behaviour (Trevarthen, 1984, 1993, 2005).
Alternatively, the ‘Bridge Hypothesis’, based on research on parental child-directedspeech, may also have some applicability to parental infant-directed speech. Accordingto this hypothesis, persons other than the caregiver often have a difficult time under-standing and maintaining a given conversation topic with one- to two-year-old children.In these circumstances, breakdowns and clarification requests must be more frequentthan when the child is conversing with the primary caregiver. Paternal child-directedspeech is closer in form to the unturned language and communication styles that chil-dren will encounter with interlocutors outside their immediate families. Children willhave to accommodate to these less intimate partners by speaking more coherentlyand by clarifying misunderstandings more skilfully. It is assumed that fathers areless familiar with their children’s articulation and language level, share less backgroundknowledge with their children, are less able to adjust their speech to their children’slevel and thus serve as more challenging communicative partners to their childrenthan mothers do (Mannle & Tomasello, 1987; Tomasello, 1992).
Method
Participants and recruitment
For the recruitment of participants, the researcher first personally approached the obste-tricians of the maternity clinic and the local paediatricians, who were informed aboutthe aim and the procedure of the study, and obtained access to birth records. Thebirth records of hospitals and clinics were searched to identify parents of nearlyeight-week-old infants, as eight weeks was the starting age for the first video-recording.Then, prospective participants were informed about the procedure of the study, eitherorally by their doctors or in writing by a letter prepared by the researcher and passedto the doctors. After parents had consented to participate in the study, the researchervisited the parents at their homes, informed them about the aim and the procedure ofthe study and asked them to sign the consent form. The parents answered questionsregarding certain socio-demographic features such as parental age, educational back-ground, occupation, marital status, presence at infant labour and birth, infant age,gender and number of siblings and daily caretaking of the infant. At the end of thefirst meeting, the first visit for recording was arranged at a time suitable for the parents.
The participants were 11 Greek-speaking infant–father dyads (N ¼ 22). The infantswere born at ‘Asklipios’ Maternity Clinic in Rethymnon, Crete, Greece. There were sixfemale and five male infants. Seven infants were first-born and four infants were second-born. All parents were married. The age of the fathers ranged from 27 to 47 years (meanage: 33.63 years). Fifty-five per cent of the fathers had 16 years of education (universitydegree) and 45% had 12 years of education. The participant fathers’ occupational statusvaried as follows: private employees (2), civil engineer (2), trader (2), gymnast, busi-nessman, taxi-driver, lawyer and doctor. Of the 11 fathers, 4 were present at labourand birth. Further, in 4 of the 11 families, the mother and the father were the primaryand only caretakers; in one family, the care of the infant was shared between a nannyand the parents, while in the remaining families, the grandparents or the aunt assisted
1008 T. Kokkinaki
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
uelp
h] a
t 13:
45 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
in caregiving. All of the 11 infants were full-term and healthy. The infants’ mean birthweight was 3568 g (SD ¼ 487.479, range: 2800–4250 g), and the mean birth height was52.22 cm (SD ¼ 2.160, range: 48–55 cm).
Procedure
Recordings were made at home, on weekday afternoons, after the infants were bathedand fed and thus more likely to be relaxed and alert. To control for a possible influenceof time of day on interaction, all father–infant interactions were videotaped between4.00 and 7.00 p.m.
All video-recordings were made with a Panasonic NV-MS4 S-VHS HI-FI STEREOcamera. Video-recordings were made at 15-day intervals, starting when the infant wastwo months old until the end of his/her sixth month of life. At each visit, the recordinglasted from 8 min (for the younger infants aged two to four months) to 10 min (for theolder infants aged 4.5–6 months). Nine video-recordings were made for each infant,across the age range of this study, and a total of 99 video-recordings (11 infants × 9video-recordings for each) were made for the entire sample. The whole duration ofmicroanalysed interactions was 880 min [(8 min × 11 infants × 5 video-recordings)+ (10 min × 11 infants × 4 video-recordings)].
The fathers were asked to play as they normally did with their infants. Clearly statedin the instructions was the need for the father to express himself as free as possible, withno need to ‘perform’ or in other ways to alter everyday patterns of behaviour. Thevideo-recordings took place in a single room and a position chosen by the fathers, pro-hibiting any third-party intervention (for the details of the recording conditions, seeKokkinaki, 2008, 2009, 2010). If the infant was unwell or became distressed oreither the father or the researcher considered that the visit should be postponed forsome reason, it was rescheduled as soon as possible thereafter. Written records orregular discussions with the parents, concerning their infants’ development confirmedthat all the infants were progressing ‘normally’.
To limit the researcher’s intrusive effect and confirm that the recordings reallyreflected naturalistic behaviours, the following measures were taken: (a) at least onevisit was paid to the family before the first observation, and recording did not beginuntil at least 10–15 min after the researcher’s arrival; (b) after the recordings, theresearcher discussed with each father and asked him to comment on his interactionwith his infant. These discussions suggested that all fathers interacted as spontaneouslyas they did on their own with their infants, with a slight tension mentioned by arestricted number of participants only at the very beginning of the first video-recording.Based on the above, we believe that the attempts made to minimise the intrusive effectsof our presence and video-recording equipment were reasonably successful.
Coding
Plan of microanalysis and coding
In the present study, microanalysis and coding proceeded as follows: (1) paternalinfant-directed speech was transcribed verbatim from the video-recording and classifiedinto focus categories and thematic sequences within each of them; (2) each focus cat-egory was segmented into units and subunits of analysis, according to the pause dur-ation preceding and following each thematic sequence; and (3) each focus categorywas further coded for complexity and classification of speech acts.
Early Child Development and Care 1009
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
uelp
h] a
t 13:
45 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
Transcription of paternal infant-directed speech
Transcripts of the paternal infant-directed speech samples were prepared by theresearcher and then they were rechecked for accuracy by an assistant. These consistedof written verbatim accounts of all dialogues between the father and the infant duringthe 99 8–10-min free interactions.
Paternal verbal expressions and infant vocalisations that were inaudible were rareand they were excluded from the analysis. Paternal speech addressed to the researcherin the course of the video-recording, though rare, was also omitted from themicroanalysis.
Paternal whispers were analysed given that they constitute 14.6% of paternal utter-ances in early infancy (Papousek et al., 1985). Infant sounds evoked by physiologicalstates (hiccup, burp, etc.) were recorded and analysed since fathers often imitate (Kok-kinaki, 1998) and/or comment on them given that this kind of non-voluntary behaviourhas been reported to be directly interpretable, that is, intended to communicate some-thing specific (Snow, 1977).
One-word utterances such as ‘hm’ and ‘oh’ were transcribed and included in thepresent analysis since they have been judged to be of potential communicative signifi-cance (Lipscomb & Coon, 1983). In particular, these utterances are usually used inresponse to infant attention or expressive action either as acknowledgements of realcommunications of the infants or when the mothers pretend that their infants havethe floor (Kaye, 1980, 1982 cited by Henning, Striano, & Lieven, 2005).
Content categories
The content of paternal infant-directed speech was coded according to the followingcategories: thematic sequences, non-speech sounds, vocal expressions, vocal andverbal games, and songs. A thematic sequence was defined as a block of utterances,that is, units of spoken language marked off on either side by a pause, with a highdegree of semantic coherence (Kerbrat-Orecchioni, 1990, cited by Rabain-Jamin &Sabeau-Jouannet, 1997; Siegel, 1963, cited by Rondal, 1980). Non-speech soundswere strings of non-verbal and non-vocal sounds, expressed either as a consequenceof imitation of the physiological state (e.g. whimpering, crying, sneezing, coughingand hiccup) or as part of a game (raspberries, blowing-nose sounds and tongue-hitting sounds). Vocal expressions consisted of vocalisations as part of the ‘protocon-versation’, for example, vocal imitation (model and imitation), non-imitative vocalisa-tions (e.g. the infant vocalises ‘a’ and the father responds ‘o’), or infant vocalisations towhich the father responded verbally. For imitative and non-imitative vocalisations, thefocus was on the dyad, while the content was vocal and not verbal. Vocal and verbalgames consisted of repeated rhythmic vocalisations and sentences accompanied ornot by certain predictable body movement patterns, for example, moving the torsoup and down or forward and backward. Songs are nursery rhymes expressed incertain known or improvised melodic contours.
Segmentation procedure
Each content category and the pauses following/preceding it were microanalysed, inaccuracy of 1/25th of a second, in order to be grouped into subunits and units of analy-sis. A unit of analysis was defined when there was nothing (verbal/vocal silence) pre-ceding or following within a 2-second period. A subunit of analysis was defined as the
1010 T. Kokkinaki
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
uelp
h] a
t 13:
45 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
temporal period which began at the start of one thematic sequence, non-speech sound,song, verbal/vocal game, or infant vocalisation/non-speech sound to which the fatherresponded, and it ended at the termination of it, or at the end of the paternal responseto an infant cue, respectively. The unit of analysis was defined as a temporal periodwhich began at the start of one subunit and ended at its termination. Therefore,each unit could have one or more subunits if the pause between successive subunitswas shorter than or equal to 2 seconds (Figure 1). The 2-second pause has beenjudged adequate for the change of content of parental utterances (Herrera, Reissland,& Shepherd, 2004).
Focus categories and thematic sequences
Each thematic sequence was classified into certain focus categories (Table 1). Thisscheme (Kokkinaki, 2011) extended certain parts of the categorisation systemdeveloped by Murray and her colleagues to (Murray & Trevarthen, 1986; Murray,Kempton, Woolgar & Hooper, 1993) and Butler, McMahon, and Ungerer (2003).
Figure 1. Microanalysis of focus categories, thematic sequences, complexity and speech actsof paternal infant-directed speech.
Early Child Development and Care 1011
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
uelp
h] a
t 13:
45 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
Table 1. Focus categories and thematic sequences.
Subcategory Definition Examples
Infant-focused thematic sequences
(1) Infant internal state thematicsequences (TS)
(a) Attention/gaze behaviour Thematic sequences intended to focus the infant’s attentionto the father or to redirect the infant’s attention from thefather to a toy/object
‘She is looking at the camera. Look here. Look at me’
(b) Autonomy Thematic sequences intended to focus on the infant’s poweror independence
‘He is walking, he is walking on his own!’
(c) Character Infant’s character or attribution of a momentarycharacterisation according to his/her preceding behaviour/state
‘Are you a good boy? Why are you a naughty child?’
(d) Knowledge/thoughtprocesses/learning/memory
Genuine or conversational references to these specificinfant’s psychological abilities
‘Why are you thoughtful? What are you thinking of?’‘Do you want to learn to talk? Do you want to be ayoung gentleman?’
(e) Volition (desires) Thematic sequences that describe the infant’s desires ‘You do not want to be upright?’
(f) Emotions Infant’s present facial expression of emotion/emotional state ‘There is the smile, there is the smile’
(g) Communicative abilities/metacommunicativeabilities
Thematic sequences that refer to or respond to the infant’sability to interact or to his/her ability to communicate forthe sake of communication
‘Will you speak? What will you say?’ ‘Are you laughingat your father? You are not ashamed at all!’, ‘You liar,you liar’ ‘Did you put your monkey up?’
(h) Speaking from the infant’sperspective
The father restructures the interpersonal relationship byputting the infant in the speaker’s position either in thedyadic context or in the triadic/polydyadic context
‘Daddy my nose is bunged up’ Where are you mummy?Did you see me walking? Did you see me dancing?
(2) Infant external state thematicsequences
Infant’s appearance and non-interactive behaviour, infantsize, weight or emphasis is placed on the infant’s presenceper se
‘Ah! Slobberer’, ‘This little child has grow grown up andhe is weighted’, ‘Oh, a daring man’
(3) TS responsive to the infant’sphysical state
Description of the infant’s needs ‘He is sleepy, he is sleepy’
(4) TS responsive to the infant’sbody movements
Description of the infant’s movements (voluntary or non-voluntary) of certain parts of the body
‘Your head is falling down’
(Continued).
1012T
.K
okkinaki
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
uelp
h] a
t 13:
45 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
Table 1. (Continued).
Subcategory Definition Examples
(5) TS that regard the infant’schange of position
Description in a specific or a non-specific way the infant’schange of position by the father
‘Sit here, sit like that’
(6) TS that prompt the infant toaction/behaviour
Encouraging or ordering the infant to a specific action ‘Catch my hand, catch it, catch it’.
Dyad-focused thematic sequences
(1) Paternal attempt to communicate with the infant through vocal expression (imitative/non-imitative) and/or one or more of the following verbal responses:
(a) Confirmation/agreement ‘Yes, yes this is exactly what you want to say’
(b) Interpretation of the infant’s vocalisation ‘What is wrong with you? You have “a”, that means,shall I pick you up?’
(c) Clarification request ‘What is it? Well, what do you want?’
(d) Prompting to vocalisation/speech/emotional state ‘Tell me angu’, ‘Come on give me a last smile’
(2) Paternal description of the dyadic emotional/behavioural exchange bidirectionally, that is,
(a) From the father to the infant ‘Do you know that I adore you?’
(b) From the infant to the father ‘Hiccup does not let you express your feelings to me’
(3) Paternal description of ‘sharing’ (through the use of ‘we’) of
(1) Behaviours ‘Shall we go for a walk?’
(2) Emotions ‘We feel scared for technology . . .’
(3) Physiological states ‘Shall we sleep?’
(4) Part of body ‘Shall we eat our finger . . .?’
(5) Appearance ‘We are like drunkards, with the vomit on our clothes’
(6) Position in space ‘Shall we lie down like that?’
(7) Gaze direction ‘We are looking at the lights, we are looking here, we arelooking there, we must control all the place around’
Note: Father-focused thematic sequences: reference to the father alone or to paternal behaviour(s), emotion(s) and desire(s).Other-focused thematic sequences: comments on an object/toy, on persons who are removed spatially or temporally from the current interaction (Butler et al., 2003) or onevents in the past or future or outside (Pecheux et al., 1993).No-focus expressions: songs, repeated vocalisation(s), non-speech sound(s), vocal and verbal games, non-responsive to infant cues.
Early
Child
Developm
ent
andC
are1013
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
uelp
h] a
t 13:
45 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
Complexity categories
Each thematic sequence was categorised as to whether or not it was part of a run ofutterances/utterance which contained: (1) numeric repetition: sequences with at least twoconsecutive identical or nearly so repetitions, excluding songs and rhymes (e.g. ‘Do welike it? Do we like it?’); (2) semantic repetition: sequences with at least two consecutiveutterances that differ in content but refer to the same topic and give added meaning (e.g.‘What will you say to me, my baby? Say it in your own words. Would you like to learnto talk?’); and (3) no repetition: a thematic sequence that was uttered once and was featuredneither by numeric repetition nor by semantic repetition (e.g. ‘Shall we hold him this way?’)(Butler et al., 2003; Wan, Penketh, Salmon, & Abel, 2008).
Classification of speech acts
Each focused thematic sequence was classified into one (or more) of six speech actsas follows: (1) questions (open-ended, close-ended, two-alternative and questionsfollowed by answers); (2) declaratives; (3) directives; (4) disapprovals; (5) promptsto action; (6) invitations; (7) admirations; (8) negative desires; and (9) comparisons(Table 2 presents the classification, definitions and examples of question types).
Inter-observer reliability
To measure inter-observer reliability, a second observer, who had been trained in theuse of the coding scheme but was not aware of the hypotheses under investigation,scored a random sample of 33% of the video-files (video-recordings of four infant–father pairs) (Kokkinaki, 2008). Inter-observer reliability assessments were made forthe focus category, the thematic sequences, the complexity and the speech acts.Inter-observer reliability for all aspects of paternal infant-directed speech rangedfrom 0.80 to 0.96, with the mean value of k (Cohen’s kappa) for all categories being
Table 2. Classification, definitions and examples of question types.
Category/subcategory Definition Examples
Questions A question was defined as an utteranceending in a question mark (Pancsofar &Vernon-Feagans, 2006)
(a) Open-endedquestions
Questions that begin with interrogativewords such as who, where, when, how,what, why and which. In the use of ‘who’,the third parties were not specified
‘Who dared bother thechild?’
(b) Close-endedquestions
Questions that required the infant to respondvirtually with a yes–no answer (Valian &Casey, 2003)
‘Are you hungry?’
(c) Two-alternativequestions
Questions with the following structure: ‘Is itA or B?’ or ‘Is it A or not A’ (Fritzley &Lee, 2003)
‘Did you hear the bellringing or not?’
(d) Questionsfollowed byanswers
Fathers simplified their questions byanswering them thereafter. This questioncategory has been featured as‘conversational repair’ (Snow, 1977)
‘Where are you lookingat? Are you looking atthe lamb?’
1014 T. Kokkinaki
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
uelp
h] a
t 13:
45 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
0.88. The obtained scores for the focus category ranged from 0.87 to 0.95, for the the-matic sequences from 0.86 to 0.96, for the complexity from 0.80 to 0.90 and for thespeech acts from 0.88 to 0.95.
Descriptive and statistical analysis
Descriptive analysis was based on the calculation of individual proportions of behavioursin each category and subcategory for each age level; for example, for infant 1, averageproportions were calculated per half month and per month and then an average overall months. The average of individual averages has been used to report descriptivedata. In this way, individual variation and variation over time were controlled. Chi-square test of independence was used to determine possible relationships betweenpairs of categorical variables. The significance level was set at 1% (instead of at 5%),as a safeguard against false rejections of the null hypothesis, increasing therefore thepower of the test. For these interactions, adjusted residuals were calculated to indicate cat-egories that deviate from the independence assumption. Adjusted residuals followapproximately a standard normal distribution if the independence assumption is correct(Dobson, 2002). Therefore, conclusions of a significant result are reached only if a com-bination of categories has an adjusted residual whose absolute value is greater than 2.0,since this combination seems to deviate from the independence assumption. MultivariateLoglinear Model was used for determining useful relationships between variables. TheOptimal Model was obtained using the LRT (the likelihood ratio test). All non-significantinteractions were deleted and the finally obtained Model retained a non-significant dis-tance (in LRT terms) with the Saturated Model. The level of significance was set at5%. For the cases in which the Optimal Model consisted of only one two-way interaction(after deleting all non-significant interactions), the chi-square test of independence wasused to determine possible relationships between pairs of categorical variables. All ana-lyses were performed using SPSS statistical package (Version 13, 2004). It has to be clari-fied that due to the content complexity of paternal infant-directed speech, the coding of allcategories and subcategories was not mutually exclusive. This justifies why the sum ofpercentages within categories and subcategories exceeds 100%.
Results
Structure of paternal infant-directed speech
In the course of 880 min of free infant–father interaction, a total of 942 units of analysis and4386 subunits of paternal infant-directed speech were recorded; that is, about 1.07 units and5 subunits occurred within one minute of interaction. The units and subunits of analysisranged from 51 to 209 and from 249 to 682, respectively, across father–infant pairs.
Descriptive analysis and relationships between infant- and dyad-focused thematicsequences, complexity and speech acts
Thematic sequences (45.6%) predominated over the remaining content categories, atevery age level of the study, and they ranged from 148 to 341 across individualfathers. Infant-focused thematic sequences (54.8%) and dyad-focused thematicsequences (37.2%) predominated over the remaining focus categories and they rangedfrom 129 to 303 and from 100 to 210, respectively, across the 11 father–infant pairs.Among infant-focused subunits, infant internal state thematic sequences (53.5%)occurred more frequently than any other infant-focused subcategory, and they ranged
Early Child Development and Care 1015
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
uelp
h] a
t 13:
45 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
from 48 to 207 across individual fathers. Of all infant internal state subcategories, infantattention (46.2%) and emotions (26.7%) predominated over the remaining subcate-gories. Infant attention and emotion thematic sequences ranged from 19 to 147 andfrom 21 to 68, respectively, across individual fathers.
Among dyad-focused subunits, protoconversations (66.2%) predominated over speechas a dyad unit (33.8%). Protoconversations ranged from 77 to 140 across the 11 father–infant pairs. Of all verbal responses included in the protoconversations, clarificationrequests (60.7%) prevailed over the remaining subcategories, and they ranged from 16to 94 across father–infant pairs. Verbal responses within protoconversations rangedfrom 36 to 116 across father–infant pairs. Of all speech-as-a-dyad-unit subcategories, the-matic sequences that regarded ‘sharing’ of behaviours (72%) predominated over theremaining subcategories and they ranged from 6 to 101 across father–infant pairs.
Among complexity categories, numeric repetitions (69.4%) predominated overnon-repetitive (21.3%) and semantically repetitive (9.3%) thematic sequences, andthey ranged from 185 to 592 across individual fathers. Within the classification ofspeech acts, questions (59.8%) prevailed over the other subcategories (prompts toaction and comparisons were not included due to very low frequencies) and theyranged from 90 to 256 across the 11 father–infant pairs. Open-ended questions(63.4%) predominated over close-ended questions (32.4%), followed by answers(3%) and two-alternative questions (1.1%).
The significant relationships (Table 3 (A)) are summarised as follows: (a) thematicsequences responsive to infant internal state occur more often within protoconversationsthan within speech as a dyad unit (58.4% versus 40.2%) (first row); (b) fathers respond totheir infants’ emotional states in numeric repetitions (57.2%) more often than any otherinfant-focused thematic sequence (second row); (c) semantic repetitions feature speech asa dyad unit (31.6%) more often than protoconversations, while numeric repetitions and
Table 3. Summary of chi-square test (A) and multivariate analyses (B) for the relationshipbetween infant- and dyad-focused thematic sequences (IFTS and DFTS), complexity, andspeech acts.
A. Variable relationship Chi-square value df p-Value
1. (IFTS) ∗ (DFTS) 46.372 5 0.000
2. (IFTS) ∗ (complexity) 125.770 10 0.000
3. (DFTS) ∗(complexity) 115.174 2 0.000
4. (IFTS) ∗ (speech acts) 588.273 20 0.000
5. (DFTS) ∗ (speech acts) 157.801 4 0.000
6. (Complexity) ∗ (speech acts) 55.538 8 0.000
B. Variable relationship Optimal Model LRT p-value
7. (IFTS) ∗ (complexity) ∗ (speech acts) – 0.009
8. (DFTS) ∗ (complexity) ∗ (speech acts) (DFTS ∗ complexity) +(DFTS ∗ speech acts) ∗
(complexity ∗ speech acts)
0.119∗
Note: ∗ ¼ significant relationship between: infant-focused and dyad-focused thematic sequences (row 1),infant-focused thematic sequences and complexity (row 2), dyad-focused thematic sequences andcomplexity (row 3), infant-focused thematic sequences and speech acts (row 4), dyad-focused thematicsequences and speech acts (row 5), complexity and speech acts (row 6) and dyad-focused thematicsequences, complexity and speech acts (row 8) (these relationships are explained in pages 16–17).
1016 T. Kokkinaki
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
uelp
h] a
t 13:
45 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
non-repetitions are expressed more often in protoconversations (56.5% and 33.3%,respectively) (third row); (d) infant internal state is expressed through questions moreoften than any other infant-focused thematic sequence (56.9%) (fourth row); (e) questionsoccur more often in protoconversations (66.7%) than in speech as a dyad unit (39.6%)(fifth row); and (f) questions are expressed through numeric repetitions more oftenthan any other speech act (56.4%) (sixth row).
Further, the relationship between dyad-focused thematic sequences and speech actsis the same for each value of complexity (Table 3 (B), line 8). No reduced model stat-istically equivalent to the Saturated Model was found for the relationship betweeninfant-focused thematic sequences, complexity and speech acts.
Relationships between infant age, infant- and dyad-focused thematic sequences,content, complexity and speech acts
The earliest paternal reference to infant attention, autonomy, character, communicativeability, emotion and desire was at two months, while infant memory was not mentionedbefore 2.5 months. Early conversational references to infant thought were made at twomonths, and only at four months, fathers made genuine references to infant thought.
The significant relationships presented in Table 4 (A) are summarised as follows: (a)the significant relationship between infant age and infant-focused thematic sequencesindicates that paternal thematic sequences responsive to infant internal state aremore likely to occur at two months (61.1%) than at any other age level (first row),
Table 4. Summary of chi-square test (A) and multivariate analyses (B) for the relationshipbetween infant age, infant- and dyad-focused thematic sequences (IFTS and DFTS, eachvariable included the thematic sequences presented in Table 1), content, complexity and speechacts.
A. Variable relationship Chi-square value df p-Value
1. (Infants’ age) ∗ (IFTS) 91.550 40 0.000
2. (Infants’ age) ∗ (DFTS) 6.401 8 0.602
3. (Infants’ age) ∗ (complexity) 46.165 16 0.000
4. (Infants’ age) ∗ (speech acts) 50.658 32 0.019
B. Variable relationship Optimal Model LRT p-value
5. (infants’age) ∗ (IFTS) ∗ (content) (Age ∗ content) +(IFTS ∗ content)
0.088∗
6. (infants’age) ∗ (DFTS) ∗ (content) (Age ∗ content) +(DFTS ∗ content)
0.270∗
7. (infants’age) ∗ (IFTS) ∗ (complexity) (Age ∗ IFTS) + (age ∗
complexity) +(IFTS ∗ complexity)
0.123∗
8. (infants’age) ∗ (DFTS) ∗ (complexity) (DFTS ∗ complexity) 0.262∗
9. (infants’age) ∗ (IFTS) ∗ (speech acts) – 0.003
10. (infants’ age) ∗ (DFTS) ∗ (speech acts) (Age ∗ speech acts) +(DFTS ∗ speech acts)
0.229∗
Note: ∗ ¼ significant relationship between: infants’ age and infant-focused thematic sequences (row 1),infants’ age and complexity (row 3), infants’ age, infant-focused thematic sequences and content (row5), infants’ age, dyad-focused thematic sequences and content (row 6), infants’ age, infant-focusedthematic sequences and complexity (row 7), infants’ age, dyad-focused thematic sequences andcomplexity (row 8) and infants’ age, dyad-focused thematic sequences and speech acts (row 10).
Early Child Development and Care 1017
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
uelp
h] a
t 13:
45 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
and (b) the significant relationship between infant age and complexity provides evi-dence that paternal infant-directed speech expressed through semantic repetition ismore likely to occur at three months (15.2%) than at any other age level (third row).
The significant relationships presented in Table 4 (B) are summarised as follows: (a)given the value of content, infant age and infant-focused thematic sequences (fifth row)as well as infant age and dyad-focused thematic sequences are independent (sixth row),(e) the relationship between infant-focused thematic sequences and infant age is thesame for every value of complexity (seventh row), (f) dyad-focused thematic sequencesare related to complexity and this relationship does not depend upon infant age (eighthrow) and (g) given the value of speech acts, infant age and dyad-focused thematicsequences are independent (10th row). No reduced model statistically equivalentto the Saturated Model was found for the relationship between infant age, infant-focused thematic sequences and speech acts.
Discussion
The aim of the present study was to investigate longitudinally and naturalistically thefocus, the thematic sequences, the complexity and the speech acts of paternal infant-directed speech in the course of early infancy.
Summary of the results
The main results of this study may be summarised as follows: (a) Paternal speech ismainly infant- and dyad-focused. Infant internal state, particularly infant attentionand emotion thematic sequences, prevailed over the remaining infant-focused andinternal state subcategories. Protoconversations with paternal request clarification ofmeaning in infant behaviour and ‘sharing’ of behaviours prevailed within dyad-focused thematic sequences. Paternal infant-directed thematic sequences wereexpressed through numeric repetitions and in open-ended questions more often thanany other complexity and speech act category. Individual differences have been evi-denced for every aspect of paternal infant-directed speech; (b) Infant age did not signifi-cantly affect the developmental trajectory of dyad-focused thematic sequences andspeech acts, while certain other dyadic relationships were found between infant age,infant- and dyad-focused thematic sequences, complexity and speech acts; (c) Infant-focused category is related to speech acts and dyad-focused thematic sequences arerelated to complexity and neither of these relationships depends upon infant age.Under certain conditions, infant age and (1) dyad-focused category; (2) infant; and(3) dyad-focused thematic sequences are independent. The relationship betweeninfant-focused thematic sequences and infant age is the same for every value of com-plexity. The results verify our initial hypotheses.
Discussion and interpretation of main results
The predominance of infant- and dyad-focused over father- and other-focused paternalspeech and that of infant internal state thematic sequences, particularly attention andemotions, over the other subcategories are in accordance with the findings of otherstudies on maternal or both maternal and paternal infant-directed speech (Kruper &Uzgiris, 1987; Snow, 1977; Sylvester-Bradley & Trevarthen, 1978). This empirical evi-dence extends the Theory of Innate Intersubjectivity in that what a father – and not only
1018 T. Kokkinaki
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
uelp
h] a
t 13:
45 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
the mother – says to his infant reveals how well he is picking up the infant’s changingfeelings (Trevarthen, 1993). On the other hand, in the second month, infants becomemore precisely alert to the human voice and they exhibit subtle responses in expressionto the flow of paternal speech and engage in expressive exchanges (Trevarthen, 1984).The voice of fathers, along with the voice of mothers, responds to the impulses and feel-ings of the infant mind (Gratier & Trevarthen, 2007). We assume that paternal speech‘resonates’ infants’ emotional states by linking them to emotional state words in orderto match paternal and infant intersubjective internal motives. The predominance ofinfant attention thematic sequence provides empirical evidence from early father–infant interaction to the proposition that ‘We need to know where other persons arelooking to keep track of their thoughts . . . this monitoring of momentary shifts of gaze. . . serves an intersubjectivity, face to face, capable of detecting shifts of thought andfeeling . . .’ (Trevarthen, 2005, pp. 65–66). It seems that the father accepts theexpressions of his infant as models for his expression or rather as an indication of anemotion which he may both share with his infant and express in a like manner (Tre-varthen, 1977). The coupling of infant emotional expressions to paternal emotionalstate words (responsive to the infant’s emotional expressions) reveals how seen (inthe infant) and heard (by the father) signals of emotions are coordinated between thetwo subjects within an emotional confluence (Trevarthen, 1993), as evidenced by therelationship between infant internal state thematic sequences and protoconversation.In connection to this, the emotional matching and ‘completement’ between paternaland infant facial expressions of emotions in the course of paternal speech (Kokkinaki,2008, 2009, 2010) reinforce the intra-subjective paternal coordination of expressionsvia the face and the vocal tract (Trevarthen, 1993). Dyad-focused thematic sequencesadd that what fathers – and not only mothers – say in words to their infants is rich ininformation about the active psychological link between them and their infants (Tre-varthen, 1993).
Infants unify the multiplicity of heard voices given that they are exposed to the con-tinuities and overlaps between the voices of their mothers and fathers who share similarworld views (Gratier & Trevarthen, 2007). We assume that any differences in thequality and quantity between paternal and maternal speech provide the chance toinfants to participate in a variety of interactive negotiations with the aim of acquiringexperience in coping emotional challenges (Miller, Volling, & McElwain, 2000).Parental style of speech carries cultural meaning transmitted through the temporaland qualitative shapes of expression to infants in the earliest experiences of socialexchange (Gratier & Trevarthen, 2007).
Within dyad-focused thematic sequences, fathers addressed to their infants moreclarification requests of meaning and ‘sharing’ of behaviour utterances than anyother verbal response. Paternal clarification requests to an infant extend Rondal’s(1980) and Rowe et al.’s (2004) findings with toddlers. The evidence of question pre-dominance over the remaining speech acts is in accordance with relevant findings ofstudies with preverbal infants (Kruper & Uzgiris, 1987; Papousek et al., 1987). Wefound that fathers asked more open-ended than close-ended questions. This mayextend Trevarthen’s (1984) assumption of maternal questions about the infants tryingto ‘say things’ to them or ‘tell stories’. Additionally, the predominance of numericover semantic repetitions and non-repetitive thematic sequences is in accordancewith the study of Papousek et al. (1987).
Clarification requests necessarily involve both the listener and the speaker. Weassume that paternal clarification requests to preverbal infants’ expressive behaviours,
Early Child Development and Care 1019
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
uelp
h] a
t 13:
45 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
rather than words, serve different functions than those in adult–child interactions(Jeanes, Nienhuys, & Rickards, 2000; Saxton, Houston-Price, & Dawson, 2005) andreflect: (a) the father’s eagerness to recognise, appreciate and respond to his infant’sunique mental or subjective information, that is, information about feelings, intentionsand the contents of awareness; the high frequency of ‘sharing’ of behaviour utterancesreinforces this assumption; (b) paternal desire to continue, intensify and challenge thecommunication process by posing a ‘communicative demand’ on the infant; and (c)paternal expectation for the infant’s prolonged participation in ‘saying’ things or‘telling a story’ that reflects an emotional narrative, the fundamental carrier of infor-mation about motivation changes, organised in a stream of emotional signal whichcan have the equivalent of syntactic organisation or narrative structure (Trevarthen,1977, 1993, 2005, 2007). This interpretation, which favours the Theory of InnateIntersubjectivity rather than the ‘Bridge Hypothesis’, is further reinforced by anecdotalevidence indicating that clarification requests are accompanied by (a) emotional‘matching’ of paternal and infant facial expressions of emotions and (b) emotional‘attunement’ in the change of intensity of paternal and infant facial expressions ofemotions (Kokkinaki, in preparation). We assume that the verification of the ‘BridgeHypothesis’ would presuppose emotional ‘mismatching’ in fathers’ and infants’emotional expressions accompanying paternal verbal misunderstanding.
To extend our understanding on clarification requests of meaning, questioning is amajor form of speech act in interpersonal communication (Goody, 1978, cited by Fritzley& Lee, 2003). Apart from their linguistic significance, it is argued that questions are intrin-sically attention-getting devices for passing the turn to the partner (Snow, 1977). It hasbeen assumed that by posing more open-ended questions, fathers may place more linguis-tic and cognitive demands on their children. Wh-questions invite a more varied set ofresponses from the children than yes/no questions which are close-ended questionsrequesting primarily a one-word response and a narrower range of answer possibilitieswhen compared with wh-questions (Malone & Guy, 1982; Rowe et al., 2004). Weassume that, as with clarification requests, open-ended questions imply that the paternalexpressed states of feelings are either ‘incomplete’ or open, anticipating a particularrange of possible reactions of feeling in the expression of the infants (Trevarthen,1993). Fathers impose a ‘communicative demand’ on their infants, in that they expresstheir expectations for their infants to: (a) participate in an emotional ‘story telling’; and(b) produce vocal sounds or other expressive behaviours at the right moment, in syn-chrony and alternation, within the ongoing flow of speech addressed to them, in orderto participate in an inter-play of purposes, feelings and interests. This assumption is inaccordance with the evidence that: (a) infant internal state thematic sequences, moreoften than any other infant-focused thematic sequence, were expressed through numeri-cally repetitive questions within protoconversations; the use of repetitions suggestseither that fathers have standard phrases that they frequently repeat (Papousek et al.,1987) or paternal insistence to achieve their communicative goal, that is, intersubjectiveengagement; and (b) paternal thematic sequences responsive to infant internal state aremore likely to occur at two months’, and not later, period of evidence for rapid develop-ment in innate intersubjectivity and emotional dynamics (Trevarthen, 1993).
It seems that similarly to the mother (Rabain-Jamin & Sabeau-Jouannet, 1997), byvarying the verbal responses and speech acts, the father addresses to his infant, putshim/her into different, but complementary, conversational roles performing particularfunctions, either in the position of the addressee or in the place of the addresser,being capable of expressions that are in keeping with the type of speech act produced.
1020 T. Kokkinaki
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
uelp
h] a
t 13:
45 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
In particular, the father treats the infant like an addressee who can follow instructions‘virtually’, when using directives, but also as someone who can express himself/herselfin different ways either using a varied set of responses, as demanded by open-endedquestions, a one-word response, as needed in close-ended questions, or as a personwho can ‘decide’ which answer to choose after a two-alternative question. Furthermore,the father puts the infant in the place of the addresser when he goes into interpretation ofinfant expressive behaviours, when he confirms, agrees and praises or disagrees withcertain expressions, or when his speech constitutes a response to infant psychologicalor motor activity.
The present study provided evidence of infant age effect on certain variables [(infant-focused thematic sequences) and (complexity)] or their combinations [(infant-focusedthematic sequences∗complexity)], but not on others [(infant-focused category∗speechacts) and (dyad-focused thematic sequences∗complexity)]. Both results are in accordancewith the study of Kruper and Uzgiris (1987) and Pecheux et al. (1993). The significantrelationship between infant age and infant-focused thematic sequences for each valueof complexity may reflect paternal sensitivity and adaptation to infant motivationalchanges, intentions and interests across the age range of this study (Trevarthen, 1993).
Limitations of the present study
The data of the present study are based on 8–10-min interactions every 15 days fromthe second to the sixth month of infants’ lives, and possibly longer periods of inter-action after the sixth month of the infants’ lives could reveal other patterns. Yet, it isdifficult to assess enough comparable families with healthy infants for an extensiveobservational period. Even though studies of this type are difficult to carry out,they are important if one is to understand the bidirectional influence between thesalient family relationships. The evidence of the present study concerns a sampleof Greek, Cretan fathers. How such results can be extended to other samplesremains to be studied given that cultural practices transmitted and expressedthrough language have shown that Latins or Southern Europeans (such as Greeks)are more temperamental and verbal, paying more attention to stronger family tiesand social relationships. On the contrary, British people or Northern Europeans arecharacterised as being extremely serious and responsible, paying attention to workand achievement (Babad & Wallbott, 1986).
In addition, the interpretation of the results of the present study may be subjected tocriticism regarding Trevarthen’s Theory of Innate Intersubjectivity: (a) According toIngleby (1980, cited by Henriques, Hollway, Urwin, Venn, & Walkerdine, 1984),Trevarthen shifted the emphasis on innate intersubjectivity from infant ‘predisposi-tions’ to a catalogue of innate ‘motives’. This introduced an obvious paradox intothe account, since it appears to deny any possibility of the infant having ‘motives’ ofhis/her own. (b) Trevarthen’s strictly durational approach described sequences inwhich the infant moved mouth, hands and eyes in rhythmic coupling with the adult,although the empirical demonstrations of the advantage of mother–infant rhythmiccoupling and bidirectional coordination remain sparse (Jaffe, Beebe, Feldstein,Crown, & Jasnow, 2001). (c) Because of the vast differences between a presymbolic(infant) and a symbolic (adult) mind, the use of the same term (intersubjectivity)across both kinds of intelligence has been strongly questioned (Beebe, Knoblauch,Rustin, & Sorter, 2003). Instead, Beebe et al. (2003) emphasised the distinctionbetween the symbolic and the presymbolic realms of intersubjectivity.
Early Child Development and Care 1021
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
uelp
h] a
t 13:
45 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
Contribution of this study
The majority of the limited studies that investigated fathers’ and mothers’ speech topreverbal infants focused at specific age points (three and nine, four, and six months).Only one of them was naturalistic (Lundy, 2003) and another one was longitudinal(Reissland, 1998). The results derived mainly from English- (Field, 1978; Kruper &Uzgiris, 1987; Reissland, 1998), German- (Papousek et al., 1987) and French-speakingparents of infants (Pecheux et al., 1993). With these in mind, and given that father–child talk deserves research attention in its own right (Rowe et al., 2004), the microa-nalysis of paternal infant-directed speech in this longitudinal and naturalistic study wasmade in accordance to a protocol that did not derive from maternal speech data, but itwas constructed on paternal infant-directed speech data in order to not overlook salientaspects of father–infant interaction. In addition, this study provided evidence of thecommunicative significance of paternal infant-directed speech through thematicsequences and not through the prosodic features of speech/voice or facial expressionsof emotions (Fernald et al., 1989; Kokkinaki, 2009, 2010).
Conclusions
We assume that, in the course of early infancy, paternal infant-directed speech consti-tutes an example of intersubjectivity, that is, the process in which mental activity –including motives and emotions – is transferred between minds (Trevarthen, 1999),evidenced mainly by the focus (infant- and dyad-focused), the thematic sequences[infant internal state (attention and emotions), clarification requests and ‘sharing’ ofbehaviour utterances] and the speech acts of it (open-ended questions). Further inves-tigation is needed to systematically compare the thematic sequences of paternal tomaternal infant-directed speech in the course of early infancy along with the emotionalexpressions of parents and infants.
AcknowledgementsThe data of the present study are derived from the PhD study of the researcher (Department ofPsychology, University of Edinburgh, under the supervision of Professor Colwyn Trevarthen),for which ethical approval has been granted by the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, NHS Trust(8/95). I gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Professor V.G.S Vasdekis for his thoroughadvice on the statistical analysis of this work. Above all, I am deeply indebted to the infantsand their families for ‘offering’ their time, cooperation and patience to participate in the study.
Notes on contributorTheano Kokkinaki is an assistant professor of developmental psychology in the Department ofPsychology, University of Crete (Greece). Her research interests concern the systematic study ofinterpersonal dynamics in infant–parent and infant–grandparent interactions in several culturalcontexts as well as twin interaction and triadic interactions between family members. She has 30publications in international peer-reviewed journals and chapters in books in the field of infantdevelopment, inter-generational relationships and intersubjective communication. Some of herrecent publications are the following:
1. Kokkinaki, T. (2008). Interactive silences within spontaneous early infant–father ‘dialogues’.Infant and Child Development, 17, 509–525.
2. Kokkinaki, T. (2009). Emotional expressions during early infant–father conversation.European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 6(6), 705–721.
1022 T. Kokkinaki
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
uelp
h] a
t 13:
45 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
3. Kokkinaki, T., & Vasdekis, V.G.S. (2009). Gender as a determinant of emotional expressions inspontaneous infant–father interactions: An exploratory study. In B.C. Glenyn & R.P. Zini(Eds.), New directions in developmental psychobiology (pp. 117–150). Nova Science Publi-cations, Inc.
4. Kokkinaki, T. (2010). Inter-subjectivity during free infant–father ‘proto-conversation’ andwithin-‘protoconversation’ pauses. Early Child Development and Care, 180, 87–106.
5. Pratikaki, A., Germanakis, J., & Kokkinaki, T. (2010). Basic aspects of infant–grandparent‘interaction’: An 8-month longitudinal and naturalistic study. Early Child Development andCare, 181(9), 1231–1245.
6. Kokkinaki, T., Pratikaki, A., & Germanakis, I. (2011). Development of spontaneous grandpar-ent–infant imitation across the first year of life. Early Child Development and Care, 182(5),553–569.
7. Kokkinaki, T. (2011). Coding system for the microanalysis of parental speech in spontaneousinfant–parent imitation [database record]. Retrieved from PsycTESTS. doi: 10.1037/to4107-000.
8. Kokkinaki, T. (2011). Coding system for the microanalysis of spontaneous imitation in infant–parent interaction [database record]. Retrieved from PsycTESTS. doi: 10.1037/t04106-000.
ReferencesAbkarian, A.K., Abkarian, G.G., & Dworkin, J.P. (2003). Fathers’ speech to their children:
Perfect pitch or tin ear? Fathering, 1, 27–50.Babad, E.Y., & Wallbott, H.G. (1986). The effects of social factors on emotional reactions. In
K.R. Scherer, H.G. Wallbott, & A.B. Summerfield (Eds.), Experiencing emotion: A cross-cultural study (pp. 154–172), European Monographs in Social Psychology. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Beebe, B., Knoblauch, S., Rustin, J., & Sorter, D. (2003). A comparison of Meltzoff, Trevarthenand Stern. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 13(6), 809–836.
Braten, S., & Trevarthen, C. (2007). Prologue: From infant intersubjectivity and participantmovements to simulation and conversation in cultural common sense. In S. Braten (Ed.),On being moved: From mirror neurons to empathy (pp. 21–34). Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins Publishing Company.
Butler, S., McMahon, C., & Ungerer, J.A. (2003). Maternal speech style with prelinguistic twininfants. Infant and Child Development, 12, 129–143.
Dobson, A.J. (2002). An introduction to generalized linear models. London: Chapman and Hall.Fernald, A. (1989). Intonation and communicative intent in mothers’ speech to infants: Is the
melody the message? Child Development, 60, 1497–1510.Fernald, A., Taeschner, T., Dunn, J., Papousek, M., Boysson-Bardies, B., & Fukui, I. (1989). A
cross-cultural language study of prosodic modifications in mothers’ and fathers’ speech topreverbal infants. Journal of Child Language, 16, 477–501.
Field, T. (1978). Interaction behaviors of primary versus secondary caretaker fathers.Developmental Psychology, 14(2), 183–184.
Fritzley, V.H., & Lee, K. (2003). Do young children always say yes to yes–no questions? Ametadevelopmental study of the affirmation bias. Child Development, 74(5), 1297–1313.
Golinkoff, R.M., & Ames, G.J. (1979). A comparison of fathers’ and mothers’ speech with theiryoung children. Child Development, 50, 28–32.
Gratier, M., & Trevarthen, C. (2007). Voice, vitality and meaning: On the shaping of the infant’sutterances in willing engagement with culture. Comment on Bertau’s ‘on the notion ofvoice’. International Journal of Dialogical Science, 2(1), 169–181.
Henning, A., Striano, T., & Lieven, E.V.M. (2005). Maternal speech to infants at 1 and 3 monthsof age. Infant Behavior and Development, 28(4), 519–536.
Henriques, J., Hollway, W., Urwin, C., Venn, C., & Walkerdine, V. (1984). Changing thesubject: Psychology, social regulation and subjectivity. New York, NY: Routledge.
Herrera, E., Reissland, N., & Shepherd, J. (2004). Maternal touch and maternal child-directedspeech: Effects of depressed mood in the postnatal period. Journal of Affective Disorders,81(1), 29–39.
Hladik, E.G., & Edwards, H.T. (1984). A comparative analysis of mother–father speech in thenaturalistic home environment. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 13(5), 321–332.
Jacobson, J.L., Boersma, D.C., Fields, R.B., & Olson, K.L. (1983). Paralinguistic features ofadult speech to infants and small children. Child Development, 54, 436–442.
Early Child Development and Care 1023
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
uelp
h] a
t 13:
45 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
Jaffe, J., Beebe, B., Feldstein, S., Crown, C., & Jasnow, M. (2001). Rhythms of dialogue ininfancy. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 66(1), 1–132.
Jeanes, R.C., Nienhuys, T.G.W.M., & Rickards, F.W. (2000). The pragmatic skills of pro-foundly deaf children. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5(3), 237–247.
Kasuya, H., & Uemura, K. (2005). Three-year-old children’s interactional skills and parentalspeech styles in triadic family discourse. Journal of Bunkyo Gakuin University, 7(1),149–167.
Kitamura, C., Thanavishuth, C., Burnham, D., & Luksaneeyanawin, S. (2002). Universality andspecificity in infant-directed speech: Pitch modifications as a function of infant age and sexin a tonal and no-tonal language. Infant Behavior and Development, 24, 372–392.
Kokkinaki, T. (1998). Emotion and imitation in early infant–parent interaction: A longitudinaland cross-cultural study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Edinburgh, UK.
Kokkinaki, T. (2008). Interactive silences within spontaneous early infant–father ‘dialogues’.Infant and Child Development, 17, 509–525.
Kokkinaki, T. (2009). Emotional expressions during early infant–father conversation.European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 6(6), 705–721.
Kokkinaki, T. (2010). Intersubjectivity during free infant–father ‘protoconversation’ and within‘protoconversation’ pauses. Early Child Development and Care, 180(1), 87–106.
Kokkinaki, T. (2011). Coding system for the microanalysis of parental speech in spontaneousinfant-parent imitation [database record]. Retrieved from PsycTESTS. doi: 10.1037/to4107-000.
Kornhaber, M., & Marcos, H. (2000). Young children’s communication with mothers andfathers: Functions and contents. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 18,187–210.
Kruper, J.C., & Uzgiris, I.C. (1987). Fathers’ and mothers’ speech to young infants. Journal ofPsycholinguistic Research, 16(6), 597–614.
Lanvers, U. (2004). Gender in discourse behaviour in parent–child dyads: A literature review.Child: Care, Health and Development, 30(5), 481–493.
Lipscomb, T.J., & Coon, R.C. (1983). Parental speech modification to young children. TheJournal of Genetic Psychology, 143, 181–187.
Lundy, B.L. (2003). Father- and mother–infant face-to-face interactions: Differences in mind-related comments and infant attachment? Infant Behavior and Development, 26, 200–212.
Malone, M.J., & Guy, R.F. (1982). A comparison of mothers’ and fathers’ speech to their 3-year-old sons. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 11(6), 599–608.
Mannle, S., & Tomasello, M. (1987). Fathers, siblings, and the bridge hypothesis. In K.E.Nelson & A. van Kleeck (Eds.), Children‘s language (Vol. 6, pp. 23–42). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Matychuk, P. (2005). The role of child-directed speech in language acquisition: A case study.Language Sciences, 27, 301–379.
McLaughlin, B., Schutz, C., & White, D. (1980). Parental speech to five-year-old children in agame-playing situation. Child Development, 51, 580–582.
Miller, A.L., Volling, B.L., & McElwain, N.L. (2000). Sibling jealousy in a triadic context withmothers and fathers. Social Development, 9(4), 433–457.
Murray, L., Kempton, C., Woolgar, M., & Hooper, R. (1993). Depressed mothers’ speech totheir infants and its relation to infant gender and cognitive development. Journal of ChildPsychology and Psychiatry, 34, 1083–1101.
Murray, L., & Trevarthen, C. (1986). The infant’s role in mother–infant communication.Journal of Child Language, 13, 15–29.
Pancsofar, N., & Vernon-Feagans, L. (2006). Mother and father language input to young chil-dren: Contributions to later language development. Journal of Applied DevelopmentalPsychology, 27(6), 571–587.
Papousek, M., Papousek, H., & Bornstein, M.H. (1985). The naturalistic vocal environment ofyoung infants: On the significance of homogeneity and variability in parental speech. InT.M. Field & N.A. Fox (Eds.), Social perception in infants (pp. 269–297). Norwood, NJ:Ablex.
Papousek, M., Papousek, H., & Haekel, M. (1987). Didactic adjustments in fathers’ andmothers’ speech to their 3-month-old infants. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,16(5), 491–516.
1024 T. Kokkinaki
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
uelp
h] a
t 13:
45 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
Parke, R.D., & Tinsley, B.R. (1981). The father’s role in infancy. Determinants of involvementin caregiving and play. In M.E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (2nded., pp. 429–457). New York, NY: Wiley.
Pecheux, M.G., Labrell, F., & Pistorio, M. (1993). What do parents talk about to infants? EarlyDevelopment and Parenting, 2(2), 89–97.
Rabain-Jamin, J., & Sabeau-Jouannet, E. (1997). Maternal speech to 4-month-old infants in twocultures: Wolof and French. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 20(3),425–451.
Reissland, N. (1998). The pitch of ‘real’ and ‘rhetorical’ questions directed by a father to hisdaughter: A longitudinal case study. Infant Behavior and Development, 21(4), 793–798.
Rondal, J.A. (1980). Fathers’ and mothers’ speech in early language development. Journal ofChild Language, 7, 353–369.
Rowe, M.L., Coker, D., & Pan, B.A. (2004). A comparison of fathers’ and mothers’ talk to tod-dlers in low-income families. Social Development, 13(2), 278–291.
Saxton, M., Houston-Price, C., & Dawson, N. (2005). The prompt hypothesis: Clarificationrequests as a corrective input for grammatical errors. Applied Psycholinguistics, 26(3),393–414.
Shute, B., & Wheldall, K. (1999). Fundamental frequency and temporal modifications in thespeech of British fathers to their children. Educational Psychology, 19(2), 221–233.
Snow, C. (1977). The development of conversation between mothers and babies. Journal ofChild Language, 4, 1–22.
Soderstrom, M. (2007). Beoynd babytalk: Re-evaluating the nature and content of speech inputto preverbal infants. Developmental Review, 27, 501–532.
Sylvester-Bradley, B., & Trevarthen, C. (1978). Baby talk as an adaptation to the infant’s com-munication. In N. Waterson & C. Snow (Eds.), The development of communication(pp. 75–92). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Tomasello, M. (1992). The social bases of language acquisition. Social Development, 1, 67–87.Trevarthen, C. (1977). Descriptive analysis of infant communicative behaviour. In H.R. Schaffer
(Ed.), Studies in mother–infant interaction (pp. 227–270). London: Academic Press.Trevarthen, C. (1979). Communication and cooperation in early infancy: A description of
primary intersubjectivity. In M. Bullowa (Ed.), Before speech: The beginning of interperso-nal communication (pp. 321–347). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Trevarthen, C. (1984). Emotions in infancy: Regulators of contact and relationships withpersons. In K. Scherer & P. Ekman (Eds.), Approaches to emotion (pp. 129–186).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Trevarthen, C. (1993). The function of emotions in early infant communication and develop-ment. In J. Nadel & L. Camaioni (Eds.), New perspectives in early communicative develop-ment (pp. 48–81). London: Routledge.
Trevarthen, C. (1998). The concept and foundations of infant intersubjectivity. In S. Braten(Ed.), Intersubjective communication and emotion in early ontogeny (pp. 15–46).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Trevarthen, C. (1999). Intersubjectivity. In R. Wilson & F. Keil (Eds.), the MIT Encyclopediaof cognitive sciences (pp. 413–416). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Trevarthen, C. (2005). ‘Stepping away from the mirror: Pride and shame in adventures ofcompanionship’: Reflections on the nature and emotional needs of infant intersubjectivity.In C.S. Carter, L. Ahnert, K.E. Grossman, S.B. Hrdy, M.E. Lamb, S.W. Porges, &N. Sachser (Eds.), Attachment and bonding: A new synthesis (pp. 55–84). DahlemWorkshop Report 92. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Trevarthen, C. (2007). Epikoinvniakh Moysikothta. Ston Koygioymoytzakh, G. (Ep.Ekd.), Sympantikh armonıa, moysikh kai 1pisthmh: Ston Mıkh Q1odvrakh(s1l. 353–410). Hrakl1io: Pan1pisthmiak16 Ekdos1i6 Krhth6.
Valian, V., & Casey, L. (2003). Young children’s acquisition of wh-questions: The role of struc-tured input. Journal of Child Language, 30, 117–143.
Walker, K., & Armstrong, L. (1995). Do mothers and fathers interact differently with their childor is it the situation which matters? Child: Care, Health and Development, 21, 161–181.
Wan, W.M., Penketh, V., Salmon, M.P., & Abel, K.M. (2008). Content and style of speech frommothers with schizophrenia towards their infants. Psychiatry Research, 159, 109–114.
Early Child Development and Care 1025
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
uelp
h] a
t 13:
45 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
