Early Childhood Research Quarterly 50 (2020) 59–67

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Early Childhood Research Quarterly

The developmental landscape of early parent-focused language

intervention夽
Lauren B. Adamson a , Ann P. Kaiser b,∗ , Catherine S. Tamis-LaMonda c ,
Margaret Tresch Owen d , Nevena Dimitrova a,1
a
Department of Psychology, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA 30302, United States
b
Department of Special Education, Peabody College, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37203, United States
c
Department of Applied Psychology, New York University, New York, NY 10003, United States
d
School of Behavioral and Brain Sciences, The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX 75080, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This essay stresses the importance of infusing a developmental perspective into the design, implemen-
Received 26 February 2018 tation, and evaluation of parent-focused language interventions to promote young children’s language
Received in revised form 5 November 2018 success. Guided by Waddington’s (1957) heuristic image of the “epigenetic landscape” and drawing on
Accepted 12 November 2018
empirical research, we propose eight premises about early language development and illustrate how each
Available online 11 January 2019
premise might inform interventions. Three premises address the developmental pathways to language;
two highlight the essential role of the environment. The final three premises focus on the child and par-
Keywords:
ent as the essential developmental unit and on the collaborative, transactional, developmental processes
Language
Development
that facilitate language acquisition. These premises suggest that intervention should begin well before
Intervention first words, address the social foundations of language, and support parents in their unique role as they
Parenting directly and indirectly immerse children in the developmental landscape of language intervention.
© 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Parent-focused interventions are now at the core of several school success can be ameliorated, in part, by helping parents pro-
national initiatives (e.g., the Clinton Foundation’s Too Small to Fail vide infants and young children with rich language environments
and Bloomberg Philanthropy’s Providence Talks) that seek to pro- (Fernald & Weisleder, 2015; Ginsborg, 2006). The design and imple-
mote language and literacy success in young children from high mentation of these interventions are informed by interdisciplinary
need and diverse backgrounds. These interventions are strongly discussions (such as those stimulated by the Bridging the Word
motivated by substantial evidence linking kindergarten readiness Gap National Research Network; see http://bridgethewordgap.
and later school success to larger vocabularies and language skill wordpress.com) of the wealth of basic, clinical, and educational
of preschoolers (Walker, Greenwood, Hart, & Carta, 1994) and by literature that addresses the complex issues related to language
the hope that the marked deficits in school readiness and later acquisition, variations, and intervention.
In this paper, we highlight the importance of infusing a
developmental perspective into these contemporary conversations
夽 This project was supported by the Health Resources and Services Administra-
about parent-focused language interventions. This work is situated
tion (HRSA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under grant
within the long-standing discussion that an understanding of lan-
UA6MC 27762, Bridging the Word Gap Research Network. This information or con- guage development is crucial to the design and implementation of
tent and conclusions are those of the authors and should not be construed as the language interventions (e.g., Bloom & Lahey, 1978; Schiefelbusch
official position or policy of, nor should any endorsements be inferred by HRSA, HHS & Lloyd, 1974). Our primary goal here is to advance a set of devel-
or the U.S. Government.
∗ Corresponding author at: Department of Special Education, 314 OMC, Peabody opmental premises that call attention to the myriad of influences
College, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37203, United States. on the trajectories of early language acquisition across a broad
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (L.B. Adamson), range of young children, including those who experience signifi-
[email protected], [email protected] (A.P. Kaiser), cant challenges acquiring language. Here we adapt this strategy in
[email protected] (C.S. Tamis-LaMonda), [email protected] order to generate a list of developmental premises that can pro-
(M.T. Owen), [email protected] (N. Dimitrova).
1
Present address: Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Unite de recher-
vide a reference point as researchers and policy makers confront
ché, Service Psychiatrie Enfant & Adolescent, Avenue d’Echallens 9, 1004 Lausanne, the complex challenges of designing, implementing, and evaluating
Switzerland. interventions that support early language acquisition. In partic-

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.11.005
0885-2006/© 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
60 L.B. Adamson et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 50 (2020) 59–67

The “rolling ball” here represents the young child who is begin-
ning the long journey towards language. We have added an arrow
signifying time to Waddington’s figure to emphasize how crucial
timing of environmental events may be to a child’s language devel-
opment. Exactly when a particular environment event occurs may
have a dramatic effect on outcomes. If an important environmental
event occurs when the ball is rolling through a shallow path that
is near another path, the event may easily nudge the ball over to
this alternative path. In contrast, if the ball is currently situated in a
deep path, the same environment event may have only a temporary
impact, lifting the ball up a steep wall only to roll back to its current
course. Finally, we inserted an arrow that adds intervention to the
image. The arrow represents how formal intervention at a partic-
ular time and place in the developmental landscape may change a
child’s developmental path, leading to better language outcomes.
However, we did not add the parent to the figure because, as will
become evident as we discuss parent-focused language interven-
Fig. 1. Developmental landscape for language acquisition and intervention. tions, parents of young language-learning children are essentially
Image adapted from Waddington (1957, p. 29). everywhere as they engage the child, scaffold the child’s activi-
ties, and arrange and buffer environmental events essential to the
intervention. Moreover, although our primary focus in this essay
ular, we emphasize the complex interplay between genetic and is the parent–child dyad, we readily acknowledge that children
environmental factors that is often overlooked in studies of early with identified language impairments may also have important
language development and disorders (Rogers, Nulty, Betancourt, & language supporting interactions with their early intervention-
DeThorne, 2015). To illustrate these premises, we draw examples ists (speech language pathologists, developmental therapists, early
from literatures on language development, disorders, and interven- childhood special education teachers) and that many children are
tion. Our goal is to provide a conceptual framework rather than a in out-of-home care in infancy and toddlerhood that will influ-
comprehensive review of these diverse literatures. ence their language development (NICHD Early Child Care Research
This sort of conceptual exercise has deep roots in developmental Network, 2000).
psychology where seminal theorists have repeatedly demonstrated Inspired by this image of the developmental landscape, we
the power of posing principles (Werner, 1957; Werner & Kaplan, propose eight developmental premises relevant to parent-focused
1963) and propositions (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) to highlight how interventions that seek to facilitate children’s early language acqui-
development unfolds in transaction with the social and physical sition. We divide the premises into three sections: developmental
environments. There is also a strong tradition of using simple visual pathways, language learning environments, and the “rolling ball.”
images to organize discussion of abstract guiding statements. For After providing a description of each premise, we briefly discuss its
example, Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) complex socioecological theory implications for parent-focused language intervention. We illus-
has often been summarized by diagram of concentric circles that trate our discussion with studies of early language acquisition,
provides a powerful reminder of the layered systems that sur- of early intervention in typically developing children who face
rounds the developing child. ; see also Adamson, 1996) illustrate environmental challenges, and of young children with specific
their view of the context of early symbol formation with a diagram developmental difficulties to gain a fuller picture of the impor-
of three overlapping circles that depict “the primordial sharing sit- tant interplay of genetic possibilities and environmental influences
uation” in which parent, infant, and objects overlap prior to the across populations and context.
emergence of language. Both of these powerful images draw atten-
tion to the key components of the developmental process. 1. Section I. Developmental pathways
We begin our discussion of developmental premises for lan-
guage intervention with a classic image of the developmental Traditionally, progress towards the mastery of language is
landscape of language acquisition that highlights the possibility charted as a series of milestones leading to language specifically
of different developmental trajectories and outcomes for young (e.g., the first word, the vocabulary spurt or a 50-word expres-
children. This image (see Fig. 1) is a slight modification of Wadding- sive vocabulary, two-word combinations) and, more broadly, to
ton’s classic portrayal of an “epigenetic landscape” (1957, p. 29; nonverbal communication as well (e.g., the first smile, babbling,
see Baedke, 2013, for a review of how this image has been used pointing; see Adamson, 1996). Although developmental scien-
extensively in the life sciences). The image depicts the complex tists recognize that development is a process rather than a
interaction between the genetic possibilities that guides devel- set of distinct steps (Adolph, Karasik, & Tamis-LeMonda, 2010),
opment and the environmental events (the “epi-”in epigenetic) lists of milestones often provide helpful guides to the progres-
that influence the selection between possibilities. Waddington’s sion towards language (e.g., web sites such as http://www.asha.
image represents a topographical map of possible paths in develop- org/public/speech/development/chart/ and http://www.cdc.gov/
ment (or, in his words, chreodes) arranged relative to one another. ncbddd/actearly/milestones/index.html). The first three premises
The paths vary in terms of their demography (which signifies the provide a developmental perspective on this progression in a way
strength of the genetic influence) and their ultimate destination that intensifies the case for early parent-focused intervention when
or outcome. The rolling ball is perched at the top of the image, language acquisition appears delayed or there is a high risk for delay
poised to travel along a developmental path through the land- due to environmental or genetic conditions.
scape. The rolling ball’s actual course depends on the possible paths
that are available in the landscape and the impact of environmen- 1.1. The pathway to language begins well before the first word
tal events the ball encounters along its way. Thus, where the ball
ends up depends on a complex interaction between the genetically- Building on the seminal work of Bates (1979), Bruner (1983)
informed potential paths and environmental influences. and others, contemporary theorists of language development (e.g.,
 L.B. Adamson et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 50 (2020) 59–67 61

Tomasello, 2005) persuasively argue that preverbal steps along The premise that the path towards language is potentially
the path toward language prepare an infant for the leap into lan- fraught with challenges reminds us of the many ways development
guage. Some of these “baby” steps, like canonical babbling (Oller, may be hindered. But, thinking about these challenges to language
1980), sound remarkably language-like. Other steps are not as acquisition within a developmental landscape also reminds us of
observable as an infant’s vocalizations but are nevertheless cru- the potential power of a well-timed intervention. The efficacy of
cially important aspects of the learning process. These steps include such intervention can be most clearly illustrated when children
abstracting prosodic and phonetic information from a stream of present with early indicators of developmental delays or disabil-
speech (Gervain & Werker, 2013; Saffran, Aslin, & Newport, 1996); ities that indicate that they might encounter specific challenges
developing joint attention skills (Mundy et al., 2007, Rollins & at various points along the path of language development that
Snow, 1998) and sustaining joint engagement to objects, events might be overcome when parents provide specific support. For
(Bakeman & Adamson, 1984), and symbols (Adamson, Bakeman, example, a child with typical cognition and mild hearing loss may
& Deckner, 2004); detecting environmental contingencies (Tamis- have little difficulty learning vocabulary in parent–child interac-
LeMonda, Kuchirko, & Song, 2014); understanding of intentionality tions when her hearing loss is identified early and parents adapt
(Tomasello, 2005); and using gestures, body movements, facial to her specific needs for amplification and contingent language
expressions, and other behaviors to communicate (Özçaliskan & modeling. However, the same child may later have difficulty devel-
Goldin-Meadow, 2005; Stern, 1977). These early skills provide an oping adequate syntax for expressing complex ideas because she
essential foundation for the child’s movement toward language. cannot hear phonemes that mark important morphosyntactic rela-
The developmental premise that language has deep roots in pre- tionships. Interventions that help parents become aware of this
verbal communication reinforces the call for parent-implemented need to support this subtler aspect of linguistic development may
language interventions that begin well before the child speaks. help her language development continue to move forward (Brown
Helping parents and children build a strong communication foun- & Watson, 2017).
dation before children’s first words and while language is being Tailoring interventions to address a child’s specific challenges
acquired strengthens not only linguistic development but also cog- may include both teaching a specific communication skill and
nitive and social processes that are central to language learning and teaching caregivers to create new communication opportunities
use (Fey, Warren, Fairchild, Sokol, & Yoder, 2006; Landa, Holman, and respond to the child’s use of that skill. Once again, this premise
O’Neill, & Stuart, 2011). is most readily illustrated when a child has a specific developmen-
The premise that language development begins in early inter- tal disorder that interferes with language acquisition. For example,
actions is embodied in a number of universal or community level an augmentative and alternative means of communication (AAC)
interventions that teach parents strategies for interacting with their such as a speech generating device (Romski et al., 2010) or manual
very young children (http://toosmall.org/; http://talkingisteaching. signing (Dunst, Meter, & Hamby, 2011) might serve as a bridge to
org/) and in interventions that target infants at risk due to prema- spoken language for a child whose speech is markedly delayed. Par-
turity or health concerns (http://www.talkwithmebaby.org/). By ent modeling new communication using the AAC and responding
teaching parents the importance of social, affective and linguis- to the child’s use of the system with linguistic input is essen-
tic interactions with their children, these programs are designed tial in supporting further language development. Use of an AAC
to help parents provide a foundation on which specific language provides a mode of communication for the child, and may also
skills can be built. Such early across-the-board systematic preven- provide a pathway for modeling language input and accessing natu-
tion seeks to decrease environmental obstacles to early language rally occurring learning opportunities such as caregiver-contingent
learning and to increase the probability of language success for all expansions of child communication attempts. Similarly, an inter-
children, thus decreasing the need for later interventions that focus vention that includes teaching joint attention behaviors might help
on specific problems. minimally verbal children diagnosed with autism spectrum dis-
order (ASD) develop joint engagement to strengthen the social
foundation for the use of words (Kasari, Freeman, & Paparella, 2006;
1.2. Pathways contain a variety of challenges to language Kasari et al., 2014; Trautman & Rollins, 2006) that in turn may
learning promote changes in communication, including parent’s scaffold-
ing of the child’s activities and the fluency and connectedness of
Learning language, even under the best of circumstances, is nei- the parent child interactions (Adamson, Bakeman, Suma, & Robins,
ther easy nor quick. Over the course of several years, children must 2017).
master the sounds (phonology), words (semantics), grammar (mor- Being aware of the many challenges to language learning is also
phology and syntax), and use (pragmatics) of their language(s). relevant to considerations of how best to help children with typical
When a child achieves specific milestones and how he or she pro- cognitive, linguistic and motor abilities who are well positioned at
gresses in each of these aspects of language is affected by the range the beginning of the developmental course towards language. This
of cognitive and linguistic abilities the child brings to the task of lan- premise reminds us that their language development is vulnerable
guage acquisition, but also by particular challenges to each aspect to acute environmental stressors (trauma, exposure to toxins, lim-
of language learning the child encounters. Moreover, the timing ited nutrition) and to serious childhood illnesses (cancer, chronic
and duration of disruptions in developmental support, as well as heart disease, asthma) and accidents. Moreover, as the current dis-
the accumulative impact of multiple challenges encountered at cussions related to the word gap emphasize, it can help us identify
critical stages of language acquisition, may alter children’s devel- chronic stresses as when children’s movement towards language
opmental pathways. For example, children with specific language may be hampered if their access to responsive caregivers who pro-
impairments (SLI) may progress through the early stages of vocabu- vide rich language input is limited.
lary learning without an indicated need for individualized supports.
However, as these children begin to combine words and their chal- 1.3. Different routes to language lead to important differences in
lenges in mastering early syntax become apparent, parent input outcome
becomes critical. Interventions that teach parents to tailor their
input to model simple direct sentences and to provide more exam- As suggested by our image (Fig. 1), there is considerable vari-
ples of subject diversity may be needed to support grammatical ability in how children move along the path towards language,
development (Hadley, Rispoli, Holt, Papastratakos et al., 2017). even when children are typically developing. For example, Nelson
62 L.B. Adamson et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 50 (2020) 59–67

(1981) noted that some “referential” toddlers rapidly accumu- linguistic skill. Changes in parent input as a result of the early
late a substantial vocabulary while “expressive” toddlers focus on intervention may not have been sufficient to support children’s
the prosody of speech and its social use rather than on specific later syntactic development. These findings are consistent with
words. Given how multi-faceted language development is, it is Fisher’s (2017) meta-analysis indicating persistence in language
not surprising that no simple categorical scheme has been able delays when children are delayed in both receptive and expressive
to capture the range of routes towards language (Bates, Dale, & language and with Hadley et al.s’ conceptualization of the progres-
Thal, 1995). There is growing consensus that early differences in sive sequence of input needed to support vocabulary and syntax
children’s approach to language acquisition – including how they development in children at-risk for developmental language disor-
develop language-relevant skills before they utter a word – influ- ders (Hadley, Rispoli, & Holt, 2017). In light of these findings related
ence later steps towards the mastery of language. For example, to long-term outcomes, it is now important to revisit the initial
several studies demonstrate that early variations in speech percep- intervention and to design interventions at additional points along
tion (Tsao, Liu, & Kuhl, 2004), in lexical processing speed (Fernald the developmental path.
& Marchman, 2012), and in symbol-infused joint engagement
(Adamson, Bakeman, Deckner, & Nelson, 2004) predict variations
later in language acquisition. 2. Section II. The environment for language learning
Early differences in and risks to development may set off a
mounting cascade of challenges. For example, toddlers with rela- The environment, both its general condition and specific
tively small vocabularies, particularly those with smaller receptive events, influences a child’s rate of movement and route taken
language vocabularies (Roberts & Kaiser, 2015) or young chil- during the extended period of language development. Our
dren who experience low levels of child-directed speech and heuristic image of the developmental landscape (Fig. 1) helps us
few responsive interactions often remain well behind in language conceptualize the breadth of the environment for language learning
development (Hart & Risley, 2006; Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2015; Hoff, as well as the distinctive role of parents in establishing multi-
2003, 2006; Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2014). Their slower growth in faceted contexts for their children’s language acquisition.
vocabulary affects a broad array of subsequent processes including
literacy and, more generally, school success (Pace, Alper, Burchinal,
Golinkoff, & Hirsh-Pasek, 2018; Walker et al., 1994). Moreover, spe- 2.1. The environment is a multi-layered system that influences a
cific early challenges may lead to specific subsequent challenges in child’s language development
developing language. For example, toddlers with repaired cleft lip
and/or palate may develop compensatory strategies for generating Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory, and its map
speech sounds early on and then have difficulty moving beyond of the space surrounding a child with its different levels and inter-
these early patterns to fluent intelligible speech (Scherer & Louw, connected sources of influence, provides a powerful reminder of
2011). These early speech difficulties, in turn, may be reflected the expanse and dynamics of environmental influences on early
in smaller spoken vocabularies and may disrupt parent-children language development. Children and parents are clearly influenced
interactions, further impeding language development (Scherer & by aspects of the environment that are proximal, most notably
Kaiser, 2010). parent–child interactions. In addition, language development is
This developmental premise indicates that interventions should influenced by distal aspects of the environment, which include
be designed not only in reference to the immediate effects of an influences on a family such as family stressors and sources of sup-
intervention but also – and perhaps most critically – the con- port, their neighborhood, their culture, and access to resources that
sequences the intervention may have for the child’s next steps indirectly affect a parent’s interaction with a child.
towards language and for later development. Effective intervention For example, the proximal forms and functions of parent–child
should be informed by measures that assess the multiple pro- communications are products of cultural views and practices
cesses that might be affected by the intervention and by a fuller around parenting. During everyday interactions, children learn cul-
consideration of how the intervention will support subsequent tural norms and expectations about when to communicate, how
development. Ultimately, interventions should be adaptive so that to communicate, with whom to communicate, and the topics that
they are tailored to the child’s characteristics and immediate treat- should be shared with others (Tamis-LeMonda & Song, 2012).
ment responses to insure optimal outcomes (Collins, Nahum-Shani, Parents from different cultural communities vary in their use of
& Almirall, 2014). However, it is also important to assess whether language, gaze, touch and gesture during communications with
an early intervention is sufficient to trigger the cascade of new skills children; the extent to which they modify the content of their lan-
needed for comprehensive language development. guage and behaviors to meet the needs of children; how and how
A recent series of papers by Kaiser et al. reporting outcomes of often they respond to specific behaviors in their children, and the
an early intervention for toddlers with receptive and expressive extent to which they use language to impart knowledge to children
language delays illustrates how important it is to consider how versus to regulate children’s behaviors (Tamis-LeMonda & Song,
different routes can lead to influence short and long outcomes of 2012).
intervention. Initially a parent-implemented intervention that led It is especially important to attend to the challenges faced by
to changes in parents’ use of language-support strategies resulted typically developing children who are dual language learners (DLLs)
in significant changes in children’s early vocabulary and global lan- as they navigate two language systems that differ in their phonol-
guage scores (Roberts & Kaiser, 2016). However, the magnitude of ogy, semantics, syntax and pragmatics, and as they learn how to
child changes decreased over the 12-month follow-up (Hampton effectively transition between the two or more languages in dif-
et al., 2017) as differences in responding between parents in the ferent social contexts. How well they meet these challenges will
treatment and control group diminished. Moreover, importantly, depend on their opportunities to interact with proficient speak-
while children in the intervention group showed better syntax at ers of each language (Grüter & Paradis, 2014; McCabe et al., 2013).
48 months than children in the control group, both groups’ syntax Differences in parental language input patterns used at home cor-
scores were more than 3 SD below typically developing children related with differences in child minority language use. Home input
(Hadley, Kaiser, & Roberts, 2018). Thus, while early intervention patterns where both parents used the minority language and where
was effective in improving vocabulary skill, it was not sufficient at most one parent spoke the majority language had a high chance
to result in improvements in a later developing, more complex of success (De Houwer, 2007).
 L.B. Adamson et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 50 (2020) 59–67 63

Considering the environment as a multi-layered system draws the language or languages to which the child is exposed and the
attention to relatively less-explored aspects of the distal environ- availability of learning materials such as toys, books, and music.
ment, including the demands of parents’ employment on proximal Especially during the early period of language acquisition, par-
experiences that affect language acquisition (Odom, Vernon- ents and other caregivers structure a child’s experiences within the
Feagans, & Crouter, 2013). It also helps highlight the relations environment, and the quantity and quality of their child-directed
among the child’s different relationships, including how parent- speech are primary influences on language outcomes (Hoff, 2006;
ing is affected by a child’s childcare experiences (NICHD Early Rowe, 2012). It is also important to recognize the indirect contri-
Child Care Research Network, 1999) and how the child’s interac- butions parents make as they establish the contexts of language
tions with both the parent and the child’s childcare provider are learning. These contributions are often deeply mediated by culture
enhanced when the parent and care provider share information that informs the parents’ language practices, including whether
about the child (Owen, Ware, & Barfoot, 2000). Moreover, when and how they talk to preverbal infants, their expectations of how
we expand the ecological system to include biological substratum children should converse with adults, and the value they place on
(Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006), we gain a fuller appreciation of language literacy and education (Rowe, 2008; Schieffelin & Ochs,
the interrelationships among layers of the environment, revealing 1996). Parents’ language practices reflect broader aspects of their
links between environmental and biological variables. Two exam- child rearing practices that influence where and how language
ples of this type of relations are the links between how often infants learning occurs, including the family’s daily routines, their con-
hear child-directed speech and how rapidly they process speech at fidence in parenting, the parents’ own language proficiency, and
24 months of age (Weisleder & Fernald, 2013) and between how their use and selection of childcare. For example, because qual-
often infants experience conversational turn taking and neural acti- ity of childcare influences language development (NICHD Early
vation in the Broca’s area when they listen to speech (Romeo et al., Child Care Research Network, 2000) and interactions with teachers
2018). and caregivers independently and in combination with interac-
In his deeply concerned reflections about social problems in tions with parents predict child language development (Weigel,
the 21st century, Bronfenbrenner (Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000) Lowman, & Martin, 2007), parent choice of childcare arrangements
added the concept of exposure (specified in terms of duration, fre- represents yet another major contribution to the child’s language
quency, interruption, timing, and intensity) to his rich conceptual experience (NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 1997).
model in order to call attention to the proximal processes that affect Parents’ indirect contributions to language learning can have
the developing child. Examples abound that illustrate the relevance important effects on intervention. Parents play an essential role in
of exposure to language acquisition. They include Hart and Risley’s determining whether and how interventions occur even when they
(1995) seminal work on the effects of poverty on parents’ language are not directly involved in specific intervention activities. Their
and engagement with their children as well as the burgeoning lit- participation in an intervention will be mediated through their
erature on how exposure to common environmental objects from understanding of language learning, their child rearing practices,
TVs (Linebarger, Moses, Garrity, & McMenamin, 2013), cell phones and their beliefs about their own roles in supporting their children’s
(Reed et al., 2015), social interactions via media (Roseberry, Hirsh- development (Woods & Brown, 2011). Indeed, helping parents
Pasek, & Golinkoff, 2014) as well as books in multiple languages establish the context for language learning is itself an impor-
(Miller et al., 2006) might influence language acquisition. tant focus for intervention (Tamis-LeMonda, Shannon, Cabrera, &
The premise that the environment is a multi-layered system Bradley, 2004). Parents are also the gatekeepers for children’s social
implies that interventions will likely be more effective when they interactions with many different people, including grandparents,
involve more than a single level of the child’s environment. For other kin, and friends; parents who recognize these interactions as
example, the success of a parent-implemented language interven- socialization and language learning opportunities may indirectly
tion may depend in part on helping a parent have the time and offer richer supports for the children’s language. Thus, an essential
perspective to do the intervention. Such help might include the pro- issue that interventions must address is how to engage parents as
vision of supports for one-on-one time (e.g., resources for the care partners in interventions, especially when parents are influenced
of siblings), assistance in identifying daily routines that the parent by the same environmental challenges that impact their children’s
and child have already established that might readily be altered development (Haine-Schlagel & Walsh, 2015; Rostad, Moreland,
to include joint engagement and contingent exchanges, concomi- Valle, & Chaffin, 2018)
tant interventions that reduce the parent’s stress or depression,
or assistance with meeting a parents’ needs for food, health care,
3. Section III. “The rolling ball”
and/or social support for their role as parents (Dunst, Trivette, &
Raab, 2013). The benefits of providing interventions at more than
Having considered both pathways and their environment, we
one level simultaneously is illustrated well by Weitlauf et al. (Weit-
now focus on the “rolling ball” in Fig. 1. In most considerations of
lauf, Warren, & Dykens, 2018; see also Coatsworth et al., 2015;
language acquisition the ball has been viewed as “the child.” But
Dumas, 2005) strategy of Mindfulness Behavior Stress Reduction
there is growing recognition that the solo child is not the devel-
(MBSR; Davidson & Kaszniak, 2015) for parents of young children
oping unit during early language development, and thus, not the
with ASD while families also participated in the Early Start Den-
unit that should be the exclusive focus of language interventions.
ver Model (ESDM; Rogers et al., 2012) intervention for children
Rather, to highlight how language emerges during shared activ-
with ASD that includes parent training (Weitlauf et al., 2018). Com-
ity, we suggest that the developmental unit best be drawn as the
pared parent outcomes with families randomly assigned to the
child in interaction with caregivers. We propose here three addi-
ESDM treatment only, families in the MBSR group reported less
tional developmental premises related to this interpersonal unit,
stress, anxiety and depression and used ESDM strategies with their
the child in interaction with caregivers.
children with higher fidelity at the end of the study.

2.2. Parents play a crucial role in establishing the contexts that 3.1. The developing child actively contributes to
introduce a child to language language-facilitating interactions

Variations in the language-learning environment stem from Children actively contribute to their own language develop-
multiple sources. These variations include but are not limited to ment. Theories of language acquisition, particularly those focused
64 L.B. Adamson et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 50 (2020) 59–67

on the development of syntax, have often emphasized the essen- make a difference. How rapidly language is acquired is strongly
tial neurological underpinnings of language (Giedd et al., 1999). influenced by variations in parents’ contributions, including the
Our guiding image (see Fig. 1) prompts us to consider as well quantity and quality of language a parent offers a child (Hoff,
the developing child’s essential contributions to language learning 2006; Rowe, 2012), general qualities such as parenting sensitivity
opportunities. Children shape their learning opportunities through (NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2006; Tamis-LeMonda
gaze, action, gesture, touch, emotional expression, play, and other et al., 2004) and, at a more micro-level, the contingent relation-
nonverbal and verbal behaviors that may elicit helpful feedback ship between parent speech and action and child communicative
from and engagement with social partners. These contributions and exploratory actions (Bornstein, Tamis-LeMonda, Hahn, &
vary over time. As new acts such as pointing to communicate, Haynes, 2008; McGillon et al., 2013; Tamis-LeMonda, Bornstein,
producing words, and forming sentences emerge, they have a & Baumwell, 2001; Tamis-LeMonda, Luo, & Song, 2014).
profound influence on the focus and form of interactions (e.g., Parents’ role in language acquisition is complex and changes
Goldin-Meadow et al., 2014). Moreover, these contributions vary over time, even when a child is typically developing. Thus, it is not
considerably among children who differ in their interest in peo- surprising that, although most parents want to guide their children,
ple and objects (Adamson, Deckner, & Bakeman, 2010), affective some do not have the skills needed to support their children’s lan-
volatility (Bloom & Tinker, 2001), sensory abilities (Perez-Pereira guage development. In particular, parents may not automatically
& Conti-Ramsden, 1999; Tomblin et al., 2015), and temperament fine tune their input and responses at the particular time when
(Conture, Kelley, & Walden, 2013). their children need focused or precise input for learning. Interven-
This premise emphasizes how profoundly the developing child tions may help parents enhance language-facilitating interactions,
contributes to an intervention’s process and outcomes. We can cap- teaching them specific ways to increase both the quantity and
ture some of this influence by considering child status variables the quality of their responsiveness to the child’s on-going actions
such as age, IQ, initial language level, and motor abilities. In addi- and developmental course. Parents may learn how to enhance
tion, we need to attend to behavioral variables – including interests, their child’s language development by providing language mod-
engagement, responsiveness, attention, initiation, imitation, clarity els closely related to the child’s focus of attention, by following the
of communication – that affect how the child functions as a com- child’s lead so that they talk about what interests the child and by
munication partner during an intervention. For example, a child’s responding to multi-modal cues in the child’s activity (Girolametto,
sustained engagement with objects may influence the effective- Verbey, & Tannock, 1994; Kaiser et al., 1996). Parents may also
ness of a naturalistic communication intervention that includes learn developmentally appropriate strategies that help increase the
modeling language about the child’s focus of interest (Warren, Fey, child’s engagement with language and their own ability to fine-tune
& Yoder, 2007). Other developmental and individual differences their verbal input in ways that scaffold their child’s language devel-
influence how often and how eagerly children communicate with opment (Girolametto, Weitzman, McCauley, & Fey, 2006; Kaiser
partners and how readily they benefit from parent input and sup- & Roberts, 2013). Teaching parents to finely tune their input and
port (Yoon, Kelso, Lock, & Lyons-Ruth, 2014). use of strategies in response to their children’s needs for support
may be essential when children do not provide the same frequency
3.1.1. A parent contributes to language-facilitating interactions or types of opportunities for parent input. For example, parents’
using finely tuned acts that are responsive to the child’s on-going verbal translations of the focus of a child’s pointing and showing
actions and developmental course gestures when the child does not yet produce the word for this
Parents not only establish the contexts for language devel- focus helps the child acquire these new words (Goldin-Meadow,
opment (Premise 5), they also fill them with content that is Goodrich, Sauer, & Iverson, 2007). The facilitative function of par-
essential for language learning. To do so, parents need to mod- ents’ translations of gestures on word learning occurs even for
ify their speech and other communicative actions so that they toddlers with ASD (Dimitrova, Özçalışkan, & Adamson, 2016). How-
attract and sustain the child’s attention (e.g., Snow, 1986). They ever, because toddlers with ASD rarely point, parents may have few
also help infants and young children realize the communicative opportunities to respond to the child’s interest with a word unless
power of their own actions by ascribing meaning and intentions to they interpret other actions such as gaze shifts to an object as an
them (e.g., Adamson, Bakeman, Smith, & Walters, 1987; Tomasello, opportunity for such translation.
2008). Given the breadth and variety of parents’ contributions, it
is helpful to locate them on our developmental landscape (Fig. 1) 3.2. Language-facilitating interactions are collaborative,
using Vygotsky’s (1978) powerful notion of a “zone of proximal transactional processes composed of more than just child and
development”—the region between what a child has already mas- parent actions
tered and what he or she can do in concert with a parent and other
more advanced partners. We can imagine this zone directly in front The transactional model of development (Sameroff, 2010;
of the “rolling ball.” As a skilled partner is moving with the child, he Sameroff & Chandler, 1975) helps draw together the active child,
or she is also stepping out in front of the child, anticipating the next the responsive parent, and the environment into a dynamic system
step in the developmental progression in ways that orients the child so we can appreciate their effects on each other and, ultimately,
towards new territory. In the process, the partner is guiding a child’s on the child’s development. Viewing interactions systemically
language learning – a process Vygotsky described well using the draws attention to the bidirectional influences and to interpersonal
metaphor of scaffolding; see also Bruner (1983), who argued that patterns of communication. When language development is pro-
we need to consider how biological processes – the child’s language gressing well, there are several indications that the partners are
acquisition device (aka LAD; Chomsky, 1967 – and social processes acting together in ways that both sustain the immediate interac-
or language acquisition support system (LASS) – intertwine during tion and foster the emergence of new modes of communication.
language development. These language-facilitating interactions are often characterized by
An expanding body of research highlights how parents can turn-taking and reciprocity (Hoff, 2006) and by a positive, playful
act in ways that expose children to language that is well suited tone (Hart & Risley, 1995). Moreover, observing language facili-
to their developing skills (Harris, Golinkoff, & Hirsh-Pasek, 2011) tating interactions often reveals a shared history as the partners
and how they can socialize children to use language in socially engage in shared formats and routines (Bruner, 1983) as the part-
appropriate ways (Tamis-LeMonda & Song, 2012). Moreover, ners sustain a connected and fluent dialogue (Adamson, Bakeman,
there is mounting evidence that variations in what parents do Deckner, & Nelson, 2012). These dyadic, developmentally dynamic
 L.B. Adamson et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 50 (2020) 59–67 65

Table 1
Developmental premises for early language acquisition.

1. The pathway to language begins well before the first word

2. Pathways contain a variety of challenges to language learning
3. Different pathways to language lead to important differences in outcome
4. The environment is a multi-layered system that influences the child’s language development
5. Parents play a crucial role in establishing the contexts that introduce a child to language
6. The developing child actively contributes to language-facilitating interactions
7. A parent contributes to language-facilitating interactions using finely tuned acts that are responsive to the child’s on-going actions and developmental course
8. Language-facilitating interactions are collaborative, transactional processes composed of more than just the child and parent actions

Table 2
Implications of developmental premises for parent-focused language intervention.

1. Intervention that support the emergence of language should begin well before a child speaks
2. Interventions should be tailored to the specific challenges learners face at different points along the pathway to language
3. Interventions should address the child’s current skills and offer support for subsequent development
4. Interventions will likely be most effective when they target more than one layer of the child’s environment
5. Parents make important indirect contributions to interventions when they make decide about when and what interventions their child should receive
6. The developing child actively contributes to interventions in ways that influence both the intervention process and its outcome
7. Intervention may help parents enhance their contributions to language-facilitating interactions, teaching them specific ways to be more responsive to the child’s
on-going actions and developmental course
8. Language-facilitating interventions are nested in the collaborative, transactional processes that extend beyond the individual child and parent

aspects of the “rolling ball,” the child interaction with the caregiver, parent-focused interventions has implications not only for the here
are aspects of interaction itself rather than solely within either and now but also for how the child may be able to take advantage of
partner’s actions. the next opportunity for learning. The effects of interventions may
This overarching premise about language learning extends to spread across the child’s learning spaces such that they facilitate
language interventions: Interventions also are collaborative, trans- learning in other contexts such as school or with peers. For exam-
actional processes that involve the child, parent and interventionist ple, interventions that begin with teaching words in interactions
(Woods & Brown, 2011). Language learning is the outcome of life but expand to include new words in shared book reading (Walker,
experiences that may include, but are never limited to, interven- Bigelow, & Harjusola-Webb, 2008) offer a continuum of language
tions. Interventions are nested in the child and parent’s overall supports that both promote vocabulary growth and lay a founda-
language-facilitating interactions. The unit of intervention is more tion for literacy and later school success. As helpful as a picture of
than the child and the outcomes of intervention are the result of a developmental landscape is for organizing a multi-faceted dis-
the participation of the child and parent, their standing patterns of cussion of early language intervention, it might be more accurately
interaction and their unique shared history, as well as their cur- imagined as being in motion, perhaps as a dynamic video image,
rent activities. It is important that intervention addresses not only as the “rolling ball” is both channeled by and shapes the path-
the child’s language skills but also the supports both parents and way it is navigating. This would serve as an important reminder
children need in order to sustain language-facilitating interactions that for some children, early parent-focused intervention may be
across contexts and over time. sufficient to facilitate long-lasting change in their developmental
trajectory, other children may need additional direct and indirect
supports as they approach later critical transition into complex syn-
4. A concluding caveat: developmental premises intertwine
tax, using language for academic learning, and reading (Roberts &
in space and time
Kaiser, 2015).
Because of the inherent complexity of language acquisition,
Now that we have presented eight developmental premises (see
it is crucial that we keep a dynamic developmental perspective
Table 1) and briefly noted how they can help inform how we think
in mind as we design, implement, and evaluate parent inter-
about parent-focused early language interventions (see Table 2),
ventions aimed at making a lasting positive effect on language
we present a concluding, complicating caveat: These developmen-
development. In this paper, we have presented general devel-
tal premises intertwine in space and time. As our guiding image
opmental premises that may apply to all children as they learn
of a developmental landscape (Fig. 1) aptly depicts, pathways,
language. We have emphasized the common underlying devel-
language-facilitating environments, and the child in interaction
opmental processes operating when language emerges, and we
with the parent are all inextricably interrelated. Thus, we need to
illustrate how intervention can function in concert with those
consider them as a set, considering their interconnections in addi-
developmental processes. While a specific child’s abilities and life
tion to their individual implications for intervention. For example,
contexts may require individualized interventions, small adjust-
when considering the child’s contributions (Premise 6), we need to
ments to support language learning, or no intervention at, all
view them expansively so that contextual variables such as cul-
children are developing as human communicators within the
ture are considered along with individual variables such as the
dynamic developmental landscape of interaction, context and cul-
child’s current interests and skills. And, when we consider the par-
ture. There is mounting evidence that parent-implemented early
ent’s finely-tuned actions (Premise 7), we need to be mindful of
interventions can make a major difference in children’s language
the child’s contributions, the immediate environment that encom-
development both for young children with specific developmental
passes the parent–child interaction, and the cultural context.
challenges and for typically-developing children whose language-
Our guiding image is both spatial and temporal, such that we
facilitating contexts are less than optimal (Roberts & Kaiser, 2011).
need not only to consider the current arrangement (depicted by
A developmental perspective can help us decide how best to time,
concepts such as the zone of proximal development) but also cumu-
target, and tailor interventions in alignment with developmen-
lative effects (captured by time-sensitive metaphors such as the
tal processes to have an optimal impact on children’s language
snowball effect – an initial difference builds over time – and the
outcomes.
Matthew effect – the rich get richer). Thus, what occurs during
66 L.B. Adamson et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 50 (2020) 59–67

References Fernald, A., & Weisleder, A. (2015). Twenty years after “meaningful differences,”:
It’s time to reframe the “deficit” debate about the importance of children’s
Adamson, L. B., Bakeman, R., Smith, C. B., & Walters, A. S. (1987). Adults’ early language experience. Human Development, 58, 1–4.
interpretation of infants’ acts. Developmental Psychology, 23, 383–387. Fey, M. E., Warren, S. F., Fairchild, M., Sokol, S., & Yoder, P. J. (2006). Early effects of
Adamson, L. B., Bakeman, R., & Deckner, D. F. (2004). The development of responsivity education/prelinguistic milieu teaching for children with
symbol-infused joint engagement. Child Development, 75, 1171–1187. http:// developmental delays and their parents. Journal of Speech, Language, and
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00732.x Hearing Research, 49(3), 526–547.
Adamson, L. B., Deckner, D. F., & Bakeman, R. (2010). Early interests and joint Fisher, E. L. (2017). A systematic review and meta-analysis of predictors of
engagement in typical development, Autism, and Down syndrome. Journal of expressive-language outcomes among late talkers. Journal of Speech, Language
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40(6), 665–676. and Hearing Research, 60(10), 2935–2948.
Adamson, L. B., Bakeman, R., Deckner, D. F., & Nelson, P. B. (2012). Rating Gervain, J., & Werker, J. (2013). Prosody cues word order in 7-month old bilingual
parent–child interactions: Joint engagement, communication dynamics, and infants. Nature Communications, 4, 1490.
shared topics in autism, Down syndrome, and typical development. Journal of Giedd, J. N., Blumenthal, J., Jeffries, N. O., Castellanos, F. X., Liu, H., Zijdenbos, A., . . .
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42(12), 2622–2635. & Rapoport, J. L. (1999). Brain development during childhood and adolescence:
Adamson, L. B., Bakeman, R., Suma, K., & Robins, D. L. (2017). An expanded view of A longitudinal MRI study. Nature Neuroscience, 2(10), 861–863.
joint attention: skill, engagement, and language in typical development and Ginsborg, J. (2006). The effects of socio-economic status on children’s language
autism. Child Development, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12973 acquisition and use. In J. Clegg, & J. Ginsborg (Eds.), Language and social
Adamson, L. B. (1996). Communication development during infancy. Boulder, CO: disadvantage (pp. 9–27). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Westview. Girolametto, L., Verbey, M., & Tannock, R. (1994). Improving joint engagement in
Adolph, K. E., Karasik, L. B., & Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. (2010). Motor skill. In M. H. parent–child interaction: An intervention study. Journal of Early Intervention,
Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of cultural developmental science (pp. 61–88). New 18(2), 155–167.
York, NY: Psychology Press. Girolametto, L., Weitzman, E., McCauley, R., & Fey, M. (2006). It takes two to
Baedke, J. (2013). The epigenetic landscape in the course of time: Conrad Hall talk—The Hanen program for parents: Early language intervention through
Waddington’s methodological impact on the life sciences. Studies in History caregiver training. In R. McCauley, & M. Fey (Eds.), Treatment of language
and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 44, 756–773. disorders in children (pp. 77–103). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Bakeman, R., & Adamson, L. B. (1984). Coordinating attention to people and objects Goldin-Meadow, S., Goodrich, W., Sauer, E., & Iverson, J. (2007). Young children use
in mother–infant and peer–infant interaction. Child Development, 55(4), their hands to tell their mothers what to say. Developmental Science, 10(6),
1278–1289. 778–785.
Bates, E., Dale, P., & Thal, D. (1995). Individual differences and their implications for Goldin-Meadow, S., Levine, S. C., Hedges, L. V., Huttenlocher, J., Raudenbush, S. W.,
theories of language development. In P. Fletcher, & B. MacWhinney (Eds.), & Small, S. L. (2014). New evidence about language and cognitive development
Handbook of child language (pp. 96–151). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. based on a longitudinal study: Hypotheses for intervention. American
Bates, E. (1979). The emergence of symbols: Cognition and communication in infancy. Psychologist, 69(6), 588–599.
New York, NY: Academic Press. Grüter, T., & Paradis, J. (Eds.), (2014). Trends in language acquisition research (13).
Bloom, L., & Lahey, M. (1978). Language development and language disorders. New Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
York: John Wiley. Hadley, P., Rispoli, M., & Holt, J. (2017). Input subject diversity accelerates the
Bloom, L., & Tinker, E. (2001). The intentionality model and language acquisition: growth of tense and agreement: Indirect benefits of a parent-implemented
Engagement, effort, and the essential tension. Monographs of the Society for intervention. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 60,
Research in Child Development, 66. Serial no. 267. 2619–2635.
Bornstein, M. H., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Hahn, C., & Haynes, O. M. (2008). Maternal Hadley, P., Rispoli, M., Holt, J., Papastratakos, T., Hsu, N., Kubalanza, M., & McKenna,
responsiveness to young children at three ages: Longitudinal analysis of a M. (2017). Input subject diversity enhances early grammatical growth:
multidimensional, modular, and specific parenting construct. Developmental Evidence from a parent-implemented intervention. Language Learning and
Psychology, 44, 867–874. Development, 13, 54–79.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Evans, G. W. (2000). Developmental science in the 21st Haine-Schlagel, R., & Walsh, N. E. (2015). A review of parent participation
century: Emerging questions, theoretical models, research designs and engagement in child and family mental health treatment. Clinical Child and
empirical findings. Social Development, 9(1), 115–125. Family Psychology Review, 18(2), 133–150.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human Harris, J., Golinkoff, R. M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2011). Lessons from the crib for the
development. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (1) (pp. classroom: How children really learn vocabulary. In S. B. Neuman, & D. K.
793–828). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 3) (pp. 49–66). New
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: York: Guilford Press.
Harvard University Press. Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experiences of
Brown, P. M., & Watson, L. M. (2017). Language, play and early literacy for deaf young American children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
children: The role of parent input. Deafness & Education International, 19, 3–4. Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (2006). Promoting early language development. In N. F.
Bruner, J. (1983). Child’s talk: Learning to use language. New York, NY: W. W. Norton. Watt, C. Ayoub, R. H. Bradley, J. E. Puma, & W. A. LeBoeuf (Eds.), The crisis in
Chomsky, N. (1967). Recent contributions to the theory of innate ideas. In a portrait of youth mental health: Critical issues and effective programs (Vol. 4) (pp. 83–88).
twenty-five years. pp. 31–40. Springer: Netherlands. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Coatsworth, J. D., Duncan, L. G., Nix, R. L., Greenberg, M. T., Gayles, J. G., Banberger, Hirsh-Pasek, K., Adamson, L. B., Bakeman, R., Owen, M. T., Golinkoff, R. M., Pace, A.,
K. T., & Demi, M. A. (2015). Integrating mindfulness with parent training: . . . & Suma, K. (2015). The contribution of early communication quality to
Effects of the mindfulness-enhanced strengthening families program. low-income children’s language success. Psychological Science, 26(7),
Developmental Psychology, 51(1), 26–35. 1071–1083.
Collins, L. M., Nahum-Shani, I., & Almirall, D. (2014). Optimization of behavioral Hoff, E. (2003). The specificity of environmental influence: Socioeconomic status
dynamic treatment regimens based on the sequential, multiple assignment, affects early vocabulary development via maternal speech. Child Development,
randomized trial (SMART). Clinical Trials, 1740774514536795. 74(5), 1368–1378.
Conture, E. G., Kelley, E. M., & Walden, T. A. (2013). Temperament, speech and Hoff, E. (2006). How social contexts support and shape language development.
language: An overview. Journal of Communication Disorders, 46(2), 125–142. Developmental Review, 26(1), 55–88.
Davidson, R. J., & Kaszniak, A. W. (2015). Conceptual and methodological issues in Kaiser, A. P., & Roberts, M. Y. (2013). Parents as communication partners: An
research on mindfulness and meditation. The American Psychologist, 70(7), evidence based strategy for improving parent support for language and
581–592. communication in everyday settings. Perspectives on Language Learning and
De Houwer, A. (2007). Parental language input patterns and children’s bilingual Education, 20(3), 97–114.
use. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28(3), 411–424. Kaiser, A. P., Hemmeter, M. L., Ostrosky, M. M., Fischer, R., Yoder, P., & Keefer, M.
Dimitrova, N., Özçalışkan, S., & Adamson, L. B. (2016). Parents’ translations of child (1996). The effects of teaching parents to use responsive interaction strategies.
gesture facilitate word learning in children with autism, Down syndrome and Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 16(3), 375–406.
typical development. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46(1), Kasari, C., Freeman, S., & Paparella, T. (2006). Joint attention and symbolic play in
221–231. young children with autism: A randomized controlled intervention study.
Dumas, J. E. (2005). Mindfulness-based parent training: Strategies to lessen the Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 47(6), 611–620.
grip of automaticity in families with disruptive children. Journal of Clinical Kasari, C., Kaiser, A., Goods, K., Nietfeld, J., Mathy, P., Landa, R., & Almirall, D.
Child & Adolescent Psychology, 34(4), 779–791. (2014). Communication interventions for minimally verbal children with
Dunst, C. J., Meter, D., & Hamby, D. (2011). Influences of sign and oral language autism: A sequential multiple assignment randomized trial. Journal of the
interventions on the speech and oral language production of young children American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 53(6), 635–646.
with disabilities. CELL Reviews, 4(4), 1–20. Landa, R. J., Holman, K. C., O’Neill, A. H., & Stuart, E. A. (2011). Intervention
Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., & Raab, M. (2013). An implementation science targeting development of socially synchronous engagement in toddlers with
framework for conceptualizing and operationalizing fidelity in early childhood autism spectrum disorder: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Child
intervention studies. Journal of Early Intervention, 35, 1–13. Psychology and Psychiatry, 52(1), 13–21.
Fernald, A., & Marchman, V. A. (2012). Individual differences in lexical processing Linebarger, D. L., Moses, A., Garrity, K. L., & McMenamin, K. (2013). Learning
at 18 months predict vocabulary growth in typically-developing and vocabulary from television: Does onscreen print have a role? Journal of
late-talking toddlers. Child Development, 83, 203–222. Educational Psychology, 105(3), 609–621.
 L.B. Adamson et al. / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 50 (2020) 59–67 67

McCabe, A., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Bornstein, M. H., Cates, C. B., Golinkoff, R., Saffran, J., Aslin, R., & Newport, E. L. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month-old
Guerra, A. W., . . . & Song, L. (2013). Multilingual children: Beyond myths and infants. Science, 274(5294), 1926–1928.
toward best practices. Social Policy Report, 27(4). Sameroff, A. J., & Chandler, M. J. (1975). Reproductive risk and the continuum of
McGillon, M. L., Herbert, J. S., Pine, J. M., Keren-Portnoy, T., Vihman, M. M., & caretaking casualty. In F. D. Horowitz, M. Hetherington, S. Scarr-Salapatek, & G.
Matthews, D. E. (2013). Supporting early vocabulary development: What sort Siegel (Eds.), Review of child development research (Vol. 4) (pp. 187–244).
of responsiveness matters? IEEE Transactions on Autonomous Mental Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Development, 5(3), 240–248. Sameroff, A. (2010). A unified theory of development: A dialectic integration of
Miller, J. F., Heilmann, J., Nockerts, A., Iglesias, A., Fabiano, L., & Francis, D. J. (2006). nature and nurture. Child Development, 81(1), 6–22.
Oral language and reading in bilingual children. Learning Disabilities Research & Scherer, N., & Kaiser, A. P. (2010). Enhanced milieu teaching with phonological
Practice, 21(1), 30–43. emphasis: Application for children with CLP in treatment of sound disorders in
Mundy, P., Block, J., Delgado, C., Pomares, Y., Van Hecke, A. V., & Parlade, M. V. children. In L. Williams, S. McLeod, & R. McCauley (Eds.), Interventions for
(2007). Individual differences and the development of joint attention in speech sound disorders in children (pp. 427–452). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
infancy. Child Development, 78, 938–954. Scherer, N. J., & Louw, B. (2011). Early communication: Assessment and
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (1997). Familial factors associated with intervention cleft palate speech. In S. Howard, & A. Lohmander (Eds.), Cleft
characteristics of nonmaternal care for infants. Journal of Marriage and the palate speech: Assessment and intervention (pp. 259–274). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley &
Family, 59, 389–408. Sons.
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (1999). Child care and mother-child Schiefelbusch, R. L., & Lloyd, L. L. (1974). Language perspectives: Acquisition,
interaction in the first three years of life. Developmental Psychology, 35, retardation, and intervention. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
1399–1413. Schieffelin, B., & Ochs, E. (1996). The microgenesis of competence: Methodology in
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2000). The relation of child care to language socialization. In D. Slobin, J. Gerhardt, A. Kyratzis, & G. Jiansheng
cognitive and language development. Child Development, 71, 958–978. (Eds.), Social interaction, social context and language: Essays in honor of Susan
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2006). Child-care effect sizes for the Ervin-Tripp (pp. 251–264). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development. American Snow, C. (1986). Conversations with children. In P. Fletcher, & P. Garman (Eds.),
Psychologist, 61, 99–116. Language acquisition: Studies in first language development (pp. 363–375).
Nelson, K. (1981). Individual differences in language development: Implications Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
for development and language. Developmental Psychology, 17, 170–187. Stern, D. N. (1977). The first relationship: Mother and infant. Cambridge, MA:
Odom, E. C., Vernon-Feagans, L., & Crouter, A. C. (2013). Nonstandard maternal Harvard University Press.
work schedules: Implications for African American children’s early language Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., & Song, L. (2012). Parent–infant communicative interactions
outcomes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28(2), 379–387. in cultural context. In R. M. Lerner, E. Easterbrooks, & J. Mistry (Eds.), Handbook
Oller, D. K. (1980). The emergence of the sounds of speech in infancy. In G. of psychology: Developmental psychology (Vol. 6) (2nd ed., Vol. 6, pp. 143–170).
Yeni-Komshian, J. Kavanagh, & V. Ferguson (Eds.), Child phonology (Vol. 1) (pp. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
93–112). New York: Academic Press. Production. Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Bornstein, M. H., & Baumwell, L. (2001). Maternal
Owen, M. T., Ware, A. M., & Barfoot, B. (2000). Caregiver–mother partnership responsiveness and children’s achievement of language milestones. Child
behavior and the quality of caregiver–child and mother–child interactions. Development, 72, 748–767.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, 413–428. Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Shannon, J. D., Cabrera, N., & Bradley, B. (2004). Mothers and
Özçaliskan, S., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2005). Gesture is at the cutting edge of early fathers at play with their 2- and 3-year olds. Child Development, 75(6),
language development. Cognition, 96, B101–B113. 1806–1820.
Pace, A., Alper, R., Burchinal, M. R., Golinkoff, R. M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2018). Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Kuchirko, Y., & Song, L. (2014). Why is infant language
Measuring success: Within and cross-domain predictors of academic and learning facilitated by parental responsiveness? Current Directions in
social trajectories in elementary school. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Psychological Science, 23(2), 121–126.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.04.001 Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Luo, R., & Song, L. (2014). Parents’ role in infants’ language
Perez-Pereira, M., & Conti-Ramsden, G. (1999). Language development and social development and emergent literacy. In S. H. Landry, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.),
interaction in blind children. London: Psychology Press. Wellbeing in children and families (Vol. I). Wellbeing: A complete reference guide
Reed, J., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Adamson, L. B., Golinkoff, R. M., Bakeman, R., & Owen, M. T. (pp. 91–110). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
(2015, March). Keeping the conversation going: The importance of fluency and Tomasello, M. (2005). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language
connectedness for language learning C. Yu (Chair of symposium) Rethinking the acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
recipe for language growth: Where quantity meets quality of input. Meeting of the Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Society for Research in Child Development. Philadelphia, PA. Tomblin, J. B., Harrison, M., Ambrose, S. E., Walker, E. A., Oleson, J. J., & Moeller, M.
Roberts, M. Y., & Kaiser, A. P. (2011). The effectiveness of parent-implemented P. (2015). Language outcomes in young children with mild to severe hearing
language interventions: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Speech-Language loss. Ear and Hearing, 36(Suppl. 1), 76–91.
Pathology, 20(3), 180–199. Trautman, C. H., & Rollins, P. R. (2006). Child-centered behaviors of caregivers with
Roberts, M. Y., & Kaiser, A. P. (2015). Early intervention for toddlers with language 12-month-old infants: Associations with passive joint engagement and later
delays: A randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics, 135(4), 686–693. language. Journal of Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 447–463.
Rogers, S., Estes, A., Lord, C., Vismara, L., Winter, J., Fitzpatrick, A., . . . & Dawson, G. Tsao, F. M., Liu, H. M., & Kuhl, P. K. (2004). Speech perception in infancy predicts
(2012). Effects of a brief Early Start Denver model (ESDM)-based parent language development in the second year of life: a longitudinal study. Child
intervention on toddlers at risk for autism spectrum disorders: a randomized Development, 75, 1067–1084.
controlled trial. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
Psychiatry, 51, 1052–1065. processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rogers, C. R., Nulty, K. L., Betancourt, M. A., & DeThorne, L. S. (2015). Causal effects Waddington, C. H. (1957). The strategy of the genes. London: Allen & Unwin.
on child language development: A review of studies in communication Walker, D., Greenwood, C., Hart, B., & Carta, J. (1994). Prediction of school
sciences and disorders. Journal of Communication Disorders, 57, 3–15. outcomes based on early language production and socioeconomic factors. Child
Rollins, P. R., & Snow, C. E. (1998). Shared attention and grammatical development Development, 65, 606–621.
in typical children and children with autism. Journal of Child Language, 25, Walker, D., Bigelow, K., & Harjusola-Webb, S. (2008). Increasing communication
653–674. and language-learning opportunities for infants and toddlers. Young
Romeo, R. R., Leonard, J. A., Robinson, S. T., West, M. R., Mackey, A. P., Rowe, M. L., & Exceptional Children Monograph Series #10, 105–121.
Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2018). Beyond the 30-million-word gap: Children’s Warren, S. F., Fey, M. E., & Yoder, P. J. (2007). Differential treatment intensity
conversational exposure is associated with language-related brain function. research: A missing link to creating optimally effective communication
Psychological Science, 29, 700–710. interventions. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research
Romski, M. A., Sevcik, R. A., Adamson, L. B., Cheslock, M., Smith, A., Barker, R. M., & Reviews, 13(1), 70–77.
Bakeman, R. (2010). Randomized comparison of augmented and Weigel, D. J., Lowman, J. L., & Martin, S. S. (2007). Language development in the
non-augmented language interventions for toddlers with developmental years before school: A comparison of developmental assets in home and child
delays and their parents. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, care settings. Early Child Development and Care, 177(6–7), 719–734.
53(2), 350–364. Weisleder, A., & Fernald, A. (2013). Talking to children matters: Early language
Roseberry, S., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2014). Skype Me! Socially experience strengthens processing and builds vocabulary. Psychological
contingent interactions help toddlers learn language. Child Development, 85, Science, 24, 2143–2152.
956–970. Werner, H., & Kaplan, B. (1963). Symbol formation: An organismic developmental
Rostad, W. L., Moreland, A. D., Valle, L. A., & Chaffin, M. (2018). Barriers to approach to language and the expression of thought. NY: John Wiley.
participation in parenting programs: The relationship between parenting Werner, H. (1957). The concept of development from a comparative and
stress, perceived barriers, and program completion. Journal of Child and Family organismic point of view. In D. Harris (Ed.), The concept of development (pp.
Studies, 27(4), 1264–1274. 125–148). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Rowe, M. L. (2008). Child-directed speech: Relation to socioeconomic status, Woods, J. J., & Brown, J. A. (2011). Integrating family capacity-building and child
knowledge of child development and child vocabulary skill. Journal of Child outcomes to support social communication development in young children
Language, 35(1), 185–205. with autism spectrum disorder. Topics in Language Disorders, 31, 235–246.
Rowe, M. L. (2012). A longitudinal investigation of the role of quantity and quality Yoon, S., Kelso, G., Lock, A., & Lyons-Ruth, K. (2014). Mother–infant joint attention
of child-directed speech in vocabulary development. Child Development, 83(5), and sharing: Relations to disorganized attachment and maternal disrupted
1762–1774. communication. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 175(5–6), 494–510.