Abstract
In this study, we test the hypothesis that symbolic play represents a fertile context for language acquisition because its inherent ambiguity elicits communicative behaviors that positively influence development. Infant-caregiver dyads (N=54) participated in two 20-minute play sessions six months apart (Time 1 = 18months, Time 2 = 24months). During each session, the dyads played with two sets of toys that elicited either symbolic or functional play. The sessions were transcribed and coded for several features of dyadic interaction and language; infants' linguistic proficiency was measured via parental report. The two contexts elicited different communicative and linguistic behaviors. Notably, the symbolic play condition resulted in significantly greater conversational turn-taking than functional play, and also resulted in the greater use of questions and mimetics in infant-directed speech (IDS). In contrast, caregivers used more imperative clauses in functional play. Correlational and regression analyses showed that frequent properties of symbolic play (i.e., turn-taking, yes-no questions, mimetics) were positively related to infants' language proficiency, whereas frequent features of functional play (i.e., imperatives in IDS) were negatively related. The results provide evidence supporting the hypothesis that symbolic play is a fertile context for language development, driven by the need to negotiate meaning.
Highlights
IntroductionSymbolic play and language development have long been linked (for reviews see HirshPasek, Golinkoff, Gerk, & Singer, 2009; Lillard et al, 2013; Quinn, Donnelly, & Kidd, 2018). Piaget (1962) attributed the relationship to the fact that both depend on the child’s emerging understanding of symbols (the ‘semiotic function’), a suggestion that has framed much of the research on the topic (e.g., Bates et al, 1979; McCune, 1995; Werner & Kaplan, 1963)
Symbolic play and language development have long been linked. Piaget (1962) attributed the relationship to the fact that both depend on the child’s emerging understanding of symbols, a suggestion that has framed much of the research on the topic (e.g., Bates et al, 1979; McCune, 1995; Werner & Kaplan, 1963)
For each measure we report pairwise t-tests alongside their effect sizes and confidence intervals, the latter providing an unbiased and standardised measure of the magnitude of the observed effects
Summary
Symbolic play and language development have long been linked (for reviews see HirshPasek, Golinkoff, Gerk, & Singer, 2009; Lillard et al, 2013; Quinn, Donnelly, & Kidd, 2018). Piaget (1962) attributed the relationship to the fact that both depend on the child’s emerging understanding of symbols (the ‘semiotic function’), a suggestion that has framed much of the research on the topic (e.g., Bates et al, 1979; McCune, 1995; Werner & Kaplan, 1963). While play behaviours like object manipulation and play fighting are common across different species, symbolic play – the non-literal use of objects, action, or attributes – is likely an evolved trait unique to humans (Lillard, 2017). Under the assumption that early play is jointly determined with a competent other (Bruner, 1983; Haight & Miller, 1993; Vygotsky, 1978), we analyse infantcaregiver interaction during symbolic and non-symbolic play and measure their influence on infants’ language Central to this investigation is the theoretical analysis of early symbolic play as the first unambiguous instance of an infant’s ability to engage in collective intentionality (Rakoczy, 2006, 2008; Tollefsen, 2005; Tomasello, Carpenter, Call, Behne, & Moll, 2005). It indicates that the child understands that, in this context, the block can act as a symbol for something else,
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
