The Effects of Incidental Teaching on Vocabulary Acquisition by Young Children

Author(s): Marta C. Valdez-Menchaca and Grover J. Whitehurst

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Child Development, Vol. 59, No. 6 (Dec., 1988), pp. 1451-1459
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the Society for Research in Child Development
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1130660 .
Accessed: 05/04/2012 18:48

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Blackwell Publishing and Society for Research in Child Development are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Child Development.

http://www.jstor.org
The Effects of Incidental Teaching on
Vocabulary Acquisition by Young Children

Marta C. Valdez-Menchaca and Grover J. Whitehurst

State Universityof New Yorkat Stony Brook

C., andWHITEHURST,
MARTA
VALDEZ-MENCHACA, J. TheEffectsof IncidentalTeachingon
GROVER
VocabularyAcquisitionby YoungChildren.CHILD DEVELOPMENT, 1988,59, 1451-1459. The effects
on vocabularyacquisition of child-initiatedversus adult-initiatedinstances of adult labeling were
studied. 16 monolingual,English-speakingpreschoolchildren were exposed to a Spanish-speaking
adult. In order to have access to toys placed out of their reach, children had to request the toys in
Spanish.For the experimentalgroup,adult labeling occurredwhen the childrenexpressed interest
in the toy. Control group children were yoked temporallyto experimentalgroup children for the
purpose of adult labeling. Thus, adult labeling for the control group was randomlyrelated to the
children's expressions of interest. Althoughboth groupsof children learned some Spanishwords,
children in the experimentalgroupproducedsignificantlymore Spanishwords duringthe training
sessions and showed superiorperformanceon posttrainingtests of Spanishproduction.Levels of
comprehensionof the Spanishwordswere equivalentforboth groups.Resultsare interpretedin the
contextof the literatureon "incidentalteaching"and are viewed as demonstratingthe criticalrole in
languageacquisitionof the timing of exposureto languagemodels.

Recent research on language interven-
tion with disadvantaged and developmentally
disabled children has focused on "naturalis-
tic" approaches that attempt to reproduce the
process of language acquisition by normal
children (Warren & Kaiser, 1986). This work
has often been more experimental and defini-
tive in demonstrating causal effects than the
research with normal children that served as
its impetus. As a result, it may be timely for
the tables to be turned: researchers con-
cerned with language acquisition in normal
children might usefully investigate variables
that have proven effects on developmentally
disabled children. This could lead to en-
hanced knowledge of normal development,
abnormal development, and the relations be-
tween them. A case in point is incidental
teaching, a "naturalistic" procedure that in-
volves timing of occasions of instruction
based on the child's spontaneous interests
(Hart & Risley, 1974, 1975, 1980).
In an incidental teaching situation, the
child is exposed to a natural, unstructured,
rich environment containing diverse objects
and activities that can be accessed through
the use of language. When the child expresses
an interest, either verbally or nonverbally, in
a particular object or activity, a teaching trial
is initiated. The teacher requires the child to
elaborate his or her request to fit a target ver-
bal response (e.g., "Can I have X so I can Y?")
by providing the child with a prompt or cue
(e.g., "What do you want X for?"). After the
child produces the correct verbal response, he
or she receives the requested object or activ-
ity. Thus, during incidental teaching the child
controls the training situation by initiating the
interaction and specifying the reinforcer to be
delivered.
Extensive applications of incidental
teaching with disadvantaged and develop-
mentally disabled children have repeatedly
demonstrated its effectiveness in training
both receptive language (e.g., McGee, Krantz,
Mason, & McClannahan, 1983) and expres-
sive language (e.g., Fabry, Mayhew, & Han-
son, 1984; Hart & Risley, 1975; McGee,
Krantz, & McClannahan, 1985) and in
facilitating their generalization (e.g., Hart &
Risley, 1980; Neef, Walters, & Egel, 1984).
The incidental teaching approach in-
volves the assumption that learning will be
enhanced through the use of the child's spon-
taneous interest to select instances of instruc-
tion. That is, the presentation of a verbal
model will be more efficient if it follows the
child's expression of interest than if it occurs
arbitrarily (i.e., following a preselected se-

These data were originally presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in
Child Development, April 1987. This work was supported in part by NICHHD grant 1 R01
HD19245 to the second author. Address inquiries to the second author at: Department of Psychol-
ogy, SUNY, Stony Brook, NY 11794.

[ChildDevelopment,1988,59, 1451-1459.? 1988by the SocietyforResearchin Child Development,Inc.

All rightsreserved.0009-3920/88/5906-0013$01.00]
1452 Child Development
quence). Although this notion has occasion-
ally been discussed in the literature (e.g.,
Hubbell, 1977), it has never been tested di-
rectly.
Most studies comparing the effectiveness
of "structured" or "direct" methods of instruc-
tion with "incidental" or "interactive" proce-
dures have evaluated intervention packages
as they are usually applied in clinical or edu-
cational settings. Thus, the particular effects
of any single variable (i.e., child-initiated
trials vs. adult-initiated trials, arbitrary rein-
forcement vs. functional reinforcement, sit-
ting face-to-face vs. free play) cannot be esti-
mated. In addition, the findings from this
work are controversial. Several reports claim
that interactive procedures are superior to di-
rective methods (e.g., McGee et al., 1985;
Neef et al., 1984), while other studies fail to
find significant differences (e.g., Cole & Dale,
1986; Friedman & Friedman, 1980). Further-
more, a significant interaction has been found
between type of treatment and linguistic abil-
ities, with higher-functioning children bene-
fiting more from the interactive procedure
(Friedman & Friedman, 1980). Therefore,
generalization of findings from develop-
mentally disabled populations to normal chil-
dren requires caution.
In the literature with normal children,
some descriptions of mothers engaging in
what appear to be incidental teaching epi-
sodes have been presented. For example,
Snow (1977) states that mothers are quite
willing to follow their children's topics in or-
der to keep a conversation going. Similarly,
Collis (cited in Rondal, 1985) observed that
mothers were particularly likely to label an
object when they saw their children attending
to that object.
Correlational research involving natu-
rally occurring verbal interactions between
normal children and their mothers has sup-
ported the view that presenting a verbal
model based on the child's interests may en-
hance vocabulary acquisition. Della Corte,
Benedict, and Klein (1983) found that
mothers of children with large nominal
vocabularies produced a larger number of
descriptions of ongoing or present events
compared to mothers of children with small
nominal vocabularies. Tomasello and col-
laborators (Tomasello & Farrar, 1986; To-
masello & Todd, 1983) have found a
significant correlation between children's vo-
cabulary size and the way parents direct their
children's attention. More specifically, the
number of object references presented fol-
lowing the child's ongoing focus of attention
is positively correlated with the child's lexical
development (Tomasello & Farrar, 1986).
These correlations suggest that if a parent pro-
vides a language model when the child is al-
ready attending to a stimulus, it is more likely
that this label will be learned.
There has been one experimental test of
the relation between timing of adult labeling
and children's expressions of interest using
normal children. Tomasello and Farrar (1986)
presented verbal models of four novel words
to 1-year-olds under two different conditions.
In the "follow-in" condition, a verbal model
was presented when the child was attending
to the target object (i.e., holding and looking),
while in the control condition, the verbal
model was presented when the child was not
attending to any of the stimuli. Children's
comprehension scores were superior for la-
bels that had been presented following the
child's focus of attention. There were no ef-
fects on production scores.
Unfortunately, Tomasello and Farrar's re-
sults are difficult to interpret because of the
nature of the control condition. Verbal labels
in the control condition were only provided
contingent upon the children's not attending.
This contingency for not attending to the ref-
erent could actively suppress learning. As a
result, it is impossible to determine whether
the differences between the "follow-in" con-
dition and the control condition were due to
the facilitating effects of "following in," the
inhibiting effects of the control procedure, or
both. In addition, the failure to find any ef-
fects on production scores by Tomasello and
Farrar (1986) is troublesome, and may be re-
lated to these investigators' failure to provide
any motivation for their subjects to use the
words to which they had been exposed.
This article is designed to extend the ex-
perimental corroboration of the hypothesis
that the relation between the timing of paren-
tal labeling and children's expressions of in-
terest is important in vocabulary acquisition.
Specifically, the present study evaluates the
effects of presenting verbal models following
the children's initiations or expressions of in-
terest on both production and comprehension
abilities measures. The present experimental
condition was designed to resemble the
interactions of children with responsive
mothers. These mothers are usually tuned to
their children's interests and initiations, but
they are occasionally directive in that they
label objects to which their children are not
attending. The control condition corresponds
to the interactions of children with directive
mothers. These mothers usually attempt to
 Valdez-Menchaca
draw their children's attention and redirect
their interest, but they are occasionally re-
sponsive in that they label objects following
their children's initiations and expressions of
interest.
Pairs of monolingual, English-speaking
2-year-olds were exposed to models of Span-
ish labels for toys in a relatively natural nurs-
ery school environment. This setting has pre-
viously been shown to result in high levels of
verbal production and to be very sensitive
to variations in the learning environment
(Whitehurst & Valdez-Menchaca, 1988). In
the experimental condition, the Spanish ver-
bal models were presented contingent upon
each child's expression of interest in the toys.
Given that children interacted in pairs, the
second child could be exposed to the Spanish
verbal models without expressing interest in a
toy. In the control condition, the Spanish ver-
bal models were presented based on temporal
yoking. In this procedure, presentation of ver-
bal models for individual subjects in the con-
trol condition occurred at the times when
instances of labeling occurred for matched
subjects in the experimental group. This ran-
dom relation between labeling and children's
behavior resulted in control children's expres-
sions of interest being followed by Spanish
models randomly. In addition, similar to the
experimental children, control children were
exposed to verbal models without having ex-
pressed interest in a toy, based on the behav-
ior of the other child in the pair. Thus,
although both groups of children were pre-
sented with Spanish models independent of
their interests, it was only for the experimen-
tal children that expressions of interest in a
toy were always followed by modeling of the
corresponding Spanish word.
Two hypotheses were tested in this
study. First, children in the experimental
group were expected to produce more Span-
ish words than children in the control condi-
tion. Second, children in the experimental
group were expected to perform better on a
formal assessment of their production and
comprehension of the Spanish words than
children in the control condition.
Method
Subjects.-Sixteen monolingual, En-
glish-speaking, middle-class children, 10 boys
and six girls, served as subjects. Children
ranged in age from 28 to 34 months (mean age
= 31.06 months, SD = 3.15). The experimen-
tal children's mean age was 31.75 months (SD
= 2.78) and the control children's was 30.75
months (SD = 3.45). All subjects attended a
and Whitehurst 1453
private preschool every other day. Based on
parental report, the children had no previous
knowledge of the Spanish language.
Pairs of children were matched for
chronological age. Members from each pair
were randomly assigned to either the experi-
mental or control group, the only restriction
being that there be the same number of boys
and girls in each group.
The experimenter was an adult bilingual
female who had been present in the chil-
dren's preschool class for several sessions
prior to the study. The experimenter used
only Spanish to communicate with the chil-
dren before and during the study.
Setting and materials.-The study took
place in a room at the children's preschool.
The room contained a table and chairs for the
children and several children's books. A mi-
crophone connected to a tape recorder lo-
cated in an adjacent room was used to record
the training sessions. Ten unfamiliar toys,
previously demonstrated to be highly attrac-
tive to children in this age group, were the
stimulus materials. The Spanish names of the
toys were the target words.
Procedure.-Prior to training, an individ-
ual assessment of each child's preference for
the toys was conducted by an assistant. The
experimenter and the assistant escorted the
child to the experimental playroom where
the toys were located. The assistant con-
ducted the preference test by explaining to
the child in English how each toy functioned
without giving a label for the toys (e.g., you
blow it; it clicks). The child was encouraged
to play with each toy. After the child played
with all the toys, the assistant asked which toy
the child liked the most. The preferred object
was then removed and the process was re-
peated until all toys were selected. During
this session, the experimenter occasionally
commented about the child's activities using
only Spanish, but did not provide Spanish
labels for the toys. The order in which the
toys were selected was used as the measure of
the child's preference for the toys. Based on
this preference measure, yoked pairs of chil-
dren (one control and one experimental) were
formed by matching those children who had
selected the same sets of three toys as the
most preferable and least preferable.
Training was conducted during 12 10-
12-min sessions, spread over approximately 4
weeks. Sessions were carried out with a pair
of children in the same experimental condi-
tion. The experimenter communicated with
the children using only Spanish. No nouns
1454 Child Development
were used except for the children's names
and the target words. Verbal exchanges were
socially relevant, such as greetings, answers
to questions, comments, etc. All the exper-
imenter's verbalizations were accompanied
with nonverbal communication such as ges-
tures, facial expressions, and conventional
sounds (e.g., "se cayo, boom"/"it fell, boom").
Children's books were placed on a low
table and were available to all children
throughout training. The stimulus toys were
located on two shelves within sight, but out of
reach of the children. In each instance of
labeling, the experimenter would take a par-
ticular toy, show it to the child, and model its
Spanish name three times. Labeling occurred
twice within declarative sentences (e.g.,
"Aqui esta el payaso") and once using the
single word (e.g., "payaso"). The target word
was always presented by accentuating each
syllable and in a rising tone of voice. In order
for any child to have access to a particular toy,
he or she had to produce the toy's name in
Spanish. Children were allowed to keep the
toy for one minute each time they produced
the Spanish word.
For the experimental group, labeling oc-
curred every time a child expressed interest
in a toy, either by requesting it in English or
through gestures. For the control group, label-
ing was yoked temporally to the labels pro-
vided for the matched experimental child
with similar toy preferences. Each training
session for the yoked control pair was carried
out after the session for the corresponding ex-
perimental pair. A written record indicating
the time at which any particular toy was
labeled in Spanish for the experimental child
was obtained from the audiotape of the ex-
perimental session. The matched control
child was then presented with the Spanish
labels at the same time during the session as
the experimental child with whom he or she
had been paired according to toy preferences.
Thus, while the experimenter's labeling for
the experimental group was responsive to the
children's initiatives, labeling occurred arbi-
trarily for the control group. If a control or
experimental child requested a toy in English
or pointed at it, the experimenter would nod
her head, shrug her shoulders, raise her arms,
and say: "No entiendo" (I do not understand).
When a child in the control group produced a
Spanish word to request a toy, whether or not
the experimental child had also requested it,
the toy was handed to the control child.
Hence, the contingency for access to the toys
was the same for both groups; they differed
only in the way in which the verbal models
were provided.
Tests of production and comprehension
of the Spanish names of the toys were ad-
ministered to all children individually on
the day following the last training session.
The production assessment always preceded
the comprehension test. The production test
was conducted by showing one toy and ask-
ing the child to name it (e.g., "What is this
called?"). Any approximate pronunciation of
the Spanish name was considered a correct
response (e.g., "yaso" for "payaso"). If an En-
glish response was given, additional instruc-
tions were provided (e.g., "What do we call it
when we play here?"). Three trials were pro-
vided for each item if the child did not pro-
vide a response. If after three trials it was not
clear that the child understood the instruc-
tions, the experimenter moved on to the next
items and later came back to the initial ones.
Comprehension was assessed by presenting
three toys at a time and asking the child to
point to one of them. Instructions were given
in English and the toy's name was given in
Spanish (e.g., "Point to the payaso"). Again,
three trials were provided in an absence of a
response. No reinforcement was provided
contingent upon the children's responses on
either test.

TABLE 1
DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLESOF CHILDREN'S VERBAL BEHAVIORCATEGORIES

Definitions Examples
Spanish words: production of any single word or its approximation in Span-
ish. (A Spanish word was categorized as "spontaneous" if it was pro-
duced in the absence of a verbal model during the preceding 10 sec.) ... Payaso; 'yaso
Requests: requests for any of the stimulus toys using English. I want it
............
Statements related to the target objects: comments in English concerning
any of the stimulus toys ....................................... I'm feeding the clown
Statements not related to the target objects: comments in English about
events not related to the stimulus toys ............................... Come here!
 Valdez-Menchaca
Results
Interobserver agreement.-Independent
records of 12 sessions, randomly selected
across the training phase, were checked for
interobserver agreement. These records were
coded by two experimentally blind, bilingual
observers using the behavior codes presented
in Table 1. Interobserver agreement for train-
ing sessions was computed using the statistic
kappa. The comparison of the records showed
an overall mean kappa value of .96, with the
individual categories ranging from .95 to .98.
Training sessions.-Analyses were con-
ducted utilizing the multivariate approach for
repeated measures (Bock, 1975). A two-group
(experimental vs. control) x 12 training ses-
sions MANOVA was conducted for each of
the four dependent measures (i.e., Spanish
words, English requests, English verbaliza-
tions related to the toys, and English verbali-
zations not related to the toys). These anal-
yses revealed no significant differences in any
measure of English verbal production. Table
2 displays the mean frequencies of each ver-
bal behavior category per child per session
per group.
Analyses of Spanish words showed that
children in the experimental group produced
significantly more Spanish words than the
control children, F(1,14) = 9.62, p < .008 (see
fig. 1). A significant effect for training sessions
was also found for Spanish words, F(11,4) =
6.74, p < .04, but the interaction between
training session and experimental condition
was not significant, F(11,4) = 1.817, p > .29.
These analyses indicate that both groups of
children increased the number of Spanish
words produced over sessions. However, an
examination of Figure 1 shows a greater dif-
ference between the production of Spanish
words by the two groups toward the end of
training than at the initial sessions. Thus, a
TABLE 2
MEAN FREQUENCIES PER CHILD PER SESSION OF VERBAL PRODUCTIONS
BY CHILDREN IN THE EXPERIMENTALAND CONTROL GROUPS
VERBALCATEGORY
Spanish words ..............................
Requests
Statements.....................................
related to the target objects .........
Statements not related to the target objects ......
and Whitehurst 1455
subsequent two-tailed t test of the regression
coefficients of production of Spanish words
on training sessions by each experimental
group was conducted. This analysis revealed
that the slopes of the regression lines for the
experimental and control groups differed sig-
nificantly, t(20) = 2.45, p < .05; b = .641 for
the experimental group, and b = .363 for the
control group. This finding indicates that
while both groups of children increased their
production of Spanish words across sessions,
experimental children were producing Span-
ish words at a higher rate than control chil-
dren.
The frequency of Spanish words pro-
duced in the absence of a verbal model (i.e.,
spontaneous words) was also analyzed. Spon-
taneous Spanish words were a subcategory of
the general category of Spanish words and
were included in the analyses described
above. Given that there was a very low fre-
quency of spontaneous words per session, it
was necessary to collapse across training ses-
sions to perform the statistical analysis. Thus,
a one-way analysis of variance (experimental
group vs. control group) for total number of
spontaneous words produced per child was
conducted. This analysis indicated that chil-
dren in the experimental group produced
significantly more spontaneous Spanish
words than the controls, F(1,14) = 8.324, p <
.013. The mean frequency of spontaneous
Spanish words produced by experimental
group was 5.375 (SD = 4.719, range: 0-14),
while for the control group it was 0.5 (SD =
0.726, range: 0-2).
A one-way analysis of variance (experi-
mental group vs. control group) for the num-
ber of different Spanish words produced
across training per child was conducted. This
analysis revealed a marginally significant ef-
fect for experimental condition, F(1,14) =
3.858, p < .08. On the average, children in the
GROUP
Experimental Control
Mean SD Mean SD
6.15 3.76 3.28 1.86
6.27 2.51 6.58 3.27
5.19 3.14 4.75 2.65
7.20 2.79 8.31 2.97
1456 Child Development
----- Experimental
10-
9-
7-
0
a) 6
L 5-
3-
0 1 2 3 4 5
TrainingSessions
FIc. 1.-Mean frequency per session per child of use of Spanish words by children in the experimen-
tal and control groups.
experimental group produced 7.375 (SD =
2.446) different Spanish words, and children
in the control group produced 5.125 (SD =
2.167) different Spanish words.
A Spearman rank correlation between
the frequency in which a particular toy was
labeled in Spanish and the order in which
this toy was selected during the preference
test was conducted for each child. The mean
correlation coefficient for each experimental
group was computed (rho = .437, SD = .15,
for the experimental group; rho = .414, SD =
.17, for the control group). The mean correla-
tion coefficient for each group was then tested
for significance by combining the degrees of
freedom from each individual correlation as
recommended by Guilford (1950). Both mean
coefficients reached significance at the .01
level in a two-tailed test.
Test scores.-Two
one-way analyses of
variance (experimental group x control
group) were performed for the scores on the
production and comprehension tests. The
analysis of the production test showed that
children in the experimental group (X = 4.38,
SD = .92) performed significantly better,
F(1,14) = 6.66, p < .02, than children in the
control group (X = 2.63, SD = 1.69). On the
comprehension test, children in the experi-
mental group (X = 8.38, SD = 1.3) per-
formed better than the control children (X =
7.13, SD = 1.36); however, this difference
was not statistically significant.
- e- Control
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Discussion
The facilitative function of the use of
children's spontaneous interests to time lan-
guage instruction was supported in the pres-
ent research with normal children. When
Spanish models were presented contingent
upon children's requests for a toy, children
produced more Spanish words than if Spanish
models were presented independent of their
interests. These results are consistent with
work with disadvantaged and developmen-
tally disabled children in which incidental
teaching has proved to be effective in teach-
ing new forms of language (e.g., McGee et al.,
1985; Neef et al., 1984). In addition, the pres-
ent results suggest that, independent of the
effects of the use of functional reinforcers and
the type of teaching situation, the timing of
the presentation of verbal models is a relevant
factor that contributes significantly to the suc-
cess of incidental teaching.
A common finding in the incidental
teaching research with developmentally dis-
abled children is an increase in spontaneous
language use (e.g., Carr & Kologinsky, 1983;
Hart & Risley, 1980). Similar effects were ob-
served in this study. Toward the end of train-
ing, experimental children were more likely
than control children to request toys spon-
taneously using their Spanish names. Seven
experimental children produced at least one
spontaneous word, whereas only three control
children produced Spanish words spontane-
 Valdez-Menchaca and Whitehurst
ously. Accordingly, the total number of spon-
taneous words produced across sessions was
significantly higher for the experimental
group than for the control group. These
findings are consistent with Hubbell's (1977)
claim that a reduction of the adult constraints
and the presentation of verbal input based on
the child's present interests are two basic ele-
ments that facilitate spontaneous language
use.
The similarity between the results of this
study and those reported with disadvantaged
and developmentally disabled children has
implications for the controversy regarding the
superiority of incidental teaching over struc-
tured approaches. The finding that normally
developing children benefited from the use of
the interactive procedure is consistent with
previous results showing that developmen-
tally disabled children who have higher lev-
els of verbal ability are more likely to ben-
efit from the use of interactive techniques
(Friedman & Friedman, 1980). Hence, this re-
search suggests that comparable learning pro-
cesses may be taking place in normal children
and in those developmentally disabled chil-
dren for whom the incidental teaching proce-
dure has proved to be successful. However, a
different learning model may be required for
those developmentally disabled children for
whom artificial and highly structured training
techniques are necessary.
The analyses of the test scores indicated
that, in addition to producing a higher num-
ber of Spanish words, children in the experi-
mental condition were also able to label more
of the toys in Spanish than the control chil-
dren. However, understanding of the Spanish
words was comparable in the two groups;
children in both the experimental and control
conditions performed above chance on the
comprehension test. This differential effect
on the production abilities is concordant with
the view that verbal production is a skill
(Moerk, 1986), and suggests that practice ef-
fects may be operative in this finding. Com-
prehension, on the other hand, does not re-
quire overt practice, and thus may reach high
levels based only on associative learning
(Whitehurst & DeBaryshe, in press).
The present results of the assessment
of Spanish words are not in keeping with
Tomasello and Farrar's (1986) previous
findings. These authors showed a significant
effect for the "follow-in" procedure on the
comprehension measures but not on the pro-
duction measures. Several differences in the
methods used in the two studies may explain
these conflicting results.
1457
First, as suggested by Tomasello and Far-
rar, their lack of significant results on the pro-
duction test may be due to the low levels of
verbal production characteristic of all their
subjects. The present work enhanced the con-
ditions for verbal production by utilizing sub-
jects with higher linguistic abilities, present-
ing attractive stimuli (i.e., manipulative toys),
and requiring the children to label them in
order to play with them. Tomasello and Far-
rar, on the other hand, worked with younger
children, used less interesting objects, and
did not apply any contingency for the use of
language.
Second, the effects of the "follow-in"
condition on comprehension in Tomasello
and Farrar's research could have been due to
the use of a single presentation of the verbal
model. If comprehension depends on detect-
ing the relation between referent and label
and if that requires attending to the referent,
then a single presentation of a label might not
allow the child time to find the referent while
still remembering the label. Since in this
study three verbal models were provided in
each instance of labeling, the successive pre-
sentation of labels might have given the child
who was not attending to the referent time to
do so.
Hence, the present findings complement
Tomasello and Farrar's results rather than
contradict them. Both studies are consistent
with the notion that the timing of presentation
of verbal models based on the child's behav-
ior is a relevant factor in the process of learn-
ing new vocabulary. The different results
derived from these studies suggest that inci-
dental teaching (or "joint attention learning")
may be a complex process that is influenced
by other factors such as general level of verbal
production, contingencies operating in the
environment for verbal responses, and fre-
quency of verbal models provided. A dif-
ference in the variables that influence the
processes of language production and com-
prehension is also implied. Further research
is necessary to identify the specific effects of
these and other factors on different aspects of
language development.
The differential effect found in this study
for the incidental teaching condition on the
production measures is relevant to interven-
tion procedures for children who experience
language delay. Whitehurst, Fischel, Caul-
field, DeBaryshe, and Valdez-Menchaca (in
press) have systematically varied the learn-
ing conditions and contingencies for language
use operating in the home environment of a
group of children with specific expressive lan-
 1458 Child Development
guage delay. A procedure including inciden-
tal teaching produced significant progress in
expressive language with treated children
when compared with nontreated controls.
The present results validate the inclusion of
incidental teaching in an intervention pack-
age by demonstrating its effects in a more
tightly controlled situation than would ever
be possible with a clinical population.
The present results are also relevant to
correlational analyses that have shown a posi-
tive relation between maternal labeling in re-
sponse to children's attention or interests and
children's nominal vocabulary size (e.g.,
Della Corte et al., 1983; Masur, 1982; To-
masello & Todd, 1983; Tomasello & Farrar,
1986). Our results are consistent with these
studies and provide experimental cor-
roboration.
It is important to note that incidental
teaching is not the only way that mothers
might use their children's attention and inter-
ests to teach them new labels. For example, a
mother might label an object that the child is
not attending to but that is very likely to be of
high interest given the mother's knowledge of
the child (e.g., "Look, there's a helicopter").
The role of the value of the referent in
vocabulary acquisition is relevant to this point
to the extent that mothers understand and
utilize their children's preference when label-
ing objects for them. Whitehurst, Kedesdy,
and White (1982) found that children's learn-
ing of labels of novel objects was significantly
correlated with the level of preference of the
children for those objects. These results were
replicated in this study by the significant posi-
tive correlation between the order in which
toys were selected in the preference test and
the frequency with which these toys were
labeled during training. These findings lend
support to the "preference hypothesis"
(Whitehurst, 1979; Whitehurst et al., 1982) for
vocabulary learning, which holds that labels
for those referents most valued or preferred
by a child are most likely to be learned.
The current findings also have implica-
tions for Nelson's (1973) unexpected failure to
find a significant relation between frequency
of maternal labeling and children's vocab-
ulary development. This work shows that
learning of vocabulary is a function of when
the verbal model is presented and that very
low rates of acquisition can occur despite fre-
quent exposure. This is consistent with other
work (Schwartz & Terrel, 1983) showing that
the number of times a verbal model is pro-
vided per se cannot explain differences in
rate of lexical acquisition.
In conclusion, the present work suggests
that a view of language acquisition based ex-
clusively on the study of verbal input, disre-
garding the timing and function of the input,
is insufficient. Research directed at a fine-
grained analysis of the relations between pa-
rental and child behavior appears to provide a
promising area for a more complete under-
standing of the acquisition of language by
normal and developmentally disabled chil-
dren.
References
Bock, R. D. (1975). Multivariate statistical methods
in behavioral research. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Carr, E. G., & Kologinsky, E. (1983). Acquisition of
sign language by autistic children: II. Spon-
taneity and generalization effects. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 16, 297-314.
Cole, K. N., & Dale, P. S. (1986). Direct language
instruction and interactive language instruction
with language delayed preschool children: A
comparison study. Journal of Speech and Hear-
ing Research, 29, 206-217.
Della Corte, M., Benedict, H., & Klein, D. (1983).
The relationship of pragmatic dimensions of
mothers' speech to the referential-expressive
distinction. Journal of Child Language, 10, 35-
43.
Fabray, B. D., Mayhew, G. L., & Hanson, A. (1984).
Incidental teaching of mentally retarded stu-
dents in a token system. American Journal of
Mental Deficiency, 89, 29-36.
Friedman, P., & Friedman, K. (1980). Accounting
for individual differences when comparing the
effectiveness of remedial language teaching
methods. Applied Psycholinguistics, 1, 151-
170.
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Fundamental statistics in
psychology and education (2d ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1974). Using preschool
material to modify the language of disadvan-
taged children. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 7, 243-256.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1975). Incidental teaching
of language in the preschool. Journal of Ap-
plied Behavior Analysis, 8, 411-420.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1980). In vivo language
intervention: Unanticipated general effects.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13,
407-432.
Hubbell, R. D. (1977). On facilitating spontaneous
talking in young children. Journal of Speech
and Hearing Disorders, 42, 216-231.
Masur, E. F. (1982). Mothers' responses to infants'
 Valdez-Menchaca and Whitehurst 1459
object-related gestures: Influences on lexical Tomasello, M., & Farrar, M. J. (1986). Joint atten-
development. Journal of Child Language, 9, tion and early language. Child Development,
23-30. 57, 1454-1463.
McGee, G. G., Krantz, P. J., Mason, D., & McClan- Tomasello, M., & Todd, J. (1983). Joint attention
nahan, L. E. (1983). A modified incidental- and lexical acquisition style. First Language, 4,
teaching procedure for autistic youth: Acqui- 197-211.
sition and generalization of receptive object Warren, S. F., & Kaiser, A. P. (1986). Incidental
labels. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, language teaching: A critical review. Journal of
16, 329-338. Speech and HearingDisorders,51, 291-299.
McGee, G. G., Krantz, P. J., & McClannahan, L. E. Whitehurst, G. J. (1979). Meaning and semantics. In
(1985). The facilitative effects of incidental G. J. Whitehurst & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.),
teaching on preposition use by autistic chil- The functions of language and cognition (pp.
dren. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 115-139). New York: Academic Press.
18, 17-31. Whitehurst, G. J., & DeBaryshe, B. D. (in press).
Moerk, E. L. (1986). Environmental factors in early Observational learning and language acquisi-
language acquisition. In G. J. Whitehurst (Ed.), tion: Principles of learning, systems, and tasks.
Annals of child development(Vol. 3, pp. 191- In G. E. Speidel & K. E. Nelson (Eds.), The
235). Greenwich, CT: JAI. many faces of imitation in language learning.
Neef, N. A., Walters, J., & Egel, A. L. (1984). Estab- New York: Springer-Verlag.
lishing generative yes/no responses in devel- Whitehurst, G. J., Fischel, J. E., Caulfield, M. B.,
opmentally disabled children. Journal of Ap- DeBaryshe, B. D., & Valdez-Menchaca, M. C.
plied BehaviorAnalysis, 17, 453-460. (in press). Assessment and treatment of early
Nelson, K. (1973). Structure and strategy in learning expressive language delay. In P. R. Zelazo & R.
to talk. Monographs of the Society for Re- Barr(Eds.),Challengesto developmentalpara-
search in Child Development, 38(1-2, Serial digms: Implicationsfor assessment and treat-
No. 149). ment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rondal, J. A. (1985). Adult-child interaction and Whitehurst, G. J., Kedesdy, J., & White, T. G.
the process of languageacquisition.New York: (1982). A functional analysis of meaning. In S.
Praeger. KuczajII (Ed.), Language development: Syn-
Schwartz, R. G., & Terrel, B. Y. (1983). The role of tax and semantics (Vol. 1, pp. 397-428). Hills-
input frequency in lexical acquisition. Journal dale, NJ: Erlbaum.
of Child Language, 10, 57-64. Whitehurst, G. J., & Valdez-Menchaca, M. C.
Snow, C. E. (1977). The development of conversa- (1988). What is the role of reinforcement in lan-
tions between mothers and babies. Journal of guage acquisition? Child Development, 59,
Child Language,4, 1-22. 330-340.