J. Child Lang. 21 (1994), 517-542. Copyright © 1994 Cambridge University Press.

When is a word a word?*

MARILYN MAY VIHMAN
Southeastern Louisiana University

AND

LORRAINE McCUNE
Rutgers University

(Received 25 June 1991. Revised 16 April 1993)

ABSTRACT

Although adult-based words co-occur in the period of transition to

speech with a variety of non-word vocalizations, little attention has been
given to the formidable problem of identifying these earliest words. This
paper specifies explicit, maximally 'inclusive' identification procedures,
with criteria based on both phonetic and contextual parameters. A
formal system for evaluating phonetic match is suggested, as well as a set
of child-derived functional categories reflecting use in context. Analysis
of word use across two samples of 10 children each, followed from o;o
to i;4, provides evidence to suggest that context-bound words can be
'trained' by focusing on eliciting language, but that the timing of
context-flexible word use remains independent of such training.

INTRODUCTION
In studies of early child language the word plays a pivotal role. Recognition
of the 'first word' preoccupied clinical practitioners long before the advent
of contemporary psycholinguistic research (McCarthy, 1954), while interest
continues to focus on the size and typology of the earliest vocabularies of
more or less rapidly advancing infants (Goldfield & Reznick, 1990;

[•] This research was supported by funding from the National Science Foundation (BNS-
8209695 and 85 20048). We would like to thank Fumiko Arao (Stanford University),
Catherine Durand (C.N.R.S., Paris), and Liselotte Roug-Hellichius and Ingrid Landberg
(Institute of Linguistics, Stockholm University) for their help in applying our criteria to
crosslinguistic data; we also thank Charles A. Ferguson for his thoughtful and con-
structive comments. Address for correspondence: Marilyn May Vihman, Department of
Special Education, Southeastern Louisiana University, P.O. Box 879, Hammond, LA
70402, USA.

517
 VIHMAN & MCCUNE

Huttenlocher, Haight, Bryk, Seltzer & Lyons, 1991). Such current debates
as the relative precocity of early language in the oral vs. the gestural mode
(Orlansky & Bonvillian, 1988; Petitto, 1988; Meier & Newport, 1990) and
resolution of the issue of the ' nominal insight' and its relation to referential
word use (McShane, 1979; Harris, Barrett, Jones & Brookes, 1988) depend
crucially on recognition of the child's very first words and on establishing the
developmental significance of different categories of early words. Yet the
problem of word definition and identification has received relatively little
attention among influential works addressing the onset of word use. For
example, neither Halliday's (1975) diary study nor Bates, Benigni,
Bretherton, Camaioni & Volterra's (1979) broad-based study of 25 Italian-
and English-learning infants provided any discussion of the problem.
When explicit mention is made of this central methodological issue, two
complementary criteria are characteristically invoked: (a) resemblance of
phonetic form to an adult word and (b) situational consistency in use (e.g.
Lewis, 1936; Leopold, 1939; Nelson, 1973; Ferguson & Farwell, 1975;
Greenfield & Smith, 1976). The recognition of words via the broad criterion
of conventional form with a sound-meaning link is far from simple, however,
particularly in the earliest period of potential word production, when
children make a gradual transition from babbling to adult-like word use,
producing a variety of vocalizations of differing degrees of 'wordiness'
(Menn, 1978; Bates et al. 1979; Vihman & Miller, 1988). Meanings may be
unconventionally narrow or limited, on the one hand, or global and diffuse,
on the other (Rescorla, 1980; Griffiths, 1986; Nelson, 1988); forms may be
indistinguishable from concurrent babble (Labov & Labov, 1978; Vihman,
Macken, Miller, Simmons & Miller, 1985), and both the sound and meaning
consistencies may be idiosyncratic to a given child (Halliday, 1975; Dore,
Franklin, Miller & Ramer, 1976; Ferguson, 1978).
Balanced attention to form and function combined with detailed speci-
fication of the problems involved or the criteria used is rare. To allow
comparability across studies investigators would need, at a minimum, to
address such specific questions as the degree and type of phonetic resem-
blance to an adult word and the nature of the factors which they take to
constitute evidence for the existence of a usage pattern which is situationally
consistent. One problem in comparing infant words to adult language is the
essentially syntactic character of the latter. Some authors have considered the
single word to be a sentence or HOLOPHRASE (e.g. de Laguna, 1927; see also
Dore, 1985), while others have been unwilling even to accord the term
'word' to presentational verbalizations (e.g. Werner & Kaplan, 1963, who
coined the term VOCABLE).
Different categories have been proposed for children's productions in the
single word period. Nelson (1973) categorized children's words as reported
by mothers partly on the basis of their apparent function for the child (e.g.
 WHEN IS A WORD A WORD?

'personal-social words', 'action words'), but partly on the basis of the

syntactic function of the word in adult sentences ('modifiers', 'function
words'). Bates et al. (1979) described a continuum from context-bound
performative uses of words to context-flexible referential use. Spontaneous
use of a word in a variety of circumstances rather than in restricted contexts
only is a qualitatively different behaviour which has been shown to follow
from representational abilities also evident in symbolic play. McCune-
Nicolich (1981) demonstrated that relational words (such as allgone, here,
more, up) depend upon representational development. They demonstrate the
child's capacity to consider and comment on reversible perceptual events,
including attention to the immediate past and future (cf. also Sinclair, 1970;
Bloom, 1973). Attention to developmentally distinct categories of early
words is an essential aspect of word identification which seriously affects the
interpretation of results.
This paper provides a methodology for word identification which takes
account of developmental differences in word use and presents results
demonstrating the importance of such distinctions. Some prior studies have
employed the 'exclusive approach' of eliminating any word-candidates
which fail to occur more than once, in different contexts, as recognized by
independent transcribers (cf. Bloom, 1973; Harris et al. 1988). This allows
relative confidence that errors of over-interpretation will be avoided ('false
positives'). On the other hand, it is less well adapted to the apprehension of
the 'ragged beginnings' of word use, particularly the production of the first
10 or 15 words. That is, it may result in more 'false negatives' than an
inclusive set of criteria intended to capture to the greatest possible extent
those vocalizations which might be broadly conceived as phonetic patterns
'either borrowed from the adult language or influenced by its forms' (Lewis,
1936: 124). In fact our data demonstrate that these differences in meth-
odology are confounded with developmental differences marking categories
of early words.
Our approach to decisions of word identification has a dialogic and
hermeneutical character (Packer, 1985). We began by posing a somewhat
artificial question: Is a given vocal behaviour a 'word' or not? In attempting
to answer this question we first developed an exhaustive inventory of vocal
shapes recorded in the course of the session. Next, we ascertained the
context of use of all formally relatable vocal shapes. It was then possible to
marshall the evidence bearing on a particular instance to arrive at a
preliminary quantification, weighing the acceptability of a potential word
candidate. A point-for-point match with the presumed adult model sharp-
ened our attention to the potential for evidence based on form alone;
categorization in terms of function of use clarified our understanding of the
possible meaning base of the word candidate. Where the quantitative
evidence was weak but the subjective impression remained strong, we
 VIHMAN & MCCUNE

consulted external evidence, both from the mother's report and from the
longitudinal record, before making a judgement. We returned periodically to
the data in context to ask how strong an impression of ' wordiness' we could
gain from the textually embedded vocalization itself. A final decision was
eventually made in each case, although we remain keenly aware of the
inherent ambiguity of child behaviour which, like adult behaviour, is subject
to the progressive evolution and expansion or re-definition of meaning in the
course of use. In short, although the procedures described here make explicit
the rationale for including each accepted word and thus provide a useful
meta-analysis for comparison with previous work and for the design of future
methodologies, one theme of this paper is that judgement is necessarily at the
core of studies of the earliest words.

METHOD

Data collection, transcription, and reliability

Data were collected from five boys and five girls each at Rutgers and at
Stanford, from o;o. to i ;6 (referred to here as the 'Rutgers sample' and the
' Stanford sample'). Six Rutgers subjects and all Stanford subjects were first-
born. The Stanford children were largely recruited through infant-care
classes, the Rutgers children through newspaper advertisements. All of the
parents had at least a high-school education; several of the parents in both
groups held postgraduate degrees. The Rutgers children were video-recorded
monthly in the home during half-hour free-play mother-child interactions
with a standard set of toys. The Stanford children were audio- and video-
recorded weekly in the home during half-hour unstructured interactions
involving mother, child, and, to a lesser extent, the observer, using the toys
at hand. A Sony microphone was placed near the Rutgers mother and child
dyads. Two Sony Electret microphones were hidden in a cloth vest [i.e.
sleeveless jacket] worn by the Stanford subjects.
In both samples recordings were supplemented by maternal reports
regarding the child's lexicon. Differences in project goals were reflected in
the instructions and explanations given to mothers in the course of the
recordings. At Rutgers mothers were told that the researchers were primarily
interested in the development of play. Mothers were encouraged to allow
their children to take the lead in playing with the toys, and were given no
specific instructions about language use since language was expected to occur
naturally in the play sessions. The two observers present, silently occupied
with camera or note-taking, rarely addressed the mother and attempted to
deflect any communicative advances made by the child. Mothers' lists of
words were collected monthly without comment from the experimenters.
At Stanford, mothers were interviewed weekly regarding the children's
new words and other communicative behaviour. Mothers were asked to
520
 WHEN IS A WORD A WORD?

prepare for the sessions in such a way as to encourage the child to produce
any new words or other behaviours of interest (e.g. by bringing in a bowl of
flowers when the child had been using the word flower over the previous
week). Stanford mothers frequently engaged the children in book-reading
and some of them elicited imitations as a way of demonstrating new words.
The one observer typically present interacted verbally with the mother from
time to time and responded to the child's advances but did not normally
initiate activities with the child.
For the analyses reported here, one session per child, at i;s or i;6, was
transcribed phonetically from the videotapes for each of the 20 children by
a single transcriber, with contextual information regarding child activity,
gestures, and direction of gaze in connection with vocalizations, and also
relevant maternal or observer actions and talk directed to the child. In
addition, five to seven more monthly sessions per child were transcribed from
the Rutgers videotapes and the Stanford audiotapes, supplemented for the
Stanford sample by contextual video notes or, for a few sessions, full
videoscripts.
Reliability of phonetic transcription from the video-recordings was
checked for three of the Stanford samples against full earlier transcriptions
of the audio-recordings of the same sessions by the same transcriber (cf.
Vihman et al. 1985, for discussion of intertranscriber reliability based on
audio only). Agreement as to length in syllables and complete consonant
identity for all supraglottal consonants, disregarding differences in voicing
and in place of articulation for sibilants, averaged 83-6% (based on 805
vocalizations and 498 consonants). A partial retranscription of a single
Rutgers videotape by the same transcriber, after a two-year interval, yielded
81-7% agreement as to length in syllables and identity of supraglottal
consonants.

Procedure for identifying words

Following transcription of the tapes, an initial screening involved
'nomination' of a maximally inclusive group of word candidates, that is,
picking out any vocalizations which resembled adult words ('plausible
phonetic shape') and which also seemed potentially relevant to the ongoing
situation ('plausible context of use'). We included such non-dictionary
words as animal sounds (meow, grrr) or pretend sounds relating to vehicles
(vroom) or eating (yum). In short, we expect early words to be 'like recipes
for skilfully "knowing how" to perform some roughly appropriate sound in
some apparently appropriate context' (Dore, 1985; 35). Apparent imitation
by the child or reformulation of the child's vocalization as a word by the
mother (see Veneziano, 1981) were also sufficient to treat a form as a word-
candidate.
 VIHMAN & MCCUNE

Word candidates were then evaluated for specific evidence of word status
using the following criteria:

I. Criteria based on context

(1) Determinative context. Does at least one use occur in a context which
strongly suggests that word and no other?
Applies only to words with specific meanings easily identifiable in
context, including most concrete nouns and many relational words.
Does not apply to an imitative response to a purely verbal stimulus.
(2) Maternal identification. Does the mother identify at least one instance of
the form as a token of the hypothesized word ?
Identification need not be explicitly intended as such; it could involve
the mother acknowledging a particular word by continuing the con-
versation or by rejecting the child's word choice as an error.
(3) Multiple use. Does the child use the word more than once ?
(4) Multiple episodes. Is there more than one episode of use ?
Multiple uses are identified only in determinative contexts, and with
similar phonological shapes across different uses.

II. Criteria based on vocalization shape

(5) Complex match: Does the child form match more than two segments of
the adult form ?
Credited if three segments match, or two non-nasal segments plus
nasality match a model which includes a nasal, or vowel length or an off-
glide match the complex nucleus of the model, in addition to the basic
two-segment match. Also applies if a second consonant matches in
manner of articulation but not in place, or vice versa.
(6) Exact match. Is there at least one instance that even an untrained ear
would recognize as an instance of the word ?
Credited if the child form neither clearly omits, adds nor substitutes
segments in relation to the model (again disregarding voicing). Reflects
the probable judgement of a non-specialist that a particular word is
intended.
(7) Prosodic match.
(i) To model: is there a tuneful match with the adult target ?
(it) Across tokens: is there a characteristic tune which fits the word-
meaning and which occurs across all suspected tokens ?
Credited when the child uses a special vocal effect (growl, squeak)
repeatedly, in pragmatically plausible contexts, for the same probable
word (lion, mouse).

III. Relation to other vocalizations

(8) Imitated tokens. Is at least one instance imitated ?
522
 WHEN IS A WORD A WORD?

Credited if imitation is produced with apparent understanding.

(9) Invariant. Do all instances of the word exhibit the same phonological
shape ?
Phonetic identity ('invariance') evaluated by the principles applied for
phonetic match in general and for 'exact' in particular.
(10) No inappropriate uses. Do all uses occur in contexts which plausibly
suggest the same word ?
Scored if the candidate form is not used in conflicting contexts (no
homonymy) or outside of any plausible context (no 'favourite sound
pattern' uses).

Each word candidate was rated for the presence or absence of each type of
evidence, yielding a word status profile which provided the framework for
the dialogic process of evaluation, discussion and re-evaluation. Since a
variety of irrelevant factors may influence (and even bias) the initial screening
- such as the observer's familiarity with the child, the child's volubility and
apparent intelligibility, or maternal evaluation and level of interaction with
the observer - the word status profile and decision-making based on it
maximize comparability in word identification across subjects.
The word identification criteria are intended to provide an explicit record
of the factors entering into a decision regarding the word status of each word-
like vocalization, or word candidate, as opposed to such relatively loose
procedures as ' [determining] recognition [of a word] by global characteristics
of the sound sequence and, inevitably, by appropriateness of the conditions
of usage' (Plunkett, 1993). A team of coders could independently apply our
criteria to a subset of data as a test of inter-observer reliability in judging
word status. Alternatively, decisions for one or more subjects could be made
by a single observer, with use of the word identification criteria as docu-
mentation. In either case, identification would be based on an explicit
procedure, but a final pass would also be needed in which the subjective
impression of the observer/transcriber was compared against the mechanical
results of applying criteria. Each team of investigators would ultimately have
to make decisions based on a complex understanding of the material, and
then try to articulate and illustrate those decisions as we do here, especially
when dealing with the earliest words.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Words identified: sessions at 1; 3/1; 4
Whereas the Rutgers subjects produced a mean of 137 vocalizations each in
these sessions, the Stanford subjects produced a mean of 243. Out of these
vocalizations, 11 % were identified as word candidates in the Rutgers sample,
9% in the Stanford sample. Of the candidates so identified, 77% were
523
 VIHMAN & McCUNE

accepted as words for Rutgers, 82 % for Stanford, yielding a mean of 11

words per Rutgers subject (8 % mean word production), and 17 per Stanford
subject (7% mean word production). Thus, the 'yield' of potential and
ultimately validated words for the two samples was proportional to relative
volubility. Table 1 lists the subjects in the order of the size of their lexicon in

TABLE 1. Vocalizations, word candidates and words accepted at 1; 3 / 1 ; 4

(Subjects listed in order of number of words accepted)

Total Word Words

vocalizations candidates accepted
I. RUTGERS
Alice 178 35 34
Aurie 154 24 21
Rala 181 17 16
Rick 181 20 11
Vido 283 16 9
Jase 116 9 8
Ronny [1; 3] 74 13 8
Kari 51 6 4
Danny 74 2 2
Nenny 77 5 0
Mean 1369 147 113

II. STANFORD
Molly 433 5° 49
Sean 368 38 27
Deborah 264 38 26
Timmy 239 32 23
Emily [1; 3] .85 15 12
Thomas 162 18 12
Andrew 165 12 7
Jonah 126 7 5
Camille iS° 5 4
Susie [1; 3] 334 5 3
Mean 2426 205 168

the session sampled; this order roughly corresponds to the order of

'volubility', or total vocalizations produced. The list of words accepted after
exhaustive application of the full word-identification procedure, together
with the phonetic shape used for checking phonetic match, is given in the
Appendix.
The word identification criteria specified the evidence that a vocalization
or set of vocalizations represented an attempt at an adult word. Review of the
evidence actually used for each word candidate accepted in the initial analysis
indicated that, in general, candidates supported by no more than two criteria
failed to be accepted as words, while candidates supported by as many as four
criteria were accepted (see Table 2). Notice that no mechanical counting of
524
 WHEN IS A WORD A WORD?

TABLE 2. Application of internal (within-session) and external criteria for

accepting words

Subjects: Alice Deborah Sean Rick

Targets: flower tea yum no down outside sky berries yellow spoon
Shapes: [p'adi] [ti:] [?m] [nae] [ta] [Jja] [ks:] [bebij] [hawa]

N uses 3 i i i 4 i i 3 i
Decision Y Y N Y" Y N N Y N
Criteria
Det. ctxt
Mat. id.
Mult, use
Mult.eps.
Complex
Exact
Prosodic
Imitated
Invariant
No inapprop.
Total
Y = yes, accepted; N = no, rejected.
a
Context suggests that the child is rejecting a suggestion by the mother, but is too vague to
be credited as Determinative context. Both maternal report and earlier recorded use
confirm word status.
b
Child vocalizes as he reaches for the spoon, after previously picking up the coffee pot.
Maternal report confirms word status.

points will yield the final 'yes' or ' n o ' decisions actually arrived at, however,
any more than any one set of 'necessary and sufficient' criteria would
adequately specify the construct 'word' in adult language (cf., for example,
Matthews, 1974). Instead, we tested the 'count' of applicable criteria against
our subjective impression of wordiness; when the two failed to agree, we
reconsidered, using external criteria (as specified in the notes to Table 2) as
well as a return to the transcripts or even the videotapes (as discussed below).

Word-like forms which lack word status

Word candidates which were apparently well-supported but remained
doubtful required a review of the evidence of use within the session and of
our sum of knowledge of the child's lexicon. Problems of this type included
cases of high-frequency 'global' or ill-defined (deictic) use of a range of
similar forms, which we take to be protowords, and cases of word-based
forms with no identifiable meaning. We illustrate two of the latter:
Thomas responded to his mother's attempts to elicit the name of his
soon-to-be adopted sister, (Baby) Molly, with [babmo], [maebma]. We
525
 VIHMAN & MCCUNE

rejected the form, judging it to be a trained sound association without

meaning for the child, despite credit for Maternal identification, Com-
plex match, Imitated tokens, No inappropriate uses.
Timmy produced the forms [gagga] twice, while pointing to a picture.
The second use followed his mother's response, 'where's the dog?', and
so could have been imitated. Timmy made frequent use of forms like
gaga in other contexts as well, however; his phonological repertoire was
still small while his vocal output was unusually large (Vihman, 1992).
Also, his mother interpreted his vocalizations freely. We rejected the
form, despite credit for Determinative context, Maternal identification,
Multiple use, Imitated tokens, Invariant.

Criteria used to identify words in the two samples

Consideration of the manner in which the criteria characterized word
candidates in the two samples demonstrates their general applicability.
Determinative context was the criterion used the most often for both samples
(Rutgers, 76 % use, Stanford 93 %). Multiple use and Maternal identification
also applied for well over half the words accepted. About one-third of the
words accepted in both samples were used in more than one episode.
No inappropriate use was the second most used criterion for the Rutgers
sample (65%), but applied to only 49% of the Stanford words. This
difference reflects the higher volubility of the Stanford subjects, resulting in
more frequent use of the same vocalization both in and out of a plausible
word-use context. The other criteria based on vocalization shape played a
role in identifying less than half the accepted words for either sample. Of
these criteria, Complex match was used the most (Rutgers 4 7 % , Stanford
43 %)• Finally, the incidence of Imitation was the most striking dissimilarity
between the two samples, with only 29 % imitated use at Rutgers as against
47 % at Stanford. The proportion of accepted words which were used only
imitatively is much smaller for both samples, but the asymmetry remains
(Rutgers 16%, Stanford 27%).

Evaluation of phonetic match

In order to go beyond global judgements in specifying what constitutes
'plausible agreement' in phonetic shape, we made a point-for-point com-
parison between child form and adult model, basing our evaluation of
'agreement' (or sufficient similarity to suggest intentional modelling) on
certain assumptions regarding the 'expected' child realization of adult
targets. The procedure is designed to take into account typical discrepancies
between child and adult forms, reflecting, for example, the likelihood of low
accuracy in child production of unstressed syllables and the possibility of
temporal sequencing errors. We also take into consideration the limits of
526
 WHEN IS A WORD A WORD:

TABLE 3. Evaluating phonetic match

Example a: baby
ADULT FORM: # 'b e i b i
SUBJECTS CHILD FORMS
Alice [beibi] + + + + +
Deborah [p'e:bi] + + (+) + +
Vido [bobap] + [o] + [a] [p]
Example b: cock-a-doodle-doo
ADULT FORM : # k a k 3 d u d a 1 'd u: #
SUBJECTS CHILD FORMS
Aurie [kakijali::] + + + [i] [CV] [CV]
Jonah [skakekia] [a] + + + M [CV]
Sean [dalodalu::] [d] + [1]

Matching segments indicated as +, feature-match (but not full segment) as (+). Mismatching
segments set off by square brackets; matching syllable-count but mismatching segments
indicated as [CV]. (All of these illustrative words were accepted and are included in the
children's 1; 4 word lists given in the Appendix.)

phonetic transcription when applied to infant vocalizations. Vowels oc-

cupying neighbouring spaces in the IPA transcription chart (e.g. [a] and [as])
were not treated as distinct for these purposes; similarly, consonants
differing only in voicing or aspiration and sibilants differing in place of
articulation ([s] vs. [J] vs. [5]) were treated as 'matching' for these purposes.
Table 3 illustrates the point-for-point comparison of adult model and child
form.1
Of the word candidates across both samples, 33 showed less than a two-
segment match to the adult model (Rutgers, 13; Stanford, 20). Of these
poorly matching forms, 18 were accepted (8 for Rutgers, 10 for Stanford).
That is, 6 % of the children's words were accepted despite a phonetic match
insufficient to pass more conservative criteria (cf. Huttenlocher et al. 1991).
In each sample, 85 % of the child forms taken as word-candidates were
vowel-final monosyllables, the most common word-like form occurring in
this period for children acquiring English (cf. Vihman, Ferguson & Elbert,
1986, and contrast French, Japanese and Swedish: de Boysson-Bardies,
Vihman, Roug-Hellichius, Durand, Landberg & Arao, 1992). In all but one
case of such minimally matching forms ultimately accepted as words, there
was a good match for either the initial consonant (e.g. Alice: nose [n:ae]) or the
stressed vowel (e.g. Alice: key [ci]). In the one exception, only prosody
matched (Deborah: [bon], with low pitch and extra length, for moo). Five
words corresponded to the adult model or 'matched' only globally, with
reordering of matching segments or only an approximation of both consonant

[1] For a more complete discussion of the criteria used for word identification or of the
procedure for determining degree of phonetic match, together with examples drawn from
the data reported here, please write to the authors.
527
 VIHMAN & MCCUNE
and vowel (e.g. Sean: [?ij] horse; Timmy: [s: ae] fish).2 In such cases no
phonetic criteria were taken to aid in word identification; contextual criteria
were strong enough to lead to acceptance of the word.

Evaluation of use in context

In order to determine the appropriate categories for describing children's
word use we explored the range of contexts accompanying a word form for a
given child. In thus attempting to infer the meaning of a word for the child,
we kept in mind distinctions previously reported in the literature. The
taxonomy presented in Table 4 reflects the minimum number of categories

T A B L E 4. Word use categories

1. Nominals: words referring to animals, objects and other adult-noun referents.

Context-flexible: nominal forms used with reference to a range of entities, sug-
gesting child awareness of type/token relationships.
Context-limited: nominal forms used in a limited way, to refer to a single referent or
as part of a routinized context, such as labelling animals with their characteristic
sounds while 'reading' with Mother.
Specific: nominals used to refer to particular persons or entities. The category
corresponds to the adult sub-class of 'proper nouns', but may refer to terms with
broader adult use which are treated as proper nouns by the child (e.g. mommy, num-
num for a favourite blanket).
2. Relationals: words referring to reversible temporal or spatial transformations in the
environment: all-gone, back, more, up. More than one use is required, to provide
evidence of context-flexible application. Single uses of potential relational words are
generally interpreted as ' event' words (which may be context-bound).
3. Event: used in relation to events which do not exhibit a reversible character. Includes
words marking pretend events (feeding do\\-yum; rolling vehicle - vroom; serving tea-
tea [to refer to a range of tea-related objects and actions]; quaffing a drink - ah;
sleeping — sh; cleaning — clean) as well as real-life events (hurt finger - ow; sliding —
whee).
4. Social expression: words used to mark (real or pretend) social interactions (please, hi,
yay).
5. Routine/game: words used as part of verbal rituals or routines not supported by a
larger situational context, including animal sounds in response to questioning out of
context (baa), or games such as peek-a-boo, ' how big is baby ?' etc.
6. Deictic: words used to point out people, entities or events of interest (this, that), or to
mark interest in general (aha, look, oh).

which we found necessary to account for the children's word uses. When a
word was produced spontaneously in varying contexts its use was considered
referential, whereas production in limited contexts was taken to reflect use as

[2] Acceptance of the plausibility of such 'global' matches depends on familiarity with the
phonetic patterns used by a particular child. For further discussion of Timmy's incipient
phonological system, which supports recognition of ' fricative + low vowel' as an attempt
at fish, for example, see Vihman, Velleman & McCune (1994). Compare also Waterson
(1971), who cites such globally matching forms as [wae] forfly,[oj] for vest, for her son
at i ; 5 .

528
 WHEN IS A WORD A WORD?

a routine vocal response or accompaniment to a specific type of event.

Nominal forms, which may or may not meet criteria for referential use, were
variously categorized as Context-flexible, Context-limited or Specific (i.e.
proper nouns). Relational words can only be identified by multiple occur-
rences which allow the inference that the child is referencing a reversible
temporal or spatial phenomenon across contexts; thus, words categorized as
'relational' met our criteria for referential use by definition.
The categories Event, Social expression and Routine/game rely on specific
situational frames for their application. These categories differ in the
circumstances of their use and eliciting conditions, but share with context-
limited nominals a restriction in application which does not characterize
relational and flexible nominals. Deictic single words have functional
significance, expressing the child's attention to external reality and interest in
having others attend as well. Such words are limited to indicating aspects of
context, although they will later play syntactic roles in sentences.
We did not further classify the function or use of words occurring only as
imitations. In a few cases otherwise plausible word-candidates resisted
classification in terms of a 'use' or 'meaning' for the child in the given
situation. Such words were eliminated from further consideration.

Comparison of the Stanford and Rutgers samples

We have already noted one difference in word use across the two samples:
imitations account for a larger proportion of the Stanford than the Rutgers
sample. In order to achieve a clearer perspective on the overall distribution
of word use in the two samples we collapsed the spontaneous word use
categories of Table 4 into three groups: flexible nominals, which reflect
referential use, relationals, which similarly constitute referential word use,
and context-bound words. The results of this re-grouping, summarized in
Table 5, are striking. Whereas the two samples differ sharply in numbers of

TABLE 5. Word use at 1 53/1 ;4

Rutgers Stanford

Total Percent Total Percent

Flexible nominals 45 39 43 26
Relationals 10 9 9 5
Context-bound 41 36 7' 42
Imitations 18 16 45 27
Total 114 168

529
 VIHMAN & MCCUNE

TABLE 6. Word use over time

Months 9 IO I I 12 13 14 15 16

I. Rutgers sample
Flexible nominals — 2 3 3 16 20 44
Relational — I 2 5 14
Context-bound 2 3 IO 10 12 24 28 28
Imitations 3 i 6 2 S 5 9 19
Total S 6 20 12 21 47 62 i°5
No. of subjects 3 3 6 4 7 7 9 10
Mean no. of words i-7 2O 33 30 30 67 69 105
per subject
II. Stanford sample
Flexible nominals — I — 1 4 13 17 47
Relational — — i — 3 3 6 8
Context-bound — 5 14 17 39 33 46 84
Imitations 2 4 11 7 21 25 37 46
Total 2 IO 26 25 67 74 106 185
No. of subjects 2 4 7 6 7 8 10 10
Mean no. of words ro 25 3'7 41 95 93 106 i8'5
per subject
Raw totals are given for each month. The 'number of subjects' refers to the subjects with
identifiable words in each month sampled.

context-bound spontaneous words as well as in imitations, they show

virtually identical numbers of referential productions (flexible nominals +
relational). Since nearly half as many words again were identified for the
Stanford sample, the proportion of all words represented by the 52 context-
flexible words (31%) is naturally smaller than the proportion represented by
the 55 context-flexible words in the Rutgers sample (48%).
It is likely that the differential experiences the research afforded the
parents at each site are relevant to the differences in numbers of early words
produced. The Stanford mothers became close collaborators in monitoring
their child's language acquisition. They focused on vocal production,
encouraged by weekly inquiries from the observer. They also engaged in
relatively frequent verbal interchange with the observer in the course of the
session, resulting in a 'chatty' atmosphere which probably contributed to the
children's higher vocal output. The Rutgers mothers were not encouraged to
attend to any particular aspects of the children's development. The research
team provided general information about child development upon request
and did collect written lists of new words, but there was an explicit intention
to minimize parental awareness of detailed research goals, lest this influence
their interactions with the children. These mothers attended to their
children's play and communication without attempting to elicit any specific
behaviour relevant to the research. They attempted to maintain the children's
interest in the toy set and rarely spoke with the observer. It is certainly
53°
 WHEN IS A WORD A WORD?

Rutgers sample Stanford sample

40

20

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Age in months
Fig. i. Word use over time in two samples. D, Flexible; +, other spontaneous; *, imitated.
N = io each.

plausible that the weekly visits and emphasis on language contributed to a

generally greater focus on language in the daily lives of the Stanford sample.
Such an emphasis may have yielded an unintended 'training effect' on the
children's language acquisition.
If indeed the difference in the total number of words produced in the two
samples reflects differences in parental experience, which thus had dif-
ferential influence on the language environments of the home, then the most
notable finding here is the ABSENCE of a difference in flexible word use in the
two samples. This supports the possibility that the greater overall word
production in the Stanford sample (Table i) reflected an unintended
'training effect' due to the focus on language, and at the same time suggests
that such training is constrained by developmental limitations. Context-
bound word use is susceptible to variation in parental efforts to encourage
language, but adult-like referential usage will emerge in relation to de-
velopmental variables less susceptible to variation based on parental at-
tention, participation in verbal games, book-reading and so on (see McCune,
1992).

Longitudinal findings
In order to explore further the interpretation of a training effect, we applied
the same four-way grouping to the words identified across all eight months
sampled. Table 6 shows the results of this analysis; Fig. 1 offers a graphic
representation of the findings.
 VIHMAN. & MCCUNE
The longitudinal perspective confirms our interpretation of the lexicons
presented in the Appendix. The two samples begin to diverge, in both
numbers of words produced per subject and in numbers of children
contributing words to the pool, by o; 11 or i ;o. The Stanford sample shows
a sharply ascending curve for both context-bound words and imitations,
while the rising curve for these categories is greatly attenuated in the Rutgers
samples. The trajectory for the acquisition of referential words, on the other
hand, is virtually identical in the two samples. Such words are meagrely
represented in either group until i;2. At that point, both samples show a
sudden increase in the occurrence of flexible nominals - the kind of increase
that might be expected to accompany an abrupt cognitive revelation, such as
the 'nominal insight'. Relational words double in both samples in the
following month, and double again in the Rutgers sample at i;4. In the
Rutgers sample, the shift to flexible words at i; 2 is also accompanied by a
doubling of word production in the 'other spontaneous' category, which
suggests a new level of attention to the linguistic forms available in the

environment.

CONCLUSION
Our data sets were collected independently, using different methods in the
service of different immediate goals, but in the course of years of collaboration
we have developed a common, maximally explicit and maximally inclusive
procedure for identifying early word use. Two consequences of our approach
can be brought out here. First, if the very earliest words-the 'ragged
beginnings' of speech - are to be recognized, close attention to phonetic
patterns is needed, as well as awareness of a variety of types of ways of linking
sound and meaning. Secondly, if we are interested in identifying relationships
between language and early cognitive development, it is essential to separate
out the 'dribble' of earliest, context-bound words used by some children
from the flexible usage which emerges somewhat later. These two kinds of
word, with their differing degrees of symbolic and referential value, continue
to co-exist, as they characterize not only the language of children but the
usage of adults as well, for example such discourse markers as well, with no
'meaning' or reference outside of the immediate pragmatic context
(Schiffrin, 1985), or formulas and conversational routines, which fit globally
into a discourse event, but which, again, cannot be said to bear referential
'meaning' (Ferguson, 1976; Coulmas, 1979). Some children begin context-
bound word production before they are ready for context-flexible language
use; others begin both at the same time.
The notion of a 'sound-meaning link' is far from simple. The value of the
'word' as a unit of form and meaning varies across the world's languages and
even within a single language, given the problematic status of formulaic
expressions and marginal words, for example. Special care and attention to
532
 WHEN IS A WORD A WORD?

definition are all the more necessary in recognizing the emergence of word
use in the vocal production of young children. As linguist and psychologist
in collaboration we found it essential to specify phonetic and contextual
criteria in order to clearly identify and communicate our own underlying
assumptions. In recounting our attempts to define and evaluate both formal
and functional criteria ever more closely we have attempted to provide for
other investigators an instrument for assessing the reliability or degree of
confidence that can be assumed in connection with different approaches to
word identification, and thus for selecting methods appropriate to individual
goals and areas of expertise.

REFERENCES
Bates, E., Benigni, L., Bretherton, I., Camaioni, L. & Volterra, V. (1979). The emergence of
symbols: cognition and communication in infancy. New York: Academic Press.
Bloom, L. (1973). One word at a time. The Hague: Mouton.
de Boysson-Bardies, B., Vihman, M. M., Roug-Hellichius, L., Durand, C , Landberg, I. &
Arao, F. (1991). Material evidence of infant selection from the target language: a cross-
linguistic phonetic study. In C. A. Ferguson, L. Menn & C. Stoel-Gammon (eds), Phono-
logical development: models, research, implications. Parkton, MD: York Press.
Coulmas, F. (1979). On the sociolinguistic relevance of routine formulae. Journal of
Pragmatics 3, 239-66.
Dore, J. (1985). Holophrases revisited: their 'logical' development from dialog. In M. D.
Barrett (ed.), Children's single-word speech. New York: Wiley.
Dore, J., Franklin, M. B., Miller, R. R. & Ramer, A. L. H. (1976). Transitional phenomena
in early language acquisition. Journal of Child Language 3, 13—28.
Ferguson, C. A. (1976). The structure and use of politeness formulas. Language in Society 5,
137-5'-
(1978). Learning to pronounce: the earliest stages of phonological development in the
child. In F. D. Minifie & L. L. Lloyd (eds), Communicative and cognitive abilities — early
behavioral assessment. Baltimore, M D : University Park Press.
Ferguson, C. A. & Farwell, C. B. (1975). Words and sounds in early language acquisition.
Language 51, 419-39.
Goldfield, B. A. & Reznick, J. S. (1990). Early lexical acquisition: rate, content, and the
vocabulary spurt. Journal of Child Language 17, 171-83.
Greenfield, P. M. & Smith, J. H. (1976). The structure of communication in early language
development. New York: Academic Press.
Griffiths, P. (1986). Early vocabulary. In P. Fletcher & M. Garman (eds), Language
acquisition : studies in first language development. (2nd edn.) Cambridge: C.U.P.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1975). Learning how to mean - explorations in the development of language.
London: Edward Arnold.
Harris, M., Barrett, M., Jones, D. & Brookes, S. (1988). Linguistic input and early word
meaning. Journal of Child Language 15, 77-94.
Huttenlocher, J., Haight, W., Bryk, A., Seltzer, M. & Lyons, T. (1991). Early vocabulary
growth: relation to language input and gender. Developmental Psychology 27, 236-48.
Labov, W. & Labov, T. (1978). The phonetics of cat and mama. Language 54, 816-52.
de Laguna, G. A. (1927). Speech: its function and development. New Haven, CO: Yale
University Press.
Leopold, W. F. (1939). Speech development of a bilingual child: a linguist's record, I: vocabulary
growth in the first two years. New York: Northwestern University Press.
Lewis, M. M. (1936). Infant speech : a study of the beginnings of language. New York: Harcourt
Brace.

533
 VIHMAN & MCCUNE
McCarthy, D. (1954). Language development in children. In L. Carmichael (ed.), Manual of
child psychology. (2nd edn.) New York: Wiley.
McCune, L. (1992). First words: a dynamic systems view. In C. A. Ferguson, L. Menn & C.
Stoel-Gammon (eds), Phonological development: models, research, implications. Parkton,
MD: York Press.
McCune-Nicolich, L. (1981). The cognitive bases of relational words in the single word
period. Journal of Child Language 8, 15-34.
McNeill, D. (1970). The development of language. New York: Harper & Row.
McShane, J. (1979). The development of naming. Linguistics 17, 879-905.
Matthews, P. H. (1974). Morphology: an introduction to the theory of word structure.
Cambridge: C.U.P.
Meier, R. P. & Newport, E. L. (1990). Out of the hands of babes: on a possible sign
advantage. Language 66, 1-23.
Menn, L. (1978). Pattern, control, and contrast in beginning speech: a case study in the
development of word form and word function. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University
Linguistics Club.
Nelson, K. (1973). Structure and strategy in learning to talk. Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Development 38.
(1988). Constraints on word learning? Cognitive Development 3, 221—46.
Orlansky, M. D. & Bonvillian, J. D. (1988). Early sign language acquisition. In M. D. Smith
& J. L. Locke (eds), The emergent lexicon : the child's development of a linguistic vocabulary.
New York : Academic Press.
Packer, M. J. (1985). Hermeneutic inquiry in the study of human conduct. American
Psychologist 40, 1081-93.
Petitto, L. A. (1988). 'Language' in the pre-linguistic child. In F. S. Kessel (ed.), The
development of language and language researchers. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Plunkett, K. (1993). Lexical segmentation and vocabulary growth in early language ac-
quisition. Journal of Child Language 20, 43-60.
Rescorla, L. A. (1980). Overextension in early language development. Journal of Child
Language 7, 321-35.
Schiffrin, D. (1985). Conversational coherence: the role of well. Language 61, 640—67.
Sinclair, H. (1970). The transition from sensory-motor behavior to symbolic activity.
Interchange 1, 119—25.
Veneziano, E. (1981). Early language and nonverbal representation: a reassessment. Journal
of Child Language 8, 541-63.
Vihman, M. M. (1992). Early syllables and the construction of phonology. In C. A. Ferguson,
L. Menn & C. Stoel-Gammon (eds), Phonological development: models, research, implica-
tions. Parkton, MD: York Press.
Vihman, M. M., Ferguson, C. A. & Elbert, M. (1986). Phonological development from
babbling to speech: common tendencies and individual differences. Applied Psycholin-
guistics 7, 3—40.
Vihman, M. M., Macken, M. A, Miller, R., Simmons, H. & Miller, J. (1985). From babbling
to speech: a re-assessment of the continuity issue. Language 61, 397—445.
Vihman, M. M. & Miller, R. (1988). Words and babble at the threshold of lexical acquisition.
In M. D. Smith & J. L. Locke (eds), The emergent lexicon: the child's development of a
linguistic vocabulary. New York: Academic Press.
Vihman, M. M., Velleman, S. L. & McCune, L. (1994). How abstract is child phonology?
Toward an integration of linguistic and psychological approaches. In M. Yavas (ed.), First
and second language phonology. San Diego: Singular Press.
Waterson, N. (1971). Child phonology: a prosodic view. Journal of Linguistics 7, 179-211.
Werner, H. & Kaplan, B. (1963). Symbol formation : an organismic-developmental approach to
language and the expression of thought. New York: Wiley. (Reprinted 1984. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.)

534
 WHEN IS A WORD A WORD?

APPENDIX
Word forms at i;4, organized by lexical category. The most common
spontaneous phonetic variant is given or, if variants are equally distributed,
the variant best matching the adult form. Frequency of use is given in
parentheses. Three subjects are sampled at i; 3 as indicated below. One
Rutgers subject produced no words.

I. RUTGERS SUBJECTS
Alice
Nominate: flexible limited specific
apple (4) [?ae] bang (1) [pai] Grandpa (3) [p'a]
baby (7) [beibi] elephant (4) [5:IJA] mommy (10) [ma:ni]
belly (1) [vei] nose (1) [n:ae]
blanket (1) [k'et]
bottle (14) [badj]
bunny (3) [bAnn:i]
daddy (2) [da:di]
duck (1) [tae?]
egg (8) [?ei]
eye (4) [?ai]
flower (3) [p'adi]
hat (2) [?a]
iron (2) [?aiji]
key (1) [ci]
lady (4) [je:ji]
man (1) [ma;:]
meat (1) [mi?]
milk (1) [mms]
Oscar (= puppet) (6) [?a?]
plate (4) [p'ei]
shoe (1) [ci]
tea (1) [p:]
Relational
down (2) [dau] up (2) [?A:p]
no (1) [nae] clean (2) [ti:ni]
Event
shiny (3) [ta:ji]
Social
bye (1) [bai]
Imitation
hello (1) [lou]
535
 VIHMAN & McCUNE

Aurie
Nominate: flexible limited
apple (2) [Paebi] cock-a-doodle-doo sound (6) [kakijali::]
book (1) [buk:ts]
dolly (2) [?adi]
shoe (2) [tsi]
Relational
bye (1) [baebaei] up (5) [?ap]
peek-a-boo (2) [p'iljhu:]
Event
ow (1) [?aeo] yum sound (2) [vAm:i]
Social
hello (12) [hA:o] hi (4) [haei]
Routine/game
open (2) [thA:ppu] tickle-tickle (1) [tikatik]
Imitation
orange (1) [Pawis] stuck (1) [tae]
out (1) [Paut] uh-oh (1) [hA?u]
pretty (1) [pli] whoop (1) [wu::]
yoohoo (5) [huho]
Danny
Deictic
aha (8) [?&hsb] that (6) [da::]
Jase
Nominals: flexible limited specific
ball (1) [bo::a] woof sound (5) [wAp] mommy (7) [mam]
dog (4) [du:]
Grover (puppet) (3) [go:]
juice (4) [cfeis]
Relational
more (5) [mo]
Social
no (2) [nou]
Kari
Event
car sound (5) [?m] up (1) [Pap]
Social
uh-oh (1) [?A?a]
Imitation
no (1) [nA]

536
 WHEN IS A WORD A WORD?

Rala
Nominate: flexible
baby (5) [p'epi] comb (8) [hekom]
ball (10) [bo] mouth (4) [mao]
beads (2) [?ebi] shoes (2) [aja:/]
bottle (6) [hAbau] spoon (5) [hebu:]
car (7) [[hek'a]
Relational
uh-oh (7) [?A?]
Event
tea (11) [ti:] X go[es] (6) [Pik'ou]
do (6) [nhto]
Deictic
see (20) [si:]
Imitation
bye (3) [bai]
toe (2) [hethoo]
Rick
Nominals: flexible limited specific
ball (3) [p'o:] beads (1) daddy (2) [daegi]
doggie (2) [go:di] mommy (6) [mam:]
eyes (3) [?ai]
spoon (1) [p'o:p'i]
Relational
no (2) [nou] open (17) [oup'i]
Event
yum sound (1) [?Am]
Social
hi (6) [hai]
Ronny (i;3)
Nominals: flexible specific
baby (7) [p'ebi] mama (1) [mama]
woof sound (1) [wa[3a]
Event
vroom sound (1) [vf:um]
Social
hello (1) [[?al:o]
Routine/game
sit (1) [sit]
Deictic
this (1) [di]

537
 VIHMAN & MCCUNE

Imitation
yellow (i) [ijaeb]
Vido
Nominals: limited
baby (2) [bobap]
Social
thank you (8) [de:ide] unh-hunh (5) [[?5h
Imitation
apple (2) [bapba] good (1) [go:n]
daddy (1) [darn] keys (2) [se:s]
flower (3) [fa:|3wa] yellow (1) [deblou]

I I . STANFORD SUBJECTS
Andrew
Nominals: Limited
spoon (2) [p'o]
Relational
up (3) [?aep]
Social
no (1) [ne::]
Imitation
bird (7) [be] mountain (2) [ITIA]
clock (3) [kaek]
tail (4) [t'e]
Camille
Relational
up (7) [Pap]
Event
car sound (3) [djhis]
Deictic
(what's) this (7) [?9zis]
Imitation
hello (5) [haha]
Deborah
Nominals: flexible limited specific
baby (7) [p'e:bi] moo sound (8) [bo::] monkey (1) [hmmae:]
ball (7) [boa]
bird (2) [bwa]
bottle (2) [ba:]
cheese (2) [§i:]
corn (5) [kho:]
538
 WHEN IS A WORD A WORD?

duck (i) [tae]

eye (6) [?ai]
kitty (4) [k'ekji]
Relational
down (4) [ta] up (3) [?ah]
Event
water (5) [wawoa]
hug sound (4) [?m:m]
yum sound (12) [?m]
Social
bye (1) [pan] hi (i S ) [hai]
Routine/game
A (1) [?e:] two (2) [thi]
three (8) [§i::]
Imitation
carrot (1) [kheiwi] hair (1) [?ea?]
cow (1) [kh?:]
ear (1) [?i:?] crashing rock sound (2) [kx::]
Emily (153)
Nominals: flexible specific
beads (1) [phi:ge] Marilyn (2) [meme]
box (2) [phat:]
Relational
more (17) [mo:]
Event
yum sound (17) [?Am] daddy (7) [daedae]
Routine/game
tickle (5) [thithi]
Deictic
oh (2) [?ou]
Imitation
night-night (1) [na|naet] patty-cake (3) [p'ak'ae]
open (5) [?appi] up (2) [?Ap]
Jonah
Event
rock-rock (3) [wa:hwa]
Routine/game
roar sound (9) [kfi]
Imitation
cock-a-doodle-doo sound (2) [akakek:a]
cookie (2) [k'ak'a] no (2) [na::u]

539
 VIHMAN & McCUNE

Molly
Nominate: flexible limited specific
baby (2) [pebi] bead (8) [pi:] Brett (9) [pat]
block (8) [pak] piano (2) [pau] Graham (9) [kon:i]
book (13) [puk] picture (4) [popo] Grandma (1) [meuwA]
camera (4) [kama] Grandpa (1) [kaepo]
ear (4) [he:] mama (7) [mama]
glasses (29) [kaki] Nicky (2) [m:i]
meow sound (8) [miA] Nonny (10) [nanni]
nose (1) [no:] Ruth (6) [wut]
Relational
stuck (1) [kak]
Event
bang (4) [pan:a] vroom sound (12) [b?Am]
choochoo sound (10) [tutu] walk-walk (8) [wokae]
down (10) [tanna]
Social
hi (4) [?ai:]
Routine/game
baa sound (2) [pae:] snort sound (14) [?e?]
cluck sound (11) three (2) [wi:]
[bA?bA?]
neigh sound (8) [p'A] two (2) [tu]
moo sound (13) [mu:] woof sound (17) [wu]
peek-a-boo (7) [pik]
Imitation
click (11) [kik] open (1) [hopo]
good girl (2) [guga] pig (1) [pik]
green (3) [kyn:i] red (2) [wat]
house (2) [haut] rug (3) [wa:k]
in (1) [ihni] tail (26) [teu]
name (1) [nem:i] that (2) [tat]
oink sound (1) [ho:k] work (6) [hAk]
Sean
Nominals: flexible limited specific
bird (12) [bwi:ts] cock-a- mama (9) [ma:]
block (16) [pak] doodle-doo sound (2) [daludalu::]
book (4) [bik] quack sound (5) [?a?]
bug (2) [mbAkl] vroom sound (3) [(3::]
butterfly (3) [pAJA:] woof sound (2) [wau]
cracker (2) [djak]
dog (3) [tao]

54O
 WHEN IS A WORD A WORD?

duck (4) [tAk1]

fish (4) [f0tj]
horse (12) [?ij]
moo sound (6) [?6:h]
mouse (9) [ma1]
rabbit (3) [phaets]
Relational
more (29) [mo]
Routine/game
baa sound (3) [bah] blue (3) [boh]
Deictic
look (4) [jekh] this (6) [dis]
oh (9) [?oh]
Imitation
berries (3) [bsbij]
Ian (2) [nih]
stuck (1) [na:k']
Susie (i;3)
Event
kiss sound (7) [?m]
Imitation
ice (cream) (1) [?a?i] out there (2) [atats]
Thomas
Nominals: flexible limited
ball (23) [pakhi] truck (4) [tAkis]
glasses (6) [gae:ti] woof sound (2) [?A?A?A]
Relational
no (5) [no] up (2) [Pap]
Event
down (1) [ta:]
Social
hi (4) [hai] oh yeah (1) [ha:jah]
Imitation
baby (2) [bi:] toe (1) [tou]
string (1) [tih] zoom (2) [zu::i]
Timmy
Nominals: flexible limited specific
baby (12) [paepae] balloon (5) [bei] daddy (2) [tadae]
block (17) [gmbae] toottoot sound (2) mama (2) [mAmae]
[dAits:]
boat (2) [pae] Nana (1) [Paemenae]
 VIHMAN & MCCUNE

bracelet (6) [paepae] Ruth (4) [hA|3ae]

car (2) [kai] Simon (6) [nAmae]
eye (5) [?aei]
fish (2) [s:ae]
light (15) [aija]
round & round (15) [AligAligae] ( < helicopter)
Social
hiya (3) [aijae]
Routine/game
D (1) [di::]
Imitation
boy (1) [bAi] goodbye (2) [kaebae]
cookie (1) [kaki] please (3) [pai]
flower (1) [Aoae]

542