An evaluation of prosodic and content variations in college students with and without head injuries

  • Wm. Drew Gouvier
  • Jane M. Barbin
  • Rebecca Plum
  • Robert C. Coon


In this study, we evaluated the impact of language variations on listeners with and without head injuries. Participants with and without previous head injuries rated speakers using either normal or motherese speech register. ANOVA results revealed that participants in both groups rated speakers using normal prosody and normal content more favorably than speakers who spoke in motherese content and prosody. When speakers used only one of these motherese components in their speech, listeners still found disfavor with it, though less so than when speakers incorporated both components. Although both components related to ratings of the speakers, content variations exerted a larger influence. This supports implications of previous studies and offers the caveat that not only is “what” you say important, but also “how” you say it.

Key Words

head injury rehabilitation speech register motherese 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Beers, S. R., Goldstein, G., and Katz, L. J. (1994). Neuropsychological differences between college students with learning disabilities and those with mild head injury.J. Learn. Disabil. 27(5): 315–324.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Berko-Gleason, J., and Weintraub, M. (1978). Input language and the acquisition of communicative competence. In Nelson, K. (ed.),Children’s Language, Vol. 1, Gardner, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Caporael, L. R. (1981). The paralanguage of caregiving: Baby talk to the institutionalized aged.J. Person. Soc. Psychol. 40(5): 876–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caporael, L. R., and Culbertson, G. H. (1986). Verbal response modes of baby talk and other speech at institutions for the aged.Language and Commun. 6(1/2): 99–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coon, R. C., Gouvier, W. D., Caldwell, K., and Hulse, K. (1991). Perception of register variations in speech and its relation to differential judgements about handicapping conditions.J. Head Injury 2(2): 16–20.Google Scholar
  6. Ewing, R., McCarthy, D., Gronwall, D., and Wrightson, P. (1980). Persisting effects of minor head injury observable during hypoxic stress.J. Clin. Neuropsychol. 2: 147–155.Google Scholar
  7. Gouvier, W. D., Coon, R. C., Fuller, K. H., and Arnoldi, K. R. (1992a). Evaluation of linguistic variations by college students with and without head injuries.Rehab. Psychol. 37(3): 165–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gouvier, W. D., Coon, R. C., Todd, M. E., and Fuller, C. H. (1994). Verbal interactions with individuals presenting with and without physical disability.Rehab. Psychol. 39: 263–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gouvier, W. D., Cubic, B., Jones, G., Brantley, P., and Cutlip, Q. (1992). Postconcussion symptoms and daily stress in normal and head-injured college populations.Arch. Clin. Neuropsychol. 7: 193–211.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hayes, J. S., Martin, R. C., and Gouvier, W. D. (1997). Influence of prior knowledge and experience on the ability to feign mild head injury symptoms in head injured and non head injured college students.Appl. Neuropsychol. (in press).Google Scholar
  11. Kailes, J. I. (1985). Watch your language, please.J. Rehab. 50–52: 68–69.Google Scholar
  12. Katz, I. (1981).Stigma: A Social Psychological Analysis, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  13. Kay, T., Harrington, D. E., Adams, R., Anderson, T., Berrol, S., Cicerone, K., Kahlberg, C., Gerber, D., Goka, R., Harley, P., Hilt, J., Horn, L., Lehmkuhl, D., and Malec, J. (1993). Definition of mild traumatic brain injury.J. Head Trauma Rehab. 8: 86–87.Google Scholar
  14. Kemper, S., Anagnopoulos, C., Lyons, K., and Heberlein, W. (1994). Speech accommodations to dementia.J. Gerontol. 49(5): 223–229.Google Scholar
  15. Newport, E. L. (1977). Motherese: The speech of mothers to young children. In Castellan, N. J., Pisoni, D. P., and Potts, G. R. (eds.),Cognitive Theory: Vol. II, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  16. O’Jile, J. R., Ryan, L. M., Parks-Levy, J., Gouvier, W. D., Betz, B., Haptonstahl, D. E., Groves, A., and Coon, R. C. (1997). Indicators of driving performance in a mildly head injured sample.J. Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. (in press).Google Scholar
  17. Research and Training Center on Independent Living (1990).Guidelines for Reporting and Writing about People with Disabilities, Bureau of Child Research, University of Kansas, Lawrence.Google Scholar
  18. Rubin, K. H., and Brown, I. D. R. (1975). A life-span look at person perception and its relationship to communicative interaction.J. Gerontol. 30(4): 461–468.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Ryan, L. M., O’Jile, J. R., Gouvier, W. D., Parks-Levy, J., and Betz, B. (1997). Head injury in a college population: Analysis of epidemiological factors.Appl. Neuropsychol. (in press).Google Scholar
  20. Warren-Leubecker, A., and Bohannon, J. N. (1989). Pragmatics: Language in social contexts. In Gleason, J. B. (ed.),The Development of Language, Merrill, Columbus, OH, pp. 327–368.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wm. Drew Gouvier
    • 1
  • Jane M. Barbin
    • 1
  • Rebecca Plum
    • 1
  • Robert C. Coon
    • 1
  1. 1.Louisiana State UniversityBaton Rouge

Personalised recommendations