Abstract
Much of our communication is redundant in that we say more than necessary to be informative. How listeners respond to verbal redundancy is important because of its frequency of occurrence and because such knowledge should enable us to increase our understanding of the development of listening skills. Previous research indicated qualitative developmental differences in how listeners respond to differentiating redundancy (several distinguishing features of a referent are mentioned). The present research compared performance with two forms of redundancy: differentiating and structured (e.g., mentioning a distinguishing referential feature and a feature shared by several contiguous stimuli) and investigated causes of differences in responding to the two forms. First- and fifth-graders participated in a referential communication paradigm. Results were discussed in terms of a processing capacity model: Redundancy should facilitate performance only if it decreases processing demands on a listener. Which processing demands will be affected will depend on the specific redundancy and the specific task.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ammon, P. (1981). Communication skills and communicative competence: A neo-Piagetian process-structural view. In W. P. Dickson (Ed.),Children's oral communication skills. New York: Academic Press.
Brown, A. L., & DeLoache, J. S. (1978). Skills, plans, and self-regulation. In R. S. Siegler (Ed.),Children's thinking: What develops? Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Critchley, M. (1975). Language. In E. Lenneberg & E. Lenneberg (Eds.),Foundations of language development: A multidisciplinary approach (Vol. I). New York: Academic Press.
Patterson, C. J., & Kister, M. C. (1981). Listener skills for referential communication. In W. P. Dickson (Ed.),Children's oral communication skills. New York: Academic Press.
Shatz, M. (1978). The relationship between cognitive processes and the development of communication skills. In B. Keasey (Ed.),Nebraska symposium on motivation, 1977. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Sonnenschein, S. (1982). The effects of redundant communications on listeners: When more is less.Child Development, 53, 717–729.
Sonnenschein, S. (1984). Why young listeners do not benefit from differentiating redundancy.Child Development, in press.
Sonnenschein, S., & Whitehurst, G. J. (1982). The effects of redundant communications on the behavior of listeners: Does a picture need a thousand words?Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 11, 115–125.
Whitehurst, G. J., & Sonnenschein, S. (1978). The development of communication: Attribute variation leads to contrast failure.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 25, 454–490.
Whitehurst, G. J., & Sonnenschein, S. (1981). The development of informative messages in referential communication: Knowing when versus knowing how. In W. P. Dickson (Ed.),Children's oral communication skills. New York: Academic Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
I am indebted to the children and staff from Taken Elementary School in Smithtown, New York, and from Bedford, Campfield, and Westchester Elementary Schools and Pilgrim Christian Day School in Baltimore County, Maryland, for participating in this study. The first experiment was part of my doctoral dissertation at SUNY at Stony Brook. I am grateful to the members of my committee, especially Russ Whitehurst, for their guidance and advice. I also wish to thank Linda Baker for reading a preliminary draft of the paper, and Amy Gorback for running some of the subjects.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sonnenschein, S. The effects of redundant communications on listeners: Why different types may have different effects. J Psycholinguist Res 13, 147–166 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067697
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067697