A Linguistic Analysis of Picture Books and Children's Television Series

A linguistic analysis of picture books and children’s television series

Master thesis

A thesis submitted to the University of Salzburg in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Education

Submitted by Nadžida Mesic-Nuhanović, B.Ed.

01320186

Department of English and American Studies

Supervisor:

Pfenninger, Simone, Assoz. Prof. Priv.-Doz. Dr.

Salzburg, August, 2019 Declaration

I declare that this dissertation is all my own work except where I indicate otherwise by proper use of quotes and references.

Table of content

List of Figures ...... iii List of Tables ...... iii Abstract ...... iv 1. Introduction ...... 1 2. Aim and scope ...... 2 3. Previous research ...... 6 3.1. Child-directed speech ...... 6 3.1.1. The role of CDS in language acquisition ...... 6 3.1.2. Characteristics of the language of CDS ...... 10 3.1.3. Input frequency and context diversity ...... 12 3.1.4. Individual differences in CDS ...... 14 3.2. Picture books as a source of linguistic input ...... 17 3.2.1. Shared book reading and its effects ...... 17 3.2.2. The language used in picture books ...... 20 3.3. Children’s television series as a source of linguistic input ...... 23 3.3.1. Appropriateness of television for children ...... 23 3.3.2. Television and language ...... 27 4. Methodology ...... 31 4.1. Material ...... 32 4.2. Procedure and Data Analysis ...... 33 4.2.1. Intra-individual differences ...... 35 4.2.2. Lexical analysis ...... 36 4.2.3. Morphological analysis ...... 37 4.2.4. Sentence types ...... 38 4.2.5. Sentence constructions ...... 40 4.2.6. Verbs forms ...... 40 4.2.7. Types of clauses ...... 41 5. Results and analyses ...... 43 5.1. Results and analysis of research question 1 ...... 43 5.1.1. Intra-individual differences in the lexical analysis ...... 43 5.1.2. Intra-individual differences in the morphological analysis ...... 46 5.1.3. Intra-individual differences in the syntactical analysis ...... 50

5.1.4. Summary of research question 1 ...... 54 5.2. Results and analysis of research question 2 ...... 54 5.3. Results and analysis of research question 3 ...... 56 5.4. Results and analysis of research question 4 ...... 58 5.4.1. Sentence types ...... 59 5.4.2. Sentence constructions ...... 63 5.4.3. Verb forms ...... 65 5.4.4. Types of clauses ...... 67 5.4.5. Summary of research question 4 ...... 69 6. Implications, limitations, and future research ...... 71 7. Conclusion ...... 74 Bibliography ...... 76 Appendix I ...... 83 Appendix II ...... 84 Appendix III ...... 132

iii

List of Figures Figure 1: Individual data points - MTLD ...... 44 Figure 2: Individual data points - MLU ...... 47 Figure 3: Individual data points – sentence types ...... 50 Figure 4: Individual data points – sentence constructions ...... 52 Figure 5: Individual data points – verb forms ...... 52 Figure 6: Individual data points – complex sentences ...... 53 Figure 7: Mean of MTLD scores ...... 55 Figure 8: Mean of MLU scores ...... 57 Figure 9: Raw number of sentence types in picture books and TV shows ...... 60 Figure 10: Raw number of sentence constructions in picture books and TV shows ..... 64 Figure 11: Raw number of verb forms in picture books and TV shows ...... 66 Figure 12: Raw number of constructions in picture books and TV shows ...... 69

List of Tables Table 1: Descriptive and inferential statistics for the MTLD analysis ...... 54 Table 2: Descriptive and inferential statistics for MLU analysis ...... 56 Table 3: Descriptive and inferential statistics for sentence types ...... 594 Table 5: Descriptive and inferential statistics for verb forms ...... 65 Table 6: Descriptive and inferential statistics for clause types ...... 68 Table 7: Descriptive statistics of preschool picture books ...... 132 Table 8: Descriptive statistics of preschool television shows ...... 133

Abstract This dissertation aims to ascertain whether preschool television shows can be regarded as reasonable and complex linguistic input for children. For this purpose, 20 preschool television shows and 20 preschool picture books were examined with regard to lexis, morphology, and syntax. There are greater intra-individual differences with regard to quality within the picture book sample than in the TV show sample, therefore, each book requires individual content investigation before acknowledging it as complex. The findings of the study demonstrate that the samples do not significantly differ with regard to lexis as both samples made use of diverse vocabulary. In contrast, the book sample differs significantly from the television show sample with regard to morphology and syntax. Children’s television programs demonstrated high scores in lexical diversity but not in the other analyses. From this it follows that TV shows have the potential to facilitate children’s vocabulary development, but they are not linguistically well-equipped to provide children with morphologically or syntactically rich constructions. The implications of the results for the use of different kinds of language input for children are discussed.

1. Introduction Over the years, many different approaches have been taken to explain the influence of input on language acquisition. Chomsky (1965, 59) claims that language input is irrelevant for language acquisition as children are not able to construct any sort of grammar with the “impoverished” input given to them. However, after years of research, it has now become widely accepted that the quantity and quality of input available to young children do play a crucial role in language acquisition. Researchers such as Cameron Faulkner, Lieven, and Tomasello (2003) have argued that child-directed speech (CDS), speech directly addressed to children, does in fact facilitate language development. This is due to the presence of modified structures characteristic for CDS such as prosodic features, limited vocabulary, and simple sentences. However, CDS does not provide children with all the possible structures in the target language. Furthermore, diversity of the input plays a crucial part regarding the positive effects on language development. If there is more variety regarding language input and context, the outcome of language learning is enhanced (Hills et al., 2010; Jones, Johns and Recchia, 2012). In fact, a possible source of complex input is the text used in picture books. Several lines of evidence suggest that reading aloud to children is the best way to help children acquire vocabulary and grammatical structures as picture books contain rare words and complex structures. Therefore, shared book reading is highly recommended as children who are read to regularly are exposed to a great variety of vocabulary and structures, which is not used in everyday spoken CDS. Picture books are therefore regarded as a fruitful source for improving language outcomes for children (Farrant and Zubrick, 2012; Payne, Whitehurst and Angell, 1994; Sénéchal and LeFevre, 2002). In today’s digital age, another contemporary source of input available to young children are children’s television shows. There is a relatively small body of literature on the effect of TV shows on children’s language development and even fewer studies exist on the language used in children’s television shows. During the past 30 years, researchers found that children who watched educational television shows such as Sesame Street had higher scores in vocabulary and general language ability. This suggests that watching certain television shows at a young age can be advantageous. As there is existing literature regarding the language used in picture books, the urgent question arises as to which linguistic properties can be found in children’s

television series and how these are comparable with the linguistic properties found in picture books. There is published research on the effects of television viewing on language acquisition, however, it is still not known which linguistic properties can be found in children’s television shows. The use of specific features, typical for CDS, in children’s TV has, so far, not been investigated. Therefore, the purpose of this dissertation is to analyze the language found within picture books and children’s television series in terms of lexical, morphological, and syntactical differences in order to ascertain whether the language within children’s television series significantly differs from the language found in picture books. This study seeks to obtain data which will help to address this research gap as it provides new insights into how linguistic properties are used in picture books and children’s television series. It is hoped that the current study will contribute to a deeper understanding of the way language is used in children’s media. The overall structure of the dissertation takes the form of seven chapters, including the introduction, aim and scope, the literature review, the methodology, the results and analyses, the implications, and the conclusion. While the first chapter of this thesis, the introduction, introduces the topic of this paper, the second chapter elaborates further on the aims and the extent of the study. In the literature review, previous research done on the topics of child-directed speech, picture books, and children’s television series will be presented. In each part of the literature review the relation to language acquisition will be addressed. The fourth chapter is concerned with the methodology used for this study including the description of the material, the methods used, and the procedures of the analyses. Chapter five presents the results and the analyses, in which the results will be embedded in already existing theories. Chapter six deals with the general implications of the study and will review the limitations of the study and will present suggestions for future studies. In the conclusion, a summary of the paper will be provided.

2. Aim and scope In today’s digital age, children not only receive language input from their parents (in the form of child-directed speech also referred to as CDS) or the text from picture books, but also through the medium of television. As digitalization is taking over almost all aspects of our everyday lives, children’s lives are already being influenced by digital media. In the fast-moving 21st century, many parents are not always able to give their children their full attention and, as a result, children are exposed to television shows more than in

previous generations. Nowadays, television has become an entertainment tool parents use to engage their children while they themselves are occupied. Linguistically and content wise, it is crucial to make sure children watch appropriate shows for their age. Watching television can have benefits, but only if it is used correctly and appropriately. The positive effect of television shows depends a great deal on the language used and the context presented. In fact, in recent years, television has become a tool for language learning as well as for entertainment. Television is already being used in classrooms as an established learning tool and is now used more frequently for preschool learners. As with adult television shows, children’s shows can also be used either for the purpose of entertainment or learning. More and more shows now focus on the learning aspect and aim to help children learn vocabulary. As we live in a changing technological environment which has a great impact on home practices, it is important to understand the implications of the medium of television for language development in young children as the medium is not only used as an entertainment tool but also as an additional learning tool. Therefore, it is very important that parents and caregivers are aware of the linguistic input presented to children. A corpus-based study by Cameron-Faulkner et al. (2013) compared the constructions found within mothers’ speech samples and the constructions found in the text from picture books. They concluded that picture books are an enriched form of CDS as they contain more complex constructions in comparison to CDS. Picture books can therefore be seen as a possible source of complex input, which facilitates the acquisition of more sophisticated constructions. Accordingly, I asked the general question which linguistic features children’s television series might provide and whether they could also be seen as an enriched source of linguistic input. In this vein, the current analysis is interested in the linguistic input available to young children. The aim of this paper is to ascertain whether children’s television series contain linguistically rich input or not. For this reason, the language within picture books and children’s television series is analyzed with respect to lexis, morphology, and syntax. Even though this study aims to compare preschool television shows with preschool picture books, the first research question focuses on the differences within the samples. By conducting the already mentioned linguistic analyses, the current study also investigates whether there are intra-individual

differences in preschool picture books and preschool television shows. Consequently, I asked the following research questions: RQ 1: How does the linguistic content differ in the television series sample and in the picture book sample? RQ 2: To what extent do preschool television series differ from preschool picture books with regard to lexis? RQ 3: To what extent do preschool television series differ from preschool picture books with regard to morphology? RQ 4: To what extent do preschool television series differ from preschool picture books with regard to syntax? The key hypothesis is that intra-individual differences within both samples are to be found. Linebarger and Walker (2005) found many different results among children’s television series. While some shows such as Dora the Explorer and Blue’s Clues resulted in greater vocabulary and higher expressive language scores, viewing Barney & Friends was related to fewer vocabulary words. Therefore, differences in lexis within the sample of television series itself are expected. Furthermore, Cameron-Faulkner and Noble (2013) found that there are two types of picture books: books containing more subject-verb constructions (SV-heavy books) and books containing more non-subject-verb constructions (SV-light books). Therefore, it is expected that intra-individual differences in syntax in the book sample are to be found. As studies have already found that children’s television shows offer a great amount of vocabulary (Klein, 1997), it is expected that picture books and children’s television series do not significantly differ with regard to lexical diversity. On the other hand, since data from previous studies suggests that picture books offer a greater variety of grammatical constructions than everyday CDS (Cameron- Faulkner, 2013) and written texts always differ from spoken language with regard to complexity (Hayes and Ahrens, 1988; Montag and MacDonald, 2015), it is expected that picture books contain more complex constructions. This hypothesis refers to the third and fourth research question, in which the grammatical properties of the samples are analyzed. Overall, differences in the morphological and syntactic analyses are expected, but not in the lexical examination. However, intra-individual differences are expected in both samples.

In this thesis, the focus is on vocabulary and grammar covering the three mentioned linguistic areas. The term grammar will be used as an umbrella term to refer to aspects of morphology and syntax. A detailed explanation of why this study focuses on preschool picture books and preschool television series will be discussed in the methodology chapter. For the sake of readability, the terms picture books and books will be used interchangeably with preschool picture books and the terms television shows, television series, TV shows, and TV series will be used to refer to preschool television shows. Furthermore, in this dissertation, the abbreviation CDS will be used to refer to the terms child-directed speech, Motherese, and Baby Talk. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the language of picture books and of children’s television series in terms of lexical, morphological, and syntactical differences in order to find out whether children’s television series significantly differ from picture books. For the purpose of this study, a corpus-based analysis based on twenty picture books and twenty children’s television series aimed at children aged two to five will be conducted. The lexical, morphological, and syntactical constructions found within the picture books and children’s television series will be analyzed. The aim of the study is to compare the constructions found within the two samples and ascertain whether the language within children’s television series could also be viewed as a form of enriched CDS. It is important to bear in mind that it is beyond the scope of this study to examine the effect of the language used in picture books and children’s television series on language acquisition. For this reason, other aspects such as interaction, corrective input, and other factors influencing language acquisition, will not be considered. The current study is solely interested in the type of language structures used within the two different media available to young children. Even though two different types of media will be compared, the analysis is still relevant as is compares the different types of input available to young children. Furthermore, in language acquisition research, studies comparing different genres are considered to be common practice. An example of this is Cameron- Faulkner and Noble (2013) and Montag and MacDonald (2015), who, among others, compared the language found in picture books with a CDS sample, and is therefore a comparison of written and spoken language. In fact, the current study is the first study to compare picture books and children’s television series with regard to their linguistic

properties. The study does not determine whether or not picture books and animated television series foster language acquisition, rather, it focuses on the environment in which language acquisition occurs. By revealing the linguistic characteristics found in picture books and children’s television series, this study contributes to raising awareness regarding the language used in different types of media. Besides the input children receive from their parents and the language they are exposed to during shared book reading, children’s television shows constitute an additional source of language input, which may have an influence on their language acquisition. As several studies have already concluded that picture books contain complex language (e.g. Cameron-Faulkner et al., 2013; Montag et al., 2015; Montag and MacDonald, 2015), the current study aims to determine whether preschool television shows provide children with comparable input. Thus, the results of this study contribute to the acknowledgement of the potential that preschool television shows have in providing children with sophisticated structures of their target language.

3. Previous research

3.1. Child-directed speech

3.1.1. The role of CDS in language acquisition Whilst it was long thought that language acquisition was an innate ability, child-directed speech (CDS) was not credited with playing a vital role in language acquisition. However, after years of research, CDS was finally being given the attention it deserves. There are many interacting factors, which together contribute to the positive effects of CDS on children’s language acquisition. These aspects will be discussed in the following chapter. Over the past decades, researchers’ opinions on whether or not child-directed speech supports the acquisition of certain language structures are divided. On the one hand, Chomsky (1965, 31) claims that the language children hear is highly flawed containing ungrammatical sentences, false starts, and misleading pauses, which does not represent the language children should learn. Furthermore, Chomsky’s (1965) poverty of the stimulus argument suggests that human beings are born with an innate ability to learn languages as the linguistic input children are exposed to is insufficient to be able to acquire a language. Therefore, he claims that research on child language is absurd. However, on the other hand, researchers have already described the phenomenon of child-

directed speech, which was referred to as Baby Talk, in the 1950s and 1960s. To date, several studies have found that the prevailing view that language acquisition occurred innately and was environment-independent was false. These studies described mothers’ speech as a sociolinguistic phenomenon which helps children learn the language. A large and growing body of literature suggests that mothers adapt the way they speak with regard to vocabulary as well as grammar, which provides the child with qualitative input. In fact, various studies have assessed the significance of child-directed speech. For example, a study conducted by Fernald (1985) investigated whether children prefer to listen to child- directed speech in comparison to adult-directed speech. When listening to a variation of speeches directed to children and directed to adults, children showed a significant preference for the child-directed speech register. Furthermore, current brain development theory suggests that child-directed speech stimulates brain activity that is responsible for language acquisition (Zero To Three, 2001). While Chomsky’s view prevailed for many years, early examples of research into child-directed speech have provided evidence for its significance. There is indeed considerable evidence suggesting that CDS facilitates language development, however, some researchers claim that it is certainly facilitative but not necessary. This opinion is held because it is assumed that many children who are not exposed to CDS still manage to acquire language. While some downplay the necessity of high quality CDS, others found evidence for CDS even in languages which alleged not to use CDS. For example, Haggan (2002) conducted a cross-cultural study and interviewed 82 Kuwaiti parents, of whom some claimed that they did not simplify their speech when talking to children as it could be disadvantageous for language development. However, when analyzing the speech of these Kuwaiti parents, Haggan (2002) found that they used certain characteristics of CDS including simple sentences and repetitions. This study supports the fact that CDS is indeed universally available whilst the assumption that it is not lacks support. Correspondingly, Saxton (2017, 105) assumes that parents all over the world use some features of CDS, asserting that CDS is inevitable. Further studies in this field are needed to ascertain whether CDS is available to children throughout the world Furthermore, Saxton (2010, 81) claims that both the parent and the child influence the quality and quantity of the language which is used. By comparing adult-directed speech with child-directed speech, researchers were able to identify special characteristics

of CDS. Snow (1972) conducted such a study and found specific patterns in the speech of adults when talking to their children. When addressing their children, parents adapt the way they speak in all linguistic areas. With regard to phonology, evidence shows that parents use exaggerated intonation and high pitch. A study conducted by Garnica (1977) focused on the prosodic and paralinguistic features of the speech addressed to young children of 24 mothers. The results showed that adults not only adjusted their speech with regard to prosodic and paralinguistic features when talking to young children, but also that these adjustments differed with regard to the age of the child. Conducting a longitudinal study with 6 mothers, Stern et al. (1983) found similar results. They analyzed, among other aspects, contour frequency, duration of vocalization, pauses, and tempo and found that the speech to children differed in all of these categories. As already mentioned, parents adapt their speech with regard to their children’s age and response. For example, the speech to four-month-old children was characterized by extensive pitch and repetitive utterances while 24-month-old children were exposed to stretched vocalizations. A more recent study (Smith and Trainor, 2008) investigated acoustical features of mothers’ speech and the children’s response to it. Interestingly, they found that mothers raised their pitch when the child responded positively to it. The phonological adaptations mentioned above are used by parents during the child’s first year (Saxton, 2017). For this reason, some researchers make a distinction between infant-directed speech (IDS), which is addressed to children younger than one, and child-directed speech, addressed to older children. This view is further supported by Snow (1972) and Phillips (1973). Snow (1972) showed that mothers’ speech to two-year-old children differed significantly from speech addressed to ten-year-old children as it was much simpler and more repetitive. In general, speech modifications were more prevalent with younger children whose responses mothers were able to observe. Snow’s (1972) study demonstrates that mothers adapt their speech according to their child’s abilities. She also showed that the effect is greater if the mother and the child were in the same room. In fact, mothers’ speech which was videotaped and played back to children was less effective. Furthermore, Snow (1972) also observed that children play a crucial role in the setting of child-directed speech as they elicit simple speech suitable for their developmental level. Similar findings have been shown by Phillips (1973) who investigated the speech addressed to children and compared it with the speech addressed

to adults. Phillips (1973) found significant differences with regard to syntax and vocabulary. Interestingly, differences were not only found between child-directed speech and adult-directed speech, but also between the speech addressed to 18-month-old children and 28-month-old children. Furthermore, mothers did indeed adapt their language to the abilities of the child, however, several studies showed that mothers focused on the child’s comprehension level rather than on their productive language level (Cross 1977; Clark-Stewart, Vanderstoep, and Killian 1979). It is quite apparent that some utterances will always be beyond the comprehension level of child, however, according to Chapman (1981) it is not even necessary that all utterances are within the child’s comprehension level as children automatically exclude complex structures. In fact, children elicit “from their parents the input that meets their language leaning needs” (Bohannon and Warren-Leubecker, 1985 in Saxton 2010, 86). Together, these studies indicate that CDS is dynamic and individualized, impeccably appropriate for the child. An important aspect of CDS speech is its repetitive character, which helps the child to learn a language. Broen (1972) found that varied as well as unvaried repetitions are used by mothers during CDS. In fact, meaningless repetitions were avoided. Another study conducted by Newman et al. (2015) measured the repetitive utterances of CDS aimed at seven-month-olds and found that children who were exposed to a high rate of repetitions at a younger age had a larger vocabulary size by the age of two. Furthermore, Snow (1972) analyzed the repetitions used in CDS with two-year-olds and concluded that as children’s short-term memory is restricted, exact repetitions of utterances help children to understand an utterance better. Researchers concluded that clear articulation emphasizing where one word ends and another starts and varying repetitions help children decode sentences. (Snow, 1972; Hoff-Ginsberg, 1985). Furthermore, Hoff-Ginsberg and Shatz (1982) suggest that varying repetitions help the child to understand the syntactic structure as they present minimally different utterances with the same meaning. Additionally, Cameron-Faulkner et al. (2003, 868) pointed out that repetition itself as well as varying repetition is crucial for language learning. Similarly, Hoff-Ginsberg (1985) found positive effects of repetitions used in CDS on the language development of children. She investigated the varying self-repetitions in mothers’ speech to their two- and-a-half-year-old children and found that children’s verb usage grew two months later. However, other studies (Anderson, 2015; Kaye, 1980; Kaye and Charney, 1981) found

no correlation between repetitive utterances in CDS and language growth in younger children than two. Further studies investigating the importance of repetitions in CDS are therefore needed. Another aspect which should to be taken into consideration when looking at CDS is the aspect of interaction. Parent-child-communication does not consist of a one-way parental input, but it takes place in a communicative setting with the parent and the child. It includes typical interactional patterns such as attention-getting and attention-holding devices, patterns of topic-initiation and topic-continuation (Dale and Ingram, 1981). Snow (1981 in Dale and Ingram 1981) claims that social interaction is in general a prerequisite to normal language acquisition. Furthermore, Snow (1977) claims the following: Language acquisition is the result of a process of interaction between mother and child which begins early in infancy, to which the child makes as important a contribution as the mother, and which is crucial to cognitive and emotional development as well as to language acquisition. (31-32) Snow (1977) suggests that language acquisition is not possible without interaction as it has a conversational character taking place between the child and the parent. She further claims that the simplified input by adults when talking to their children does indeed help them to develop language skills, however, a deeper understanding of how to use certain structures and language rules may only occur as a result of interaction. Therefore, the discussion about the importance of the quality and quantity of input of CDS should not be regarded as a field in itself, but rather as a part of language acquisition which is equally important as interaction. It is now a well-established fact, resulting from a variety of studies, that child- directed speech plays an important role in children’s language acquisition. Together, these studies indicate that CDS is quite dynamic. Parents adapt their speech to the language level and needs of their children, which assists the process of language acquisition. Furthermore, two important features of CDS emerged from the studies discussed. The repetitive and interactive character of CDS significantly contributes to the positive effects of CDS.

3.1.2. Characteristics of the language of CDS A number of studies (e.g. Snow, 1972; Phillips 1973) have investigated features of CDS and showed that speech directed to children differs systematically from speech directed

to adults (ADS). CDS can therefore be regarded as a special register adults use when talking to children. Various studies have analyzed this special register and found specific language features typical for child-directed speech. Besides adults’ use of high pitch and exaggerated intonation, CDS varies from ADS in regard to both vocabulary and grammar. In fact, parents’ speech is characterized by very simple vocabulary as they utilize concrete words, words which refer to the here-and-now, rather than abstract words (Saxton, 2017). Nonconcrete words such as beauty, wisdom, or truth are avoided as children are not able to understand them. To make sure the child understands a word, parents also tend to put object words at the end of a sentence. This has been found by Messer (1981) who analyzed the speech of mothers to their 14-month-old children. The results of the analysis showed that mothers used certain features which help the child identify names of objects. These words were put at the end of the sentence and they were also pronounced louder than the other words. This modification made by parents helps the child to understand important words. In the same vein, Broen (1972) found that mothers use very simple vocabulary and a small vocabulary range when talking to children. When looking at syntax, the syntactical structure of CDS is characterized by grammatically well-formed sentences (Saxton, 2017). Broen (1972) found that mothers used almost exclusively imperative sentences and sentences with some form of be. Single word utterances were also frequently used. Even though many fragments are used in CDS, studies have shown that the incomplete sentences used in CDS are correct syntactic phrases such as noun phrases and verb phrases (Brown, 1973). A great deal of research has examined the syntactic structure of CDS and concluded that it is characterized by the use of short, simple sentences and the avoidance of complex sentences and subordinate clauses (Snow 1972, Phillips 1973; Barnes, Gutfreud, Satterly and Wells, 1983). Furthermore, CDS is reported to consist of few subordinate clauses, negations, relative clauses, and sentential complements (Sachs, Brown and Salerno, 1976). Passive sentences are also quite rare in CDS as the subject tends to be the agent in most cases (Saxton, 2017). In CDS active sentences are used more commonly than passive sentences so that children are able to understand the relation between grammar and meaning (Rondal and Cession, 1990). A more recent study conducted by Cameron-Faulkner et al. (2003) examined the input children are exposed to and analyzed the speech of twelve English-

speaking mothers. They found that ‘non-canonical’ constructions such as fragments, copulas, and interrogatives are typical for child-directed speech and may support a child’s acquisition of the copula construction. However, complete constructions, which contain a subject, a verb and an object, and more complex constructions, which contain more than one verb, were rare in Cameron-Faulkner’s et al. sample. This is why they concluded that CDS does indeed facilitate multi-word development, but also that CDS lacks complex structures such as multi-word constructions. In view of all the studies that have been mentioned in this section, certain linguistic properties typical for CDS have emerged. The fact that a limited number of words are coupled with the focus on concrete words makes CDS appear simple, however, it is in no way ‘degenerated’ as Chomsky (1965) claimed. Even though CDS shows a preference for single word utterances, simple sentences, and the avoidance of complex sentences, its utterances are still as correct as adult-to-adult utterances. Having discussed the linguistic properties of CDS, the next section of this paper addresses the role of input frequency and diversity in CDS.

3.1.3. Input frequency and context diversity Tomasello (2003), who introduced the usage-based approach of language acquisition in his book Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition, argues that language acquisition can only be explained by accepting that linguistic ability is connected to other cognitive abilities. He holds the view that children acquire grammatical competence by listening to the speech around them. As a matter of course, he confirms the relationship between grammatical input in speech directed to children and the grammatical language development children show. For children to acquire a language, two crucial features of CDS input have emerged: input frequency and context diversity. Regarding input frequency, a number of studies found that children used those verbs and constructions first, which their mothers used most frequently when talking to them. For example, Naigles and Hoff-Ginsberg (1998) investigated the influence of verb input on the order children acquire verbs. They found that certain features such as frequency and diversity of syntactic environments in which the verbs appeared were crucial for the acquisition of verbs. This study suggests that the acquisition of verbs can be facilitated by the way they are used by mothers in child-directed speech. Furthermore,

another study by Theakston, Lieven, Pine, and Rowland (2001) found that even though transitive verbs are more complex than intransitive as they require an object, children’s acquisition of verbs is not dependent on syntactic complexity. They showed that children acquired those verbs as used by their mothers when talking to them regardless of their complexity. Therefore, it is suggested that syntactic complexity is not an obstacle in language acquisition and it is input frequency that predicts the acquisition of constructions. The same is true for the acquisition of morphology. Farrar (1990) investigated which adult recast features facilitated children’s language acquisition and found that children acquired those morphemes (e.g., past tense -ed, plural -s, progressive -ing, etc.) which their mothers used most frequently. Children’s morpheme acquisition was either facilitated by specific recast features by mothers or by expansion and topic continuation. All of these studies suggest that children are most likely to learn those constructions which are used most frequently by adults around them in child-directed speech. Similar results can be found in Kirjavainen’s et al. (2009) study, who suggested that the errors in children’s speech, such as the infinitival-to omission, are related to different forms of the verbs and the frequency of exposure to those verbs. Looking at the relationship between mother’s speech and a child’s language acquisition, some researchers found that the effect is stronger on word choice and content than on the acquisition of syntax (Chapman, 1981). However, others suggest that children also acquire complex constructions based on input frequency effects. Huttenlocher et al. (2002) investigated individual differences in children’s acquisition of syntax and how these differences could be related to input frequency of syntactic structures. The results showed that four-year-old English-speaking children not only produced simple syntactic structures such as noun phrases as a result of being exposed to noun phrases, but children also produced more complex constructions such as multi-clause utterances as a result of being exposed to multi-clause utterances. Furthermore, they found that teachers’ speech can influence children’s syntactic growth positively when they use more syntactically sophisticated constructions with preschool children. Therefore, researchers concluded that input frequency as well as syntactic diversity effect the acquisition of complex structures positively. A more recent study published by Weisleder and Fernald (2014) investigated the language processing and vocabulary learning of children from Spanish- speaking families. They found that children were exposed to differing amounts of child-

directed speech and that those children who were exposed to a great amount of child- directed speech exhibited better language processing and vocabulary learning by the age of two. More interestingly, they claimed that slow language growth is an indicator for academic difficulties later in life. The findings by Weisleder and Fernald (2014) suggest that language growth is facilitated by rich exposure to child-directed speech. Furthermore, Hoff and Naigles (2002) analyzed the productive vocabulary of 63 two-year-old children and found that quantity of input, richness of vocabulary, and syntactic complexity facilitate language acquisition in two-year-old children. When it comes to context diversity, Hills et al. (2010) conducted an empirical study investigating the role of contextual diversity of early word learning. They found that exposure to the same words in different contexts facilitates word learning. Furthermore, they claimed that children learn those words earlier which have been presented in diverse contexts. Similar results have been found by Rowe (2012), who conducted a longitudinal study looking into the quality and quantity of child-directed speech. The aim of the study was to ascertain the features of CDS which facilitate language acquisition. The results showed that diversity of input and decontextualized input from narratives leads to the acquisition of diverse vocabulary in children. Furthermore, Rowe (2012) also concluded that the use of diverse vocabulary with preschool children leads to the development of diverse vocabulary later in life. Taken together, these studies support the notion that input frequency as well as context diversity play a crucial role in language acquisition. Some researchers claim that the number of times a child is exposed to a word, phrase, or sentence predicts the acquisition of these words, phrases, and sentences. Others argue that diversity of the context in which a word occurs is held to be accountable for language development as contextual diversity enhances the outcome of language learning.

3.1.4. Individual differences in CDS It is important to highlight the fact that CDS is a variable and individual ‘language’. Not all children are exposed to the same uniform input due to the fact that each individual parent will have an unique and personal way of speaking to their children. Whilst some parents are quite talkative and use diverse vocabulary, others may be less communicative with their children and, as a result, might not use a wide variety of words.

There are individual differences when it comes to the quality and quantity of CDS. Hart and Risley (1995) demonstrated that there are substantial differences between parents with a different socioeconomic status (SES) and the way they talk to their children. They showed that parents with High-SES not only used significantly more words but also a wider variety of words. Interestingly, children from High-SES parents, who were exposed to a greater amount of words as well as a variety of words, had a larger vocabulary by the age of three. A follow-up study suggests that by the age of nine, children from High-SES parents differed significantly from children with Low-SES parents in terms of language ability. The researchers related those differences to the amount of exposure to language that the children had received from their parents. A longitudinal study by Vasilyeva, Waterfall and Huttenlocher (2008) also looked into the relationship between early sentence production and socioeconomic background and found different results with regard to simple and complex sentences. The results showed that children from different socioeconomic backgrounds acquired simple syntactic structures in approximately the same way and in the same speed. However, children in the High-SES group showed significantly better outcomes in the acquisition of complex sentences than children in the other groups. These differences already occurred at a very early stage when children started to produce multi-clause sentences. The researchers concluded that High-SES parents used significantly more complex constructions when talking to their children than Low-SES parents, which consequently had a positive impact on the child’s acquisition of complex constructions. Such group and individual differences are a result of children being exposed to different amounts and quality of language. In fact, children, who were exposed to more sophisticated syntactical structures, produced such constructions earlier than children who were not exposed to them (Hoff, 2006). Similarly, Rowe and Goldin-Meadow (2009) were interested in the differences among children from different socioeconomic backgrounds and found that High-SES parents used more gestures when talking to their children than Low-SES parents. Interestingly, they found that the use of gestures by parents supports children’s vocabulary development and therefore, they concluded that bodily expressions by parents help to explain the differences in children’s vocabulary growth. Even though it is not yet clear why High-SES parents are more talkative and use more gestures, Rowe (2008) tried to find out why parents from different socioeconomic backgrounds communicated

differently with their children. Rowe reports that parents’ speech to their children differs with regard to SES, considering income and education, and that parents’ knowledge of child development influences child-directed speech. The conclusion drawn from this study is that differences exist in parents’ attitudes according to SES status. Other interesting results have been found with regard to individual differences such as differences in the talkativeness of parents. A longitudinal study by Hurtado et al. (2008) investigated how talkative and less talkative mothers influence children’s vocabulary acquisition and found that children of talkative mothers acquired more vocabulary and recognized words faster than children of less talkative mothers. Hurtado et al. concluded that children of talkative mothers develop larger vocabularies since they hear far more words and a wider variety of words than children of less talkative mothers. Another longitudinal study by Gershkoff-Stowe and Hahn (2007) examined children’s fast mapping skills by teaching them unfamiliar words. They came to the conclusion that extended practice of using more difficult words helped children learn easier words more quickly. Furthermore, Gershkoff-Stowe and Hahn (2007) concluded the following: The data suggest that learning some words primes the system to learn more words. Vocabulary development can thus be conceptualized as a continual process of fine-tuning the lexical system to enable increased accessibility to information (682). The study implies that children who already possess large vocabularies are better at learning words at a single exposure as lexical knowledge and processing skills are interdependent (Saxton 2010, 86). With regard to individual differences, another study conducted by Taylor et al. (2009) analyzed the way parents spoke to their children and investigated how different styles effect children’s language acquisition. The researchers divided the parents into three different groups. The parents were categorized according to their speech style as using High-Guidance, High-Control, or High-Negative-Control. Children who were exposed to input from High-Negative-Control parents showed poorer language skills than other children. Children from High-Guidance and High-Control parents were more proficient in language. These parents avoided prohibitions and directives, which were associated with poor language in terms of diversity and complexity of vocabulary. The evidence presented in this section suggests that there are indeed individual differences with regard to the quantity and quality of input. A number of studies provided

evidence that High-SES parents use a large number of words, a variety of words, and complex sentences in contrast to Low-SES parents. Furthermore, differences with regard to parents’ talkativeness and speech style have also been found. Children, whose parents use a great amount of words and were characterized as High-Guidance and High-Control parents, showed better language skills and seemed to be better at language learning. As child-directed speech is only one source of input for young children, the current study looks at other sources of linguistic input which can also serve as possible facilitators for language development.

3.2. Picture books as a source of linguistic input

3.2.1. Shared book reading and its effects Another form of input young children receive from their parents, is the language generated from picture books. This form of practice is called shared book reading and refers to the situation in which parents read books aloud to their child. A wide range of literature on the effects of shared book reading demonstrates the benefits of this practice on language development. In fact, it is not the reading of the book as such which benefits language acquisition, but the interplay between many different factors which makes it advantageous. However, a recent meta-analysis on shared book reading recommends caution when talking of the positive effects of shared book reading. Indeed, several lines of evidence regarding shared book reading suggest that this form of linguistic input significantly enhances language development (Bus, Jzendoorn and Pellegrini, 1995; Fletcher and Reese, 2005; Lonigan and Shanahan, 2009; Whitehurst et al., 1999). Bus, Jzendoorn and Pellegrini (1995), for example, conducted a quantitative meta-analysis on shared book reading and were able to relate shared book reading to language growth. In general, positive effects have been shown in vocabulary acquisition (Elley, 1989; Farrant and Zubrick, 2012), grammatical development (Valdez-Menchaca and Whitehurst, 1992; Whitehurst et al., 1988) as well as in phonological awareness (Chow et al., 2008; Lefebvre, Trudeau and Sutton, 2011). Using the data from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children, Farrant and Zubrick (2012) investigated children’s early vocabulary development. They found that joint attention as well shared book reading facilitate children’s early vocabulary development. It is even argued that children who are read to more frequently achieve better language skills than children who

are not read to regularly (Farrant and Zubrick, 2012; Payne, Whitehurst and Angell, 1994; Sénéchal and LeFevre, 2002). Sénéchal and LeFevre (2002), for example, conducted a longitudinal study and examined the effect of shared book reading on language development. They found that children who were exposed to the language of picture books achieved better results in vocabulary and listening comprehension skills in grade three. Moreover, Sénéchal and LeFevre (2002) concluded that shared book reading influences a child’s later language as well as literacy abilities. Indeed, shared book reading has not only shown to be beneficial for language skills but also for literacy skills such as narrative and conversational skills (Morrow, 1988; Reese, 1995), future reading ability (Bus, van Ijzendoorn and Pellegrini, 1995), and print awareness (Justice and Ezell, 2000, 2004). However, despite the significant number of studies suggesting positive effects of shared book reading on language as well as literacy skills, a current meta- analysis by Noble et al. (2018) found converse results. They showed that shared book reading does have an effect on language acquisition but that this effect is minimal. The effect is even smaller when considering active control groups. Since the meta-analysis provides evidence that the effect of shared book reading is weak, Noble et al. (2018) claim that the resulting effects might just be placebo effects. As numerous studies have found positive effects of shared book reading on children’s language development, the findings by Noble et al. (2018) must be interpreted with caution. The researchers recommend future studies to include a higher dosage, active control groups, follow-up testing, a range of outcome variables, and children from different SES backgrounds. By improving the research design, researchers will be able to determine whether shared book reading does indeed have real benefits. When it comes to ensuring positive effects of picture book reading, joint attention is a crucial factor. Commenting on the aspect of joint attention, Noble et al. (2017, 263) argue: “Tuning into a child’s focus and the amount of time spent engaged in joint attention are both very important factors regarding language development”. By only reading a book to a child without engaging with the book itself, its characters, and the pictures, shared book reading loses its effect. Furthermore, Tomasello and Farrar (1986) also highlighted the importance of joint attention. In their studies, they examined mother-child interactions focusing on joint attention in naturalistic settings. They found that children and mothers produced more utterances during joint attention episodes. When children already focused

on an object and the mother referred to this object, the child’s acquisition of those words was facilitated. However, if the child was not paying attention and the mother wanted to redirect the child’s attention to an object in the book, language acquisition did not take place. The results of this study suggest that joint attention is crucial for language acquisition. Similar results have been found by Carpenter et al. (1998) who investigated the relationship between a child’s joint attention engagement and their gestural and language abilities. The researchers found the following: It was found that two measures, the amount of time infants spent in joint engagement with their mothers and the degree to which mothers used language that followed into their infant's focus of attention, predicted infants' earliest skills of gestural and linguistic communication (1). Their study suggests that the way parents engage with their child during activities has a significant effect on their language growth. Joint attention is, therefore, a crucial factor for language acquisition. When it comes to picture books, there are many factors which contribute to language development. They contain two-dimensional illustrations which “aid deeper levels of comprehension of the language presented within the text”, as Cameron-Faulkner and Noble (2013, 275) put it. In fact, pictures help children to understand the content of the story. Furthermore, other typical features of picture books such as novelty, humor, or surprise may also contribute to incidental learning of the constructions embedded in the story (Elley 1989, 176). The benefit of elaborating on the content is also worth mentioning as Snow and Ninio (1986, 124) argued that picture books “are not limited to discussion of concrete and present items and events”. Picture books enable further discussion on the topics presented in the book. Furthermore, as input frequency showed to benefit the acquisition of complex constructions, books can be read multiple times to expose the child to syntactically rich constructions more frequently (Fletcher and Reese, 2005; Morrow, 1988). Snow and Goldfield (1983), for example, analyzed the language of parents and children during shared book reading and, thus, were able to determine which words the child acquired as a result of being exposed to the language from picture books. The fact that the picture book was reread, helped children to acquire the words which have been read multiple times by their mothers. This study highlights the importance of input frequency and repetitions for language acquisition.

Together, the studies on shared book reading indicate that there is evidence suggesting positive effects of shared book reading on language as well as on literacy skills. Several aspects of shared book reading such as joint attention, visual illustrations, the opportunity of elaborating on the content, and rereading of the picture books facilitate the positive effect of shared book reading. Since Nobel et al. (2018) just recently found that the effect of shared book reading on language development is minimal, further studies providing evidence are needed.

3.2.2. The language used in picture books Regarding the language used in picture books, a number of studies have found that reading aloud to children exposes them to infrequent language structures and provides them with a qualitative language experience they do not get from solely being exposed to CDS. Even though picture books differ with regard to complexity, they appear to be more complex than CDS than previously thought. Various studies found differences regarding vocabulary as well as grammar. When comparing the text from picture books with CDS, it becomes evident that the language in picture books is far more sophisticated. The reason for this conclusion can be drawn from the fact that written texts always differ from spoken language with regard to complexity. Hayes and Ahrens (1988), for example, suggested that written and spoken language significantly differ in lexical diversity. Prior to discussing the studies on the text from picture books, it is important to point out that there are picture books for different age groups, which take the children’s cognitive abilities at each stage into account. As there are different types of picture books, Moya Guijarro (2014) conducted a study analyzing nine picture books with respect to their verbal and visual elements. He found that picture books intended for zero-to-two-year-old children are characterized by lullabies and mimicry games. He states that in these picture books “the musicality of rhymes and verses accompanied by movements and gestures” is most prominent (Moya Guijarro 2014, 8). He concludes: Children at this stage are capable of learning about themselves and their environment through motor and simple reflex activity […] and the topics tend to be closely related to the child’s environment (the home, toys) and the animal world (Moya Guijarro 2014, 8). While these picture books cover very simple topics dealing with the here-and-now, they are also very simple with regard to language. In fact, books aimed at younger children do

not seem to be very complex whereas books aimed at children from three to six deal with a wider range of topics as well as abstract themes such as nature. These books cover topics such as love, loneliness and death (Moya Guijarro 2014, 265) and deal with more abstract and emotional issues. In this vein, Moya Guijarro (2014, 8) argues: At this stage the child is able to associate symbols with objects or represent objects through images and words […and the child is also capable] of thinking about objects that are not in the immediate context. Covering more complex topics, the language used in picture books for older children is considerably more advanced as a greater variety of words are used. Comparing the lexical properties found in picture books with the vocabulary use in CDS, studies suggest that the language in picture books is significantly more complex than everyday CDS. A number of studies show that picture books contain uncommon words and diverse vocabulary. For example, Montag et al. (2015, 5-6) compared word types and token counts of 100 picture books and found that picture books contained more uncommon word types than CDS. Hence, there is evidence to suggest that the text from picture books is lexically more diverse than the language used in CDS. Montag et al. (2015, 7) conclude that “speech derived from text may beneficially expand the data set on which language learning depends”, indicating that the language content in picture books may play a crucial role for early language learning. Similarly, a corpus analysis by Mesmer (2016) looked into the language used in children’s picture books with the aim of ascertaining to what extent they made use of rare words. She analyzed 100 books aimed at three-year- olds and found that most picture books contained lexically rich words and that the language used in picture books resembled adult speech. Furthermore, her analysis also showed that book samples differed with regard to vocabulary richness. Mesmer (2016), therefore, suggests that some children’s books which are aimed at vocabulary learning need improvement. Together these studies indicate that the language in picture books helps parents to use more uncommon words and phrases, which are not typical for everyday spoken CDS. For this reason, shared book reading is recommended as children who are read to regularly are exposed to a great variety of vocabulary, which is not used in everyday spoken CDS. Turning to syntax, Moya Guijarro’s (2014) analysis also contributed to the awareness of the syntactical structure in picture books. With regard to the use of copula constructions in picture books, Moya Guijarro (2014) found that picture books aimed at zero-to-two-

year old children make great use of relational processes, which are used by authors to facilitate the understanding of the content for the child (Moya Guijarro 2014, 260). For this reason, copula constructions are frequently used to indicate that characters perform the actions. However, picture books aimed at children from three to six do not make such a great use of relational processes. This could be due to the greater cognitive ability of the child (Moya Guijarro 2014, 265). In contrast to picture books for younger children, books for older children do not use the form of be excessively. Instead many other verb forms such as make and call are used. Picture books aimed at older children also focus on using more complex constructions such as reported speech, which gives the story a conversational character and helps the child reflect upon the words said by the characters (Moya Guijarro 2014, 265). Declarative clauses are used predominantly in books for both age groups; however, older children are also exposed to some interrogative and imperative clauses. Even though they are scarce in number, they create an interactive relationship between the main characters. In this vein, another study comparing the syntactic properties found in picture books and CDS showed similar results. Cameron- Faulkner and Noble (2013) investigated how far the language in picture books can be viewed as enriched language input for children. They analyzed the constructions used in 20 picture books and found that picture books show significantly more subject-predicate and complex constructions than CDS. Therefore, they concluded that books are a source of providing children with increased exposure to the grammatical constructions which occur infrequently in everyday CDS. The content of picture books is seen as an enriched input which not only introduces children to new complex constructions but also reinforces already familiar constructions typical for CDS. Another study by Noble et al. (2017) investigated to what extent shared book reading facilitated children’s grammatical development. They analyzed the parents’ speech directed to their children during two different activities, during a toy play activity and during a shared book reading activity. The results showed that the speech during shared book reading consisted of more grammatical constructions whereas the speech during the toy play activity contained fewer complex constructions. In addition, the researchers found that parental speech depended on a great extent on the book itself, which contained grammatically rich constructions or not. Noble et al. (2017) explained the reason why shared book reading generated more grammatical constructions by stating that “the presentation of new words

and more complex constructions may be particularly salient and thus more accessible in [the shared book reading] activity” (263). Furthermore, Montag and MacDonald (2015) compared CDS with children’s books in terms of their use of object and passive relative clauses and found that both types of relative clauses were more prevalent in children’s books than in everyday CDS. The study suggests that the language from children’s books differs significantly from the language in speech directed to children. All of the studies reviewed here support the hypothesis that picture books contain more complex language than CDS. A key element of early language learning is diversity of language and context and the literature suggests that if there is more variety regarding language input and context, the outcome of language learning is enhanced (Hills et al., 2010; Jones, Johns and Recchia, 2012). As picture books offer a greater variety of vocabulary as well as grammatical structures, picture books seem to fulfill the condition of diversity of language and context. However, in today’s digital age, picture books are at risk of fading into obscurity. Nowadays, children have the opportunity to engage with a variety of devices and media such as games on tablets, interactive eBooks, online videos, and children’s television shows. For the purpose of this study, the available literature on children’s television shows will be reviewed in the next subsection.

3.3. Children’s television series as a source of linguistic input

3.3.1. Appropriateness of television for children As we live in a digital age and children grow up as digital natives, avoiding exposure to television seems almost impossible. In comparison to the 20th century, children are watching far more television today, which is probably partly due to the large range of material for children provided on TV, online, or in apps. Television programs, videos, and online games aimed at very young children are produced and developed at an ever- increasing rate, which results in children being interested in programs with them as a specific target audience. While some studies claim that children’s television programs have negative effects on language acquisition, other studies show that some programs can be beneficial for language learning. As researchers are divided, the following chapter presents an overview of existing studies on children’s television viewing. There are specific activities recommended by language experts which have the ability to enhance language learning such as songs, rhymes, and book reading (Wells,

1987; Bruner, 1983; Crain-Thoreson, Dahlin and Powell, 2001). As watching television can be considered as being part of our everyday lives, it is crucial to identify the medium’s ability to benefit language development. Thus, the study by Fisch et al. (2001) is worth mentioning at this point. They investigated the extent to which visual and intonational aspects influence a child’s understanding of an educational TV program. They tested children in two different situations: A situation, which presented the language as well as the visual material in a concrete way and a situation in which the language as well the visual material was abstract. The results showed that children understood the concrete presentation significantly better, which indicates that concrete visual and intonational aids can help children to understand the content on television programs. Nevertheless, according to experts, children should be exposed to television as little as possible in order to establish a language learning environment for children (Snow, Barnes, Chandler, Goodman and Hemphill 1991, 63-64; American Academy of Pediatrics, 2004). Studies have shown that children under the age of two are not able to learn words from watching television. Barr and Hayne (1999), for example, conducted a study and examined whether young children were able to learn from television. Children between twelve and 18 months were exposed to a demonstration by an adult either live or via television. When imitating those actions, children demonstrated the ability to imitate the actions they saw acted out in real life far more successfully than the actions they viewed on television. The researchers concluded that there are significant differences with regard to age and task when it comes to children’s ability to learn from television. Furthermore, another study by Krcmar, Grela and Lin (2007), which also looked into very young children’s ability to learn from television, focused on children’s vocabulary acquisition from exposure to TV programs. The researchers examined children’s vocabulary learning in five different situations including live presentation of novel words by adults and presentation of the words in an edited version of the TV program Teletubbies. The results of the study showed significant differences between children’s ability to learn from live presentation and presentation on television. Children learned most words in situations where they engaged in high levels of joint attention whereas they were less successful in television watching settings. Furthermore, they found that while children under the age of three were able to detect the given words during live presentation, they were not capable of identifying the novel words when they were presented via TV. In addition, a literature

review by Anderson and Evans (2001) concluded that children under the age of two show only limited attention and children under one benefit very little from watching television. Even though there are only a limited number of studies examining children’s ability to learn from television, there is evidence that children younger than three are not able to learn any vocabulary from television. Even though it is not known why very young children show a disability in this area, it seems that children cannot process the emergence of multiple stimuli. There are numerous studies claiming that television shows often expose children to more stimuli than under-30-month-old children can process (Case, Midian Kurland and Goldberg, 1982; Lee Swanson, 1996). When various stimuli such as language input, background music, and pictures are presented at the same time, children under three show difficulty in following the content. Turning to the aspect of interaction, Stowell (1992) conducted a study looking into the correlation between television viewing at a very young age and communication apprehension. She suggests that high exposure to television shows may result in children lacking in language skills as they miss out on valuable social interactions. Comparing TV with live interaction, Patterson (2002) conducted a study with 21-27-month-olds investigating whether the amount of vocabulary heard during shared book reading and while watching television effected language acquisition. She showed that children actually acquired vocabulary from shared book reading, where live interaction takes place, but they did not learn words from watching television, a situation that lacks interaction. Furthermore, the case of Jim, a hearing boy with deaf parents, demonstrates the importance of interaction very clearly. As Jim’s parents were deaf, the only language input he received was from television, which resulted in Jim producing quite odd language (Sachs, Bard and Johnson, 1981). Jim’s example confirms the theory that very young children’s language acquisition cannot take place without interaction. Together these studies highlight the importance of interaction for language acquisition in every language learning context. Just as interaction is important during child-directed speech, it is equally crucial during shared book reading and television viewing. However, studies focusing on preschoolers aged two to five found that older children are indeed able to learn from television. Rice and Woodsmall (1988), for example, investigated whether preschoolers were able to learn novel words from television viewing. The results showed that preschoolers are able to acquire new words

quickly. Therefore, they concluded that older children benefit a lot more from the medium of television than younger ones. In this vein, a study by Barr and Wyss (2008) found that interaction during television viewing is not necessary for language acquisition in children older than two years. They examined whether two-year-old children learned words better in an interactive television viewing situation with their parents or in television viewing situation with voice overs. The results showed that children learned words in both situations, which indicates that words from television viewing can be learned by two- year-olds. A more general study by Arunachalam (2013) examined whether children are able to learn novel words by only being given linguistic input without interaction or visual aids. This study presents evidence that children older than 27 months are capable of acquiring words, which have not been presented in a situational or conversational setting. Therefore, it is concluded that children above the age of two are able to infer word meanings without the help of social and visual aids. Saxton (2010) explains this phenomenon by attributing older children with impressive cognitive and linguistic abilities, which enable them to understand word meaning even though interaction is missing. However, to ensure that children are able to gain substantial language growth from television viewing, it is important to expose children to material conducive to language learning. Even though research on children’s television shows has shown that children beyond the age of two are able to learn from watching television, its benefits depend on several factors. The positive effects of television on children’s language development, depend on whether children watch entertainment or educational shows (Lemish and Rice, 1986), whether the programs are specifically aimed at children, and whether children watch television actively or passively. The latter aspect is crucial in so far as research indicates that background television has negative effects on children’s cognitive as well as linguistic abilities. Background television is defined as the media which children are exposed to passively. The program is neither content-wise nor language-wise appropriate for the child nor does the child pay actively attention to the program. Even though there is only limited research in this area, Anderson and Evans (2001) claim that such media might have a negative impact on children. Woolf, Schmitt and Anderson (2000) analyzed children’s behaviors while TV was running in the background. They found that children spent more time being involved in social activities than in toy play activities. The results

suggest that background television interrupts children’s toy play as it disrupts their attention. Similar results have been found in Masur, Flynn and Olson’s study (2016), who looked into the influence of background television on children’s vocabulary acquisition four months later. The results showed that background television interrupts mother-child- conversations during toy play activities and has consequently a negative effect on vocabulary learning. The reason why background television has no effects on children’s language acquisition is that the speech is only overheard by them and not targeted at them. Investigating speech directed to children and not directed to children, Shneidman, Arroyo, Levine and Goldin-Meadow (2013) analyzed children’s vocabulary acquisition in the two different situations. The researchers found that speech specially addressed to children predicted vocabulary learning while overheard talk, talk that was not addressed to children, did not predict language learning. The study contributes to the understanding of the importance of speech directed to children for language acquisition. Similar results have been found by Weisleder and Fernald (2013) who conducted a study with children from Spanish-speaking families. They found that children who were exposed to a great amount of child-directed speech showed better vocabulary skills at the age of two while speech overheard by children had no effect on language acquisition. Overall, background television as well as any background language does not benefit language acquisition while speech directed to children, be it from television or parents, does. The studies presented thus far provide evidence that children younger than three do not benefit from television viewing, however, older children can indeed learn from it. In fact, from the age of three, children are mature enough to acquire information without the presence of interaction. While any background talk including background television was shown to have no effects on children’s language ability, background television was shown to have negative effects on children’s cognitive ability. As numerous studies suggest, television watching is not beneficial at all for children under three and should be completely avoided before this age. Therefore, the current study focuses solely on television shows which are specifically aimed at preschoolers, children aged two to five.

3.3.2. Television and language As the practice of television viewing has become a core part of our everyday lives, it is more important than ever to identify what benefits it has for younger viewers. While watching television under the age of two and being exposed to it passively should be

avoided by all means, the benefits for preschool children, watching television actively, need be assessed. For this purpose, studies indicating implications for the type of language structures used in television series or generated from television series are discussed. In fact, there is at least one children’s television series that has proved to be beneficial for children: Sesame Street, which premiered in 1969. Innumerable studies have examined the influence of the series on children’s literacy, cognitive, and language skills. It has contributed to the acceptance of television shows as educational media as showed by The Recontact Study (in Fisch and Truglio, 2001). In this longitudinal study, the results have been summarized as follows: Children who were frequent viewers at age 5 years read more books for pleasure, expressed less aggressive attitudes, and had higher levels of achievement motivation and better grades in high school than did teens who had rarely viewed the program at age 5 years (abstract). Therefore, it is claimed that watching Sesame Street does indeed have a positive effect on children. A literature review by Snow, Burns and Griffin (1998, 310-311) also presented various studies confirming the benefits of Sesame Street. For example, four-year-old children who watched Sesame Street regularly showed better cognitive and language skills than children who did not watch Sesame Street regularly (Zill et al., 1994). Moreover, a longitudinal study mentioned in the review showed that children who engaged in more frequent Sesame Street television viewing had higher vocabulary scores than children who did not (Huston et al., 1990). Another longitudinal study conducted by Wright and Huston (1995) found similar results, concluding that children who watched Sesame Street were better at recognizing words and learning vocabulary. Furthermore, according to Lemish and Rice (1986), Sesame Street encourages children from six months to three years to talk, however, the effects largely depend on age, linguistic maturity, and parent responsiveness to the child. In this vein, another longitudinal study on preschool children’s viewing of Sesame Street has been conducted by Rice et al. (1990) in order to examine children’s vocabulary development. They found positive effects of Sesame Street on the vocabulary development of children aged three to five regardless of parent education, parental attitudes, and child gender. Moreover, Rice et al. (1990, 422) found many features typical for shared book reading and CDS in Sesame Street such as simple sentences, repetition of key terms and avoidance of complex structures. The reason why

children’s television programs have the potential to be beneficial is that these programs make use of the same features as child-directed speech. As children’s television shows have, in general, become an important source of language input for children, researchers have analyzed the relationship between other educational television shows and language development of children. Looking into the effects of different types of children’s television shows, a longitudinal study by Wright, Huston, Scantlin and Kotler (2001) presents interesting results. They showed that children who watched educational television such as Sesame Street at the age of five had good language skills, in contrast, children who watched entertainment cartoons had poorer skills. Apparently educational television shows led to typical adult-child interactions enhancing language development (Lemish and Rice, 1986) while entertainment cartoons did not. Lemish and Rice (1986) conducted a longitudinal study investigating parent-child interactions during television viewing and compared them with the interactions during book reading. The results showed that parents use many language facilitating devices while watching television as well, which promotes children’s language acquisition. Turning to its influence on vocabulary acquisition, Klein (1997) examined a variety of preschoolers’ television programs and their influence of children’s vocabulary development. Klein’s results showed that the television programs all used the same techniques repetitively and that the top shows presented an almost equal amount of vocabulary. Interestingly, there were differences in the amount of vocabulary presented in different episodes. In general, according to Klein (1997), children’s television shows offer a variety and significant amount of vocabulary, which contributes to children’s vocabulary development. In summary, it can be said that according to these researchers, educational television promotes lexical development in preschool children. However, Linebarger’s (2005) study found conversing results. She examined the influence of children’s television viewing on vocabulary and expressive language skills. The results showed that different television shows account for different effects. For example, children who watched Dora the Explorer, Blue’s Clues, Arthur, Clifford, or Dragon Tales showed higher scores in vocabulary and expressive language while those who watched Teletubbies showed lower scores. Furthermore, viewing Sesame Street led to fewer scores in expressive language and watching Barney and Friends resulted in higher scores in expressive language but lower scores in vocabulary. The results suggest that there are

many differences among television programs for children, therefore, it is important to consider content and program type. Furthermore, Linebarger (2005) also found that some children’s television shows such as Blue’s Clues, Dora the Explorer and Dragon Tales encouraged interaction. As literature is divided concerning the positive effect television shows might have on language development, further research is needed to show significant results. As language development is more than vocabulary acquisition, the effect of television on children’s grammatical development has also been investigated. Naigles and Mayeux (2001) claimed that effects of television series on language development could be found in vocabulary development but not in grammar acquisition. In their literature review, Naigles and Mayeux (2001) also concluded that educational television shows such as Sesame Street or Barney and Friends help children to learn new words and to understand already familiar words better. However, when looking at the influence of educational shows on grammatical development, they claimed that language from television might not able to facilitate children’s grammatical development. As the field of TV and grammatical development has not yet been fully investigated, it remains unclear why children do not acquire grammatical properties from TV. It might be for reasons of complexity as morphological as well as syntactical acquisition is obviously more demanding than vocabulary acquisition. However, as there are only few studies in this area, most of them focusing on inappropriate grammatical properties on TV, more research on the relationship between exposure to television series and grammatical development is needed. Overall, there seems to be some evidence which indicates that television series make use of certain CDS features, which consequently might influence children’s language development. While numerous studies on Sesame Street found positive results of the show on children’s language and literacy abilities, similar results were also found with regard to other educational TV shows. The influence on vocabulary acquisition seems to be most prominent while the effect on the acquisition of grammar is not yet established. It is out of the question that nowadays educational television shows play a crucial role in children’s lives. In western countries children have access to numerous television shows, which consequently makes it an important part of their lives. Children’s language ability is not solely influenced by their parents’ speech anymore and in today’s

changing environment children receive different kinds of language input. Input can derive from parents, books, television, but also newer media such as videos and apps specifically designed for children. The wide variety of input children are nowadays exposed to makes the language acquisition process even more complex. There are only a handful of studies which investigate the language used in children’s television shows. This makes it difficult for parents to differentiate between beneficial and less beneficial material for children. Still, it is important to understand the implications of the medium of television on children’s language abilities. As they are excessively confronted with electronic media today, it can have both advantageous and disadvantageous effects on their language development. As considerable research on educational children’s television is still needed, it is important to investigate which television shows are appropriate for children’s language development in the first place. It is important to examine which shows offer a considerable amount of vocabulary and grammatical structures that may facilitate language acquisition. Therefore, this study makes a major contribution to research on contemporary input for children by demonstrating the language used in preschoolers’ picture books and preschoolers’ television shows. For clarification, as the majority of literature suggests that languages are learned best in a conversational and interactive environment (Clark and Clark, 1977), the current study does not suggest that the input of picture books and animated television series alone facilitates language development. The aim of this study is to identify the linguistic properties of picture books and children’s television series in order to find out which grammatical constructions are used and can, therefore, potentially facilitate language acquisition. This study provides a foundation on which future researchers can refer to when investigating the effect of educational television series, which contain adequate vocabulary and grammatical structures, on children’s language acquisition.

4. Methodology The current study examines the language in preschoolers’ picture books and television shows and was influenced in part by Cameron-Faulkner and Noble’s (2013) study, which compared the language in picture books with a CDS sample. In this vein, the current study aims to compare the language in television shows with the language in picture books. In contrast to Cameron-Faulkner and Noble’s (2013) study, this study does not only look into sentence constructions, but also examines lexical, morphological, and syntactical

constructions. In the following chapter, the collection of the material will be presented followed by the section dealing with the procedure and data analysis.

4.1. Material 20 picture books and 20 children’s television series were chosen on April 5, 2019 from Commonsensemedia.com. The books and television series were taken from specific lists compiled on the website. This website is a nonprofit organization which provides huge material such as books, films, TV shows, and games for children. Parents are provided with useful information such as age recommendations and reviews. For reasons of comparability, the lists “Best preschool picture books” and “Best TV shows for preschoolers” were chosen. The focus on material aimed at preschool children restricted the age group to three-to-five-year olds. However, as there were not enough books in the list of picture books, another “Picture Books” list had to be selected, from which only books aimed at preschoolers were chosen. The website made the selection of the material effortless as the age group ‘preschoolers’ was already indicated for each book and TV show. As there is a wide variety of picture books and children’s television series, the books had to correspond with certain criteria. In fact, the criteria for selecting the subjects were as follows: The material had to be published in or after 2009 as material published or created previously was regarded as insignificant. Therefore, each book and every TV series published before 2009 was excluded. The picture books and TV shows had to have at least 50 utterances. As TV shows contained more than 50 utterances anyway, this criterion had to be applied to picture books only. Picture books which contained solely fragments and fewer than 50 utterances could not be taken into account as reliable results had to be ensured. The decision to take 50 utterances was not taken arbitrarily. The reasoning behind this will be explained in the next section. Furthermore, if research on the sample revealed that it was aimed at children older than five, the book or TV show was excluded. In addition to this, the samples needed to be in English only, which means that bilingual books such as Drum Dream Girl: How One Girl’s Courage Changed Music had to be excluded. Equally, TV series which did not contain English language only such as Nina’s World were also excluded. In order to avoid that the same language pattern is used in some books, books by the same author were also removed from the book list. In the case that two books by the same author appeared, the first book was selected. With regard to the criteria for preschool television series only, certain shows were excluded if

they were thought to influence the results such as book adaptions. If the series was an adaption of a book, the series was omitted from the list. Sometimes only one specific season or episode was listed on the website. Where this was the case, the episode was ignored and only series, which were mentioned as series as such, were acknowledged. Television series, which are newer versions of older series, were also excluded as it is assumed that the language is influenced by the older series published at some date before 2009. For example, the television show Fireman Sam was excluded as two versions, an older and a newer version, exist. All picture books and television series which did not meet the mentioned criteria were excluded. The final list can be found in Appendix I.

4.2. Procedure and Data Analysis After the final lists with 20 picture books and 20 television series for preschoolers were compiled, the books were purchased from Amazon.de and the television series were accessed from Youtube.com, Amazon Prime, Netflix, or Dailymotion.com. The first episode of each television show was chosen to ensure coherence of the sample. The text in the books and series was transcribed by either reading the material or listening to it. An utterance was defined according to Crystal’s (2008) definition: “a single word, a single phrase, a simple sentence or a multi-clause sentence preceded and followed by silence or a change of speaker” (n.p.). Utterances in the television show sample were identified by the use of rising or falling pitch, indicating the end of an utterance. In general, pauses indicated the division of utterances, however, in cases of pauses for thought the utterances were not broken up. Based on this definition, fragments such as single words or phrases, simple sentences, compound sentences, and complex sentences counted as utterances. As the term utterance is usually only used for labelling expressions in discourse, utterances as such do not exist in written language. However, the definition can be applied to picture books as well by determining silence in written language. In this study an utterance in written language was defined as a sentence which was marked by a full stop as a full stop clearly indicates silence and is followed by a new sentence. Furthermore, other punctuation marks were also considered to indicate silence such as a dash, a colon, or a semi-colon. Independent sentences which were separated by these punctuation marks were regarded as separate utterances. Regarding the transcription of the language, some researchers claim that no fewer than 100 utterances should be analyzed otherwise reliable results could not be guaranteed. Even though 100 utterances

are generally used for MLU and other analyses, literature suggests that fewer than 100 but a minimum of 50 utterances can provide reasonable results (Berman and Slobin, 1994; Snow, 1983). Without doubt, the more utterances analyzed the more accurate the results will be (Miller and Chapman, 1981; Bishop and Adams, 1990), therefore, the greatest possible number of utterances used in children’s books was chosen. As children’s books for preschoolers usually do not contain more than 50 utterances, the first 50 utterances were transcribed to get reasonable results. Concerning the transcription of the language samples, the titles from the picture books and the theme songs from the television shows were excluded from the transcription. Only the actual text from the samples was transcribed in a Microsoft Word document. Each utterance was written in a separate line and was numbered from 1 to 50. As picture books contained sentences with punctuation marks, punctuation marks were also inserted in the transcript of the oral language sample to ensure coherence. The text from picture books was transcribed exactly as it was written in the book with an exception made for punctuation marks. Punctuation marks were added according to their appropriateness. For example, dashes which separated independent sentences were replaced by full stops and the first letter of the second half of the expression was written in capital. Punctuation in the spoken data from television shows was added according to conventional practice: questions were marked with a question mark, declarative sentences were marked with a full stop, and emotional exclamations and commands were indicated by an exclamation mark. If subtitles were given for the television shows, the utterances were transcribed according to the subtitles. In both samples contractions such as they’re or don’t were transcribed as they were written or said. In the transcript, fillers, dysfluencies, and repeated words were omitted unless they were made for emphasis such as No! No! No! Fillers such as ehm were omitted, however, well and oh were kept when they carried meaning. As the written sample is inherently different from the spoken sample, reported speech clauses posed an issue with regard to the transcription. However, as reported speech clauses consist of complement utterances, the whole reported speech clause (e.g. Tom said: “Go away!”) was counted as one utterance. Accuracy of the transcribed data was ensured by the rereading of the book samples and the rewatching of the videos of the first episodes three times in order to ascertain the correctness of the transcribed text. If mistakes did occur in a sample, the whole sample was then double

checked. The final versions of the transcripts of the picture book sample and the television show sample can be found in Appendix II. Turning to the data analysis of the samples, for the current study overall six analyses were carried out, whose procedures will be discussed in the following subchapters. For the six analyses, two statistical tests were used to measure the significant difference between the book and TV sample. However, before deciding which statistical test to use, the Shapiro-Wilk Normality Test was carried out for each analysis. The test revealed whether the data was normally or not normally distributed. According to the result of each analysis, the appropriate test was applied. For the purpose of this study, the data of each analysis was separately measured for normality. According to whether the data was normally or not normally distributed, suitable tests were used. In general, the data in each analysis was not normally distributed. Therefore, the Mann-Whitney-U-Test was used to compare the dependent variable in two analyses. The U-Test compares two groups and determines if there is a significant difference among the two groups regarding one dependent variable. For the other four analyses with categorial variables, a chi-square test was conducted. After the data was pasted into the online calculators, the tool calculated the p-value and stated whether the result was significant or not. The statistical tests were accessed on http://langtest.jp/. The results of the tests were regarded as significant at p < 0.05. For the current study a total of six analyses were carried out to identify lexical, morphological, and syntactical differences between preschool picture books and preschool television shows. For the lexical analysis, The Measure of Textual Lexical Diversity (MTLD) test was obtained to ascertain the samples’ textual diversity while morphological complexity was assessed by calculating the Mean Length of Utterance of each sample. With respect to the syntactical analysis, four analyses were carried out to ascertain syntactical complexity in picture books and TV shows. The syntactic analyses included the analysis of sentence types, sentence constructions, verb forms, and clause types. The following subsections provide a detailed commentary on the procedure of each analysis.

4.2.1. Intra-individual differences Descriptive statistics is an effective way to collect data and summarize it in a comprehensive way. To ascertain intra-individual differences, the standard deviation was

calculated for each variable and each sample. The standard deviation (SD) indicates how much the individual data points deviate from the mean. A high SD suggests that the individual data points are distant from the mean while a small SD suggests that the data points are closely located around the mean. If the results were quite wide-spread, it was concluded that there are intra-individual differences within the samples. However, if the results were not spread out around the mean, it was not possible to infer intra-individual differences within the sample. In general, the standard deviation tells us how much variation prevails within the preschool picture book sample and preschool television show sample. By identifying the minimum and maximum data points, the descriptive statistics of the samples seeks to determine outliers. Minimum and maximum values influence the mean and the standard deviations; therefore, the interpretation of these values may be important.

4.2.2. Lexical analysis Turning to the lexical analysis, the lexical diversity of the text in preschool picture books and preschool television shows was compared by using The Measure of Textual Lexical Diversity (MTLD). This index calculates the “mean length of word strings that maintain a criterion level of lexical variation” (McCarthy and Jarvis 2010, 381). This suggests that MTLD measures the lexical diversity in a text, which refers to “the range of different words used in a text, with a greater range indicating a higher diversity” (McCarthy and Jarvis 2010, 381). According to Duran et al. (2004), lexical diversity refers not only to vocabulary range, but also to the verbal creativity which encompasses the usage of vocabulary. A major advantage of MTLD is that it is the only index which provides reliable results regardless of differences in text length. In fact, there were differences between the written and the spoken text with regard to text length. Interestingly, the text length differed even within the picture book sample and within the TV show sample. Therefore, MTLD was particularly useful to avoid ambiguity. After the 50 utterances of each picture book sample and each TV series sample were transcribed, they were pasted into textinspector.com, an online tool for measuring MTLD. Textinspector.com calculated a value for each book and each TV series illustrating how lexically diverse the text is. The value for each book and each TV series was entered into a Microsoft Excel document. To establish whether there was a significant difference between the lexical diversity in picture books and television shows, a Mann-Whitney-U-Test was used. The

MTLD, as the dependent variable, was compared between the two groups being the picture book sample and the children’s television show sample. After the U-Test calculated whether the data in the two samples was significantly different, the result was interpreted. This procedure was performed to attest lexical differences between the picture book sample and the television show sample.

4.2.3. Morphological analysis The Mean Length of Utterance (MLU) was used to infer the morpho-syntactic complexity of the samples. MLU calculates the average length of a child’s utterance by determining the use of morphemes. According to Roger Brown (1973) the addition of morphemes indicates a child’s language proficiency as the use of more morphemes indicates a child’s ability to use them. The morphemes in each sample had to be detected and counted. For this purpose, Johnson’s Protocol for Calculating a Mean Length of Utterance (2005) was used, which determines which morphemes are to be counted and which not. Johnson (2005) suggests that six types of inflectional morphemes occur most frequently in children’s language. Therefore, the following inflectional morphemes are to be counted separately such as the plural -s marker (e.g. dogs, cats), the possessive -s marker (e.g. mom’s hat, dad’s dog), the third person -s marker (e.g. he sits, she sings), the present participle -ing marker (going, singing), the past simple -ed marker (e.g. walked, played), and contractions (e.g. she’ll, they’re). All of these morphemes are added to the total number of words. However, there are some exceptions. In the case of the plural -s, the plural word is counted as one morpheme if the word with the plural -s marker is solely used in its plural form such as clothes or pants. Furthermore, irregular past tense verbs (e.g. ate, stood) and irregular plural nouns (e.g. women, mice) were also counted as one morpheme. Catenatives, occurring both in books and on TV, such as gonna and wanna, were counted as one morpheme. The third person -s marker is usually counted as a separate morpheme except in the case of does, which is counted as one morpheme. Furthermore, even though contractions are also counted separately, let’s, don’t, and won’t are all counted as one morpheme as they are “assumed to be understood as single units, rather than as a contraction of two words” (Johnson 2005, n.p.). Furthermore, as the language in picture books and on TV is more complex than the language used by children, other existing morphemes also had to be detected. These included derivational morphemes to which affixes were added. Both, prefixes (e.g. un-, re-, dis-) and suffixes

(e.g. -able, -ful, -less), were counted as separate morphemes. Repetitions were usually transcribed because repetitions in books and on TV were usually used on purpose and, thus, served as a means for emphasis. Therefore, most of the repetitions were counted separately except in cases when used as a means of word searching. Proper names (e.g. Mud Pond, Cement Mixer) and compound words (e.g. steering wheel, handlebars, small talk) were counted as one morpheme. Reduplications did not occur at all, therefore, a rule for counting them was not needed. Diminutives such as lambie were also counted as one morpheme. Fillers such as um and hmm were generally not transcribed whereas well and oh were transcribed. However, each of the fillers was omitted from the MLU analysis. After the morphemes in each utterance were counted manually, the total number of morphemes was divided by 50 to get the mean length of utterance. This was done for each book and for each episode separately. The calculated value for each book and for each episode was entered into Excel. To establish whether the picture book and TV show sample significantly differed with regard to MLU, a Mann-Whitney-U-Test was run. The U-Test of the morphological analysis compared the MLU values as the dependent variable between the picture book sample and the TV show sample as the two groups.

4.2.4. Sentence types In the syntactic investigation, overall four analyses were conducted, one of them looking into the use of different sentence types. Sentence types are also referred to as sentence functions consisting of statements, questions, commands, and exclamations (Crystal 2008, 432). According to Bieswanger and Becker (2010) each of the sentence types has a particular communicative purpose. Declarative sentences intend to give information, interrogative sentences aim to get information, imperative sentences intend to make someone do something, and exclamatory sentences intend to convey our emotions (Bieswanger and Becker 2010, 203). For this study, the terms mentioned above and other classificatory terminology such as declarative, interrogative, imperative, and exclamative sentences are used interchangeably. The definition of each term has been taken from Crystal’s A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (2008). Declarative sentences usually contain a subject and a verb (e.g. The dog barks.). In contrast to declarative sentences, interrogative sentences are used to express questions. In this study, questions were counted if they were properly formed in their inverted form (e.g. Does the dog bark?), began with a question word (e.g. What is it?), or ended with a question tag (e.g. She is

late, isn’t she?) (Crystal 2008, 400). Even though proper questions only occur in inverted forms, in spoken language questions can also be indicated by solely using rising intonation and keeping the sentence in its declarative form. As the language used on TV is clearly spoken language, the questions marked by rising intonation were counted as questions as well (Crystal 2008, 400). This decision was made as everyday spoken language between adults is also used in this way. Furthermore, improper questions not comprising of all elements of an accurate question, were also counted as questions. For example, the utterance Wanna play? was counted as question even though the interrogative elements do and you were omitted. This decision was made as such questions are also typically used in informal adult speech. In general, interrogative sentences were counted every time a clear rise in intonation occurred signaling a question. The third type of sentences this analysis looked into were imperative sentences, also known as commands. Commands are usually defined as having no subject and using the verb in its imperative form (e.g. Listen!). Commands are usually used to order someone to do something or not to do something (Crystal 2008, 87). The fourth type of sentences were exclamatory sentences, which refer to “any emotional utterance usually lacking the grammatical structure of a full sentence, and [are] marked by strong intonation” (Crystal 2008, 177). Exclamative sentences usually express the speaker’s feelings and often start with what or how (e.g. What a hoot! or How beautiful!). In this study every emotional utterance marked by strong intonation was counted as exclamative sentence (e.g. Oh no! or Wonderful!). However, other one-word utterances, which did not clearly express emotions were counted as sentence fragments (e.g. A carousel!). In addition, incomplete sentences (e.g. At home.) and minor non-productive sentences (e.g. Yes, please.) were also counted as fragments (Crystal 2008, 433). For the purpose of analyzing the samples with respect to sentence types, five types of sentences were distinguished: declaratives, interrogatives, imperatives, exclamatives, and fragments. Each sentence was categorized in one of these types. A Microsoft Word document was used to record which sentence types occurred in a book and TV show and a Microsoft Excel document was used to record how many of these appeared. Statistical significance was analyzed using a chi- square test, in which the categorical variables (fragments, declaratives, interrogatives, imperatives, and exclamatives) were compared.

4.2.5. Sentence constructions The second part of the syntactic analysis dealt with the investigation of sentence constructions. The main aim of this analysis was to identify how many simple and how many complex sentences were used in the samples and whether there was a significant difference in the use of different sentence constructions between books and TV shows. For this purpose, the utterances in the two samples were categorized into simple and complex sentences. According to Bieswanger and Becker’s (2010) and Crystal’s (2008) definition of the terms simple and complex, the utterances were classified into two categories. The terms simple sentences and complex sentences are often used to contrast the use of one or more clauses in a sentence (Crystal 2008, 437). A simple sentence is defined as a sentence which consists of one clause with one subject and one verb. A prerequisite of a simple sentence is that it is able to stand on its own (Bieswanger and Becker 2010, 108). Thus, only sentences which contained one clause with one verb and one subject were classified as simple sentences. Sentences can contain more than one clause and therefore be either considered as compound sentences or complex sentences. For this study, a distinction was only made between simple and complex sentences. As compound sentences contain at least two clauses and at least two verbs, they were classified as complex sentences because they do not meet the criteria of being classified as simple sentences. After calculating how many simple and complex sentences were used in each book and each TV show, the respective number was entered into a separate sheet on Excel. Using a chi-square test, the statistical significance between the book and TV sample regarding sentence constructions was analyzed. In this analysis, the categorical variables represented the frequency of simple and complex sentences while the independent variable was the genre of picture books and TV shows.

4.2.6. Verbs forms In this analysis, sentences were analyzed with regard to their verb forms, which led to the classification of verb types into copular, intransitive, transitive, and other types. The definitions of the particular verb types were also taken from Bieswanger and Becker (2008). Copular verbs contain some form of be or become (e.g. I am here.). Intransitive verbs (e.g. sleep, swim, sing) are verbs which do not require other constituents (e.g. I sleep. or We sing.) (Bieswanger and Becker 2008, 117). In contrast, transitive verbs require “an object noun phrase” (Bieswanger and Becker 2008, 116). For example, the

verbs love, hate, or sing can be transitive verbs if they are followed by an object (e.g. She sings a song.). Transitive verbs are regarded as complex constructions as they require the knowledge of adding objects afterwards (Bieswanger and Becker 2008, 116). Any other verb form such as ditransitive verbs, which require two objects, or complex transitive verbs, which require an object and a complement or an adverbial, were classified as other verb forms. Two types of verb forms were classified into one category as further distinctions are not important in this study. In this study, ditransitive and complex transitive verbs forms were both regarded as complex verb forms as they require more than one constituent. Therefore, the verb forms were categorized as copular, intransitive, transitive, and other. Bieswanger and Becker (2008) also point out that some verbs can be used intransitively, transitively, or even ditransitively. For example, the verb write can be used as follows: I write. (intransitive), I write a letter. (transitive), or I write him a letter. (ditransitive). Depending on which verb forms were used in the sentences, the verbs were coded as copular, transitive, intransitive, or other verbs. Statistical analysis was performed using a chi-square test. To compare the frequency of verb forms between the picture book sample and the TV show sample, the verb forms (copular, intransitive, transitive, and other) represented the categorical variables while the genre represented the independent variable.

4.2.7. Types of clauses Complex sentences were further analyzed with regard to the types of clauses being used. Depending on which clause pattern was used, the clauses were categorized into one of the following seven categories of clause types. The definitions of the clauses follow standard linguistic criteria and are explained below with examples. - Relative clause: clauses containing a relative pronoun such as that, which, what, who or why. The boy who read the book … This is why I did it… The best thing that happened to me … - Subordinate conjunction clause: clauses containing subordinate conjunctions such as although, even though, after, when etc. He fell of his bicycle even though he knew … When I came home, I noticed…

After the horrors I’ve been through, I am happy… - Infinitive clause: clauses containing an infinitive clause such as a to-infinitive clause or a bare infinitive clause. To be happy, is all that matters. Mum loves to cook. I saw him leave the concert. - Present participle clause: clauses containing the present participle form of the verb. Looking at him, she immediately fell in love. He left the concert singing happily. - Past participle clause: clauses containing the past participle form of the verb. Defeated by the army, the troops went back. The car driven by the man was stolen. - Reported speech clause: clauses containing a reporting speech clause. She said: “ …” “…”, he argued. - Coordinate conjunction clause: clauses containing a coordinating conjunction such and, but, for, nor, or, so, and yet. I love books and I hate dogs. She drank some wine, but she didn’t eat anything. I couldn’t wake up, so I slept all day.

The complex sentences in the book sample and in the TV show sample were analyzed with regard to their clause types and were categorized accordingly. In the case of ambiguous sentences, which contained more than one clause type, every clause was counted. The reason for this procedure was that the aim of this analysis was to determine which and how many clause types each genre used. Thus, it only made sense to count all clauses even though they occurred in the same sentence. For the interpretation of the results in terms of which sample used more complex clause types, it was important to bear in mind that the use of compound sentences is not an indicator for complexity. Whereas compound sentences consist of two or more independent clauses, complex sentences contain at least one dependent clause. As the term dependent clause already indicates its dependence, it is crucial to highlight the importance of complex sentences containing clauses which cannot stand on their own. Complex sentences often contain

relative pronouns (e.g. who, which) or subordinating conjunctions (e.g. although, because, when). Therefore, the sample which used more relative clauses, subordinate conjunction clauses, infinitive clauses, present participle clauses, past participle clauses, or reported speech clauses was considered to be more complex. A chi-square test compared the frequency of the seven mentioned categorical variables between the picture book and TV show sample.

5. Results and analyses

5.1. Results and analysis of research question 1 The first research question asked whether there are differences within the samples. For this purpose, the results of the lexical, morphological, and syntactical analyses are summarized in the following chapter. Table 7 and Table 8 in Appendix III provide an overview of the descriptive data of the picture book sample and of the television show sample.

5.1.1. Intra-individual differences in the lexical analysis From Table 7 and Table 8 it is evident that both preschool picture books and preschool television series showed intra-individual differences in the lexical analysis. The average MTLD score was 66.03 in the picture book sample and the standard deviation of the MTLD scores was 21.97. Considering these results and the minimum data value of 27.11 with the maximum data value of 106.3, the results indicate that the MTLD scores were spread out around the mean. The results of the television show sample were similar to those found in the picture book sample. While the average was 67.08, the standard deviation was found to be 26.18. Together with the mean and the SD, the minimum data value of 27.77 and the maximum data value of 144.16, the results indicate that variation within the television show sample exists. From the results it follows that the MTDL scores of both samples were wide-spread. Figure 1 illustrates the individual data points of each sample. A closer look at the individual data points in Figure 1 shows that there are books and TV shows with remarkably low MTLD scores and books and TV shows with remarkably high MTLD scores. For example, books such as Let's Play, Corduroy Takes a Bow, or The Day the Crayons Came Home and the television shows Puffin Rock, Sheriff Callie's Wild West, or Super Wings showed to have MTLD scores far above the mean.

Figure 1: Individual data points - MTLD

What these books and TV shows had in common was that they did not use the same utterances repeatedly. Moreover, repetitions of single words were barely used. Moreover, repetitions of single words were barely used. To illustrate the avoidance of repetitions in picture books, the following example was taken from the book Let’s Play: “One on the blue dots, one on the reds, one on the yellows.” (32). Instead of saying red dots and yellow dots and thereby repeating the term dot, the author made use of the plurals reds and yellows, which have the same implications as red dots and yellow dots. From this example it becomes evident how repetitions of the same words were avoided. In Corduroy Takes a Bow, the author also made use of strategies to avoid repetitions. For example, instead of repeating the same utterance with the same words, reformulations were used such as in the following example: “She had never been to a big theatre like this before. Neither had Corduroy.” (3-4). These two utterances illustrate the authors method to convey the story using a variety of words. This example illustrates the author’s avoidance of repeating the structure and words of the previous sentence. Instead of saying Corduroy had never been to a big theater, either the author used Neither had Corduroy, using different words to convey the same meaning. An example from the television show Puffin Rock illustrates how repetitions were avoided in the TV sample. By using the following utterance “A puffin can carry more than one fish in his bill, quite a few in fact.” (31) the writer of the text tried to avoid using the same words repeatedly. Instead of saying quite a few in fact, the author could have said A puffin can carry quite a few fish in fact

and used the same sentence structure and the same words again. This example illustrates that the author made an effort to use paraphrases. By contrast, other books and TV shows showed remarkably different MTLD scores. For example, the picture books Locomotive and Dragons Love Tacos and the television show Counting with Paula showed the lowest MTLD scores. These books and series had similar features in common: they all made use of repetitive vocabulary and reoccurrence of the same utterances. For example, in Dragons Love Tacos, the words dragons and tacos occurred both 19 times each and their singular equivalents also occurred frequently. Dragon occurred 6 times and taco 8 times. In only 50 utterances, these words appeared very frequently. Furthermore, whole phrases such as Why do dragons love, maybe it’s, they hate, or they love also appeared numerous times. In fact, in the television show sample, multiple series appeared which also used very repetitive language. For example, in the television show Counting with Paula many words and phrases reoccurred. For example, the term friend occurred 10 times and number occurred 8 times. Moreover, whole phrases such as this is and he is appeared frequently. Interestingly, in this series the copular is occurred 23 times in the first 50 utterances, which indicates that there is not much variation with regard to the use of verb forms. From the analysis of Table 7 and 8 it follows that both genres, picture books and TV shows, appeared to have intra-individual differences. The results indicate that picture books tried to avoid repetitions, which contributed to their lexical diversity. In accordance with Mesmer’s (2016) analysis, which found that there are individual differences in quality within picture books, this study confirms this hypothesis. There are variations in lexical richness within the genre of preschool picture books, which suggests that picture books are not inherently lexically rich. There are lexically rich and lexically poor picture books, therefore, each book needs to be analyzed individually in terms of its quality and lexical richness. As already mentioned in the literature review, lexical diversity is crucial for early vocabulary learning as it fosters language acquisition (Jones, John and Recchia, 2012). In accordance with these findings, Mesmer (2016) suggested that children’s books which did not offer lexically rich vocabulary, needed improvement to be suitable for vocabulary learning. In fact, a number of studies found that children need to be exposed to diverse vocabulary from an early age on to help them acquire a range of vocabularies. As some of the analyzed picture books in this study showed remarkably low MTLD

scores, which implies that words reoccurred frequently, it is concluded that these books need improvement if they are to be used for vocabulary learning. In general, the results of the current study are in line with previous studies suggesting intra-individual differences within picture books. When looking at television shows, Linebarger and Walker (2005) demonstrated that there are intra-individual differences within children’s television shows. They found that different shows lead to different vocabulary scores in children, which suggests that different television shows present vocabulary in a different way. This study provides further evidence that there are intra-individual differences within children’s television shows. Some TV shows demonstrated a noticeably high lexical diversity, which indicates that a high number of words was used before the same word reoccurred. Some television series even scored above-average MTLD values. For example, the lexical richness of the show Miles of Tomorrowland was 144.16, which is an outstanding result. The reason for the high MTLD score is that uncommon and unusual words were used. The series is set in a different universe and accordingly terms such as orbiting, Pegasus constellation, and transit authority were used. These terms lead to a higher lexical diversity as they are uncommon. However, other series showed to have below-average results such as Counting with Paula or Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood. These results suggest that TV shows also differed with regard to their quality concerning lexical richness. In sum, intra-individual differences were attested within both samples, which contributes to already existing literature suggesting qualitative differences within picture books and within television shows. As linguistic diversity is crucial for language acquisition (Jones, John and Recchia, 2012), it is important to consider this aspect during activities such as shared book reading and television viewing. As the current study provides new insights into the lexical content of picture books and children’s television series, it is recommended that books and television series for children are chosen wisely as there are lexically poor and lexically rich materials in both genres.

5.1.2. Intra-individual differences in the morphological analysis With regard to the morphological analysis, the descriptive statistics of the samples indicates intra-individual differences in the picture book sample but no remarkable differences within the television show sample. As can be seen from Table 7, the standard deviation in the picture book sample was 3.31, which indicates that most picture books

ranged from an MLU of 6.21 to 13.83. Furthermore, the minimum value of 4.7 and the maximum value of 15.32 provide evidence that the MLU scores in the picture book sample are spread out around the mean. It seems as if there are less morpho-syntactically complex picture books as well as highly morpho-syntactically complex picture books. By contrast, with a standard deviation of 1.26, the television show sample does not indicate differences within the TV sample. The MLU scores in the television show sample are clustered around the mean, therefore, they appear to be consistent. The mean MLU scores and the individual data points of each book and each TV show are illustrated in Figure 2. Figure 2: Individual data points - MLU

While the lowest MLU of the picture book sample was 4.7 in Let’s Play, the lowest MLU value in the television show sample was found in Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood with 3.96. Furthermore, it is apparent from the tables and from Figure 2 that the samples differ with regard to their highest MLU score. While the picture book Carmella Full of Wishes showed an MLU score of 15.32, the highest MLU in the television show sample was found in Little Charmers with a score of 8.74. For example, in Carmella Full of Whishes, sentences such as the following are typical for picture books with higher MLU scores: Carmela scootered along the uneven dirt path, watching men stoop to work with their hands, her birthday bracelets jingling and jangling. (1) Picture books such as The Dark, Goldilocks and the Three Dinosaurs, or Otis showed similar sentence structures. By contrast, the lowest MLU scores in the book sample was found in the picture book Let’s Play. The first five sentences of Let’s Play are presented below:

Hey there! I’m getting a little bored in here. Wanna play? Press the top corner to get me started! Okay. (1-5) From the example it becomes evident that the use of morphemes in picture books with lower MLU scores differed from the use of morphemes in picture books with higher MLU scores. Considering the sentence length, it consequently follows that more morphemes per utterance were used in the first example. Another example from the picture book A Perfectly Messed-Up Story illustrates that picture books with lower MLU have similar sentence structures: Hey. Hold on. What’s that? A jelly stain? How did that get there? (5-9) The examples suggest that picture books with lower MLU scores are characterized by short and fragmented sentences. In fact, the text in these picture books resembles spoken language. When looking at the television show sample, the standard deviation found in this sample was 1.26 indicating that the MLU scores of most television series ranged from 4.64 to 7.16. Most of the TV series showed MLU scores around the mean while only few shows were identified as outliers such as Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood with an MLU of 3.96 and Little Charmers with an MLU of 8.74. In contrast to the picture books sample, the outliers did not deviate extremely from the mean but only by one to two scores. Interestingly, the examples of the TV shows with lower MLU scores resemble the picture books with lower MLU scores. For example, in the preschool television show, Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood, the following utterances were used: Hi neighbor. It’s me Daniel Tiger. Come on in. Do you know what today is? It’s my birthday. (1-5) This example clearly illustrates the similarity between picture books and TV shows with lower MLU scores. It seems as if picture books and TV shows with lower MLU scores used shorter sentences and showed to have a dialogic character. By contrast, TV shows

which scored a higher MLU such as Little Charmers, Puffin Rock, or Doozers used longer sentences and exhibited a narrative style. For example, in Little Charmers, which scored an MLU of 8.74, the following utterances were used: But if the prince proves himself to be charming and does something kind, he gets a wish. We’d better get some sleep. We’ve got a real big charmer’s mission tomorrow. If there’s frog prince in charm vile, then the pond is the place to find him. (18-21) Another example found in Puffin Rock, which had an MLU of 8.56, supports the hypothesis that TV shows with a higher MLU use longer sentences and have a narrative character: Grown-up puffins are excellent at flying. So, a puffling like Oona has her work cut out if she wants to keep up while little Baba hasn’t even mastered hopping yet. Puffins are much more graceful in flight than walking about on land. (21-23) While the language in picture books and TV shows with higher MLU scores is characterized by longer sentences and narrative style, the language in picture books and TV shows with lower MLU scores is characterized by shorter sentences and dialogic style. Studies on the language used in television shows have previously only focused on vocabulary. Thus, there are no studies up to this point which have dealt with the grammatical properties in television shows. Due to the limited amount of studies in the field of grammatical characteristics of children’s television series as well as picture books, the morphological analysis of the current study was crucial to determine the grammatical characteristics of picture books and children’s TV shows. In general, it can be said that picture books showed intra-individual differences with regard to morpho-syntactic complexity. On the other hand, preschool television shows were more consistent with regard to morphological complexity as the individual MLU scores of the TV shows were clustered around the mean. Thus, it is hypothesized that there is variation in the genre of preschool picture books and that that preschool TV shows do not exhibit great morpho- syntactic complexity.

5.1.3. Intra-individual differences in the syntactical analysis Differences occurring within the samples were also analyzed with regard to sentence type, sentence construction, verb form, and clause type. The results of each analysis will be presented in the following section. As Table 7 and Table 8 illustrate, there are some differences within the samples with regard to sentence types. What is surprising is that the standard deviation of declarative sentences in the picture book sample was 9.11. The SD indicates that the results are spread out around the mean. Consequently, individual differences can be assumed within the sample regarding declarative sentence. Looking at the minimum and maximum data values in the picture book sample, it becomes evident that there are outliers in the picture book sample. While 15 picture books used around 30 and 44 declarative sentences, only 5 picture books used fewer than 30 declarative sentences. The individual data points are illustrated in Figure 3. Figure 3: Individual data points – sentence types

A closer inspection of the individual data points indicates that the other sentence types were not really represented in the picture book sample. However, some outliers were identified which made use of a great number of specific sentence types. For example, interrogative sentences were used in The Day the Crayons Came Home 9 times and in Dragons Love Tacos 11 times whilst the other picture books barely used them. Imperative sentences and exclamations were also rarely used in the picture book sample. However,

three books used them frequently. For example, Let’s Play made use of 9 imperative and 8 exclamatory sentences and the Nonsense Show used 11 imperative and 6 exclamative sentences. Even though the standard deviation in these categories was not remarkably high, this observation indicates that there were outliers within these categories in preschool picture books. Turning to the television show sample, the descriptive statistics of sentence types revealed that the standard deviation was lower in comparison to the picture book sample. Although the minimum and maximum values of sentence types illustrate differences within the sample, the SD did not indicate any noticeable intra- individual differences within the television show sample. In sum, intra-individual differences with regard to sentence types were found to be highest for declarative sentences in the picture book sample. Concerning sentence constructions, the most wide-spread result found for complex sentences was in the picture book sample. The SD of complex sentences in the picture book sample with 8.41 was remarkable. While some books contained 2 to 6 complex sentences as seen in Let’s Play, A Perfectly Messed-Up Story, or Llama Llama Loves to Read, others contained up to 28 complex sentences as seen in Corduroy Takes a Bow, Goldilocks and the Three Dinosaurs, and Toe Shoe Mouse. Looking at preschool television series, the standard deviation of 4.3 for complex sentences and a SD of 3.08 for simple sentences indicate that the TV shows differed from the mean by 3 to 4 sentences. A glance at the minimum and maximum values indicates that there were some differences within the genre of preschool television shows. While some TV shows contained only 3 or 4 complex sentences as seen in Miles from Tomorrowland and Doc McStuffins, others contained up to 12 or more complex sentences as seen in Kate & Mim- Mim, Puffin Rock, or Doozers. Figure 4 illustrates the individual data points, which show that intra-individual differences were more noticeable within the picture book sample. This wide-spread usage of transitive verbs indicates that there were differences within the genre of preschool picture books. There were also some differences within the television show sample, however, a closer inspection of the individual samples indicates that these differences were due to outliers. For example, the standard deviation in television series with regard to copular verbs was 3 while the minimum value was 2 and the maximum value was 12.

Figure 4: Individual data points – sentence constructions

For example, Mike the Knight was the only TV shows in which solely one copular verb form appeared. In fact, the differences within the samples were higher in the picture book sample. Intra-individual differences within the picture book sample indicate that whilst there were picture books with numerous transitive verbs, there were also picture books which rarely used them. The individual data points are illustrated in Figure 5. Figure 5: Individual data points – verb forms

When looking at clause types, the results indicate some intra-individual differences within the picture book sample, but not within the television show sample. Overall, the standard deviation for clause types in the picture book sample ranged from 0 to 4.5 and in the television show sample from 0 to 2.4. From Figure 6, in which the

individual data points are illustrated, it becomes evident that the intra-individual differences in the picture book sample were higher than in the television show sample. In particular, when analyzing relative clauses, reported speech clauses, and coordinate conjunction clauses, the standard deviations were higher in comparison to the SD of the other clause types. Figure 6: Individual data points – complex sentences

The minimum data values of 0 indicate that there were books which did not contain the observed clause types at all. This might be due to the fact that some books were composed of almost only simple sentences. Some books such as A Perfectly Messed-up Story, Llama Llama Loves to Read, and Let’s Play contained the fewest clause types. For example, in Let’s Play only one subordinate conjunction clause and one infinitive clause occurred. By contrast, other books such as Corduroy Takes a Bow, Goldilocks and the Three Dinosaurs, Wolfie the Bunny, Carmella Full of Wishes, and Otis used numerous clause types. For example, in Goldilocks and the Three Dinosaurs, 12 relative clauses, 8 subordinate conjunction clauses, and 13 coordinate conjunction clauses occurred. As illustrated in Figure 6, the individual data points of the picture book sample are spread out around the mean. By contrast, the individual data points of the television show sample are clustered around the mean except for few outliers. The data values indicate intra- individual differences within the picture books sample but not within the television show sample.

5.1.4. Summary of research question 1 Overall, intra-individual differences occurred mainly in the picture book sample. These results suggest that the picture book sample contained a variety of different books with varying complexity. There were intra-individual differences with regard to lexical diversity, morpho-syntactic complexity, and with regard to some other variables such as declarative sentences, complex sentences, transitive verbs, and coordinate conjunction clauses. Therefore, the analysis showed that on the one hand, there were picture books which contained numerous complex constructions, and on the other hand, there were picture books which were scarce in the number of complex constructions. While television series also differed with regard to lexical diversity, in the other analyses, the TV show sample was consistent except for few outliers. In general, picture books showed higher intra-individual differences than preschool television shows. The answer to research question (1) is that there were noticeable differences within the picture book sample with regard to lexis, morphology, and syntax and there were differences within the television show sample with regard to lexis but not in the other two linguistic areas.

5.2. Results and analysis of research question 2 The analysis of the second research question aimed to ascertain to what extent preschool television series differed from preschool picture books with regard to lexis. Therefore, the lexical diversity of the language in picture books and the language in children’s TV shows was examined. In Table 1 the descriptive and inferential statistics are outlined.

Table 1: Descriptive and inferential statistics for the MTLD analysis

Descriptive data U-test Genre n mean SD min max z-value p. value Preschool Picture Books 20 66.03 21.97 27.11 106.3

0.08 0.94 Preschool Television Shows 20 67.08 26.18 27.77 144.16

As Table 1 demonstrates and Figure 7 illustrates, the mean MTLD score of preschool picture books and preschool television shows was relatively equal. The data showed that the language in preschool TV shows, with a mean MTLD of 67.08, was as lexically diverse as the language used in preschool picture books, with a mean MTLD of 66.03.

Figure 7: Mean of MTLD scores

100

50 PB TV

MTLD score 40

0 MTLD

The results of the MTLD analysis revealed that the lexical diversity of the language in picture books is not significantly different from the language in TV shows. The U-Test calculated a z-value of 0.08 and a p. value of 0.8067, which indicate that the result is not significant. Therefore, the answer to research question (2) is that preschool television shows do not significantly differ from preschool picture books with regard to lexical diversity. As previous research on picture books and on children’s television shows suggests that the language in both materials is lexically rich, it was expected that the samples would not differ in terms of lexical diversity. Studies regarding the language in picture books indicate that picture books are lexically rich and offer seldom used words (Mesmer 2016) and the current study also supports this assumption. In addition, Montag et al. (2015) found that picture books contain uncommon words and concluded that they provide lexically rich input. Similarly, Klein (1977) found that children’s television series offer a variety of vocabulary. In line with these studies, the current study provides further evidence that preschool picture books as well as preschool television shows can be regarded as lexically rich. Overall, the aim of the lexical comparison of picture books and television shows was to identify the potential of children’s television series to provide rich exposure of lexically diverse language. Since the MTLD scores of preschool television shows do not significantly differ from the MTLD scores of preschool picture

books, the language in preschool television shows can be regarded as lexically diverse. Even though great concerns are often expressed by parents and researchers regarding young children’s television viewing, from a lexical standpoint, preschool television shows are just as lexically rich and diverse as preschool picture books.

5.3. Results and analysis of research question 3 In this section, the results and analysis of the third research question will be discussed: To what extent do preschool television series differ from preschool picture books with regard to morphology? The aim of the morphological analysis of picture books and television series was to ascertain whether the language used in children’s television series has a similar morpho-syntactic complexity as the language used in picture books. Table 2 demonstrates the descriptive and inferential statistics of the MLU analysis.

Table 2: Descriptive and inferential statistics for MLU analysis

Genre n mean SD z-value p. value Preschool Picture Books 20 9.52 3.31 3.81 0.0001365029 Preschool Television Shows 20 5.9 1.26

Providing an overview of the results, Table 2 presents the mean MLU of the picture book sample of 9.52 and the mean of the MLU of the television show sample of 5.9. Moreover, as Table 2 shows, there is a significant difference (z = 3.81, p = 0.0001365029) between the two genres. Overall, the results of the morphological analysis indicate that the difference between the two genres is significant. While picture books used more morphemes per utterance, which consequently made the language more complex, children’s television shows did not make similar use of morphemes, which suggests that the language in TV shows was not as high in morpho-syntactic complexity as the language in picture books. In Figure 8 the mean MLU score of the samples is illustrated in a bar chart, which visualizes the difference between the picture book and television show sample.

Figure 8: Mean of MLU scores

5 PB TV MLU score 4

0 MLU

Furthermore, Farrar (1990) also found that children acquired those morphemes to which they were exposed to in CDS. Previous studies have investigated the effect of grammatical input on children’s grammatical acquisition, but a corpus analysis of the different grammatical input available to children from picture books or television shows has not been inspected yet. Thus, it was important to analyze the grammatical properties in the two samples and to determine to what extent they are presented to children. At this current time there is no study, which compared the morphological complexity of picture books and TV series and therefore, this current study provides first results in this field. The results of the analysis clearly showed that the picture books contained a significantly greater morphological complexity than the television shows. As there are no studies which have conducted a similar analysis, the discussion of the results is limited. The morphological complexity of picture books can be explained by referring to studies which dealt with the effect of grammatical input on language learning. According to various studies, children’s books are thought to be complex in their use of constructions (Cameron-Faulkner and Noble, 2013; Noble et al., 2017, Montag and MacDonald, 2015). However, these studies looked into construction types rather than morpho-syntactic complexity. It can be assumed that preschool picture books contain complex morphological constructions as a result of containing complex input including complex sentence constructions. However, further studies in this field are needed to investigate the

correlation between morpho-syntactic complexity and sentence construction complexity. The results of the analysis of the morphological complexity of preschool television shows show that TV shows are not as complex as picture books. As they have a lower MLU, children are exposed to lower morphological complexity while watching TV shows. Naigles and Mayeux (2001) concluded that while television shows are able to facilitate vocabulary acquisition, they are not able to facilitate grammatical development. The present study raises the possibility that TV shows are not able to facilitate children’s grammatical development as they do not contain rich morphological content. By contrast, there is evidence that suggests that the text from picture books can facilitate the acquisition of morphemes and grammar (Tomasello 2003, Farrar 1990). As picture books contained a higher morpho-syntactic complexity, it can be assumed that picture books’ higher use of morphemes is the reason for their ability to foster grammatical development. On the other hand, due to the lower morphological complexity used in children’s television series, children are not exposed to complex morphological constructions while viewing television. Consequently, preschool television shows may not demonstrate the potential to facilitate grammatical acquisition. This is a possible reason why children’s television shows might not have a positive effect on the acquisition of morphemes or grammar. In sum, the answer to research question (3) is that preschool picture books differ significantly from preschool television shows with regard to morpho-syntactic complexity. The results of the comparison of the two genres indicate that the utterances in the picture book sample were far more complex than the utterances in television show sample. These results further support the idea that television shows are not able to support grammatical acquisition. It can thus be suggested that the lack of morpho-syntactic complexity in children’s television shows might be the reason for their incapacity to help children acquire grammatical structures.

5.4. Results and analysis of research question 4 In the following section, the results regarding the fourth research question will be discussed. The aim of the four syntactic analyses was to ascertain to what extent preschool television series differ from preschool picture books with regard to syntax. The results and analyses of the four syntactic analyses will be presented and discussed separately.

5.4.1. Sentence types When reviewing the results with regard to sentence types, a clear difference in the use of different sentence types can be spotted between the genres. Table 3 provides an overview of the descriptive and inferential statistics. Table 3: Descriptive and inferential statistics for sentence types

P. picture books P. TV shows sentence types χ2 p. value % raw % raw fragments 16.5% 165 24.6% 246 declarative 65.2% 652 46.6% 466 interrogative 7% 70 10.7% 107 70.49 1.790848e-14 imperative 7.9% 79 12.3% 123 exclamations 3.4% 34 5.8% 58

In general, the table above reveals that picture books used only declarative sentences more frequently than television shows. Every other sentence type was used more frequently in the television show sample. For example, fragments, such as unfinished sentences and one-word utterances, were used less frequently in the picture book sample than in the TV show sample. The most striking result to emerge from the data is that the order in which the sentence types occurred most frequently was the same in both genres. Interestingly, the most frequently used sentence type in both genres was the declarative type followed by fragments. After these two types, imperative and interrogative sentences were used and the fewest represented sentences were exclamations. In Figure 9, the bar chart visualizes the results obtained from the analysis of sentence types for preschool picture books and preschool television shows. Only 165 sentences out of a total of 1000 utterances were identified as fragments in the picture book sample. Interestingly, more fragments were used in the TV show sample as overall 246 sentences of 1000 utterances were fragments. Interestingly, declarative sentences were used more frequently in picture books than in TV shows. From the 1000 utterances, more than half, 652 sentences, were identified as declarative sentences in the picture book sample whereas almost half of all utterances, 466 sentences, were classified as declarative sentences in the TV show sample. The remaining three sentence types were all used more frequently in the TV show sample than in the picture book sample. Interrogative sentences were used in 10.7 percent of the utterances whereas

in picture books 7 percent of the utterances were identified as interrogative sentences. In the TV show sample, imperative sentences were used in 12.3 percent of the utterances and exclamations in 5.8 percent of the utterances while in the picture book sample, 7.9 percent of the utterances were classified as imperative sentences and 3.4 percent as exclamations. The chi-square test showed a significant difference between preschool picture books and preschool television shows. The chi-square value of 70.49 and the p. value of 1.790848e-14 are clear indicators for differences in the use of sentence type in the two different genres.

Figure 9: Raw number of sentence types in picture books and TV shows

700

600

500

400

Picture Books 300 TV Shows

number of number sentences 200

100

0 Fragments Declarative Interrogative Imperative Exclamations sentence types

As mentioned in the literature review, declarative sentences were used most frequently in the picture book sample (Cameron Faulkner and Noble, 2013). Thus, the finding of this study is consistent with that of Cameron-Faulkner and Noble (2013) who found that subject-predicate sentences are the most typical sentence type in picture books. In line with their study, the results of the present study indicate that there is a clear preference for declarative sentences in picture books. All other types of sentence functions represent together 44.8 percent of the utterances. Interestingly, while some books used a mixture of sentence types, others used declarative sentences almost exclusively. For example, Corduroy Takes a Bow, Toe Shoe Mouse, or I am Otter had a narrative character as 43 of 50 utterances in each sample were identified as declarative

sentences. The text from the picture book Corduroy Takes a Bow provides a good example to illustrate the story-telling character of picture books: They had come to see a performance of Mother Goose rhymes. In the lobby, people were picking up tickets. Ushers handed out programs. A brass chandelier hung from the ceiling that was painted with clouds. Suddenly, the light flickered on and off. (5-9) When looking at the results found in the television show sample, there are no studies to date which look into the syntax of the language used in children’s television shows which could support or contradict the results of this study. Therefore, this study provides the first results with respect to sentence types used in preschool television shows. Therefore, these findings suggest that with 46.6 percent declarative sentences represent the most frequently used sentence type in preschool television shows. TV shows which used declarative sentences frequently include Puffin Rock, Tayo the Little Bus, Zack and Quack, Doozers, and Little Charmers. The following example illustrates an extract from Puffin Rock: It’s like he’s flying, but under the water. Puffins are incredible. A puffin can carry more than one fish in his bill, quite a few in fact. And it’s a good job, too, because Baba is hungry. Oona has been watching her Mama and Papa very closely all morning. (30- 34) Turning to the other types of sentences, fragments, imperative and interrogative sentences, and exclamations were more often used in the television show sample than in the picture books sample. A possible reason for this result might be that these sentence types are more typical for spoken discourse than for written language (Hayes and Ahrens, 1988; Montag and MacDonald, 2015). By using fragments, questions, commands, and exclamations an interactive relationship is established. The language used on the medium of television is characterized by dialogue and interaction among characters meaning that various sentence types were used frequently. Examples for fragments are greetings such as “Hi Oona” or “Good morning Mr. Grouper” (Bubble Guppies, 1, 43), one-word utterances such as “kiss” (Wallykazam, 49) or “Calc” (Counting with Paula, 43) as answers to questions, and incomplete sentences such as “If I only could find the right…” (Julius Jr., 1) or “Not as fast as Tach’s Fast Mobile” (Kate & Mim-Mim, 25). These examples are characteristic for the television show sample. Such fragments also occurred

in the picture book sample, however, not as frequently as in children’s television shows. Interestingly, the use of fragments in picture books resembles spoken language. Books such as Let’s Play, A Perfectly Messed-Up Story, or The Day the Crayons Came Home made use of many fragments. For example, in Let’s Play fragments such as “A carousel.” (25), “Three spins.” (31), and “Ready.” (44) were used. Examples can also be found in other picture books such as The Dark (e.g. “Pressed up against some old, damped boxes and a chest of drawers nobody ever opened.”, 7), The Airport Book (e.g. “Of course.” 20), or in Mighty, Mighty Construction Site (e.g. “Two friends at work.” 27). Even though declarative sentences and fragments made up most of the utterances in the samples, imperative sentences represented the third most frequently used sentence type. Some books and television shows used a high number of imperative sentences as seen in the books Let’s Play, The Nonsense Show, and Locomotive and in the television shows Puffin Rock, Sheriff Callie’s Wild West, and Miles from Tomorrowland. Others avoided imperative sentences completely or used them scarcely such as the books Corduroy Takes a Bow, I am Otter, or Llama Llama Loves to Read and the television show Tayo the Little Bus. In general, different forms of imperative sentences were used. For example, single word commands such as “Stop!” (A Perfectly Messed-Up Story, 39), common imperative sentences such as “Press the top corner to get me started!” (Let’s Play, 4), imperative sentences starting with let’s such as “Let’s trade hats!” (The Nonsense Show, 41), and negative commands such as “Don’t forget Monkey!” (The Airport Book, 1). Imperative sentences were closely followed by questions in both samples, yet they were the second fewest represented sentence type in both genres. Interestingly, some books and TV shows used questions frequently, however, there were others which did not. For example, picture books such as The Day the Crayons Came Home and Dragons Love Tacos and the television shows Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood and Doozers used multiple questions. On the other hand, certain books avoided questions completely such as Wolfie the Bunny and Locomotive. Even though some television shows did not focus on questions either, every series contained at least two questions. Analogue to imperative sentences, interrogative sentences also occurred in different forms. For example, Wh-question such as “What are those little green things in the salsa?” (Dragons Love Tacos, 49), yes-no questions such as “Did you know that dragons love tacos?” (Dragons Love Tacos, 2), intonation only questions such as “You didn’t read the fine print?” (Dragons Love Tacos, 50), and

fragmented questions such as “Wanna play?” (Let’s Play, 3). When it comes to exclamations the results show that this sentence type was used the fewest in both genres. While most books and TV shows used none or 1 to 3 exclamations in the first 50 utterances, certain books used a greater number of exclamations. For example, the picture books Let’s Play and The Nonsense Show and the TV shows Tayo the Little Bus and Mike the Knight used 6 or more exclamations. On the other hand, the remaining books and TV shows showed to lack exclamative sentences. Examples for exclamations in picture books are “Great!” (Let’s Play, 9), “Wow!”(Let’s Play, 20), or “Bravo!” (Let’s Play, 22). In Mike the Knight, exclamations such as “Well done Galahad!” (1) and “Excellent stopping!” (2) were used. In summary, there is a significant difference with regard to the use of sentence types in preschool picture books and preschool television shows. In fact, only declarative sentences were used more frequently in preschool picture books. The remaining sentence types occurred more frequently in preschool television shows. Declarative sentences were used in both genres as the main form of expression. While in picture books declarative sentence were the main sentence type and the other types were minimally present, television shows used next to declarative sentences as their main sentence type other types. Thus, they had a more balanced representation of different sentence types than picture books.

5.4.2. Sentence constructions The second syntactic analysis dealt with the investigation of different sentence constructions used in preschool picture books and preschool television shows. The aim of this analysis was to identify whether there is a difference in the use of simple and complex sentences between picture books and TV shows. Table 4 provides and overview of the descriptive and inferential statistics. In the picture book sample, simple sentences represented 49.7 percent of the utterances and 50.3 percent of the utterances were identified as complex sentences. By contrast, the TV show sample used simple sentences in 60.09 percent of the utterances and 39.91 percent represented complex sentences. The results are visualized in Figure 10. In addition, when looking at the statistical evidence, the result of the chi-square test suggests that there is a significant difference between the two genres.

Table 4: Descriptive and inferential statistics for sentence constructions

sentence P. picture books P. TV shows χ2 p. value constructions % raw % raw simple sentences 49.7% 326 60.09% 294 19.773 0.000009 complex sentences 50.3% 330 39.91% 172

Figure 10: Raw number of sentence constructions in picture books and TV shows

500

400

300

Picture Books 200 TV Shows number of number sentences

100

0 Simple Sentences Complex Sentences sentence construction

Interestingly, the current study found that preschool picture books used more complex sentences than preschool television shows. There were multiple books which made use of 26 to 28 complex sentences in 50 utterances such as Corduroy Takes a Bow, Goldilocks and the Three Dinosaurs, Wolfie the Bunny, Carmella Full of Wishes, Toe Shoe Mouse, and Otis. On the other hand, preschool television shows did not use as many complex sentences. For example, the highest number of complex sentences was 14 as found in Puffin Rock. The findings indicate that preschool picture books used significantly more complex sentences, sentences with two or more verbs, than preschool television shows. In agreement with the present results, previous studies have demonstrated that complex sentences are typical for picture books (Cameron-Faulkner and Noble, 2013; Montag and MacDonald, 2015). As there are no studies thus far on the syntactical composition of the language in children’s television shows, the findings of this study provide first results in this field. The analysis showed that the majority of the sentences

in preschool television series were categorized as simple sentences. A possible explanation for this might be that the language in television shows is characterized by discourse features typical for spoken language such as questions, commands, and exclamations. As spoken language is simpler than written language (Hayes and Ahrens, 1988; Montag and MacDonald, 2015), the differences could be explained by referring to this argument. In summary, the second analysis of the fourth research question revealed that there is a significant difference between preschool picture books and preschool television shows with regard to their use of complex sentences. Picture books used more complex sentences than television shows. In fact, simple sentences were mainly used in the television show sample.

5.4.3. Verb forms The third syntactic analysis dealt with the analysis of verb forms. The aim was to compare the difference between picture books and TV shows in their use of different verb forms. Table 5 provides an overview of the descriptive and inferential statistics.

Table 5: Descriptive and inferential statistics for verb forms

P. picture books P. TV shows verb forms χ2 p. value % raw % raw copular 26.59% 88 47.1% 138 intransitive 10.57% 35 10.58% 31 30.789 0.00001 transitive 43.81% 145 27.99% 82 others (complex) 19.03% 63 14.33% 42

The table shows that there is a clear difference in terms of which verb form was the most prominent in each genre. While copular and transitive verbs were the two most popular verb forms in both genres, the two genres used them in different degrees. In fact, there is a significant difference in the use of different verb forms between preschool picture books and preschool television shows. The p. value under 0.00001 indicates a clear difference between the two genres. Figure 11 illustrates the classifications of verbs into copular, intransitive, transitive, and other.

Figure 11: Raw number of verb forms in picture books and TV shows

160

140

120

100

80 Picture books 60 TV shows

number of number verb forms 40

0 copular intransitive transitive other verb forms

In preschool picture books, transitive verbs were seen to be used most frequently with 43.81 percent and copular verbs were used in 26.59 percent of the analyzed sentences. In contrast, in preschool television shows, copular verbs were used most frequently with 47.1 percent, immediately followed by transitive verbs with 27.99 percent. Ditransitive and complex transitive verbs are referred to as other verbs in this study. They were the third most frequently used verb form in both genres. The picture book sample contained 19.03 percent of other verb forms whereas the television show sample contained 14.33 percent of other verb forms. As far as this category is concerned, picture books used more ditransitive and complex transitive verbs than television shows. Interestingly, intransitive verb forms were used in both samples only around 10 percent. The most interesting finding of this analysis was that the two genres differed in terms of their most frequently used verb form. There is statistical evidence that preschool picture books differ significantly from preschool television shows as the former used transitive verbs as their main verb form and the latter used copular verbs as their main verb form. The findings imply that picture books contained more verbs which were followed by an object noun phrase. In other words, picture books used a more complex verb form more frequently while television shows used a simpler verb form more frequently. The picture books which used transitive verbs the most were, for example, First Snow, Dragons Love Tacos, Llama Llama Loves to Read, and Mighty, Mighty Construction Site. The following

example taken from Dragons Love Tacos illustrates the use of transitive verbs in picture books: They love the music. They love the decorations. They especially love the tacos. (44-46) On the other hand, preschool television shows used verbs with some form of be or become, followed by a complement or adverbial, most frequently. Series which contained numerous copular constructions were Counting with Paula, Tayo the Little Bus, Zack and Quack, and Doc McStuffins. The following example taken from Counting with Paula illustrates the use of the copular construction in preschool television series: This is Tim. He is also my friend. This is my new friend Calc. (12-14) In fact, these results corroborate the findings of previous work by Moya Guijarro (2014) who argued that picture books for three-to-six-year-old children avoid excessive use of the copular construction and focus more on transitive verbs as older children are cognitively more capable to process more complex verb forms. However, as there are no existing studies up to this point which have dealt with the analysis of verb forms in children’s television shows, the findings of this study offer first results in this field. In sum, the results of the third syntactic analysis showed that there are significant differences between the picture book sample and the television show sample with regard to the usage of verb forms. While the focus in picture books was on transitive verbs, preschool television shows concentrated on copular verb forms. Furthermore, more complex verb forms such as ditransitive and complex transitive verbs were also used more frequently in the picture book sample.

5.4.4. Types of clauses The fourth syntactic analysis investigated the clause types used in sentences. The aim of this analysis was to determine whether there are differences in the use of different clause types between preschool picture books and preschool television shows. Table 6 provides an overview of the descriptive and inferential statistics.

Table 6: Descriptive and inferential statistics for clause types

P. picture books P. TV shows complex clauses χ2 p. value % raw % raw relative clause 19.53% 83 31.12% 61 subordinate conj. clause 15.29% 65 16.32% 32 infinitive clause 19.76% 84 31.63% 62 3.36228e- 45.7147 present participle clause 6.59% 28 4.08% 8 8

past participle clause 2.12% 9 0% 0 reporting speech clause 10.82% 46 0.5% 1 coordinate conj. clause 25.88% 110 16.33% 32

Table 6 indicates that both genres made use of the same four clause types – relative clause, subordinate conjunction clause, infinitive clause, coordinate conjunction clause – most frequently and that they used the same three clause types – present participle clause, past participle clause, reporting speech clause – the fewest. While the picture book sample used coordinate conjunction clauses most frequently with 25.88 percent, closely followed by relative clauses (19.53 percent) and infinitive clauses (19.76 percent), the television show sample used relative clauses with 31.12 percent and infinitive clauses with 31.63 percent most frequently. Coordinate conjunction clauses and subordinate conjunction clauses were represented in the television show sample with around 16 percent. Clauses with subordinate conjunctions were used in the picture book sample slightly fewer (15.29 percent) than in the television show sample (16.32 percent). The picture book sample used reporting speech clauses more frequently (10.82 percent) than the television show sample (0.5 percent). Present participle and past participle clauses were both used infrequently in both samples. Considering these results, the chi-square test calculated a significant difference between picture books and television series with regard to their use of clause types. Figure 12 illustrates the classification of the clause types for each sample. The figure indicates that picture books used each clause type more frequently than television series. Thus, the findings of this analysis imply that picture books used significantly more complex clauses than television shows. Even though coordinate conjunction clauses were used most frequently in the picture book sample, they do not indicate complexity. In fact, every other clause type implies the use of complex clauses in the sample. Relative clauses, subordinate conjunction clauses, and infinitive clauses

were represented most frequently while present and past participle clauses were represented seldom. Figure 12: Raw number of constructions in picture books and TV shows

120

100

40 number of number clauses

0 relative subordinate infinitive present past participle reporting coordinate clause conjunction clause participle speech clause conjunction clause types

Picuture Books TV Shows

The results are in line with those of previous studies as they support the view that picture books contain complex clauses. A comparison of these findings with those of Montag and MacDonald (2015) confirms that picture books use a great deal of relative clauses. In fact, the current study provides the first results for the use of the remaining clause types. In sum, the results suggest that there is a significant difference between preschool picture books and preschool television shows with regard to their use of complex clauses. Preschool picture books used significantly more complex clauses than preschool television shows. Furthermore, as there are no studies in this field up until now, it can be hypothesized that preschool picture books as well preschool television shows focus on relative clauses, subordinate conjunction clauses, infinitive clauses, and coordinate conjunction clauses and that both genres avoid present participle clauses, past participle clauses, and reporting speech clauses.

5.4.5. Summary of research question 4 In summary, the aim of the fourth research question was to determine whether preschool picture books differ significantly from preschool television shows with regard to syntax.

All four syntactic analyses revealed that there are significant differences between the picture book sample and the television show sample. The picture book sample showed to contain significantly more declarative sentences and fewer fragments than the television show sample. This finding indicates that even though picture books used some fragments, questions, commands, and exclamations, they mainly focused on declarative sentences. The television show sample also contained declarative sentences most frequently, but the other sentence types were more prominent than in the picture book sample. The results showed that preschool television shows provided a great variety of sentence types and that picture books focused on declarative sentences. Even though the analysis of sentence types did not lead to a conclusion about the samples’ complexity, the use of more declarative sentences suggests the samples potential of a higher number of complex sentences. Interestingly, the second syntactic analysis revealed that picture books used significantly more complex sentences than television shows. The third analysis found that the television show sample used copular constructions primarily while the picture book sample focused on transitive verbs, which are considered to be more complex than copular verbs. Looking at the fourth syntactic analysis, the results showed that the picture book sample outnumbered the television show sample in the use of every complex clause type. In sum, preschool television shows used a variety of sentence types, fewer complex sentences and more simple sentences, copular verbs, and fewer complex clauses than picture books. A possible reason for these findings is that the language found in the television show sample resembles spoken language rather than written language. Thus, it seems that the language in children’s television shows avoided the usage of complex sentences and complex clauses, but used different sentence types such as questions, imperatives, and exclamations. Together these results provide important insights into the syntactic composition of preschool picture books and preschool television series. Overall, the findings indicate that the language in preschool picture books is syntactically more complex than the language in preschool television shows. It could be possible that the use of various sentence types prevents the television show sample from using more declarative sentences and thus more complex sentences. Therefore, the answer to research question (4) is that there is a significant difference between preschool picture books and preschool television series with regard to syntax.

6. Implications, limitations, and future research Having presented and analyzed the results of the research questions, the following chapter aims to discuss general implications of the findings, review the limitations of the study, and make suggestions for future research. Concerning differences within the samples, intra-individual differences were identified particularly in the picture book sample. It seems that there is a huge variety of picture books, some being more complex than others. The large standard deviations indicate that the data values of the picture book sample are wide-spread with regard to lexis, morphology, and syntax. The findings indicate that picture books differ with regard to their linguistic complexity. Thus, it seems as if there are less complex preschool books and more complex preschool books. By contrast, preschool television shows appeared to differ only with regard to vocabulary, in the other analyses the data values of the TV sample were consistent. In general, the results of the current study support the idea that picture books provide complex input for children. Television shows, on the other hand, only show to be complex with regard to vocabulary, but not with regard to morphology and syntax. Since there is no significant difference regarding the diversity of vocabulary, it can be assumed that preschool television shows provide as diverse and as complex vocabulary input for children as preschool picture books. Hence, these findings may help us to understand why children are able to learn new words from watching television (Barr and Wyss, 2008; Rice and Woodsmall, 1988). As it was established by studies that input diversity is a crucial indicator for vocabulary acquisition (Hills et al., 2010; Rowe, 2012), the present study has shown that children’s television shows fulfill the criterion of providing children with diverse vocabulary. However, when looking at it from a morphological and syntactical standpoint, preschool television shows are not as complex as preschool picture books. Taking into account the fact that the input from the medium of television has not shown to be facilitative for children’s development of grammatical structures (Naigles and Mayeux, 2001), the present study raises the possibility that preschool television shows do not provide children with sufficient complex grammatical constructions to be able to benefit grammatical development. Preschool television shows used fewer morphemes per utterance and fewer complex clauses than preschool picture books. Complex sentences, complex verb forms, and complex clauses were all used significantly more frequently in the picture book sample. Interestingly, in terms of

variety, the television show sample demonstrated a more diverse use of sentence types in comparison to picture books, which used declarative sentences almost exclusively. However, this result is not surprising as the language in the TV show sample resembles spoken language and CDS. The study by Cameron-Faulkner and Noble (2013) compared the text from a picture book sample with CDS and found that the CDS sample contained more questions and imperatives than the book sample. It is possible, therefore, that the finding of this study supports the idea that picture books do not contain questions and imperatives in a great deal, but that these constructions are typical for spoken language and thus occur more frequently in children’s television shows. As the television show sample not only used various sentence types such as questions, imperatives, and exclamations but also a high degree of copular verbs, these observations in the television show sample may support the hypothesis that the language in children’s television shows is similar to CDS. The results found for preschool television shows seem to be consistent with other research which found that constructions such as fragments, copulas, and interrogatives are typical for child-directed speech (Cameron-Faulkner et al., 2003). Hence, it could conceivably be hypothesized that there is a similarity between the language found in preschool television shows and child-directed speech. Still, this similarity does not automatically suggest that viewing children’s TV shows is as effective for language acquisition as CDS. As this study compared picture books with television series, these findings solely allow us to draw conclusions with regard to the comparison of picture books with television series. Therefore, interpretations of the findings for the individual samples must be made with caution. As far as the limitations of this study are concerned, it is important to point out that the study analyzed the minimum sample size of 20 picture books and 20 TV series. Focusing on several criteria, it was impossible to have a bigger sample size as the number of possible samples was consequently limited. Even though taking certain criteria into account enabled a generalization of preschool picture books, a bigger sample would have allowed more exact results. In future investigations, it might be possible to discard criteria and use a larger sample size to get more representative results. Furthermore, since preschool picture books contained different numbers of utterances, only the minimum number of 50 utterances could be taken into account. The analysis of more than 50 utterances would have led to more precise results of each sample. Thus, with a smaller

number of utterances, caution must be applied, as the findings might not be precise enough. What is more, the first 50 utterances of each television series were taken to ascertain a systematical procedure. However, during the process of transcription, it became evident that the first 50 utterances might not be representative of the remaining utterances in the TV shows. The first utterances almost always contained greetings, which were fragments or simple sentences. This aspect may have influenced the results. In contrast, picture books often contained only a maximum of 50 utterances, therefore, the whole picture book was taken for analysis but only a small part of the television show. To avoid unrepresentative results, the whole text from picture books and the whole text from television shows should be analyzed and put into proportion to each other. This way, representative results could be guaranteed. Furthermore, as the assessment of sentences and constructions to the syntactic categories was conducted by the author of this study, it is possible that the classification was unintentionally performed biased. Even though most sentences were unambiguous, some utterances in the picture book sample were quite vague. Thus, the classification of the ambiguous sentences was performed according to the judgment of the author. As this circumstance only applied to a small number of sentences, the significance of the results was not affected as the results were clearly significant in all analyses. However, more precise results could have been reached if at least one additional researcher had analyzed the sentences. Another limitation of this study is that the analysis of the input does not reveal anything about the effect that the input has on children’s language acquisition. Thus, interpretations of the results regarding their effect on children’s language acquisition could only be made with caution. The results of this study do not explain whether the input which was found is actually beneficial or not. The results of this study simply tell us that there is a difference between the language in preschool picture books and preschool television series. Despite these promising results, questions remain as to whether these results are emulated in other studies. As the present study was the first to be conducted in this form, further studies are needed to develop a full picture of the differences between books and TV. While the aim of shared book reading is clearly to expose children to complex language material and to foster literacy skills, the aim of television viewing is primarily to entertain children. However, as TV provides children with additional language input, it is important to recognize the medium of television as a source which can potentially

influence children’s language acquisition. Previous research argues that children are only able to acquire vocabulary from television viewing but not grammar. Findings from earlier studies and the evidence provided by the current study suggest that television shows only seem to provide complex vocabulary and not grammar. Thus, it is possible that complexity is the crucial indicator which facilitates language acquisition from television viewing. Hence, a possible reason why television shows are not able to facilitate the acquisition of grammar is that they do not provide children with complex language material. Thus, studies are needed to determine the correlation between language acquisition and complex input with regard to children’s television viewing. Furthermore, as the results showed individual differences within both samples, future research should investigate differences within picture books and within television shows. Thus, corpus analyses of each genre are needed. Having obtained abundant results, future work is required to establish the effect of the input found in preschool picture books and preschool television shows on children’s language acquisition. To develop a full picture of the impact of picture books and television shows on language acquisition, it is crucial to determine their effects on lexis, morphology, and syntax individually. In general, it can be argued that more studies in this field are needed.

7. Conclusion Without doubt, digitalization has already taken over children’s lives by providing a huge range of digital entertainment and learning tools. With a rising number of children’s television series, a linguistic content analysis of these was needed. By comparing the language in preschool television shows with the language in preschool picture books, useful implications for parents and researchers could be drawn from the results. The analyses of lexis, morphology, and syntax of preschool picture books and preschool television shows revealed the samples’ linguistic complexity in these three areas. Consistent with the literature (Cameron-Faulkner and Noble, 2013; Montag et al. 2010), this research found that preschool picture books are characterized by complex input in comparison to the language found in the television show sample. Surprisingly, intra-individual differences were found to be greater in the picture book sample than in the television show sample. Picture books showed noticeable intra-individual differences in all three categories: lexis, morphology, and in some aspects of syntax. It can be argued that picture books are generally regarded as containing complex language. However,

there are also books which show neither a higher MLTD, a higher MLU, nor any occurrence of complex sentences. From this it follows that not all preschool picture books provide qualitative input, but that even though picture books are generally seen as complex input for children, each book needs individual content analysis. In comparison to preschool television shows, picture books were found to be more complex with regard to morphology and syntax. Preschool television shows appeared to be complex in vocabulary, however, they did not show complex input in morphology and syntax in comparison to preschool picture books. Thus, it can be suggested that preschool television shows provide diverse and complex vocabulary, but they are neither morphologically nor syntactically well equipped. The findings provide some support for the conceptual premise that the input from children’s television shows is not highly complex, except for lexis, and, thus, is only able to facilitate the acquisition of vocabulary. From this it follows that preschool television shows may not provide language for children which is sophisticated enough to facilitate language learning. In relation to existing literature on this topic, the hypothesis which can be drawn from the results is that one reason as to why children’s TV shows have an inability to facilitate language acquisition stems from their lack of complexity. Thus, future research should investigate whether TV series which provide children with complex input in morphology and syntax are able to foster children’s language acquisition in these areas. As complex input is crucial for language acquisition, the aim of the current study was to determine whether preschool television shows could potentially be regarded as reasonable complex input. Taking the results of all six analyses into account, picture books are clearly to be favored in comparison to television shows concerning language learning purposes.

Bibliography American Academy of Pediatrics (2004) Children, Adolescents and Television, http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3b107/2/423 Anderson, D.R. and Evans, M.K. (2001) The peril and potential of media for infants. Zero To Three, 10, 1-17. Arunachalam, Sudha (2013) Two-year-olds can begin to acquire verb meanings in socially impoverished contexts. Cognition, 129 (3), 569-573. Barnes, S., Gutfreund, M., Satterly, D. and Wells, G. (1983) Characteristics of adult speech which predict children’s language development. Journal of Child Language, 10 (1), 65-84. Barr, Richard and Hayne, Harlene (1999) Developmental changes in imitation form television during infancy. Child Development, 70, (5), 1067-1081. Barr, Rachel and Wyss, Nancy (2008) Reenactment of televised content by 2-year olds: Toddlers use language learned from television to solve a difficult imitation problem. Infant Behavior & Development, 31 (4), 696-703. Berman, R.A. and Slobin, D.I. (1994) Relating events in narrative: A cross-linguistic developmental study. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum. Bieswanger, Annette and Becker, Markus (2010) Introduction to English Linguistics. Tübingen: UTB. Bishop, D. V. M. and Adams, C. (1990) A prospective study of the relationship between specific language impairment, phonological disorders and reading retardation. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 31, 1027–1050. Broen, P. A. (1972) The verbal environment of the language-learning child. Monograph of the American Speech and hearing Association, 17. Bruner, J.S. (1983) Child’s talk: learning to use language, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bates, E., P. S. and Thal, D. (1995) Individual differences and their implications for theories of language development, in: P. Fletcher and B. MacWhinney (eds.) The emergence of language. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 29-79. Bohannon, J. N. and Warren-Leubecker, A. (1985) Theoretical approaches to language acquisition, in: J. Berko Gleason (ed.), The Development of Language. Columbus: C.E. Merrill, 173–226. Bus, A., van Ijzendoorn, M. and Pellegrini, A. (1995) Joint book reading makes for success in learning to read: A meta-analysis on intergenerational transmission of literacy. Review of Educational Research, 65, 1–21. Brown, R. (1973) A first language. London: George Allen & Uwin. Cameron-Faulkner, T., Lieven, E. and Tomasello, M. (2003) A construction based analysis of child directed speech. Cognitive Science, 27, 843–873. Cameron-Faulkner, T. and Noble, C. (2013) A comparison of book text and child directed speech. First Language, 33, 268-279. Case, R., Midian Kurland, D. and Goldberg, J. (1982) Operational efficiency and the growth of short-term memory span. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 33, 386–404. Carpenter, M., Nagell, K., Tomasello, M., Butterworth, G. and Moore, C. (1998) Social cognition, joint attention, and communicative competence from 9 to 15 months of age. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 63, 1- 174.

Chapman, R. S. (1981) Mother-child interaction in the second year of life: its role in language development, in: R. L. Schiefelbusch and D. Bricker (eds.) Early language acquisition and intervention. Baltimore: University Park Press. PP Chomsky, N. A. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: Massachusetts: MIT Press. Chow, B. W. Y., McBride-Chang, C., Cheung, H. and Chow, C. S. L. (2008) Dialogic reading and morphology training in Chinese children: Effects on language and literacy. Developmental Psychology, 44, 233-244. Clark, H. and Clark, E. (1977) Psychology and language. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Jovanovich. Crain-Thoreson, C., Bloomfield, B.G., Anthony, J.L., Bacon, K.D., Phillips, B.M. and Samwel, C.S. (1999) Enhancing linguistic performance: parents and teachers as book reading partners for children with language delays. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 19 (1) 28-39. Clarke-Stewart, K., Vanderstope, L., and Killian, G. (1979) Analyses and replication of mother child relations at two years of age. Child Development, 50, 777-93. Crain-Thoreson, C., Dahlin, Michael P. and Powell, T.A. (2001) Parent-child interaction in three conversational contexts: variations in style and strategy. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 92, 23-37. Cross, T. G. (1977) Mothers’ speech adjustments: the contributions of selected child listeners variables. In C. E. Snow and C. A. Ferguson (eds.) Talking to children: language input and acquisition. Cambridge University Press. Crystal, David (2008) A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Oxford, Blackwell. De Villiers, J. (1985) Limited input? Limited structure: Commentary on Goldin- Meadow and Mylander. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 49. Elley, W. (1989) Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 174–187. Farrant, B. M. and Zubrick, S. R. (2012) Early vocabulary development: The importance of joint attention and parent-child book reading. First Language, 32, 343–364. Farrar, M. J. (1990) Discourse and the acquisition of grammatical morphemes. Journal of Child Language, 17, 607-24. Fernald, A. (1985) Four-month-old infants prefer to listen to motherese. Infant Behavior and Development, 8, 181-95. Fisch, S. M., McCann Brown, S. K. and Cohen, D. I. (2001) Young children’s comprehension of educational television: The role of visual information and intonation. Media Psychology, 3, 365–378. Fisch, Shalom M. and Truglio, Rosemarie T. (eds.) (2001) ‘G’ is for Growing: Thirty Years of Research on Children and Sesame Street. Mahawah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Fletcher, K. and Reese, E. (2005) Picture book reading with young children: A conceptual framework. Developmental Review, 25, 64–103. Haggan, M. (2002) Self-reports and self-delusion regarding the use of motherese: implications from Kuwaiti adults. Language Sciences, 24 (1), 17-28. Hart, B. and Risley, T. R. (1995) Meaningful differences in the everyday experiences of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Hayes, D. and Ahrens, M. (1988) Vocabulary simplification for children: A special case of “motherese”? Journal of Child Language, 15, 395-410. Hills, T. T., Maouene, J., Riordan, B. and Smith, L. B. (2010) The associative structure of language: Contextual diversity in early word learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 259–273. Hoff, E. and Naigles, L. (2002) How children use input to acquire a lexicon. Child Development, 73, 418–433. Hoff, Erika (2006) How social contexts support and shape language development. Developmental Review, 26 (1), 55-58 Hoff-Ginsberg, Erika (1985) Some Contributions of Mothers' Speech to Their Children's Syntactic Growth. Journal of Child Language, 12 (2), 367-85 Huston, A.C., J.C. Wright, M.L. Rice, D. Kerkman, and M. St. Peters (1990) Development of television viewing patterns in early childhood: A longitudinal investigation. Developmental Psychology, 26, 421-428. Hurtado, N., Marchman, V. A. and Fernald, A. (2008) Does input influence uptake? Links between maternal talk, processing speed and vocabulary size in Spanish- learning children. Developmental Science, 11 (6), F31-F39. Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva, M., Cymerman, E. and Levine, S. (2002) Language input and child syntax. Cognitive Psychology, 45, 337–374. Huttenlocher, J., Waterfall, H., Vasilyeva, M., Vevea, J. and Hedges, L. V. (2010) Sources of variability in children’s language growth. Cognitive Psychology, 61, 343–365. Garnica, O. (1977) Some prosodic and paralinguistic features of speech to young children. In C. E. Snow and C. A. Ferguson (eds.) Talking to children: language input and acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press. Gershkoff-Stowe, L. and Hahn, E. R. (2007) Fast mapping skills in the developing lexicon. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 50 (3), 682-697. Johnson, B.W. (2005) Mean Length of Utterance (MLU) [WWW] http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/bwjohn/4004/Materials/MLU.htm Accessed 04.06.2019 Jones, M. N., Johns, B. T. and Recchia, G. (2012) The role of semantic diversity in lexical organization. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 121– 132. Jusczyk, P. W. (1997) The Discovery of spoken language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Justice, L. M. and Ezell, H. K. (2000) Enhancing children's print and word awareness through home-based parent intervention. American Journal of Speech Language Pathology, 9, 257-269. Justice, L. M. and Ezell, H. K. (2004) Print referencing: An emergent literacy enhancement strategy and its clinical applications. Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 35, 185-193. Kempe, V., Brooks, P. J., Mirnova, N., Pershukova, A. and Fedorova, O. (2007) Playing with word endings: Morphological variation in the learning of Russian noun inflections. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 25 (1), 55-77. Kirjavainen, M., Theakston, A., Lieven, E. and Tomasello, M. (2009) ‘I want hold Postman Pat’: An investigation into the acquisition of infinitival marker ‘to’. First Language, 39, 313–339. Klein, Patti (1997) Evidence of vocabulary development in television programs for preschoolers. [unpubl. MA thesis] Kean College, New Jersey.

Krcmar, M., Grela, B.G. and Lin, Y.J. (2004) Learning Vocabulary from Television: Toddlers, Teletubbies and Attention. [manuscript submitted for publication] PUB Krcmar, Marina, Grela, Bernard and Lin, Kirstin (2007) Can Toddlers Learn Vocabulary from Television? An Experimental Approach. Media Psychology, 10 (1), 41-63. Lee Swanson, H. (1996) Individual and age-related differences in children’s working memory. Memory and Cognition, 24, 70–82. Lefebvre, P., Trudeau, N. and Sutton, A. (2011) Enhancing vocabulary, print awareness and phonological awareness through shared storybook reading with low-income preschoolers. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 11, 453-479. Lemish, Dafna and Rice, Mabel (1986) Television as a talking picture book: a prop for language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 13 (2), 251-274. Linebarger, D.L. and Walker, D. (2003) Infants’ and toddlers’ television viewing and relations to language outcomes, in: Calvert, S. (ed.) Children and Media: A Memorial to John Wright, paper symposium conducted at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development. Tampa, FL. Linebarger, D. L. and Walker, D. (2005) Infants’ and toddlers’ television viewing and language outcomes. American Behavioral Scientist, 48 (5), 624-645. Lonigan, C. J. and Shanahan, T. (2009) Developing early literacy: report of the national early literacy panel. Executive summary. A scientific synthesis of early literacy development and implications for intervention. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy. Lund, N. J. and Duncan, J. F., (1983) Assessing children’s language in naturalistic contexts. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Masur, Elise Frank, Flynn, Valerie and Olson, Janet (2016) Infants’ background television exposure during play: Negative relations to the quantity and quality of mothers’ speech and infants’ vocabulary acquisition. First Language, 36 (2), 109-123 McGillion, M.L., Herbert, J.S., Pine, J.M., Keren-Portnoy, T., Vihman, M.M. and Matthews, D.E. (2013) Supporting early vocabulary development: What sort of responsiveness matters? IEEE Transactions on Autonomous Mental Development, 5, 240-248. McCarty, Phillip M. and Jarvis, Scott (2010) MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods, 42 (2), 381–392. Mesmer, H. A. E. (2016) Text matters: Exploring the lexical reservoirs of books in preschool rooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 34, 67-77. Messer, D. J. (1981) The identification of names in maternal speech to infants. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 10 (1), 69-77. Miller, J.F. (1981) Eliciting procedures for language, in: Miller, J.F. (ed.) Assessing Language Production in Children. London: Edward Arnold. Montag, L. Jessica, Jones, N. Micheal and Smith, B. Linda (2015) The words children hear: Picture books and the statistics for language learning. Psycholinguistic Science, 26 (9), 1489-1496. Montag, J. L. and MacDonald, M. C. (2015) Text exposure predicts spoken production of complex sentences in eight and twelve-year-old children and adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 144, 447-468.

Morrow, L. (1988) Young children’s responses to one-to-one story readings in school settings. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 89–107. Moya Guijarro, A. J. (2014) A multimodal analysis of picture books for children: a systemic functional approach. New Dheli: Lightning Source Inc. Mumme, D. K., Fernald, A. (2003) The infant as onlooker: learning from emotional reactions observed in a television scenario. Child Development, 74 (1), 221-237. Naigles, Letitia and Mayeuy, Lara (1991) Television as incidental language teacher. In Dorothy G. Singer and Jerome L. Singer (eds.) Handbook of Children and the Media, California: Sage Publications, 135-146. Naigles, L. and Hoff-Ginsberg, E. (1998) Why are some verbs learned before others? Journal of Child Language, 25, 95–120. Naigles, Letitia and Mayeux, Lara (2001) Television as incidental language teacher, in: Singer, D and Singer J, Handbook of children and the media, London: Sage Publications, 135-152. Newport, E., Gleitman, Henry and Gleitman, L. (1977) Mother, I’d rather do it myself: Some effects and non-effects of maternal speech style, in: Catherine E. Snow and Charles A. Ferguson (eds.), Talking to Children. Cambridge University Press, 109-149. Ninio, A. and Bruner, J. (1978) The achievement and antecedents of labeling. Journal of Child Language, 5, 1–15. Noble, C. H., Cameron-Faulkner, T. and Lieven, E. (2017) Keeping it simple: The grammatical properties of shared book reading. Journal of Child Language, 45, 753-766. Noble, C., Sala, G., Lowe, M., Lingwood, J., Rowland, C. F., Gobet, F. and Pine, J. (2018) The Impact of Shared Book Reading on Children’s Language Skills: A Meta-Analysis. (not yet printed) Pan, B. A., Rowe, M. L., Singer, J. D. and Snow, C. E. (2005) Maternal correlates of growth in toddler vocabulary production in low-income families. Child Development, 76, 763–782. Payne, A. C., Whitehurst, G. J. and Angell, A. L. (1994) The role of home literacy environment in the development of language ability in preschool children from low-income families. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 9, 427–440. Phillips, J. R. (1973) Syntax and vocabulary of mothers’ speech to young children: age and sex comparisons. Child Development 44, 182-5. Reese, E. (1995) Predicting children's literacy from mother-child conversations. Cognitive Development, 10, 381-405. Rice, M.L., Huston, A.C., Truglio, R. and Wright, J. (1990) Words from “Sesame Street”: Learning vocabulary while viewing. Developmental Psychology, 26, 421–428. Rondal, J. and Cession, A. (1990) Input evidence regarding the semantic bootstrapping hypothesis. Journal of Child Language, 17, 711-717. Rowe, M. L. (2012) A longitudinal investigation of the role of quantity and quality of child-directed speech in vocabulary development. Child Development, 83, 1762– 1774. Rowe, M. L. (2008) Child-directed speech: relation to socioeconomic status, knowledge of child development and child vocabulary skill. Journal of Child Language, 35 (1), 185-205.

Rowe, M. L. and Goldin-Meadow, S. (2009) Differences in early gesture explain SES disparities in child vocabulary size at school entry. Science, 12 (1), 182-187. Sachs, J., Brown, R. and Salerno, R. (1976) Adult’s speech to children. In W. von Raffler and Y. Lebrun (eds.) Baby talk and infant speech, Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press, 240-245. Sachs, Jaqueline, Bard, Barbara and Johnson, L. Marie (1981) Language learning with restricted input: Case studies of two hearing children of deaf parents. Applied Linguistics, 2 (1), 33-54. Saxton, Matthew (2010) Child language: acquisition and development. Hampshire: Ashford Colour Press Ltd. Saxton, Matthew (2017) Child language: acquisition and development. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Sénéchal, M. and LeFevre, J. A. (2002) Parental involvement in the development of children’s reading skill: A five-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 73, 445–460. Smith, N. A. and Trainor, L. (2008) Infant-directed speech is modulated by infant feedback. Infancy, 13 (4), 410-420. Snow, Catharine (1972) Mothers‘ speech to children learning language. Child Development, 43, 549-65. Snow, Catharine (1977a) The development of conversations between mothers and babies. Journal of Child Language, 4, 1-22. Snow, Catherine and Furgeson, C. A. (eds.) (1977b) Talking to children: language input and acquisition. Cambridge University Press. Snow, C. E. (1981) Social interaction and language acquisition, in: Dale, P. S. and Ingram, D. (eds), Child language – an international perspective. Baltimore: University Park Press. Snow, Catharine, Burns, Susan and Griffin, Peg. (eds.) (1998) Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Snow, Catherine E., Barnes, Wendy S., Chandler, Jean, Goodman, Irene F. and Hemphill, Lowry (1991) Unfulfilled Expectations: Home and school influences on literacy. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Snow, C. and Goldfield, B. (1983) Turn the page please: Situation specific language learning. Journal of Child Language, 10, 551–570. Snow, E. Catherine and Ninio A. (1986) The contracts of literacy: What children learn from learning to read books, in: WH. Teale and E. Sulzby (eds.) Emergent literacy: Writing and reading. Norwood: NJ: Ablex, 116-138. Stern, D. N., Spieker, S. Barnett, R. K. and MacKain, K. (1983) The prosody of maternal speech: infant age and context related changes. Journal of Child Language, 10 (1), 1-15. Stowell, Jessica (1992) The effects of television viewing on communication suppression on communication apprehension. Chicago: paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association. Taylor, N., Donovan, W., Miles, S. and Leavitt, L. (2009) Maternal control strategies, maternal language usage and children’s language usage at two years. Journal of Child Language, 36 (2), 381-404. Theakston, A., Lieven, E., Pine, J. and Rowland, C. (2001) The role of performance limitations in the acquisition of verb-argument structure. Journal of Child Language, 28, 127–152.

Tomasello, M. and Farrar, J. (1986) Joint attention and early language. Child Development, 57, 1454–1463. Tomasello, M. (2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based approach of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Valdez-Menchaca, M. C. and Whitehurst, G. J. (1992) Accelerating language development through picture book reading: A systematic extension to Mexican day care. Developmental Psychology, 28, 1106-1114. Vasilyeva, M., Waterfall, H. and Huttenlocher, J. (2008) Emergence of syntax: commonalities and differences across children. Developmental science, 11 (1), 84-97. Wells, Gordon (1987) The Meaning Makers: Children learning language and using language to learn. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Weisleder, A. and Fernald, A. (2013) Talking to children matters: Early language experience strengthens processing and builds vocabulary. Psychological Science, 24, 2143– 2152. Weizman, Zehava Oz and Snow, Catherine E. (2001) Lexical input as related to children’s vocabulary acquisition: effects of sophisticated exposure and support for meaning. Developmental Psychology, 37 (2), 265-279. Whitehurst, G. J., Zevenbergen, A. A., Crone, D. A., Schultz, M. D., Velting, O. N. and Fischel, J. E. (1999) Outcomes of an emergent literacy intervention from head start through second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 261–272. Whitehurst, G. J., Falco, F. L., Lonigan, C, Fischel, J. E., DeBaryshe, B. D., Valdez- Menchaca, M. C. and Caulfield, M. (1988) Accelerating language development through picture book reading. Developmental Psychology 24 (4), 552-559 Woolf, K. D., Schmitt, K. L. and Anderson, D. R. (2000) What do children and parents do while watching television? Presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Acapulco, Mexico. Wright, J.C., and A.C. Huston (1995) Effects of Educational TV Viewing of Lower- Income Preschoolers on Academic Skills, School Readiness, and School Adjustment One to Three Years Later. Report presented to Children's Television Workshop by CRITC (Center for Research on the Influences of Television on Children), University of Kansas, May 1995. Wright, John, Huston, Aletha, Scantlin, Ronda and Kotler, Jennifer (2001) The Early Window Project: Sesame Street prepares children for school, in: Fisch, Shalom M. and Truglio, Rosemarie T. (eds.) ‘G’ is for Growing: Thirty Years of Research on Children and Sesame Street. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 97-114. Zill, N., E. Davies and M. Daly (1994) Viewing of Sesame Street by Preschool Children in the United States and Its Relationship to School Readiness. Report prepared for Children's Television Workshop by Westat, Inc., Rockville, MD. Zero To Three (2001) Brain Development: Frequently Asked Questions, www.zerotothree.org/brainwonders/FAQ.html

Appendix I Book sample 1. Let’s Play (Chronicle Books) by Herve Tullet 2. Corduroy Takes a Bow (Viking Books for Young Readers) by Viola Davis 3. The Dark (Orchard Books) Lemony Snicket 4. The Day the Crayons Came Home (Harper Collins Publ. UK) by Drew Daywalt 5. First Snow (Blazer + Bray) Peter McCarty 6. Goldilocks and the Three Dinosaurs (Walker Books Ltd.) Mo Williams 7. The Nonsense Show (Philomel Books) by Eric Carle 8. A Perfectly Messed-Up Story (Little, Brown Books for Young Readers) by Patrick McDonnell 9. Tiny T. Rex and the Impossible Hug (Abrams & Chronicle Books) Jonathan Stutzman 10. Wolfie and the Bunny (Little, Brown Books for Young Readers) by Ame Dyckman 11. The Airport Book (Roaring Book Press) by Lisa Brown 12. Carmella Full of Wishes (G.P. Putnam's Sons Books for Young Readers) by Matt de la Pena 13. Dragons Love Tacos (Dial Books) by Adam Rubin 14. I am Otter (Blazer + Bray) by Sam Garton 15. Interrupting Chicken (Candlewick) by David Ezra Stein 16. Llama Llama Loves to Read (Viking Books for Young Readers) by Anne Dewdney 17. Locomotive (Atheneum/Richard Jackson Books) by Brian Floca 18. Toe Shoe Mouse (Holiday House) by Jan Carr 19. Otis (Philomel Books) by Loren Long 20. Migthy, Mighty Construction Site (Chronicle Books) by Sherri Duskey Rinker

TV show sample 1. Bubble Guppies (WildBrain Entertainment) by Jonny Belt and Robert Scull 2. Counting with Paula (Omens Studios) 3. Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood (Fred Rogers Productions) by Angela Santomero 4. The Furchester Hotel (Sesame Workshop) by Belinda Ward 5. Julius Jr. (Saban Brands) by Paul Brown 6. Kate and Mim-Mim (Nerd Corps Entertainment) by Scott and Julie Stewart 7. Little People (DHX Media) 8. Puffin Rock (Cartoon Saloon) by Lily Bernard, Tomm Moore, and Paul Young 9. Sheriff Callie’s Wild West (The Canadian Broadcast Cooperation) by George Evelyn, Holly Huckins, and Denis Morella 10. Super Wings (FunnyFLux Entertainment) by Gil Hoon Jung 11. Wallykazam (Nikeloadeon Animation Studio) by Adam Peltzman 12. Tayo the Little Bus (Iconix Entertainment) by Choi Jong-il 13. Zack and Quack (Zodiak Media Group) by Gili Dolev and Yvette Kaplan 14. Creative Galaxy (Amazon Studois) by Angela Santomero 15. Doc McStuffin (Brown Bag Films) by Chris Nee 16. Doozers (The Jim Hendson Company) by Jim Hendson 17. Earth to Luna (Discovery Kids Latin America) by Celia Catunda, Kiko Mistrorigo, and Kalec God

18. Little Charmers (Spin Master) by Jennifer Dodge and Irene Weibel 19. Mike the Knight (Nelvana) by Alexander Bar 20. Miles from Tomorrowland (Disney Junior) by Sascha Paladino

Appendix II Transcript of the picture book sample

1. Let’s Play 1. Hey there! 2. I’m getting a little bored in here. 3. Wanna play? 4. Press the top corner to get me started! 5. Okay. 6. Now you try the bottom corner. 7. Yup. 8. Down there on the right. 9. Great! 10. Now let’s get back to the middle of the page. 11. Go on, try it. 12. That’s it. 13. Feels good to be getting a bit of exercise! 14. So, will you take me along? 15. It’s easy: 16. Just follow the line with your finger. 17. All right. 18. Up, down, up, down. 19. What a hoot! 20. Wow! 21. That’s really way up high and really way down low! 22. Bravo! 23. Oh, wow oh! 24. Hey, look: 25. A carousel! 26. Want to take a spin? 27. Touch every one of those dots! 28. Did you see that? 29. You changed its colors! 30. So, here goes: 31. Three spins! 32. One on the blue dots, one on the reds, one on the yellows. 33. Magnificent! 34. Now what do you think we should do? 35. Oh! 36. I have an idea. 37. Hide and seek! 38. And when you find me, rub me really hard! 39. Bravo!

40. Hey! 41. What’s that over there? 42. Let’s go look. 43. Make sure you stick to the line. 44. Ready? 45. Follow those stairs. 46. They lead to the next page. 47. You can’t make a sound…okay? 48. We better leave on tiptoe. 49. I don’t want to go through there. 50. Maybe I could just disappear?

2. Corduroy Takes a Bow 1. It was just starting to snow when Lisa and her mother got off the bus in front of the theatre. 2. Lisa held Corduroy tight as they walked up the steps. 3. She had never been to a big theatre like this before. 4. Neither had Corduroy. 5. They had come to see a performance of Mother Goose rhymes. 6. In the lobby, people were picking up tickets. 7. Ushers handed out programs. 8. A brass chandelier hung from the ceiling that was painted with clouds. 9. Suddenly, the light flickered on and off. 10. “That means the play will start in a few minutes. 11. We should find our seats,” said Lisa’s mother. 12. Lisa held her mother’s hand a little tighter and held Corduroy a little closer. 13. The usher took their tickets and showed them where to sit. 14. “The seats are so soft”, said Lisa. 15. She put Corduroy on her lap and looked through the program. 16. Right before the play started, a very tall man set down in front of Lisa. 17. “Mommy”, Lisa whispered to her mother. 18. “I can’t see”. 19. “Here dear,” said her mother. 20. “We can fold our coats together and you can sit on them. 21. When Lisa stood up to sit on the coats, the orchestra started to play, and she forgot all about Corduroy. 22. He slipped off her lap and fell underneath the seats in front of them. 23. “I can’t see anything.”, said Corduroy. 24. “Maybe if I got closer to the music, I could see the stage. 25. He peeked down the aisle and saw some stairs. 26. When Corduroy got to the top step, the big red curtain went up, and up, and up. 27. Corduroy was so startled that he lost his balance and tumbled into the orchestra pit. 28. He looked around at all the musicians and thought “This is a good spot to hear the music, but now I can’t see the stage at all.” 29. At the back of the orchestra there was a tall set of drums.

30. “Maybe if I set up there, I would have a better view.” he thought. 31. Quietly, he crawled through the orchestra, past feet, between instrument cases and around music stands towards the drums. 32. “How did you get here, little fellow?”, the drummer whispered to Corduroy. 33. “You must be a prop from the play. 34. Someone will be looking for you.” 35. He put Corduroy up on the ledge behind the drums. 36. There was a chair off to one side behind the curtain. 37. “I could see better from here”, thought Corduroy. 38. But before he got to the chair, a stagehand tripped on him. 39. “Sorry, bear,” said the stagehand. 40. He put Corduroy on the table with the other props. 41. The table was hard, not like Lisa’s soft seat in the theater. 42. Backstage was very busy, actors were coming and going, changing costumes and getting their props. 43. One actor almost grabbed Corduroy. 44. “I should find a safer spot.”, he decided and then hid between the costumes. 45. “This is safe.”, he thought. 46. “But I’ll never see anything from here!” 47. There was a tree with a basket in its branches in the wing, off to one side of the stage. 48. “I would be able to see from there.”, Corduroy thought and climbed up the tree and into the basket. 49. “Well,” thought Corduroy, “this is more like it. 50. Not too high, not too low.

3. The Dark 1. Laszlo was afraid of the dark. 2. The dark lived in the same house as Laszlo, a big place with a creaky roof, smooth, cold windows and several flights of stairs. 3. Sometimes the dark hid in the cupboard. 4. Sometimes it set behind the shower curtain. 5. But mostly it spent its time in the basement. 6. All day long the dark would wait in the distant corner far from the squeaks and the rattles of the washing machine. 7. Pressed up against some old, damped boxes and a chest of drawers nobody ever opened. 8. At night, of course, the dark went out and spread itself against the windows and doors of Laszlo’s house. 9. But in the morning the dark would be back in the basement, where it belonged. 10. Laszlo would peek at the dark every morning. 11. “Hi,” he would say. 12. “Hi, dark.” 13. Laszlo thought that if he visited the dark in the dark’s room, maybe the dark wouldn’t come and visit him in his room.

14. But one night – it did. 15. “Laszlo”, the dark said in the dark. 16. The voice of the dark was as creaky as the roof of the house, and as smooth and cold as the window, and even though the dark was right next to Laszlo, the voice seemed very far away. 17. “What do you want?” asked Laszlo. 18. “I want to show you something”, said the dark. 19. “In here?” 20. “No,” said the dark. 21. “Here?” 22. “No, no,” said the dark. 23. “Downstairs.” 24. “Downstairs?” 25. “Yes,” said the dark. 26. In Laszlo’s living room was the biggest window in the house. 27. Laszlo looked at all the dark outside. 28. Above him the roof creaked, and he closed his eyes. 29. Now the dark was all Laszlo could see. 30. “No no,” said the dark again. 31. “Not there”. 32. “Down here”. 33. “In the basement?” asked Laszlo. 34. “Yes,” said the dark. 35. Laszlo had never dared come to the dark’s room at night. 36. “Come closer”, said the dark. 37. Laszlo came closer. 38. “Even closer,” said the dark. 39. You might be afraid of the dark, but the dark is not afraid of you. 40. That’s why the dark is always by. 41. The dark is around the corner and waits behind the door, and you can see the dark up in the sky almost every night, gazing down at you as you gaze up the stars. 42. Without a creaky roof, the rain will fall on your bed, and without a smooth, cold window, you could never see outside, and without a flight of stairs, you could never go into the basement, where the dark spends its time. 43. Without a cupboard, you won’t have nowhere but your shoes, and without a shower curtain, you would splash water all over the bathroom, and without the dark, everything would be light, and you would never know if you needed a light bulb. 44. “Bottom drawer,” said the dark. 45. “What?” 46. “Bottom drawer! said the dark. 47. “Open the bottom drawer”. 48. “Thank you”, said Laszlo. 49. “You’re welcome” said the dark. 50. By the time Lazlo got back into bed, the dark was no longer in his room except when he closed his eyes to go to sleep.

4. The Day The Crayons Came Home 1. One day Duncan and his crayons were happily coloring together when a strange stack of postcards arrived for him in the mail. 2. Dear Duncan, not sure if you remember me. 3. My name is Maroon Crayon. 4. You only colored with me once to draw a scab, but whatever. 5. Anyway, you lost me two years ago in the couch, then your dad sat on me and broke me in half. 6. I never would have survived had paperclip not nursed me back to health. 7. I’m finally better, so come and get me! 8. And can paperclip come too? 9. He’s really holding me together, 10. Sincerely, Your marooned crayon, Maroon Crayon. 11. Dear Duncan, no one likes peas. 12. No one even likes the color Pea Green. 13. So, I’m changing my name and running away to see the world. 14. Sincerely, Esteban, the magnificent, (the crayon formerly known as Pea Green). 15. Hi Duncan, it’s me Neon Red Crayon. 16. Remember that great holiday we had with your family? 17. Remember how we laughed when we drew a picture of your dad’s sunburn? 18. Remember dropping me by the hotel pool when you left? 19. Clearly, you do not because I’m still here! 20. How could you miss me? 21. Anyway. 22. After 8 months waiting for you to come and get me, I guess I’m walking back. 23. Your left-behind-friend, Neon Red Crayon. 24. Duncan! 25. It’s us Yellow and Orange. 26. I know we used to argue over which of us was the colour of the sun. 27. But guess what? 28. Neither of us wants to be the colour of the sun anymore. 29. Not since we were left outside and the sun melted us together. 30. You know the real colour of the sun? 31. Hot! 32. That’s what. 33. We’re sorry for arguing. 34. You can make green the sun for all we care, just bring us home! 35. Your not-so-sunny-friends, Yellow and Orange. 36. Hey Duncan, I’m sure you don’t recognize me after the horrors I’ve been through. 37. I think I was Tan Crayon? 38. Or maybe burnt sienna? 39. I don’t know. 40. I can’t tell anymore.

41. Have you ever been eaten by a dog and then puked up on the living room rug? 42. Because I have. 43. I have been eaten by a dog and puked up on the rug, Duncan and it’s not pretty. 44. Not pretty at all. 45. I’m more carpet fuzz than crayon now. 46. Can you please bring me back? 47. Your indigestible friend, Tan (or possibly burnt sienna?) Crayon 48. Hey Duncan, remember last Halloween we told your brother there was a ghost under the basement stairs? 49. Then we drew that scary stuff on the wall? 50. Sure was funny when we ran screaming, right?

5. First Snow 1. From the window, Sancho and his sisters could see that their special visitor had finally arrived. 2. He had travelled from far away all by himself. 3. “Say hello to your cousin Pedro”, said their mother. 4. “Hello Pedro”, said Sancho, Bella, Lola, Eva and Maria. 5. “It’s starting to snow Pedro”, said Sancho. 6. “I have never seen snow. 7. I don’t think I like it” said Pedro. 8. “Why not?” – 9. “Because it is cold. 10. And I don’t like cold.” 11. “Wake up Pedro!” 12. Sancho, Bella, Lola, Eva and Maria were excited. 13. It had snowed all night long. 14. Put on your boots. 15. Put on your coats. 16. Put on your hat and mittens. 17. We are going outside.” 18. “It is cold.” said Pedro. 19. “You have to move around to stay warm”, said Sancho. 20. “We are making snow angels” said, Bella, Lola, Eva and Maria. 21. “You make one too Pedro.” 22. “I don’t want to lie down in the snow. 23. It is cold”. 24. Just then the neighborhood children came by. 25. “This is my cousin Pedro,” said Sancho. 26. He has never seen snow before”. 27. “Hello Pedro,” they all said. 28. “Isn’t it wonderful how the snowflakes float around?” said Abi. 29. You can even catch them on your tongue. 30. It tastes good. 31. “It tastes cold,” said Pedro. 32. “Hey Pedro, grab a sled”, said Henry.

33. “We’re going up to the top of the big hill.” 34. “Why do you go up?” asked Pedro. 35. “To go back down”, said Henry. 36. From the top of the hill, the children could see the whole world below. 37. “You go first Pedro”, said Henry. 38. “Oh no, not me” 39. “Bridget and I will go first”, said Cloe. 40. Down went Cloe. 41. Down went Bridget. 42. Then everybody went. 43. Pedro, too! 44. “Whoa”, yelled Pedro. 45. “Watch out”, yelled Sancho. 46. Over a bump and into the air, Pedro flew. 47. Thrump! Bump! Flump! he went into the snowbank at the bottom of the hill. 48. “How do you like the snow now Pedro?” asked Sancho. 49. “I love the snow!” 50. “Maybe you would like snow in the shape of a ball?”, asked Sancho.

6. Goldilocks and the Three Dinosaurs 1. Once upon a time, there were three Dinosaurs: 2. Mama, Papa, and some other Dinosaur who happened to be visiting from Norway. 3. One day for no particular reason the three Dinosaurs made up their beds, positioned their chairs, just so, and cooked three bowls of delicious chocolate pudding at varying temperatures. 4. “Oh boy”, said Papa Dinosaur in his loud booming voice. 5. “It is finally time to leave and go to the … someplace else.” 6. “Yes,” continued Mama Dinosaur. 7. I sure hope, no innocent little succulent child happens by our unlocked home while we are someplace else. 8. Then the other Dinosaur made a loud noise that sounded like a big, evil laugh, but was probably just a polite Norwegian expression. 9. The three Dinosaurs went Someplace Else and were definitely not hiding in the woods waiting for an unsuspecting kid to come by. 10. Sure enough, five minutes later a poorly supervised little girl named Goldilocks came traipsing along. 11. Just then, the forest boomed with what could have been a Dinosaur yelling “GOTCHA”, but I’m pretty sure it was just the wind. 12. The loud noise was immediately followed by another loud noise that sounded kind of like “be patient Papa dinosaur! 13. The trap is not yet sprung. 14. But that could have been a rock falling. 15. Or a squirrel. 16. Either way, Goldilocks was not the type of little girl who listened to anyone or anything. 17. For example, Goldilocks never listened to the warnings about the dangers

of barging to strange, enormous houses. 18. As soon as Goldilocks came across a strange enormous house, she barged right in. 19. Inside, Goldilocks immediately smelled the three bowls of delicious chocolate pudding. 20. “Hmm”, said Goldilocks. 21. “That chocolate pudding smells delicious. 22. If only I could get all the way up to the top of the counter. 23. Then Goldilocks noticed a very tall ladder that just happened to be there and certainly wasn’t left on purpose. 24. Goldilocks climbed up the ladder and found herself face-to-face with three gigantic bowls of chocolate pudding. 25. The first bowl of chocolate pudding was too hot, but Goldilocks ate it all anyway because hey it’s chocolate pudding, right? 26. The second bowl of chocolate pudding was too cold, but who cares about temperature when you’ve got a big bowl of chocolate pudding? 27. Not her. 28. The third bowl of chocolate pudding was just right, but Goldilocks was on such a roll by now, she hardly noticed. 29. Soon Goldilocks was stuffed like one of those delicious chocolate-filled- little-girl-bonbons (which, by the way, are not the favorite things in the whole world for hungry Dinosaurs). 30. Tired and soggy, Goldilocks noticed three chairs in the living room. 31. So, she climbed down the ladder and walked out of the kitchen. 32. The first chair was too tall. 33. The second chair was too tall. 34. But the third chair – was too tall. 35. Goldilocks wasn’t going to climb that high just to sit in some chair, so she hiked over to the bedroom. 36. When she got there, Goldilocks noticed that the beds were also gigantically big. 37. “What is going on around here?!”, groaned the exhausted girl. 38. “The bears that live here must be nuts!” 39. Just then the room filled with a loud, booming noise that was either a passing truck or a Dinosaur gloating, “A few more minutes and she’ll be asleep! 40. Delicious chocolate-filled-little-girl-bonbons are yummier when they’re rested!” 41. Go Asteroids! 42. Feel the boom! 43. Even a little girl who never listens to anyone or anything had to hear that. 44. Goldilocks took a minute to think, which was longer than she was used to stopping and thinking. 45. “Hey…”, she told herself. 46. “This isn’t some bear’s house. 47. This is some Dinosaur’s house.” 48. Say what you like about Goldilocks, but she was no fool. 49. As quickly as she could, she ran to the backdoor and got out of there!

50. Just then a loud plane flew by, which sounded pretty much like a trio of Dinosaurs yelling “NOW!” or “CHARGE! or the Norwegian expression for “Chewy-Bonbon-Time!”

7. The Nonsense Show 1. Welcome Friends! 2. Don’t be slow. 3. Step right up to The Nonsense show! 4. “I’m too wet!” said the Bird. 5. “I can’t fly! 6. It’s absurd!” 7. “I’m too dry! 8. How I wish I could swim!”, said the Fish. 9. “Ouch! 10. Who’s that in my pouch?” 11. “I’m seeking my tail. 12. Can you see where it’s gone?”, hissed snake number one. 13. “What a coincidence! 14. Mine’s missing, too!”, hissed snake number two. 15. “I’m supposed to catch you!”, meowed the cat. 16. “Yes,” squeaked the mouse. 17. “Of course, that’s true but you must know we’re in a Nonsense show!” 18. “Oh, dear! 19. Look here: 20. It says, “no gas!” 21. Alas! 22. No gas? 23. Don’t worry. 24. We’re not in a hurry! 25. “What a funny-looking ball” thought the tennis ace and wound up with applesauce in her face. 26. One sheep, two sheep, three sheep, four, and after that how many more? 27. KO! OK! 28. “Get out of my house!” said the dog, 29. “But where can I go?” barked the man. 30. “For all that I care you can fly to the moon but go soon.” 31. And that’s why we’ve now got a man in the moon! 32. Believe it or not. 33. Upsy, downsy. 34. Nice and straight. 35. Smile a mile. 36. Bravo! 37. That’s great! 38. Who’s that I see? 39. It can’t be me. 40. I’ll tell you who it looks like: you! 41. Let’s trade hats”, the rider said. 42. But, “Neigh, neigh!”, said the horse.

43. “Let’s trade heads instead, okay?” 44. And so they did, of course. 45. “Hurry up!” said Bottom. 46. “Wait for me!” said Top. 47. But they couldn’t agree. 48. So they never did stop. 49. Could a leopard change his spot to a tigerish stripe? 50. Probably not.

8. The Messed-Up Story 1. This is Louie’s story. 2. Once upon a time, little Louie went skipping merrily along. 3. “Tra la la la la”, he sang. 4. For in his heart, he knew everything was just (fine). 5. Hey. 6. Hold on. 7. What’s that? 8. A jelly stain? 9. How did that get there? 10. This isn’t right. 11. Who would eat a jelly sandwich while reading my book? 12. Jelly and peanut butter? 13. The chunky kind. 14. Hey! 15. Hey! 16. Hey! 17. Somebody’s fingerprints are all over this! 18. Oh no, what next? 19. Orange juice! 20. My story is getting all messed up. 21. We need to show some respect here. 22. Books are important. 23. They teach us stuff and they inspire us. 24. Now, can I please get on with my story? 25. Thank you. 26. Okay. 27. From the top. 28. Once upon a time, little Louie went skipping merrily along. 29. “ Tra la la la la . You have got to be kidding! 30. This is awful. 31. Quick! 32. Get a paper towel! 33. Rub. Rub. Rub. 34. Careful. 35. Careful. 36. This is the worst thing ever! 37. What am I going to do?! 38. Once upon a time.

39. Stop! 40. Forget it. 41. My story is ruined. 42. It’s all over. 43. I’m just a messy old book that will end up in some garage sale. 44. A book, no one will ever want, read or love. 45. I give up. 46. Go on without me. 47. This is Louie’s story. 48. Who cares? 49. Once upon a time, little Louie went skipping merrily along. 50. “ Tra la la la la, he sang.

9. The Impossible Hug 1. Hello, Pointy! 2. Are you okay? 3. No, today I feel sad. 4. I do not want to play. 5. I have tiny arms. 6. It is very difficult to hug with tiny arms. 7. Each day I’m growing taller, but my arms are still tiny. 8. Hugging almost seems impossible for a rex as tiny as me. 9. But I will try anyway. 10. Pointy need s me. 11. Where is my father? 12. I will ask him for advice. 13. Hello father. 14. Rexes are thinkers, not huggers. 15. Perhaps instead of hugs, mathematics might be the answer to your problem? 16. Pointy does not like math. 17. Math will only make Pointy feel worse. 18. Hello Aunty Junit. 19. I have a problem. 20. I must learn how to hug but my arms are too tiny. 21. I have found that balance is the key to every problem. 22. Balance and freshly squeezed cucumber juice. 23. That is disgusting. 24. I will ask my mother for help instead. 25. I have fallen and now I’m lost. 26. I do not think I’ll find my mother in here. 27. Hello mother. 28. It’s okay if you can’t hug Tiny. 29. You’re good at many other things. 30. You’re kind, and creative and braver than most. 31. You’re tiny but you heart is big. 32. I cannot hug with my heart mother. 33. I must learn to hug with my arms.

34. Hello sister! 35. Hello brother! 36. Please help me. 37. Hugging is very difficult. 38. We’d love to help, Tiny. 39. To do the impossible you must plan and practice! 40. Practice! 41. Practice! 42. Practice! 43. Thank you, Trixie and Rory. 44. That is good advice. 45. I will plan my strategy. 46. I will get stronger. 47. I will practice very hard. 48. I will practice my hugs on everything. 49. I will not practice on that anymore. 50. I am almost ready.

10. Wolfie and the Bunny 1. The Bunny family came home to find a bundle outside their door. 2. They peeked. 3. They gasped. 4. It was a baby wolf! 5. “He’s adorable” said Mama. 6. “He’s ours!” said Papa. 7. “He’s going to eat us all up!” said Dot. 8. But Mama and Papa were too smitten to listen. 9. Wolfie slept through the night. 10. Dot did not. 11. Mama served carrots for breakfast. 12. “He likes them!” said Mama. 13. “He’s a good eater!” said Papa. 14. “Speaking of eating.” said Dot. 15. “He’s going to eat us all up!” 16. But Mama and Papa were too busy taking pictures to listen. 17. Dot’s friends came by to see the baby. 18. “He’s sleeping,” whispered Mama. 19. “He’s a good sleeper,” whispered Papa. 20. “He’s going to eat us all up!” they screamed. 21. “No kidding.” said Dot. 22. “Let’s play at your home.” 23. For the first time Wolfie cried. 24. But Dot was too far away to hear him. 25. When Dot returned, Wolfie was waiting. 26. Everywhere Dot went, Wolfie went, too. 27. “He’s drooling on me!” said Dot. 28. “He’s a good drooler!” said Papa. 29. The days passed, and Wolfie grew.

30. So did his appetite. 31. When Mama opened the cupboard, she got a surprise. 32. “The carrots!” said Mama. 33. They’re go ne!” 34. “Oh no!” said Papa. 35. “He ate them all up”, said Dot. 36. Dot fetched the carrot bag. 37. But she did not get far. 38. “He wants to help!” said Mama. 39. “He’s a good helper!” said Papa. 40. “He is going to.. oh, skip it! said Dot. 41. I’ve got my eye on you, buster!” 42. Wolfie and Dot went to the Carrot Patch. 43. Dot was picking one last carrot when Wolfie’s mouth opened weird. 44. “I knew it!” cried Dot. 45. “On guard!” 46. Wolfie wasn’t looking at Dot. 47. “Dinner!” roared a bear. 48. It was Dot’s chance to run away. 49. Instead she ran forward. 50. “Let him go!” Dot demanded.

11. The Airport Book 1. Don’t forget Monkey! 2. Of course, I won’t forget Monkey! 3. Where’s my hat? 4. I pack monkey! 5. Hurry up please. 6. It’s time! 7. We’re hurrying. 8. Goodbye house! 9. Sometimes we take a taxi cab. 10. When you go to the airport you can take a car, a van, a bus or even a train. 11. We drive on the highway to where the ground is really flat. 12. There are lots of people saying lots of goodbyes. 13. Sometimes they hug. 14. Sometimes they cry. 15. Love you, Grandma. 16. They have big bags on wheels and smaller bags on their shoulders and backs. 17. Sometimes you can see exactly what is packed inside the bags. 18. Sometimes it is a mystery. 19. Do you have your tickets? 20. Of course. 21. Inside the airport you stand in lines. 22. You stand in lines to get your ticket. 23. You stand in lines to check your bags.

24. There are lines for the restrooms. 25. There are lines to get through security. 26. Have a good trip, Sir. 27. Did you forget to pack monkey? 28. Monkey, monkey, monkey. 29. A machine x-rays all the bags that you take on the plane. 30. Sometimes another machine x-rays your body. 31. You will also take that with you on the plane. 32. Shoes off, team! 33. Empty your pockets please. 34. Little sisters cry when they go through the scanner. 35. You’re okay. 36. You walk past benches and shops and restaurants and art exhibits. 37. It’s like a little indoor town. 38. Sometimes there are small beeping cars driving through the town. 39. Sometimes the sidewalks and staircases move by themselves. 40. You have to hold your little sister’s hand tight or she could get lost. 41. When you reach your gate, you wait. 42. And wait and wait and wait. 43. I see monkey. 44. Don’t be silly. 45. Outside, people are getting the plane ready. 46. They are checking that everything is working and safe and clean and ready to fly. 47. Things are loaded into the plane. 48. Gas is put into the fuel tanks. 49. Food is put into the galley. 50. Luggage is put into the cargo hold.

12. Carmella Full of Wishes 1. Carmela scootered along the un even dirt path, watching men stoop to work with their hands, her birthday bracelets jingling and jangling. 2. The thick greenhouse air smelled of marigolds and overturned earth and fresh manure. 3. Carmela knew exactly what manure was, but she didn’t want to think about that, not today. 4. Today she awoke to candles and pancakes and her mom saying, “happy birthday to you” and told her “Go on, mija, make a wish.” 5. But Carmela’s wish had already come true. 6. She was finally old enough to go with her big brother. 7. Carmela followed as he cut back onto the street at freedom Boulevard, past the crowded bus stop and fenced-off repair shop, past the old folks’ home where two-hundred-old women waved smiles, past a huge home improvement store where her dad used to stand around weekend mornings, waiting for work. 8. Carmela tried to make small talk with her brother as their metal cart rattled but her brother didn’t make small talk back. 9. He didn’t want her tagging along.

10. “Too bad”, she told him with her glare. 11. Just outside the laundromat, she picked a lone dandelion growing among the concrete weeds. 12. She pulled a breath and leaned toward the fuzzy white bulb, but just before she could blow her brother butted in. 13. “Did you even make a wish?” 14. You’re supposed to make a wish. 15. Everyone knows that. 16. “Of course, I made a wish”, she told him 17. But it was a lie. 18. Carmela didn’t know. 19. Carmela helped her brother sort clothes one-handed, helped him load the washers one item at a time. 20. While their clothes spun, her imagination turned, each new thought ushered in by a jingle of her birthday bracelet. 21. Her brother found the sound annoying and shot her a dirty look. 22. “Too bad” she told him with her glare. 23. She jingled her bracelets as she rode up to Miss Maria’s vegetable stand, imagining a machine built into a bedroom wall one that would spit out anything she could think of. 24. But mostly candies. 25. She jingled her bracelets in line at the locksmith shop, imagining her mom sleeping in one of those fancy hotel beds she spent all day making for fancy guests. 26. She jingled her bracelets at the bodega down the block from their old apartment building, imagining her dad getting his papers fixed so he could finally be home. 27. She jingled her bracelets outside the pharmacy eyeing the shiny new bikes in the window. 28. Her brother stopped in his tracks. 29. “Why do you have to be so annoying?” 30. She thrummed her bracelet and said “It’s a free country.” 31. The only time she didn’t reach for her bracelets was when her brother ducked into his friend’s house. 32. Carmela slumped down on the curb, silently imagining all the things she could him turn into. 33. The slimy pink tail of a rat. 34. A cockroach scurrying away from the light. 35. A wheel barrow full of manure left in the sun. 36. She starred down at the dandelion in her hand. 37. It seems so much more important now that she knew it was a place to put our wishes. 38. What if she made the wrong choice? 39. Carmella tried to hop a curb on the long trip home, but her tire caught, and her handlebars twisted, and she went crashing to the concrete. 40. Don’t cry, don’t cry, don’t cry! 41. But then she saw her dandelion crushed beside to drain. 42. She looked up at her big brother, warm tears rolling down her cheeks.

43. He lifted up her scooter. 44. “You okay?” 45. She shook her head and pointed. 46. “My wish!” 47. He took her by the arm and let her back up the block, past the laundromat and the flea market, past to greenhouses and the smell of manure, past the overgrown park and across the train tracks. 48. He didn’t stop until they made it to an abandoned farmhouse near cliff overlooking the sea. 49. “Close your eyes” he said. 50. Carmela closed them.

13. Dragons Love Tacos 1. Hey, kid! 2. Did you know that dragons love tacos? 3. They love beef tacos and chicken tacos. 4. They love really big gigantic tacos and tiny little baby tacos as well. 5. Why do dragons love tacos? 6. Maybe it’s the smell from the sizzling pan. 7. Maybe it’s the crunch of the crispy tortillas. 8. Maybe it’s a secret. 9. Either way, if you want to make friends with dragons, tacos are key. 10. Hey, dragon, why do you guys love tacos so much? 11. But wait! 12. As much as dragons love tacos, they hate spicy salsa even more. 13. They hate spicy green salsa and spicy red salsa. 14. They hate spicy chunky salsa and spicy smooth salsa. 15. If the salsa is spicy at all, dragons can’t stand it. 16. Why do dragons hate spicy salsa? 17. Well, just one drop of hot sauce makes a dragon’s ears smoke. 18. Just one single speck of hot pepper makes a dragon snort spark. 19. Spicy salsa gives dragons the tummy troubles, and when dragons get tummy troubles – oh boy. 20. If you want to make tacos for dragons, keep the topping mild. 21. Tomatoes, lettuce, cheese, these are all good toppings for tacos for dragons. 22. Hey dragon, how do you feel about spicy taco toppings? 23. Dragons love parties. 24. They like costume parties and pool parties. 25. They like big gigantic parties with accordions and tiny little parties with charades. 26. Why do dragons love parties? 27. Maybe it’s the conversation. 28. Maybe it’s the dancing. 29. Maybe it’s the comforting sound of good friend’s laughter. 30. The only thing dragons love more than parties or tacos is taco parties. 31. Taco parties are parties with lots of tacos. 32. If you want to have some dragon over for a taco party, you’ll need

100

buckets of tacos. 33. Pant loads of tacos. 34. The best way to judge is to get a boat and fill the boat with tacos. 35. That’s about how many tacos dragons need for a taco party. 36. After all, dragons love tacos. 37. Hey dragon, are you excited for the big taco party? 38. Just remember: 39. Dragons hate spicy salsa. 40. Before you host your taco party with dragons, get rid of the spicy salsa. 41. In fact, bury the spicy salsa in the backyard so the dragons can’t find it. 42. These dragons love your taco party! 43. They love the music. 44. They love the decorations. 45. They especially love the tacos. 46. Congratulations! 47. It’s a good thing you got rid of all that spicy… 48. Wait a second. 49. What are those little green things in the salsa? 50. You didn’t read the fine print?!

14. Otter Keeper 1. Hi, I am Otter. 2. No one really knows where I came from. 3. Otter Keeper says that he found me in a box on his doorstep one day. 4. He says back then I was very small. 5. I’m still quite small. 6. I must have been really tiny. 7. I wish I’d made the most of being that little. 8. At first, I was a bit scared of Otter Keeper. 9. But luckily, Teddy had just come to live with Otter Keeper too. 10. Now I love Otter Keeper and Teddy very much. 11. We have so much fun together. 12. You wouldn’t believe it! 13. Especially on the weekends. 14. But then every Monday we get bad news: 15. Otter Keeper will be going to work. 16. I do all sorts of things to prevent Otter Keeper from leaving, like trying to stop Monday from happening altogether, or hiding his lunch where he‘ll never find it. 17. But my plans never work. 18. Teddy and I think it is very unfair that we don’t have jobs. 19. So, one day we decided to start our own business: 20. a toast restaurant! 21. After some basic training we opened the business. 22. Right away, though, we ran into problems. 23. First, Teddy had forgotten to take the reservations. 24. Next, Teddy hadn’t told anyone how much our toast would cost. 25. As a result, no one brought any spending money, which led to some

101

embarrassing situation. 26. Finally, Teddy got several of the toast orders wrong. 27. Some of the customers complained and had to be asked to leave the restaurant. 28. That was the last straw. 29. So, Teddy was fired, and I gave his job to Giraffe. 30. But even with a new chef, the restaurant still had big problems. 31. But the biggest problem of all was: 32. Otter Keeper had just come home! 33. Everyone had to hide! 34. Luckily, Otters are very good at hiding. 35. Un luckily, Otter Keepers are very good at finding Otters. 36. The toast restaurant was shut down. 37. Things had to be cleaned up. 38. And everyone was sent home. 39. I tried to explain to Otter Keeper that this had all been Teddy’s fault. 40. But wait! 41. Where was Teddy? 42. I’d been so mean to Teddy, he’d probably run away to start a new toast restaurant with someone else. 43. This was an emergency. 44. Luckily, in an emergency, you are allowed to wake up Otter Keeper. 45. The search began. 46. After hunting almost all night, we were running out of places to look. 47. Then all of a sudden, I had a clever thought. 48. Teddy! 49. Now everything is normal again. 50. Otter Keeper still goes to work.

15. Interrupting Chicken 1. It was after school for the little red chicken. 2. “Well, Chicken” said Papa. 3. “Did you have a good day at school?” 4. “Yes, Papa! 5. And today my teacher told us every story has an elephant of surprise. 6. So, let’s read a story and we’ll find the elephant.” 7. “Chicken, she wasn’t talking about an elephant. 8. She was talking about an element of surprise.” 9. “What’s an element of surprise?” 10. “It’s the part of the story that makes you say “Whoa!” 11. I didn’t know that was going to happen”, said Papa. 12. “An elephant in a story always makes me say “WHOA!” 13. So please, let’s read a story together.” 14. All right, fine. 15. But I don’t expect you’ll find any elephants in this story.” 16. The Ugly Duckling. 17. After a long, lonely winter in the cave, the Ugly Duckling was growing desperate.

102

18. “I don’t care if they tear me to pieces. 19. I must be near those glorious creatures for just one moment.” he said as he flung himself toward the flock of swans. 20. To his amazement, the graceful birds did not attack or tease him, but seemed to accept him as one of their own. 21. He peered into the water at his reflection, gasped and said “Surprise!” 22. I’m an elephant! 23. Thank you for finding me! 24. No problem! 25. We learned about you in school. 26. Chicken, there are no elephants in the Ugly Duckling. 27. Every good story has one. 28. That’s what my teacher said. 29. That’s ridiculous. 30. “Is The Ugly Duckling a good story? 31. “Well, yes, but – “ 32. Then it must have an elephant of surprise. 33. Let’s try another book. 34. Rapunzel 35. Enchanted by Rapunzel’s beautiful singing, the prince drew near the tower. 36. He had waited for this night. 37. “Rapunzel, Rapunzel”, he called. 38. “Let down your hair”. 39. Silently, a braid of Rapunzel’s hair slid down the tower wall. 40. “Come to me my prince” cut him a melodious voice above. 41. With all haste, the prince began to climb. 42. When he reached Rapunzel, he gazed in his love and she said 43. “Surprise! 44. I’m an elephant! 45. You’ve done it again. 46. “You’re welcome” 47. Chicken, I know there is no elephant in Rapunzel. 48. That is just plain ludicrous. 49. Don’t you feel sorry for the elephant Papa all alone, waiting for someone to find him? 50. Read another story and we’ll find the poor elephant.

16. Llama Llama Loves to Read 1. Llama Llama learns at school. 2. Counting, writing, reading, rules. 3. Friends and school. 4. There’s nothing better. 5. Llama Llama learning all the letters! 6. Letters make a special set. 7. That set is called the alphabet. 8. Llama knows the first one, two, three. 9. He can say them.

103

10. A, B, C.! 11. And then there’s D. 12. And next an E. 13. And on it goes to X, Y, Z! 14. No two letters are the same, but every letter has a name. 15. It can be said. 16. It can be heard. 17. Letters together make a word. 18. Llama Llama learning words. 19. Some he’s seen and some he’s heard. 20. Some he has to memorize with his brain and with his eyes. 21. Llama Llama knows that one! 22. He can read it. 23. This is fun! 24. Llama Llama writes his name. 25. And once again, just the same. 26. First L, then l, then a – m – a. 27. What do all these letters say…? 28. Something to make a present of. 29. LOVE 30. That spells love. 31. Words make rhythm. 32. Words make rhyme. 33. Words make book for story time. 34. Words tell truth. 35. Words tell new things. 36. Words make songs that we can sing! 37. Words are the very best of presents. 38. Words together make a sentence! 39. Llama’s hooves wave s in the air. 40. Some words are hard. 41. It’s just not fair! 42. No need to frown, no need to pout. 43. Just do your best and sound it out. 44. No need for crying, moaning, bleating. 45. Llama Llama, hooray for reading. 46. Teacher hold s the walking sign. 47. Now it’s time to make a line. 48. How does Llama Llama know? 49. G and O spell Go! Go! Go! 50. Lots of sentences strung together make a book.

17. The Locomotive 1. Here is a road made for crossing the country, a new road of rails made for people to ride. 2. Here is how the road was built, with a grunt and a heave and a swing with the ring of shovels on stone, the ring of hammers on spikes. 3. Men came from far away to build from the east, to build from the west, to

104

meet in the middle. 4. They cleared the rocks and dug the tunnels. 5. They raised their hammers and brought them down. 6. Three strokes to the spike. 7. Ten spikes to the rail. 8. Here your trip begins at the depot, on the platform. 9. The people here, the passengers, have packed and shipped and sold their things, all their things, everything. 10. They have their tickets for a trip of a week, through days and nights, across the wide country, down the sea. 11. Look for the train that will take you, the first train of the trip. 12. Listen for the engine, for the mighty locomotive. 13. She’s waiting in the railyard, ready for her work. 14. Hear the clang of the bell, hear the huff of the engine. 15. Her crew is bringing her out! 16. See a puff from the stack – a puff of smoke, a smudge in the sky. 17. Here she comes! 18. See a puff, a smudge, a cloud, a storm! 19. Now comes the locomotive! 20. The iron horse, the great machine! 21. Fifty feet and forty tons, wheels spinning, rod s swinging, motion within motion, running down the track! 22. She’s bright in her paint and her polish – the pride of her company and crew. 23. She pulls her tender and train behind her, she rolls up close, to where you wait, all heat and smoke and noise: 24. Hear the hiss and spit of the steam! 25. Hear the engine breathe like a beast. 26. She carries the crew that makes her run: 27. Brakemen, firemen, engineer and in charge of them all, the conductor, the captain of the train. 28. He cries: 29. All aboard. 30. Step up, step up quick! 31. Up in the cab, the crew’s making ready! 32. The train’s about to leave! 33. Up in the cab, small as a closet, hot as a kitchen. 34. It smells of smoke, hot metal and oil. 35. The fireman keeps the engine fit. 36. He scoops and lifts and throws the coal from the tender to the fire box. 37. It’s hard work, hard work. 38. Smoke and cinders, ash and sweat. 39. Hard work, hard work. 40. But that’s a fireman’s life. 41. He tends the fire that boils the water that turns the water into steam. 42. Then the engineer pushes forward. 43. He blows the whistle as a warning. 44. “TuTu” is to say the train is about to go.

105

45. He pulls the throttle lever. 46. He opens the throttle – not too much not at first or the wheels would spit on the tracks. 47. Easy, easy he releases the steam and pushes and pushes through the pipes. 48. It goes to do its work. 49. It pushes pushes pushes the pistons, which push and pull the rods. 50. The rods, they swing and rise and fall, and make the drive wheels turn.

18. Toe Shoe Mouse 1. I will not go into the disturbing details of how I arrived at the ballet. 2. I will say only that it involved a cat with glittering teeth and cruel claws, and a chase through the sewer s of the city. 3. I escaped through a hole that was much too small for a cat. 4. And that is how I found myself inside a very old and very grand theater. 5. I climbed up to a plush velvet seat and spied a stage where people were moving to music. 6. The music made me want to move too. 7. So there on my velvet stage, I did my own little mouse dance. 8. And I realized, I’d like to stay here! 9. Suddenly the music stopped. 10. “Take your places!” called a voice. 11. Good idea, I thought. 12. I set to work. 13. I gnawed a cozy nest for myself in the soft velvet of the seat. 14. But I had barely settled in then I was startled by the arrival of a gentleman who thought the seat was his. 15. I dashed toward the stage. 16. Immediately, a mob of people began chasing me. 17. Eek! 18. They have big, heavy boots and – oh no! – sharp flashing swords. 19. I ran. 20. Up steps, under doors, until I found myself in a safe quiet room. 21. Tucked in a corner was a small satin crevice. 22. It was just the right size for hiding and was padded with a soft bed of lamb’s wool. 23. Calmed by the animal scent of the wool, I fell into a fitful sleep, dreaming of sword fights and soldiers. 24. When I awoke, someone was in the room: a young woman I recognized from the stage. 25. She stretched one leg high above her. 26. How did she do that? 27. “Celeste!” someone called. 28. Even her name was graceful. 29. The young woman left, and I slipped out after her to look for food. 30. I was happy to find a few tasty tidbits and decided to bring some for Celeste. 31. Because I was curious to see if she’d like them, I hid again in the snug

106

satin pocket. 32. But in the morning, Celeste didn’t eat a thing. 33. Maybe she didn’t like my choices? 34. That night I collected even tastier bits. 35. But Celeste looked more puzzled than pleased. 36. The next time I set out, I came nose-to-toe with the custodian. 37. To escape the slam of his broom, I slipped under a door. 38. There I discovered spools of rickrack and braid. 39. I snipped a strand with my teeth, brought it back, and arranged it artfully for Celeste. 40. When she discovered it, Celeste swung a leg back and forth, loose limbed and happy. 41. The next night I brought her a curl ribbon. 42. And the night after that a circlet of sequins. 43. I could tell that she liked them. 44. Her long legs scissored and stretched. 45. But suddenly Celeste swooped over, her nose gazing me. 46. My instincts shouted RUN, so I tore out the door. 47. As I skittered down the steps, the custodian spotted me. 48. He chased me to the tiny hole in the basement, and I squeezed through leaving the theater behind. 49. Just in time! 50. I will not dwell on what happened in the dank underground passages.

19. Otis 1. There was once a friendly little tractor. 2. His name was Otis and everyday Otis and his father worked together taking care of the farm they called home. 3. Otis liked to work. 4. But after working hard all day, Otis was ready to unwind and play. 5. He would ride the rolling hills and skirt Mud Pond down by the corn. 6. He would leapfrog bales of hay and explode through the haystacks. 7. On occasion, he would chase a rabbit or play ring-around-the-rosy with the ducks to the sound of his steady puff putted chuff. 8. And sometimes, at the end of the day, he would just sit under the apple tree and watch the farm below. 9. Every night, tired but happy, Otis would putt puff into the little stall in the barn that was all his. 10. One night when Otis was fast asleep, the farmer brought a beautiful baby calf into the barn. 11. The calf bawled and bawled for her mother, but when the sleepy sound of a soft putt puff putted chuff came from the next stall, the scared little calf stopped bawling and drifted off to sleep. 12. From that day on, the calf started following the little tractor wherever he went. 13. Putt puff putted chuff. 14. She followed him over the rolling hills and down by Mud Pond. 15. She was right behind him leapfroging bales of hay.

107

16. And the calf made their games of ring-around-the-rosy all the better. 17. Sometimes at the end of the day, the two of them would just sit together under the apple tree and watch the farm below. 18. Otis loved his little calf and the calf loved Otis. 19. Then one day, the farmer surprised everyone with a brand-new yellow tractor. 20. “Time to move out, Otis”, the farmer said. 21. He took Otis out of the little stall in the barn that was all his and parked him back behind the barn. 22. Then he backed the big yellow tractor into the stall next to the little calf. 23. But the little calf didn’t like the big yellow tractor. 24. He had a deep rumbling snore that shook the stall when he slept. 25. There was no one to purr the little calf gently to sleep. 26. No one to spend her days with. 27. And Otis? 28. Otis could not even see his farm as the weeds began to cover his tires. 29. His friend often sat with him, but she could not get him to play like the old days. 30. It was early summer, when the farmer noticed a poster. 31. “Who has the prettiest calf in the land? 32. Judges will decide at the county fair and award a fancy blue ribbon to the winner. 33. The farmer knew the answer. 34. He would show the little calf. 35. But on the morning of the fair, the calf was nowhere to be found. 36. She had wondered down to Mud Pond by the cornfield to cool off. 37. When she waited into the muddy water, her feet sank. 38. With every step, she sank deeper, deeper and deeper. 39. The little calf was stuck in Mud Pond. 40. “Get the hand!” the farmer shouted when he saw her. 41. All the farm hands came running with their ropes, but the more they tugged, the more stuck the calf got. 42. “Get the big yellow tractor!”, the farmer shouted. 43. “He can save her.” 44. But the big yellow tractor just scared the little calf. 45. She sank in deeper and deeper. 46. Nearby farmers began to gather. 47. “Then call Fire Chief Douglas and the fire truck!” the farmer shouted. 48. “They can save our little calf.” 49. But the sight of the big red Fire truck startled the little calf in even deeper. 50. The farmer was fit to be tied if the farm hands and the big tractor and even the Fire Chief Douglas and his Fire truck couldn’t save the little calf, who could?

20. Mighty, Mighty Construction Site 1. Down in the big construction site, five trucks wake to morning light. 2. It’s time to S-T-R-E-T-C-H, roll out of bed, and gear up for the day

108

ahead! 3. They wipe their faces, greet the sun, load up, fuel up, rev up… run! 4. They’re eager to get things underway. 5. There’s a brand-new job to start today! 6. The plan’s unrolled. 7. They stare in awe. 8. The biggest thing they ever saw. 9. A massive building, so immense. 10. This giant job will be intense! 11. It’s a lot for them to do… too much for just a five-truck crew? 12. Cement Mixer is thinking fast. 13. He gives his horn a blaring blast! 14. Mighty trucks all hear the call. 15. They start up in no time at all! 16. Out on the road, they drive full steam. 17. They rush right in to join the team. 18. Rolling, rumbling, revving hard, ten big trucks meet in the yard. 19. A mighty, massive SUPERCREW. 20. There is nothing they can’t do! 21. Skid Steer’s nimble, small, and quick. 22. She turns, she spins. 23. She does a trick! 24. Bulldozer’s heavy, wide, and grand. 25. He’ll push and plow to clear the land, but even he can use a hand! 26. Skid’s breaker bit blasts rocks to rubble, so Dozer rolls through without trouble. 27. Two friends at work. 28. One big, one small. 29. They clear the way. 30. They move it all! 31. Each long trench is marked and planed: 32. Excavator digs the land, then Back hole grabs a drain age pipe and sets it down in one smooth swipe. 33. Turn and dig then lift and drop, then push some dirt right back on top. 34. They set each pipe, and then repeat. 35. This duo doesn’t miss a beat! 36. Pulling up with all his might, Crane Truck lifts a beam to height. 37. And then he spins his hook around, but just before it touches ground, Crane Truck gasps out in surprise: 38. He’s used up all of his supplies! 39. But what’s this coming down the road? 40. Could it be another load? 41. Mighty Flatbed revs and runs, smoothly hauling FIFTY TONS down the road and over hills. 42. Her load’s strapped tight, so nothing spills. 43. On site, she rolls right to a stop, with Crane’s supplies all stacked on top. 44. Flatbed Truck’s just saved the day! 45. Their work can get back underway.

109

46. Front End Loader and Dump Truck pair to move great loads from here to there, digging, lifting, hauling ground. 47. Giant piles are moved around! 48. Loader digs and scoops his fill, then tilts it up so there’s no spill. 49. His bucket raises to the max. 50. Then Beep Beep Beep as Loader backs.

Television show sample

1. Bubble Guppies 1. Hi. 2. Where’s that sound coming from? 3. It’s my friend Arvi. 4. Hello Oouna. 5. Hello. 6. Hi Arvi. 7. Hi Oouna. 8. Hey, watch how fast I can go. 9. Be careful Arvi! 10. Arvi! 11. Are you okay honey? 12. Mommy, my tail hurts. 13. Is he okay? 14. I think so. 15. I’m gonna call the doctor. 16. Okay honey? 17. Okay, Mommy. 18. Hospital! 19. Hello, my son just fell off his tricycle and hurt his tail. 20. I fell. 21. We’ll send a clambulance right away. 22. Thank you. 23. We gotta make sure Arvi is okay. 24. So, we are taking him to the hospital to see the doctor. 25. I’m scared. 26. It will be okay Arvi. 27. We just want the doctor to make sure you didn’t break your tail. 28. Yeah, the doctor will take care of you and everything will be okay. 29. Listen! 30. Here comes the clambulance! 31. What happen ed here? 32. He fell off his tricycle. 33. We better get an X-ray of your tail. 34. They’re getting him to the hospital to see the doctor. 35. Bye Arvi. 36. Bye Oouna. 37. I think he is going to be okay.

110

38. Come on. 39. Hi there. 40. Hi there. 41. Hi. 42. Hello. 43. Good morning Mr. Grouper. 44. Well, good morning everyone. 45. Mr. Grouper Mr. Grouper. 46. What is it Oouna? 47. Is everything okay? 48. Arvi fell off his tricycle. 49. Oh no! 50. Is he alright?

2. Counting with Paula 1. Hello there. 2. Welcome to my playroom. 3. My name is Paula and over there are my very good friends Billy and Chalky. 4. Come we meet them. 5. Hey Billy. 6. This is a beautiful flower you have drawn on Chalky. 7. Thanks Paula. 8. Billy’s a bit shy and that there is Chalky. 9. Hello Paula. 10. Hi Billy and Chalky. 11. Hi Tim 12. This is Tim. 13. He is also my friend. 14. This is my new friend Calc. 15. He is a calculator. 16. Now there are five of us. 17. Five friends. 18. Paula, I think someone is missing. 19. Really Billy? 20. Who is missing? 21. Let’s count to find out. 22. You know who can help us to find out? 23. Let’s call the numbers. 24. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten. 25. I’ll write the numbers on Chalky. 26. Do you want to help us count? 27. The first one is my friend Billy. 28. He is friend number one. 29. One. 30. This is how you write number one. 31. The next friend is Tim. 32. He is friend number two.

111

33. Two. 34. This is how you write number two. 35. Well, the next friend is Chalky. 36. Chalky is friend number three. 37. Three. 38. This is how you write number three. 39. I guess the next friend is me. 40. I’m friend number four and this is how you write number four. 41. Four. 42. So, who is missing? 43. Calc! 44. Calc is missing. 45. Let’s look for him. 46. I found a map with clue s that can lead us to Calc. 47. It seems he is in the jungle on an adventure. 48. Let’s go there too and find him. 49. This map says the tree with five bananas has clues that will lead us to Calc. 50. Will you help us find the tree with five bananas?

3. Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood 1. Hi neighbor. 2. It’s me Daniel Tiger. 3. Come on in. 4. Do you know what today is? 5. It’s my birthday. 6. Look! 7. I’m gonna have a birthday party. 8. See? 9. Hey, do you like birthday parties? 10. Ugga Magga, birthday tiger. 11. It’s time to go to the bakery to pick out your cake. 12. You’ll come with me, right? 13. I’m so happy you’re here. 14. Let’s go! 15. Trolley! 16. Please, take us to the neighborhood bakery. 17. You’re gonna love it. 18. We’re going to the bakery to pick out a cake. 19. Won’t you ride along with me? 20. Ride along. 21. Won’t you ride along with me? 22. I have a question. 23. Since I’m bigger, can I carry my birthday cake all by myself? 24. You are bigger now. 25. But a cake can be heavy. 26. Look at me. 27. I’m big and strong.

112

28. Hi Katharina Kitty cat. 29. Hi O the Owl. 30. Wanna come to the bakery with us? 31. By Mom. 32. By uncle X. 33. Back soon. 34. Happy birthday Daniel Tiger. 35. Buckle up. 36. We’re going to the bakery to pick out a cake. 37. Won’t you ride along with me? 38. Won’t you ride along with me? 39. And me? 40. And me? 41. Here we are at Baker Akers neighborhood bakery. 42. After you, birthday tiger. 43. Look at all the goodies in the bakery. 44. Do you wanna make believe with me? 45. Let’s make believe that the goodies in the bakery all sing and dance. 46. Welcome to the bakery. 47. We have a birthday tiger here I see to pick a cake to eat. 48. I wonder which cake he want s in his tummy. 49. I hope he picks me because I’m yummy yummy yummy. 50. I wonder which cake he will choose.

4. The Furchester Hotel 1. Oh boy, oh boy, I’m so excited. 2. Me too. 3. It’s not every day we get to star in our very own video. 4. Oh, Elmo, hair! 5. That’s a blossom. 6. It was a great idea that your mum had. 7. Oh, Furgus, let me! 8. Wouldn’t it be for this video they are going to want to star in our lovely hotel. 9. Get the camera set up Carol. 10. I can work with this. 11. You must be the director of our video. 12. Welcome to the Furchester Hotel Mr. Director. 13. Well, you’re monsters. 14. Through and through. 15. This is our daughter Phebe Furchester Fuzz and our nephew Elmo. 16. Oh yes. 17. Hi, hello. 18. I just didn’t know that this was a monster hotel. 19. With a half star rating. 20. But here are not only monsters you know. 21. We’ve got guests of all kind. 22. Animal, vegetable, mineral.

113

23. So, I see. 24. Well I guess a hotel is a hotel. 25. So, why don’t we get started? 26. Funella sweet, why don’t you show the director how you welcome the guests. 27. This is great. 28. This is just great. 29. Here comes a guest now. 30. Go, go, go! 31. Quick, the door, the door, the door. 32. The revolving door is speeding up again, dad. 33. Don’t worry. 34. I can solve the problem. 35. Watch, Mr. Director. 36. Perhaps there are other parts of the hotel that we could show. 37. Let’s show, Mr. Director, and Mrs. Carol the dining room. 38. Perfect. 39. Are we recording Carol? 40. Excellent. 41. So, living in this strict, you’re the Cookie Monster? 42. Yes, that right. 43. Me love cookies. 44. When we see them, we want to eat them. 45. Waiter! 46. Excuse me! 47. Okay sir, you can enjoy this. 48. Here are your cookies. 49. But I didn’t order cookies, I ordered tomato soup. 50. That me mistake!

5. Julius Jr. 1. If I only could find the right… Eureka. 2. That’s it. 3. Okay, Super Clancy, off you go. 4. Hey look at my… 5. I was almost flying Julius. 6. Did you see me? 7. Did you? 8. Did you? 9. I did. 10. You got some great air. 11. What’s new Julius? 12. Only this. 13. A paperclip? 14. This paperclip is going to turn out into my greatest invention ever. 15. I totally see it. 16. It’s amazing. 17. Looks like an ordinary paperclip to me.

114

18. The best inventors can make the best inventions out of anything. 19. Watch. 20. Something’s tickling me. 21. Get it off! 22. Get it off! 23. Okay, okay Worry Bear. 24. Just hold still. 25. Come on little fella. 26. Paperclip invention one point 0. 27. Caterpillar stairs. 28. That’s a really good one. 29. Yep, the best inventions are the ones that help your friends. 30. What? 31. Where? 32. Who said that? 33. It’s the caterpillar! 34. He is trying to tell us something. 35. But his voice is too small to hear. 36. You know what we need? 37. The Amplificator. 38. My name is Sydney. 39. It works. 40. And I want to be a butterfly. 41. Oh, butterflies are splendiferous. 42. But caterpillars make cocoons and turn into butterflies on their own. 43. Really? 44. Cool! 45. What’s a cocoon? 46. It’s like a little sleeping bag caterpillars make so they can turn into butterflies. 47. Yeah, why don’t you just make yourself a cocoon, Sydney? 48. I tried, but I can’t! 49. Don’t worry. 50. We’ll help you!

6. Kate and Mim-Mim 1. Starting ramp, ready! 2. Racetrack, ready! 3. Racers start your engines. 4. Hold your horsepower Kate. 5. We should test our cars first to make sure they drive okay. 6. Then can we race then? 7. I really wanna race. 8. Really really. 9. Me too. 10. We can’t forget the camera, though. 11. We may have a photo finish. 12. I know where else we can race.

115

13. Mim-Mim, funny bunny friend, it’s time to come to life again. 14. Kate and Mim-Mim, me and you, let’s twirl away to Mimiloo. 15. Here we are the rumbly Racetrack. 16. Boy, I hope it’s more racy than rumbly today. 17. Too much rumbly is bad for my tumbly. 18. What was that? 19. Boomer fast. 20. Kate and Mim-Mim, we’re just getting ready for the rip-roaring race. 21. Yes. 22. My old car still has that new carrot smell, Kate. 23. I love my car too, Mim-Mim. 24. Last race it was superfast. 25. Not as fast as Tach’s Fast Mobile. 26. He wins every race. 27. Not every race, Gobble. 28. Just the ones I’m in. 29. I wanna put some new things on my car this time. 30. Me too. 31. I guess we all do. 32. Oh, I know just the thing to put on my car. 33. It’ll make it the fastest car that’s ever raced. 34. What can I add to my Rooter buggy to make it faster? 35. So, what do you want to put on your car, Kate? 36. Your car, Mim-Mim. 37. I wanna connect our cars together. 38. If we make it a two-friender we can both race in it. 39. That’s the best idea I’ve ever heard. 40. Let’s do it! 41. I know the best way to make it faster is to make it lighter. 42. Our two-friender car is two-friender PERFECT, Mim-Mim. 43. Let’s race. 44. Right now? 45. But you just put a new steering wheel on. 46. Don’t you want to test it? 47. I will when we race! 48. I’m ready. 49. Great! 50. Don’t anyone of you want to test the things you put on your cars?

7. Little People 1. Can Tessa, the Tornado, fly through the Hoop of Doom? 2. You can do this Tessa. 3. Of course, she can! 4. That was great Tessa, but you might wanna work on your bow just a teeny tiny bit. 5. Why? 6. What's wrong with it? 7. Nothing's wrong with it.

116

8. It could just be more right. 9. How about like this? 10. But I like bowing Tessa-style. 11. But this is the right way. 12. Hey, I know. 13. Why don't we ask King Pigalot. 14. People must bow in front of him all the time. 15. Great idea. 16. Let’s go! 17. Come along now we mustn't delay. 18. King Pigalot, we were just looking for you. 19. Can you tell us who is bowing in the right way? 20. I'm afraid I haven't got time. 21. I'm having a party this evening. 22. So much to do. 23. A party? 24. Yes, a royal ball to be precise. 25. Why don't you come along? 26. Really? 27. We'll be there. 28. Oh, splendid. 29. Party you say? 30. Hello, oh queen of jungle. 31. King Pigalot I'm having a party tonight too. 32. It's going to be so much fun and you're all invited. 33. But I asked them first. 34. Well they might want to come to mine instead. 35. There'll be yummy food. 36. My party has yummy food. 37. And dancing. 38. My party has dancing too. 39. And an owl-monkey-band. 40. I have an owl-monkey-band. 41. Get an owl-monkey-band quickly. 42. Well they both sound fun. 43. Good. 44. Excellent. 45. I'll see you tonight at my party. 46. Come along now. 47. Now what do we do? 48. Yeah if we don't go to the Queen's party she'll be upset and if we don't go to the King’s party he'll be upset. 49. I know. 50. Why don't we go to both parties?

8. Puffin Rock 1. It’s a windy day on Puffin Rock and here’s Papa Puffin, walking with his chest all puffed out.

117

2. This is why I love watching puffins. 3. They’re always doing something interesting. 4. Now, where’s Oona? 5. There she is, following a little too closely in her Papa’s footsteps. 6. What are you doing, Papa? 7. Walking around the burrow, making sure it’s nice and safe. 8. It’s what we grown-up puffins do. 9. I want to be a grown-up puffin. 10. There’s plenty of time for that, Oona. 11. Don’t you worry. 12. Look at Papa Puffin now, digging with his bill, and flicking the leaves away with his feet. 13. We’re off to look for food, Oona. 14. You take care of Baba. 15. Yes, Mama, I will. 16. Bye, baba. 17. Bye, you two. 18. See you both later. 19. Come on, Baba. 20. Let’s follow Mama and Papa and see what grown-up puffins do all day. 21. Grown-up puffins are excellent at flying. 22. So, a puffling like Oona has her work cut out if she wants to keep up while little Baba hasn’t even mastered hopping yet. 23. Puffins are much more graceful in flight than walking about on land. 24. Are you watching, Oona? 25. Yes, Oona is keeping a close eye on her Mama and Papa. 26. Puffins live by the sea for a reason. 27. Fish. 28. Look at that. 29. It’s like he’s flying, but under the water. 30. Puffins are incredible. 31. A puffin can carry more than one fish in his bill, quite a few in fact. 32. And it’s a good job, too, because Baba is hungry. 33. Oona has been watching her Mama and Papa very closely all morning. 34. Let’s see what she’s learnt. 35. Okay, Baba, let’s practice walking like a grown-up puffin. 36. Look at Oona walking with her chest puffed out, just like Papa. 37. Brilliant. 38. Baba, concentrate! 39. This is serious puffin practice. 40. Okay. 41. That’s better. 42. Now, let’s practice our digging. 43. Puffins are very good at digging. 44. It’s how they make their burrows. 45. All right, that’s enough digging. 46. Hey, Baba, I said that’s enough digging. 47. Let’s practice carrying fish.

118

48. Fishy, fishy. 49. Oona saw her mama and papa carrying lots of fish in their bills and now she’s having a go with the twigs. 50. Now, Baba, watch me very closely.

9. Sheriff Callie’s Wild West 1. It’s a flip. 2. Wait. 3. Look at that. 4. Hop and horse feathers. 5. Yup. 6. You sure got skills Sheriff, Pricilla too. 7. Good morning everyone. 8. Morning Pricilla. 9. No strung open. 10. I’ll see. 11. Look at Dirty and Dusty. 12. Hi Boys. 13. Enjoy your game. 14. Howdydo Sheriff Callie. 15. Howdydo Ella. 16. Muddy fancy juggling. 17. Gotta shake up my milkshakes. 18. Oh, tail feathers, everybody in this town is good at something, except me. 19. That’s not true Peck. 20. You’re good at sweeping the jail and washing the windows and fall on Sheriff Callie when someone’s in trouble. 21. Sure Toby, deputy stuff. 22. I’m just not good at sports. 23. I bet I’ve never won a game in my whole Peckin life. 24. Winning is not everything Peck as long as you are having fun. 25. Well, it’s hard to have fun if you’re always the looser. 26. Maybe you haven’t found the right game yet Peck. 27. Come on! 28. I have an idea. 29. Howdy, Sheriff Callie. 30. How do you like our new Horseshoe Peck? 31. It’s great uncle Bun. 32. In fact, I was wondering if you let Peck take a throw or two. 33. He’s looking for his sport and this might just be it. 34. I’m not you Sheriff. 35. I don’t even know how to play horseshoes. 36. It’s really easy Deputy Peck. 37. See. 38. One throws like this and gets his horseshoe as close as he can to the post. 39. Then, the other guy throws and tries to get closer. 40. Jingle, look at that. 41. His shoe nock ed mine out of the way, so he wins a point.

119

42. Were you trying to do that? 43. No, I was trying to get the ring in. 44. Like this. 45. That’s the best you can get. 46. Give it a try, Deputy. 47. Come on Peck, it’s fun. 48. Just pull your arm back like this, step forward and throw. 49. He did it. 50. He got the ring around it on his very first throw ever.

10. Super Wings 1. At top speed. 2. Here comes jet, the fastest plane in the world. 3. Going up, higher and higher. 4. And now my latest move – sky dive sensation. 5. Oh no, I’m gonna crash. 6. I’m Dizzy and I’m rescue ready and that’s one beautiful hot-air balloon. 7. Thanks, Diz. 8. So that’s a hot-air balloon? 9. Yep, a great, big balloon with a basket someone can ride in. 10. Have a nice trip. 11. Control room package pickup. 12. I’m off to some place cool, I hope. 13. Call me if you need more help. 14. Hey Jimbo, where am I going today? 15. A car ordered a package. 16. He lives in the Himalayas. 17. Himalayas? 18. It’s where you can find the tallest mountain in the planet – Mount Everest. 19. Great. 20. I love flying high. 21. Then let’s keep this breathing brief. 22. Take your position. 23. When you meet someone there, Namaste means hello. 24. Namaste – got it. 25. Yeah! 26. Systems go, go go and go. 27. Jet, get ready to rise. 28. It’s fly time. 29. To the Himalayas. 30. Snacks all packed! 31. Great. 32. Now we’re ready. 33. I hope the packet gets here soon. 34. Wow! 35. These mountains really are tall. 36. And there’s Acoso’s house.

120

37. Jet trips for. 38. Package delivery! 39. All right. 40. Namaste, I’m Jet. 41. On time, every time. 42. Namaste Jet. 43. Namaste. 44. This is my little brother, Reamy. 45. That was superfast. 46. Well, I am the fastest, quickest, most licketysplittest. 47. Hey, wait for me. 48. What are all these pieces for? 49. These are materials to make the kite. 50. It’s a kite kit.

11. Wallykazam 1. Hi, we are on a super soaring sandal. 2. Norville, tree! 3. We made it with my magic stick because today all the magic words start with the S sound and the letter S. 4. So, we can use words like super and soar and sandal. 5. All right Norville. 6. Ready for another magic word? 7. Well, hold on tight cause now I’m gonna make the super soaring sandal. 8. Summersault. 9. Hang on! 10. Summersaulting is so so silly. 11. Hi, we’re going to our friend Ogre Doug. 12. He needs help with something. 13. Hey Norvell, you dizzy yet? 14. Hi Ogre Doug. 15. Hi Wally, Hi Norville. 16. Doug hug! 17. I’m so glad you came over. 18. I have a favor to ask. 19. Do think maybe you could babysit my new pet Borgelorp? 20. Your what? 21. That’s my Borgelorp. 22. What’s his name? 23. Borgelorp. 24. His name is Borgelorp. 25. I have to go to the store to buy food for my pet Memis and Borgelorp is just too little to leave alone. 26. Ogre Doug, we’ll look after him. 27. I’m great with pets. 28. Right Norvell? 29. Oh good. 30. So, all you’ll have to do is get him to take a nap.

121

31. He really needs a nap. 32. No problem. 33. Oh, and one more thing. 34. Wally whatever you do, do not let him eat any purple flowers. 35. No purple flowers? 36. Gotta go. 37. Be back soon. 38. Okay no purple flowers. 39. We better remember that. 40. Yeah, he is a cute little guy. 41. I’m Wally. 42. That’s Norville. 43. Yes, you do have nice feet. 44. Okay, time for your nap. 45. No nap. 46. Play, play, play. 47. What? 48. Kiss. 49. Get him Norville. 50. Kiss.

12. Tayo the Little Bus 1. This is the test-driving center. 2. Only the cars that pass the test will be allowed to drive in the streets. 3. When the light is green you can go and when it’s red you stop. 4. Excuse me. 5. I’m sorry but could you please stop talking? 6. Was I talking out loud? 7. I’m nervous. 8. Me too, but your talking is making me even more nervous. 9. Really? 10. I’m sorry. 11. I’ll try to be quiet. 12. Thanks. 13. My name is Tayo. 14. This is my first time taking the test. 15. Tayo, nice to meet you. 16. I’m Nouri. 17. It’s my first time too. 18. I see. 19. Next is number twenty-one, minitruck Rumi. 20. Okay. 21. That’s me. 22. You may begin. 23. It’s a red light. 24. Red means stop. 25. Hello, little fellows. 26. The light turned green.

122

27. He is moving again. 28. Wow. 29. He is so good. 30. There is so much traffic. 31. That lane is moving faster. 32. Then I guess… 33. Hey, it’s dangerous to cut in like that. 34. I’m sorry. 35. Back to my lane. 36. It’s dangerous if you suddenly change lanes. 37. I’m really sorry. 38. Number twenty-one, Roomy, you have failed. 39. You have broken a traffic law. 40. Next is number twenty-two. 41. Nouri’s turn. 42. Good luck Nouri. 43. Thanks, Tayo. 44. Nouri is very nervous but determined to do well. 45. You may begin. 46. Okay. 47. Nouri drives carefully and safely through the streets. 48. Nouri, the little taxi, is rounding the final turn. 49. Number twenty-two, Nouri the little taxi, has passed. 50. Congratulations Nouri.

13. Zack & Quack 1. Hi, today it’s hot. 2. Hi Quack. 3. I know. 4. It’s really hot. 5. Look, Zack. 6. I’m drooping. 7. Wow! 8. Everyone’s hot today. 9. Don’t worry guys. 10. I’ll find a way to cool us down. 11. Come on Quack, help me look. 12. There’s got a be a popup around here somewhere that could help. 13. A teapot. 14. No, tea will just make us hotter. 15. Great! 16. Let’s put it together. 17. Sledge? 18. Sledge is for playing in the snow. 19. That’s it. 20. Snow. 21. That’s what we need to cool off. 22. I have an announcement everybody.

123

23. We’re going to the snow. 24. Snow. 25. Did you guys say snow on a day like this? 26. Hi, Cara. 27. Quack and I are going to take everyone to the snow to cool off. 28. Want to come? 29. Are you kidding? 30. I’m in and if we run into any paper problem, I’ve got my popup tool kits standing by. 31. Poptastic. 32. Snow on a summer day. 33. Only you can think of something like this odd. 34. Snow on the hottest day of summer? 35. As lovely as is sounds, it’s impossible. 36. No, for me it’s not. 37. I know I saw the popup we need around here somewhere. 38. Cool. 39. This will get us to the snow. 40. I love tutu trains. 41. This isn’t just any train Fluffy. 42. This is the popup express. 43. All aboard. 44. Let’s go. 45. Marvelous. 46. I’m the train driver and you be conductor Quack. 47. Now, let’s get going. 48. The quicker we find some snow, the quicker we’ll cool down. 49. I’m so excited. 50. Me too.

14. Creative Galaxy 1. Hi artists. 2. It’s me, Arty. 3. Come see what I collected from the Creative Galaxy in my idea box. 4. And you too, Epiphany. 5. It’s a pompom. 6. It’s so fuzzy and round. 7. It lights me up. 8. Look what else I found. 9. Buttons and pipe cleaners. 10. Hey, I have an idea. 11. Do you want to make a pompom bug with me? 12. You do? 13. Oh, great. 14. We can glue this pipe cleaner on for the antennae. 15. Let’s use buttons for the eyes and stick one here and another here. 16. We made a pompom bug. 17. Hi, pompom bug.

124

18. Hi, my Arty. 19. Hi, Mum. 20. Hi, baby Georga. 21. Do you want to take a walk with us to see the new Children’s Library I created? 22. Yes. 23. My mum’s an architect. 24. My mum creates buildings, like libraries and houses and stuff. 25. This is it. 26. You see. 27. I drew what I wanted it to look like here, and then the builders built it over there. 28. The new library. 29. Wow! 30. Look, look, look. 31. Everyone’s coming to pick out books. 32. They’re going to stay here and read. 33. Wait. 34. Hold it. 35. Why is everyone leaving? 36. Hi and goodbye Arty. 37. I just got this bug book and now I’m going to go home and read it. 38. So, I have to go now, okay? 39. Bye, bye. 40. Wait! 41. Don’t go. 42. Don’t you want to stay here in the library and maybe read? 43. No, thank you. 44. No, thank you? 45. But why no thank you? 46. I built it for everyone to stay and read. 47. Well, I don’t want to in the library because the walls are so plain without colour and very blah. 48. Blah? 49. Blah? 50. Blah, blah, blah.

15. Doc McStuffins 1. Time to open the clinic. 2. Lambie, where are you? 3. Has anyone seen Lambie? 4. Oh wait. 5. Have you guys seen Lambie? 6. She was here a minute ago. 7. No, haven’t seen her. 8. Here comes Donny. 9. Lambie, there you are. 10. Hey Doc, wanna play firefighter?

125

11. I can’t Donny, maybe later. 12. You never wanna play with me. 13. That’s not true. 14. I love playing with you. 15. Just, I can’t right now okay? 16. Okay, okay. 17. That was awesome. 18. Nice driving Lanny. 19. Thanks. 20. Lambie, are you alright? 21. Honestly, I’ve been better. 22. This hat does not go with my outfit. 23. Come on Lambie and Stuffy. 24. Let’s go. 25. Doc, who are you talking to? 26. What? 27. No one. 28. Whom would I be talking to? 29. Don’t know. 30. I forgot my fire engine. 31. Doc, it’s hot out there. 32. If I melt before you come home, I just want you to know I love you. 33. Joey you can’t melt. 34. Remember? 35. You’re a stuffed animal. 36. You’re not really made of snow. 37. Yeah, you’re a lifesaver doc. 38. I know. 39. See you. 40. Mum, I’m going outside to play. 41. Okay, sweetie. 42. The doc is in. 43. Hi Holly. 44. There you are. 45. Doc McStuffin’s clinic with stuffed animals and toys is now open for business. 46. Wow! 47. It’s hot. 48. I can’t believe I’m saying this but it’s even too hot to cuddle. 49. So Holly, do we have any toys that need fixing today? 50. No, no patients yet doc.

16. Doozers 1. So, mum when the turbine spins, it makes electricity? 2. That’s right Daisy Wheel. 3. A wind turbine captures wind energy and turns it into electricity, which we can use to power all sorts of things. 4. Is it why it’s built out here, where it’s windy?

126

5. Exactly. 6. Wind turbines need wind. 7. And sure, there is a lot of wind here. 8. Look at that branch. 9. It’s really shaking. 10. It’s gonna fall. 11. The branch fell on the bridge. 12. Come on kids. 13. Oh my goodness. 14. No Doozers were hurt but it’s going to take all day to clean up this mess. 15. If we can’t get radishes on the other side, construction will have to stop. 16. We can’t let that happen. 17. What if we helped get the radishes across? 18. Terrific idea, Spike. 19. But this bridge is the only way across to the other side. 20. Not for me. 21. That’s true but it would take too long for you to carry them over one by one. 22. Oh, sidle heads. 23. How would you get the radishes across? 24. I’m not sure but the pod squad gotta figure out a way. 25. They are great at coming up with ideas. 26. Pod squad, time for action! 27. Meet us at the ravine. 28. Hi Molly. 29. Hi Spike, hi Daisy Wheel. 30. What’s up? 31. We have a big mission today. 32. We need to figure out a way to get radishes across the side of the ravine. 33. So, they can finish making the wind turbine. 34. Radishes are needed so the Doozers on the other side can make rattle stacks. 35. What a mess! 36. We can’t drive them across since that’s the only bridge. 37. What we need is a way to fly the radishes across the ravine. 38. Why don’t we head to the Doozerium and ask professor Gimbal what he thinks? 39. Great idea, Molly. 40. Last one in the Doozerium is a rotten radish. 41. Professor Gimbal, are you in here? 42. Oh, I’m over here. 43. What is that? 44. It’s my latest badge of raspberry smuckle berry jam. 45. Wanna try some? 46. I would, I would. 47. Let me know what you think. 48. It’s berry good. 49. Professor, we have a problem.

127

50. We need to get some radishes across the ravine to help build the wind turbine.

17. Earth to Luna 1. Bye. 2. Boys, I’m home! 3. Hello. 4. Hi, look what I made. 5. Hi Clyde 6. Hi cutie. 7. I know I missed you today too. 8. I just have to show you guys something. 9. It’s really really really really fantastic. 10. You gonna love it. 11. Do you understand what happened? 12. I told you a story by dancing. 13. I would have understood better if you told me by talking. 14. No, Jupiter. 15. In ballet stories are told by dancing. 16. Just like the Swan Lake and the Nut Cracker. 17. That’s sour. 18. Hey where’s the honey? 19. Mum, always keeps it right here. 20. I think I saw it somewhere, but I forgot. 21. Well, let’s look for it. 22. It’s not here either. 23. Orange cake. 24. That’s my favorite. 25. I know let’s go look in the garden. 26. But I didn’t take the honey out there. 27. But there are honeybees out there. 28. And where there are honeybees, there’s honey. 29. Because they are the ones that make the honey, Jupiter. 30. The honeybees. 31. Let’s find a honeybee. 32. Hey, where’s Jupiter. 33. Come on Jupiter. 34. Let’s ask the bees for some honey. 35. Let’s ask them from here. 36. They can come in here and sting us, can’t they? 37. Honeybees are wild insects. 38. They don’t sting to be mean. 39. Come on! 40. I’ll make sure that you’re safe. 41. We won’t even get that close to them. 42. I promise. 43. A honeybee? 44. Are you trying to tell me that there is a honeybee?

128

45. Out there? 46. Where is it? 47. We’ve gotta ask her for some honey. 48. Let me see the honeybee. 49. Gottcha. 50. I can’t believe it.

18. Little Charmers 1. And then the enchanted frog told the girl “the only way to free me from the magic spell is with a kiss”. 2. I’m with you Seven. 3. Kissing a frog, devilbleath. 4. Time to turn off the light Hazel. 5. One more minute please. 6. I’m reading Seven a story. 7. A frogy prince of Belthlaire. 8. That’s a funny charming story. 9. You’re right at my favorite part. 10. Oh dear kiss a frog? 11. Dear, with my red lips. 12. I am a prince finally freed because of your most charming deed. 13. The spell is broken for this fresh frog in need. 14. And if the prince could prove he was charming by sundown, he would receive one wish that he might use to stay forever a prince. 15. Poor little prince trapped in a frog body. 16. All right, you two, enchanted dreams, little charmer! 17. But if the prince proves himself to be charming and does something kind, he gets a wish. 18. We’d better get some sleep. 19. We’ve got a real big charmer’s mission tomorrow. 20. If there’s frog prince in charm vile, then the pond is the place to find him. 21. Turning a frog into a prince, interesting challenge for a posineaster. 22. You know what I’m wondering? 23. If our enchanted prince listens better than he croaks. 24. Sparkle up charmers, we got a spell to break. 25. There’s one little detail. 26. One of us has to snitch a frog. 27. So, it’s not just me? 28. Although for science, I could be talked into kissing a frog. 29. There’s gotta be some magic kiss spell we can come up with. 30. But how do we know which soggy frogy is the hidden prince? 31. It’s not like he’s gotta be wearing a teeny tiny crown. 32. Unless he is. 33. Travel you’re just such a good little prince finder. 34. So cute. 35. As pixie s dimple. 36. But I’m still not kissing it. 37. Don’t worry your hipititopedi highness!

129

38. We’ll bring out your inner prince somehow. 39. It’s a butterfly kiss. 40. Sparkle up charmers. 41. We wave our wands. 42. We play our wands. 43. We pour our special portions. 44. We sparkle up and cast a spell and tick those charming motions. 45. Sparkle up charmers. 46. Do you think it’s flying frog food? 47. Snapdragons did not see that coming. 48. That was awesome. 49. Where is he? 50. Did we free some prince?

19. Mike the Knight 1. Well done Galahad. 2. Excellent stopping. 3. Great galloping Galahad. 4. You’ve trained him so well Mike. 5. Thanks. 6. Wait! 7. That’s mum calling. 8. Come on. 9. Hi Evie. 10. What is it mum? 11. It’s from your dad, the king. 12. What is he saying mum? 13. He’s written to us about his latest mission rescuing people, building castles. 14. Knightly stuff. 15. Talking of knightly things, he asks how your horse training is going. 16. It’s going well, thanks mum. 17. He’s really good, isn’t he Squirt? 18. Oh yes Sparkie, very good. 19. Excellent. 20. Why don’t you show me in the arena this afternoon? 21. Then I come right back to your dad and tell him how you’re doing. 22. I’ll start practicing now. 23. We’ll help. 24. I will too. 25. See you later. 26. Thanks Evie. 27. Marvel king’s crown. 28. That’s it. 29. I’m Mike the knight and my mission is to be the best horse trainer in all of Glendragon. 30. A golden goblet? 31. I really wish Evie’s magic would wear off.

130

32. Never mind. 33. Come on! 34. To the arena! 35. What do you think? 36. Will mum like it? 37. We think Martha will love it. 38. We have to be perfect. 39. I want Mom to tell dad my horse training is very knightly. 40. Let’s see if I have forgotten anything. 41. Here we go. 42. Horse training. 43. Silent sneaking. 44. Great galloping and tricky trotting. 45. I have trained you to do all of those haven’t I Galahad? 46. Check these two out. 47. I bet we’re just as good as they are even if we don’t look as good as them. 48. But if you looked as good as this horse Galahad, Mom would love it. 49. Got to get you some new things to wear. 50. Let’s get dressed up too.

20. Miles from Tomorrowland 1. Ready to break our speed record Merc? 2. Activating race mode. 3. Ready, steady, blast off buddy! 4. Yeah, yes! 5. Keep going I got this. 6. Laser ring. 7. Merc, peak tweak quick! 8. Obstacles everywhere, told you Merc. 9. Over, under, incoming! 10. Stella, time check. 11. 45 seconds elapsed Miles. 12. Blastastic. 13. That was our fastest run yet Merc. 14. Now we just need some competition. 15. Hey dad. 16. I’m okay. 17. Hey there Miles, how is it orbiting? 18. Great. 19. Merc and I are here to challenge you to race around the Stellasphere. 20. I’d love to kiddo but can’t just yet. 21. Check it out. 22. I’m building a new booster jet for the star jetter. 23. This will make her even go faster. 24. Wow! 25. Look out. 26. See.

131

27. So mediocre shower check on that race okay? 28. Come on Merc. 29. Mom’s an even faster runner than dad. 30. Hey, I heard that. 31. Stella, show me the fastest star ship root to the Pegasus constellation. 32. Calculating captain Callisto. 33. Ups, sorry Mom. 34. That’s okay sweetie. 35. You two sure are in hyper-drive today. 36. Yeah, we’re getting really fast. 37. Wanna race us? 38. Wish I could, but I’ve got to map a galactical route for the Tomorrowland transit authority. 39. Why don’t you ask your sister? 40. You want me to race you? 41. Come on Loretta. 42. You’re not doing anything important. 43. Except cataloging every alien culture in the universe. 44. Okay ready, set, go. 45. You win. 46. Callistos please report to the bridge. 47. Incoming call from the Tomorrowland transit authority. 48. Race it to the bridge. 49. Merc, turbo mode. 50. Brothers!

132

Appendix III Table 7: Descriptive statistics of preschool picture books

Genre ling. analysis variable n mean SD min max Preschool Picture Books Lexical MTLD 20 66.03 21.97 27.11 106.3

Morphological MLU 20 9.52 3.31 4.7 15.32

Sentence types fragments 165 8.25 5 3 20

declarative 652 32.6 9.11 13 44

interrogative 70 3.5 2.91 0 11

imperative 79 3.95 3.01 0 11

exclamations 34 1.7 1.98 4 22

Sentence constr. simple sen. 326 16.3 5.8 8 28

complex sen. 330 16.5 8.41 2 28

verb forms copular 88 4.4 2.7 1 9

intransitive 35 1.8 1.5 0 5

transitive 145 7.3 4.4 1 18

other 63 3.2 2.1 0 6

complex clauses relative cl. 83 4.2 3.2 0 12

subord. conj. 65 3.3 2.8 0 8

infinitive cl. 84 4.2 2.6 1 10

present part. 28 1.4 2.6 0 11

past part. 9 0.5 0.6 0 2

reported sp. 46 2 4 0 13

coord. conj. 110 5.5 4.5 0 13

133

Table 8: Descriptive statistics of preschool television shows

Genre ling. analysis variable n mean SD min max Preschool TV Shows Lexical MTLD 20 67.08 26.18 27.77 144.16

Morphological MLU 20 5.9 1.26 3.96 8.74

Sentence types fragments 246 12.3 3.97 4 22

declarative 466 23.3 4.16 15 33

interrogative 107 5.35 2.28 2 9

imperative 123 6.15 3.01 0 8

exclamations 58 2.9 2.45 0 8

Sentence constr. simple sen. 294 14.7 4.3 8 28

complex sen. 172 8.6 3.08 3 14

verb forms copular 138 6.9 3 1 9

intransitive 31 1.6 1 0 5

transitive 82 4.1 2.3 0 9

other 42 2.1 1.7 0 6

complex clauses relative cl. 61 3.1 2.4 0 10

subord. conj. 32 1.6 1 0 4

infinitive cl. 62 3.1 2 0 8

present part. 8 0.4 0.8 0 2

past part. 0 0 0 0 0

reported sp. 1 0 0 0 1

coord. conj. 32 1.6 1.1 0 5