The representation of fathers by children of depressed mothers: refining the meaning of parentification in high-risk samples

Background: Children’s representations of mothers in doll-play are associated with child adjustment. Despite the importance of fathers for children’s adjustment, especially in the context of maternal psychopathology, few studies have considered children’s representations of their fathers. Method: We examined the portrayal of fathers by 5-year-old children of depressed (N = 55) and non-depressed (N = 39) mothers in a doll-play procedure concerning family experience. Results: Children gave equal prominence in their play to mothers and fathers. Representations of fathers were unrelated to maternal mood, but were associated with parental conflict. Representations of child care for the father that was unreciprocated predicted poor child adjustment in school, but only in children exposed to maternal postnatal depression. Conclusions: It may be clinically useful to consider children’s distinctive representations of their mother and father; but the concept of parentification in relation to risk and resilience effects requires refinement.

J. L. Austin and literal meaning

Alice Crary has recently developed a radical reading of J. L. Austin's philosophy of language. The central contention of Crary's reading is that Austin gives convincing reasons to reject the idea that sentences have context-invariant literal meaning. While I am in sympathy with Crary about the continuing importance of Austin's work, and I think Crary's reading is deep and interesting, I do not think literal sentence meaning is one of Austin's targets, and the arguments that Crary attributes to Austin or finds Austinian in spirit do not provide convincing reasons to reject literal sentence meaning. In this paper, I challenge Crary's reading of Austin and defend the idea of literal sentence meaning.

Analyzing the meaning of background speech is obligatory, distraction by meaning is not

The effects of background English and Welsh speech on memory for visually-presented English words were contrasted amongst monolingual English speakers and bilingual Welsh-English speakers. Equivalent disruption to the English language task was observed amongst Welsh-speaking bilinguals from both English and Welsh speech, but English-speaking monolinguals displayed less disruption from the Welsh speech. An effect of the meaning of the background speech was therefore apparent amongst bilinguals even when the focal memory task was presented in a different language from the distracting speech. A second experiment tested only English-speaking monolinguals, using English as background speech, but varied the demands of the focal task. Participants were asked either to count the number of vowels in words visually presented for future recall, or to rate them for pleasantness, before subsequently being asked to recall the words. Greater disruption to recall was observed from meaningful background speech when participants initially rated the words for pleasantness than when they initially counted the vowels within the words. These results show that background speech is automatically analyzed for meaning, but whether the meaning of the background speech causes distraction is critically dependent upon the nature of the focal task. The data underscore the need to consider not only the nature of office noise, but also the demands and content of the work task when assessing the effects of office noise on work performance.