Pre-schoolers use head gestures rather than prosodic cues to highlight important information in speech

Previous evidence suggests that children's mastery of prosodic modulations to signal the informational status of discourse referents emerges quite late in development. In the present study, we investigate the children's use of head gestures as it compares to prosodic cues to signal a referent as being contrastive relative to a set of possible alternatives. A group of French-speaking pre-schoolers were audio-visually recorded while playing in a semi-spontaneous but controlled production task, to elicit target words in the context of broad focus, contrastive focus, or corrective focus utterances. We analysed the acoustic features of the target words (syllable duration and word-level pitch range), as well as the head gesture features accompanying these target words (head gesture type, alignment patterns with speech). We found that children's production of head gestures, but not their use of either syllable duration or word-level pitch range, was affected by focus condition. Children mostly aligned head gestures with relevant speech units, especially when the target word was in phrase-final position. Moreover, the presence of a head gesture was linked to greater syllable duration patterns in all focus conditions. Our results show that (a) 4- and 5-year-old French-speaking children use head gestures rather than prosodic cues to mark the informational status of discourse referents, (b) the use of head gestures may gradually entrain the production of adult-like prosodic features, and that (c) head gestures with no referential relation with speech may serve a linguistic structuring function in communication, at least during language development.     

When do gestures communicate? A meta-analysis

Do the gestures that speakers produce while talking significantly benefit listeners' comprehension of the message? This question has been the topic of many research studies over the previous 35 years, and there has been little consensus. The present meta-analysis examined the effect sizes from 63 samples in which listeners' understanding of a message was compared when speech was presented alone with when speech was presented with gestures. It was found that across samples, gestures do provide a significant, moderate benefit to communication. Furthermore, the magnitude of this effect is moderated by 3 factors. First, effects of gesture differ as a function of gesture topic, such that gestures that depict motor actions are more communicative than those that depict abstract topics. Second, effects of gesture on communication are larger when the gestures are not completely redundant with the accompanying speech; effects are smaller when there is more overlap between the information conveyed in the 2 modalities. Third, the size of the effect of gesture is dependent on the age of the listeners, such that children benefit more from gestures than do adults. Remaining questions for future research are highlighted.     

Are number gestures easier than number words for preschoolers?

Some researchers have argued that children's earliest symbols are based on their sensorimotor experience and that arbitrary symbol-referent mapping poses a challenge for them. If so, exposure to iconic symbols (such as one-finger-for-one-object manual gestures) might help children in a difficult domain such as number. We assessed 44 preschoolers’ processing of number gestures and number words on two tasks: give-a-number and how-many. Children were generally more accurate when mapping number words than number gestures onto a number of toys, suggesting that the iconicity of number gestures does not help children map symbols to numbers. We argue that children learn number gestures as arbitrary symbols and do not take advantage of their iconicity.     

Hands in the air: using ungrounded iconic gestures to teach children conservation of quantity

Including gesture in instruction facilitates learning. Why? One possibility is that gesture points out objects in the immediate context and thus helps ground the words learners hear in the world they see. Previous work on gesture's role in instruction has used gestures that either point to or trace paths on objects, thus providing support for this hypothesis. The experiments described here investigated the possibility that gesture helps children learn even when it is not produced in relation to an object but is instead produced "in the air." Children were given instruction in Piagetian conservation problems with or without gesture and with or without concrete objects. The results indicate that children given instruction with speech and gesture learned more about conservation than children given instruction with speech alone, whether or not objects were present during instruction. Gesture in instruction can thus help learners learn even when those gestures do not direct attention to visible objects, suggesting that gesture can do more for learners than simply ground arbitrary, symbolic language in the physical, observable world.     

Do conversational hand gestures communicate?

In 5 experiments, male and female undergraduates viewed gestures and tried to select the words that originally accompanied them; read interpretations of gestures' meanings and tried to select the words that originally had accompanied them; tried to recognize gestures they previously had seen, presented either with or without the accompanying speech; and assigned gestures and the accompanying speech to semantic categories. On all 4 tasks, performance was better than chance but markedly inferior to performance when words were used as stimuli. Judgments of a gesture's semantic category were determined principally by the accompanying speech rather than gestural form. It is concluded that although gestures can convey some information, they are not richly informative, and the information they convey is largely redundant with speech.     

Young children use their hands to tell their mothers what to say

Children produce their first gestures before their first words, and their first gesture+word sentences before their first word+word sentences. These gestural accomplishments have been found not only to predate linguistic milestones, but also to predict them. Findings of this sort suggest that gesture itself might be playing a role in the language‐learning process. But what role does it play? Children's gestures could elicit from their mothers the kinds of words and sentences that the children need to hear in order to take their next linguistic step. We examined maternal responses to the gestures and speech that 10 children produced during the one‐word period. We found that all 10 mothers ‘translated’ their children's gestures into words, providing timely models for how one‐ and two‐word ideas can be expressed in English. Gesture thus offers a mechanism by which children can point out their thoughts to mothers, who then calibrate their speech to those thoughts, and potentially facilitate language‐learning.     

The role of gestures in spatial working memory and speech

Co-speech gestures traditionally have been considered communicative, but they may also serve other functions. For example, hand-arm movements seem to facilitate both spatial working memory and speech production. It has been proposed that gestures facilitate speech indirectly by sustaining spatial representations in working memory. Alternatively, gestures may affect speech production directly by activating embodied semantic representations involved in lexical search. Consistent with the first hypothesis, we found participants gestured more when describing visual objects from memory and when describing objects that were difficult to remember and encode verbally. However, they also gestured when describing a visually accessible object, and gesture restriction produced dysfluent speech even when spatial memory was untaxed, suggesting that gestures can directly affect both spatial memory and lexical retrieval.     

Spoken and gestural production in a naming task by young children with Down syndrome

Lexical production in children with Down syndrome (DS) was investigated by examining spoken naming accuracy and the use of spontaneous gestures in a picture naming task. Fifteen children with DS (range 3.8-8.3 years) were compared to typically developing children (TD), matched for chronological age and developmental age (range 2.6-4.3 years). Relative to TD children, children with DS were less accurate in speech (producing a greater number of unintelligible answers), yet they produced more gestures overall and of these a significantly higher percentage of iconic gestures. Furthermore, the iconic gestures produced by children with DS accompanied by incorrect or no speech often expressed a concept similar to that of the target word, suggesting deeper conceptual knowledge relative to that expressed only in speech.     

口语产生中词频效应、音节频率效应和语音促进效应的认知年老化

采用图画-词汇干扰实验范式,考察了汉语口语产生过程中词频与音节频率效应、语音促进效应的认知年老化现象及其认知机制。结果发现,老年组的图画命名时间长于青年组,且老年组的词频效应和音节频率效应高于青年组,而语音相关效应低于青年组。老年组中词频和音节频率存在两因素交互作用,青年组则没有,这表明随着年龄增加,老年人的心理词典中不仅语义水平和音韵水平之间的联结强度变弱,而且信息之间的作用模式发生了变化。研究结果为激活不充分假设或传输不足假设提供了证据。     

Early Gesture Provides a Helping Hand to Spoken Vocabulary Development for Children with Autism,Down Syndrome,and Typical Development

Typically developing (TD) children refer to objects uniquely in gesture (e.g., point at a cat) before they produce verbal labels for these objects (“cat”). The onset of such gestures predicts the onset of similar spoken words, showing a strong positive relation between early gestures and early words. We asked whether gesture plays the same door-opening role in word learning for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and Down syndrome (DS), who show delayed vocabulary development and who differ in the strength of gesture production. To answer this question, we observed 23 18-month-old TD children, 23 30-month-old children with ASD, and 23 30-month-old children with DS 5 times over a year during parent–child interactions. Children in all 3 groups initially expressed a greater proportion of referents uniquely in gesture than in speech. Many of these unique gestures subsequently entered children’s spoken vocabularies within a year—a pattern that was slightly less robust for children with DS, whose word production was the most markedly delayed. These results indicate that gesture is as fundamental to vocabulary development for children with developmental disorders as it is for TD children.     

Muscular Activity in the Arm during Lexical Retrieval: Implications for Gesture-Speech Theories

The origin and functions of the hand and arm gestures that accompany speech production are poorly understood. It has been proposed that gestures facilitate lexical retrieval, but little is known about when retrieval is accompanied by gestural activity and how this activity is related to the semantics of the word to be retrieved. Electromyographic (EMG) activity of the dominant forearm was recorded during a retrieval task in which participants tried to identify target words from their definitions. EMG amplitudes were significantly greater for concrete than for abstract words. The relationship between EMG amplitude and other conceptual attributes of the target words was examined. EMG was positively related to a word’s judged spatiality, concreteness, drawability, and manipulability. The implications of these findings for theories of the relation between speech production and gesture are discussed.This experiment was done by the first author under the supervision of the second author in partial completion of the Ph.D. degree at Columbia University. We gratefully acknowledge the advice and comments of Lois Putnam, Robert Remez, James Magnuson, Michele Miozzo, and Robert B. Tallarico, and the assistance of Stephen Krieger, Lauren Walsh, Jennifer Kim, and Jillian White.     

Co‐thought gestures in children's mental problem solving: Prevalence and effects on subsequent performance

Co‐thought gestures are understudied as compared to co‐speech gestures yet, may provide insight into cognitive functions of gestures that are independent of speech processes. A recent study with adults showed that co‐thought gesticulation occurred spontaneously during mental preparation of problem solving. Moreover, co‐thought gesturing (either spontaneous or instructed) during mental preparation was effective for subsequent solving of the Tower of Hanoi under conditions of high cognitive load (i.e., when visual working memory capacity was limited and when the task was more difficult). In this preregistered study ( https://osf.io/dreks/ ), we investigated whether co‐thought gestures would also spontaneously occur and would aid problem‐solving processes in children (N = 74; 8–12 years old) under high load conditions. Although children also spontaneously used co‐thought gestures during mental problem solving, this did not aid their subsequent performance when physically solving the problem. If these null results are on track, co‐thought gesture effects may be different in adults and children.     

The Changing Role of Gesture in Linguistic Development: A Developmental Trajectory and a Cross-Cultural Comparison Between British and Finnish Children

We studied how gesture use changes with culture, age and increased spoken language competence. A picture-naming task was presented to British (N = 80) and Finnish (N = 41) typically developing children aged 2–5 years. British children were found to gesture more than Finnish children and, in both cultures, gesture production decreased after the age of two. Two-year-olds used more deictic than iconic gestures than older children, and gestured more before the onset of speech, rather than simultaneously or after speech. The British 3- and 5-year-olds gestured significantly more when naming praxic (manipulable) items than non-praxic items. Our results support the view that gesture serves a communicative and intrapersonal function, and the relative function may change with age. Speech and language therapists and psychologists observe the development of children’s gestures and make predictions on the basis of their frequency and type. To prevent drawing erroneous conclusions about children’s linguistic development, it is important to understand developmental and cultural variations in gesture use.     

儿童手势及其与学习的关系

手势是在交流或认知过程中产生的、不直接作用于物体的手部运动, 具有具体性和抽象性。其分类主要从手势的来源、手势的内容、手势的意图及手势和言语的匹配性等角度进行划分。不同类型手势在出现时间及发展趋势上存在差异。手势在儿童词汇学习、言语表达、数学问题解决、空间学习及记忆等方面起促进作用, 但对言语理解的影响未得出一致结论。未来可关注不同类型手势与儿童认知发展的关系及对比不同来源手势在各学习领域的优势情况。     

An fMRI investigation of covertly and overtly produced mono- and multisyllabic words

Studies suggest that the left insula may play an important role in speech motor programming. We used functional magnetic resonance imaging to investigate the role of the left insula in the production of monosyllabic or multisyllabic words during overt and covert speech conditions. The left insula did not show a BOLD response for multisyllabic words (which should require more speech motor programming) that was different from that for monosyllabic words. Left parietal lobe regions showed a greater response for multisyllabic as compared to monosyllabic words. This is consistent with clinical studies showing that left parietal lobe lesions can produce a deficit in speech programming. Despite similarities, covert and overt speech did not demonstrate the same patterns of BOLD response. The BOLD response was greater during overt speech in areas that have been shown to play an important role in speech production including left premotor cortex/BA6, left primary motor cortex, left insula, and left superior temporal gyrus.     

A cross-cultural study of the communication of extra-verbal meaning by gestures(1)

English and Italian encoders were asked to communicate two-dimensional shapes to decoders of their own culture, with and without the use of hand gestures, for materials of high and low verbal codability. The decoders drew what they thought the shapes were and these were rated by English and Italian judges, for similarity to the originals. Higher accuracy scores were obtained by both the English and the Italians, when gestures were allowed, for materials of both high and low codability; but the effect of using gestures was greater for materials of low codability. Improvement in performance when gestures were allowed was greater for the Italians than for the English for both levels of codability. An analysis of the recorded verbal utterances has shown that the detriment in communication accuracy with the elimination of gestures cannot be attributed to disruption of speech performance; rather, changes in speech content occur indicating an increased reliance on verbal means of conveying spatial information. Nevertheless, gestures convey this kind of semantic information more accurately and evidence is provided for the gestures of the Italians communicating this information more effectively than those of the English.     

Gesture and early bilingual development

The relationship between speech and gestural proficiency was investigated longitudinally (from 2 years to 3 years 6 months, at 6-month intervals) in 5 French-English bilingual boys with varying proficiency in their 2 languages. Because of their different levels of proficiency in the 2 languages at the same age, these children's data were used to examine the relative contribution of language and cognitive development to gestural development. In terms of rate of gesture production, rate of gesture production with speech, and meaning of gesture and speech, the children used gestures much like adults from 2 years on. In contrast, the use of iconic and beat gestures showed differential development in the children's 2 languages as a function of mean length of utterance. These data suggest that the development of these kinds of gestures may be more closely linked to language development than other kinds (such as points). Reasons why this might be so are discussed.     

Iconicity in the speech of children and adults

Iconicity – the correspondence between form and meaning – may help young children learn to use new words. Early‐learned words are higher in iconicity than later learned words. However, it remains unclear what role iconicity may play in actual language use. Here, we ask whether iconicity relates not just to the age at which words are acquired, but also to how frequently children and adults use the words in their speech. If iconicity serves to bootstrap word learning, then we would expect that children should say highly iconic words more frequently than less iconic words, especially early in development. We would also expect adults to use iconic words more often when speaking to children than to other adults. We examined the relationship between frequency and iconicity for approximately 2000 English words. Replicating previous findings, we found that more iconic words are learned earlier. Moreover, we found that more iconic words tend to be used more by younger children, and adults use more iconic words when speaking to children than to other adults. Together, our results show that young children not only learn words rated high in iconicity earlier than words low in iconicity, but they also produce these words more frequently in conversation – a pattern that is reciprocated by adults when speaking with children. Thus, the earliest conversations of children are relatively higher in iconicity, suggesting that this iconicity scaffolds the production and comprehension of spoken language during early development.