Phonological characteristics of novel gesture production in children with developmental language disorder: Longitudinal findings

Children with developmental language disorder (DLD; aka specific language impairment) are characterized based on deficits in language, especially morphosyntax, in the absence of other explanatory conditions. However, deficits in speech production, as well as fine and gross motor skill, have also been observed, implicating both the linguistic and motor systems. Situated at the intersection of these domains, and providing insight into both, is manual gesture. In the current work, we asked whether children with DLD showed phonological deficits in the production of novel gestures and whether gesture production at 4 years of age is related to language and motor outcomes two years later. Twenty-eight children (14 with DLD) participated in a two-year longitudinal novel gesture production study. At the first and final time points, language and fine motor skills were measured and gestures were analyzed for phonological feature accuracy, including handshape, path, and orientation. Results indicated that, while early deficits in phonological accuracy did not persist for children with DLD, all children struggled with orientation while handshape was the most accurate. Early handshape and orientation accuracy were also predictive of later language skill, but only for the children with DLD. Theoretical and clinical implications of these findings are discussed.

Oral Motor and Gesture Abilities Independently Associated With Preschool Language Skill: Longitudinal and Concurrent Relationships at 21 Months and 3–4 Years

Purpose Early motor abilities (gesture, oral motor, and gross/fine skills) are related to language abilities, and this is not due to an association with cognitive or symbolic abilities: Oral motor skills are uniquely associated with language abilities at 21 months of age. It is important to determine whether this motor–language relationship continues beyond the earliest stage of language development to understand language acquisition better and better predict which children may have lasting language difficulties. Method In this longitudinal study, we assessed language comprehension and production, oral motor skill, gross/fine motor skill, and meaningless manual gesture at ages 3 years ( N = 89) and 4 years ( N = 71), comparing the contribution of motor skill and earlier (at 21 months of age) language ability. We also examined covariates: nonverbal cognitive ability, socioeconomic status, and stimulation in the home as measured on the Home Screening Questionnaire. Results Motor abilities continue to have a significant relationship with language abilities independent of other factors in the preschool years. Meaningless manual gesture ability, gross/fine motor skill, and oral motor skill were still associated with language skill at 3 years of age; these relationships are not explained by the contribution of cognitive abilities or earlier language abilities. Conclusions Relationships between early motor skill and language development persist into preschool years and are not explained by other cognitive or home factors, nor by a relationship with earlier language ability. This finding should lead to a better understanding of the origins of language abilities.

Gestures of the abstract

Speakers perform manual gestures in the physical space nearest them, called gesture space. We used a controlled elicitation task to explore whether speakers use gesture space in a consistent way (assign spaces to ideas and use those spaces for those ideas) and whether they use space in a contrastive way (assign different spaces to different ideas when using contrastive speech) when talking about abstract referents. Participants answered two questions designed to elicit contrastive, abstract discourse. We investigated manual gesture behavior. Gesture hand, location on the horizontal axis, and referent in corresponding speech were coded. We also coded contrast in speech. Participants’ overall tendency to use the same hand (t(17) = 13.12, p = .001, 95% CI [.31, .43], d = 2.53) and same location (t(17) = 7.47, p = .001, 95% CI [.27, .47], d = 1.69) when referring to an entity was higher than expected frequency. When comparing pairs of gestures produced with contrastive speech to pairs of gestures produced with non-contrastive speech, we found a greater tendency to produce gestures with different hands for contrastive speech: (t(17) = 4.19, p = .001, 95% CI [.27, .82], d = 1.42). We did not find associations between dominant side and positive concepts or between left, center, and right space and past, present, and future, respectively, as predicted by previous studies. Taken together, our findings suggest that speakers do produce spatially consistent and contrastive gestures for abstract as well as concrete referents. They may be using spatial resources to assist with abstract thinking, and/or to help interlocutors with reference tracking. Our findings also highlight the complexity of predicting gesture hand and location, which appears to be the outcome of many competing variables.

Functional and temporal relations between spoken and gestured components of language

Based on the Bielefeld Speech and Gesture Alignment Corpus (Lücking et al. 2013), this paper presents a systematic comparison of the linguistic characteristics of unimodal (speech only) and multimodal (gesture-accompanied) forms of language use. The results suggest that each of these two modes of expression is characterized by statistical preferences for certain types of words and grammatical categories. The words that are most frequently accompanied by a manual gesture, when controlled for their total frequency, include unspecific spatial lexemes, various deictic words, and particles that express difficulty in word retrieval or formulation. Other linguistic items, including pronouns and verbs of cognition, show a strong dispreference for being gesture-accompanied. The second part of the paper shows that gestures do not occur within a fixed time window relative to the word(s) they relate to, but the preferred temporal distance varies with the type of functional relation that exists between the verbal and gestural channel.

Uncommon resemblance

Research on manual gesture has been preoccupied with unconventionalized and conventionalized extremes. Homesigns developed spontaneously by deaf children unexposed to standardized sign languages have been used as a window onto more general socio-cognitive processes of semiotic systemization. Spontaneous, idiosyncratic gesticulation has been contrasted with shared, highly regimented “emblematic” or “quotable” gestures to reveal a cline of conventionalization. I direct attention here to the vast and relatively understudied middle ground in which manual gesture shows evidence of only partial conventionalization. Using a corpus of televised political debate data from a US presidential campaign cycle, I note, first, that there is nothing as coherent and systematized as a “register” of political gesture here. Focusing on gesture variation in precision-grip and index-finger-extended gestures of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, I identify form-functional “pragmatic affinities” among gestures that have not crystallized into stable types or classes. Dwelling on the specificities of gesture variation, with its mercurial forms and incomplete conventionalization, may allow us to appreciate the processual complexities of gestural enregisterment in social and historical life.

Visible movements of the orofacial area

The age-old debate between the proponents of the gesture-first and speech-first positions has returned to occupy a central place in current language evolution theorizing. The gestural scenarios, suffering from the problem known as “modality transition” (why a gestural system would have changed into a predominantly spoken system), frequently appeal to the gestures of the orofacial area as a platform for this putative transition. Here, we review currently available evidence on the significance of the orofacial area in language evolution. While our review offers some support for orofacial movements as an evolutionary “bridge” between manual gesture and speech, we see the evidence as far more consistent with a multimodal approach. We also suggest that, more generally, the “gestural versus spoken” formulation is limiting and would be better expressed in terms of the relative input and interplay of the visual and vocal-auditory sensory modalities.

From Action-Oriented Perception to Language

This article is primarily an extended summary of a talk presented to the Seventh Conference of the Nordic Association for Semiotic Studies (NASS), Lund University, Sweden in May 2011, presenting the Mirror System Hypothesis, which emphasizes the role of imitation and manual gesture in the evolution of the language-ready brain. An Afterword offers pointers to a number of subsequent publications that build upon the theory presented there.

Iconicity in vocalization, comparisons with gesture, and implications for theories on the evolution of language

Scholars have often reasoned that vocalizations are extremely limited in their potential for iconic expression, especially in comparison to manual gestures (e.g., Armstrong & Wilcox, 2007; Tomasello, 2008). As evidence for an alternative view, we first review the growing body of research related to iconicity in vocalizations, including experimental work on sound symbolism, cross-linguistic studies documenting iconicity in the grammars and lexicons of languages, and experimental studies that examine iconicity in the production of speech and vocalizations. We then report an experiment in which participants created vocalizations to communicate 60 different meanings, including 30 antonymic pairs. The vocalizations were measured along several acoustic properties, and these properties were compared between antonyms. Participants were highly consistent in the kinds of sounds they produced for the majority of meanings, supporting the hypothesis that vocalization has considerable potential for iconicity. In light of these findings, we present a comparison between vocalization and manual gesture, and examine the detailed ways in which each modality can function in the iconic expression of particular kinds of meanings. We further discuss the role of iconic vocalizations and gesture in the evolution of language since our divergence from the great apes. In conclusion, we suggest that human communication is best understood as an ensemble of kinesis and vocalization, not just speech, in which expression in both modalities spans the range from arbitrary to iconic.