Şeyda Özçalışkan 1 and Susan Goldin-Meadow 2
5. Types of meanings conveyed in child and parent iconic gestures
Children and parents produced approximately the same number of iconic gestures, and they displayed a marked increase at the 26-month age period in both tokens and types of iconic gestures. To further explore the relation between the iconic gestures produced by parent and child, we asked whether the particular meanings that the children con-veyed in their iconic gestures overlapped with the meanings that their parents concon-veyed.
To do so, we characterized the meaning of the iconic gestures in three different ways.
In the first analysis, we categorized iconic gestures according to whether the form of the gesture depicted an action associated with an object (e.g., flapping arms to con-vey flying) or a perceptual attribute characteristic of an object (e.g., pinching fingers to indicate small size). As has been reported in the literature (Acredolo & Goodwyn 1988), we found that the children used iconic gestures to convey action information more than the static perceptual attributes of an object (77% vs. 23%). We also found the same pattern for parents (76% vs. 24%; Figure 3). There were no reliable differ-ences between parent and child in the numbers of action, Mparent = 13.95 [SD = 16.56]
vs. Mchild = 9.38 [SD = 8.48], t(39) = 1.69, ns, or attribute, Mparent = 4.63 [SD = 5.41] vs.
Mchild = 3.58 [SD = 5.09] vs. t(39) = 1.22, ns, gestures produced.
Şeyda Özçalışkan and Susan Goldin-Meadow
Mean percent of iconic gestures produced by parents 0
Mean percent of iconic gestures produced by children
3A. Children 3B. Parents
Figure 3. Mean percent of iconic gestures conveying information about the actions (black bars) or attributes (gray bars) associated with an object produced by children (Panel A) and their parents (Panel B).
In the second analysis, we categorized iconic gestures according to whether the gesturer assumed the point of view of an object, animal or person (character viewpoint, e.g., the gesturer turned her whole body in circles to represent a mixer); whether the gesturer used her hand to represent an object, animal or person (observer viewpoint, e.g., the gesturer used a V-shaped hand to represent rabbit ears); or whether the gesturer used her hand to outline the shape or trajectory of an object, animal or person (trace gestures, e.g., the gesturer traced a circle in air to represent the circular path a horse follows).
McNeill (1992) reports a predominance of character viewpoint in children’s early icon-ic gestures. As can be seen in Figure 4A, we replicon-icated this pattern in our sample. There was a significant effect of viewpoint in children’s early iconic gestures, F(2,78) = 22.71, p < .001: children used character viewpoint gestures (66%) significantly more often than observer viewpoint gestures (24%), p < .001, which, in turn, were used more often than trace gestures (10%), p < .05. Parents, however, displayed a different pattern. Unlike the children, the parents did not differ in their use of different viewpoints, Figure 4B, F(2,78)
= 0.97, ns. Parents used character (36%), observer (28%), and trace (36%) gestures equally often. When compared to their children, parents produced significantly more observer gestures, t(39) = 2.37, p = .02, and trace gestures, t(39) = 5.42, p < .001.
In the third analysis, we classified each iconic gesture according to the particular meaning conveyed (running, throwing, big, small). We then examined the overlap of meaning glosses for parent and child in each dyad. Based on previous work suggest-ing that children learn iconic gestures in interactive routines with parents (Acredolo &
Goodwyn 1993), we expected that many of the child’s iconic gestures could be found in the parent’s gestural repertoire. Surprisingly, however, we found minimal overlap between child and parent iconic gestures. The proportion of meanings found in the children’s iconic gestures that were also found in their parents’ gestures was under 20%
throughout the observation sessions (Figure 5).4
4. This percentage could not be calculated at 14 months as only three children produced icon-ic gestures during this session.
Chapter 12. Is there an iconic gesture spurt at 26 months?
Percent number of gestures produced by children
Character viewpoint
Percent number of gestures produced by parents 4B. Parents 4A. Children
Figure 4. Mean percent of character viewpoints (black bars), observer viewpoints (gray bars) and traces conveyed in the iconic gestures of children (Panel A) and their parents (Panel B). Percent overlap in the meaning of iconic gestures
Figure 5. Mean percentage of meanings conveyed in a child’s iconic gestures that were also found in the parent’s gestures during that session.
5. Conclusions
Previous research has found that understanding the iconicity of a gesture is a relatively late achievement, beginning as late as 26 months (Namy & Waxman 1998, Namy 2001, Namy et al. 2004). Here we explored whether 26 months marks a similar turning point
Şeyda Özçalışkan and Susan Goldin-Meadow
in children’s production of iconic gestures. We found that children did indeed display a significant increase at 26 months in the number and types of iconic gestures that they produced during spontaneous interactions with their parents.
Why do we see a surge in iconic gestures at 26 months? One possible explanation for the relatively late occurrence of iconic gestures is that children are modeling their gestures after their parents’ gestures. The parents in our study not only produced the same number and types of iconic gestures as their children, they also displayed an in-crease in iconic gestures at the same time as their children. However, the fact that parents produced iconic gestures during the earliest sessions means that children had a model for iconic gestures at 14 months but didn’t appear to use it until 26 months, suggesting that the newly found interest in iconic gestures may have come from the children rather than the parents. Moreover, although both parents and children showed a similar pattern with respect to action and attribute iconic gestures (Figure 3), there was very little overlap in the particular iconic gestures that parents and children pro-duced (Figure 5) and children showed a different distribution of character vs. observer gestures than their parents (Figure 4). These differences lend weight to the hypothesis that the increase in iconic gestures in parents at child-age 26 months reflects, rather than causes, the increase in iconic gestures in children.
The relatively late occurrence of iconic gestures, particularly in relation to deictic gestures, may stem from the fact that the mapping between symbol and referent is less straightforward, and therefore more cognitively demanding, for iconic gestures than for deictic gestures. Deictic gestures map onto the perceptual world in a direct way;
they are used to indicate objects, people or locations that are perceptually cohesive and easily parsed out of the scene. In contrast, iconic gestures select their referents from a diffuse set of relational concepts, and may depend on the language one speaks (Kita &
Özyürek 2003, Özçalışkan et al. 2011). In fact, deictic gestures routinely precede chil-dren’s first nouns (Iverson & Goldin-Meadow 2005), whereas iconic gestures convey-ing action meanconvey-ings typically follow children’s first verbs (Özçalışkan et al. 2011), fur-ther reinforcing the idea that iconic gestures might be conceptually harder than deictic gestures. Iconic gestures may emerge as an outcome of related spoken language achievements, rather than being a precursor to such abilities.
In summary, we have shown that children begin to produce iconic gestures in earnest at around 26 months of age. Although parents also increase their production of iconic gestures at this same time, there is reason to believe that their gestures reflect, rather than cause, changes in the child. Indeed, the fact that children begin to produce iconic gestures at just the moment that they seem to understand iconicity in gesture suggests that this moment may be a turning point in the child’s grasp of the iconicity of a symbol.
Chapter 12. Is there an iconic gesture spurt at 26 months?
Acknowledgements
We thank K.Schonwald and J.Voigt for their administrative and technical support and the project research assistants, K.Brasky, E.Croft, K.Duboc, Becky Free, J.Griffin, S.
Gripshover, C.Meanwell, E.Mellum, M.Nikolas, J.Oberholtzer, L.Rissman, L. Sch-neidman, B.Seibel, K.Uttich, and J.Wallman, for their help in collecting and transcrib-ing the data. The research presented in this paper was supported by grant #PO1 HD406-05 to Goldin-Meadow.
References
Acredolo, L. P. and Goodwyn, S. W. 1985. “Symbolic gesturing in language development.” Hu-man Development 28: 40–49.
Acredolo, L. P. and Goodwyn, S. W. 1988. “Symbolic gesturing in normal infants.” Child Development 59: 450–466.
Acredolo, L. P. and Goodwyn, S. W. 2002. Baby Signs. New York: McGraw Hill.
Bates, E. 1976. Language and Context. New York: Academic Press.
Bates, E., Benigni, L., Bretherton, I., Camanioni, L. and Volterra, V. 1979. The Emergence of Sym-bols: Cognition and Communication in Infancy. New York: Academic Press.
Bekken, K. 1989. Is There Motherese in Gesture? Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Chicago.
Buttterworth, G. and Grover, L. 1988. “The origins of referential communication in human in-fancy.” In Thought without Language, L. Wiskrantz (ed), 5–24. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Goodwyn, S. W., Acredolo, L. P. and Brown, C.A. 2000. “Impact of symbolic gesturing in early language development.” Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 24 (2): 81–103.
Greenfield, P. and Smith, J. 1976. The Structure of Communication in Early Language Develop-ment. New York: Academic Press.
Iverson, J. M., Capirci, O. and Caselli, M. C. 1994. “From communication to language in two modalities.” Cognitive Development 9: 23–43.
Iverson, J. M., Capirci, O., Longobardi, E. and Caselli, M. C. 1999. “Gesturing in mother-child interactions.” Cognitive Development 14: 57–75.
Iverson, J. M. and Goldin-Meadow, S. 2005. “Gesture paves the way for language development.”
Psychological Science 16: 368–371.
Kita, S., and Özyürek, A. 2003. “What does cross-linguistic variation in semantic coordination of speech and gesture reveal? Evidence for an interface representation of spatial thinking and speaking.” Journal of Memory and Language 48 (1): 16–32.
LeBarton, E. S. and Goldin-Meadow, S. 2010. “Experimentally-induced increases in early ges-ture lead to increases in spoken vocabulary.” Under review.
McNeill, D. 1992. Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Language and Thought. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Namy, L. L. 2001. “What’s in a name when it isn’t a word? 17-month-olds’ mapping of nonverbal symbols to object categories.” Infancy 2: 73–86.
Şeyda Özçalışkan and Susan Goldin-Meadow
Namy, L. L., Campbell, A. L. and Tomasello, M. 2004. “The changing role of iconicity in non-verbal symbol learning: A U-Shaped trajectory in the acquisition of arbitrary gestures.”
Journal of Cognition and Development 5 (1): 37–57.
Namy, L. L. and Waxman, S. 1998. “Words and symbolic gestures: Infants’ interpretations of dif-ferent forms of symbolic reference.” Child Development 69: 295–308.
Nicoladis, E., Mayberry, R. I. and Genesee, F. 1999. “Gesture and early bilingual development.”
Developmental Psychology 35 (2): 514–526.
Özçalışkan, Ş. and Goldin-Meadow, S. 2005a. “Do parents lead their children by the hand?”
Journal of Child Language 32 (3): 481–505.
Özçalışkan, Ş. and Goldin-Meadow, S. 2005b. “Gesture is at the cutting edge of early language development.” Cognition 96 (3): B101–B113.
Özçalışkan, Ş. and Goldin-Meadow, S. 2009. “When gesture-speech combinations do and do not index linguistic change.” Language and Cognitive Processes 28 (24): 190–217.
Özçalışkan, Ş., Gentner, D. and Goldin-Meadow, S. 2010. “Do iconic gestures pave the way for children’s early verbs?” Under review.
Rowe, M., Özçalışkan, Ş. and Goldin-Meadow, S. 2008. “Early gesture production and compre-hension provide a helping hand for later vocabulary skills.” First Language 28 (2): 185–203.
Rowe, M. and Goldin-Meadow, S. 2009. “Differences in early gesture explain SES disparities in child vocabulary size at school entry.” Science 323: 951–953.