Publications

Abstract

Gestures express redundant or complementary information to speech they accompany by depicting visual and spatial features of referents. In doing so, they recruit both spatial and verbal cognitive resources that underpin the processing of visual semantic information and its integration with speech. The relation between spatial and verbal skills and gesture comprehension, where gestures may serve different roles in relation to speech is yet to be explored. This study examined the role of spatial and verbal skills in processing gestures that expressed redundant or complementary information to speech during the comprehension of spatial relations between objects. Turkish-speaking adults (N=74) watched videos describing the spatial location of objects that involved perspective-taking (left-right) or not (on-under) with speech and gesture. Gestures either conveyed redundant information to speech (e.g., saying and gesturing “left”) or complemented the accompanying demonstrative in speech (e.g., saying “here,” gesturing “left”). We also measured participants’ spatial (the Corsi block span and the mental rotation tasks) and verbal skills (the digit span task). Our results revealed nuanced interactions between these skills and spatial language comprehension, depending on the modality in which the information was expressed. One insight emerged prominently. Spatial skills, particularly spatial working memory capacity, were related to enhanced comprehension of visual semantic information conveyed through gestures especially when this information was not present in the accompanying speech. This study highlights the critical role of spatial working memory in gesture processing and underscores the importance of examining the interplay among cognitive and contextual factors to understand the complex dynamics of multimodal language.

Abstract

In spoken languages, children acquire locative terms in a cross-linguistically stable order. Terms similar in meaning to in and on emerge earlier than those similar to front and behind, followed by left and right. This order has been attributed to the complexity of the relations expressed by different locative terms. An additional possibility is that children may be delayed in expressing certain spatial meanings partly due to difficulties in discovering the mappings between locative terms in speech and spatial relation they express. We investigate cognitive and mapping difficulties in the domain of spatial language by comparing how children map spatial meanings onto speech versus visually motivated forms in co-speech gesture across different spatial relations. Twenty-four 8-year-old and 23 adult native Turkish-speakers described four-picture displays where the target picture depicted in-on, front-behind, or left-right relations between objects. As the complexity of spatial relations increased, children were more likely to rely on gestures as opposed to speech to informatively express the spatial relation. Adults overwhelmingly relied on speech to informatively express the spatial relation, and this did not change across the complexity of spatial relations. Nevertheless, even when spatial expressions in both speech and co-speech gesture were considered, children lagged behind adults when expressing the most complex left-right relations. These findings suggest that cognitive development and mapping difficulties introduced by the modality of expressions interact in shaping the development of spatial language.

Abstract

Pragmatic development requires the ability to use linguistic forms, along with non-verbal cues, to focus an interlocutor's attention on a referent during conversation. We investigate the development of this ability by examining how the use of demonstratives is learned in Turkish, where a three-way demonstrative system (bu, su, o) obligatorily encodes both distance contrasts (i.e. proximal and distal) and absence or presence of the addressee's visual attention on the referent. A comparison of the demonstrative use by Turkish children (6 four- and 6 six-year-olds) and 6 adults during conversation shows that adultlike use of attention directing demonstrative, su, is not mastered even at the age of six, while the distance contrasts are learned earlier. This language specific development reveals that designing referential forms in consideration of recipient's attentional status during conversation is a pragmatic feat that takes more than six years to develop.