Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T14:05:42.955Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When speech is ambiguous, gesture steps in: Sensitivity to discourse-pragmatic principles in early childhood

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2009

WING CHEE SO ,
ÖZLEM ECE DEMIR  and
SUSAN GOLDIN-MEADOW
WING CHEE SO*
Affiliation:
National University of Singapore
ÖZLEM ECE DEMIR
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
SUSAN GOLDIN-MEADOW
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Wing Chee So, Department of Psychology, National University of Singapore, BLK AS4 9 Arts Link, Singapore. E-mail: psyswc@nus.edu.sg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Young children produce gestures to disambiguate arguments. This study explores whether the gestures they produce are constrained by discourse-pragmatic principles: person and information status. We ask whether children use gesture more often to indicate the referents that have to be specified (i.e., third person and new referents) than the referents that do not have to be specified (i.e., first or second person and given referents). Chinese- and English-speaking children were videotaped while interacting spontaneously with adults, and their speech and gestures were coded for referential expressions. We found that both groups of children tended to use nouns when indicating third person and new referents but pronouns or null arguments when indicating first or second person and given referents. They also produced gestures more often when indicating third person and new referents, particularly when those referents were ambiguously conveyed by less explicit referring expressions (pronouns, null arguments). Thus Chinese- and English-speaking children show sensitivity to discourse-pragmatic principles not only in speech but also in gesture.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , January 2010 , pp. 209 - 224
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Allen, S., & Schroder, H. (2003). Preferred argument structure in early Inuktitut spontaneous speech data. In Du Bois, J. W., Kumpf, L., & Ashby, W. (Eds.), Preferred argument structure: Grammar and architecture for function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Allen, S. E. M. (2000). A discourse-pragmatic explanation for argument representation in child Inuktitut. Linguistics, 38, 483–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, S. E. M. (2007). Interacting pragmatic influences on children's argument realization. In Bowerman, M. & Brown, P. (Eds.), Crosslinguistic perspectives on argument structure: Implications for learnability (pp. 191–210). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bloom, P. (1990). Subjectless sentences in child language. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 721–734.Google Scholar
Butcher, C., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2000). Gesture and the transition from one- to two-word speech: When hand and mouth come together. In McNeill, D. (Ed.), Language and gesture (pp. 235–257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caselli, M. C., Vicari, S., Longobardi, E., Lami, L., Pizzoli, C., & Stella, G. (1998). Gestures and words in early development of children with Down syndrome. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 1125–1135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chafe, W. L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Li, C. N. (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 25–55). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1987). Cognitive constraints on information flow. In R. Tomlin (Ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse (pp. 21–53). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1996). Inferring identifiability and assessibility. In Fretheim, T. & Gundel, J. (Eds.), Reference and referent accessibility (pp. 37–46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clancy, P. M. (1993). Preferred argument structure in Korean acquisition. In Clark, E. V. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th Child Language Research Forum. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Chomksy, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Church, R. B., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (1986). The mismatch between gesture and speech as an index of transitional knowledge. Cognition, 23, 43–71.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (1980). A first dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Demir, E., & So, W. C. (2006). What's hidden in the hands? How children use gesture to convey arguments in a motion event. In Brugos, A., Clark-Cotton, M. R., & Ha, S. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 31st Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 172–183). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Dimitriadis, A. (1995). When pro-drop languages don't: On overt pronominal subjects in Greek. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, 2, 45–60.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. W. (1987). The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63, 805–855.Google Scholar
Evans, J., Alibali, M., & McNeill, N. M. (2001). Divergence of verbal expression and embodied knowledge: Evidence from speech and gesture in children with specific language impairment. Language and Cognitive Processes, 16, 309–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fex, B., & Mansson, A.-C. (1998). The use of gestures as a compensatory strategy in adults with acquired aphasia compared to children with specific language impairment (SLI). Journal of Neurolinguistics, 11, 191–206.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S. (2003). Hearing gesture: How our hands help us think. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S. (2005). The two faces of gesture: Language and thought. Gesture, 5, 239–255.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S., Alibali, M. W., & Church, R. B. (1993). Transitions in concept acquisition: Using the hand to read the mind. Psychological Review, 100, 279–297.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldin-Meadow, S., & Butcher, C. (2003). Pointing toward two-word speech in young children. In Kita, S. (Ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet (pp. 85–107). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S., & Mylander, C. (1984). Gestural communication in deaf children: The effects and non-effects of parental input on early language development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 49(No. 207).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S., & Saltzman, J. (2000). The cultural bounds of maternal accommodation: How Chinese and American mothers communicate with deaf and hearing children. Psychological Science, 11, 311–318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenfield, P. M., & Smith, J. H. (1976). The structure of communication in early language development. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grela, B. G. (2003). Production based theories may account for subject omission in normal children and children with SLI. Journal of Speech–Language Pathology and Audiology, 27, 221–228.Google Scholar
Guerriero, A. M. S., Oshima-Takane, Y., & Kuriyama, Y. (2006). The development of referential choice in English and Japanese: A discourse-pragmatic perspective. Journal of Child Language, 33, 823–857.Google Scholar
Gullberg, M., de Bot, K., & Volterra, V. (2008). Gestures and some key issues in the study of language development. Gesture, 8, 149–179.Google Scholar
Hartmann, R. R. K., & Stork, F. C. (1972). Dictionary of language and linguistics. London: Applied Science.Google Scholar
Huang, C. T. J. (1984). On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 15, 531–574.Google Scholar
Huang, C. T. J. (1994). On null subjects and null objects in generative grammar. Linguistics, 33, 1081–1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyams, N., & Wexler, K. (1993). On the grammatical basis of null subjects in child language. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 421–459.Google Scholar
Iverson, J. M., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2005). Gesture paves the way for language development. Psychological Science, 16, 367–371.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, J., & Naigles, L. R. (2005). Input to verb learning in Mandarin Chinese: A role for syntactic bootstrapping. Developmental Psychology, 41, 529–540.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (1991). Pragmatic reduction of the binding conditions revisited. Journal of Linguistics, 27, 107–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1987). Pragmatics and the grammar of anaphora: A partial pragmatic reduction of binding and control phenomena. Journal of Linguistics, 23, 379–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. (1979). Third-person pronouns and zero-anaphora in Chinese discourse. In Givon, T. (Ed.), Syntax and semantics: Discourse and syntax (Vol. 12, pp. 311–335). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayberry, R., & Nicoladis, E. (2000). Gesture reflects language development: Evidence from bilingual children. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 192–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gesture reveals about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McNeill, D. (2005). Gesture and thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narasimhan, B., Budwig, N., & Murty, L. (2005). Argument realization in Hindi caregiver–child discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 461–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Özçalışkan, S., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2005). Gesture is at the cutting edge of early language development. Cognition, 96, B101–B113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paradis, J., & Navarro, S. (2003). Subject realization and crosslinguistic interference in the bilingual acquisition of Spanish and English: What is the role of input? Journal of Child Language, 30, 371–393.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pei, M. A., & Gaynor, F. (1954). A dictionary of linguistics. New York: Philosophical Library.Google Scholar
Sauer, E., Levine, S. C., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2009). Early gesture predicts language delay in children with pre- and perinatal brain lesions. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Serratrice, L. (2005). The role of discourse pragmatics in the acquisition of subjects in Italian. Applied Psycholinguistics, 26, 437–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
So, W. C., Kita, S., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2009). Using the hands to identify who does what to whom: Gesture and speech go hand-in-hand. Cognitive Science, 33, 115–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stefanini, S., Caselli, M. C., & Volterra, V. (2007). Spoken and gestural production in a naming task by young children with Down syndrome. Brain and Language, 101, 208–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stefanini, S., Recchia, M., & Caselli, M. C. (2008). The relationship between spontaneous gesture production and spoken lexical ability in children with Down syndrome in a naming task. Gesture, 8, 197–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsao, F. (1990). Sentence and clause structure in Chinese: A function perspective. Taipei: Student Book.Google Scholar
Valian, V. (1991). Syntactic subjects in the early speech of American and Italian children. Cognition, 40, 21–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Volterra, V., Caselli, M. C., Capirci, O., & Pizzuto, E. (2005). Gesture and the emergence and development of language. In Tomasello, M. & Slobin, D. I. (Eds.), Beyond nature–nurture: Essays in honor of Elizabeth Bates (pp. 3–40). Mahwah, MJ; Erlbaum.Google Scholar