LangandGesture PDF

Developmental Psychology Copyright 1989 by the American Psychological Association, t~e.
1989, Vol. 25, No. 6, 1004-1019 0012-1649/89/$00.75

Integrating Language and Gesture in Infancy
Elizabeth Bates and Donna Thal
University of California, San Diego
Kimberly Whitesell
University of California, San Francisco
Larry Fenson
San Diego State University
Lisa Oakes
University of Texas, Austin
Whether language/gesture correlations in early language development can be explained by parallel-
ism or comprehension mediation was examined. Study 1, parental report data for 95 l-year-olds,
suggested that word comprehension and production are dissociated in this age range and that the
comprehension and production factors map onto distinct aspects of gesture. Study 2 tested 41 13-15-
month-olds in a task in which the modeled gesture was accompanied by supportive, contradictory, or
neutral narratives. Results showed that infants can use adult speech as an aid in reproduction of
modeled gestures (comprehension mediation). However, there is still additional variance in gestural
production that correlates with expressive vocabulary when comprehension-related variance is re-
moved. Thus, comprehension mediation and parallelism both appear to be operating.
Before they are 18 months old, most children discover the
idea that things have names (i.e., that words can be used to
recognize, request, label, categorize and represent obj ects in the
world). This discovery is preceded by evidence for word com-
prehension and is either preceded or accompanied by the use of
conventional gestural schemes in communication or in play
with objects, or in both. Piaget (1962) and Werner and Kaplan
(1963) have argued that this temporal synchrony is no accident.
Their approach is based on the idea of parallelism (i.e., that
linguistic and gestural schemes for obj ects are related in early
development because they both depend on a common underly-
ing symbolic function). Thus, word comprehension, word pro-
duction, and symbolic play are clear, public manifestations of a
much more general cognitive shift from sensorimotor process-
ing to the use of symbols in many aspects of thinking, probl em
solving, and communication (for reviews see Bates, Bretherton,
Shore & MeNew, 1983; Leonard, 1988; Shore, Bates, Brether-
ton, Beeghly, & O' Connell, in press; Shore, O' Connell, & Bates,
1984; Voiterra & Caselli, 1985).
The Piaget/Werner hypothesis has been influential, but it is
also controversial. A host of correlational studies appeared
across the 1970s and 1980s, examining associations and disso-
ciations between early language and other sensorimotor do-
mains (for reviews, see Bates, O' Connell, & Shore, 1987; Bates
& Snyder, 1987; Harris, 1983; Johnston, 1985). In general,
these studies provided evidence against a global, cross-domain
stage shift from sensorimotor to symbolic functioning (see also
Uzgiris & Hunt, 1978, 1987). Summarizing, some nonlinguis-
This research was supported by a grant from the John D. and Cather-
ine T. MacArthur Foundation Research Network on the Transition
From Infancy to Early Childhood, and by a National Institutes of
Health First Investigator Award (PHS NS 19639) to Donna Thai.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressedto Eliza-
beth Bates, Department of Psychology C-009, University of California,
San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093.
tic measures are indeed reliably correlated with the emergence
of naming (e.g., means-end behaviors or tool use, and aspects
of symbolic play). However, several other cognitive domains ap-
pear to be completely dissociable from early language (e.g., spa-
tial cognition and traditional tests of obj ect permanence).
Because the Piaget/Werner hypothesis appears to have failed
in its strongest form (i.e., single-factor parallelism), some inves-
tigators have argued that language develops along a matura-
tional course that is independent from other aspects of cogni-
tion (Curtiss & Yamada, 1978; Curtiss, Yamada, & Fromkin,
1980; Harris, 1983; Petitto, 1988). Such developmental inde-
pendence would provide support for Chomksy' s long-standing
argument that language is an autonomous, encapsulated,
" modul ar" cognitive system (Chomsky, 1965, 1980; Fodor,
1983; Roeper & Williams, 1987). However, strong arguments
for aut onomy (like strong arguments for parallelism) are not
easily reconciled with the fact that at least some aspects of non-
verbal cognition (e.g., symbolic play) are reliably associated
with progress in language. There appears to be room for com-
promise between these two strong positions.
A number of investigators have offered compromise views to
explain the relation between language and cognitive develop-
ment, alternatively referred to as local homology (Bates, Be-
nigni, Bretherton, Camaioni, & Volterra, 1977), skill theory
(Corrigan, 1978; Fischer, 1980), and the specificity hypothesis
( Gopnik & Meltzoff, 1986, 1987). Although they differ in detail,
these theories are all based on the claim that language-cogni-
tion relations are many-t o-many rather than one-to-one. Lan-
guage itself is composed of many separate, underlying skills or
mechanisms. Some of these components may be specific to lan-
guage; other components are shared by several cognitive do-
mains, resulting in significant cross-domain correlations at
those points in development when a shared component is "com-
ing on line."
Working within this revisionist framework, we have been try-
ing to improve our understanding of the cognitive mechanisms
1004
LANGUAGE AND GESTURE 1005
shared by word comprehensi on, word product i on, and sym-
bolic gesture in the second year of life. Most of our work has
focused on the relation between early language and one particu-
lar type of gesture: the action schemes associated with familiar
t oys and household objects (e.g., dri nki ng from cups, putting
hats on heads, placing a telephone receiver near the ear). These
gestures are often used by 1-year-olds t o recognize an associated
object or event, and t hey form the primitive beginnings of the
activity referred t o as symbolic play (Inhelder, Lezine, Sinclaire,
& Stembak, 1971; Lezine, 1978). Because they appear t o serve
a recognitory function in the early stages and are subsequently
used in empt y-handed pant omi mes with inappropriate versions
of the object t o confer the appropriate object meaning, these
action schemes have been referred t o as enactive names (Esca-
lona, 1973) or gestural depiction (Werner & Kaplan, 1963).
The symbolic status of these and other forms of gesture in
i nfancy is discussed in detail by Bates et al., (1983). They pre-
sented a classification scheme for infant gesture t hat involves
six features: (a) learned t hrough imitation, (b) used in commu-
nication (at least part of the time), (c) used t o establish reference
t o external objects or events, (d) used t o refer t o specific individ-
uals or classes of objects or events, (e) used at some physical
distance from the referent object, and (f) presented and ac-
quired within a conventional system of other symbols or signs.
Vocal names and Ameri can Sign Language (ASL) signs share
all six of these features. Ot her forms of gesture share only a
subset, permitting us t o classify gestures accordi ng t o their de-
gree of overlap with "t r ue" symbols or names along these theo-
retical dimensions. For example, showing-off games like "bye-
bye" and "pat t ycake" overlap with language along the first two
features (they are derived t hrough imitation and are used in
communi cat i on). So-called deictic gestures (giving, showing,
and pointing) share the second and third features (communi ca-
tive use and establishment of reference); unlike giving and
showing, the pointing gesture also shares t he fifth feature (dis-
t ance from the referent). Recogni t ory gestures with objects
(e.g., dri nki ng from a cup, putting on a necklace) share the first
(imitation), third (reference), and fourt h (reference t o specific
classes of objects or events) features. When the same gestures
are carried out with substitute objects or in empt y-handed pan-
t omi me, then we could argue t hat they inherit two additional
features of t rue symbols: use in communi cat i on (Acredolo &
Goodwi n, 1988; Volterra & Caselli, 1985) and execution at
some physical distance from the real object or class of objects
t hat the gesture names or represents (Volterra, Bates, Benigni,
Bretherton, & Camaioni, 1979).
This analysis provides a theoretical justification for predict-
ing correlations between language and various forms of gesture
in the first and second year of life. Using these criteria, Bates et
al. (1983) concluded t hat recognitory gestures or enactive
names share more overlap with language t han do any other as-
pects of gesture (except, o f course, for the t rue linguistic signs
of ASL)--part i cul arl y when the gestures are observed or elic-
ited out of context, wi t hout the usual referent object in hand.
Hence, these gestures ought t o bear the strongest and most con-
sistent relationship t o the development of nami ng in the vocal
modality. There is now a large empirical literature supporting
this prediction, demonst rat i ng a link between recognitory ges-
tures (also called primitive symbolic play) and the emergence of
nami ng, in nor mal infants and in several different populations
of retarded or language i mpai red children. These include links
in time of onset, function, frequency of use, size of repertoire,
content, rates o f "decontextualization, " individual differences
in style, and some neuropsychological evidence suggesting t hat
language and symbol i c/ recogni t ory gestures share aspects of
left hemisphere control (Bates et al., 1977; Bates, Benigni,
Bretherton, Camaioni, & Volterra, 1979; Bates, Bretberton,
Snyder, Shore, & Volterra, 1980; Bates & Volterra, 1984; Bauer
& Shore, 1986; Curcio, 1977, Eider & Peterson, 1978; Golden-
Meadow & Mylander, 1984; Gopni ck & Meltzoff, 1987; Killen
& Uzgiris, 1981; Lezine, 1978; Nicolich, 1977; Snyder, Bates,
& Bretherton, 1981; Volterra et al., 1979; Wol f & Gardner,
1979; for reviews see Bates & Snyder, 1987; Harris, 1983; John-
ston, 1985). Similar links have also been demonst rat ed for a
number of clinical populations (Beeghly & Cicchetti, 1987;
Rot h & Clark, 1987; Sigman & Mundy, 1987; Snyder, 1977;
Terrell, Schwartz, Prelock, & Messick, 1984; T h a l & Bates,
1988a; Thal, Bates, & Bellugi, in press). In short, evidence in
favor of some kind of parallelism between language and gesture
appears t o be quite robust, even when investigators cont rol for
factors like Global Maturation or Mental Age. Results are par-
ticularly strong when contextual factors are controlled (e.g.,
Bates et al., 1980).
Thi s does not mean t hat recognitory gestures and vocal
names are identical (cf. Petitto, 1988). There are some i mpor-
t ant differences between linguistic names and recognitory ges-
tures t hat must also be taken i nt o account in models of lan-
guage/gesture relations (for a review, see Shore et al., in press).
For example, Zukow (1984) has argued t hat symbol i c play
grows out of social interaction and t hat the symbols children
use in play never achieve the independent cognitive status of
linguistic symbols. This claim is compatible with a report by
Bretherton, Bates, Benigni, Camaioni, and Volterra (1979), t hat
at t achment scores correlate with symbolic play but not with
vocal naming. K. Nelson (1985) has also argued t hat action
schemes with objects are not t rue symbols, or at least not as
symbolic as words for the same object (see also Huttenlocher &
Higgins, 1978). Nelson' s argument is support ed by t he finding
t hat recognitory gestures can develop weeks or mont hs earlier
t han vocal names in some children ( Thal & Bates, 1988b) and
by studies showing t hat recogni t ory gestures are affected more
strongly by characteristics of the referent object (e.g., whether
the object is in the child' s hand and whether it is a detailed and
realistic version of the "real t hi ng" "Bretherton, O' Connel l ,
Shore, & Bates, 1984). There are also studies showing t hat mea-
sures of symbolic gestures are less reliable (i.e., lower i nt ermea-
sure correlations) t han correspondi ng measures of language
(Bretherton & Bates, 1984).
Most of these differences can be handled by models t hat per-
mi t degrees of symbol i c status (e.g., the six-feature model pro-
posed by Bates et al., 1983). However, Petitto (1988) has pre-
sented an argument against language/gesture parallelism t hat is
(potentially) much more damaging. Specifically, she has sug-
gested t hat language/gesture correlations reflect the fact t hat
children use adult speech as a guide duri ng their play activities
(i.e., comprehensi on mediation). For example, suppose t hat an
1006 BATES, THAL, WHITESELL, FENSON, OAKES
adul t pl aymat e says " Mmm, t hat bear l ooks hungry; give hi m
somet hi ng t o eat. " I f a chi l d underst ands t hi s i nput , t he likeli-
hood of a bear-feeding sequence is consi derabl y enhanced. Such
causal effects of adul t language on chi l d pl ay coul d account for
positive correl at i ons between symbol i c pl ay and language com-
prehensi on scores. Meanwhi l e, t here is also a significant positive
cor r el at i on between language compr ehensi on and language
pr oduct i on. Thi s cor r el at i on reflects a " t r ue" homol ogy (i.e.,
t he fact t hat compr ehensi on and pr oduct i on make use of a com-
mon lexical base). Thi s mi x of causal rel at i ons results (i ndi -
rectly) in a positive cor r el at i on between symbol i c pl ay and l an-
guage p r o d u c t i o n - - a cor r el at i on t hat pr oponent s of paral l el -
i sm (mi st akenl y) i nt er pr et t o mean t hat vocal nami ng and
r ecogni t or y gestures are mani fest at i ons of a common symbol i c
function. I f we accept t hi s logic, t hen cor r el at i ons between l an-
guage pr oduct i on and symbol i c pl ay act ual l y reflect not hi ng
mor e t han a cor r el at i on of language wi t h itself.
There are a number of reasons why compr ehensi on medi a-
t i on may not be sufficient t o account for all of t he cor r el at i onal
pat t er ns between language and gesture t hat have been observed
in t he l i t erat ure t o date. For one thing, language compr ehensi on
and language pr oduct i on are t ypi cal l y not highly cor r el at ed in
the first 2- 3 years of life (Bates, Bret hert on, & Snyder, 1988;
Snyder et al., 1981 ). Thi s fact present s pr obl ems for t he correl a-
t i onal logic descri bed earlier. Indeed, when compr ehensi on and
pr oduct i on are di ssoci at ed, specific l i nks between wor d pr oduc-
t i on and gestural pr oduct i on are still observed (Bates et al.,
1980; Thai & Bates, 1988a, 1988b). Fur t her mor e, t here is evi-
dence suggesting t hat wor d compr ehensi on and word pr oduc-
t i on cor r el at e with different aspects of communi cat i ve and sym-
bol i c gest ure (Bates et al., 1980).
But these argument s ar e still not sufficient t o put t he medi a-
t i on account t o rest. Ther e are, in fact, at least two possi bl e
forms of linguistic medi at i on t hat coul d be responsi bl e for l an-
guage/ gest ure correl at i ons in 1-year-old chi l dren. Fi rst , t he
chi l d may use t he language provi ded by ot hers as a ret ri eval cue
for gestural activity (i.e., compr ehensi on medi at i on). Second,
she may use her own covert or overt language pr oduct i on as a
gui de t o act i on (i.e., pr oduct i on medi at i on). In view of these
confounds, we believe t hat a mor e det ai l ed expl or at i on of l an-
guage/ gest ure rel at i ons is in order, in a design t hat per mi t s us
t o di sent angl e t he di ssoci abl e effects of compr ehensi on and pr o-
duct i on. The di st i nct i on between par al l el i sm and l i ngui st i c me-
di at i on is i mpor t ant not onl y because t he two hypot heses reflect
f undament al l y different views of language and t hought , but also
because t he two views have different i mpl i cat i ons for research
and pract i ce wi t h language di sor der ed chi l dren. The par al l el i sm
hypot hesi s has been par t i cul ar l y i nfl uent i al in cl i ni cal research
(Bates & Snyder, 1987; Rice, 1983). Specifically, it has been ar-
gued t hat spont aneous or el i ci t ed symbol i c pl ay can be used
t o di st i ngui sh between language-specific deficits in t oddl er s and
preschool chi l dren and also, between deficits t hat are due t o
a mor e general delay in cogni t i on and represent at i on ( Kamhi ,
1981; Sigman & Mundy, 1987; Snyder, 1975; Rot h & Cl ark,
1987; Terrell et al., 1984). Gi ven t he wi despread i nt erest in t hi s
issue, we t hi nk it is i mpor t ant t o det er mi ne t he ext ent t o whi ch
i -year-ol d chi l dren can make use of linguistic suppor t t o under-
st and and r epr oduce a gestural symbol . I f these i nfant s can in-
deed i nt egrat e gestural and l i ngui st i c represent at i ons for ob-
jects, we need t o det er mi ne whet her t hi s i nt egrat i on is sufficient
t o account for t he paral l el s t hat have been observed between
enactive nami ng and earl y language devel opment in nor mal and
cl i ni cal popul at i ons.
To expl ore these issues, we will pr esent results from two st ud-
ies t hat exami ned t he rel at i onshi ps among word compr ehen-
sion, wor d pr oduct i on, and enact i ve/ gest ural nami ng. St udy 1
makes use of det ai l ed quest i onnai r es admi ni st er ed t o t he par-
ent s of 95 chi l dren between 12 and 16 mont hs of age. Here we
will show t hat compr ehensi on and pr oduct i on are each corre-
l at ed wi t h different aspect s of communi cat i ve and symbol i c ges-
t ure. St udy 2 is a l abor at or y exper i ment wi t h 41 chi l dren be-
tween 13 and 15 mont hs of age, di rect l y investigating t he causal
effect of adul t l i ngui st i c cues on gestural i mi t at i on. Our results
will show t hat par al l el i sm and l i ngui st i c medi at i on are bot h
par t i al l y correct , each account i ng for different aspects of t he
rel at i onshi p between language and gesture in infancy.
St u d y 1: Pa r e n t a l Re p o r t s
Because t he words and gestures t hat we ar e i nt erest ed in have
j ust begun t o emerge in t he 12- 16- mont h age range, it is difficult
t o obt ai n a rel i abl e sampl e of a given chi l d' s abi l i t i es in a 60-
90- mi n l abor at or y visit. It is possi bl e t o r emedy t he pr obl em
somewhat by developing el i ci t at i on pr ocedur es t hat make t he
occur r ence of target behavi ors mor e likely (see St udy 2). But
t hi s pract i ce al so has its l i mi t s, because t oddl er s ar e not or i ousl y
difficult t o test. For t hese reasons, we have found i t useful t o
suppl ement nat ur al i st i c or st r uct ur ed observat i ons, or bot h,
wi t h i nf or mat i on obt ai ned t hr ough par ent al report . In t he pres-
ent st udy we assessed t he t hree-way rel at i ons among word com-
prehensi on, wor d pr oduct i on, and gestural pr oduct i on, using a
checklist-style i nst r ument t hat per mi t t ed t he par ent t o rely on
recogni t i on memor y r at her t han recall.
The i nvent or y used in St udy 1 is one of two t hat have been
developed and val i dat ed in our l abor at or y over t he past 15 years.
Each i nvent or y t akes t he f or m of a list of vocal i zat i ons, words,
gestures, gr ammat i cal morphemes, or word combi nat i ons t hat
ar e t ypi cal of chi l dren wi t hi n a par t i cul ar age range. Parent s
were asked t o fill these out at home over a few days, so t hat t hey
coul d observe t hei r chi l d while t hey had t he quest i onnai r e in
mi nd, and i dent i fy as many exampl es as possible. Thus, a list
of t he chi l d' s cur r ent behavi ors as t hey occur r ed across many
cont ext s was obt ai ned. Thi s i nf or mat i on proved t o be far mor e
rel i abl e t han ret rospect i ve report i ng, and mor e represent at i ve
t han 2 or 3 hours of observat i onal dat a i n t hi s age range. The
val i di t y and r el i abi l i t y of these i nvent ori es, as well as t hei r pre-
dictive value, has been demonst r at ed in a number of studies
(Bates, Benigni, et al., 1979; Bates, Snyder, Bret hert on, & Vol-
t erra, 1979; Bates et al., 1980; Bates et al., 1988; Bret hert on
et al., 1984; Dal e, Bates, Reznick, & Morisset, 1989; Dal e &
Robi nson, 1988; Eppor t , 1988; Gol dfi el d, 1988; O' Bri en, 1988;
Rezni ck & Gol dsmi t h, 1989; Snyder et al., 1981; Tami s- LeM-
onda & Bornst ei n, 1989; Thai & Bates, 1988a). Positive resul t s
have also been obt ai ned in ot her l abor at or i es wi t h par ent al re-
por t i nst r ument s t hat were si mi l ar t o ours (Acredol o & Good-
wyn, 1988; Rescorla, in press; Rescorl a & Schwartz, 1988).
LANGUAGE AND GESTURE 1 0 0 7
Method
Subjects. Subjects were 95 children between 12 and 16 mont hs of
age. They were chosen from a subset of more t han 500 chi l dren partici-
pating in a large-scale study in progress in San Diego, t o provide age-
graded nor ms for parental report i nst rument s of language and commu-
nicative development of chi l dren between 8 and 30 mont hs of age
(Fenson, Vella, Flynn, & Thal, 1988). All of t he chi l dren chosen for t he
present study had reported product i on vocabularies of under 100
words, a relatively homogeneous stage of language development for
which the literature suggests t hat language/gesture correlations are the-
oretically interesting and relatively large.
Chi l dren and t hei r parent s were identified and recrui t ed in several
ways- - t hr ough advertising in local newspapers and contacts made
t hrough area pediatricians and day-care centers. Parents were initially
contacted by telephone or letter; i f they agreed to participate, we sent
t hem copies of the Language and Gest ure Invent ory (Bates et al., 1986;
described under Materials), with a stamped, self-addressed envelope for
return. We also included a simple subject-information sheet t hat in-
qui red about the child' s developmental history and cont ai ned questions
about the parent s' occupation, education, and t he language(s) spoken
in the home. All of the children selected for the nor mi ng study were
acquiring English as t hei r first language, and none had a significant his-
tory of bi rt h t r auma or ot her serious medical probl ems (as indicated on
t he i nformat i on sheet). Most of t he chi l dren chosen for t hi s study were
from middle-class and upper middle-class homes (as det ermi ned by pa-
rental occupation and education), although some working-class families
were included in the sample.
Materials. Part 1 of the Language and Gest ure Invent ory is com-
posed of a list of 500 words, organized i nt o semant i c categories (e.g.,
food words, bedt i me words) t hat are likely to appear i n t he vocabularies
of young English-speaking chi l dren wi t hi n t he 2nd year. Parents were
asked t o check those words t hat t hei r child produced (col umn l ) or
comprehended (col umn 2). Thi s part of the quest i onnai re has been de-
veloped and validated in several previous studies and has proven to be a
reliable and valid predictor of observed language comprehensi on and
product i on across t hi s age range (Bates et al., 1987; Dale & Robinson,
1988; Snyder et al., 1981). Part 2 of the quest i onnai re is a list of 64
gestures t hat are frequent i n the repertoires of l-year-old chi l dren i n
our culture; the list includes communi cat i ve routines like "bye-bye" or
"pattycake," deictic gestures (i.e., giving, showing, pointing), and ob-
ject-associated gestures t hat may occur in communi cat i on or i n play
(e.g., "dri nki ng, " "t el ephoni ng"). The parent s were asked simply to
check those gestures or actions t hat they have seen t hei r child produce.
The complete gesture list was developed for the present study; however,
previous studies in our laboratories have suggested t hat parent al reports
of gestural development do correlate wi t h observations of the same phe-
nomena in this age range (Bates, Snyder, et al., 1979; Volterra & Caselli,
1985; Bretberton, 1984).
Scoring and data reduction. The following subscale scores were de-
rived from the Language and Gest ure Inventory:
1. Word comprehension--total words comprehended, number of
nomi nal s comprehended (i.e., names for common objects), and number
of nonnomi nal s comprehended.
2. Word production--total words produced, number of nomi nal s
produced (as defined above), and number of nonnomi nal s produced.
3. Gesturalproduction--total gestures produced, number of gestures
associated with common objects (i.e., enactive names), deictic gestures
(giving, showing, pointing, ritual requests), and gestural rout i nes t hat do
not refer to common objects (e.g., "patty-cake, " "bye-bye," "so big").
We separated nomi nal s from nonnomi nal s in bot h comprehensi on
and production, for t hree reasons. First, on t he basis of t he Bates et al.
(1983) classification scheme, we expected correlations between lan-
guage and gesture to be stronger when we restricted our at t ent i on t o
Tabl e 1
Descriptive Statistics f or Parental Report
o f Language and Gesture
Measure M SD Range
Comprehensi on
Total 121.03 67.09 9- 297
Nomi nal s 55.54 32.51 2- 128
Nonnomi nal s 65.49 36.94 6- 169
Product i on
Total 25.00 20.78 0- 83
Nomi nal s 13.93 12.59 0- 46
Nonnomi nal s 11.07 9.15 0-41
Gest ure
Total 37.45 9.07 13-52
Object gestures 24.03 7.17 6- 39
Deictic gestures 3.55 0.71 1-4
Gestural rout i nes 9.87 2.88 0- 15
object-related t erms (i.e., recognitory gestures with common objects,
and vocal names for common objects). Second, previous research has
shown t hat within-language correlations are higher when at t ent i on is
restricted to general nomi nal s (e.g., Bates et al., 1988); hence, a separa-
t i on of nomi nal s and nonnomi nal s should help t o clarify the nat ure and
degree of any comprehensi on/ product i on dissociation observed. Third,
recent studies have suggested t hat chi l dren who have a higher propor-
t i on of common nouns in t hei r vocabularies may show a different pat-
t ern of development in communi cat i ve gesture and symbolic play
(Bauer & Shore, 1986).
Descriptive statistics were exami ned for all 10 scores to provide infor-
mat i on about t he size and composition of comprehension, product i on,
and gesture repertoires in this developmental period. The 7 subscale
scores (excluding totals) were also factor analyzed (principal component
analysis with vari max rotation). If some form of the local homology
model is correct, t hen we should expect to find at least two distinct fac-
tors (defined by word comprehensi on and word production, respec-
tively), each with a different pat t ern of loadings from the t hree gesture
scores.
Re s ul t s a n d Di s cus s i on
Tabl e i s u mma r i z e s des cr i pt i ve st at i st i cs f or t he 10 l anguage
a n d ges t ur e scores. Th e r e ar e n o s ur pr i s e s her e; f i ndi ngs f r o m
t he p a r e n t a l r e p o r t i n s t r u me n t ar e l ar gel y c o mp a t i b l e wi t h di -
a r y s t udi es a n d l a b o r a t o r y obs e r va t i ons by ot he r i nves t i gat or s
wor ki ng i n t hi s age r ange.
Ac c or di ng t o t he i r pa r e nt s , mo s t o f t hes e c hi l dr e n a l r e a dy
h a d s ubs t a nt i a l c o mp r e h e n s i o n v o c a b u l a r i e s - - a n aver age o f
121 wor ds, wi t h a r a nge f r om 9 t o 297. Sl i ght l y l ess t h a n one
h a l f o f t hes e wor ds wer e n a me s f or obj ect s ( M = 55. 5, wi t h a
r ange f r o m 2 t o 128). By c ont r a s t , t he s a me c hi l dr e n p r o d u c e d
a n aver age o f onl y 25 wor ds ( wi t h a r ange f r om 0 t o 83). Sl i ght l y
mo r e t h a n one h a l f o f t hese, on t he average, wer e n a me s f or
obj ect s ( 13.9, wi t h a r ange f r om 0 t o 41 ).
I n t he s a mp l e as a whol e, c o mp r e h e n s i o n a n d p r o d u c t i o n
wer e c or r e l a t e d at +. 46; a l t h o u g h t hi s c or r e l a t i on is r el i abl e
( p < . 01), i t al so me a n s t h a t c o mp r e h e n s i o n a nd p r o d u c t i o n
s ha r e l ess t h a n 22% o f t he i r var i ance. Fi gur e 1 pr e s e nt s a scat -
t e r pl ot o f t ot a l c o mp r e h e n s i o n a n d p r o d u c t i o n scor es f or al l t he
c hi l dr e n i n t hi s st udy. Th e pos i t i ve l i ne a r t r e n d r e s pons i bl e f or
100
8 0
6 0
4 0
20
[ ]
[ ] [ ]
[ ] [ ] [ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
El = p ~=
m
[ ] [ ]
[ ] ~ 1 3 [ ]
[ ] [ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ] [ ] B ~ [ ]
[ ] [ ] [ ]
I ~ 1 [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
9 i =
0 1 0 0
D
[] m
[ ] [ ]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[] []
i i
2 0 0 3 0 0
C O MP R E H E N S I O N
Figure 1. Scatterplot of total comprehension and production scores of
95 children between 12 and 16 months of age, as reported by parents
on the Language and Gesture Inventory.
a +. 46 correl at i on can be di scerned in Fi gur e 1, but it is equal l y
cl ear t hat t he two modal i t i es ar e di ssoci at ed in many chi l dren.
At al most every poi nt along t he compr ehensi on range (from 0
t o 250 words), we found at least a few chi l dren who were pr o-
duci ng fewer t han 10 wor d forms. Thi s pat t er n repl i cat es a scat-
t erpl ot of compr ehensi on/ pr oduct i on rel at i ons r epor t ed by
Snyder et al. (1981) for a sampl e of 32 chi l dren, and it is com-
pat i bl e with many r epor t s in t he l i t erat ure on t he ext ent t o
whi ch receptive and expressive language devel opment can be
di ssoci at ed in the earl y stages.
Turning t o results of t he gestural scale (see Table 1), these
chi l dren pr oduced an average of 37 gestures, wi t h a range from
13 t o 52. These i ncl uded a mean of 24 obj ect -associ at ed ges-
t ures (ranging from 6 t o 39), 9.87 gestural r out i nes (from 0 t o
15), and 3.55 out of t he 4 possi bl e dei ct i c gestures (with an ob-
served range from 1 to 4). Most of t he chi l dren r epor t edl y gave
and showed obj ect s t o t hei r parent s, and pr oduced some ki nd
of r i t ual i zed gesture in requests (e.g., openi ng and shut t i ng t he
pal m); hence, much of t he vari ance i n t he dei ct i c gesture sub-
scale reflects presence or absence of poi nt i ng.
Table 2 summar i zes correl at i ons among all 10 language and
gesture scores. In t he sampl e as a whole, t ot al gesture vocabul a-
ri es were significantly cor r el at ed wi t h word compr ehensi on (r =
.57, p < .001 ) and word pr oduct i on (r = .54, p < .00 i ). However,
we also found evidence for a di ssoci at i on between gest ural pr o-
duct i on and expressive language in chi l dren at t he earl i est stages
of language learning. I n t he subsampl e of chi l dren wi t h expres-
sive vocabul ar i es of 10 words or less, t he average number of
gestures r epor t ed was 31.3 (with a range from 13 t o 47) - - onl y
slightly smal l er t han t he average for t he sampl e as a whole.
These chi l dr en had an average of 2.5 words for common obj ect s
(with a range from 0 t o 6), but t hey r epor t edl y pr oduced 19.7
obj ect gestures (with a range from 6 t o 35). There was not one
case of a chi l d in t hi s devel opment al range who pr oduced mor e
obj ect words t han obj ect gest ur es- - despi t e t he fact t hat t he t o-
t al list of possi bl e words t hat the par ent coul d have checked
was consi derabl y longer t han t he list of possi bl e gestures. By
cont rast , r epor t ed language di d somet i mes surge ahead of ges-
t ur e among t he mor e precoci ous talkers in the sampl e (al-
t hough, of course, here t he difference in length in the two check-
lists present s a possi bl e confound).
These results are consonant wi t h t he evidence we reviewed
earl i er on si mi l ari t i es and di ssi mi l ari t i es between language and
gesture. Recogni t or y gestures and vocal names usual l y appear
ar ound t he same t i me in devel opment , but t he vocal modal i t y
somet i mes lags behi nd. However, despi t e these asynchroni es in
t ot al scores, t ot al scores for gesture and for language were still
cor r el at ed in t he subsampl e of chi l dren wi t h smal l er vocabul a-
ri es (r = .56, p < .01).
A pr i nci pal component s factor analysis was conduct ed on t he
seven word and gesture subscales, to det er mi ne whet her com-
prehensi on and pr oduct i on do i ndeed f or m two separat e fac-
tors, and t o exami ne factor l oadi ngs for each gesture type. Age
in days was also i ncl uded in t he fact or analysis, to det er mi ne
whet her and t o what ext ent t he resul t i ng factors are defi ned by
effects of mat ur at i on and/ or experi ence. Fact or l oadi ngs after
r ot at i on are s ummar i zed in Table 3.
Results provi de suppor t for a t wo-fact or model defi ned by
wor d compr ehensi on and word pr oduct i on, respectively. The
pr i nci pal component s analysis yi el ded two factors wi t h eigen-
values great er t han 1.0. The first factor ( account i ng for 47.5%
of t he vari ance, eigenvalue = 3.80) was defined pr i mar i l y by
wor d pr oduct i on (bot h nomi nal s and nonnomi nal s). The sec-
ond fact or (account i ng for 13.7% of t he vari ance, eigenvalue
1.09) was defined pr i mar i l y by wor d compr ehensi on (again,
bot h nomi nal and nonnomi nal ) . Al t hough age di d l oad posi -
tively on bot h factors, its cont r i but i on was relatively small; nei-
t her of t he factors was in any sense defi ned by vari ance in age.
Not e, however, t hat age l oadi ngs were somewhat higher on t he
Pr oduct i on factor (.45) t han on t he Compr ehensi on factor (.27).
Because t he factor analysis maxi mi zes or t hogonal i t y between
factors, we must i nt er pr et t hi s compr ehensi on/ pr oduct i on dis-
soci at i on as follows. Fact or 2 reflects t hat por t i on of t he vari -
ance in word compr ehensi on t hat is par t i al l y di ssoci abl e from
t he chi l d' s cur r ent level of expressive language; we mi ght con-
sider t hi s t he conceptual content of t he chi l d' s cur r ent symbol
system. Conversely, Fact or 1 reflects t hat por t i on of t he vari ance
in word pr oduct i on t hat is par t i al l y i ndependent from t he
chi l d' s level of language comprehensi on. I nt er pr et at i on of t hi s
factor is less obvi ous, but it may i nvol ve a t endency t owar d rot e
i mi t at i on or mot or abi l i t i es t hat are par t i al l y i ndependent of
concept ual underst andi ng (cf. Bates et al., 1988). Thi s di st i nc-
t i on will be hel pful in i nt erpret i ng t he gestural loadings on each
factor.
Gest ur al r out i nes l oad significantly on t he Pr oduct i on factor
LANGUAGE AND GESTURE
Table 2
Correlations Between Language Comprehension, Language Production, Gesture Production, and Age
1009
Comprehension Production Gestures
Total Non- Total Non- Object Deictic Gestural
Measure Age wor ds Nouns nominals wor ds Nouns nominals Tot a l gest ures gestures routines
Age
Comprehension
Total words .24* - -
Nouns .29** .96*** - -
Nonnominals .17 .97*** .87*** - -
Production
Total words .35*** .45*** .43*** .43*** - -
Nouns .32** .42*** .41"** .39*** .97***
Nonnominals .35*** .44*** .41"** .44*** .94***
Gestures
Total .44*** .57*** .50*** .54*** .54***
Object gestures .48*** .56*** .56*** .52*** .46***
Deictic gestures .23* .28** .28** .26** .23*
Gestural routines .13 .32*** .28** .35*** .47***
.82***
.52*** .50*** - -
.46*** .42*** .95*** - -
.23* .21" .41"** .32** - -
.43*** .50*** .68*** .43*** .26**
*p<. 05. **p<.01. ***p<.001.
(.64), with negligible loadings on the factor defined by word
comprehension (.22). Deictic gestures load primarily on the
Comprehension factor (.40), contributing less to the factor de-
fined primarily by word production (.24). Finally, object-asso-
ciated gestures load significantly on both factors, although they
contribute more variance to the factor defined by comprehen-
sion (.63 vs..47). This pattern makes sense if we keep the afore-
mentioned interpretation of the two factors in mind. Factor 1
reflects aspects of performance that are at least partially inde-
pendent of conceptualization: social motivation, motor devel-
opment, imitative abilities, or some combination. This may ex-
plain why gestural routines like "bye-bye" and "pattycake"
load most heavily on Factor 1. Factor 2 is best regarded as re-
flecting symbolic/conceptual content. Object gestures and deic-
tic gestures load on this factor because they reflect the child' s
understanding of the object world and his or her interest in com-
municating that understanding.
At least two different mechanisms appear to be responsible
for the patterns of variation observed here, associated with the
observed dissociation between word comprehension and word
production. Object-associated gestures (i.e., enactive names)
are indeed associated with language comprehension, in line
with the comprehension mediation hypothesis. However, some
of the variance in enactive nami ng is also independently associ-
ated with language production, suggesting that several different
processes may be at work. In the next study, we will focus en-
tirely on the relationship between object-associated gestures
and vocal names, in an experiment designed to test the compre-
hension mediation hypothesis directly. Because recognitory
gestures will be assessed under several different conditions, it
may be easier to pull apart the separate contributions of com-
prehension and production.
St udy 2: El i ci t at i on of Gest ur e Wi t h and
Wi t hout Li ngui st i c Suppor t
Study 2 was designed to meet several of the theoretical and
empirical issues raised in the language/gesture literature.
First, we began our session by taping a brief sample of sponta-
neous play with realistic versions of the object concepts to be
used in the experimental study. This segment closely resembles
the conditions under which symbolic play is assessed in most
observational studies, and therefore offers some useful points of
contact and contrast between this study and other reports in the
literature. The spontaneous segment is also more similar to the
conditions under which parents usually observe their children
at play, and hence may help to illuminate the correlational re-
sults we obtained with parental reports of gestural development.
Second, we set up an experiment in which children were re-
quired to reproduce familiar gestures using a colored wooden
or plastic block as a placeholder for the referent object. This
allowed us to assess the child' s ability to produce recognitory
gestures without support from the usual referent object, an
ability that bears a stronger theoretical relationship to "true"
naming.
To address the comprehension mediation hypothesis, ges-
tures were modeled under three conditions of verbal accompa-
niment: supportive language (with the object correctly named),
Table 3
Factor Loadings in Study 1
Me a s ur e Communalities Factor 1 Factor 2
Word comprehension
Nominals .8811 .1851 .9202
Nonnominals .8400 .1903 .8966
Word production
Nominals .7883 .8630 .2085
Nonnominals .8224 .8829 .2068
Gestures
Object gestures .6094 .4669 .6256
Deictic gestures .2219 .2414 .4045
Gestural routines .4587 .6412 .2182
Age .2762 .4535 .2657
cont radi ct ory language (with an object appropri at e to a differ-
ent gesture named), and neut ral language (with no specific ref-
erence to either t he object or the action). Thi s allowed us to
assess systematically t he ext ent to whi ch a given chi l d' s pr oduc-
t i on of obj ect -associ at ed gestures was affected by compr ehen-
sion of t he associated words.
Finally, because we want ed to assess gestural per f or mance
under precisely cont rol l ed i nput condi t i ons, we relied pri mari l y
on elicitation of gestures i nst ead of spont aneous product i on.
Fenson and Ramsay (1981) have shown t hat elicitation proce-
dures yield earlier and possibly mor e reliable est i mat es of sym-
bolic play, while following t he same devel opment al sequence ob-
served in spont aneous symbol i c play (Fenson & Ramsay, 1981).
M e t h o d
Subj e c t s . The sample for Study 2 was composed of 41 children (20
boys and 21 girls) between 13 and 15 months of age. There were 14
children at 13 months of age, 13 at 14 months, and 14 at 15 months;
both sexes were equally represented within each age bracket. Slightly
more than one half of the subjects were only children. Most of the rest
had one older sibling, and a few had two older siblings. All of the chil-
dren were acquiring English as their first language.
Children and their parents were recruited through two sources: a uni-
versity subject pool drawn from state birth records, and advertisements
in local newspapers. Those parents who agreed to participate in the
present study were all from middle-class backgrounds (based on re-
ported occupation and/or place of residence). Parents filled out the Lan-
guage and Gesture Inventory, described in Study 1, approximately 1
week before they brought their children to our laboratories to partici-
pate in the experimental study. Questionnaires were scored after the
laboratory session was complete; thus, experimenters were blind to the
child's reported levels of ability in language or gesture at the time testing
took place.
Pr ocedur e. On the basis of previous studies of the objects, words, and
gestures that first appear in the repertoires of infants in their second
year (Appendix), 12 object concepts were selected for the elicited ges-
ture task. Our selection of these 12 object concepts was guided not only
by their relative frequency in early childhood, but also by the extent to
which associated gestures could be recognized and distinguished with-
out the object in hand. For example, even though "cup" and "bottle"
are both very likely to occur in the repertoires of l-year-old children, the
gestures associated with each object (i.e., drinking) would be difficult to
distinguish in an experimental context. Hence, we chose only one object
concept associated with a drinking gesture (i.e., cup), only one vehicle
concept associated with a moving-back-and-forth gesture (i.e., car), and
so forth.
Testing was conducted in a room equipped with a video camera, a
low couch, and a table with four chairs. When the children arrived at the
laboratory, they first spent 15-20 min seated next to the experimenter,
directly in front of the couch on which their mothers were seated. The
experimenter presented a standard set of toys to the child, one at a time,
and allowed the child to play with each item for up to 2 min. The toys
were always presented in a context of naturalistic free play. All of the
toys were realistic versions of the 12 object concepts that would be the
focus of the experiment itself. If the child spontaneously produced a
conventional action usually associated with the target object within the
2 min (e.g., drink from the cup, push the car back and forth across the
floor), the next item was presented. Most children produced at least
some conventional gestures within the first 30 s, and a new object was
presented. For most children, this whole sequence usually lasted about
15-20 rain. If the child did not spontaneously carry out the associated
action, that action was modeled once by the experimenter with the ob-
ject in hand. After modeling, the object was handed back to the child
for approximately 30 s. If the child still did not produce the gesture, the
modeling procedure was repeated one more time.
During the free play segment, no attempt was made to control or
direct mother-child interaction, and all three participants usually inter-
acted with the toys presented. Thus, it was more naturalistic than the
highly structured gesture elicitation experiment described in the follow-
ing paragraph. In addition, the extent to which adults named or de-
scribed toys during the interaction was not controlled in free play.
The elicited experimental condition took place at a table removed
from the play area (with all the realistic toys placed out of sight). The
child was seated across the table from the experimenter, on his or her
mother's lap. Nine target gestures were modeled for each child, one at a
time, using a block as a placeholder for the particular object (e.g., for
the phone gesture, the block was held to the ear as if it were a receiver;
for the cup gesture, it was tilted up to the lips). Blocks were used rather
than real toys to ensure that the presented words and gestures were the
only sources of information given to the child concerning the object
concepts. They were varied with each imitation by choosing a different
block from a pool of l0 that had different shapes, sizes, and colors. One
half were made of wood and the other half of plastic. Each gesture was
modeled in one of three language support conditions: s uppor t i ve, ne u-
tral, or cont r adi ct or y. Thus, each child was asked to imitate three ges-
tures presented with supportive language, three presented with neutral
language, and three presented with contradictory language. In the sup-
portive condition, the experimenter named the object referred to by the
gesture (e.g., "Look! This is a cup!"). In the neutral condition she made
a nonspecific comment like, "Look! Watch this!" In the contradictory
condition she misnamed the object (e.g., by saying, "Look! This is a
shoe," while modeling the phone gesture). In order to avoid contamina-
tion or interference between trials, the three inappropriate words used
in the contradictory condition were always chosen from the set of three
familiar object concepts that were not presented as gestures at any
point. Hence, no concept was ever repeated in word or gesture to any
one child. All of the concepts were rotated randomly so that each oc-
curred in every condition (supportive, neutral, contradictory) an equal
number of times.
Of the four places in which each object concept could appear--as
gestures in the three word conditions or as a word in the contradictory
condition--presentations were arranged so that each concept appeared
an equal number of times in each condition, to control for the possible
unique effects of any one concept. The order in which the nine gestures
were presented was uniquely and randomly assigned for each child.
A practice trial, using a camera gesture, preceded presentation of the
test items. The experimenter held a block as though it were a camera
and pretended to take the child's picture. Then she gave the block to the
child and said, "Can you take my picture?" The purpose of the trial was
to introduce the child to the imitation game. The child was encouraged
to imitate and was praised if he or she did. After this trial, the experi-
menter no longer differentially reinforced imitation, but smiled and said
something supportive but unrelated to the child's behavior (e.g., "So
that' s what you want to do with that block"). After each gesture was
modeled, the experimenter said, "There, your turn," and handed the
block to the child. The child was allowed a minute or two in which to
produce (or not produce) the modeled gesture. If the child did not imi-
tate within the first minute, or if the child had clearly failed to attend to
the first model, the gesture was modeled a second time. No more than
two models were given on any trial. The parent remained with the child
throughout the session but was asked not to name any of the concepts
presented or to encourage the child in the performance of any imi-
tations.
Da t a r e d u c t i o n a n d d e p e n d e n t me a s u r e s . Performance in the free
play segment and in the testing phase of the experiment was scored di-
rectly from videotapes. Each child was given two scores for the free play
segment. One score reflects the number of target gestures that were pro-
duced spontaneously, prior to the experimenter' s intervention ( 1 point
each, with a possible range from 0 to 12; repetitions of the same gesture
were not counted). The other score reflects the total number of target
gestures that were produced in the free play segment as a whole (sponta-
neously or after the experimenter began to elicit gestures with the realis-
tic object; 1 point each, yielding a possible range from 0 to 12 with no
points given tbr repetitions).
In the experimental phase, children received 1 point for each trial in
which they produced a recognizable imitation of the adult model. Thus,
the maximum score that could be obtained by any child was 9 points
across conditions and 3 points within each condition. An assistant
scored approximately one half of the tapes, and the experimenter scored
the other half. The experimenter also scored 10 of the videotapes scored
by the assistant. Interrater agreement for the number of imitations
scored on these 10 tapes was 99%.
In addition to the gestural scoring, we were also interested in the ex-
tent to which children repeated the experimental words and the sponta-
neous production of words or wordlike sounds associated with the ex-
perimental objects (including sound effects like "' vroom" or "yum").
All recognizable words or vocalizations that met these criteria were
transcribed directly from the videotapes. We did not score vocalizations
that were unrelated to the 12 target objects (e.g., "Mama; " "mor e: '
or "no").
On the basis of the number of words in each child' s comprehension
vocabulary (as reported in the parental inventory), children were di-
vided as evenly as possible into three comprehension level groups: low
(9-57 words, n = 14), mid (60-118 words, n = 14), and high (131-233
words, n = 13). The purpose of this between-subjects manipulation was
to provide a further test of the hypothesis that production of symbolic
gestures is a function of comprehension mediation. The comprehension
groups were used in one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAS) on gestural
performance in the free play segment, and in 3 3 analyses of the ges-
ture experiment (with comprehension group as a between-subjects fac-
tor, and language input condition as a within-subjects factor).
We carried out additional analyses by dividing the children into two
groups, based on their reported production vocabularies. We used only
two groups instead of three for production because there is so much
less variance in expressive vocabulary in this age range. One half of the
sample (n = 21 ) received scores of 10 or less; this corresponds to a stage
in which vocabulary development is still quite unstable, with new words
appearing and then disappearing for weeks at a time (Vihman, 1986).
We will refer to this group as the low producers. The remaining high
producers (n = 20) all reportedly produced more than 10 words. Two
children in this group obtained scores over 50, the vocabulary boundary
that often presages a marked increase or burst in lexical development
(K. Nelson, 1973. 1981 ). On theoretical grounds, these children may be
qualitatively different from the others, but there were too few to permit
a third expressive language group. The two resulting production groups
were used as a between-subject variable in analyses of the free play seg-
ment and in 2 x 3 analyses of gestural performance across the three
experimental language input conditions.
Ideally, we would like to treat comprehension and production groups
as orthogonal factors in a complete design, yielding a 3 3 2 (Lan-
guage Input Condition Comprehension Level Production Level)
mixed between- and within-group ANOVA. But only 4 children fell
within the requisite high-production/low-comprehension cell in such a
design, precluding meaningful analysis. This pattern is of course in line
with the comprehension/production results reported in Study 1, which
suggested that comprehension is a necessary but not sufficient condition
for the development of expressive language.
Results
Free play segment. Tabl e 4 pr esent s descr i pt i ve st at i st i cs for
gest ur al pe r f or ma nc e in t he free play segment , c ompa r e d wi t h
pe r f or ma nc e on t he s ame 12 gest ur es accor di ng t o par ent al re-
por t , f or t he gr oup as a whol e and for t he r espect i ve c ompr e he n-
si on and pr oduc t i on subgr oups. Par ent s r e por t e d t hat chi l dr en
p r o d u c e d an average o f 7 - 8 o f t he 12 t ar get gest ur es ( wi t h a
r ange f r om 3 t o 11). Rat es o f s pont aneous pr oduc t i on wer e con-
si derabl y l ower (averagi ng 3, 49, wi t h a r ange f r om 0 t o 8); how-
ever, wi t h t he e xpe r i me nt e r ' s i nt er vent i on, t ot al r at es o f gest ur al
pr oduc t i on in t he free pl ay s egment r eached an average o f 6. 09,
wi t h a r ange f r om 1 t o 10. Hence, t he par ent s ' es t i mat es wer e
r oughl y c ompa r a bl e wi t h rat es obs er ved i n t he l abor at or y, when
pe r f or ma nc e was s uppor t ed by t he obj ect (real i st i c t oys) and by
adul t vocal and gest ur al i nput .
As can be seen f r om Tabl e 4, t he n u mb e r o f gest ur es i n t he
par ent al r epor t and gest ur al pe r f or ma nc e i n t he free pl ay seg-
me nt bot h i ncr ease as a f unct i on o f r e por t e d c ompr e he ns i on
level. A one- way ANOVA by c ompr e he ns i on gr oup was signifi-
cant for r epor t ed gest ure, F( 2, 37) = 9. 64, p < . 001. I n t hi s
analysis, t he l i near c o mp o n e n t was qui t e rel i abl e, F( I , 37) =
17.78, p < .001 ; t her e was no si gni f i cant nonl i ne a r c o mp o n e n t
(in cont r as t wi t h s ome o f t he e xpe r i me nt a l anal yses pr es ent ed
later). A s i mi l ar one- way anal ysi s on s pont aneous gest ur e al so
r eached si gni fi cance, F(2, 37) = 4. 10, p < .03; her e t oo t her e
was a si gni fi cant l i near c ompone nt , F( 1, 37) = 7. 88, p < .01,
but no nonl i ne a r t r end. Finally, a one- way anal ysi s o f t ot al ges-
t ur e i n t he free play s egment al so yi el ded a si gni fi cant c ompr e -
hensi on gr oup di fference, F( 2, 37) = 6. 44, p < .01; t he l i near
c o mp o n e n t was al so si gni fi cant , k~ 1, 37) = 9. 62, p < .01, a nd
t he nonl i ne a r c o mp o n e n t j us t mi ssed si gni fi cance, F( 1, 37) =
3. 26, p < .08. The nonl i ne a r t r end r ef l ect s a l evel i ng o f f o f g e s -
t ur al pe r f or ma nc e bet ween t he mi ddl e and hi gh compr ehender s
(an average o f 4. 64 gest ur es by t he l ow gr oup, c o mp a r e d wi t h
6. 86 and 6. 85 by t he mi ddl e and hi gh gr oups, respect i vel y).
Hence, t he c ompr e he ns i on gr oup di f f er ence appear s t o r each
cei l i ng when gest ur e is assessed under condi t i ons o f ma xi ma l
s uppor t ( wi t h real i st i c obj ect s, and wi t h adul t gest ural and vocal
cui ng).
In cont r ast wi t h t hese or der l y r el at i ons bet ween l anguage
c ompr e he ns i on and gest ure, di f f er ences i n gest ural pr oduc t i on
were smal l f or t he t wo pr oduc t i on gr oups: 7. 00 versus 8.47 for
r epor t ed gest ur es (tow vs. hi gh, respect i vel y), 3. 09 versus 3. 90
f or s pont aneous gest ures, and 5.81 versus 6. 40 f or t ot al gest ur es
i n t he free pl ay segment . The hi gh/ l ow pr oduc t i on di f f er ence
was si gni fi cant f or r epor t ed gest ure, by a one- t ai l ed t t est ( p <
.03). Ana l ogous t t est s o f t he di f f er ences f or s pont aneous and
t ot al gest ur e i n free pl ay di d not r each si gni fi cance.
To s umma r i z e , our fi ndi ngs for obs er ved gest ur e i n a r el a-
tively nat ur al i st i c si t uat i on c o mp l e me n t resul t s f r om St udy 1.
Spont aneous pr oduc t i on o f t hese 12 obj ect - associ at ed gest ur es
t ends t o i ncr ease as a f unct i on o f l anguage c ompr e he ns i on level.
Di f f er ences ar e consi der abl y s mal l er when chi l dr en ar e gr oupe d
accor di ng t o l anguage pr oduc t i on levels. However, t he chi l d' s
reported level o f gest ur al pr oduc t i on var i es as a f unct i on o f bot h
c ompr e he ns i on and p r o d u c t i o n - - i n l i ne wi t h t he r esul t s o f
Table 4
Gesture Scores as a Function of Re/9orted Language Level
Comprehension groups
Gestures with
12 target objects Totals Low Medium High
Production groups
Low High
Parental report
M 7.70 5.93 8.21 9.17 7.00 8.47
SD 2.34 2.09 2.08 1.58 2.49 1.95
Range 3-11 3-9 4-I 1 6-11 3-11 4-11
Warmup
Spontaneous
M 3.49 2.50 3.71 4.31 3.09 3.90
SD 1.80 1.74 1.63 1.65 1.81 1.74
Range 0-8 0-7 2-7 2-8 0-8 1-7
Totals
M 6.09 4.64 6.86 6.85 5.81 6.40
SD 2.11 1.59 1.83 2.15 2.16 2.06
Range 1-10 1-8 4-10 4-10 3-10 1-10
Experiment
Totals
M 6.61 4.71 8.57 6.54 5.00 8.30
SD 3.66 3.33 3.56 3.18 2.96 3.61
Range 1-14 2-I 1 1-14 2-12 2-11 1-14
Study 1, in which reported gesture loaded significantly on both
the Comprehension and the Production factors.
Experimental results: Analyses by comprehension group.
Elicited gesture scores in the experimental segment were en-
tered into a 3 x 3 mixed design ANOVA, l with the three compre-
hension groupings as a between-subjects variable and language-
support condition as a within-subjects variable. This analysis
revealed a main effect of language support, F(2, 76) = 3.91,/9 <
.03; a main effect of comprehension group, F(2, 38) = 3.29,
/9 < .05; and a Group Language-Support interaction, F(4, 76) =
3.2 l, p < .02.
With regard to the main effect for language support, children
were most likely to imitate in the supportive condition and least
likely to imitate in the contradictory condition. Thus, infants
between the ages of 13 and 15 months were more likely to imi-
tate a familiar gesture with a block if the accompanying linguis-
tic label or name corresponded to the meaning of the gesture.
This suggests that words and gestures do map onto the same
common object meanings, even in the early stages of symbol
development. It also provides some support for the comprehen-
sion mediation hypothesis--although, as we shall see, the sup-
port is mixed.
The comprehension group main effect was significant, but in
a surprising direction. Mean imitation scores were 3.42 for the
low comprehenders, 5.07 for the middle comprehenders, and
4.0 for the high comprehenders. A one-way ANOVA over the
three comprehension levels yielded a significant nonlinear com-
ponent, F(2, 76) = 5.74,19 < .03, but no significant linear term.
Thus, although linguistic input did affect the probability of ges-
tural imitation, the child' s propensity to imitate was not a sim-
ple, linear function of comprehension vocabulary.
This nonlinear relation is also evident in the Group Lan-
guage Support interaction illustrated in Figure 2. Tukey post
hoc tests (/9 < .05) indicate that there was no significant differ-
ence among linguistic support conditions in the low compre-
benders. In the middle group, imitation was significantly higher
in the supportive condition; the neutral and contradictory con-
ditions did not differ from one another. Hence, it is fair to say
that language can help gestural production in this group, but
contradictory linguistic input is not powerful enough to over-
whelm the child' s interpretation of the gestural model. In the
high comprehenders, supportive language produced signifi-
cantly higher performance than contradictory language; perfor-
mance in the neutral language condition fell halfway between
(and did not differ significantly from the other two conditions).
In this last group, supportive language apparently cannot push
performance levels much beyond the levels observed with no
linguistic information at all; however, when forced to choose
between the adult' s action and the same adult' s accompanying
speech, the high comprehenders are prone to place their trust
in linguistic cues.
Notice, nevertheless, that the average number of imitations
produced decreases from the middle to the high comprehend-
ing groups, in all three conditions. As several investigators have
suggested, imitation may be more likely overall in children who
are at the midpoint of a developmental milestone--suggesting
that these children have a greater need to "sketch out" their new
abilities on the plane of action (Harnick, 1978; Kagan, 198 l;
Shore et al., in press). In order to obtain a clearer measure of
the effects of the independent variables, we decided to remove
variance due to overall propensity to imitate from the calcula-
tions.
We recalculated responses in terms of the proportion of the
For the analysis of variance (ANOVA) reported here, we used the
repeated measures ANOVA option in the Statistical Package for the So-
cial Sciences multivariate analysis of variance (SPSS x MANOVA) pro-
gram in which tests for sphericity are taken into account.
2
_o
IE
i
supportive
neutral
cont r adi ct or y
COMPREHENSION GROUP
Figure 2. Effects of linguistic input on total number of gestures imitated
for 13-15-month-old children with low, medium, and high levels of
word comprehension.
t ot al i mi t at i ons pr oduced by each chi l d wi t hi n each language-
suppor t condi t i on. Thus, we di vi ded t he number o f t ri al s on
whi ch a chi l d pr oduced a scorabl e i mi t at i on i n each language-
suppor t condi t i on by t he t ot al number of i mi t at i ons pr oduced
across all t hree condi t i ons. These percent age scores were t hen
anal yzed in a 3 3 mi xed design ANOVA (see Foot not e 1) wi t h
compr ehensi on gr oup and level of l anguage-support as i nde-
pendent vari abl es (see Fi gur e 3). In t hi s analysis, we agai n found
a significant Compr ehensi on Gr oup x Language- Suppor t Level
i nt eract i on, F(4, 76) = 4.15, p < .004, i l l ust rat ed in Fi gur e 3.
To expl ore t he i nt eract i on further, we first car r i ed out t hr ee sep-
ar at e si mpl e effects anal yses by compr ehensi on level, wi t hi n
each of t he t hr ee respective language i nput condi t i ons. All t hr ee
compr ehensi on level effects were significant, but t hey differed
mar kedl y in shape. The percent age of gestures occur r i ng in t he
support i ve condi t i on showed a l i near i ncrease over compr ehen-
sion levels, F(2, 76) = 8.43, p < .01, wi t h t he nonl i near compo-
nent j ust missing significance, F(2, 76) = 3.62, p < .07. The
pr opor t i on of gestures occur r i ng in t he cont r adi ct or y condi t i on
showed a l i near decrease wi t h compr ehensi on level, F(2, 76) =
12.84, p < .001, with no significant nonl i near component . Fi-
nally, t he pr opor t i on of i mi t at i ons occur r i ng in t he neut r al con-
di t i on shows no significant effects at all, l i near or nonl i near.
These effects ar e cl ari fi ed furt her by Tukey post hoc t est s ( p <
.05) wi t hi n each compr ehensi on level. Wi t hi n t he low compr e-
henders, t here were agai n no significant differences as a funct i on
of linguistic i nput ; t he t r end is, i f anyt hi ng, in t he opposi t e di-
rect i on from t he one observed in chi l dren wi t h larger compr e-
hension vocabul ari es (i.e., fewer i mi t at i ons in t he support i ve
condi t i on). Wi t hi n t he mi dl evel comprehenders, gest ural i mi -
t at i ons were much mor e likely t o occur wi t hi n t he support i ve
condi t i ons; neut r al and cont r adi ct or y language condi t i ons di d
not differ. Thi s is i dent i cal t o t he effects r epor t ed for raw i mi t a-
t i on i n t he mi ddl e group. Wi t hi n t he hi gh compr ehender s, ges-
t ur al i mi t at i ons were significantly mor e likely t o occur i n t he
support i ve and t he neut r al condi t i ons t han in t he condi t i on wi t h
cont r adi ct or y language; however, t here was no significant
difference between support i ve language and neut r al language.
Because t he 14 low compr ehender s pr oduced fewer gestures
overall, we mi ght ask whet her t hei r i nabi l i t y t o use linguistic
i nput reflects anyt hi ng mor e t han a floor effect. Thi s was not
t he case. Al t hough t hei r t ot al out put was low ( M = 3.42, wi t h a
range from 1 t o 7 poi nt s, S D = 1.95), t he dat a do not vi ol at e
assumpt i ons of normal i t y. Wi t h 14 low compr ehender s i n t hr ee
wi t hi n-subj ect condi t i ons, t here were 42 scores in all; fewer t han
25% of t he scores were zeroes wi t hi n any cell of t he design. We
concl ude t hat t he absence of a language i nput effect in t hi s
gr oup is a st rai ght forward reflection of t he fact t hat t hey do not
compr ehend language well enough t o expl oi t i t as an ai d t o ges-
t ur al pr oduct i on. And yet, t hey still pr oduced many of t he t ar-
get gestures. Some factor ot her t han compr ehensi on medi at i on
must account for t hei r behavior.
These resul t s suggest t hat t he effect of l i ngui st i c i nput on ges-
t ur al i mi t at i on changes over t i me. Gest ur al i mi t at i on is un-
affected by accompanyi ng language at t he earl i est stages of l exi -
cal devel opment . Language i nput can pl ay a support i ve rol e at
the mi ddl e stages, but these chi l dren appar ent l y i gnored t he l i n-
guistic cue i f it confl i ct ed wi t h t he model ed gesture. Finally, sup-
50
40
30
20'
10
i
supportive
neutral
cont radi ct ory
COMPREHENSION GROUP
Figure 3. Effects of linguistic input on the proportion of gestures imi-
tated for 13-15-month-old children with low, medium, and high levels
of word comprehension.
port i ve language is appar ent l y unnecessar y or not par t i cul ar l y
helpful for chi l dren at t he highest levels of compr ehensi on; how-
ever, when t here is a conflict between verbal and gestural i nput ,
t he per f or mance of high compr ehender s is negatively affected.
So far it appears t hat t he par al l el i sm hypot hesi s and t he com-
prehensi on medi at i on hypot hesi s are bot h correct , but at
different poi nt s in devel opment and in different chi l dren. To
obt ai n furt her evidence r egar di ng t he rel at i on bet ween language
abi l i t i es and gestural performance, we t ur n t o anal yses usi ng
language pr oduct i on as a gr oupi ng vari abl e.
Analyses by production group. The relative i ndependence of
compr ehensi on and pr oduct i on i n our par ent al r epor t s suggests
t hat these two aspects of language may each bear a somewhat
different rel at i on t o symbol i c gesture (cf. Bates et al., 1980). To
test t hi s hypothesis, we r epeat ed t he Language-Level X Li ngui s-
t i c- I nput Condi t i on analysis, using expressive r at her t han re-
ceptive vocabul ar y t o define t he gr oups (see Foot not e 1).
Not surprisingly, we agai n obt ai ned a significant mai n effect
of i nput condi t i on, F( 2, 78) = 3.32, p < .05. Ther e was al so a
mai n effect of expressive vocabul ary, F(1, 39) = 6.18, p < .02,
with mor e gestural i mi t at i ons pr oduced by t he high vocabul ar y
group. However, in cont rast wi t h anal yses using compr ehensi on
level, t here was no significant i nt er act i on between vocabul ar y
level and i nput condi t i on, F(2, 78) = .25, ns.
Because the propensi t y for high vocabul ar y chi l dren t o pr o-
duce mor e model ed gestures is equi val ent across l i ngui st i c-i n-
put condi t i ons, we can concl ude t hat t hei r advant age i n gestural
out put reflects mor e t han recept i ve language ability. Compr e-
hension medi at i on does occur, but i t is not sufficient t o account
for t he devel opment al rel at i on between language and symbol i c
gesture at the one-word stage. Ther e may be an addi t i onal , spe-
cific rel at i on between language pr oduct i on and gesture.
Words and sound effects during the experiment. Meani ngful
speech was rare in t hi s si t uat i on, i mi t at i ve or not. Onl y 11 of
t he 41 chi l dren pr oduced any meani ngful speech at al l across
t he course of t he exper i ment . Seven chi l dr en pr oduced one or
mor e sound effects associ at ed wi t h t he gesture dur i ng t hei r own
pr oduct i on (e.g., "whee" wi t h t he ai r pl ane gesture, " vr oom"
wi t h t he car gesture, dr i nki ng noi ses wi t h t he cup gesture, eat i ng
noises with the spoon gesture, a mar ked sniffing noi se wi t h t he
gesture of smelling a flower). Because these sound effects were
not pr oduced by t he experi ment er, such vocal i zat i ons must be
t aken to mean t hat the chi l d recogni zed t he adul t model , addi ng
t he relevant sounds in his or her own rendi t i on. There were onl y
seven real words pr oduced i n all, by 4 of t he 41 chi l dren. One
chi l d pr oduced t hr ee words ( " c up' ; " baby; ' and "pl ane") , an-
ot her pr oduced two words ("flower" and "dog") , and 2 ot her
chi l dren each pr oduced onl y one wor d ( "doggi e" and "' baby; '
respectively). Broken down by language condi t i on, 3 followed a
support i ve model, 4 followed a cont r adi ct or y model , and none
occur r ed in t he neut r al condi t i on (where t here was no adul t
model t o i mi t at e). Because all seven words mat ched t he adul t
model, t hey may const i t ut e i nst ances of vocal i mi t at i on.
Al t hough vocal pr oduct i ons were i nfrequent in t hi s experi -
ment , it is i nt erest i ng t hat t he vocal i zat i on dat a bear a U- shaped
rel at i on t o compr ehensi on level: 3 of t he 14 low compr ehender s
pr oduced sound effects, 7 of t he 14 mi ddl e compr ehender s pr o-
duced sound effects or words, or bot h, and onl y 1 of t he high
compr ehender s pr oduced any vocal i zat i on at all (the single
word "baby") . Wi t h regard t o expressive language level (as re-
por t ed by t he parent ), 7 of t he I 1 chi l dren who pr oduced mean-
ingful speech dur i ng t he exper i ment had expressive vocabul a-
ries of mor e t han 10 words. Thi s difference is in t he expect ed
di rect i on, but is not overwhelming.
To summar i ze, t here are si mi l ari t i es between observed vocal -
i zat i ons and observed gest ures wi t hi n t he exper i ment al task; vo-
cal i zat i ons ar e somewhat mor e common for chi l dren wi t h high
r epor t ed vocabul ari es, but t hey bear a U- shaped rel at i onshi p
t o compr ehensi on level. Because t here were t oo few i nst ances
of meani ngful speech t o j ust i f y statistical analyses, these resul t s
are merel y suggestive. We will r et ur n t o t hem l at er i n a discus-
sion of t he pr oduct i on medi at i on account of l anguage/ gest ure
rel at i ons.
Factor analysis of parental report and laboratory measures.
Pr i nci pal component analysis wi t h var i max r ot at i on was ap-
pl i ed t o a sel ect ed subset of measur es i n St udy 2 t o expl ore rel a-
t i on between l abor at or y and par ent al r epor t measur es of l an-
guage and gesture when cognitive cont ent was held const ant
(i.e., when all measures per t ai ned to t he same set of 12 obj ect
concepts). Five measures were selected: scores from the par en-
t al r epor t for number of exper i ment al words compr ehended,
number of exper i ment al words pr oduced, and number of ex-
per i ment al gestures pr oduced; scores from t he l abor at or y ses-
sion for number of target gestures pr oduced spont aneousl y in
free play; and number of t arget gestures i mi t at ed i n t he neut r al
language condi t i on. We focused on t he neut r al language condi -
t i on only, i n or der t o obt ai n a measur e of el i ci t ed gesture t hat
was maxi mal l y i ndependent of language i nput . Age i n days was
also i ncl uded as a vari abl e in t he analysis. Tabl e 5 summar i zes
raw correl at i ons among all six vari abl es; Table 6 summar i zes
t he fact or l oadi ngs t hat emerged aft er rot at i on.
Because t he vari abl es ent ered i nt o t hi s factor analysis are
different in many respect s from t he vari abl es used in t he factor
anal ysi s in St udy 1, we shoul d not expect i dent i cal results. How-
ever, t he resul t s obt ai ned in t hese t wo different pr i nci pal com-
ponent anal yses ar e qui t e compat i bl e. Once again, two factors
wi t h eigenvalues great er t han 1.0 emerged, wi t h factor l oadi ngs
s ummar i zed in Tabl e 5. The two factors once agai n reflect a
di ssoci at i on between word compr ehensi on and word pr oduc-
t i on, anal ogous in several respect s t o t he two factors t hat
emerged in St udy 1. Fact or 1 has an eigenvalue of 2.61, and
account s for 43.5% of t he vari ance. Word compr ehensi on l oads
on t hi s fact or at + .85. Fact or 2 has an eigenvalue of 1.15, and
account s for an addi t i onal 19.3% of t he vari ance. Word pr oduc-
t i on l oads on t hi s fact or at + .53. Age l oads positively on bot h
factors, but it is not t he defining vari abl e in ei t her case. As in
St udy 1, age l oads mor e strongly on t he Pr oduct i on factor (.69)
t han t he Compr ehensi on factor (.39).
Of great est i nt erest here ar e t he factor l oadi ngs for t he t hree
respective measures of obj ect -associ at ed gesture. Two measures
l oad highly on t he Compr ehensi on f a c t o r i t h e number of spon-
t aneous gestures observed in t he free pl ay segment (.81) and t he
number of exper i ment al gest ures r epor t ed by t he par ent s (.51).
Two gest ural measur es l oaded highly on t he Pr oduct i on fac-
t o r - t h e number of exper i ment al gestures i mi t at ed in t he l an-
LANGUAGE AND GESTURE
Tabl e 5
Correlations Among a Subset of Measures From the Parental Report and the Laboratory Session
1015
Spontaneous Words Words Gestures Total
Variable Age gestures comprehended produced produced imitation
Age
Spontaneous gestures .41"* - -
Words comprehended .34* .52*** - -
Words produced .35** .26* .27* - -
Gestures produced .44** .23 .56*** .28*
Total imitation .41 ** .01 .05 .25 .30*
*p < . 05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
guage-neut ral condi t i on (.87) and t he number of exper i ment al
gestures r epor t ed by par ent s (.53).
Ther e appear s t o be a di ssoci at i on between t he spont aneous
gestures observed i n a br i ef l abor at or y free pl ay segment (with
real i st i c versions of t he referent obj ect ) and t he same gestures
el i ci t ed out of cont ext (wi t hout suppor t i ng i nf or mat i on from
adul t language or from t he referent object). Our par ent al r epor t
measur e appear s t o be sensitive t o bot h sources of vari at i on,
l oadi ng on bot h t he Compr ehensi on and t he Pr oduct i on factors.
Thi s repl i cat es t he findings r epor t ed i n St udy 1. These findings
al so r epl i cat e an earl i er r epor t by Bates et al. (1980), who found
t hat gest ural i mi t at i on in a scri pt ed si t uat i on correl at es wi t h
language compr ehensi on, whereas i mi t at i on of i sol at ed gestures
out of cont ext correl at es wi t h language pr oduct i on. Once again,
we must concl ude t hat at l east two mechani sms ar e responsi bl e
for t he rel at i on between language and gest ure in t hi s age range,
even when we rest ri ct our focus t o symbol s associ at ed wi t h a
common set of obj ect concept s.
Co n c l u s i o n
We began by present i ng compr ehensi on medi at i on and par al -
l el i sm as compet i ng expl anat i ons for t he finding t hat language
and gesture develop together. Our resul t s suggest t hat bot h
hypot heses are correct , account i ng for different aspect s of t he
dat a.
Chi l dr en in t he 12- 16- mont h age range ar e i ndeed capabl e
of using adul t language as an ai d i n t he acqui si t i on and use o f
gest ural schemes. Evi dence i n favor o f compr ehensi on medi a-
t i on was appar ent i n bot h studies. Fi rst , wor d compr ehensi on
and gestural pr oduct i on were highly c or r e l a t e d- - pa r t i c ul a r l y
when we consi dered onl y t hose gestures t hat poi nt ed t o or rep-
resent ed objects. Second, t he exper i ment al st udy showed t hat
l i ngui st i c i nput does affect gest ural per f or mance.
However, t he rel at i on between compr ehensi on and gesture is
qui t e compl ex, wi t h some surpri si ng cur vi l i near effects. Li n-
gui st i c i nput had little or no effect among t he low compr ehend-
ers, and yet t hese chi l dr en di d i mi t at e some of t he adul t gestural
models. Chi l dr en in t he mi ddl e compr ehensi on gr oup were abl e
t o use support i ve language t o enhance t hei r per f or mance, but
t hey i gnor ed t he l i ngui st i c cue when i t cont r adi ct ed t he adul t ' s
act i on. Yet anot her pat t er n occur r ed among t he high compr e-
benders; cont r adi ct or y language suppressed t hei r per f or mance,
but support i ve language di d not i ncrease per f or mance beyond
t he levels di spl ayed when t he adul t pr ovi ded no l i ngui st i c i nfor-
mat i on at all. Compr ehensi on medi at i on appear s t o be an op-
t i on t hat is available t o 1-year-old chi l dren, developing wi t hi n
t he nar r ow age wi ndow st udi ed here; but it is also appar ent t hat
compr ehensi on medi at i on is not obligatory, nor is it equal l y
effective at every stage of devel opment .
Anot her cur i ous pat t er n involves t he U- shaped rel at i on be-
tween compr ehensi on level and t ot al gestural i mi t at i on scores.
I mi t at i on was most likely among chi l dr en in t he mi ddl e com-
prehensi on group. Thi s fi ndi ng par al l el s a r epor t by Shore et al.
(i n press) for a separ at e sampl e of 28- mont h- ol d infants, and i t
is compat i bl e wi t h a t heor y of i mi t at i on pr oposed by Kagan
(1981). Specifically, Kagan pr oposed t hat i mi t at i on is most
likely when t he model lies j ust out si de t he chi l d' s cur r ent level
of compet ence, t hat is, when it is nei t her t oo easy nor t oo har d
(see al so K. E. Nelson & Nelson, 1978). Such U- shaped func-
t i ons ar e chast eni ng because t hey al er t agai nst t he assumpt i ons
of l i near i t y t hat lie behi nd t he l i near cor r el at i onal statistics used
i n most devel opment al s t udi es - - i ncl udi ng our own- - ( s e e Bates
et al. , 1988, for furt her di scussi on of t hi s poi nt . )
Tabl e 6
Factor Loadings in Study 2
Measure Communalities Factor 1 Factor 2
Parental report
Experimental
words
comprehended .7523 .8510 .1675
Experimental
words
produced .3770 .2994 .5361
Experimental
gestures
produced .5488 .5091 .5381
Laboratory
Gestures produced
spontaneously
in free-play
condition .6585 .8088 .0656
Gestures imitated
in language-
neutral
condition .7987 -. 2036 .8705
Age .6323 .3926 .6915
Although the relation between comprehensi on and gesture is
quite robust, appearing in bot h the observational and parental
report data, some version of the parallelism hypothesis is still
needed t o account for the independent relation t hat holds be-
tween gesture and expressive language. This was made particu-
larly clear in the contrast between the respective comprehensi on
and product i on group analyses. Comprehensi on level inter-
acted with the language support manipulation; product i on level
did not. Children with high expressive vocabularies produced
more gestural imitations in the experiment in all three language
support conditions.
The same conclusion falls out of the factor analyses in Study
1 and Study 2. Two significant factors emerged in bot h these
studies, reflecting a dissociation between comprehensi on and
product i on in this age range. Because the factor scores are made
up of different ingredients in Study 1 and Study 2, the two anal-
yses may be telling slightly different stories. But the similarities
are interesting, and they offer us some possible directions for
future research.
In bot h studies, we argued t hat the Comprehensi on factor re-
flects developments in symbol i c/ concept ual content. I n Study
1, this factor was associated with deictic gestures and enactive
nami ng (i.e., gestures t hat are used t o recognize, explore, and
communi cat e about a world of familiar objects). In Study 2, the
factor was again associated with measures of enactive naming,
in free play and parental report. These measures all t ap i nt o the
spontaneous use of gesture under relatively naturalistic condi-
t i o n s - wi t h realistic objects and with supporting gestural and
vocal activity provided by the parent.
Both studies also yielded a second factor, associated with
variance in word product i on. In Study l, this factor was associ-
ated with routines t hat make reference t o not hi ng but t hem-
selves (e.g., "pattycake," "bye-bye"), although it also received
some contribution from object-associated gestures. In Study 2,
this factor was associated with "decont ext ual i zed" gest ur e- - ac-
tion schemes produced without support from the target object,
independent of the adul t ' s accompanyi ng narration. Parental
report loaded on bot h factors, in bot h studies, suggesting t hat
the gesture i nvent ory picks up variance in the product i on of
recognitory gestures under a wide variety of eliciting condi-
tions.
To interpret these dissociations correctly, we must remember
t hat factor analysis maximizes orthogonality. Hence, the Pro-
duction factor in bot h studies reflects those aspects of expressive
language t hat are not shared by compr ehensi on- - pr esumabl y
some kind of performance variable. There are (at least) three
possible interpretations of this independent link between word
product i on and aspects of product i on in the gestural domai n:
1. Imitativeness. In the linguistic domain, some children
may have receptive vocabularies far beyond their expressive
speech because they are "cautious, " unwilling t o at t empt repro-
duction of adult speech until they are absolutely certain what
it means. The same children mi ght be reluctant t o imitate an
adult gesture out of context, without additional cues from lan-
guage or the referent object. Other children may be willing t o
imitate an adult model in either modality, whether they under-
stand it or not. Differences in "propensity t o i mi t at e" mi ght in
t urn reflect several different factors: t emperament (e.g., shy-
ness), aspects of the mot her-chi l d relationship (e.g., whether or
not the parents encourage and reward imitation), and cognitive
style (i.e., whatever factors are responsible for the curvilinear
relation between comprehensi on and imitation observed in
Study 2).
2. Conceptual progress. Product i on of bot h gestures and
words for common objects may be based in part on advances in
symbolic understanding above and beyond the level required for
compr ehensi on- - a different cognitive system or, alternatively, a
higher level of sophistication within the same symbolic system.
3. Mot or planning. Progress in gestural and vocal product i on
in the 12-16-mont h age range may be based on some kind of
shared art i cul at ory/ mot or development for which comprehen-
sion is a necessary but not sufficient condition.
We cannot decide among these interpretations at this time.
They are not mutually exclusive, and they are all compatible
with the parallelism hypothesis. However, one final count er t o
parallelism could still be entertained: Perhaps children with
high vocabularies perform better on abstract symbolic play
tasks because they are t al ki ng to themselves. That is, the infant
may use covert product i on (rather t han comprehension) as an
aid t o his or her gestural activity. We certainly cannot rule out
this possibility because it may account for some of the advan-
tage t hat the children with larger expressive vocabularies dis-
played in our task.
However, there are reasons t o believe t hat covert speech plays
a mi ni mal role in this age range. First, very few children pro-
duced any overt object labels in this experimental situation.
Second, descriptive statistics from the parental report and ob-
servations in the laboratory bot h suggest t hat gestural produc-
tion is developing ahead of expressive language. This fact makes
it unlikely t hat children produce gestures by first retrieving an
associated word, using t hat covert or overt word as a guide t o
gestural product i on. Third, children at the earliest stages of
symbol development tend not t o have a large number of overlap-
ping words and gestures in their repertoires (Volterra et al.,
1979). I f the child has a word for an object, he or she is slightly
less likely t o have a corresponding gesture; conversely, i f the
child has a gesture for a given object, he or she is initially some-
what less likely t o acquire or make use of the corresponding
word. This trend is compatible with an argument first raised in
the bilingualism literature by Volterra and Taeschner (1977):
Children in the earliest stages of lexical development tend t o
avoid assigning two words t o the same referent, so t hat words
from their respective languages lie in compl ement ary distribu-
tion with few if any translatable pairs. The rule seems t o be
"one referent, one symbol. " Slobin (1985) also reported this
effort t o keep things simple in the early stages of grammat i cal
development. He described it as the principle of "one form, one
function." Taken together, these findings suggest t hat covert lin-
guistic product i on is probabl y not going on while a "gestural
name" is being produced, at least not in the early stages of sym-
bol development.
At some poi nt in development, it is bot h possible and likely
t hat language "wraps back ar ound" t o provide support for sym-
bolic play activity, t hrough comprehensi on mediation (which
we have demonstrated), and possibly t hrough covert or overt
language product i on (a poi nt for further investigation--cf. Vy-
gotsky, 1967). Ther e is, nevert hel ess, still a mpl e evi dence for
s ome f or m o f par al l el i sm in t he devel opment o f l anguage and
gest ure, Thi s f i ndi ng is i mp o r t a n t f or t hose pr act i t i oner s who
woul d like t o use t he chi l d' s l evel o f f unct i oni ng i n a nonl i ngui s-
t i c d o ma i n as an ai d in t he i nt er pr et at i on o f l anguage del ays
( Leonar d, 1988; Ri ce, 1983; Thai & Bates, 1988a, 1988b).
Gi ven t he compl exi t y o f our findings, such assessment s must
be car r i ed out wi t h e xt r e me caut i on. Resul t s may vary, depend-
i ng on t he condi t i ons under whi ch gest ur e is assessed (i.e., wi t h
or wi t hout per cept ual s uppor t f r om t he obj ect , and wi t h or
wi t hout ei t her gest ural or vocal cui ng f r om an adul t ). Al so, re-
sul t s will mos t cer t ai nl y var y dependi ng on whet her t he i nvest i -
gat or is i nt er est ed in r ecept i ve or expr essi ve l anguage devel op-
ment . As we have seen, c ompr e he ns i on and pr oduc t i on o f l an-
guage can be di ssoci at ed t o a r e ma r ka bl e degr ee i n nor mal l y
devel opi ng chi l dr en (Bat es et al., 1987) and i n chi l dr en who ar e
del ayed or i mpa i r e d in l anguage (Tallal, 1987; T h a l & Bates,
1988a). Our resul t s suggest t hat t he s ame di ssoci at i on is re-
fl ect ed in t he r el at i on bet ween l anguage and gest ure. The r e ar e
at pr esent no convi nci ng expl anat i ons for t hi s di ssoci at i on i n-
si de or out si de o f t he l anguage domai n. However, i t is possi bl e
t hat f ur t her c ompa r i s ons o f l anguage and gest ur e may hel p t o
sol ve t he pr obl em.
Re f e r e n c e s
Acredolo, L., & Goodwyn, S. (1988). Symbolic gesturing in normal in-
fants. Child Development. 59, 450-466.
Bates, E., Beeghly, M, Bretherton, I., Harris, C., Marchman, V., Mc-
New, S., Oakes, L., O' Connell, B., Reznick, S., Shore, C, Snyder, L.,
Thai, D., Volterra, V., & Whitesell, K. (1986). The Language and
Gesture Inventon: Unpublished checklist. University of California,
San Diego.
Bates, E,, Benigni, L, Brelherton, I., Camaioni, L., & Volterra, V.
(1977). From gesture to the first word. In I. M. Lewis & L. Rosenblum
(Eds.), ln[eraction, con versation and the development ~flanguage (pp.
247-308). New York: Wiley.
Bates, E., Benigni, L., Bretherton, I., Camaioni, L., & Volterra, V.
(1979). The emergence of symbols: Cognition and communication in
inlancy. New York: Academic Press.
Bates, E., Bretherton,' I,, Shore, C., & McNe~; S. (1983). Names, ges-
tures, and objects: Symbolization in infancy and aphasia. In K. Nel-
son (Ed), Children ~' language: Volume I V (pp. 59-t24), Hillsdale,
N J: Erlbaum,
Bates, E., Bretherton, I.. & Snyder, L. (1988). Fromfirst ~z)rds togram-
mar. Individual diff~,rences and dissociable mechanisms. New ~brk:
Cambridge University Press.
Bates. E., Bretherton, I., Snyder, L., Shore, L., & Volterra, V. (1980).
Gestural and vocal symbols at 13 months. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,
26. 407-423.
Bates, E., O' Connell, B, & Shore, C. (1987). Language and communica-
tion in infancy. In J. Osofsky (Ed.), ttandbook of i t ~mt development
(2nd ed., pp. 149-203). New York: Wiley.
Bates, E,, & Snyder, L. (1987). The cognitive hypothesis in language
development. In I. Uzgiris & J McV. Hunt (Eds), Research with scales
~[ps.l~'hotogical development in iq[dm3~ (pp. 168-206). Champaign-
Urbana: University of lllinois Press.
Bates, E., Snyder, L., Bretherton, I., & Volterra, V. (1979). The emer-
gence of symbols in language and action: Similarities and differences.
Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, 17, 106-118.
Bates, E.. & Volterra, V. (1984). On the invention of language: An alter-
native view (Commentary on S. Golden-Meadow & C. Mylander).
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 49,
(3-4, Serial No. 207),
Bauer, P., & Shore, C. (1986). Nonlinguistic concomitants ofst)~istic
differences in early muttiword speech. Unpublished manuscript.
Beeghly, M., & Cicchetti, D. (1987). An organizational approach to
symbolic development in children with Down Syndrome. In D. Cic-
chetti & M. Beeghly (Eds), Atypical symbolic development (pp. 5-30).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bretherton, I. (Ed.). (1984). Symbolic play." The development of social
understanding. New York: Academic Press.
Bretherton, I., & Bates, E. (1984). The development of representation
from 10 to 28 months: Differential stability of language and symbolic
pla?y: In R. Erode & R. Harmon (Eds.), Continu#ies and discontinu-
ities in development (pp. 229-262). New York: Plenum Press.
Bretherton, I., Bates, E., Benigni, L., Camaioni, L., & Volterra, V.
(t 979). Relationships between cognition, communication and quality
of attachment. In E. Bates, L. Benigni, I . B r e t h e r t o n , L . Camaioni,
& V. Volterra (Eds.), The emergence of symbols: Cognition and com-
munication in inJancy (pp. 223-270). New York: Academic Press.
Bretherton, l., O' Connell, B., Shore, C., & Bates, E. (1984). The effect
of contextual variation on symbolic play: Development from 20 to 28
months. In I. Bretherton (Ed.), Symbolic play: The development of
social understanding (pp. 271-298). New York: Academic Press.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of a theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA:
MI T Press.
Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representations. Brain and Behavioral
Sciences. 3. 1-61.
Corrigan, R. (1978). Language development as related to stage 6 object
permanence development. Journal of Child Language, 5, 173-189.
Curcio, E ( 1977, October). ,4 study of sensorimotor functioning and
communication in mute autistic children. Paper presented at the Bos-
ton Child Language Forum, Boston, MA,
Curtiss, S., & ~hmada, J. (1978, September). Language and cognition.
Paper presented at the third annual Boston University Conference on
Language Development, Boston, MA.
Curtiss, S, Yamada, J., & Fromkin, V. (1980), ttow independent is lan-
guage? On the question oftbrmal parallels between action and gram-
mar Unpublished manuscript. University of California at Los Ange-
les, Department of Linguistics.
Dale, P., Bates, E.. Reznick, S., & Morisset, C. (1989). The validity of a
parent report instrument of child language at 20 months. Journal of
(Tlild Language. 16. 239-250.
Dale, P.. & Robinson, N. (1988, April). Linguisticprecoeity, cognition,
and development. Paper presented at the Sixth International Confer-
ence on Infant Studies, Washington, DC.
Elder, J., & Pederson, D. (1978). Preschool children' s use of objects in
symbolic play. Child Development. 42, 500-505.
Epport, K. ( 1988, April) The relationship between facial affect expres-
siveness and language ability in children born preterm and "at risk '~
Poster presented at the Sixth International Conference on Infant
studies, Washington, DC.
Escalona, S. (I 973). Basic modes of social interaction: Their emergence
and patterning during the first two ?years of life. Merrill-Palmer Quar-
terly: 19. 205-232.
Fenson, L., & Ramsay, D. (1981). Effects of modeling action sequences
on the play of twelve, fifteen, and nineteen month old children, Child
Dev~4opment. 32, 1028-1036.
Fenson, L., Vella, D.. Flynn, D., & Thai, D. (1988). Developmental
norms /br fi)ur parental inventory reports of language and communi-
cation between 9 and 28 months. Unpublished manuscript. San Diego
State University and University of California, San Diego.
Fischer, K. (1980). A theory of cognitive development: The control and
construction of hierarchies of skill. Psychological Review, 87. 477-
526.
Fodor, J. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MI T Press.
Golden-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, (4, Serial No. 207).
Goldfield, B. ( 1988, April). Pointing, naming and talk about toys: Refer-
ential behavior in children and mothers. Paper presented at the Sixth
International Conference on Infant Studies, Washington, DC.
Gopnik, A., & Meltzoff, A. (1986). Relations between semantic and cog-
nitive development in the one word stage: The specificity hypothesis.
Child Development, 57, 1040-1053.
Gopnik, A., & Meltzoff, A. (1987). The development of categorization
in the second year and its relation to other cognitive and linguistic
developments. Child Development, 58, 1523-1531.
Harnick, E (1978). The relationship between ability level and task
difficulty in producing imitation in infants. ChiM Development,'49,
209-212.
Harris, E (1983). Infant cognition. In J. Campos & M. Haith (Eds.),
Handbook of clinical psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 689-782). New York:
Wiley.
Huttenlocher, J., & Higgins, E. (1978). Issues in the study of symbolic
development. In A. Collins (Ed.), Minnesota Symposia on ChildPsy-
chology (Vol. 11, pp. 98-140). Hillsdale, N J: Erlbaum.
lnhelder, B., Lezine, I., Sinclaire, H., & Stembak, M. ( 1971). The begin-
nings of symbolic function. Archives de Psychologic, 41, 187-243.
Johnston, J. (1985). Cognitive prerequisites: The evidence for children
learning English. In D. Slobin, (Ed.), The cross-linguistic study of lan-
guage acquisition (pp. 961-1004). Hillsdale, N J: Erlbaum.
Kagan, J. ( 1981 ). The second year." The emergence of self awareness.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kamhi, A. ( 1981). Nonlinguistic symbolic and gestural abilities of lan-
guage impaired and normally developing children. Journal of Speech
and Hearing Research, 24, 446-453.
Killen, M., & Uzgiris! I. (1981). Imitation of actions with objects: The
role of social meaning. Journal of Genetic Psychology. 138. 219-229.
Leonard, L. (1988). Is specific language impairment a useful construct?
In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics. Volume
1: Disorders of first language development (pp. 1-39). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Lezine, I. (1978). The transition from sensorimotor to earliest symbolic
function. Biological and Environmental Determinants of Early De-
velopment (Research Pub., Association for Research in Nervous and
Mental Disorders), 5 I, 221-232.
Nelson, K. (1973). Structure and strategy in learning to talk. Mono-
graphs of the Society.for Research in Child Development, 38( 1-2, Se-
rial No. 49).
Nelson, K. ( 1981). Individual differences i n language development: Im-
plications for development and language~'Developmental Psychology.
17, 170-187.
Nelson, K. (1985). Making sense: The acquisition of shared meaning.
New York: Academic Press.
Nelson, K. E., & Nelson, K. (1978). Cognitive pendulums and their
linguistic realization. In K. E. Nelson, (Ed.), Children "s language. Vol-
ume I (pp. 223-285). New York: Gardner Press.
Nicolich, L. (1977). Beyond sensorimotor intelligence: Assessment of
symbolic maturity through analysis of pretend play. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly. 23, 89-99.
O' Brien, M. ( 1988, April). Cognitive and social predictors of early lan-
guage. Poster presented at the Sixth International Conference on In-
fant Studies, Washington, DC.
Petitto, L. (1988). "Language" in the prelinguistic child. In E Kessel
(Ed.), Development of Language and Language Researchers (pp.
187-222). Hillsdale, N J: Erlbaum.
Piaget, J. (1962). Play. dreams and imitation in childhood. New York:
Norton.
Rescorla, L. (in press). The language development survey: A screening
tool for delayed language in toddlers. Journal of Speech and Hearing
Research.
Rescorla, L., & Schwartz, E. (1988, April). Outcome of specific expres-
sive language delay (SELD). Poster presented at the Sixth Interna-
tional Conference on Infant Studies, Washington, DC.
Reznick, S., & Goldsmith, S. (1989). Assessing early language: A multi-
ple form word production checklist. Journal of Child Language, 16,
91-100.
Rice, M. (1983). Contemporary accounts of the cognition/language re-
lationship: Implications for speech-language clinicians. Journal of
Speech and Hearing Disorders', 48, 347-359.
Roeper, T., & Williams, E. (Eds.). (1987). Parameter setting. Dordrecht,
Holland: Reidel.
Roth, E, & Clark, D. (1987). Symbolic play and social participation
abilities of language-impaired and normally developing children.
Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 48, 347-359.
Shore, C., Bates, E., Bretherton, I., Beeghly, M., & O' Connell, B. (in
press). Vocal and gestural symbols: Similarities and differences from
13 to 28 months. In V. Volterra & C. Erting (Eds.), From gesture to
language in hearing and deaf children. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Shore, C., O' Connell, B., & Bates, E. (1984). First sentences in language
and symbolic play. Developmental Psychology, 20, 872-880.
Sigman, M., & Mundy, P. (1987). Symbolic processes in young autistic
children. In D. Cicchetti & M. Beeghly (Eds.), Symbolic development
in atypical children (pp. 31-46). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Slobin, D. (1985). The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition.
Hillsdale, N J: Erlbaum.
Snyder, L. (1975). Pragmatics in language-deficient children: Prelin-
guistic and early verbal performatives and presuppositions. Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado, Boulder.
Snyder, L. (1977). Communicative and cognitive abilities in the sensori-
motor period. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 24, 161 - 180.
Snyder, L., Bates, E., & Bretherton, I. (1981). Content and context in
early lexical development. Journal of ChiM Language, 8, 565-582.
Tallal, E (1987). Developmental language disorders (Interagency Com-
mittee on Learning Disabilities report to the U.S. Congress). Wash-
ington, DC.
Tamis-LeMonda, C., & Bornstein, M. (1989). Habituation and mater-
nal encouragement of attention in infancy as predictors of toddler
language, play, and representational competence. Child Development,
60, 738-751.
Terrell, B., Schwartz, R., Prelock, P., & Messick, C. (1984). Symbolic
play in normal and language impaired children. Journal of Speech
and Hearing Research, 27, 424-429.
Thai, D., & Bates, E. (1988a). Language and gesture in late talkers. Jour-
nal of Speech and Hearing Research. 31, 115-123.
Thai, D., & Bates, E. (1988b, November). Relationships between lan-
guage and cognition: Evidence from linguistically precocious chil-
dren. Paper presented to the annual convention of the American
Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Boston, MA.
Thai, D., Bates, E., & Bellugi, U. (in press). Language and symbolic
gesture in two children with Williams syndrome. Journal of Speech
and Hearing Research.
Uzgiris, I., & Hunt, J. (1978). Assessment in infancy. Urbana: Univer-
sity of Illinois Press.
Uzgiris, I., & Hunt, J. (1987). Infant performance and experience:
New findings with the ordinal scales. ~Urbana: University of Illinois
Press.
Vi hman, M. (1986). Individual differences in babbl i ng and early speech:
Predicting t o age three. In B. Li ndbl om & R. Zet t erst rom (Eds.), Pre-
cursors of early speech (pp. 95-112). Baskingstroke, Hampshi re, Eng-
land: MacMillan.
Volterra, V., & Caseili, M. (1985). Fr om gestures and vocalizations to
signs and words. In W. Stokes & V. Volterra (Eds.), SLR83: Proceed-
ings of the III International Symposium in Sign Language Research
(pp. 1-9). Silver Spring, MD: Linestock Press.
Volterra, V., Bates, E., Benigni, L., Bretherton, I., & Camaioni, L.
(1979). First words i n language and action: A qualitative look. In E.
Bates, L. Benigni, I. Bretherton, L. Camaioni, & V. Volterra (Eds.),
The emergence of symbols: Cognition and communication in infancy
(pp. 141-222). New York: Academic Press.
Volterra, V., & Taeschner, T. (1977). The origin and development of
child language by a bilingual child. Journal of Child Language, 5,
311-326.
Vygotsky, L. (1967). Play and its role i n the ment al development of t he
child. Soviet Psychology, 5, 6-18.
Werner, L., & Kaplan, B. (1963). Symbol formation: An organismic-
developmental approach to language and expression of thought. New
York: Wiley.
Wolf, D., & Gardner, H. (1979). Style and sequence i n symbolic play.
In N. Franklin & M. Smi t h (Eds.), Early symbolization (pp. 117-
138). Hillsdale, N J: Erl baum.
Zukow, P. (1984). Cri t eri a for t he emergence of symbolic conduct:
When words refer and play is symbolic. In L. Feagans, C. Garvey, &
R. Gol i nkoff (Eds.), The origins and growth of communication (pp.
162-175). Norwood, N J: Ablex.
Appendix
Object Words and Gestures Used in Experiment
Word Gest ure
% of children % of children % of children % of chi l dren
report ed to report ed to report ed t o produci ng
produce comprehend produce gesture i n
gesture word word experi ment
Cup
Baby
Phone
Spoon
Comb
Car
Toot hbrush
Hat
Flower
Soap
Dog
Airplane
Dr i nk wi t h head back, cupped hand 95 62 0 63
Hug with rocking mot i on 90 71 38 12
Put t o ear 88 71 2 29
Put t o mout h (open and close 86 58 2 39
mout h, hand t o side of mout h)
Comb hai r 86 71 0 37
Back and fort h mot i on on t abl e 84 67 24 37
Brush t eet h with horizontal back 61 56 0 49
and forth mot i on
Put on t op of head 54 40 7 22
Put to nose and sniff 45 53 11 37
Wash hands 22 29 4 17
Hop across table 18 82 69 44
Back and fort h mot i on in the ai r 9 38 7 17
Recei ved Ma r c h 11, 1988
Revi s i on r ecei ved Ma r c h 22, 1989
Ac c e pt e d Ma r c h 23, 1989

LangandGesture PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

LangandGesture PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Developmental Psychology Copyright 1989 by the American Psychological Association, t~e.

1989, Vol. 25, No. 6, 1004-1019 0012-1649/89/$00.75

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi