Talk:Gestures in language acquisition

Untitled

Needs to be at least wikified / WP-ised, and probably completely rewritten into an encyclopedia article instead of an essay on the subject. --213.162.65.17 11:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a very interesting article; however, I suggest that you change or rephrase your title a little bit. The title could be changed to: The use of gestures in language development, or Infants' gestures and language acquisition, or simply Gestures. The article needs more contents indicating gestures used by children during language development, and the interpretations of those gestures. This article also needs more references and external links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julietbee (talk • contribs) 20:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Julietbee (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cait ash, Clfergus, Mikailaperrino. Peer reviewers: Tulsa01, Sarah.Monk, Kcarlson2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Suggestions for Edits

I have started some suggestions for editing this page in my Sandbox. Cait ash (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Reformat and Edits

Hello, I have started suggesting some changes and reedits for this page on my Sandbox. Mikailaperrino (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Further Suggestions

I have further suggestions for this page in my Sandbox. Clfergus (talk) Clfergus (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Rename

Hi all I think I figured out how to rename this page but it involved "moving" it so I am not sure what happens to the old page. Can everyone see that the title has changed and work on this page? (rather than the old one - if it still exists?) Also we never really came to a consensus on the title name but is this one okay? Cait ash (talk) Mikailaperrino (talk) Tulsa01, Sarah.Monk, Kcarlson2 Marentette Clfergus (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to pop in uninvited, but Help:Moving a page might be of assistance to you. Essentially, renaming like this involves moving all the content to a new title, which usually leaves a redirect that sends readers to the current page name. I've also moved the page to make sure the title conforms to the Manual of Style, specifically the guidelines for MOS:CAPS and WP:TITLES. Me, Myself & I (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Me, Myself & I (talk) I will check out this page and discuss with classmates on how appropriate the title is. There were previous recommendations to change it but I would be willing to reconsider Clfergus (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikifying Sources

I have attempted to consolidate the references twice now and have gone through and cited properly and it keeps reverting back to the original citations. I don't understand why there are two lists and I don't understand why it is not sticking.-- Cait ash (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC) Cait ash (talk) when I view it on my computer your consolidation seems to have stuck in one list rather than two! Clfergus (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hi all Tulsa01, Sarah.Monk, Kcarlson2 Marentette 

So it's easier to split up the only parts we have worked on are at the beginning as follows

• Introductory Paragraph
• Relationship between speech and gesture section
• Timeline of gesture development section
• Deictic gestures section
• Representational gestures section

The rest (bottom half) are from a previous editor that we organized into sections. I think that some of the sections could be removed because they may not be relevant or completely correct (specifically the difference between signs and gestures section) but let me know what you all think and we can decide from there. Thanks! Clfergus (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello everyone! Here is my peer review of the article!

For the article, Gestures in Language Acquisition, I think has a strong lead. There is nothing presented in the lead that isn’t present in the article which is important, creating for a strong lead for this article. I would suggest capitalizing the bullet points to create a more uniform looking section in the Relationship between speech and gesture section, this is just a suggestion though that I think would look more clean formatted this way. I believe that there is a neutral viewpoint presented in this section with the display of the multiple orders that gesture and speech can develop.

In the Timeline of Gesture Development, there are two statements in a row that say at the beginning of the sentence “ It has been suggested”- I would consider revising this to allow for a greater diversity within the paragraph. I think that having the age of the child in months being presented as bold in this section would make it easy to pick out the age of your child from a parental view point and make a quick comparison when reading the article.

For the section Incompatibility vs compatibility hypotheses I went through and made small edits throughout the section concerning grammar and sentence structure. I also tried to make some of the more biased sentences have a more neutral form, while still keeping the presented information. The “For Example” section of this I find to be weak because there are no references provided for the beginning part of it- as in where this example came from. As well as the part talking about that the children’s verbal vocabulary was increased does not have a citation- I think that this example section could possibly be taken out altogether. Carissa mentioned on the talk page that this section was from prior edits and additions on the page.

In regards to the Differences between sign and gesture section, I agree with Carissa with this section being weak. I think that a substantial amount of information would need to be added to this section to leave it on this wiki page, or else just get rid of this section all together as it does not directly pertain to the topic of gesture and language acquisition. One suggestion I would make is to add some information to the Conventional Gestures section as it is not equally represented with the Iconic Gestures section. I think that the sections you all worked on show a neutral viewpoint on the topic. Hope this helps and let me know if there are any areas that need clarification! -Kendall

   I agree with Kendall on the lead section, it is clear and easy to understand giving the reader an idea of what they will get out of the following content. Reading the timeline of gesture development the reader may be curious about the different types of gestures mentioned but the in depth explanation of each gesture following the timeline section makes for a well developed structure. The compatibility vs. incompatibility section I think is significant to create a neutral viewpoint on the topic but as Kendall said could be revised and checked for reliability. I also think that the augmentative and alternative communication section as well as the Kendon's continuum section are useful and interesting pieces of information related to gesture and therefore could be revised to stay on the page. Though the difference between signs and gestures section I don't think is very important in this case considering that gestures are a typical pre- verbal form of communication and signs are learned. This is more important to be clarified on our baby sign page but this section may be of significance to inform the parent that their is a manual pre- verbal form of communication beyond gesturing that is more complex and provide a link to the baby sign page. 

The last two sentences when speaking about joint attention could be revised or combined so that you do not sound repetitive with the word "precursor". The mention of Kovac et al. in the dietetic gesture section could be expanded on to explain how it evokes joint attention and contingent interaction which further facilitates language development. Is it possible to provide evidence to support the claim made in this section that pointing at 12 months old predicts speech production and comprehension rates at 24 months old. There is good support in the final paragraph of this section to suggest that gesture- word combinations lead to enhanced lexical and syntactic development.

I noticed that you could maybe make "iconic gestures" less repetitive within the iconic gestures section. 

Overall the page is structured nicely and contains only valuable information that is well written and easily understood by the public. Other than making sure there is a balance of important information the greatest improvement that could be made is to make sure that any statements have reliable evidence or examples to support them to avoid portraying any biased opinions. For the most part you do this. Other than these suggestions, I made minor corrections to words and grammar. I hope this helps! Tulsa01 (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Introduction -I agree that this is a very ell stated introduction and encompasses all of the pertinent information

The Relationship Between Speech and Gesture -I would combine the first two sentences into one fluid sentence as I think they sound a bit preliminary and choppy (eg. Many researchers believe that speech and gesture develop in different ways through two independent processes.) -I would remove the bullet points entirely and phrase this into a few sentences -Overall i think that this has a great neutral viewpoint and does not try to sway the reader in either direction.

Timeline of Gesture Development -Really love the opening sentence, it sets the tone for neutrality and multiple viewpoints. -Combine third and fourth sentences -Fourth sentence in it is stated that gestures are easier to produce for both infants and adults, I think you should state easier than spoken language as it left me thinking easier than what? -Combine sentences 5 and 6 and cite with both citations -I would start a new paragraph at the sentence that starts with Beginning since this is about the time when specific ages start being stated -The rest of the section flows nicely, the ages are integrated into the paragraph well, bold font on the ages makes them easily identifiable, well done staying neutral and briefly defining each type of gesture after mentioning it.

Deictic Gestures -Solid opener and well laid out with the specification of two main functions. -Those main functions are summarized concisely and clearly -The second last and last sentences in the paragraph on joint attention are almost saying the same thing except one states about pointing and includes speech development. I would cut out the parts that overlap and make it one sentence. -Since this is written for the public I suggest writing 'and colleagues' after stating Kovacs. I asked numerous people while i was editing this (all of them parents) and no one could tell me what it meant. -Great example with pointing to a cookie and the word eat

Representational Gestures -The inclusion of American vs Italian gesture frequency seemed sort of thrown in without an introduction or conclusion of why it is there. Although I think it is good information and well written just needs to be integrated differently. Further suggestion on this is to include other cultures as well beyond just singling out Italians and Americans, i know French adults use a lot of gesture so perhaps kids would too. -The adding of other cultures goes for the Iconic Gesture section as well -I am sure you were always planning too but I would add more to the Conventional Gestures section taking about other cultures that use this type of gesture the most out of all representational gestures

Incompatibility vs Compatibility -The sentence explaining what the incompatibility hypotheses is, is very convoluted. -I agree with the other two girls that it can be checked for reliability but is pertinent information to keep. -I think divide further into the incompatibility hypothesis section and compatibility hypothesis sections so each can be clearly defined and understood

Augmentive and Alternate Communication -Capitalize the title -I would not acronym the form of communication into AAC but write it out fully each time -This is the section that I think needs the most work

Signs and Gestures -I agree with everyone that this is weak, however I think it is important and can be linked to the baby sign page and ASL as well -Provide concise but concrete definitions and and examples -Make it less Americanized, bring in other forms of sign language to mention as well such as British. I wouldn't write a lot on it but to make it well rounded if you decide to keep this section

Kendon's Continuum -I think this is good information to keep -Make sure to look at other linguists who made timelines or continuums otherwise it looks one sided only showing his perspective.

Overall I think the article is well organized and contains pertinent information. Make sure to fix all headings so they are capitalized and uniform and include diverse information so that all views are shown. Really good job on what you have already gotten done, it is definitely public accessible. Sarah.Monk (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Mid revision comments

I realize you are mid-revision, so I am aware that I may be putting things out there that you already intend to do.

Sign and Gesture

• I'm concerned about the sign and gesture section which still confuses conventional gesture with all gesture "thumbs up" is a particular kind of gesture, minimally conventional but also an "emblem" and it is not very representative of the kind of co-speech gesture that is the topic of your article. Also the fingerspelling of the letter "M" is not a good representation of what a sign is. I would simplify this section by perhaps just putting links to the gesture and sign language pages rather than trying to give examples. If this isn't assigned to anyone in the group - tell me and I'll happily do it myself!

Deictic gestures

• The phrase "Declarative pointing can be expressive with which..." is quite obtuse. Can it also be something else? Can you keep the meaning and say "Declarative pointing is expressive and used by the child to draw attention to an interesting object?"
• Is epistemic pointing a third type? Shouldn't it be listed the same way as 1. and 2. I suspect you need some link or definition for the word epistemic or more likely the page for epistemology.

Representational gestures

• Be cautious about the claim that representational gestures have fixed meanings (second sentence in rep gest section). They are not the same as conventional gestures, which do. Instead, their interpretation is context dependent. Iverson et al. say "relatively stable across different situations" but they are comparing with deictic gestures and with words. Rep gest are more stable in meaning than points (as points don't have any stable representation) but less than words (dog always means dog {except of course when it doesn't, which is a sophisticated language problem that preschoolers are not addressing}). Perhaps McNeill's book Hand and Mind would be a better general reference for the different types of gestures. The third sentence about agreed context is accurate but I'm not sure its meaning is clear.
• I agree with the earlier peer which suggests some more general comments about iconic gestures that cross more cultures than just Italian. Certainly American children use these gestures, just not as frequently as Italians. Perhaps a more general summary. There are many sources for research on iconic gestures in children. If you can't find any other cross-cultural info, then at least move the Italian comments to the end of the section as it they are very specific and the more general information should come first.
• I suspect all cultures have conventional gestures, particularly in use with children, so it seems somewhat narrow to focus on American children here.

Timeline

• Thanks for the "sentence" clarification!
• The timeline now reads that children first produce rep gest at 12 months, but they can use them in sequence with pointing at 11 months and in the Rep Gest def'n it says 10 months. Can these be put in sync?
• There is a weird link to pointing - shockingly there isn't a pointing page but do you think this is a helpful link. This page is likely the best info - does Wiki do links within a page (see above)?
• not producing symbolic gestures yet - two things: first, I suspect Goodwyn and Acredolo say something different, and second, much depends on the definition - and there is no description of symbolic gest on this page. Is it important to distinguish this from rep gest and if so , then you need to make the distinction clear and tell the reader why it matters.
• Gestures aid lexical dev't: "It has been suggested" (zombie alert...) and "children use a deictic gesture". These seem like two unrelated comments that need to be treated in different sentences with different citations. If you are really talking about deictic gestures first be sure you aren't repeating what is in the dedicated section, and if not, then put it at the age appropriate place in your timeline.

Incompatibility

• first sentence is a bit odd. Can you introduce this section or provide some context as to why it is present - maybe mention that there was a historical controversy? I find it odd that we would keep old and now discredited info in the article, and you do have the Loncke source. If I find any others to support that isn't one person's idea, I'll pass it on.
• the phrase with the absence of language is opaque. Who are you talking about here - preling children, atypical children? children who can talk but don't today for rogue reasons?
• Perhaps consider reordering the information in this section. Start with the current rationale for why gesture is beneficial (summarizing so briefly the content of the previous sections in the page), talk about the social context as you have done (this is useful new information) and then at the end, put the now discredited incompatibility hypothesis. That keeps the information present, but puts it in its place rather than front and centre.
• Finally I would consider integrating with the AAC section somehow. I think the general idea that gesture supports communicative development linked with the social interaction in which it occurs makes a nice transition to how gesture can be used by children who are having language trouble but benefit from a broad focus on communication rather than a specific focus on language. Maybe call the whole section Gesture in communicative development? Just an idea.
• I am OK with leaving Kendon's bit where it is now, but do believe that it either needs its own page at some point, or minimally is better off in the Gesture page.

This is really looking great - my last request is to consider the Categories that this page might belong to. Language acquisition seems much too restrictive. Paula Marentette (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)