How does language proficiency affect children’s iconic gesture use?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Previous research investigating the relationship between language proficiency and iconic gesture use has produced inconsistent findings. This study investigated whether a linear relationship was assumed although it is a quadratic relationship. Iconic co-speech gesture use by 4- to 6-year-old French–Japanese bilinguals with two levels of French proficiency (intermediate and low) but similar levels of Japanese proficiency was compared with that of high-proficiency French monolinguals (Study 1) and Japanese monolinguals with similar proficiency to the bilinguals (Study 2). To control the information participants communicated, a dynamic referential communication task was used; a difference between two cartoons had to be communicated to an experimenter. Study 1 showed a significant quadratic relationship between proficiency and iconic gesture use in French; the intermediate-proficiency bilinguals gestured least among the three proficiency groups. The monolingual and bilingual groups with similar Japanese proficiency in Study 2 gestured at similar rates. It is suggested that children gestured for different reasons depending on their language proficiency and the cognitive resources available for the task.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".