Toddler-directed and adult-directed gesture frequency in monolingual and bilingual caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims and objectives: This study was designed to assess whether bilingual caregivers, compared with monolingual caregivers, modify their nonverbal gestures to match the increased communicative and/or cognitive-linguistic demands of bilingual language contexts – as would be predicted based on the ‘Facilitative Strategy Hypothesis’. Methodology: We examined the rate of gestures (i.e., representational and beat gestures) in monolingual and bilingual caregivers when retelling a cartoon story to their child or to an adult, in a monolingual and a bilingual context (‘synonym’ context for monolingual caregivers). Data and analysis: We calculated the frequency of all gestures, representational gestures, and beat gestures for each addressee (adult-directed vs. toddler-directed) and language context (monolingual vs. bilingual/synonym), separately for the monolingual and the bilingual caregivers. Using linear mixed models, we contrasted monolingual versus bilingual caregivers’ gesture frequency. Findings/conclusions: Bilingual caregivers gesture more than monolingual caregivers, irrespective of addressee and language context. Furthermore, we found evidence in support of the Facilitative Strategy Hypothesis across both monolingual and bilingual caregivers, as both groups increased the rate of their representational gestures in the child-directed retelling. Furthermore, both bilingual and monolingual caregivers used more gestures in the context of increased communicative demands (language mixing or using synonyms for monolingual caregivers). Originality: To our knowledge, this is the first study of gesture use in child-directed communication in monolingual and bilingual caregivers. Significance/implications: Independent of their monolingual or bilingual status, caregivers adjust their multimodal communication strategies (specifically gestures) when interacting with their children. Furthermore, under increased communicative demands, both groups of caregivers further increase their gesture rate.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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".