Jestlerin Çocukların Dil-İletişim ve Bilişsel Becerilerinin Gelişimindeki Destekleyici Rolü

Öz

İnsanlar iletişim kurarken konuşma gibi sözel iletişim kanallarının yanı sıra el jestleri gibi görsel iletişim kanallarını kullanırlar. Konuşma ve jestler hem dil üretimi hem de dil anlama süreçleri sırasında birbirini tamamlayan bir iletişim sistemi oluştururlar. Bu derleme makalede jestlerin iki işlevi üzerinde durulmuştur: (1) konuşma ile birlikte kullanılan jestlerin iletişim için faydaları, (2) jest kullanmanın veya başkalarının kullandıkları jestleri gözlemlemenin öğrenme ve bilişsel beceriler için faydaları. Bu bağlamda, iletişim becerileri ve bilişsel becerilerin henüz yetişkin seviyelerine erişmediği, gelişime ve kolaylaştırıcı faktörlerin etkilerine daha açık olan çocukluk döneminde çeşitli yaş gruplarıyla yürütülen gelişimsel görgül araştırmaların bulguları ele alınmıştır. Makalenin ilk amacı jestlerin iletişim becerilerini ne ölçüde ve hangi açılardan desteklediğini incelemektir. Kelime dağarcığı ve cümle oluşturma gelişimi, ilişkisel dil kullanımı, problem çözme gibi alanlarda yürütülen görgül araştırmaların bulguları jestlerin çocukların henüz sözel olarak ifade edemedikleri kavramları ifade edebilmelerine olanak sağlayarak iletişimi kolaylaştırdığına işaret etmektedir. Makalenin ikinci amacı jestlerin öğrenme ve bilişsel süreçleri nasıl ve hangi ölçüde desteklediğini incelemektir. Çocukların ilişkisel kavramları (örn., uzamsal ilişkiler, olaylar) öğrenmesi ve matematik becerilerini kazanması konularında yürütülen görgül araştırmaların bulguları, jestleri kullanmanın ve başkalarının jestlerini gözlemlemenin iletişimsel becerilerin yanı sıra öğrenmeyi ve bilişsel gelişimi de destekleyebileceğini göstermektedir. Bu görüşe göre jestler, kavramları veya görsel-uzamsal bilgileri şemalaştırarak daha etkin bir şekilde ifade edebilme, bilişsel görevi tamamlamak için önemli olan sözel veya kavramsal bilgilere dikkat çekebilme veya soyut bilgileri somutlaştırabilme kapasitesi sayesinde öğrenme ve bilişsel becerilerin gelişmesini destekleyebilir. Son olarak, gelişimsel alan yazında jestlerin dil-iletişim ve bilişsel beceriler üzerindeki kolaylaştırıcı rolüne dair cevabı bilinmeyen sorular ve ileride yürütülecek araştırmarlar için öneriler tartışılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Jestler
• iletişim
• öğrenme
• bilişsel gelişim

How Gestures Support Children’s Linguistic–Communicative and Cognitive Development

Öz

While communicating, people frequently use visual articulators, such as hand gestures, together with speech. Speech and gestures form a tightly integrated communicative system during language production and comprehension. This article focuses on two functions of gestures: (1) how gestures produced with speech facilitate communication, (2) how producing gestures or observing others’ gestures facilitates learning and cognitive development. To do so, this article reviews and discusses the findings of empirical studies conducted with children of various ages who do not yet have adult-like communicative and cognitive skills and hence, are more susceptible to the facilitative role of gestures. The first goal of this article was to examine to what extent and how gestures support communication skills. Prior work on vocabulary development, learning to combine words into sentences, relational language use, and problem-solving support the idea that gestures facilitate communication by allowing children to express concepts that they have developed but cannot yet express in speech. The second goal of this article was to examine to what extent and how gestures support learning and cognitive development. Studies on children’s learning of relational concepts (e.g., space, events) and the development of math abilities show that using gestures and observing others’ gestures not only have communicative functions but can also support learning and cognitive development. This line of work suggests that gestures facilitate learning and cognitive development by providing a tool for efficiently encoding, storing and manipulating information, guiding attention to the linguistic or conceptual information that is critical for completing a cognitive task, and encoding abstract concepts concretely. Finally, the questions that remain open in the developmental literature with regard to the facilitative role of gestures on communicative and cognitive development and suggestions for further research are discussed.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Gesture
• communication
• learning
• cognitive development

Kaynakça

1. Alibali, M. W. ve Goldin-Meadow, S. (1993). Gesture-speech mismatch and mechanisms of learning: What the hands reveal about a child' s state of mind. Cognitive Psychology, 25(4), 468-523. doi:10.1006/cogp.1993.1012 google scholar
2. Alibali, M. W. ve Kita, S. (2010). Gesture highlights perceptually present information for speakers. Gesture, 10(1), 3-28. doi:10.1075/gest.10.1.02ali google scholar
3. Alibali, M. W., Kita, S. ve Young, A. J. (2000). Gesture and the process of speech production: We think, therefore we gesture. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15(6), 593-613. doi:10.1080/016909600750040571 google scholar
4. Alibali, M. W., Yeo, A., Hostetter, A. B. ve Kita, S. (2017). Representational gestures help speakers package information for speaking. R. B. Church, M. W. Alibali ve S. D. Kelly (Ed.), Gesture studies: Vol. 7. Why gesture?: How the hands function in speaking, thinking and communicating içinde (s. 15-37). John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi:10.1075/gs.7.02ali google scholar
5. Aussems, S. ve Kita, S. (2019). Seeing iconic gestures while encoding events facilitates children’s memory of these events. Child Development, 90(4), 1123-1137. doi:10.1111/cdev.12988 google scholar
6. Broaders, S. C., Cook, S. W., Mitchell, Z. ve Goldin-Meadow, S. (2007). Making children gesture brings out implicit knowledge and leads to learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(4), 539-550. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.136.4.539 google scholar
7. Butterworth, B . ve Hadar, U. (1989). Gesture, speech, and computational stages: A reply to McNeill. Psychological Review, 96, 168-174. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.96.1.168 google scholar
8. Church, R. B. ve Goldin-Meadow, S. (1986). The mismatch between gesture and speech as an index of transitional knowledge. Cognition, 23(1), 43-71. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(86)90053-3 google scholar

9. Congdon, E. L., Novack, M. A., Brooks, N., Hemani-Lopez, N., O’Keefe, L. ve Goldin-Meadow, S. (2017). Better together: Simultaneous presentation of speech and gesture in math instruction supports generalization and retention. Learning and Instruction, 50, 65-74. doi:10.1016/j. learninstruc.2017.03.005 google scholar
10. Cook, S., Duffy, R. ve Fenn, K. (2013). Consolidation and transfer of learning after observing hand gesture. Child Development, 84, 1863-1871. doi:10.1111/cdev.12097 google scholar
11. Cook, S. W., Yip, T. K. ve Goldin-Meadow, S. (2012). Gestures, but not meaningless movements, lighten working memory load when explaining math. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27(4), 594-610. doi:10.1080/01690965.2011.567074 google scholar
12. Crowder, E.M. ve Newman, D. (1993). Telling what they know: The role of gesture and language in children’s science explanations. Pragmatics & Cognition, 1(2),341 - 376. doi:10.1075/pc.1.2.06cro google scholar
13. de Ruiter, J. P. (1998). Gesture and speech production. (Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Nijmegen Radboud Üniversitesi, Nijmegen . google scholar
14. de Ruiter, J. P. (2000). The production of gesture and speech. D. McNeill (Ed.), Language and gesture içinde (s. 284-311). Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620850.018 google scholar
15. Ehrlich, S. B., Levine, S. C. ve Goldin-Meadow, S. (2006). The importance of gesture in children’s spatial reasoning. Developmental Psychology, 42(6), 1259-1268. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.42.6.1259 google scholar
16. Eielts, C., Pouw, W., Ouwehand, K., van Gog, T., Zwaan, R. A. ve Paas, F. (2020). Co-thought gesturing supports more complex problem solving in subjects with lower visual working-memory capacity. Psychological Research, 84(2), 502-513. doi:10.1007/s00426-018-1065-9 google scholar
17. Frank, M. C., Braginsky, M., Yurovsky, D. ve Marchman, V. A. (2016). Wordbank: An open repository for developmental vocabulary data. Journal of Child Language, 44(3), 677-694. doi: 10.1017/ S0305000916000209. google scholar
18. Furman, R., Küntay, A.C. ve Özyürek, A. (2014). Early language-specificity of children’s event encoding in speech and gesture: Evidence from caused motion in Turkish. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29, 620-634. doi:10.1080/01690965.2013.824993 google scholar
19. Garber, P. ve Goldin-Meadow, S. (2002), Gesture offers insight into problem-solving in adults and children. Cognitive Science, 26: 817-831. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2606_5 google scholar
20. Gentner, D. ve Goldin-Meadow, S. (Eds.). (2003). Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought. MIT Press. google scholar
21. Gleitman, L. (1990). The structural sources of verb meanings. Language Acquisition: A Journal of Developmental Linguistics, 1 (1), 3-55. doi:10.1207/s15327817la0101_2 google scholar
22. Goldin-Meadow, S., Cook, S. W. ve Mitchell, Z. A. (2009). Gesturing gives children new ideas about math. Psychological Science, 20(3), 267-272. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02297.x google scholar
23. Goldin-Meadow, S., Goodrich, W., Sauer, E. ve Iverson, J. (2007). Young children use their hands to tell their mothers what to say. Developmental Science, 10(6), 778-785. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00636.x google scholar
24. Goldin-Meadow, S., Nusbaum, H., Kelly, S. D. ve Wagner, S. (2001). Explaining math: Gesturing lightens the load. Psychological Science, 12(6), 516-522. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00395 google scholar
25. Goodrich, W. ve Hudson Kam, C. L. (2009). Co-speech gesture as input in verb learning. Developmental Science, 12(1), 81-87. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00735.x google scholar
26. Göksun, T., Goldin-Meadow, S., Newcombe, N. ve Shipley, T. (2013). Individual differences in mental rotation: What does gesture tell us?. Cognitive Processing, 14(2), 153-162. google scholar
27. Göksun, T., Hirsh-Pasek, K. ve Golinkoff, R. M. (2010). How do preschoolers express cause in gesture and speech? Cognitive Development, 25, 56-68. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2009.11.001 google scholar
28. Grigoroglou, M. ve Papafragou, A. (2019). Interactive contexts increase informativeness in children’s referential communication. Developmental Psychology, 55(5), 951-966. doi:10.1037/dev0000693 google scholar
29. Guarino, K. F. ve Wakefield, E. M. (2020). Teaching analogical reasoning with co-speech gesture shows children where to look, but only boosts learning for some. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 575628. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.575628 google scholar
30. Iverson, J. M. ve Goldin-Meadow, S. (2005). Gesture paves the way for language development. Psychological Science, 16(5), 367-371. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01542.x google scholar
31. Johnston, J. R. ve Slobin, D. I. (1979). The development of locative expressions in English, Italian, Serbo-Croatian and Turkish. Journal of Child Language, 6(3), 529-545. doi:10.1017/ S030500090000252X google scholar
32. Karadöller, D. Z., Ünal, E., Sumer, B., Göksun, T., Özer, D. ve Özyurek, A. (2019). Children but not adults use both speech and gesture to produce informative expressions of Left-Right relations. 44. Boston Üniversitesi Dil Gelişimi Konferansı’nda (BUCLD 44) sunulan bildiri, Boston, MA, ABD. google scholar
33. Kartalkanat, H. ve Göksun, T. (2020). The effects of observing different gestures during storytelling on the recall of path and event information in 5-year-olds and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 189, 104725. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2019.104725 google scholar
34. Kelly, S. D., Barr, D. J., Church, R. B. ve Lynch, K. (1999). Offering a hand to pragmatic understanding: The role of speech and gesture in comprehension and memory. Journal of memory and Language, 40(4), 577-592. doi:10.1006/jmla.1999.2634 google scholar
35. Kelly, S. D., Özyürek, A. ve Maris, E. (2010). Two sides of the same coin: Speech and gesture mutually interact to enhance comprehension. Psychological Science, 21(2), 260-267. doi:10.1177/0956797609357327 google scholar
36. Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511807572 google scholar
37. Kısa, Y. D., Aktan-Erciyes, A., Turan, E. ve Göksun, T. (2019). Parental use of spatial language and gestures in early childhood. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 37(2), 149-167. doi:10.1111/bjdp.12263 google scholar
38. Kita, S., Alibali, M. W. ve Chu, M. (2017). How do gestures influence thinking and speaking? The gesture-for-conceptualization hypothesis. Psychological Review, 124(3), 245-266. doi:10.1037/ rev0000059 google scholar
39. Kita, S. ve Özyürek, A. (2003). What does cross-linguistic variation in semantic coordination of speech and gesture reveal?: Evidence for an interface representation of spatial thinking and speaking. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(1),16- 32. doi:10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00505-3 google scholar
40. Krauss, R. M., Chen, Y. ve Chawla, P. (1996). Nonverbal behavior and nonverbal communication: What do conversational hand gestures tell us? M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology içinde (28. basım, s. 389-450). Tampa: Academic Press. google scholar
41. Krauss, R. M., Chen, Y. ve Gottesman, R. F. (2000). Lexical gestures and lexical access: A process model. D. McNeill (Ed.), Language and gesture içinde (s. 261-283). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
42. Landau, B. ve Jackendoff, R. (1993). “What” and “where” in spatial language and spatial cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16(2), 217-265. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00029733 google scholar
43. McGregor, K. K., Rohlfing, K. J., Bean, A. ve Marschner, E. (2009). Gesture as a support for word learning: The case of under. Journal of Child Language, 36(4), 807- 828. doi:10.1017/ S0305000908009173 google scholar
44. McNeill, D. (2005). Gesture and thought. University of Chicago Press. doi:10.7208/ chicago/9780226514642.001.0001 google scholar
45. Miller, H. E., Andrews, C. A. ve Simmering, V. R. (2020). Speech and gesture production provide unique insights into young children’s spatial reasoning. Child Development, 91(6), 1934-1952. doi:10.1111/cdev.13396. google scholar
46. Mumford, K. H. ve Kita, S. (2014). Children use gesture to interpret novel verb meanings. Child Development, 85(3), 1181-1189. doi:10.1111/cdev.12188 google scholar
47. Nilsen, E. S. ve Graham, S. A. (2009). The relations between children’s communicative perspective-taking and executive functioning. Cognitive Psychology, 58(2), 220-249. doi:10.1016/j. cogpsych.2008.07.002 google scholar
48. Nilsen, E. S. ve Graham, S. A. (2012). The development of preschoolers’ appreciation of communicative ambiguity. Child Development, 83(4), 1400-1415. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01762.x google scholar
49. Nilsen, E. S., Varghese, A., Xu, Z. ve Fecica, A. (2015). Children with stronger executive functioning and fewer ADHD traits produce more effective referential statements. Cognitive Development, 36, 68-82. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2015.09.001 google scholar
50. Novack, M. A., Congdon, E. L., Hemani-Lopez, N. ve Goldin-Meadow, S. (2014). From action to abstraction: Using the hands to learn math. Psychological Science, 25(4), 903-910. doi:10.1177/0956797613518351 google scholar
51. Özçalışkan, Ş., Gentner, D. ve Goldin-Meadow, S. (2014). Do iconic gestures pave the way for children’s early verbs?. Applied Psycholinguistics, 35(6), 1143-1162. doi:10.1017/S0142716412000720 google scholar
52. Özçalışkan, Ş. ve Goldin-Meadow, S. (2005). Gesture is at the cutting edge of early language development. Cognition, 96(3), B101-B113. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2005.01.001 google scholar
53. Özçalışkan, Ş. ve Goldin-Meadow, S. (2009). When gesture-speech combinations do and do not index linguistic change. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(2), 190-217. doi:10.1080/01690960801956911 google scholar
54. Özçalışkan, Ş., Lucero, C. ve Goldin-Meadow, S. (2016). Does language shape silent gesture? Cognition, 148, 10-18. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.12.001 google scholar
55. Özçalışkan, Ş., Lucero, C. ve Goldin-Meadow, S. (2018). Blind speakers show language-specific patterns in co-speech gesture but not silent gesture. Cognitive Science, 42(3), 1001-1014. doi:10.1111/cogs.12502 google scholar
56. Özer, D. ve Göksun, T. (2020a). Visual-spatial and verbal abilities differentially affect processing of gestural vs. spoken expressions. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 35(7), 896-914. doi:10.1 080/23273798.2019.1703016 google scholar
57. Özer, D. ve Göksun, T. (2020b). Gesture use and processing: A review on individual differences in cognitive resources. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1-15. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.573555 google scholar
58. Özyürek, A. (2017). Function and processing of gesture in the context of language. R. B. Church, M. W. Alibali ve S. D. Kelly (Ed.), Why gesture? How the hands function in speaking, thinking and communicating içinde (s. 39-58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. google scholar
59. Özyürek, A., Kita, S., Allen, S., Brown, A., Furman, R. ve Ishizuka, T. (2008). Development of cross-linguistic variation in speech and gesture: Motion events in English and Turkish. Developmental Psychology, 44(4), 1040-1054. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.44.4.1040 google scholar
60. Perniss, P., Thompson, R. ve Vigliocco, G. (2010). Iconicity as a General Property of Language: Evidence from Spoken and Signed Languages. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, Article 227, doi. org/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00227. google scholar
61. Piaget, J. (1971). The theory of stages in cognitive development. D. R. Green, M. P. Ford, ve G. B. Flamer, Measurement and Piaget içinde (s. 1-11). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. google scholar
62. Pine, K. J., Lufkin, N. ve Messer, D. (2004). More gestures than answers: Children learning about balance. Developmental Psychology, 40(6), 1059-1067. doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.40.6.1059 google scholar
63. Ping, R. ve Goldin-Meadow, S. (2010). Gesturing saves cognitive resources when talking about nonpresent objects. Cognitive Science, 34, 602-619. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01102.x google scholar
64. Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. google scholar
65. Pouw, W. T. J. L., de Nooijer, J. A., van Gog, T., Zwaan, R. A. ve Paas, F. (2014). Toward a more embedded/extended perspective on the cognitive function of gestures. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 359. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00359 google scholar
66. Pouw, W. T. J. L., Mavilidi, M., van Gog, T. ve Paas, F. (2016). Gesturing during mental problem solving reduces eye movements, especially for individuals with lower visual working memory capacity. Cognitive Processing: International Quarterly of Cognitive Science, 17(3), 269-277. doi:10.1007/s10339-016-0757-6 google scholar
67. Rowe, M. L., Özçalışkan, Ş. ve Goldin-Meadow, S. (2008). Learning words by hand: Gesture’s role in predicting vocabulary development. First Language, 28(2), 182-199. doi:10.1177/0142723707088310 google scholar
68. Sauter, M., Uttal, D. H., Alman, A. S., Goldin-Meadow, S. ve Levine, S. C. (2012). Learning what children know about space from looking at their hands: The added value of gesture in spatial communication. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 111(4), 587-606. doi:10.1016/j. jecp.2011.11.009 google scholar
69. Schegloff, E.A. (1984). On some gestures’ relation to speech. Atkinson, J.M. ve Heritage, J. (Ed.), Structures of social action: studies in conversational analysis içinde. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
70. Sekine, K. (2009). Changes in frame of reference use across the preschool years: A longitudinal study of the gestures and speech produced during route descriptions. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(2), 218-238. doi:10.1080/01690960801941327 google scholar
71. Sekine, K., Schoechl, C., Mulder, K., Holler, J., Kelly, S., Furman, R. ve Özyürek, A. (2020). Evidence for children’s online integration of simultaneous information from speech and iconic gestures: An ERP study. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 35, 1283-1294. doi:10.1080/23273798.2020 .1737719 google scholar
72. Sümer, B. (2015). Acquisition of spatial language by signing and speaking children: A comparison of Turkish Sign Language (TID) and Turkish. (Doktora Tezi). Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen. google scholar
73. ter Bekke, M., Özyürek, A. ve Ünal, E. (2019). Speaking but not gesturing predicts motion event memory within and across languages. A.K. Goel, C.M. Seifert ve C. Freksa (Ed.) Proceedings of the 41st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society içinde (s.2940-2946). Montreal, QB: Cognitive Science Society google scholar
74. Ünal, E., Manhardt, F. ve Özyürek, A. (2019). Visual attention is guided by language-specific encoding of events not only in speech but also in gesture. Crosslinguistic Perspectives on Processing and Learning çalıştayında sunulan bildiri, Zurich, Switzerland. google scholar
75. Ünal, E. ve Papafragou, A. (2016). Interactions between language and mental representations. Language Learning, 66, 554-580. doi:10.1111/lang.12188. google scholar
76. Valenzeno, L., Alibali, M. W. ve Klatzky, R. (2003). Teachers’ gestures facilitate students’ learning: A lesson in symmetry. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(2), 187-204. doi:10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00007-3 google scholar
77. Wakefield, E. M., Congdon, E. L., Novack, M. A., Goldin-Meadow, S. ve James, K. H. (2019). Learning math by hand: The neural effects of gesture-based instruction in 8-year-old children. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 81(7), 2343-2353. (2). doi:10.3758/s13414-019-01755-y google scholar
78. Wakefield, E. M., Hall, C., James, K. H. ve Goldin-Meadow, S. (2018). Gesture for generalization: Gesture facilitates flexible learning of words for actions on objects. Developmental Science, 21(5), e12656. doi:10.1111/desc.12656 google scholar
79. Wakefield, E., Novack, M. A., Congdon, E. L., Franconeri, S. ve Goldin-Meadow, S. (2018). Gesture helps learners learn, but not merely by guiding their visual attention. Developmental Science, 21(6), e12664. google scholar
80. Wolff, P. ve Holmes, K. J. (2011). Linguistic relativity. Wiley interdisciplinary reviews: Cognitive Science, 2(3), 253-265. doi:10.1002/wcs.104 google scholar