A Comparison of the Effects of Gesture Use on the Lexical Access Process of Adults with Visual Impairments and Sighted Adults

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 22 Sayı: 2, 395 - 417, 01.06.2021

Zahide Töret , Selda Özdemir

https://doi.org/10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.696281

Cited By: 1

Öz

Introduction: Gestures play a role in the lexical access process. The main purpose of this study was to compare
the effects of gesture use on the lexical access of adults with visual impairments (VI) and sighted adults.
Method: A 2x2 repeated measurements design was used. 20 adults with VI and 20 sighted adults with similar
demographic characteristics were recruited. The verbal performances of the participants were measured via the
use of the verbal fluency test. The meanings of the words in a Target Word List were read to each participant to
identify the effects of gesture use on the lexical access. After listening to each word’s definition, all participants
were asked to guess the related word under gesture-free or gesture-restricted conditions.
Findings: There were no differences between the frequencies of symbolic gestures and self-adaptors used by
adults with visual impairments and sighted adults. However, there was a significant difference between the
frequencies of beat gestures in gesture-free condition. In the gesture-restricted condition, there was a significant
difference between the correct response frequencies of the word groups following the lexical access.
Discussion: The results were discussed within the framework of the relevant literature. The suggestions were made
for further research and implementation.

Jest Kullanımının Görme Yetersizliğinden Etkilenmiş ve Gören Yetişkinlerin Leksikal Ulaşım Sürecine Etkisinin Karşılaştırılması

Öz

Giriş: Jestler, leksikal ulaşım sürecinde rol oynayıcılardır. Bu araştırmanın temel amacı jestlerin GY olan ve gören
yetişkinlerin leksikal ulaşım sürecine etkisini karşılaştırmaktır.
Yöntem: Araştırmanın deseni deneysel desen 2x2 tekrarlı ölçümler tasarımıdır. Araştırmaya, eğitim, cinsiyet ve
yaş bakımından benzer özellikler gösteren 20 görme yetersizliği olan ve 20 gören yetişkin katılmıştır.
Katılımcıların sözel performansları, Sözel Akıcılık Testi kullanılarak ölçülmüştür. Leksikal ulaşım sürecinde jest
kullanmanın etkisini belirlemek amacı ile katılımcılara iki gruptan oluşan hedef kelime listesinde bulunan
kelimelerin anlamları okunmuştur. Katılımcıların kelimeleri jestler engellenmiş ve jestler serbest koşulunda
tahmin etmeleri istenmiştir.
Bulgular: Araştırma sonunda, görme yetersizliği (GY) olan ve gören katılımcıların jest kullanmalarının serbest
olduğu koşulda kullandıkları sembolik ve kendini düzenleme jestlerinin sıklıkları arasında anlamlı bir farklılık
olmadığı, ancak vurgulayıcı jestleri kullanma sıklıkları arasında anlamlı farklılık olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.
Jest kullanımı engellenmiş koşulda ise katılımcı grupların leksikal ulaşım süreci sonunda doğru yanıt verme
sıklıkları arasında anlamlı farklılıklar olduğu görülmüştür.
Tartışma: Araştırmanın sonuçları ilgili alanyazın çerçevesinde tartışılmış, ileride yapılacak uygulama ve
araştırmalar için önerilerde bulunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Görme yetersizliği olan bireyler, jestler, leksikal ulaşım, dilimin ucunda durumu

Kaynakça

• Aksan, Y., Aksan, M., Koltuksuz, A., Sezer, T., Mersinli, Umut, U., & Kurtoğlu, Ö. (2012). Construction of the Turkish National Corpus (TNC). In Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2012). İstanbul. Turkey. http://www. lrec-conf. org/proceedings/lrec2012/papers. html sayfasından erişilmiştir.
• Alibali, M. W. (2005). Gesture in spatial cognition: Expressing, communicating, and thinking about spatial information. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 5(4), 307- 331.
• Alibali, M. W., Evans, J. L., Hostetter, A. B., Ryan, K., & Mainela-Arnold, E. (2009). Gesture-speech integration in narrative: Are children less redundant than adults? Gesture, 9(3), 290-311.
• Alibali, M. W., Heath, D. C., & Myers, H. J. (2001). Effects of visibility between speaker and listener on gesture production: Some gestures are meant to be seen. Journal of Memory and Language, 44(2),169-188.
• Alibali, M. W., Kita, S., & Young, A. J. (2000). Gesture and the process of speech production: We think, therefore we gesture. Language and Cognitive processes, 15(6), 593-613.
• Alibali, M. W., & Nathan, M. J. (2007). Teachers’ gestures as a means of scaffolding students’ understanding: Evidence from an early algebra lesson. Video Research in the Learning Sciences, 1, 349-365.
• Bavelas, J., Gerwing, J., Sutton, C., & Prevost, D. (2008). Gesturing on the telephone: Independent effects of dialogue and visibility. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(2), 495-520.
• Beattie, G., & Coughlan, J. (1999). An experimental investigation of the role of iconic gestures in lexical access using the tip‐of‐the‐tongue phenomenon. British Journal of Psychology, 90(1), 35-56.
• Beilock, S. L., & Holt, L. E. (2007). Embodied preference judgments: Can like ability be driven by the motor system? Psychological Science, 18(1), 51-57.
• Calvo-Merino, B., Glaser, D. E., Grèzes, J., Passingham, R. E., & Haggard, P. (2004). Action observation and acquired motor skills: An FMRI study with expert dancers. Cerebral Cortex, 15(8), 1243-1249.
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hilsdale. NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
• Cohen, M. J., Morgan, A. M., Vaughn, M., Riccio, C. A., & Hall, J. (1999). Verbal fluency in children: Developmental issues and differential validity in distinguishing children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and two subtypes of dyslexia. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 14(5), 433-443.
• Çiyiltepe, M., & Arslan, B. (2008). Çocuklarda kelime akıcılığı yeteneğinin organizasyonu ve ölçülmesi. Dil Dergisi, 142(3), 34-45.
• Doherty‐Sneddon, G., & Kent, G. (1996). Visual signals and the communication abilities of children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 37(8), 949-959.
• Eardley, A. F., & Pring, L. (2014). Sensory imagery in individuals who are blind and sighted: Examining unimodal and multimodal forms. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 108(4), 323-334.
• Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage, and coding. Semiotica, 1(1), 49-98.
• Federmeier, K. D., Kutas, M., & Schul, R. (2010). Age-related and individual differences in the use of prediction during language comprehension. Brain and Language, 115(3), 149-161.
• Feyereisen, P., & Havard, I. (1999). Mental imagery and production of hand gestures while speaking in younger and older adults. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 23(2), 153- 171.
• Frame, M. J. (2000). The relationship between visual impairment and gestures. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 94, 155-172.
• Frick, D. J. (1991). The use of hand gestures as self-generated cues. Doctoral Dissertation, The University of North Carolina, Greensboro.
• Frick-Horbury, D., & Guttentag, R. E. (1998). The effects of restricting hand gesture production on lexical retrieval and free recall. The American Journal of Psychology, 111(1), 43.
• Goldin-Meadow, S., & Beilock, S. L. (2010). Action’s influence on thought: The case of gesture. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(6), 664-674.
• Goldin-Meadow, S., & Morford, M. (1985). Gesture in early child language: Studies of deaf and hearing children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly (1982-), 145-176.
• Hadar, U., & Butterworth, B. (1997). Iconic gestures, imagery, and word retrieval in speech. Semiotica, 115(1-2), 147-172.
• Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I., & Pulvermüller, F. (2004). Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron, 41(2), 301-307.
• Horbury- Frick, D., & Guttentag, R. E. (1998). The effects of restricting hand gesture production on lexical retrieval and free recall. The American Journal of Psychology, 111(1), 43-62.
• Hostetter, A. B. (2011). When do gestures communicate? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 137(2), 297-315.
• Hostetter, A. B., & Alibali, M. W. (2004). On the tip of the mind: Gesture as a key to conceptualization. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 26(26),1-1, 588-594.
• Hostetter, A. B., & Alibali, M. W. (2008). Visible embodiment: Gestures as simulated action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(3), 495-514.
• Hostetter, A. B., & Alibali, M. W. (2010). Language, gesture, action! A test of the Gesture as Simulated Action framework. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(2), 245-257.
• Hostetter, A. B., Alibali, M. W., & Kita, S. (2007). I see it in my hands’ eye: Representational gestures reflect conceptual demands. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22(3), 313-336.
• Hostetter, A. B., Alibali, M. W., & Kita, S. (2007). Does sitting on your hands make you bite tongue? The effects of gesture prohibition on speech during motor descriptions. In Proceedings of the 29th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1097-1102). Mawhah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Iverson, J. M., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (1997). What's communication got to do with it? Gesture in children blind from birth. Developmental Psychology, 33(3), 453-465.
• Iverson, J. M., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (1998). Why people gesture when they speak. Nature, 396 (6708), 228-228.
• Iverson, J. M., & Thelen, E. (1999). Hand, mouth and brain: The dynamic emergence of speech and gesture. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6 (11-12), 19-40.
• Iverson, J. M., Tencer, H. L., Lany, J., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2000). The relation between gesture and speech in congenitally blind and sighted language-learners. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 24(2), 105-130.
• Kita, S. (2000). How representational gestures help speaking. Language and Gesture, 1, 162-185.
• Kita, S., & Davies, T. S. (2009). Competing conceptual representations trigger co-speech representational gestures. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(5), 761-775.
• Knauff, M., & May, E. (2006). Mental imagery, reasoning, and blindness. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59(1), 161-177.
• Krauss, R. M. (1998). Why do we gesture when we speak? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7(2), 54-60.
• Krauss, R. M., Chen, Y., & Chawla, P. (1996). Nonverbal behavior and nonverbal communication: What do conversational hand gestures tell us? .Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 389-450.
• Krauss, R. M., Chen, Y., & Gotfexnum, R. F. (2000). Lexical gestures and lexical access: A process model. Language and Gesture, 2, 261-283.
• Kendon, A. (1994). Do gestures communicate? A review. Research on Language and Social İnteraction, 27(3), 175-200.
• Köklü, N., Büyüköztürk, Ş., ve Bökeoğlu, Ç. Ö. (2007). Sosyal bilimler için istatistik. Ankara: Pegem.
• Levelt, W. J., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(1), 1-38.
• Lezak, M. D., Howieson, D. B., Loring, D. W., & Fischer, J. S. (2004). Neuropsychological assessment. Oxford University Press, USA.
• Lindblom, J. (2015). Embodied social cognition. Berlin: Springer.
• Mahl, G. F. (1968, May-Jun). Gestures and Body Movements in Interviews. In Research in Psychotherapy Conference, Chicago, IL, US.
• Mallineni, S., Nutheti, R., Thangadurai, S., & Thangadurai, P. (2006). Non-verbal communication in children with visual impairment. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 24(1), 30-33.
• McNeill, D. (1985). So you think gestures are nonverbal? Psychological Review, 92(3), 350.
• McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. USA: University of Chicago.
• McNeill, D. (2005, July). Gesture, gaze, and ground. In International workshop on machine learning for multimodal interaction (pp. 1-14). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
• Melinger, A., & Kita, S. (2007). Conceptualisation load triggers gesture production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22(4), 473-500.
• Melinger, A., & Levelt, W. J. (2004). Gesture and the communicative intention of the speaker. Gesture, 4(2), 119-141.
• Mol, L., & Kita, S. (2012). Gesture structure affects syntactic structure in speech. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 34(34),761-766.
• Morsella, E., & Krauss, R. M. (2004). The role of gestures in spatial working memory and speech. The American Journal of Psychology, 117(3),411-424.
• Noordzij, M. L., Zuidhoek, S., & Postma, A. (2007). The influence of visual experience on visual and spatial imagery. Perception, 36(1), 101-112.
• Pérez-Pereira, M., & Castro, J. (1992). Pragmatic functions of blind and sighted children's language: a twin case study. First Language, 12(34), 17-37.
• Pine, K. J., Bird, H., & Kirk, E. (2007). The effects of prohibiting gestures on children's lexical retrieval ability. Developmental Science, 10(6), 747-754.
• Pine, K. J., Lufkin, N., & Messer, D. (2004). More gestures than answers: children learning about balance. Developmental Psychology, 40(6), 1059-1067.
• Pogrund, R. L., & Fazzi, D. L. (1996). Erken çocukluk dönemindeki görme yetersizliği olan çocukların eğitimi. (N. Varol, Çev.). Ankara: Karatepe.
• Raucher, B. H. (1992). The role of gestures in speech production: Gestures enhance lexical access. Doctoral Dissertation, Columbia University, Columbia.
• Rauscher, B. H., Krauss, R. M., & Chen, Y. (1996). Gesture, speech, and lexical access: The role of lexical movements in speech production. Psychological Science, 7(4), 226-231.
• Ravizza, S. (2003). Movement and lexical access: Do noniconic gestures aid in retrieval? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(3), 610-615.
• Rubin, D. C., & Friendly, M. (1986). Predicting which words get recalled: Measures of free recall, availability, goodness, emotionality, and pronunciability for 925 nouns. Memory & Cognition, 14(1), 79-94.
• Seiger-Gardner, L., & Brooks, P. J. (2008). Effects of onset-and rhyme-related distractors on phonological processing in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51(5), 1263-1281.
• Shapiro, L. (2011). Embodied cognition, New problems of philosophy. New York: Routledge.
• Sharkey, W. F., Asamoto, P., Tokunaga, C., Haraguchi, G., & McFaddon-Robar, T. (2000). Hand gestures of visually impaired and sighted interactants. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 94(9), 549-563.
• Smith, L., & Gasser, M. (2005). The development of embodied cognition: Six lessons from babies. Artificial Life, 11(1-2), 13-29.
• Tumaç, A. (1997). Normal deneklerde, frontal hasarlara duyarlı bazı testlerde performansa yaş ve eğitimin etkisi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
• Troyer, A. K. (2000). Normative data for clustering and switching on verbal fluency tasks. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 22(3), 370-378.
• Troyer, A. K., Moscovitch, M., & Winocur, G. (1997). Clustering and switching as two components of verbal fluency: Evidence from younger and older healthy adults. Neuropsychology, 11(1), 138-146.
• Weckerly, J., Wulfeck, B., & Reilly, J. (2001). Verbal fluency deficits in children with specific language impairment: Slow rapid naming or slow to name? Child Neuropsychology, 7(3), 142-152.
• Verbal and Category Fluency Test Instructions. (2018). http://www.ftdrg.org/wp-content/uploads/Test-Instructions.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir.
• Yalvaç, B., Soylu, F., & Arıkan, A. (2011). Bedenlenmiş biliş ve eğitim. Ethos: Felsefe ve Toplumsal Bilimlerde Diyaloglar, 4(1), 1-20.