RESUMEN

People are more likely to gesture when their speech is disfluent. Why? According to an influential proposal, speakers gesture when they are disfluent because gesturing helps them to produce speech. Here, we test an alternative proposal: People may gesture when their speech is disfluent because gestures serve as a pragmatic signal, telling the listener that the speaker is having problems with speaking. To distinguish between these proposals, we tested the relationship between gestures and speech disfluencies when listeners could see speakers' gestures and when they were prevented from seeing their gestures. If gesturing helps speakers to produce words, then the relationship between gesture and disfluency should persist regardless of whether gestures can be seen. Alternatively, if gestures during disfluent speech are pragmatically motivated, then the tendency to gesture more when speech is disfluent should disappear when the speaker's gestures are invisible to the listener. Results showed that speakers were more likely to gesture when their speech was disfluent, but only when the listener could see their gestures and not when the listener was prevented from seeing them, supporting a pragmatic account of the relationship between gestures and disfluencies. People tend to gesture more when speaking is difficult, not because gesturing facilitates speech production, but rather because gestures comment on the speaker's difficulty presenting an utterance to the listener.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Why do people gesture when they speak? According to one influential proposal, the Lexical Retrieval Hypothesis (LRH), gestures serve a cognitive function in speakers' minds by helping them find the right spatial words. Do gestures also help speakers find the right words when they talk about abstract concepts that are spatialized metaphorically? If so, then preventing people from gesturing should increase the rate of disfluencies during speech about both literal and metaphorical space. Here, we sought to conceptually replicate the finding that preventing speakers from gesturing increases disfluencies in speech with literal spatial content (e.g., the rocket went up), which has been interpreted as evidence for the LRH, and to extend this pattern to speech with metaphorical spatial content (e.g., my grades went up). Across three measures of speech disfluency (disfluency rate, speech rate, and rate of nonjuncture filled pauses), we found no difference in disfluency between speakers who were allowed to gesture freely and speakers who were not allowed to gesture, for any category of speech (literal spatial content, metaphorical spatial content, and no spatial content). This large dataset (7,969 phrases containing 2,075 disfluencies) provided no support for the idea that gestures help speakers find the right words, even for speech with literal spatial content. Upon reexamining studies cited as evidence for the LRH and related proposals over the past 5 decades, we conclude that there is, in fact, no reliable evidence that preventing gestures impairs speaking. Together, these findings challenge long-held beliefs about why people gesture when they speak. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Parents' use of spatial language and gestures is closely linked to children's spatial language development. Little is known about the quantity and quality of early spatial input and how infants' individual characteristics may be related to the spatial input they receive. Here, we examine (1) the amount and type of spatial input 16- to 21-month-old Turkish-learning children (n = 34) received in the context of a spatial activity (puzzle play) and (2) whether parental spatial input in the form of speech and gesture varies based on children's age, sex, and early spatial vocabulary comprehension assessed in an earlier session. Results of the regression analyses showed that parents' use of spatial words was predicted by children's age over and beyond earlier spatial word comprehension and sex. In particular, parents used more spatial speech as their children got older even in this restricted age range. Children's early spatial word comprehension also correlated with parents' spatial word production. Yet, parents' overall gesture use and gestures with spatial words were not predicted by children's age, sex, or early spatial word comprehension. These findings suggest that in the spatial domain, early verbal input, but not gestural input, can change depending on children's age and children's spatial vocabulary comprehension may also be related to parental use of later spatial language. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Parents enhance their children's spatial skills using spatial language and gestures. Parental spatial talk is related to children's later spatial skills. What does this study add? We assess both spatial talk and gesture in early childhood. We examine the children's characteristics (age, sex) in relation to spatial talk and gesture. We present how children's earlier vocabulary competence relates to parental input.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The physical properties of events are known to modulate perceived time. This study tested the effect of different quantitative (walking speed) and qualitative (walking-forward vs. walking-backward) features of observed motion on time perception in three complementary experiments. Participants were tested in the temporal discrimination (bisection) task, in which they were asked to categorize durations of walking animations as "short" or "long." We predicted the faster observed walking to speed up temporal integration and thereby to shift the point of subjective equality leftward, and this effect to increase monotonically with increasing walking speed. To this end, we tested participants with two different ranges of walking speeds in Experiment 1 and 2 and observed a parametric effect of walking speed on perceived time irrespective of the direction of walking (forward vs. rewound forward walking). Experiment 3 contained a more plausible backward walking animation compared to the rewound walking animation used in Experiments 1 and 2 (as validated based on independent subjective ratings). The effect of walking-speed and the lack of the effect of walking direction on perceived time were replicated in Experiment 3. Our results suggest a strong link between the speed but not the direction of perceived biological motion and subjective time.