Like Karadöller and colleagues, we believe that any language acquisition framework needs to incorporate visual expressions in sign language as well as co-speech gestures in spoken languages. To do so, Karadöller and colleagues focus on deictic and iconic aspects of visual expressions, which convey semantic meaning. Our proposal is that a multimodal language acquisition framework also needs to account for non-referential body movements because they are highly common in communication and they significantly contribute to language structure and language meaning at the prosodic and pragmatic levels of language.
Esteve-GibertN.LœvenbruckH.DohenM.D’ImperioM. (2022). Pre-schoolers use head gestures rather than prosodic cues to highlight important information in speech. Developmental Science, 25(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.13154
4.
GibergaA.GuerraE.AhufingerN.IgualadaA.AguileraM.Esteve-GibertN. (2025a). How children with and without developmental language disorder use prosody and gestures to process phrasal ambiguities. Languages, 10(61), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages10040061
5.
GibergaA.GuerraE.AhufingerN.IgualadaA.AguileraM.Esteve-GibertN. (2025b). Prosody and gestures help pragmatic processing in children with developmental language disorder. Journal of Communication Disorders, 115(March), 106525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2025.106525
6.
GökgözK.BogomoletsK.TieuL.Levi PalmerJ.Lillo-MartinD. (2016). Contrastive focus in children acquiring English and ASL: Cues of prominence. In PerkinsG.DudleyR.GerardJ. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th conference on generative approaches to language acquisition North America (GALANA 2015; pp. 3–23). Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
7.
HübscherI.Esteve-GibertN.IgualadaA.PrietoP. (2017). Intonation and gesture as bootstrapping devices in speaker uncertainty. First Language, 37(1), 24–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723716673953
8.
KaradöllerD. Z.SümerB.ÖzyürekA. (2025). First-language acquisition in a multimodal language framework: Insights from speech, gesture, and sign. First Language, 45(6), 673–710. https://doi.org/10.1177/01427237241290678
9.
KendonA. (2004). Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge University Press.
10.
KoutalidisS.MertensU.AbramovO.KoppS.RohlfingK. J.KernF. (2020). Multimodal marking of focus in German preschoolers’ utterances with the focus-particles also, only, and even/still. Proceedings of the Gesture and Speech in Interaction (GESPIN). https://pub.uni-bielefeld.de/record/2944841
11.
KrivokapicJ.TiedeM. K.TyroneM. E. (2017). A kinematic study of prosodic structure in articulatory and manual gestures: Results from a novel method of data collection. Laboratory Phonology, 8(1), 1–26.
12.
MathewM.YuenI.DemuthK. (2017). Talking to the beat: Six-year-olds’ use of stroke-defined non-referential gestures. First Language, 38(2), 111–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723717734949
NicoladisE.MarentetteP.NavarroS. (2016). Gesture frequency linked primarily to story length in 4–10-year old children’s stories. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 45(2), 189–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-014-9342-2
RohrerP. L. (2022). A temporal and pragmatic analysis of gesture-speech association: A corpus-based approach using the novel MultiModal MultiDimensional (M3D) labeling system. [Unpublished PhD dissertation]. Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona (Spain).
17.
SandlerW.Lillo-MartinD.DachkovskyS.QuadrosR. M. (2020). Sign language prosody. In GussenhovenC.ChenA. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language prosody. Oxford University Press.
18.
Shattuck-HufnagelS. I.PrietoP. (2019). Dimensionalizing co-speech gestures. In CalhounS.EscuderoP.TabainM.WarrenP. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th international congress of phonetic sciences. Melbourne, Australia.
19.
Shattuck-HufnagelS.RenA. (2018). The prosodic characteristics of non-referential co-speech gestures in a sample of academic-lecture-style speech. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1514. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01514
20.
Vilà-GiménezI.PrietoP. (2021). The value of non-referential gestures: A systematic review of their cognitive and linguistic effects in children’s language development. Children, 8(2), 148. https://doi.org/10.3390/children8020148
21.
WiedmannN.WinklerS. (2015). The influence of prosody on children’s processing of ambiguous sentences. In WinklerS. (Ed.), Ambiguity: Language and communication (pp. 185–197). De Gruyter.
