Speakers design their multimodal communication according to the needs and knowledge of their interlocutors, phenomenon known as audience design. We use more sophisticated language (e.g., longer sentences with complex grammatical forms) when communicating with adults compared with children. This study investigates how speech and co-speech gestures change in adult-directed speech (ADS) versus child-directed speech (CDS) for three different tasks. Overall, 66 adult participants (Mage = 21.05, 60 female) completed three different tasks (story-reading, storytelling and address description) and they were instructed to pretend to communicate with a child (CDS) or an adult (ADS). We hypothesised that participants would use more complex language, more beat gestures, and less iconic gestures in the ADS compared with the CDS. Results showed that, for CDS, participants used more iconic gestures in the story-reading task and storytelling task compared with ADS. However, participants used more beat gestures in the storytelling task for ADS than CDS. In addition, language complexity did not differ across conditions. Our findings indicate that how speakers employ different types of gestures (iconic vs beat) according to the addressee’s needs and across different tasks. Speakers might prefer to use more iconic gestures with children than adults. Results are discussed according to audience design theory.
AdamsC.SmithM. C.PasupathiM.VitoloL. (2002). Social context effects on story recall in older and younger women: Does the listener make a difference?The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 57(1), P28–P40.
2.
Aktan-ErciyesA.GöksunT. (2023). Early parental causal language input predicts children’s later causal verb understanding. Journal of Child Language, 50, 177–197.
3.
AlibaliM. W. (2005). Gesture in spatial cognition: Expressing, communicating, and thinking about spatial information. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 5(4), 307–331.
4.
AllenG. L. (2003). Gestures accompanying verbal route directions: Do they point to a new avenue for examining spatial representations?Spatial Cognition and Computation, 3(4), 259–268.
5.
AustinE. E.SwellerN. (2014). Presentation and production: The role of gesture in spatial communication. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 122, 92–103.
6.
AvcıC.ArslanB.GöksunT. (2022). Gesture and speech disfluency in narrative context: Disfluency rates in spontaneous, restricted, and encouraged gesture conditions. In CulbertsonJ.PerforsA.RabagliatiH.RamenzoniV. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 44th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 1912–1917). Cognitive Science Society.
7.
AzarZ.BackusA.ÖzyürekA. (2020). Language contact does not drive gesture transfer: Heritage speakers maintain language specific gesture patterns in each language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(2), 414–428.
8.
BellA. (1984). Language style as audience design. Language in Society, 13(2), 145–204.
9.
BiauE.Soto-FaracoS. (2013). Beat gestures modulate auditory integration in speech perception. Brain and Language, 124(2), 143–152.
10.
BiauE.Soto-FaracoS. (2015). Synchronization by the hand: The sight of gestures modulates low-frequency activity in brain responses to continuous speech. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, Article 527.
11.
BlokpoelM.van KesterenM.StolkA.HaselagerP.ToniI.Van RooijI. (2012). Recipient design in human communication: Simple heuristics or perspective taking?Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, Article 253.
12.
BrandR. J.BaldwinD. A.AshburnL. A. (2002). Evidence for ‘motionese’: Modifications in mothers’ infant-directed action. Developmental Science, 5(1), 72–83.
13.
BrennanS. E.GalatiA.KuhlenA. K. (2010). Two minds, one dialog: Coordinating speaking and understanding. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 53, 301–344.
14.
Cameron-FaulknerT.LievenE.TomaselloM. (2003). A construction based analysis of child directed speech. Cognitive Science, 27(6), 843–873.
15.
CampisiE.ÖzyürekA. (2013). Iconicity as a communicative strategy: Recipient design in multimodal demonstrations for adults and children. Journal of Pragmatics, 47(1), 14–27.
16.
CarleE. (1969). The very hungry caterpillar. Penguin Putnam.
17.
ChurchR. B.KellyS. D.LynchK. (2000). Immediate memory for mismatched speech and representational gesture across development. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 24, 151–174. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006610013873
18.
ClarkH. H.MurphyG. L. (1982). Audience design in meaning and reference. Advances in Psychology, 9, 287–299.
19.
CloughS.HilvermanC.Brown-SchmidtS.DuffM. C. (2022). Evidence of audience design in amnesia: Adaptation in gesture but not speech. Brain Sciences, 12(8), 1082.
20.
CollettaJ. M.GuidettiM.CapirciO.CristilliC.DemirO. E.Kunene-NicolasR. N.LevineS. (2015). Effects of age and language on co-speech gesture production: An investigation of French, American, and Italian children’s narratives. Journal of Child Language, 42, 122–145. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000913000585
21.
CollettaJ. M.PellenqC.GuidettiM. (2010). Age-related changes in co-speech gesture and narrative: Evidence from French children and adults. Speech Communication, 52, 565–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2010.02.009
22.
CragoM. B.AllenS. E. (1997, March). Linguistic and cultural aspects of simplicity and complexity in Inuktitut child directed speech (pp. 91–102) [Conference session]. 21st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD21), Brookline, MA, United States.
23.
CurioniA.KnoblichG. K.SebanzN.SacheliL. M. (2020). The engaging nature of interactive gestures. PLOS ONE, 15(4), Article e0232128.
24.
DargueN.SwellerN.JonesM. P. (2019). When our hands help us understand: A meta-analysis into the effects of gesture on comprehension. Psychological Bulletin, 145(8), 765.
25.
DunstC.GormanE.HambyD. (2012). Preference for infant-directed speech in preverbal young children. Center for Early Literacy Learning, 5(1), 1–13.
26.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA. G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146
27.
FernaldA. (1993). Approval and disapproval: Infant responsiveness to vocal affect in familiar and unfamiliar languages. Child Development, 64(3), 657–674.
28.
FernaldA.KuhlP. (1987). Acoustic determinants of infant preference for motherese speech. Infant Behavior and Development, 10(3), 279–293.
29.
FerreiraV. S. (2019). A mechanistic framework for explaining audience design in language production. Annual Review of Psychology, 70(1), 29–51.
30.
Florit-PonsJ.Vilà-GiménezI.RohrerP. L.PrietoP. (2020). “The development and temporal integration of co-speech gesture in narrative speech: a longitudinal study,” in Proceedings of the 2020 Gesture and Speech in Interaction (GESPIN), Stockholm.
31.
FussellS. R.KraussR. M. (1989). Understanding friends and strangers: The effects of audience design on message comprehension. European Journal of Social Psychology, 19(6), 509–525.
32.
GalatiA.BrennanS. E. (2010). Attenuating information in spoken communication: For the speaker, or for the addressee?Journal of Memory and Language, 62(1), 35–51.
33.
GillamR. B.PearsonN. A. (2004). Test of narrative language. Proed.
34.
Goldin-MeadowS. (1999). The role of gesture in communication and thinking. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(11), 419–429.
35.
Goldin-MeadowS. (2015). From action to abstraction: Gesture as a mechanism of change. Developmental Review, 38, 167–184.
GutmannA. J.TurnureJ. E. (1979). Mothers’ production of hand gestures while communicating with their preschool children under various task conditions. Developmental Psychology, 15(2), 197–203. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.15.2.197
38.
HannaJ. E.TanenhausM. K.TrueswellJ. C. (2003). The effects of common ground and perspective on domains of referential interpretation. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(1), 43–61.
39.
HawleyM. L.LitovskyR. Y.ColburnH. S. (1999). Speech intelligibility and localization in a multi-source environment. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 105(6), 3436–3448. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.424670
40.
HollerJ.ShoveltonH.BeattieG. (2009). Do iconic hand gestures really contribute to the communication of semantic information in a face-to-face context?Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 33, 73–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-008-0063-9
41.
HollerJ.StevensR. (2007). The effect of common ground on how speakers use gesture and speech to represent size information. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 26(1), 4–27.
42.
HollerJ.WilkinK. (2009). Communicating common ground: How mutually shared knowledge influences speech and gesture in a narrative task. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(2), 267–289.
43.
HortonW. S.KeysarB. (1996). When do speakers take into account common ground?Cognition, 59(1), 91–117.
44.
HostetterA. B. (2011). When do gestures communicate? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 137(2), 297–315.
45.
HostetterA. B.AlibaliM. W.KitaS. (2007). I see it in my hands’ eye: Representational gestures reflect conceptual demands. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22(3), 313–336.
46.
HyuseinG.GöksunT. (2023). The creative interplay between hand gestures, convergent thinking, and mental imagery. PLOS ONE, 18(4), Article e0283859.
47.
IgualadaA.Esteve-GibertN.PrietoP. (2017). Beat gestures improve word recall in 3-to 5-year-old children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 156, 99–112.
48.
IsaacsE. A.ClarkH. H. (1987). References in conversation between experts and novices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116(1), 26–37.
49.
IversonJ. M.CapirciO.LongobardiE.CaselliM. C. (1999). Gesturing in mother-child interactions. Cognitive Development, 14(1), 57–75.
50.
JacobsN.GarnhamA. (2007). The role of conversational hand gestures in a narrative task. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 291–303.
51.
JacobsonJ. L.BoersmaD. C.FieldsR. B.OlsonK. L. (1983). Paralinguistic features of adult speech to infants and small children. Child Development, 54, 436–442.
52.
JuolaP. (2008). Assessing linguistic complexity. Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change, 89, 90–108.
53.
KitaS. (2000). How representational gestures help speaking. In McNeillD. (Ed.), Language and gesture (pp. 162–185). Cambridge University Press.
54.
KitaS. (2009). Cross-cultural variation of speech-accompanying gesture: A review. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(2), 145–167.
55.
KitaS.AlibaliM. W.ChuM. (2017). How do gestures influence thinking and speaking? The gesture-for-conceptualization hypothesis. Psychological Review, 124(3), 245–266.
56.
KoschmannT.LeBaronC. (2002). Learner articulation as interactional achievement: Studying the conversation of gesture. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 249–282.
57.
KraussR. M.ChenY.ChawlaP. (1996). Nonverbal behavior and nonverbal communication: What do conversational hand gestures tell us?Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 389–450.
58.
KuhlenA. K.BrennanS. E. (2010). Anticipating distracted addressees: How speakers’ expectations and addressees’ feedback influence storytelling. Discourse Processes, 47(7), 567–587.
59.
Llanes-CorominaJ.Vilà-GiménezI.KushchO.Borràs-ComesJ.PrietoP. (2018). Beat gestures help preschoolers recall and comprehend discourse information. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 172, 168–188.
60.
LuceroC.ZaharchukH.CasasantoD. (2014). Beat gestures facilitate speech production. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 36, 898–903.
61.
MasatakaN. (1992). Motherese in a signed language. Infant Behavior and Development, 15, 453–460.
62.
MasatakaN. (1996). Perception of motherese in a signed language by 6-month-old infants. Developmental Psychology, 32, 874–879.
63.
McNeillD. (1995). Hand and mind. In SebeokT. A.Umiker-SebeokJ. (Eds.), Advances in visual semiotics: The semiotic web 1992-93 (pp. 351–374). De Gruyter Mouton.
64.
McNeillD.BertenthalB.ColeJ.GallagherS. (2005). Gesture-first, but no gestures?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(2), 138–139.
65.
MolnarM.LeungK. I.HerreraJ. S.GiezenM. (2021). Toddler-directed and adult-directed gesture frequency in monolingual and bilingual caregivers. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/w35rh
66.
NenchevaM. L.PiazzaE. A.Lew-WilliamsC. (2021). The moment-to-moment pitch dynamics of child-directed speech shape toddlers’ attention and learning. Developmental Science, 24(1), Article e12997.
67.
ÖzçalışkanŞ.Goldin-MeadowS. (2011). Is there an iconic gesture spurt at 26 months. In StamG.IshinoM. (Eds.), Integrating gestures: The interdisciplinary nature of gesture (pp. 163–174). John Benjamins.
68.
ÖzderL. E.ÖzerD.GöksunT. (2022). Gesture use in L1-Turkish and L2-English: Evidence from emotional narrative retellings. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76(8), 1797–1816. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218221126685.
69.
ÖzerD.GöksunT. (2020). Gesture use and processing: A review on individual differences in cognitive resources. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 573555.
70.
PeggJ. E.WerkerJ. F.McLeodP. J. (1992). Preference for infant-directed over adult-directed speech: Evidence from 7-week-old infants. Infant Behavior and Development, 15(3), 325–345.
71.
PerryL. K.PerlmanM.WinterB.MassaroD. W.LupyanG. (2018). Iconicity in the speech of children and adults. Developmental Science, 21(3), Article e12572.
72.
PouwW. T.De NooijerJ. A.Van GogT.ZwaanR. A.PaasF. (2014). Toward a more embedded/extended perspective on the cognitive function of gestures. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 359.
73.
RavidD. (2005). Emergence of linguistic complexity in later language development: Evidence from expository text construction. In RavidD. D.ShyldkrotH. B. Z. (Eds.), Perspectives on language and language development (pp. 337–355). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-7911-7_25
74.
RoweM. L.ÖzçalışkanŞ.Goldin-MeadowS. (2008). Learning words by hand: Gesture’s role in predicting vocabulary development. First Language, 28(2), 182–199.
75.
SchubotzL.ÖzyürekA.HollerJ. (2019). Age-related differences in multimodal recipient design: Younger, but not older adults, adapt speech and co-speech gestures to common ground. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 34(2), 254–271.
76.
ShethK. K.RamírezN. F. (2022). Paternal and maternal parentese: A longitudinal corpus analysis. In GongY.KpogoF. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 46th annual Boston University conference on language development (pp. 686–699). Cascadilla Press.
77.
SoderstromM.BlossomM.FoygelR.MorganJ. L. (2008). Acoustical cues and grammatical units in speech to two preverbal infants. Journal of Child Language, 35(4), 869–902.
78.
StanfieldC.WilliamsonR.ÖzçalışkanŞ. (2014). How early do children understand gesture-speech combinations with iconic gestures?Journal of Child Language, 41, 462–471. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000913000019
79.
TippenhauerN.FourakisE. R.WatsonD. G.Lew-WilliamsC. (2020). The scope of audience design in child-directed speech: Parents’ tailoring of word lengths for adult versus child listeners. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 46(11), 2163–2178.
80.
Vilà-GiménezI.DowlingN.Demir-LiraÖ. E.PrietoP.Goldin-MeadowS. (2021). The predictive value of non-referential beat gestures: Early use in parent-child interactions predicts narrative abilities at 5 years of age. Child Development, 92(6), 2335–2355. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13583
81.
Vilà-GiménezI.IgualadaA.PrietoP. (2019). Observing storytellers who use rhythmic beat gestures improves children’s narrative discourse performance. Developmental Psychology, 55(2), 250–262.
82.
Vilà-GiménezI.PrietoP. (2020). Encouraging kids to beat: Children’s beat gesture production boosts their narrative performance. Developmental Science, 23(6), Article e12967.
83.
WagnerS. M.NusbaumH.Goldin-MeadowS. (2004). Probing the mental representation of gesture: Is handwaving spatial?Journal of Memory and Language, 50(4), 395–407.
84.
YuanS.HussainS. A.HalesK. D.CottenS. R. (2016). What do they like? Communication preferences and patterns of older adults in the United States: The role of technology. Educational Gerontology, 42(3), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601277.2015.1083392
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
