Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Gesture links language and cognition for spoken and signed languages

Nature Reviews Psychology volume 2, pages 407–420 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Human communication combines language with gesture. Gesture contributes to the uniquely human ability to communicate about an infinite number of ideas in an efficient way and to generate representations that are useful for thinking. Gesture and language can be distinguished by distinct underlying modes of thinking and by gradations of conventionalization and the transparency of form–meaning relations. However, it is not always possible or useful to draw a sharp line between gesture and language. In this Review, we first describe how speakers and signers produce facial, manual, and body gestures. Then, we describe how representational gesture encodes information, considering the constraints from properties of languages, and how speakers and signers orchestrate language and gesture. Next, we review how gesture production shapes thinking for both signers and speakers, and consider gesture comprehension and how the meaning of gestures is integrated with language. We conclude with suggestions for further exploration of gesture as a critical expression of the human mind.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Deictic signs.
Fig. 2: Conventionalization in gestures.

References

  1. Chomsky, N. Three factors in language design. Linguist. Inq. 36, 1–22 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Everaert, M. B. H. et al. What is language and how could it have evolved? Trends Cogn. Sci. 21, 569–571 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Levinson, S. C. Space in Language and Cognition: Exploration in Cognitive Diversity (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003).

  4. Whorf, B. L. Language, Thought, and Reality (MIT Press, 1956).

  5. Hockett, C. The origin of speech. Sci. Am. 203, 89–97 (1960).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Tattersall, I. The Origin of The Human Capacity (American Museum of Natural History, 1998).

  7. Kendon, A. in The Relation Between Verbal and Nonverbal Communication (ed. Key, M. R.) 207–227 (Mouton, 1980).

  8. Kendon, A. Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2004). This book discusses the range of ways in which language and gesture work as an integrated multimodal utterance in communication and reviews the history of gesture research.

  9. McNeill, D. So you think gestures are nonverbal. Psychol. Rev. 92, 350–371 (1985).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. McNeill, D. Hand and Mind (Univ. Chicago Press, 1992). This book covers a broad range of issues concerning the relationship between gesture and speech, and proposes that gesture and language form a processing unit for thinking and communicating.

  11. McNeill, D. Gesture and Thought (Univ. Chicago Press, 2005).

  12. Perniss, P. Why we should study multimodal language. Front. Psychol. 9, 01109 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Mondada, L. Challenges of multimodality: language and the body in social interaction. J. Socioling. 20, 336–366 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Streeck, J. Gesture as communication. I: its coordination with gaze and speech. Commun. Monogr. 60, 275–299 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Streeck, J. Gesturecraft: The Manufacture of Meaning (John Benjamins, 2009). This anthropological work reveals how co-speech gestures and other bodily actions create meaning in interaction.

  16. Vigliocco, G., Perniss, P., Thompson, R. L. & Vinson, D. (eds) Language as a Multimodal Phenomenon: Implications for Language Learning, Processing and Evolution (Royal Society, 2014).

  17. Stivers, T. & Sidnell, J. Multimodal communication. Semiotica 156, 1–20 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Liszkowski, U., Schäfer, M., Carpenter, M. & Tomasello, M. Prelinguistic infants, but not chimpanzees, communicate about absent entities. Psychol. Sci. 20, 654–660 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kita, S., Alibali, M. W. & Chu, M. How do gestures influence thinking and speaking? The gesture-for-conceptualization hypothesis. Psychol. Rev. 124, 245–266 (2017). This paper proposes that representational gestures influence thinking by activating, packaging, manipulating and exploring spatio-motoric information.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Caselli, N. K., Sehyr, Z. S., Cohen-Goldberg, A. M. & Emmorey, K. ASL-LEX: a lexical database of American Sign Language. Behav. Res. Methods 49, 784–801 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Sehyr, Z. S., Caselli, N., Cohen-Goldberg, A. M. & Emmorey, K. The ASL-LEX 2.0 Project: a database of lexical and phonological properties for 2,723 signs in American Sign Language. J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ. 26, 263–277 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Bavelas, J. B., Chovil, N., Lawrie, D. A. & Wade, A. Interactive gestures. Discourse Process. 15, 269–189 (1992). This study experimentally shows that there are gestures whose main function is to coordinate interaction.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Efron, D. Gesture, Race, and Culture (Mouton, 1972).

  24. Ekman, P. & Friesen, W. V. The repertoire of nonverbal behavioral categories: origins, usage, and coding. Semiotica 1, 49–98 (1969).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Cienki, A. & Müller, C. Metaphor and Gesture Vol. 3 (John Benjamins, 2008).

  26. Kita, S. Pointing: Where Language, Culture, and Cognition Meet (Lawrence Erlbaum, 2003).

  27. Kita, S. in Language and Gesture (ed. David, M. N.) 162–185 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000).

  28. Morris, D., Collett, P., Marsh, P. & O’Shaughnessy, M. Gestures, Their Origins and Distribution (Stein and Day, 1979).

  29. Kendon, A. Gestures as illocutionary and discourse structure markers in Southern Italian conversation. J. Prag. 23, 247–279 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Müller, C. How recurrent gestures mean: conventionalized contexts-of-use and embodied motivation. Gesture 16, 277–304 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Emmorey, K. in Gesture, Speech, and Sign (eds Messing, L. & Campbell, R.) 133–158 (Oxford Univ. Press, 1999). The author argues that signers do indeed gesture, but points out ways in which speakers and signers differ in their gesture production.

  32. Goldin-Meadow, S. & Brentari, D. Gesture, sign, and language: the coming of age of sign language and gesture studies. Behav. Brain Sci. 40, e46 (2017). This article provides a review of sign language and gesture studies and proposes a hard distinction between sign and gesture.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Leonard, T. & Cummins, F. The temporal relation between beat gestures and speech. Lang. Cogn. Process. 26, 1457–1471 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Emmorey, K. How to distinguish gesture from sign: new technology is not the answer. Behav. Brain Sci. 40, e54 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Sandler, W. Symbiotic symbolization by hand and mouth in sign language. Semiotica 2009, 241–275 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Emmorey, K. & Herzig, M. in Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages (ed. Emmorey, K.) 231–256 (Psychology Press, 2003).

  37. Duncan, S. Gesture in signing: a case study from Taiwan Sign Language. Lang. Linguist. 6, 279–318 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Lu, J., Emmorey, K. & Goldin-Meadow, S. in The 12th International Symposium on Iconicity in Language and Literature (Lund Univ., 2019).

  39. Okrent, A. in Modality and Structure in Signed and Spoken Languages (eds Meier, R., Cormier, K. & Quinto-Pozos, D.) 175–198 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2002).

  40. Lillo-Martin, D. & Meier, R. P. On the linguistic status of ‘agreement’ in sign languages. Theor. Linguist. 37, 95–141 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Liddell, S. K. Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003). This book describes how some signs can meaningfully point towards things or locations in the environment and argues for an integration of grammar and gesture in sign languages.

  42. Fenlon, J., Cooperrider, K., Keane, J., Brentari, D. & Goldin-Meadow, S. Comparing sign language and gesture: insights from pointing. Glossa 4, 2 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Emmorey, K. Environmentally-coupled signs and gestures. J. Cogn. 4, 39 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Goodwin, C. in Pointing: Where Language, Cognition, and Culture Meet (ed. Kita, S.) 217–241 (Lawrence Erlbaum, 2003).

  45. Goodwin, C. in Gesture and the Dynamic Dimension of Language (eds Duncan, S., Cassell, J. & Levey, E.) 195–212 (John Benjamins, 2007).

  46. Haviland, J. B. in Pointing: Where Language, Cognition, and Culture Meet (ed. Kita, S.) 139–169 (Lawrence Erlbaum, 2003).

  47. Fenlon, J., Schembri, A. & Cormier, K. Modification of indicating verbs in British Sign Language: a corpus-based study. Language 94, 84–118 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Mathur, G. & Rathman, C. in Sign Language: An International Handbook (eds Pfau, R., Steinbach, M. & Woll, B.) 136–157 (De Gruyter Mouton, 2012).

  49. Wilbur, R. B. The point of agreement: changing how we think about sign language, gesture, and agreement. Sign Lang. Linguist. 16, 221–258 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Kusters, A. & Sahasrabudhe, S. Language ideologies on the difference between gesture and sign. Lang. Commun. 60, 44–63 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Kendon, A. Some reflections on the relationship between ‘gesture’ and ‘sign’. Gesture 8, 348–366 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Paivio, A. Dual coding theory: retrospect and current status. Can. J. Psychol. 45, 255–287 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Baddeley, A. Working Memory (Oxford Univ. Press, 1986).

  54. Kita, S. & Özyürek, A. What does cross-linguistic variation in semantic coordination of speech and gesture reveal?: evidence for an interface representation of spatial thinking and speaking. J. Mem. Lang. 48, 16–32 (2003). This study demonstrates cross-linguistic differences in the way co-speech representational gestures depict events and proposes a theory of how the contents of speech and gesture are coordinated.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. de Ruiter, J. P. in Language and Gesture (ed. McNeill, D.) 284–311 (Univ. Chicago Press, 2000).

  56. Krauss, R. M., Chen, Y. & Gottesman, R. F. in Language and Gesture (ed. David, M. N.) 261–283 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000).

  57. Hostetter, A. B. & Alibali, M. W. Visible embodiment: gesture as simulated action. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 15, 495–514 (2008). This paper proposes a theory that co-speech gesture and language are both products of simulation of perceptual motor processes.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Hostetter, A. B. & Alibali, M. W. Gesture as simulated action: revisiting the framework. Psychonom. Bull. Rev. 26, 721–752 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Kita, S. Two-dimensional semantic analysis of Japanese mimetics. Linguistics 35, 379–415 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Kendon, A. in Cross-cultural Perspectives in Nonverbal Communication (ed. Fernando, P.) 131–141 (C. J. Hogrefe, 1988).

  61. de Saussure, F. Course In General Linguistics [trans. Harris, R.] (Open Court, 1983).

  62. Enfield, N. J. ‘Lip pointing’: a discussion of form and function with reference to data from Laos. Gesture 1, 185–212 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Sherzer, J. in Proceedings 1st Annual Symposium about Language and Society — Austin (SALSA I) (eds Queen, R. & Barrett, R.) 196–211 (Univ. Texas, 1993).

  64. Wilkins, D. in Pointing: Where Language, Culture, and Cognition Meet (ed. Kita, S.) 171–215 (Lawrence Erlbaum, 2003).

  65. Cooperrider, K. & Núñez, R. Nose-pointing: notes on a facial gesture of Papua New Guinea. Gesture 12, 103–129 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. McNeill, D. Recurrent gestures: how the mental reflects the social. Gesture 17, 229–244 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Ladwig, S. H. in Body–Language–Communication: An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction Vol. 2 (eds Cornelia, M. et al.) 1558–1574 (De Gruyter Mouton, 2014).

  68. Will, I. Recurrent Gestures of Hausa Speakers (Brill, 2021).

  69. Klima, E. S. & Bellugi, U. The Signs of Language (Harvard Univ. Press, 1979). This classic book provides a discussion of (among other things) iconicity in sign languages, the distinction between mimes and signs, and the nature of poetic expression in sign languages.

  70. Sehyr, Z. S. & Emmorey, K. The perceived mapping between form and meaning in American Sign Language depends on linguistic knowledge and task: evidence from iconicity and transparency judgments. Lang. Cogn. 11, 208–234 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Blasi, D. E., Wichmann, S., Hammarström, H., Stadler, P. F. & Christiansen, M. H. Sound–meaning association biases evidenced across thousands of languages. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 10818–10823 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Dingemanse, M., Schuerman, W., Reinisch, E., Tufvesson, S. & Mitterer, H. What sound symbolism can and cannot do: testing the iconicity of ideophones from five languages. Language 92, e117–e133 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Iwasaki, N., Vinson, D. P. & Vigliocco, G. in Applying Theory and Research To Learning Japanese as a Foreign Language (ed. Masahiko, M.) 2–19 (Cambridge Scholars, 2007).

  74. Perniss, P., Thompson, R. L. & Vigliocco, G. Iconicity as a general property of language: evidence from spoken and signed languages. Front. Psychol. 1, 227 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Capirci, O., Bonsignori, C. & Di Renzo, A. Signed languages: a triangular semiotic dimension. Front. Psychol. 12, 802911 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Voeltz, F. K. E. & Kilian-Hatz, C. Ideophones (John Benjamins, 2001).

  77. Willems, R. M., Özyürek, A. & Hagoort, P. Differential roles for left inferior frontal and superior temporal cortex in multimodal integration of action and language. Neuroimage 47, 1992–2004 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Sandler, W. Redefining multimodality. Front. Commun. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.758993 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Müller, C. Gesture and sign: cataclysmic break or dynamic relations? Front. Psychol. 9, 1651 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Ferrara, L. & Hodges, G. Language as description, indication, and depiction. Front. Psychol. 9, 716 (2018). The authors advocate for a linguistic framework that does not make a distinction between gesture and language.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Krahmer, E. & Swerts, M. Effect of visual beats on prosodic prominence: acoustic analyses, auditory perception, and visual perception. J. Mem. Lang. 57, 396–414 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Gluhareva, D. & Prieto, P. Training with rhythmic beat gestures benefits L2 pronunciation in discourse-demanding situations. Lang. Teach. Res. 21, 609–631 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Vilà i Giménez, I. Non-referential Beat Gestures as a Window onto the Development of Children’s Narrative Abilities. Thesis, Universitat Pompeu Fabra (2020).

  84. Gunter, T. C. & Bach, P. Communicating hands: ERPs elicited by meaningful symbolic hand postures. Neurosci. Lett. 372, 52–56 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Levelt, W. J. M., Richardson, G. & La Heij, W. Pointing and voicing in deictic expressions. J. Mem. Lang. 24, 133–164 (1985). This study is a foundational work on cognitive processes underlying speech–gesture synchronization.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. de Ruiter, J. P. in Why Gesture?: How the Hands Function in Speaking, Thinking and Communicating (eds Church, R. B., Alibali, M. W. & Kelly, S. D.) 59–75 (John Benjamins, 2017).

  87. Kita, S. Language and Thought Interface: A Study of Spontaneous Gestures and Japanese Mimetics (Univ. Chicago, 1993).

  88. Chieffi, S., Secchi, C. & Gentilucci, M. Deictic word and gesture production: their interaction. Behav. Brain Res. 203, 200–206 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Kopp, S. & Bergmann, K. in The Handbook of Multimodal-Multisensor Interfaces: Foundations, User Modeling, and Common Modality Combinations Vol. 1 (eds Oviatt, S. et al.) 239–276 (ACM Books/Morgan & Claypool, 2017).

  90. Gullberg, M. & Narasimhan, B. What gestures reveal about how semantic distinctions develop in Dutch children’s placement verbs. Cogn. Linguist. 21, 239–262 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Majid, A., Bowerman, M., Kita, S., Haun, D. B. M. & Levinson, S. C. L. Can language restructure cognition? The case of space. Trends Cogn. Sci. 8, 108–114 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Brown, A. & Gullberg, M. Bidirectional crosslinguistic influence in L1–L2 encoding of manner in speech and gesture: a study of Japanese speakers of English. Student Soc. Landsc. A 30, 225–251 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  93. Gullberg, M. Reconstructing verb meaning in a second language: how English speakers of L2 Dutch talk and gesture about placement. Annu. Rev. Cogn. Linguist. 7, 221–244 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. So, W. C., Kita, S. & Goldin-Meadow, S. Using the hands to keep track of who does what to whom: gesture and speech go hand-in-hand. Cogn. Sci. 33, 115–125 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  95. Özyürek, A. et al. Development of cross-linguistic variation in speech and gesture: motion events in English and Turkish. Dev. Psychol. 44, 1040–1054 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Özyürek, A., Kita, S., Allen, S., Furman, R. & Brown, A. How does linguistic framing of events influence co-speech gestures? Insights from crosslinguistic variations and similarities. Gesture 5, 219–240 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Özçalışkan, Ş., Lucero, C. & Goldin-Meadow, S. Is seeing gesture necessary to gesture like a native speaker? Psychol. Sci. 27, 737–747 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Özçalışkan, Ş., Lucero, C. & Goldin-Meadow, S. Does language shape silent gesture? Cognition 148, 10–18 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Kashiwadate, K., Yasuda, T., Fujita, K., Kita, S. & Kobayashi, H. Syntactic structure influences speech–gesture synchronization. Lett. Evol. Behav. Sci. 11, 10–14 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Fritz, I., Kita, S., Littlemore, J. & Krott, A. Information packaging in speech shapes information packaging in gesture: the role of speech planning units in the coordination of speech–gesture production. J. Mem. Lang. 104, 56–69 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Parrill, F., Bergen, B. K. & Lichtenstein, P. V. Grammatical aspect, gesture, and conceptualization: using co-speech gesture to reveal event representations. Cogn. Linguist. 24, 135–158 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Furman, R., Küntay, A. C. & Özyürek, A. Early language-specificity of children’s event encoding in speech and gesture: evidence from caused motion in Turkish. Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. 29, 620–634 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Lewandowski, W. & Özçalışkan, Ş. How event perspective influences speech and co-speech gestures about motion. J. Prag. 128, 22–29 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Wessel-Tolvig, B. & Paggio, P. Revisiting the thinking-for-speaking hypothesis: speech and gesture representation of motion in Danish and Italian. J. Prag. 99, 39–61 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Bock, J. K. Toward a cognitive psychology of syntax: information processing contributions to sentence formulation. Psychol. Rev. 89, 1–47 (1982).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Talmy, L. in Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Volume III: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon (ed. Timothy, S.) 57–149 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1985).

  107. Kita, S. et al. Relations between syntactic encoding and co-speech gestures: implications for a model of speech and gesture production. Lang. Cogn. Process. 22, 1212–1236 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Akhavan, N., Nozari, N. & Göksun, T. Expression of motion events in Farsi. Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. 32, 792–804 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Duncan, S. D. Gesture, verb aspect, and the nature of iconic imagery in natural discourse. Gesture 2, 183–206 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Cienki, A. & Iriskhanova, O. K. in Human Cognitive Processing (John Benjamins, 2018).

  111. Hinnell, J. The multimodal marking of aspect: the case of five periphrastic auxiliary constructions in North American English. Cogn. Linguist. 29, 773–806 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Trujillo, J., Özyürek, A., Holler, J. & Drijvers, L. Speakers exhibit a multimodal Lombard effect in noise. Sci. Rep. 11, 16721 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  113. Cohen, A. A. The communicative functions of hand illustrators. J. Commun. 27, 54–63 (1977).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Alibali, M. W., Heath, D. C. & Myers, H. J. Effects of visibility between speaker and listener on gesture production: some gestures are meant to be seen. J. Mem. Lang. 44, 169–188 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Bavelas, J., Gerwing, J., Sutton, C. & Prevost, D. Gesturing on the telephone: independent effects of dialogue and visibility. J. Mem. Lang. 58, 495–520 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. Cohen, A. A. & Harrison, R. P. Intentionality in the use of hand illustrators in face-to-face communication situations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 28, 276–279 (1973).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Krauss, R. M., Dushay, R. A., Chen, Y. & Rauscher, F. The communicative value of conversational hand gestures. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 31, 533–552 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Emmorey, K. & Casey, S. Gesture, thought and spatial language. Gesture 1, 35–50 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Barker, J. Production and comprehension of Audience Design Behaviours in Co-speech Gesture. Thesis, Univ. Warwick (2022).

  120. Hoetjes, M., Krahmer, E. & Swerts, M. On what happens in gesture when communication is unsuccessful. Speech Commun. 72, 160–175 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Gullberg, M. Handling discourse: gestures, reference tracking, and communication strategies in early L2. Lang. Learn. 56, 155–196 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  122. Naeve, S. L., Siegel, G. M. & Clay, J. L. Modifications in sign under conditions of impeded visibility. J. Speech. Lang. Hear. Res. 35, 1272–1280 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. Emmorey, K., Gertsberg, N., Korpics, F. & Wright, C. E. The influence of visual feedback and register changes on sign language production: a kinematic study with deaf signers. Appl. Psycholinguist. 30, 187–203 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  124. Adams, T. W. Gesture in Foreigner Talk (Univ. Pennsylvania, 1998).

  125. Tellier, M., Stam, G. & Ghio, A. Handling language: how future language teachers adapt their gestures to their interlocutor. Gesture 20, 30–62 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  126. Holler, J. & Beattie, G. Pragmatic aspects of representational gestures: do speakers use them to clarify verbal ambiguity with the listener? Gesture 3, 127–154 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  127. Bangerter, A. Using pointing and describing to achieve joint focus of attention in dialogue. Psychol. Sci. 15, 415–419 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. Holmström, I. Teaching a language in another modality: a case study from Swedish Sign Language L2 instruction. J. Lang. Teach. Res. 10, 659–672 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  129. Perniss, P., Lu, J. C., Morgan, G. & Vigliocco, G. Mapping language to the world: the role of iconicity in the sign language input. Dev. Sci. 21, e12551 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. Kelly, S., Byrne, K. & Holler, J. Raising the ante of communication: evidence for enhanced gesture use in high stakes situations. Information 2, 579–593 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. Hilliard, C., O’Neal, E., Plumert, J. & Cook, S. W. Mothers modulate their gesture independently of their speech. Cognition 140, 89–94 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  132. Galati, A. & Brennan, S. E. Speakers adapt gestures to addressees’ knowledge: implications for models of co-speech gesture. Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. 29, 435–451 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  133. Gerwing, J. & Bavelas, J. Linguistic influences on gesture’s form. Gesture 4, 157–195 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  134. Hoetjes, M., Koolen, R., Goudbeek, M., Krahmer, E. & Swerts, M. Reduction in gesture during the production of repeated references. J. Mem. Lang. 79–80, 1–17 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  135. Jacobs, N. & Garnham, A. The role of conversational hand gestures in a narrative task. J. Mem. Lang. 56, 291–303 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  136. Schubotz, L., Özyürek, A. & Holler, J. Age-related differences in multimodal recipient design: younger, but not older adults, adapt speech and co-speech gestures to common ground. Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. 34, 254–271 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  137. Hilliard, C. & Cook, S. W. Bridging gaps in common ground: speakers design their gestures for their listeners. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 42, 91–103 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  138. Peeters, D., Chu, M., Holler, J., Hagoort, P. & Özyürek, A. Electrophysiological and kinematic correlates of communicative intent in the planning and production of pointing gestures and speech. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 27, 2352–2368 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  139. Holler, J. & Wilkin, K. An experimental investigation of how addressee feedback affects co-speech gestures accompanying speakers’ responses. J. Prag. 43, 3522–3536 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  140. Enfield, N. J., Kita, S. & de Ruiter, J. P. Primary and secondary pragmatic functions of pointing gestures. J. Prag. 39, 1722–1741 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  141. Slonimska, A., Özyürek, A. & Capirci, O. The role of iconicity and simultaneity for efficient communication: the case of Italian Sign Language (LIS). Cognition 200, 104246 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  142. Slonimska, A., ÖZyÜRek, A. & Capirci, O. Using depiction for efficient communication in LIS (Italian Sign Language). Lang. Cogn. 13, 367–396 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  143. Dudis, P. G. Body partitioning and real-space blends. Cogn. Linguist. 15, 223–238 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  144. Hostetter, A. B. When do gestures communicate? A meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 137, 297–315 (2011). This paper reviews factors that facilitate information uptake from co-speech gesture by the recipient.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  145. Feyereisen, P. & Havard, I. Mental imagery and production of hand gestures while speaking in younger and older adults. J. Nonverb. Behav. 23, 153–171 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  146. Rauscher, F. H., Krauss, R. M. & Chen, Y. Gesture, speech, and lexical access: the role of lexical movements in speech production. Psychol. Sci. 7, 226–230 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  147. Hostetter, A. B. & Alibali, M. W. Language, gesture, action! A test of the Gesture as Simulated Action framework. J. Mem. Lang. 63, 245–257 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  148. Pine, K. J., Gurney, D. J. & Fletcher, B. The semantic specificity hypothesis: when gestures do not depend upon the presence of a listener. J. Nonverb. Behav. 34, 169–178 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  149. Masson-Carro, I., Goudbeek, M. & Krahmer, E. How what we see and what we know influence iconic gesture production. J. Nonverb. Behav. 41, 367–394 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  150. Chu, M. & Kita, S. Co-thought and co-speech gestures are generated by the same action generation process. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 42, 257–270 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  151. Rimé, B., Schiaratura, L., Hupet, M. & Ghysselinckx, A. Effects of relative immobilization on the speaker’s nonverbal behavior and on the dialogue imagery level. Motiv. Emot. 8, 311–325 (1984).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  152. Alibali, M. W., Spencer, R. C., Knox, L. & Kita, S. Spontaneous gestures influence strategy choices in problem solving. Psychol. Sci. 22, 1138–1144 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  153. Wilson, M. & Emmorey, K. in Signed Languages: Discoveries from International Research (eds Dively, V., Metzger, M., Taub, S. & Baer, A. M.) 91–99 (Gallaudet Univ. Press, 2001).

  154. Mol, L. & Kita, S. in Proceedings 34th Annual Conference of The Cognitive Science Society (eds Miyake, N., Peebles, D. & Cooper, R. P.) 761–766 (Cognitive Science Society, 2012).

  155. Kirk, E. & Lewis, C. Gesture facilitates children’s creative thinking. Psychol. Sci. 28, 225–232 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  156. Church, R. B. & Goldin-Meadow, S. The mismatch between gesture and speech as an index of transitional knowledge. Cognition 23, 43–71 (1986). In this study on gesture’s role in cognitive development, the semantic discrepancy between speech and co-speech gesture indicates that the underlying knowledge is unstable and malleable.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  157. Perry, M., Church, R. B. & Goldinmeadow, S. Transitional knowledge in the acquisition of concepts. Cogn. Dev. 3, 359–400 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  158. Goldin-Meadow, S., Shield, A., Lenzen, D., Herzig, M. & Padden, C. The gestures ASL signers use tell us when they are ready to learn math. Cognition 123, 448–453 (2012). This study with deaf signing children provides key evidence that gestures are used to explore ideas that are different from linguistically expressed ideas.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  159. Broaders, S. C., Cook, S. W., Mitchell, Z. & Goldin-Meadow, S. Making children gesture brings out implicit knowledge and leads to learning. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 136, 539–550 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  160. Vilà-Giménez, I., Igualada, A. & Prieto, P. Observing storytellers who use rhythmic beat gestures improves children’s narrative discourse performance. Dev. Psychol. 55, 250–262 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  161. Bosker, H. R. & Peeters, D. Beat gestures influence which speech sounds you hear. Proc. R. Soc. B 288, 20202419 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  162. Llanes-Coromina, J., Vilà-Giménez, I., Kushch, O., Borràs-Comes, J. & Prieto, P. Beat gestures help preschoolers recall and comprehend discourse information. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 172, 168–188 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  163. Cocks, N., Sautin, L., Kita, S., Morgan, G. & Zlotowitz, S. Gesture and speech integration: an exploratory study of a case of a man with aphasia. Int. J. Lang. Commun. Disord. 44, 795–804 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  164. Sekine, K., Sowden, H. & Kita, S. The development of the ability to semantically integrate information in speech and iconic gesture in comprehension. Cogn. Sci. 39, 1855–1880 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  165. Kelly, S. D., Barr, D. J., Church, R. B. & Lynch, K. Offering a hand to pragmatic understanding: the role of speech and gesture in comprehension and memory. J. Mem. Lang. 40, 577–592 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  166. Broaders, S. C. & Goldin-Meadow, S. Truth is at hand: how gesture adds information during investigative interviews. Psychol. Sci. 21, 623–628 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  167. Kirk, E., Gurney, D., Edwards, R. & Dodimead, C. Handmade memories: the robustness of the gestural misinformation effect in children’s eyewitness interviews. J. Nonverb. Behav. 39, 259–273 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  168. Gurney, D. J., Pine, K. J. & Wiseman, R. The gestural misinformation effect: skewing eyewitness testimony through gesture. Am. J. Psychol. 126, 301–314 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  169. Gurney, D. J., Ellis, L. R. & Vardon-Hynard, E. The saliency of gestural misinformation in the perception of a violent crime. Psychol. Crime. Law 22, 651–665 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  170. Aussems, S. & Kita, S. Seeing iconic gesture promotes first- and second-order verb generalization in preschoolers. Child Dev. 92, 124–141 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  171. Aussems, S., Mumford, K. H. & Kita, S. Prior experience with unlabeled actions promotes 3-year-old children’s verb learning. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 151, 246–262 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  172. Mumford, K. H. & Kita, S. Children use gesture to interpret novel verb meanings. Child Dev. 85, 1181–1189 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  173. Vogt, S. & Kauschke, C. Observing iconic gestures enhances word learning in typically developing children and children with specific language impairment. J. Child Lang. 44, 1458–1484 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  174. Vogt, S. S. & Kauschke, C. With some help from others’ hands: iconic gesture helps semantic learning in children with specific language impairment. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 60, 3213–3225 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  175. Wakefield, E. M., Hall, C., James, K. H. & Goldin-Meadow, S. Gesture for generalization: gesture facilitates flexible learning of words for actions on objects. Dev. Sci. 21, e12656 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  176. Goodrich, W. & Hudson Kam, C. L. Co-speech gesture as input in verb learning. Dev. Sci. 12, 81–87 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  177. McGregor, K. K., Rohlfing, K. J., Bean, A. & Marschner, E. Gesture as a support for word learning: the case of under. J. Child Lang. 36, 807–828 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  178. Tellier, M. The effect of gestures on second language memorisation by young children. Gesture 8, 219–235 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  179. Gunter, T. C., Weinbrenner, J. E. D. & Holle, H. Inconsistent use of gesture space during abstract pointing impairs language comprehension. Front. Psychol. 6, 80 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  180. Sekine, K. & Kita, S. The listener automatically uses spatial story representations from the speaker’s cohesive gestures when processing subsequent sentences without gestures. Acta Psychol. 179, 89–95 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  181. Hinnell, J. & Parrill, F. Gesture influences resolution of ambiguous statements of neutral and moral preferences. Front. Psychol. 11, 587129 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  182. Meier, R. P. & Lilo-Martin, D. The points of language. Humanamente 24, 151–176 (2013).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  183. Engberg-Pedersen, E. Space in Danish Sign Language: The Semantics and Morphosyntax of The Use of Space in a Visual Language (Signum, 1993).

  184. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. Metaphor as We Live By (Univ. Chicago Press, 1980).

  185. Sekine, K. & Kita, S. Development of multimodal discourse comprehension: cohesive use of space by gestures. Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. 30, 1245–1258 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  186. Maricchiolo, F., Gnisci, A., Bonaiuto, M. & Ficca, G. Effects of different types of hand gestures in persuasive speech on receivers’ evaluations. Lang. Cogn. Process. 24, 239–266 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  187. Peters, J. & Hoetjes, M. The effect of gesture on persuasive speech. Proc. Interspeech https://doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2017-194 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  188. Wakefield, E. M., Novack, M. A., Congdon, E. L. & Howard, L. H. Individual differences in gesture interpretation predict children’s propensity to pick a gesturer as a good informant. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 205, 105069 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  189. Goldin-Meadow, S. & Singer, M. A. From children’s hands to adults’ ears: gesture’s role in the learning process. Dev. Psychol. 39, 509–520 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  190. Bauman, D. H. L., Nelson, J. L. & Rose, H. Signing the Body Poetic: Essay on American Sign Language Literature (Univ. California Press, 2006).

  191. Sutton-Spence, R. & Kaneko, M. Introducing Sign Language Literature: Folklore and Creativity (Red Globe Press, 2017).

  192. Holler, J., Kendrick, K. H. & Levinson, S. C. Processing language in face-to-face conversation: questions with gestures get faster responses. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 25, 1900–1908 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  193. Trujillo, J. P., Levinson, S. C. & Holler, J. Human–Computer Interaction: Design and User Experience Case Studies (ed. Kurosu, M.) 643–657 (Springer, 2021).

  194. Duncan, S. Some signals and rules for taking speaking turns in conversations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 23, 283–292 (1972).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  195. Schegloff, E. A. in Structure of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis (eds Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J.) 266–296 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1984).

  196. Morrel-Samuels, P. & Krauss, R. M. Word familiarity predicts temporal asynchrony of hand gestures and speech. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 18, 615–622 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  197. de Vos, C., Casillas, M., Uittenbogert, T., Crasborn, O. & Levinson, S. C. Predicting conversational turns: signers’ and nonsigners’ sensitivity to language-specific and globally accessible cues. Language 98, 35–62 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  198. Baker, C. in On the Other Hand: New Perspectives on American Sign Language (ed. Friedmann, L.) 218–236 (Academic, 1977).

  199. de Vos, C., Torreira, F. & Levinson, S. C. Turn-timing in signed conversations: coordinating stroke-to-stroke turn boundaries. Front. Psychol. 6, 268 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  200. Girard-Groeber, S. The management of turn transition in signed interaction through the lens of overlaps. Front. Psychol. 6, 741 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  201. Obermeier, C., Kelly, S. D. & Gunter, T. C. A speaker’s gesture style can affect language comprehension: ERP evidence from gesture–speech integration. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 10, 1236–1243 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  202. Gunter, T. C. & Weinbrenner, J. E. D. When to take a gesture seriously: on how we use and prioritize communicative cues. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 29, 1355–1367 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  203. Kelly, S. D., Özyürek, A. & Maris, E. Two sides of the same coin: speech and gesture mutually interact to enhance comprehension. Psychol. Sci. 21, 260–267 (2010). This study shows that recipients automatically integrate speech and co-speech gesture.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  204. Kelly, S. D., Creigh, P. & Bartolotti, J. Integrating speech and iconic gestures in a Stroop-like task: evidence for automatic processing. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 22, 683–694 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  205. Kelly, S. D., Ward, S., Creigh, P. & Bartolotti, J. An intentional stance modulates the integration of gesture and speech during comprehension. Brain Lang. 101, 222 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  206. Özer, D. & Göksun, T. Visual-spatial and verbal abilities differentially affect processing of gestural vs. spoken expressions. Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. 35, 896–914 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  207. Wu, Y. C. & Coulson, S. Iconic gestures facilitate discourse comprehension in individuals with superior immediate memory for body configurations. Psychol. Sci. 26, 1717–1727 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  208. McNeill, D. in Pointing: Where Language, Cognition, and Culture Meet (ed. Kita, S.) 293–306 (Lawrence Erlbaum, 2003).

  209. Liddell, S. K. Spatial representations in discourse: comparing spoken and signed language. Lingua 98, 145–167 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  210. Emmorey, K., Norman, F. & O’Grady, L. The activation of spatial antecedents from overt pronouns in american sign language. Lang. Cogn. Process. 6, 207–228 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  211. Emmorey, K. & Lillo-martin, D. Processing spatial anaphora: referent reactivation with overt and null pronouns in American Sign Language. Lang. Cogn. Process. 10, 631–653 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  212. Wienholz, A. et al. Pointing to the right side? An ERP study on anaphora resolution in German Sign Language. PLoS ONE 13, e0204223 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  213. Fritz, I. How Gesture and Speech Interact During Production and Comprehension. Thesis, Univ. Birmingham (2017).

  214. Habets, B., Kita, S., Shao, Z., Özyürek, A. & Hagoort, P. The role of synchrony and ambiguity in speech–gesture integration during comprehension. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 23, 1845–1854 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  215. Obermeier, C., Holle, H. & Gunter, T. C. What iconic gesture fragments reveal about Gesture–Speech integration: when synchrony is lost, memory can help. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 23, 1648–1663 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  216. Krauss, R. M., Morrel-Samuels, P. & Colasante, C. Do conversational hand gestures communicate? J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 61, 743–754 (1991).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  217. Fritz, I., Kita, S., Littlemore, J. & Krott, A. Multimodal language processing: how preceding discourse constrains gesture interpretation and affects gesture integration when gestures do not synchronise with semantic affiliates. J. Mem. Lang. 117, 104191 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  218. Drijvers, L., Vaitonytė, J. & Özyürek, A. Degree of language experience modulates visual attention to visible speech and iconic gestures during clear and degraded speech comprehension. Cogn. Sci. 43, e12789 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  219. Drijvers, L. & Özyürek, A. Non-native listeners benefit less from gestures and visible speech than native listeners during degraded speech comprehension. Lang. Speech 63, 209–220 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  220. Holle, H., Obleser, J., Rueschemeyer, S.-A. & Gunter, T. C. Integration of iconic gestures and speech in left superior temporal areas boosts speech comprehension under adverse listening conditions. Neuroimage 49, 875–884 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  221. Slobin, D. I. in Proceedings 13th Annual Meeting of Berkeley Linguistics Society (Berkeley Linguistics Society, 1987).

  222. Sherzer, J. Verbal and nonverbal deixis: the pointed lip gesture among the San Blas Cuna. Lang. Soc. 2, 117–131 (1973).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  223. Ergin, R., Senghas, A., Jackendoff, R. & Gleitman, L. Structural cues for symmetry, asymmetry, and non-symmetry in Central Taurus Sign Language. Sign Lang. Linguist. 23, 171–207 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  224. Sandler, W. & Lillo-Martin, D. Sign Language And Linguistic Universals (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2006).

  225. Corina, D. P. et al. Dissociation between linguistic and nonlinguistic gestural systems: a case for compositionality. Brain Lang. 43, 414–447 (1992).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  226. Marshall, J., Atkinson, J., Smulovitch, E., Thacker, A. & Woll, B. Aphasia in a user of British Sign Language: dissociation between sign and gesture. Cogn. Neuropsychol. 21, 537–554 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  227. Baynton, D. C. Forbidden Signs (Univ. Chicago Press, 1996).

  228. Bauman, H., Rose, H. & Nelson, J. Signing the body poetic: Essays on American Sign Language Literature (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2006).

  229. Özer, D. & Göksun, T. Gesture use and processing: a review on individual differences in cognitive resources. Front. Psychol. 11, 573555 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  230. Smithson, L. & Nicoladis, E. Verbal memory resources predict iconic gesture use among monolinguals and bilinguals. Bilingualism 16, 934–944 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  231. Chu, M., Meyer, A., Foulkes, L. & Kita, S. Individual differences in frequency and saliency of speech-accompanying gestures: the role of cognitive abilities and empathy. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 143, 694–709 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  232. Gillespie, M., James, A. N., Federmeier, K. D. & Watson, D. G. Verbal working memory predicts co-speech gesture: evidence from individual differences. Cognition 132, 174–180 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  233. Hostetter, A. B. & Alibali, M. W. Cognitive skills and gesture–speech redundancy formulation difficulty or communicative strategy? Gesture 11, 40–60 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  234. Hostetter, A. B. & Alibali, M. W. Raise your hand if you’re spatial: relations between verbal and spatial skills and gesture production. Gesture 7, 73–95 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  235. Pyers, J. E., Magid, R., Gollan, T. H. & Emmorey, K. Gesture helps, only if you need it: inhibiting gesture reduces tip-of-the-tongue resolution for those with weak short-term memory. Cogn. Sci. 45, e12914 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  236. Hostetter, A. B. & Potthoff, A. L. Effects of personality and social situation on representational gesture production. Gesture 12, 62–83 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  237. Kimura, D. Manual activity during speaking — II. Left-handers. Neuropsychologia 11, 51–55 (1973).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  238. Argyriou, P., Mohr, C. & Kita, S. Hand matters: left-hand gestures enhance metaphor explanation. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 43, 874–886 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  239. Aldugom, M., Fenn, K. M. & Cook, S. W. Gesture during math instruction specifically benefits learners with high visuospatial working memory capacity. Cogn. Res. Princ. Implic. 5, 27 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  240. Momsen, J., Gordon, J., Wu, Y. C. & Coulson, S. Event related spectral perturbations of gesture congruity: visuospatial resources are recruited for multimodal discourse comprehension. Brain Lang. 216, 104916 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

    Sotaro Kita

  2. School of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA

    Karen Emmorey

Authors
  1. Sotaro Kita
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karen Emmorey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Both authors contributed substantially to discussion of the content. Both authors wrote the article. S.K. led the writing on co-speech gesturing and K.E. led the writing on co-sign gesturing. Both authors reviewed and/or edited the manuscript before submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sotaro Kita.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Reviews Psychology thanks Tilbe Goksun, Jennifer Hinnell, Wendy Sandler and Adam Schembri for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kita, S., Emmorey, K. Gesture links language and cognition for spoken and signed languages. Nat Rev Psychol 2, 407–420 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-023-00186-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-023-00186-9

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing