Talk:Gestures in language acquisition

message: Needs to be at least wikified / WP-ised, and probably completely rewritten into an encyclopedia article instead of an essay on the subject. --213.162.65.17 11:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I have started some suggestions for editing this page in my Sandbox. Cait ash (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for Edits 

message: Hello, I have started suggesting some changes and reedits for this page on my Sandbox. Mikailaperrino (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reformat and Edits 

message: I have further suggestions for this page in my Sandbox. Clfergus (talk) Clfergus (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Suggestions 

message: Hi all I think I figured out how to rename this page but it involved "moving" it so I am not sure what happens to the old page. Can everyone see that the title has changed and work on this page? (rather than the old one - if it still exists?) Also we never really came to a consensus on the title name but is this one okay? Cait ash (talk) Mikailaperrino (talk) Tulsa01, Sarah.Monk, Kcarlson2 Marentette Clfergus (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, sorry to pop in uninvited, but Help:Moving a page might be of assistance to you. Essentially, renaming like this involves moving all the content to a new title, which usually leaves a redirect that sends readers to the current page name. I've also moved the page to make sure the title conforms to the Manual of Style, specifically the guidelines for MOS:CAPS and WP:TITLES. Me, Myself & I (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename

message: I have attempted to consolidate the references twice now and have gone through and cited properly and it keeps reverting back to the original citations. I don't understand why there are two lists and I don't understand why it is not sticking.-- Cait ash (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikifying Sources 

message: Hi all Tulsa01, Sarah.Monk, Kcarlson2 Marentette 
So it's easier to split up the only parts we have worked on are at the beginning as follows
* Introductory Paragraph
* Relationship between speech and gesture section
* Timeline of gesture development section
* Deictic gestures section
* Representational gestures section
The rest (bottom half) are from a previous editor that we organized into sections. I think that some of the sections could be removed because they may not be relevant or completely correct (specifically the difference between signs and gestures section) but let me know what you all think and we can decide from there. Thanks! Clfergus (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: I realize you are mid-revision, so I am aware that I may be putting things out there that you already intend to do.
===== Sign and Gesture =====
* I'm concerned about the sign and gesture section which still confuses conventional gesture with all gesture "thumbs up" is a particular kind of gesture, minimally conventional but also an "emblem" and it is not very representative of the kind of co-speech gesture that is the topic of your article. Also the fingerspelling of the letter "M" is not a good representation of what a sign is. I would simplify this section by perhaps just putting links to the gesture and sign language pages rather than trying to give examples. If this isn't assigned to anyone in the group - tell me and I'll happily do it myself!
===== Deictic gestures =====
* The phrase "Declarative pointing can be expressive with which..." is quite obtuse. Can it also be something else? Can you keep the meaning and say "Declarative pointing is expressive and used by the child to draw attention to an interesting object?"
* Is epistemic pointing a third type? Shouldn't it be listed the same way as 1. and 2. I suspect you need some link or definition for the word epistemic or more likely the page for epistemology.
===== Representational gestures =====
* Be cautious about the claim that representational gestures have fixed meanings (second sentence in rep gest section). They are not the same as conventional gestures, which do. Instead, their interpretation is context dependent. Iverson et al. say "relatively stable across different situations" but they are comparing with deictic gestures and with words. Rep gest are more stable in meaning than points (as points don't have any stable representation) but less than words (dog always means dog {except of course when it doesn't, which is a sophisticated language problem that preschoolers are not addressing}). Perhaps McNeill's book Hand and Mind would be a better general reference for the different types of gestures. The third sentence about agreed context is accurate but I'm not sure its meaning is clear.
* I agree with the earlier peer which suggests some more general comments about iconic gestures that cross more cultures than just Italian. Certainly American children use these gestures, just not as frequently as Italians. Perhaps a more general summary. There are many sources for research on iconic gestures in children. If you can't find any other cross-cultural info, then at least move the Italian comments to the end of the section as it they are very specific and the more general information should come first.
* I suspect all cultures have conventional gestures, particularly in use with children, so it seems somewhat narrow to focus on American children here.
===== Timeline =====
* Thanks for the "sentence" clarification!
* The timeline now reads that children first produce rep gest at 12 months, but they can use them in sequence with pointing at 11 months and in the Rep Gest def'n it says 10 months. Can these be put in sync?
* There is a weird link to pointing - shockingly there isn't a pointing page but do you think this is a helpful link. This page is likely the best info - does Wiki do links within a page (see above)?
* not producing symbolic gestures yet - two things: first, I suspect Goodwyn and Acredolo say something different, and second, much depends on the definition - and there is no description of symbolic gest on this page. Is it important to distinguish this from rep gest and if so , then you need to make the distinction clear and tell the reader why it matters.
* Gestures aid lexical dev't: "It has been suggested" (zombie alert...) and "children use a deictic gesture". These seem like two unrelated comments that need to be treated in different sentences with different citations. If you are really talking about deictic gestures first be sure you aren't repeating what is in the dedicated section, and if not, then put it at the age appropriate place in your timeline.
===== Incompatibility =====
* first sentence is a bit odd. Can you introduce this section or provide some context as to why it is present - maybe mention that there was a historical controversy? I find it odd that we would keep old and now discredited info in the article, and you do have the Loncke source. If I find any others to support that isn't one person's idea, I'll pass it on.
* the phrase with the absence of language is opaque. Who are you talking about here - preling children, atypical children? children who can talk but don't today for rogue reasons?
* Perhaps consider reordering the information in this section. Start with the current rationale for why gesture is beneficial (summarizing so briefly the content of the previous sections in the page), talk about the social context as you have done (this is useful new information) and then at the end, put the now discredited incompatibility hypothesis. That keeps the information present, but puts it in its place rather than front and centre. 
* Finally I would consider integrating with the AAC section somehow. I think the general idea that gesture supports communicative development linked with the social interaction in which it occurs makes a nice transition to how gesture can be used by children who are having language trouble but benefit from a broad focus on communication rather than a specific focus on language. Maybe call the whole section Gesture in communicative development? Just an idea.
* I am OK with leaving Kendon's bit where it is now, but do believe that it either needs its own page at some point, or minimally is better off in the Gesture page. 
This is really looking great - my last request is to consider the Categories that this page might belong to. Language acquisition seems much too restrictive.
Paula Marentette (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mid revision comments 

message: * first sentence is a bit odd. Can you introduce this section or provide some context as to why it is present - maybe mention that there was a historical controversy? I find it odd that we would keep old and now discredited info in the article, and you do have the Loncke source. If I find any others to support that isn't one person's idea, I'll pass it on.
* the phrase with the absence of language is opaque. Who are you talking about here - preling children, atypical children? children who can talk but don't today for rogue reasons?
* Perhaps consider reordering the information in this section. Start with the current rationale for why gesture is beneficial (summarizing so briefly the content of the previous sections in the page), talk about the social context as you have done (this is useful new information) and then at the end, put the now discredited incompatibility hypothesis. That keeps the information present, but puts it in its place rather than front and centre. 
* Finally I would consider integrating with the AAC section somehow. I think the general idea that gesture supports communicative development linked with the social interaction in which it occurs makes a nice transition to how gesture can be used by children who are having language trouble but benefit from a broad focus on communication rather than a specific focus on language. Maybe call the whole section Gesture in communicative development? Just an idea.
* I am OK with leaving Kendon's bit where it is now, but do believe that it either needs its own page at some point, or minimally is better off in the Gesture page. 
This is really looking great - my last request is to consider the Categories that this page might belong to. Language acquisition seems much too restrictive.
Paula Marentette (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incompatibility