BUCLD 37 Proceedings
To be published in 2013 by Cascadilla Press
Rights forms signed by all authors
Monolingual and Bilingual Children’s Use of Gestures and
Grammatical Agreement in Pronoun Interpretation
W. Quin Yow*
Singapore University of Technology and Design
1. Introduction
Pronouns can be ambiguous because they carry limited lexical information
on their own and their interpretation depends, in part, on shared knowledge and
expectations of interlocutors (Arnold, Brown-Schmidt, & Trueswell, 2007).
Most adult listeners can quickly resolve the ambiguity by using a variety of cues
present in the speech signal such as gender (Arnold, Eisenband, Brown-Schmidt,
& Trueswell, 2000), grammatical function, for example the subject of a relative
clause (Gordon, Grosz, & Gilliom, 1993), and order-of-mention (Arnold,
Brown-Schmidt, Trueswell, & Fagnano, 2004) - the tendency of adults to
interpret the first-mentioned entity as the referent for the ambiguous pronoun
(also known as first-mentioned bias).
There is evidence that young children can resolve ambiguous pronouns
under some but not all conditions. Arnold and colleagues (2007) found that 4and 5-year-old children were able to resolve pronouns on the basis of gender
information but not order-of-mention. In their study, they had adults and
preschoolers listened to a puppet (Elmo) telling simple short stories about two
characters, visually represented with stereotypical either male or female
appearances. The experimenter then presented the participant with an object
(e.g. a toy ball), and asked the participant to “give” the object to one of the
characters (e.g. “Can you show me who wants the ball in Elmo’s story?” The
stories varied under 3 conditions: 1) Different-gender and first-mentioned
condition – the two characters were of different gender and the first-mentioned
character coincided with the gender cue (e.g. Puppy is a male and Froggy is a
female, and the puppet said, “Puppy is having lunch with Froggy. He wants
*
W. Quin Yow: [email protected], Humanities, Arts & Social Sciences, Singapore
University of Technology and Design. The author wishes to thank Ellen Markman for her
guidance and comments on the manuscript. The author is grateful to the children and
parents who participated and to the teachers and staff of The Bing Nursery School. The
author also wishes to thank Whitney Goodrich Smith, Hannah Jaycox, and attendees at
BUCLD 37 for their comments and suggestions. This work was partially supported by
the Tan Kah Kee Postgraduate Scholarship to the author.
some milk.”); 2) Different-gender and second-mentioned condition – again the
two characters were of different gender but it was the second-mentioned
character that coincided with the gender cue (e.g. “Puppy is having lunch with
Froggy. She wants some milk.”) In this case, the first-mentioned character
conflicted with the gender cue; 3) Same-gender condition – the two characters
were of the same gender. In this case, the gender “he” or “she” is insufficient to
disambiguate who “he” or “she” refers to, and this is a test of order-of-mention.
Arnold and colleagues found that when gender cue coincided with firstmentioned cue, both adults and children overwhelmingly chose the firstmentioned character. When gender cue conflicted with the first-mentioned cue,
both adults and children went with the gender cue to select the secondmentioned character, indicating that both adults and children showed successful
pronoun resolution based on gender. In the same-gender condition where
participants can only rely on order-of-mention cues to resolve the pronoun
problem, while significantly more adults used the first-mentioned cue to
disambiguate the pronoun, preschoolers were at chance using this cue to
disambiguate the pronoun, suggesting that preschoolers were able to resolve
pronouns on the basis of gender information but not order-of-mention, unlike
adults who could use both.
On the other hand, gestures may provide additional information to help
determine the referents for pronouns in speech. When gestural information is
provided that disambiguates conceptual reference in speech, gesture is detected
and used for interpretation (Kelly, Barr, Church, & Lynch, 1999; Thompson &
Massaro, 1994). Hence, gesture can be relied upon in communication, in
addition to other information. One example of such useful gestures is coreferential localizing gestures. These are gestures made by speakers about a
location in space when referring to one entity and another space for another
entity, and then gesture back to the same location when referring to that entity
again later in the same discourse (Kendon, 2004; McNeill, 1992; So, Coppola,
Licciardello, & Goldin-Meadow, 2005). Goodrich Smith and Hudson Kam
(2012) found that adults were less likely to interpret an ambiguous pronoun as
the first-mentioned character when the speaker gestured to the secondmentioned character. In their study, adult participants watched vignettes of a
speaker telling short narrations contained characters of the same gender and an
ambiguous pronoun referring to a single entity. The speaker either produced coreferential localizing gestures that were consistent with order-of-mention
(gesture made to the space previously associated with the first-mentioned
character) or conflicted with the order-of-mention tendency (gesture made to the
space previously associated with the second-mentioned character), or produced
no gesture at all. They found that gesture did indeed affect adults’ pronoun
interpretation. Adults overwhelmingly interpreted the pronoun as referring to
the first-mentioned character when the gesture was consistent with the firstmentioned character. On the other hand, adults were much less likely to
interpret the ambiguous pronoun as the first-mentioned character when the
speaker produced the gesture in consistent with the second-mentioned character.
No studies to date have examined how children use gestures (e.g. coreferential localizing gestures) with co-occurring speech cues (e.g. order-ofmention) to infer the referent object in face of an ambiguous pronoun. The first
goal of this study is to explore to what extent preschoolers use co-referential
localization gestures and order-of-mention cues in pronoun resolution. The
second goal is to examine whether children who grow up in a bilingual
environment will show a different pattern of development in the use of these
cues compared to those who grow up in a monolingual environment. Growing
up in a bilingual environment presents young children with more potential
moments for a communication breakdown (e.g. Grosjean, 1989). They often
have to determine what language a given speaker is using, what the speaker is
referring to and how to respond appropriately. This may lead to a heightened
sensitivity to the contexts surrounding language use. There is a growing body of
evidence that bilingual children may be more sensitive to and better able to
utilize various sources of information to interpret a speaker’s communicative
intent. Previous studies have shown that bilingual children are able to switch
languages appropriately depending on the language used by the speaker and
repair communication breakdown using different strategies depending on
context (Comeau, Genesee, & Lapaquette, 2003). Compared to monolinguals,
bilingual children make better and more effective use of verbal cues (Cummins
& Mulcahy, 1978), are better able to detect violations of Gricean conversation
maxims (Siegal, Iozzi, & Surian, 2009), are better able to take the perspective of
others experiencing communication difficulties (Genesee, Tucker, & Lambert,
1975), and are better at making effective use of nonverbal cues such as point,
gaze and tone of voice to understand a speaker’s referential intent (Yow &
Markman, 2011a, 2011b). Hence, bilingual children may be more sensitive to
various cues present in a communicative context and better able to use them to
interpret a speaker’s intent.
This study follows a modified version of the Arnold et al.’s (2007)
procedure paired with co-referential localizing gestures used in Goodrich Smith
and Hudson Kam (2012) to examine how preschoolers use gestures and orderof-mention cues to resolve pronouns and to what extent monolingual and
bilingual children differ in their use of these cues to help them identify the right
referent for the pronoun.
2. Experiment
2.1. Method
2.1.1. Participants
Thirty-two 4-year-old English monolingual and bilingual children from the
same university lab school participated in this study. Sixteen were monolinguals
(9 males; mean age = 4.58; range = 4.02-4.99) and 16 were bilinguals (9 males;
mean age = 4.45; range = 4.02-4.94). A language questionnaire was sent to the
parents via the school that asked for information about the language first
acquired by the child, the language used by the parents and caregivers, and the
amount of time (average percentage of exposure per week) the child was
exposed to each language. Children were determined to be bilingual if they had
at least 30% exposure to one of two languages weekly. The 16 bilingual children
in the study were reported to have regular exposure to another language besides
English, such as Spanish (n=7), Mandarin (n=2), Russian (n=2), French, Italian,
Thai, Japanese, and German (n=1 per language), mainly either from parents or a
nanny. Twenty-two adults who received introductory psychology course credit
for their participation (9 females; 13 males) were also recruited to obtain an
adult comparison for the study.
2.1.2. Materials
There were 14 pairs of pictures of (cartoon) animal characters, two pairs for
warm-up trials and 12 pairs for experimental trials. The animal characters had
clothing and accessories that match their intended gender. For example, a
female cat had a pink bow on its head and a necklace around its neck, while a
male pig had a straw hat and brown-checkered white shirt. The female animal
characters were: duck, owl, reindeer, bear, bunny, kitty, chick, and mouse. The
male animal characters were: penguin, teddy, frog, panda, raccoon, bear, dog,
and pig. The pictures were laminated, size 13 cm x 13 cm each. In addition, a
card-holding structure was constructed to control for distances between pairs of
pictures and between pictures and the experimenter. The structure consisted of
two 12 cm x 13 cm white boards and a 2 cm by 31 cm white strip of cardboard.
The two white boards were inclined backwards an angle of approximately 45o
from the child’s view and held 30 cm apart from each other. The white strip of
cardboard extended from the middle of the two white boards towards the
experimenter. These pairs of pictures remained visible to the children
throughout the trial, potentially freeing up mental resources such as working
memory, to the experimental tasks (see Ballard, Hayhoe, Pook, & Rao, 1997).
This also served as a visual reminder of the gender of the characters, which was
held constant for each pair of animals in each trial.
2.1.3. Procedure
Children were tested individually in a quiet room in their preschool.
Children were told that they were going to play a giving game. For each trial, a
pair of pictures was introduced to the children (e.g. “This is Miss Owl and this is
Miss Ducky) and children were asked to confirm the identity of the characters
(e.g. “So, can you tell me which one is Miss Owl…. And which one is Miss
Ducky?”). One child was excluded from the study as he failed to answer both
questions correctly. The experimenter then placed the pictures on the cardholding structure and said a two-sentence story to the children. The first
sentence of each story mentioned the two characters doing some reciprocal
action (e.g. “Miss Owl is going out with Miss Ducky”). Such reciprocal
predicates help avoid confounds with thematic roles that might alter the first-
mentioned bias (e.g. Garvey & Caramazza, 1974) and make first-mentioned
character more accessible for reference with pronouns (Arnold & Griffin, 2007).
As the experimenter spoke the first sentence, a palm-up gesture was used
towards each of the two characters to associate either the left or right space with
the character (see Figure 1). The second sentence of the story then explained
that one character wanted a particular item. In this instance, the same palm-up
gesture was used with either one or none of the two characters as the
experimenter spoke, depending on which type of trial it was. In the warm-up
trials, the name of the target character was mentioned clearly to indicate it as the
target referent and the gesture was used in consistent with the proper name (e.g.
“Miss Owl/Ducky wants the bag.”) In the experimental trials, there were three
conditions: neutral, gesture-1st, and gesture-2nd. In all three conditions, a
pronoun consistent with the gender of both the characters was used instead of
the proper name (e.g. “He wants the ball.”). No gesture was used in the neutral
condition in the second sentence. The palm-up gesture was used with the first
character in the gesture-1st condition and with the second character in the
gesture-2nd condition as the experimenter spoke.
Figure 1. Screenshots from the study: experimenter showed a palm-up
gesture when referring to one of the two characters.
The experimenter then presented a doll-sized paper object with sticky tape
behind and asked the child, “Can you give it to him/her?” During each trial, the
experimenter maintained eye contact with the child. If the child asked for
confirmation or clarification, the experimenter said “Which one do you think
wants it?” Each session consisted of two warm-up trials and 12 experimental
trials. The animal characters and the target referent in the two warm-up trials
were counterbalanced for side. There were 16 different orders for the
experimental trials. Each order began with a trial from a different condition in a
pre-determined randomized schedule, counterbalanced for side, gender, and
condition, and with the restriction that three of the first six experimental trials
must come from each of the three experimental conditions. The orders were
randomly assigned to each participant in a way that was balanced across gender,
age and language groups. The adults went through the same procedure.
2.1.4. Other measures
2.1.4.1. Socio-economic status (SES)
To verify that the monolingual and bilingual children were drawn from the
same socioeconomic status (SES) population, we followed the procedure
reported by Westenberg, Siebelink, Warmenhoven & Treffers (1999), Furth et
al. (2000), Buck, Msall, Schisterman, Lyon & Rogers (2000), Rathore et al.
(2006), and Ward (2008) and used the participants’ residential addresses to
obtain an estimated value of each family’s dwelling from an internet website
that provides real estate information such as home prices and home values
(www.zillow.com). Using this method, we then calculated the median, mean,
and variance property valuation for the monolingual and bilingual children in
order to determine whether the two groups of children differ in SES.
2.1.4.2. Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test IV (Dunn & Dunn, 2007)
This is a test of receptive vocabulary where each child was to select one
picture from a set of four that depicts the word that was being spoken by the
experimenter. The test continued until the child made eight or more errors in
any set of 12 items. Raw scores were converted to standard scores using
normalized tables based on age.
2.1.4.3. Digit-Span task (Wechsler, 1997)
This task was adapted from the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for ChildrenRevised as a test of short-term memory. A list of pre-determined random
numbers ranging from two to nine digits was read out loud. Each child was to
repeat all the numbers verbally in the same order. There were two trials for each
digit length. The test began with two numbers, increasing until the child
committed errors on both trials of the same digit length. The child’s digit span
score was the total number of trials completed correctly.
2.1.4.4. Day-Night task
This task was adapted from the day-night task used in Gerstadt, Hong, and
Diamond (1994). It involves instructing children to say the word “day” when
they see a card depicting a nighttime sky and to say “night” when shown a
picture of the daytime sky. This task requires remembering the two rules and
inhibiting a response to the visual cues. There were two training cards and 16
testing cards used in this study. Half of the cards showed a yellow sun in a light
blue background and half showed a white crescent moon and stars on a black
background. The instructions and presentation of cards were adapted from
Siegal, Iozzi, and Surian (2009). The experimenter first showed each child a
card with the moon and said, “We are going to play a funny game. When you
see this card I want you to say day. Can you say day?” The experimenter
continued to show a card with the sun and said, “Now, when you see this card I
want you to say night. Can you say night?” The child was then shown the first
test card with the sun and asked, “Now, what do you say when you see this
card?” The child was shown a card with the moon next and asked, “What do
you say when you see this card?” If the child got either of the first two test trials
wrong, these two trials were counted as practice trials. The child would then be
told of the rules again and the test trials would start all over again. If the child
responded correctly to the first two trials, these were counted as trials 1 and 2
and the child proceeded with the remaining trials. The total number of correct
responses was scored on a 2-16 scale.
2.2. Results
2.2.1. Preliminary analyses
2.2.1.1. Measures of SES
In order to determine whether the monolingual and bilingual children came
from similar SES background, statistical analyses were conducted on the ratios
of the mean, median, and variance property valuation between monolingual and
bilingual children. The ratio of the median property valuation between
monolingual and bilingual children was 1:1.03 (Z = -.15 P > .10), the ratio of the
means was 1:1.02 (t(25) = .092, p > .10), and the ratio of the variances was
1:0.54 (F(1,25) = 2.13, p > .10), all of which indicated that both groups of
children came from similar SES background.
2.2.1.2. Measures of vocabulary, memory span, and inhibitory control
The mean scores and standard deviations for the PPVT, Digit-Span, and
Day-Night tasks are shown in Table 1. A one-way ANOVA was conducted to
compare children from the two language groups in these three tasks. No
significant effects were found for all three tasks, all ps > .10. Hence, both groups
of children were virtually identical in SES, receptive vocabulary, short-term
memory and inhibitory control skills.
Table 1. Mean Scores and Standard Deviations (in parentheses) of Children
on Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT), Digit-Span Task (DS), and
Day-Night Task (DN).
Mean Age
Lang. Status
PPVT
DS
DN
4.58
Monolingual
122.73 (10.68)
6.47 (1.19)
12.00 (2.70)
4.45
Bilingual
115.19 (14.12)
6.13 (1.89)
12.13 (2.68)
For experimental trials, children were given a score of from 0 to 4 that
reflects the number of times they selected the character that was first mentioned.
There were no significant correlations between scores in the experimental trials
and SES, PPVT, Digit-Span, and Day-Night task (all ps > .10). Thus, the
monolingual and bilingual children were drawn from identical SES populations
and were comparable in terms of standard measures of vocabulary, inhibitory
control, and short-term memory. Moreover, none of these measures were
correlated with success on the experimental measures of interest.
2.2.2. Main results
2.2.2.1 Adults’ data
An omnibus repeated measures ANOVA was conducted with condition as
within-subjects factor, and gender and order as between-subjects factors. There
was no significant effect of gender and order; hence these were combined in
subsequent analyses (ps > .10). A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted
with condition as the within-subjects factor (condition: neutral vs. gesture-1st vs.
gesture-2nd). The effect of condition was significant, F(2,42) = 22.21, p < .01.
Paired-sample t-tests revealed that adults chose the first-mentioned character
more when gesture was consistent with first-mentioned character than when
there was no gesture (t(21) = 2.32, p < .05), or when gesture was consistent with
second-mentioned character (t(21) = 5.19, p < .01) (see Figure 2). Adults also
chose the first-mentioned character more when there was no gesture than when
gesture was consistent with second-mentioned character (t(21) = 4.41, p < .05).
One-sample t-tests showed that adults chose the first-mentioned character
significantly above chance when there was no gesture as well as when gesture
was consistent with first-mentioned character (t(21) = 14.72, p < .05; t(21) = 10.00, p < .01 respectively). On the other hand, adults were at chance in
choosing the first-mentioned character when gesture was consistent with
second-mentioned character (t(21) = -.80, p > .10). In congruence with prior
results (e.g. Arnold et al., 2006), adults showed an order-of-mention bias by
choosing the first-mentioned character in the neutral condition. Adults showed
more confidence in choosing the first-mentioned character when the
experimenter’s gesture was consistent with this bias. However, adults did not
persist in choosing the first-mentioned character when the gesture was targeted
at the second-mentioned character, indicating a general awareness of the
experimenter’s gesture but also exhibited a sense of uncertainty when the
gesture conflicted with order-of-mention bias.
2.2.2.2 Children’s data
A 3 (condition: neutral vs. gesture-1st vs. gesture-2nd) x 2 (language status:
monolingual vs. bilingual) repeated measures ANOVA was conducted. There
was a significant main effect of condition, F(2,60) = 11.90, p < .01. Pairedsample t-tests revealed that children chose the first-mentioned character more
when gesture was consistent with first-mentioned character (gesture-1st
condition) than when there was no gesture (neutral condition) or when gesture
was consistent with second-mentioned character (gesture-2nd condition) (both ps
< .01). There was a marginal significant interaction between language status
and condition (F(2,60) = 3.08, p = .053). Planned comparison t-tests revealed
that bilingual children chose the second-mentioned character more than
monolingual children when gesture was consistent with second-mentioned
character but no difference in other conditions (gesture-2nd: t(30) = 2.01, p =
.053; gesture-1st: t(30) = .51, p > .10; neutral: t(30) = .89, p > .10) (see Figure 2).
Monolingual and bilingual children were equally likely to select the firstmentioned object either when there was no gesture, or when gesture was
consistent with first-mentioned character, but bilingual children were more
likely than monolingual children to select the second-mentioned object when
gesture was consistent with second-mentioned character. These results suggest
that bilingual children selected the second-mentioned object more than
monolingual children likely because they were more willing to interpret the
character that the experimenter gestured at was the target referent rather than
due to a weaker order-of-mention bias.
4-year-old Monolingual
4-year-old Bilingual
Adults
4.00
Avg. no. of
times 1stmentioned
character
selected (out of 4)
3.73
3.00
2.00
2.50
2.25
4.00
3.13
2.94
2.31
2.23
1.56
1.00
0.00
Neutral
Gesture-1st
Gesture-2nd
Figure 2. Average total number of times subjects picked the 1st-mentioned
character (out of 4) by condition for monolingual children (n = 16),
bilingual children (n = 16), and adults (n=22).
We also compared performance against chance to examine whether children
have a first-order mention bias (neutral condition) and whether gesture was used
to identify the referent target (gesture-1st and gesture-2nd conditions).
Monolingual children were at chance picking the first-mentioned character both
in the neutral and gesture-2nd conditions (t(15) = 1.17, p > .10 and t(15) = 1.16, p
> .10 respectively), but were significantly above chance picking the firstmentioned character in the gesture-1st condition (t(15) = 3.76, p < .01).
Monolingual children did not seem to have a first-order mention bias (as
consistent with Arnold et al., 2006) but gesture did help these children to
identify the first mentioned character (gesture-1st condition) but not the second
mentioned character (gesture-2nd condition). Bilingual children, on the other
hand, were at chance picking the first-mentioned object in the gesture-2nd
condition (t(15) = -1.70, p > .10), but were significantly above chance picking
the first-mentioned character in the neutral and gesture-1st condition (t(15) =
2.74, p < .05 and t(15) = 4.14, p < .01 respectively). In sum, the bilingual
children seemed to have a burgeoning first-order mention bias like adults and
showed some sensitivity to co-referential localization gestures even when they
were targeted at the second-mentioned character.
To further examine whether children who were able to use order-of-mention
cues were also able to use gestures in pronoun interpretation, we grouped
children into those who did not show an order-of-mention (OM) bias (scored 2
or less out of 4 in the neutral trials) and those who showed some order-ofmention bias (scored 3 or more out of 4 in the neutral trials). We ran a 3
(condition: neutral vs. gesture-1st vs. gesture-2nd) x 2 (language status:
monolingual vs. bilingual) repeated measures ANOVA separately for the two
groups. For no-OM bias group, there was a significant effect of condition
(F(2,32) = 4.77, p < .05). Children chose the first-mentioned character
significantly more when the experimenter provided a gesture with the firstmentioned character than when gesture was provided with the second-mentioned
character (M of gesture-1st = 2.65; M of neutral = 1.79; M of gesture-2nd = 1.86;
ps < .01). No other significant effects were found. For the OM bias group,
there was also a significant effect of condition (F(2,24) = 12.14, p < .01).
Children chose the first-mentioned character significantly more when the
experimenter provided a gesture with the first-mentioned character than when
gesture was provided with the second-mentioned character (M of gesture-1st =
3.46; M of neutral = 3.15; M of gesture-2nd = 2.08; p < .01). In addition, there
was a significant interaction effect between language status and condition,
(F(2,24) = 4.60, p < .05). Paired-sample t-tests revealed that while monolingual
children were equally likely to choose the first-mentioned character regardless
whether gesture was used or not (all ps > .05), bilingual children significantly
differentiated their choice depending on the condition: they chose the firstmentioned object more in the gesture-1st condition and second-mentioned object
more in the gesture-2nd condition (all ps < .05). This suggests that bilingual
children who were precocious in using order-of-mention cues to interpret
pronouns were also more willing to use the speaker’s gestures to determine the
referent of the ambiguous pronouns.
3. General discussion
Our study explored whether adults and preschoolers were able to use coreferential localization gestures and order-of-mention cues in pronoun
resolution, and whether growing up in a bilingual environment might impact on
children’s sensitivity to communicative gestures. Pairs of animal pictures were
introduced to the children and the experimenter told a two-sentence story to the
children that included the two characters doing some reciprocal action while
gesturing to each of the two characters to establish referential space. The second
sentence of the story explained that one character wanted a particular item. In
this instance, the same palm-up gesture was used with either one or none of the
two characters as the experimenter spoke (gesture used with first-mentioned
character or second-mentioned character, or no gesture was used). The
experimenter then asked the child to give the item to one of the characters.
Consistent with previous studies, adults showed an order-of-mention bias as
they chose the first-mentioned character when no gestures were used. Adults
also showed sensitivity to co-referential gestures such that they chose the firstmentioned character more when the experimenter’s gesture was consistent with
this bias, and less when the experimenter’s gesture was targeted at the secondmentioned character. Four-year-olds tended to have a weaker first-mentioned
bias compared to the adults. However, like adults, they chose the firstmentioned character more when the gesture was targeted at the first-mentioned
character than when it was not, suggesting that preschoolers were able to use
gestures in conjunction with first-mentioned bias to resolve pronouns ambiguity.
Most importantly, there is a difference in responses between the monolingual
and bilingual children. Bilingual children showed more adult-like responses
than monolingual children, including a burgeoning order-of-mention bias when
no gestures were present and more willingness to follow the speaker’s gestures
even when these gestures conflicted with the first-mentioned bias. In sum,
bilingual children indicated a greater level of sensitivity to the use of the
experimenter’s gesture than monolingual children.
Children growing up in a bilingual environment may be presented with
more communicative challenges than those growing up in a monolingual
environment. They have to regularly figure out what language a speaker is
using (such as code-mixing) and what the speaker is referring to (multiple labels
for a single referent in multiple languages). Bilingual children may resolve such
communicative challenges by frequently monitoring the communicative context
and utilizing verbal and nonverbal cues available in the situation to better
understand the speaker’s communicative intent. Bilingual children may become
better skilled in making use of various communicative cues to interpret a
speaker’s communicative intent.
References
Arnold, Jennifer E., Brown-Schmidt, Sarah, & Trueswell, John (2007). Children's use of
gender and order-of-mention during pronoun comprehension. Language and
Cognitive Processes, 22(4), 527-565.
Arnold, Jennifer E., Eisenband, Janet G., Brown-Schmidt, Sarah, & Trueswell, John C.
(2000). The rapid use of gender information: Evidence of the time course of pronoun
resolution from eye tracking. Cognition, 76, 13-26.
Arnold, Jennifer E., Brown-Schmidt, Sarah, Trueswell, John C., & Fagnano, Maria
(2004). Children's use of gender and order of mention during pronoun
comprehension. In John C. Trueswell & Michael K. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Approaches
to studying world-situated language use: Bridging the language-as-product and
language-as-action traditions (pp. 261-284). Boston: MIT Press.
Arnold, Jennifer E., & Griffin, Zenzi M. (2007). The effect of additional characters on
choice of referring expression: Everyone counts. Journal of Memory and Language,
56(4), 521-536.
Ballard, Dana H., Hayhoe, Mary M., Pook, Polly K., & Rao, Rajesh P. N. (1997). Deictic
codes for the embodiment of cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20, 723767.
Kelly, Spencer D., Barr, Dale J., Church, R. Breckinridge, & Lynch, Katheryn (1999).
Offering a hand to pragmatic understanding: The role of speech and gesture in
comprehension and memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 577-592.
Buck, Germaine M., Msall, Michael E., Schisterman, Enrique F., Lyon, Nancy R., &
Rogers, Brian T. (2000). Extreme prematurity and school outcomes. Paediatric and
Perinatal Epidemiology, 14 (4), 324-331.
Comeau, Liane, Genesee, Fred, & Lapaquette, Lindsay (2003). The modeling hypothesis
and child bilingual codemixing. International Journal of Bilingualism, 7(2), 113126.
Cummins, James, & Mulcahy, Robert (1978). Orientation to language in UkrainianEnglish bilingual children. Child Development, 49, 1239-1242.
Dunn, Lloyd M., & Dunn, Douglas M. (2007). Peabody picture vocabulary test.
Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson Inc.
Furth, Susan L., Garg, Pushkal P., Neu, Alicia M., Hwang, Wenke, Fivush, Barbara A.,
& Powe, Neil R. (2000). Racial differences in access to the kidney transplant
waiting list for children and adolescents with end-stage renal disease. Pediatrics,
106 (4), 756-761.
Garvey, Catherine, & Caramazza, Alfonso (1974). Implicit causality in verbs. Linguistic
Inquiry, 5, 549-564.
Genesee, F., Tucker, G. R., & Lambert, W. E. (1975). Communication skills of bilingual
children. Child Development, 46(4), 1010-1014.
Gerstadt, Cherie, Hong, Yoon Joo, & Diamond, Adele (1994). The relationship between
cognition and action: Performance of children 3.5–7 years old on a stroop-like day–
night task. Cognition, 53, 129-153.
Goodrich Smith, Whitney, & Hudson Kam, Carla L. (2012). Knowing ‘who she is’
based on ‘where she is’: The effect of co-speech gesture on pronoun comprehension.
Language and Cognition, 4(2), 75-98.
Gordon, Peter C., Grosz, Barbara J., & Gilliom, Laura A. (1993). Pronouns, names, and
the centering of attention in discourse. Cognitive Science, 17, 311-347.
Grosjean, Francois (1989). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two
monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language, 36, 3-15.
Kendon, Adam (2004). Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
McNeill, David (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Rathore, Saif S., Masoudi, Frederick A., Wang, Yongfei, Curtis, Jeptha P., Foody,
JoAnne M., Havranek, Edward P., & Krumholz, Harlan M. (2006). Socioeconomic
status, treatment, and outcomes among elderly patients hospitalized with heart
failure: Findings from the National Heart Failure Project. American Heart Journal,
152 (2), 371-378.
Siegal, Michael, Iozzi, Laura, & Surian, Luca (2009). Bilingualism and conversational
understanding. Cognition, 110, 115-122.
So, Wing Chee, Coppola, Marie, Licciardello, Vincent, & Goldin-Meadow, Susan
(2005). The seeds of spatial grammar in the manual modality. Cognitive Science, 29,
1029-1043.
Thompson, Laura A., & Massaro, Dominic W. (1994). Children's integration of speech
and pointing gestures in comprehension. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
57, 327-354.
Ward, Michael M. (2008). Socioeconomic status and the incidence of ESRD. American
Journal of Kidney Diseases, 51 (4), 563-572.
Wechsler, David (1997). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-III (WAIS-III). New York:
Psychological Corporation.
Westenberg, P. Michiel, Siebelink, Berend M., Warmenhoven, Nathalie J. C., & Treffers,
Philip D. A. (1999). Separation anxiety and overanxious disorders: Relations to age
and level of psychosocial maturity. Journal of the American Academy of Child &
Adolescent Psychiatry, 38 (8), 1000-1007.
Yow, W. Quin, & Markman, Ellen M. (2011a). Young bilingual children’s heightened
sensitivity to referential cues. Journal of Cognition and Development, 12(1), 12-31.
Yow, W. Quin, & Markman, Ellen M. (2011b). Bilingualism and children's use of
paralinguistic cues to interpret emotion in speech. Bilingualism: Language and
Cognition, 14(4), 562-569.