Hand Preference in Children’s Referential Gestures During Storytelling: Testing for Effects of Bilingualism,Language Ability,Age,and Sex

Abstract

Adults, preschool children, and infants gesture more with their right hand than with their left hand. Since gestures and speech are related in production, it is possible that this right-hand preference reflects left-hemisphere lateralization for gestures and speech. The primary purpose of the present study was to test if children between the ages of 6 and 10 years show a right-hand preference in referential gestures while telling a story. We also tested four predictors of children’s degree of right-hand preference: 1) bilingualism, 2) language proficiency, 3) age, and 4) sex. Previous studies have shown that these variables are related to the degree of speech lateralization. Twenty-five English monolingual (17 girls; M_age = 8.0, SD_age = 1.4), 21 French monolingual (12 girls; M_age = 7.3, SD_age = 1.4,) and 25 French-English bilingual (11 girls; M_age = 8.5, SD_age = 1.4) children watched a cartoon and told the story back. The bilinguals did this once in each language. The referential gestures were coded for handedness. Most of the participants showed a right-hand preference for gesturing. In English, none of the predictor variables was clearly related to right-hand preference. In French, the monolinguals showed a stronger right-hand preference than the bilinguals. These inconsistent findings across languages raise doubts as to whether the right-hand preference is linked to lateralization for speech.

Keywords

Hand preference lateralization co-speech gestures referential gestures

People sometimes produce gestures while speaking (Hostetter & Alibali, 2019; Kita, 2000; McNeill, 2017; 1992). Gestures are deliberate, meaningful movements of hand and arms, such as pretending to hold a hammer and making a hammering motion to mean ‘hammering’ (McNeill, 1992). Gestures are deeply connected with speech in both timing and development (McNeill, 2017; 1992). Gestures often co-occur with similar-meaning speech in time (Graziano & Gullberg, 2018; Graziano, et al., 2020). Developmentally, the age of onset of pointing predicts the age of onset of the first words (Harris et al., 1995). Moreover, toddlers produce gesture-word constructions just before they produce two-word constructions (Iverson & Goldin-Meadow, 2005). These results suggest that children use gestures to stand in for what they want to communicate until they can produce two-word utterances. The connection between speech and gesture is so tight that McNeill (1992) proposed replacing “speech” with “speech-gesture system”.

Further evidence for a strong connection between speech and gestures comes from studies on hemispheric specialization. Most people show left-hemisphere dominance for processing language (Cochet, 2016; Corballis, 2009; Gut et al., 2007; Kimura, 1973; Szaflarski et al., 2006). Both production and comprehension of gestures has been shown to be left-hemisphere-lateralized (Biduła & Króliczak, 2015; Decety et al., 1997; Moll et al., 2000; Kimura, 1973; Xu et al., 2009). For example, Decety et al. (1997) found strong left hemispheric engagement in a Positron Emission Tomography study when participants watched gestures. Moreover, one study found that common neural pathways, including Broca’s area, are activated when processing symbolic gestures and speech (Xu et al., 2009).

Consistent with left-hemispheric specialization for gesture processing, people often show a preference for gesturing with their right hand. The right-hand preference emerges, both in pointing among infants (Cochet et al., 2011; Esseily et al., 2011; Kita & Mumford, 2016; Vauclair & Imbault, 2009) and in referential gestures among preschool children (Nicoladis et al., 2021) as well as adults (Kimura 1973; Nicoladis & Shirazi, 2021; Saucier & Elias 2001; cf. Argiyou et al. 2017). Saucier and Elias (2001) found that adults showed a right-hand preference for gesturing in conversations. They attributed this preference to left-hemisphere specialization for gesture and speech.

The primary purpose of this study was to test whether children in middle childhood (mostly 6– 10 years of age) would also show a right-hand preference in referential gestures when telling a story. Given that previous research has shown a right-hand preference in referential gestures in both preschool children (Nicoladis et al., 2021) and adults (Saucier & Elias, 2001), we predicted that we would also see a right-hand preference among children in this age range.

If hand preference reflects hemispheric specialization, then hand preference might be modulated by factors that are known to be related to speech lateralization. The secondary purpose of this study was to test four such factors: bilingualism, language ability, age, and sex. We expand on the evidence for a link to hemispheric specialization for each of these variables in turn.

Bilinguals have shown less left-lateralization for speech than monolinguals in some studies (Hull & Vaid, 2005, 2006, 2007; Leonard et al., 2011; Paradis, 2004; Park et al., 2012; Peng & Wang, 2011). Other studies have shown no differences between bilinguals and monolinguals in language lateralization, with left lateralization for both languages for bilinguals (Cieślicka & Heredia, 2011; see review in Paradis, 1990). One possible explanation for the varied results is that language lateralization among bilinguals is related to the age of acquisition of a second language (Hull & Vaid, 2005, 2007; Mergen & Kuruoglu, 2018; Paradis, 2004). Based on the results of a meta-analysis, Hull and Vaid (2007) argued that bilateral language specialization is more likely when a second language is acquired prior to the age of six (see also Mergen & Kuruoglu, 2018). The bilinguals in the present study were all simultaneous bilinguals so they might show a reduced right-hand preference in gesturing relative to monolinguals. However, one study with simultaneous bilingual preschoolers showed no differences between bilinguals and monolinguals in hand preference in referential gesturing while telling a story (Nicoladis et al., 2021).

Another possible predictor of hand preference in gesturing is language proficiency. The degree of left-hemisphere lateralization for speech has been shown to be positively related to language proficiency in children (Holland et al., 2007; Ressel et al., 2008) and in adults (Archila-Suerte et al., 2012; Leonard et al., 2011). Furthermore, as noted earlier, some studies have shown links between young children’s language abilities and hand preference for pointing (Cochet et al., 2011; Mumford & Kita, 2016). For example, one study found a positive correlation between the degree of right-hand preference and receptive vocabulary scores in infants between 10 and 12 months of age (Mumford & Kita, 2016). Similar results were reported for the hand preference among preschool children’s referential gestures while telling a story (Nicoladis et al., 2021). In that study, the number of word types the children used to tell the story (i.e., the number of different words) was a positive predictor of the degree of right-hand gestures produced. In the present study, we tested whether older children’s right-hand preference in gesture use was related to language proficiency, as measured by their word types when telling a story.

The children in this study were mostly between 6 and 10 years of age. Age could be related to the degree of right-hand preference in gesturing. In an fMRI study, Szaflarski et al. (2006) found that the degree of left-hemispheric specialization increased between the ages of 5 and 20 years of age. However, Dundas, Plaut, and Behrmann (2014) found that children between 7 and 12 showed equivalent left-hemispheric specialization for speech processing relative to adults, but they did not test if there were changes within the 7 to 12 age range. In the present study, we predicted that the older the children, the more right-handed gestures they would use.

The last predictor of right-hand preference in gesturing that we studied here was sex. Males often show greater left-lateralization for speech than females (Hiscock et al., 1995; Kansaku et al., 2000; Schmithorst et al., 2008; Yu et al., 2014). Not all studies have shown sex differences in speech lateralization (Sommer et al., 2008). Nevertheless, Saucier and Elias (2001) argued that males showed a greater right-hand preference in gesturing than females because of greater left hemispheric specialization for speech among males. We therefore predicted that males would show a greater right-hand preference in gesturing than females in this study.

The Present Study

In this study, children were asked to watch a cartoon and tell the story back. We predicted that children would produce more right-handed referential gestures than left-handed gestures while telling the story, as has been found for younger children (Nicoladis et al., 2021) and for adults (Saucier & Elias, 2001). These data were originally collected to test whether there were differences between bilinguals and monolinguals in gesture frequency, as has been found for younger children (Wermelinger et al., 2020) and for adults (So, 2010).

We tested four predictors of the degree of right-hand preference: bilingualism, language ability, age, and sex. We based our predictions on previous studies showing that these factors are related to the degree of speech lateralization. Specifically, we predicted that bilinguals would produce fewer right-handed gestures than monolinguals. We further hypothesized that right-hand preference would be positively related with both language ability (as measured here by the number of different words produced when telling a story, as in Nicoladis et al., 2021) and with age. Finally, we predicted that males would produce more right-handed gestures than females.

Method

Seventy-one children participated in this study: 25 English monolinguals, 25 French-English bilinguals, and 21 French monolinguals. Table 1 summarizes some of the children’s background information. Both the English monolinguals and the French-English bilinguals lived in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. The French monolinguals lived in a small town close to Montreal, Quebec, Canada. The bilinguals had been learning both languages since birth, often one language from each parent. They all attended French-language schools and lived in an English-majority-language community. The monolinguals had had some minimal exposure to a second language, either through television programs or school, but did not speak any other language well enough to carry on a conversation.

Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of Participants

Monolinguals Bilinguals Monolinguals

(English) (French)

Average (SD) age 8.0 (1.4) 8.5 (1.4) 7.3 (1.4)

Age range 6– 10 6– 12 6– 9

#Girls/boys 17/8 12/13 11/10

	Monolinguals	Bilinguals	Monolinguals
Average (SD) age	8.0 (1.4)	8.5 (1.4)	7.3 (1.4)
Age range	6– 10	6– 12	6– 9
#Girls/boys	17/8	12/13	11/10

The participants were not perfectly matched on age. The bilingual group included one 12-year-old (the next youngest was 10 years of age). The 12-year-old was not an outlier for any measures presented here. There was a significant difference across the groups for age, F (2, 68) = 4.54, p = 0.01, η² = 0.118. Post-hoc tests showed that the French monolinguals were significantly younger than the bilinguals (Tukey test, p = 0.01). This characteristic of the sample further underlines the importance of taking age into account in the statistical analyses.

We calculated power for one-tailed t-tests, since we had predictions about the directionality of the differences. A G*Power analysis revealed that a moderate effect size at 75% power would require each group to have 31 participants for the t-tests. This study may therefore be underpowered, a point we return to in the discussion. For the chi-square analyses, a moderate effect size at 75% power would require a total of 44 participants. Thus, the chi-square analyses were likely reasonably powered.

Material

The children watched two four-minute clips of two different Pink Panther cartoons. In both clips, none of the characters spoke. In the first clip, the Pink Panther tries to get rid of a cuckoo bird because he wants to sleep and the cuckoo bird keeps trying to wake him up. In the second clip, the Pink Panther decides to pilot a military jet (without permission)

Procedure

The children watched a Pink Panther cartoon and told the story back to a native or fluent speaker of the target language. The bilingual children did this twice: once in English and once in French. The two language sessions were separated by about a week and the order of the sessions was counterbalanced. The children’s stories were videotaped for later transcription and coding.

Coding

The children’s stories were transcribed in orthographic words in both French and in English. To measure the children’s language ability, we counted the number of word types, or the number of different words used to tell the stories. The number of word types to tell a story has been shown to be highly and positively correlated with vocabulary scores in monolingual children (Nicoladis & Jiang, 2018).

From the stories, we coded referential gestures, including both iconic and deictic gestures (McNeill, 1992). Iconic gestures are gestures that resemble the referent, such as miming throwing to mean throwing. We included gestures that showed the path of movement (such as an index finger extended and tracing the imaginary path of the Pink Panther back to his house) as iconic gestures. Deictic gestures are gestures that indicate static location, such as children pointing to one side to indicate the imagined location of the Pink Panther’s house.

For all the referential gestures, we coded whether the stroke of the gesture was produced with the right hand only, the left hand only, or both hands. We encountered no instances of ambiguity in these categories: the children in this study did not simultaneously gesture one meaning with one hand and another with the other. The main dependent variable for this study is the percentage of right-handed gestures out of the total unimanual gestures.

Some of the children gestured infrequently and so the percentage of right-handed gestures may not have been a valid measure of their hand preference. In order to test for that possibility, we also classified children into those who showed clear evidence for a right-hand preference and those who did not. To do this, we compared the number of right-hand gestures to the total number of unimanual gestures for each child with a binomial test. We classified all children who had a significant binomial test (≥0.05) as those with clear evidence for a right-handed preference. We expected the children with a clear right-hand preference to use more word types and to be older than the children with no clear right-hand preference. We also expected there to be more males and more monolinguals with a clear right-hand preference than females and bilinguals respectively.

Results

Bilinguals vs. Monolinguals

The descriptive data for this study are summarized in Table 2. In English, there was no difference between monolinguals and bilinguals on word types, t (48) = 1.66, p = 0.05, number of unimanual iconic gestures, t (48) = 0.93, p = 0.18, or number of deictic gestures, t (48) = 0.45, p = 0.33. In French, there was no difference between monolinguals’ and bilinguals’ number of unimanual iconic gestures, t (44) = 1.49, p = 0.07, or number of unimanual deictic gestures, t (44) = 1.02, p = 0.16. The bilinguals used significantly more word types in French than the monolinguals, t (44) = 2.87, p = 0.003. For the two monolingual groups, there were no significant differences on word types, t (44) = 0.14, p = 0.45, number of unimanual iconic gestures, t (44) = 0.06, p = 0.48, or number of unimanual deictic gestures, t (44) = 0.74, p = 0.24.

Table 2

Average (SD) Number of Words and Gestures by Monolinguals and Bilinguals

	Monolingual	Bilingual	Bilingual	Monolingual
	(English)	(English)	(French)	(French)
Word types	119.1 (49.5)	141.6 (46.0)	152.0 (38.7)	120.8 (34.1)
#Iconic	7.0 (10.8)	9.7 (9.7)	12.6 (13.8)	7.2 (10.3)
#Deictic	1.2 (2.5)	1.4 (1.9)	1.3 (2.3)	0.7 (1.3)
Total #Referential	8.2 (12.6)	11.1 (11.3)	13.9 (15.7)	7.9 (10.9)

3.2 Degree of Right-Hand Preference

In English, the average percentage of right-handed referential gestures for both monolingual and bilingual children was 77.1% (SD = 26.9%). This percentage differed significantly from 50% (i.e., no preference) on a one-sample t-test, t (49) = 6.52, p < 0.0001. In French, the average percentage of right-handed referential gestures was 84.1% (SD = 26.8%). This percentage differed significantly from 50% on a one-sample t-test, t (43) = 7.86, p < 0.0001.

Table 3 summarizes the correlations between the variables of interest for this study. As there were so few differences between language groups, we performed these correlations across bilinguals and monolinguals. As can be seen in Table 3, in both English and French, age was significantly and positively correlated with word types. As predicted, age was positively and significantly correlated with the percentage of right-handed referential gestures in both English and French. However, it is important to keep in mind that word types and percentage of right-handed gestures were also positively and significantly correlated in both languages.

Table 3

Correlations Between Variables in English (Below Diagonal) and in French (Above Diagonal)

	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.
1. Age	–	0.409**	– 0.136	0.650**	0.116	0.381*
2. Language group	0.188	–	– 0.044	0.397**	0.214	– 0.345*
3. Sex	0.077	– 0.203	–	0.055	0.206	0.100
4. Word types	0.602**	0.233	0.065	–	0.484**	0.354*
5. #Referential	0.042	0.125	0.123	0.095	–	0.012
6. % Right-handed	0.411**	0.070	– 0.215	0.390**	– 0.197	–

Note: Language group was dummy-coded in correlations so that 1 = bilingual and 0 = monolingual; sex was also dummy-coded so that 1 = female and 0 = male. *p < 0.05 **p < 0.01.

As can be seen in Table 3, there was no correlation in English between language group and the percentage of right-handed gestures. The English monolinguals averaged 75.0% (SD = 28.2%) right-handed referential gestures and the bilinguals 78.8% (SD = 26.2%) in English. There was also no significant correlation between sex and percentage of right-handed gestures in English. The 21 males averaged 86.8% (SD = 21.1%) right-handed gestures and the 28 females 70.0% (SD = 28.8%).

In French (see Table 3), there was a significant correlation between language group and percentage of right-handed gestures. The negative correlation means that, as predicted, the monolinguals produced more right-handed gestures than the bilinguals. The bilinguals averaged 75.2% (SD = 32.5%) right-handed gestures while the monolinguals averaged 94.0% (SD = 13.5%). There was no significant correlation (see Table 3) in French for sex and percentage of right-hand gesture use. The 23 males averaged 79.7% (SD = 28.9%) right-handed gestures and the 24 females averaged 89.1% (SD = 23.9%).

As predicted, in both English and French, there were correlations between the percentage of right-hand preference and age and word types. In French, as predicted, the monolinguals produced more right-handed gestures than the bilinguals. This was not the case in English.

Classification: Clear Evidence for Right-Hand Preference

While 33 out of the 50 children showed greater than 50% right-handed gesture use in English, the data from 12 children showed a right-hand preference (i.e., a significant binomial test in the predicted direction) while the data from 38 children did not reach significance (i.e., none showed a significant left-hand preference). To test whether these classifications were related to our predictor variables of interest, we compared the two groups on age and word types using independent samples t-tests (see Table 4 for summary data). There was no significant difference on age, t (48) = 0.50, p = 0.31. The difference on word types was significant, t (48) = 1.65, p = 0.049. We also compared the number of children who were bilingual/monolingual and female/male by the binomial-test-classification-of-handedness using chi-square analyses. Note that these analyses were done on the number of children even though the percentage is shown in Table 4. There was no significant difference for bilingualism, χ² (df = 1, N = 50) = 0.44, p = 0.51, or for sex, χ² (df = 1, N = 50) = 0.001, p = 0.98.

Table 4

Summary Results of Regression Predicting Right-Hand Preference in English and French

	English		French
	RH preference	No evidence	RH preference	No evidence
	(N = 12)	(N = 38)	(N = 20)	(N = 26)
Age	8.3 (1.4)	8.1 (1.4)	8.0 (1.2)	7.9 (1.7)
% Bilingual	58%	47%	55%	54%
% Female	58%	58%	65%	38%
Word types	136.5 (49.5)	110.9 (42.0)	154.8 (39.0)	124.6 (35.3)

Note: RH preference = showed a significant right-hand preference on a binomial test; No evidence = no evidence for a right-hand preference based on a binomial test.

In French, 32 out of the 46 children produced more than 50% of their gestures with their right hand. Using the same classification principle as in English, 20 children were classified as showing a clear (i.e., statistically significant) right-hand preference. For the remaining 26, there was no evidence for a right-hand preference (for most children, there was no significant difference; however, one child showed a significant left-hand preference). Table 4 summarizes the descriptive data for the predictor variables with this classification. There was no significant difference between these two groups on age, t (44) = 0.17, p = 0.44. There was, however, a significant difference on word types, t (44) = 2.75, p = 0.004. There was no significant difference for bilingualism, χ² (df = 1, N = 46) = 0.006, p = 0.51, or for sex, χ² (df = 1, N = 46) = 0.3.18, p = 0.07.

In sum, the analyses showed that the children with a clear right-hand preference used a greater number of word types compared to those who showed no evidence for a right-hand preference in both English and in French.

Cross-Language Analyses

We had no a priori reason to think that there would be differences in hand preference between the two monolingual groups. Surprisingly, the French monolinguals produced a significantly higher percentage of right-handed referential gestures (M = 94.0%, SD = 13.5%) than the English monolinguals (M = 75.0%, SD = 28.2%) on an independent samples t-test, t (44) = 2.59, p = 0.01.

For the bilinguals, there was no correlation across languages on word types, r (23) = – 0.014, p = 0.95. The number of referential gestures was correlated across languages, r (23) = 0.493, p = 0.01, as was the percentage of right-handed referential gestures, r (23) = 0.443, p = 03.

Discussion

Previous studies have shown a right-hand preference in gesturing among infants (Mumford & Kita, 2016), preschool children (Nicoladis et al., 2021), and adults (Saucier & Elias, 2001). The children in the present study, mostly aged between 6 and 10 years of age, also showed a preference for producing referential gestures with their right hand over their left hand, averaging 77% right-handed gestures in English and 84% in French. These results add to the literature showing that people tend to gesture more with their right hand than their left hand.

One possible reason for the right-hand preference in gesturing is that both gestures and speech are mediated by the left hemisphere (Saucier & Elias, 2001). If so, then variables that have been related to the degree of speech lateralization should also be related to hand preference in gesturing. In the present study, we tested four variables that have been linked to the degree of speech lateralization in previous studies: bilingualism, language proficiency, sex, and age. As we will detail next, most of these variables were not related to hand preference in gesturing, at least not consistently across languages.

Given previous studies showing that early bilinguals tend to be less left-lateralized for speech than monolinguals (Hull & Vaid, 2007), we predicted that the simultaneous French-English bilinguals in our study would produce fewer right-handed referential gestures than monolinguals. Indeed, this was the case in French: The bilinguals produced fewer right-handed gestures than monolinguals. In English, however, there was no difference between the bilinguals and the monolinguals. Moreover, surprisingly, the French monolinguals produced significantly more right-handed gestures (M = 94%) than the English monolinguals (M = 75%). There is no a priori reason to think that there are language differences in the degree of speech lateralization.

Some previous studies have shown that males are more left-lateralized than females for processing speech (Yu et al., 2014). Moreover, Saucier and Elias (2001) found that males showed a greater right-hand preference in gesturing than females. We found no significant sex differences in hand preference for gesturing in either English or French.

Some previous studies have shown that left-hemispheric specialization for language increases within the age range included here (Szaflarski et al., 2006; cf. Dundas et al., 2014). We predicted that the older the children, the more right-handed gestures they would use. As predicted, we found significant positive correlations between age and the percentage of right-handed gestures. However, it is not entirely clear that these correlations were related in any simple way to age-related changes in language lateralization for at least two related reasons. First, when we classified children as showing clear evidence for a right-hand preference for gesturing or not, there were no differences between these two groups on age in either language. Second, age was highly correlated with the number of word types that the children used in both languages. And, as we will discuss next, there was stronger evidence for a relationship between word types and right-hand preference than for age.

We included the number of different words the children said as a measure of language proficiency. Previous studies have shown that language proficiency (Leonard et al., 2011; Ressel et al., 2008) is related to speech lateralization. Moreover, studies with preschool children and infants have found positive relationships between the degree of right-hand preference in gesturing and language abilities (Mumford & Kita, 2016; Nicoladis et al., 2021). In the present study, the number of word types children used was positively correlated with the percentage of right-handed gestures they produced. Moreover, the children who showed a clear right-hand preference produced more word types than the children who did not show a clear right-hand preference. It is possible that the correlation between age and right-hand preference in gesturing is due to the relationship between number of word types and right-hand preference in gesturing. Recall that age was correlated with word types in both languages. Future studies can include larger samples so that the relative contributions of age and word types can be disentangled.

The link between word types and right-handed gestures could indicate that right-handed gestures can help speakers access words for production (Feyereisen, 2006). If so, it is not clear that the help with lexical access is because the hand choice of gestures is related to lateralization of language (cf. Saucier & Elias, 2001), at least within this age group. We found no evidence in this study for a relationship between right-hand preference in gesturing and bilingualism and sex, variables that have been linked to language lateralization in previous studies. Why might the children have shown a right-hand preference for gesturing? One clue may come from the finding that bilinguals show a strong correlation across languages for hand preference. This result suggests whatever predicts hand preference may be related to some characteristic(s) of individuals.

One possibility is that hand preference in gesturing is related to hand preference for manual praxis. Praxis refers to the learning, planning, and execution of bodily interactions with the world, such as skilled actions like tool use (O’Hare et al., 1999). The lateralization of praxis often, but not always, corresponds to the lateralization of speech, as well as contralateral handedness for tool use (Kroliczak et al., 2021). Referential gestures often depict simulated actions, such as tool use (Hostetter & Alibali, 2019). Thus, the right-hand preference in gesture use could reflect hand preference in skilled actions.

If right-hand preference in gesturing does not reflect left lateralization of language, why then would right-hand preference in gestures be related to lexical access? Gestures can play an important an important role in speakers’ construction or conceptualization of what they want to say (Hostetter & Alibali, 2019; Kita et al., 2017). As speakers construct their message, they can simulate the action that they wish to talk about through gestures (Hostetter & Alibali, 2019). By simulating the action, speakers can activate the concept and by activating the concept, they can activate words that correspond to that concept (Feyereisen, 2006). The data for the present study were originally collected for another purpose, so we had no measures of the children’s handedness. In order to test our interpretation of the results, future studies could include measures of handedness as well as more direct measures of the lateralization of speech and praxis. It is also important to keep in mind that this study included only a small number of participants and some of the statistical analyses may have been underpowered. Future studies can include larger samples to address that issue.

In conclusion, this study adds to the growing evidence for a right-hand preference in gesturing across the lifespan. Furthermore, this study adds to the growing evidence for a link between language abilities and right-hand preference in gesturing in childhood (Mumford & Kita, 2016; Nicoladis et al., 2021). While some researchers have argued that the right-hand preference reflects lateralization of speech, the results of the present study have raised some doubts about that argument. We have argued that the right-hand preference in gesturing might reflect right-hand preference for manual praxis. By gesturing (i.e., simulating an action), they activate concepts that, in turn, activate words. This argument requires testing from future studies.

Author Note

This study was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (IG 435-2018-0044). Thanks to Carrie Jensen and Nathalie Savoie for help with recruitment, interviews, coding, and transcription.

Data availability: The data associated with this study are available at DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/BZ3A8

Footnotes

Bio Sketches

Elena Nicoladis, Ph.D., is a Professor of Psychology at the University of British Columbia. Her research interests include bilingual first language acquisition and gestures.

Haylee Gourlay worked on this project when she was an undergraduate student at the University of Alberta, originally as part of an independent study course.

References

Archila-Suerte,

, Zevin,

, Bunta,

, & Hernandez,

A. E.

(2012) Age of acquisition and proficiency in a second language independently influence the perception of non-native speech, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition15(1), 190–201. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728911000125

Argyriou,

, Mohr,

, & Kita,

(2017) Hand matters: Left-hand gestures enhance metaphor explanation, Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition43(6), 886. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000337

Biduła,

S. P

, & Króliczak

(2015) Structural asymmetry of the insula is linked to the lateralization of gesture and language, European Journal of Neuroscience41, 1438–1447. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.12888

Cieślicka,

A. B.

, & Heredia

R. R.

(2011) Hemispheric asymmetries in processing L1 and L2 idioms: Effects of salience and context, Brain and Language116(3), 136–150. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2010.09.007

Cochet,

(2016) Manual asymmetries and hemispheric specialization: Insight from developmental studies, Neuropsychologia93, 335–341. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.12.019

Cochet,

, Jover

, & Vauclair,

(2011) Hand preference for pointing gestures and bimanual manipulation around the vocabulary spurt period, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology110(3), 393–407. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jec2011.04.009

Corballis,

M. C.

(2009) The evolution and genetics of cerebral asymmetry, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences364, 867–879. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0232

Decety,

, Grèzes,

, Costes,

, Perani,

, Jeannerod,

, Procyk,

, Grassi,

, & Fazio,

(1997) Brain activity during observation of actions. influence of action content and subject’s strategyx, Brain120, 1777–https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/120.10.1763https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/120.10.1763

Dundas,

E. M

, Plaut,

D. C

, & Behrmann,

(2014) An ERP investigation of the co-development of hemispheric lateralization of face and word recognition, Neuropsychologia61, 315–323. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.05.006

10.

Esseily,

, Jacquet,

A. Y

, & Fagard,

(2011) Handedness for grasping objects and pointing and the development of language in 14-month-old infants, Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition16, 565–585. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1357650X.2010.499911https://doi.org/10.1080/1357650X.2010.499911

11.

Feyereisen,

(2006) How could gesture facilitate lexical access?Advances in Speech Language Pathology8(2), 128–133. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14417040600667293

12.

Graziano,

, & Gullberg,

(2018) When speech stops, gesture stops: Evidence from developmental and crosslinguistic comparisons, Frontiers in Psychology9, 879. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00879

13.

Graziano,

, Nicoladis,

, & Marentette,

(2020) How referential gestures align with speech: Evidence from monolingual and bilingual speakers, Language Learning70, 266–304. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12376

14.

Gut,

, Urbanik,

, Forsberg,

, Binder,

, Rymarczyk,

, Sobiecka,

, ... Grabowska

, A.

(2007) Brain correlates of right-handedness, Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis67, 43–51.

15.

Harris,

, Barlow-Brown,

, & Chasin,

(1995) The emergence of referential understanding: Pointing and the comprehension of object names, First Language15, 19–34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/014272379501500101

16.

Hiscock,

, Israelian,

, Inch,

, Jacek,

, & Hiscock-Kalil,

(1995) Is there a sex difference in human laterality? II. An exhaustive survey of visual laterality studies from six neuropsychology journals, Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology17(4), 590–610. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01688639508405148

17.

Holland,

S. K

, Vannest,

, Mecoli,

, Jacola,

L. M

, Tillema,

J. M

, Karunanayaka,

P. R

, ... Byars

A. W.

(2007) Functional MRI of language lateralization during development in children, International Journal of Audiology46, 533–551. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14992020701448994

18.

Hostetter,

A. B.

, & Alibali,

M. W.

(2019) Gesture as simulated action: Revisiting the framework, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review26(3), 721–752. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1548-0

19.

Hull,

, & Vaid,

Clearing the cobwebs from the study of the bilingual brain: Converging evidence from laterality and electrophysiological research. In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 480–496). Oxford University Press.

20.

Hull,

, Vaid,

(2006) Laterality and language experience, Laterality11, 436–464. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13576500600691162

21.

Hull,

, & Vaid,

(2007) Bilingual language lateralization: a meta-analytic tale of two hemispheres, Neuropsychologia45, 1987–2008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.03.002

22.

Iverson,

J. M.

, & Goldin-Meadow,

(2005) Gesture paves the way for language development, Psychological Science16, 367–371. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01542.x

23.

Kansaku,

, Yamaura,

, & Kitazawa,

(2000) Sex differences in lateralization revealed in the posterior language areas, Cerebral Cortex9, 866–872. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/10.9.866

24.

Kimura,

(1973) Manual activity during speaking, I. Right-handers, II. Left-handers, Neuropsychologia11, 45–55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(73)90063-8

25.

Kroliczak,

, Buchwald,

, Kleka,

, Klichowski,

, Potok,

, Nowik,

A. M

, Randerath,

, & Piper,

B. J.

(2021) Manual praxis and language— Production networks, and their links to handedness, Cortex140, 110–127. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2021.03.022

26.

Kita

(2000). How representational gestures help speaking. In McNeill

(Ed.), Language and gesture (pp. 162–185). Cambridge University Press.

27.

Kita,

, Alibali,

M. W

, & Chu,

(2017) How do gestures influence thinking and speaking? The gesture-for-conceptualization hypothesis, Psychological Review124, 245–266. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000059

28.

Leonard,

M. K

, Torres,

, Travis,

K. E

, Brown,

T. T

, Hagler

D. J

Jr , Dale,

A. M

, ... & Halgren

(2011) Language proficiency modulates the recruitment of non-classical language areas in bilinguals, PloS One6, e18240. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0018240

29.

McNeill,

(2017). Gesture-speech unity: What it is and where it came from. In R. B. Church, M. W. Alibali, & S. D. Kelly (Eds.), Why Gesture?: How the hands function in speaking, thinking and communicating (pp. 77-101). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

30.

McNeill,

(1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. University of Chicago Press.

31.

Mergen,

, & Kuruoglu,

(2018) Hemispheric lateralization of words in Turkish-English bilinguals and Turkish monolinguals, Linguistics Journal12(1), 97–107 .

32.

Moll,

, de Oliveira-Souza

, Passman,

L. J

, Cunha,

F. C

, Souza-Lima,

, & Andreiuolo,

P. A.

(2000) Functional MRI correlates of real and imagined tool-use pantomimes, Neurology54, 1331–1336. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.54.6.1331

33.

Mumford,

K. H.

, & Kita,

(2016) At 10-12 months, pointing gesture handedness predicts the size of receptive vocabularies, Infancy21, 751–765. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/infa.12138

34.

Nicoladis,

, Dueck,

B. S.

, & Zarezadehkheibari,

(2021) Hand preference in referential gestures: Relationships to accessing words for speaking in monolingual and bilingual children, Brain and Behavior11, e02121. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.2121

35.

Nicoladis,

, & Jiang,

(2018) Language and cognitive predictors of lexical selection in storytelling for monolingual and sequential bilingual children, Journal of Cognition and Development19, 413–430. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2018.1483370

36.

Nicoladis,

, & Shirazi,

(2021) Hand preference in adults’ referential gestures during storytelling: Testing for effects of bilingualism, language ability, sex and age, Symmetry13(10), 1776. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13101776

37.

O’Hare,

, Gorzkowska,

, & Elton,

(1999) Development of an instrument to measure manual praxis, Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology41(9), 597–607. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0012162299001255

38.

Paradis,

(1990) Language lateralization in bilinguals: Enough already!, Brain and Language39, 576–586. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0093-934X(90)90163-B

39.

Paradis,

(2004). A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. John Benjamins.

40.

Park,

H. R

, Badzakova-Trajkov,

, & Waldie,

K. E.

(2012) Language lateralisation in late proficient bilinguals: A lexical decision fMRI study, Neuropsychologia50, 688–695. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.01.005

41.

Peng,

, & Wang,

W. S.

(2011) Hemisphere lateralization is influenced by bilingual status and composition of words, Neuropsychologia49, 1981–1986. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.03.027

42.

Ressel,

, Wilke,

, Lidzba,

, Lutzenberger,

, & Krägeloh-Mann,

(2008) Increases in language lateralization in normal children as observed using magnetoencephalography, Brain and Language106, 167–176. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2008.01.004

43.

Saucier,

D. M.

, & Elias,

L. J.

(2001) Lateral and sex differences in manual gesture during conversation, Laterality6, 239–245. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/713754416

44.

Schmithorst,

V. J

, Holland,

S. K

, & Dardzinski,

B. J.

(2008) Developmental differences in white matter architecture between boys and girls, Human Brain Mapping29, 696–710. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20431

45.

So,

W. C.

(2010) Cross-cultural transfer in gesture frequency in Chinese-English bilinguals, Language and Cognitive Processes25, 1335–1353. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01690961003694268

46.

Sommer,

I. E

, Aleman,

, Somers,

, Boks,

M. P

, & Kahn,

R. S.

(2008) Sex differences in handedness, asymmetry of the planum temporale and functional language lateralization, Brain Research1206, 76–88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2008.01.003

47.

Szaflarski,

, Holland,

, Schmithorst,

, & Byars,

(2006) FMRI study of language lateralization in children and adults, Human Brain Mapping27, 202–212. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20177

48.

Vauclair

, & Imbault,

(2009) Relationship between manual preferences for manipulative actions and for pointing gestures in infants and toddlers, Developmental Science12, 1060–1069. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00850.x

49.

Wermelinger,

, Gampe,

, Helbling,

, & Daum,

M. M.

(2020) Do you understand what I want to tell you? Early sensitivity in bilinguals’ iconic gesture perception and production, Developmental Science23, e12943. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12943

50.

Xu,

, Gannon,

P. J

, Emmorey,

, Smith,

J. F

, & Braun,

A. R.

(2009) Symbolic gestures and spoken language are processed by a common neural system, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences106, 20664–20669. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.090919710

51.

Yu,

V. Y

, MacDonald,

M. J

, Oh,

, Hua,

G. N

, De Nil

L. F

, & Pang,

E. W.

(2014) Age-related sex differences in language lateralization: A magnetoencephalography study in children, Developmental Psychology50, 2276–2284. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037470

Hand Preference in Children’s Referential Gestures During Storytelling: Testing for Effects of Bilingualism,Language Ability,Age,and Sex

Abstract

Keywords

The Present Study

Method

Table 1 Demographic Characteristics of Participants Monolinguals Bilinguals Monolinguals (English) (French) Average (SD) age 8.0 (1.4) 8.5 (1.4) 7.3 (1.4) Age range 6– 10 6– 12 6– 9 #Girls/boys 17/8 12/13 11/10

Material

Procedure

Coding

Results

Bilinguals vs. Monolinguals

Classification: Clear Evidence for Right-Hand Preference

Cross-Language Analyses

Discussion

Author Note

Footnotes

Bio Sketches

References

Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of Participants

Monolinguals Bilinguals Monolinguals

(English) (French)

Average (SD) age 8.0 (1.4) 8.5 (1.4) 7.3 (1.4)

Age range 6– 10 6– 12 6– 9

#Girls/boys 17/8 12/13 11/10