Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Pedro Macizo
 -- 3984 2024-01-11 10:11:11 |
2 format correct
Wendy Huang
 -9 word(s) 3975 2024-01-11 12:08:41 | |
3 format correct
Wendy Huang
 + 1 word(s) 3976 2024-01-15 11:50:46 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
García-Gámez, A.B.; Macizo, P. Gestures for Learning Vocabulary in a Foreign Language. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/53732 (accessed on 18 May 2024).
García-Gámez AB, Macizo P. Gestures for Learning Vocabulary in a Foreign Language. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/53732. Accessed May 18, 2024.
García-Gámez, Ana Belén, Pedro Macizo. "Gestures for Learning Vocabulary in a Foreign Language" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/53732 (accessed May 18, 2024).
García-Gámez, A.B., & Macizo, P. (2024, January 11). Gestures for Learning Vocabulary in a Foreign Language. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/53732
García-Gámez, Ana Belén and Pedro Macizo. "Gestures for Learning Vocabulary in a Foreign Language." Encyclopedia. Web. 11 January, 2024.
Gestures for Learning Vocabulary in a Foreign Language
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/brainsci13121712

The findings suggest that iconic gestures can serve as an effective tool for learning vocabulary in a foreign language (FL), particularly when the gestures align with the meaning of the words. Furthermore, the active performance of gestures helps counteract the negative effects associated with inconsistencies between gestures and word meanings. Consequently, if a choice must be made, an FL learning strategy in which learners acquire words while making gestures congruent with their meaning would be highly desirable.

gestures foreign language (FL) vocabulary learning movements language empirical evidence verbs nouns

1. Introduction

Experimental science still has a lot of questions to solve in the fields of language learning and multilingualism. Due to the global and multicultural ambiance involved in nowadays, it is mandatory to be able to communicate in different languages. Early techniques for acquiring foreign language (FL) vocabulary employed a first language (L1)–FL word association strategy aimed at establishing connections between newly acquired FL words and their corresponding lexical translations in the native language [1][2][3][4]. To illustrate this, a native speaker of Spanish would learn that the English translation for “fresa” (L1) is strawberry (FL). Going a step further in the word association strategy, the keyword method [5] involves the utilization of a mnemonic method based on selecting an L1 word phonetically resembling a portion of an FL word (the keyword). In this approach, learners initially associate a keyword and the FL word verbally presented, followed by connecting the keyword to the L1 translation of the target word in the FL. For instance, the Spanish word “cordero” meaning “lamb” is associated with the word “cord” (phonetically related keyword). The effectiveness of these learning strategies has been confirmed in the initial states of FL acquisition, attributed to the formation of lexical associations between the learner’s L1 and the FL [6][7]. Nevertheless, when proficient bilingual individuals seek to express themselves in an FL, the most optimal processing route is the direct access to FL words from their associated concepts. The reliance on cross-linguistic lexical connections (L1-FL) and the retrieval of L1 words becomes superfluous when bilinguals communicate in an FL [8]. In addition, when learning programs based on the reinforcement of semantic connections are compared with lexically based learning procedures at the earliest stages of FL acquisition, advantages are found to be associated with conceptually mediated strategies [1][2][7][8][9][10][11].
In this context, understanding how fluent bilinguals process FLs can serve as a foundation for identifying learning methodologies that can foster this semantic processing pattern, thus constituting effective learning strategies [2][9][12][13][14]. These conceptually mediated strategies usually consist of protocols involving multimedia learning. The term “multimedia” encompasses the incorporation of five distinct types of stimuli within the learning protocol, which can be presented in combination or isolation: text, audio, image, animation and captions/subtitles [15][16][17]. When new information is presented in combination with different multimedia modalities, learners have the opportunity to organize and integrate it into long-term memory by forming multiple mental representations [18][19][20]. Notably, the picture association method demonstrates superior advantages compared to the word association method. Specifically, the method of FL words presented alongside images representing their meanings outperforms that of the presentation of FL words with translations in the L1 when behavioral measures are collected in single-word tasks [1][2][3][8][10][21], and tasks with words embedded in the context of sentences [3]. Moreover, electrophysiological measures are also sensitive to the benefit of the picture association method even after a single and brief learning session [7]. Likewise, the act of envisioning the meanings of the new vocabulary to be acquired has a facilitative effect on the learning process [22][23]. More relevant for the purpose of this manuscript, the integration of words and gestures has been proposed as a powerful FL learning tool, as these elements construct an integrated memory representation of the new word’s meaning [24][25][26][27][28][29].

2. Movements and Language

Humans possess the capacity to execute various types of gestures contingent upon the context or situation encountered. In 1992, McNeill [27] proposed a simple gesture taxonomy considering many of the possible movements that made in a natural communication context. Within this classification, representational gestures encompass iconic gestures. Iconic gestures are employed to visually illustrate spoken content via the use of hand movements to represent tangible entities and/or actions.
Across all spoken languages, Visual–manual communication frequently complements speech in everyday communicative interactions [30][31]. These co-speech gestures are often and naturally integrated into communication, involving the combination of facial and body movements, including hand gestures, alongside spoken language. In this sense, sounds and movements act as a means to integrate information that enhances the process of communication [32]. In fact, a number of studies have sustained the significance of movement in language processing [33][34]. As an interesting example, Glenberg and colleagues [35] observed a correlation between language comprehension and the direction of movement performance. Based on a container’s position, participants were tasked with transferring 600 beans (individually) from a larger container to a narrower one either toward or away from their bodies. Subsequently, sentences describing movements, both meaningful and meaningless, were presented to make a plausibility judgment. The results revealed that the processing time for sentences depended on whether or not the bean’s movement direction corresponded with the sentence’s description (either moving away from or towards the body). Consequently, the execution of actions had an impact on language comprehension. Notably, exploring brain activation in the presence of multisensory input, the integration of sounds from spoken language and accompanying gestures shows selective activity in the left posterior superior temporal brain areas and the right auditory cortex [36].
Numerous theoretical frameworks exist to elucidate the associations between speech and gestures. These accounts primarily delve into the underlying representations involved in gesture processing. These models can be differentiated by considering the interplay of visuospatial and linguistic information. Various perspectives such as the sketch model [37], the interface model [38] and the gestures-as-simulated-action (GSA) framework [39] propose that representations of gestures are rooted in visuospatial images and highlight the connection between gestures and visuospatial imagery. Conversely, other models emphasize the close interrelation between gesture representations and linguistic information, such as the interface model [38] and the growth point theory [27][28].
Another distinction among these models lies in how gestures and speech are processed. Some models propose that gestures and speech are processed independently, interacting when forming communicative intentions, or during the conceptualization phase to facilitate effective communication. This is evident in models like the lexical gesture process model [40], the sketch model [37] and the interface model [38]. In contrast, other models posit that gestures and speech function collaboratively within a single system. This perspective is reflected in models like the growth point theory [27][28] and the GSA framework [39]. For instance, the gesture-in-learning-and-development model proposed by Goldin-Meadow [41][42] suggests that children process gestures and speech autonomously, and these elements integrate into a unified system in proficient speakers [43][44].
In conclusion, it is reasonable to infer that the gestures utilized while attempting to convey a concept play a role in both language production and comprehension, ultimately enhancing the overall communication process [45][46][47].

3. Gestures as FL Learning Tool

Several studies have underscored the significance of different types of gestures in FL learning (e.g., [47][48][49][50][51][52], for reviews). Generally, it is broadly accepted that gestures have a beneficial impact on word learning, encouraging their integration into FL instruction, aligned with a natural language teaching approach (see [53][54]; however, see [24][55], which supports the reduced effect of gestures in segmental phonology acquisition). More relevant to the purpose of this research, past studies have addressed the importance of iconic gestures in language comprehension [56] (for a comprehensive review, see [57]), as well as in language production (see [58], for a review on gestures in speech).
Three primary accounts provide explanations of the advantageous impact of iconic gestures in learning vocabulary in an FL.
The self-involvement explanation posits that gestures promote participant engagement in the learning task, enhancing attention and favoring FL vocabulary acquisition [59]. This increase in attention is primarily attributed to heightened attentional and perceptual processing due to the execution of gestures or the use of objects to recreate actions [60]. In this context, it is important to note that the motor component itself might not be the primary cause of improvement [61]. Rather than solely the gesture itself, it is the multisensory information it conveys that leads to increased attention and improved semantic processing [62]. Therefore, according to this perspective, learning new FL words accompanied by gestures promotes vocabulary acquisition, irrespective of whether or not a gesture is commonly produced within a language or represents the same meaning as the word to be learned [63][64]. To illustrate this, if the learner needs to acquire the word “teclear” in Spanish whose translation in English is “to type”, the mere fact of performing a movement associated with the new word would facilitate the process independently of any other intrinsic characteristic of the gesture.
The motor trace perspective argues that the physical aspect of gestures is stored in memory, creating a motor trace that assists in the process of acquiring new words in an FL [65][66]. According to this viewpoint, physical enactment is crucial because it enables the formation of a motor trace linked to the word’s meaning. Recent neuroscientific studies, using techniques such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, provide support for the involvement of the motor cortex in written word comprehension [67]. Additionally, evidence suggests that familiar gestures might engage procedural memory due to their reliance on well-defined motor programs [68]. Consequently, the interplay of procedural and declarative memory could enhance vocabulary learning. Hence, well-practiced familiar gestures promote FL learning to a greater extent than unfamiliar gestures do (e.g., the gesture of typing on a keyboard vs. touching the right and the left cheeks with the right forefinger sequentially). However, this perspective supports the idea that the impact of gestures operates regardless of their meaning and well-practiced gestures might benefit learning regardless of whether or not they match the new word’s meaning.
The motor imagery perspective suggests that gestures are tied to motor images that contribute to a word’s meaning [69]. Specifically, executing a gesture while processing new words fosters the formation of a visual image linked to the word’s conceptual information, enhancing its semantic content [49][70]. Functional connectivity analyses provide neurobiological evidence suggesting that the hippocampal system plays a role in linking words and visual representations [71]. In this manner, the facilitation effect of gestures is heightened when they align with the meaning of the words being learned, compared to cases where gestures and word meanings do not match. This constitutes the primary point of disagreement with the motor trace theory. Additionally, this perspective points out that learning words with gestures of incongruent meanings can lead to semantic interference and reduced recall due to the creation of a dual task scenario, which ultimately has an adverse impact on the learning process [72][73].
It is viewed that these three perspectives are not mutually exclusive, but rather highlight different aspects of gestures’ effect on FL learning. A gesture accompanying a word could increase self-involvement (gestures enhancing attention to FL learning), create a motor trace (meaningful movements) and/or evoke a semantic visual image integrated with the word’s meaning.

4. Empirical Evidence Regarding the Role of Gestures in FL Learning

Empirical evidence pertaining to the role of movements in FL instruction indicates that enhanced vocabulary learning outcomes are observed when learners acquire FL words accompanied by gestures that illustrate the practical use of objects whose names they are required to learn [74][75][76]. Many years ago, Asher [77] was a pioneer in introducing movements in the FL learning process. He presented the Total Physical Response strategy as an effective means of acquiring vocabulary. This strategy involved a guided approach where students received instructions in the target language (FL). For example, children were taught the Japanese word “tobe” (whose meaning is ‘to jump’ in English), and each time they were presented with this word, they physically executed the corresponding movement (to jump). The author observed an advantageous impact linked with the integration of gestures in FL word instruction, an effect that has been confirmed across various educational domains [78][79] (although see [80] for an alternative view).
Then, Quinn-Allen [81] conducted the first empirical study that delved into the influence of iconic gestures in FL acquisition. In this research, English speakers, when presented with French expressions (e.g., il est très collet monté?—he takes himself seriously), achieved better results when they were exposed to and reproduced a symbolic gesture illustrating the sentence’s meaning (e.g., head up, one hand in front of the neck, and the other hand lower as if adjusting a tie), compared to a control group in which no gestures were presented. The efficacy of gestures observed in Quinn-Allen’s study aligns with the postulates of the three theoretical perspectives, described in the previous section, because only a congruent gesture and a no gesture condition were introduced. This work laid the foundation to study the effect of gestures in FL acquisition; however, the causes underlying this improvement associated with the use of gestures during FL learning remain unclear. Further experimental work has answered this question by including several gesture conditions and manipulating the correspondence between the gestures and new words’ meaning [49][70][75][82].
Another benchmark study in the field is the work by Macedonia and collaborators [70]. In this research, German speakers learned new words in an artificial language created by the authors (Vimmi) that served as an FL. The new nouns were presented in combination with either meaningful congruent iconic gestures (such as the term “suitcase” paired with a gesture of lifting an imaginary suitcase), or meaningless gestures (such as the word “suitcase” accompanied by a gesture involving touching one’s own head). The results revealed that new words associated with iconic gestures had better recall compared to those coupled with meaningless gestures. These results suggest that gestures introduce something else beyond merely involving the participant in the task. The simple engagement associated with the gesture’s performance cannot explain the advantages found in the iconic gestures condition. However, in this case, both the motor imagery and motor trace theories potentially explain the heightened recall observed in the context of iconic gestures relative to meaningless gestures. Iconic gestures might enhance FL learning due to their semantic richness and their higher frequency of use compared to that of meaningless gestures, resulting in stronger motor activation.
Other researchers have employed additional experimental manipulations to distinguish between explanations rooted in the motor imagery account and those originating from the motor component of gestures. Studies involving monolingual speakers have investigated congruity–incongruity effects by intentionally misaligning the semantics of words and the meanings conveyed via gestures [74][83][84] (see [85] for congruity effects in an unfamiliar language context). Kelly and colleagues [48][86] employed an event-related potential study alongside a Stroop-like paradigm. New words (e.g., “cut”) and corresponding gestures were presented to participants. Words and gestures could be either semantically congruent (e.g., a cutting movement) or incongruent (a drinking movement). This research revealed an attenuated N400 response to words paired with congruent gestures compared to incongruent ones, thus displaying a semantic integration effect [87]. These results suggest that gestures are incorporated within new words’ meanings, producing benefits when gestures and words’ meanings match, and producing interference when learners perceive a conceptual mismatch. In this case, the gestures used in both conditions, congruent and incongruent, were familiar to participants as there was an equal level of engagement. Hence, the results obtained in this research could not be explained via the self-involvement or the motor trace accounts. The motor imagery theory would be unique in pointing out differences between the use of congruent and incongruent iconic gestures that rely on the meaning match or mismatch between gestures and words, respectively.
Taken together, previous studies have confirmed the positive effect associated with the use of congruent gestures on FL vocabulary learning. However, considering the experimental conditions included in past studies, there is a lack of empirical evidence comparing the consequences of several conditions in a single study within a single participant’s sample. For example, in different studies, the meaningless gesture condition is not included in the experimental design. In this context, it is not possible to determine the degree to which the congruent and incongruent conditions produce a facilitation or an interference effect, respectively, due to the lack of a baseline condition (see [88] for a review of a comparable experimental paradigm concerning Stroop tasks). 

5. Effects of “Seeing” and “Acting” Gestures While Learning an FL

In the realm of education, the potential advantages of learning through actions rather than solely through observation have been a subject of debate for decades [89]. The perspective of “learning-by-doing” advocates for active individual engagement in the learning process via the execution of actions while learning is taking place. Learning by doing can have a positive influence on the formation of neural networks underlying knowledge acquisition and the performance of cognitive skills [90]. This positive effect has been verified across various instructional domains such as language acquisition, learning through play, new technology utilization and online courses [78][79][91]. However, as reported in the next paragraphs, empirical evidence is not fully consistent in terms of the advantages of self-generated movements compared to those of the mere observation of actions performed by others.
Within this context, various studies have explored the divergences observed when participants reproduce the experimental tasks by themselves or when they merely observe the experimenter [92][93]. Previous studies have pointed out that self-generated movements enhance cognitive processing. Out of the linguistic context, Goldin-Meadow and colleagues [90] directly compared the effect of the generation and mere observation of gestures. In this research, children participated in a mental transformation task, determining whether or not two forms presented in different orientations constituted the same figure. This task was selected due to its direct link between mental rotation and motor processing. When mentally rotating a target, premotor areas involved in action planning become active [35][94], and participants naturally and spontaneously used gestures when explaining how they solved the task [95]. Goldin-Meadow and colleagues [90] showed that children attained better results when they were instructed to physically perform the rotation necessary to solve the transformation task, rather than when they were merely observing the experimenter’s movements.
If move to the field of language learning, additional empirical studies have emphasized the significance of self-generated movements in acquiring linguistic material. In 2011, James and Swain [96] planned a study in which children were taught action words associated with tangible toys. Children who manipulated the objects during learning exhibited activation in motor brain areas when hearing the words they had learned. Thus, involvement in motor actions enriches the acquisition of new words, potentially attributable to the formation of a motor trace activated during subsequent information retrieval. Similarly, Engelkamp and collaborators [97] showed that at a higher level of linguistic processing, sentence recall was better when participants were actively involved in performing the actions during the learning phase as opposed to a condition where they solely listened and memorized the material.
On the other hand, Stefan and colleagues [98] reported activity in the motor cortex while participants observed movements (e.g., repetitive finger movements), resulting in a memory trace that resembled the activation pattern during motor action performance. If there is an activation overlap between movement observation and performance, is the advantage associated with generating movements that clear? In fact, previous research has found confounding results or similar outcomes when participants engaged in producing actions or when they solely observed actions performed by others [99]. At the lowest level of linguistic processing, the production versus the mere observation of hand gestures has a limited impact on learning segmental phonology or phonetic distinctions in an FL [24][55]. In more advanced linguistic stages, where hand gestures have demonstrated a positive influence on learning, various studies show that self-generated movements and the observation of gestures yield comparable outcomes [100]. In the specific context of FL acquisition, Baills and collaborators [101] found similar results during the learning of Chinese tones and words when pitch gestures (metaphoric gestures mimicking speech prosody) were used. Recently, young-adult English speakers were acoustically presented with Japanese verbs while an instructor performed iconic gestures. Comparable outcomes were observed when participants learned the words solely by observing the instructor’s gestures or by mimicking her movements [102]. In a midway position, Glenberg and colleagues ([33], Experiment 3) investigated the impact of movements on sentence reading comprehension in children and found intermediate outcomes. Children were presented with narratives set in a scenario (e.g., a farm) involving several elements (e.g., a sheep or a tractor). One group manipulated the objects mentioned in the text, while another group imagined carrying this out. Children who physically manipulated objects achieved better results, while in the imagined condition, children showed only a modest improvement compared to a read-only condition.
In summary, the self-generation of movements during learning appears to yield positive effects in both non-linguistic tasks [90] and FL instruction [10][97][103]. The creation of a more comprehensive semantic representation in memory, encompassing both verbal and motor information, facilitates greater accessibility to previously acquired knowledge. This underlies the advantageous impact of performing movements while learning is taking place [96][97]. Nevertheless, other studies propose that merely observing gestures is sufficient for learning, regardless of whether participants engage in the gestures themselves or not [102]. This conflicting pattern of outcomes may stem from methodological differences between studies, such as participant demographics, including children [90] versus undergraduate students [55], and the nature of the learning tasks, ranging from dialogic tasks [15] to segmental phonology [24]. Notably, many studies supporting the positive effects of self-generated gestures involve semantically rich materials like words [103] or sentences [97], while some other studies indicating no differences between gesture observation and production focus on non-semantic linguistic levels (e.g., segmental phonology, [24][55]) or the manipulation of the gesture conditions is conducted in different experiments [101]. An additional purpose of the experimental series was to address these aspects comprehensively, investigating the performance versus observation of gestures in different groups while participants learn words accompanied by iconic gestures conveying semantic information.

6. Gestures in Verbs and Nouns Learning

When considering studies on FL vocabulary learning, there are many theoretical and practical issues that must be attended. In the case of learning and gestures, the close relationship between movements and verbs has a special role regarding codification and recall processes. The GSA framework establishes specific predictions about the role of gestures on learning different types of words. This theory posits that gestures emerge from simulated actions and perceptions, which underlie mental imagery and language production [39]. While viewing the shape or size of an object (nouns) does involve simulated movements, verbs and motor actions are more directly connected at a semantic level. Consequently, gestures would exert a more significant influence on verb learning compared to noun learning. In fact, it has been proposed that noun and verb lexical acquisition mechanisms might implement a bipolar approach. In this way, the cognitive mechanisms for nouns and verbs acquisition would be different [103].
In a study conducted by Hadley and colleagues [104] involving preschool children, the impact of gestures on teaching different word types was directly examined. Results revealed that while concrete nouns exhibited higher learning rates, employing gestures during verb instruction acted as a scaffold for the accompanying verbal contents. This insight elucidates why the majority of research evaluating gesture effects in FL learning has employed verbs as instructional material [47][75][85]. Many verbs (e.g., those describing actions involving manipulable objects) closely correlate with movements [82]. In fact, prior studies confirm that the semantic representation of verbs inherently includes a gestural or motor component [47][105][106][107].
However, beyond gestures, it is commonly found that verbs are more difficult to acquire compared to noun learning. Concrete nouns possess distinct perceptual attributes that facilitate the acquisition of new words, whereas verbs convey dynamic information that helps in the retrieval of the motion meaning [108]. Numerous studies have demonstrated that children acquired English nouns more effortlessly than verbs in a natural context [104][109]. However, this phenomenon seems to be culturally specific and although it appears in English-speaking cultures, the effect is blurred in non-English-speaking cultures [109][110]. One possible explanation for these cross-linguistic differences could be the particular emphasis that English speakers place on nouns when interacting with children during the acquisition of their native language.

References

  1. Comesaña, M.; Perea, M.; Piñeiro, A.; Fraga, I. Vocabulary teaching strategies and conceptual representations of words in L2 in children: Evidence with novice learners. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 2009, 104, 22–33.
  2. Comesaña, M.; Soares, A.P.; Sánchez-Casas, R.; Lima, C. Lexical and semantic representations in the acquisition of L2 cognate and non-cognate words: Evidence from two learning methods in children. Br. J. Psychol. 2012, 103, 378–392.
  3. García-Gámez, A.B.; Macizo, P. The way in which foreign words are learned determines their use in isolation and within sentences. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 2020, 46, 364–379.
  4. García-Gámez, A.B.; Cervilla, O.; Casado, A.; Macizo, P. Seeing or acting? The effect of performing gestures on foreign language vocabulary learning. Lang. Teach. Res. 2021.
  5. Atkinson, R.C.; Raugh, M.R. An application of the mnemonic keyword method to the acquisition of a Russian vocabulary. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Learn. Mem. 1975, 1, 126–133.
  6. Atkinson, R.C. Mnemotechnics in second-language learning. Am. Psychol. 1975, 30, 821–828.
  7. García-Gámez, A.B.; Macizo, P. Lexical and semantic training to acquire words in a foreign language: An electrophysiological study. Biling. Lang. Cogn. 2022, 25, 768–785.
  8. Kroll, J.F.; Stewart, E. Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. J. Mem. Lang. 1994, 33, 149–174.
  9. Altarriba, J.; Mathis, K.M. Conceptual and lexical development in second language acquisition. J. Mem. Lang. 1997, 36, 550–568.
  10. Morett, L.M. In hand and in mind: Effects of gesture production and viewing on second language word learning. Appl. Psycholinguist. 2018, 39, 355–381.
  11. Poarch, G.J.; Van Hell, J.G.; Kroll, J.F. Accessing word meaning in beginning second language learners: Lexical or conceptual mediation? Biling. Lang. Cogn. 2015, 18, 357–371.
  12. De Groot, A.M.B.; Poot, R. Word translation at three levels of proficiency in a second language: The ubiquitous involvement of conceptual memory. Lang. Learn. 1997, 47, 215–264.
  13. Finkbeiner, M.; Nicol, J. Semantic category effects in second language word learning. Appl. Psycholinguist. 2003, 24, 369–383.
  14. Kroll, J.F.; Michael, E.; Sankaranarayanan, A. A model of bilingual representation and its implications for second language acquisition. In Foreign Language Learning; Healy, A.F., Ed.; Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2013; pp. 365–395.
  15. Khezrlou, S.; Ellis, R.; Sadeghi, K. Effects of computer-assisted glosses on EFL learners’ vocabulary acquisition and reading comprehension in three learning conditions. System 2017, 65, 104–116.
  16. Liu, Y.; Jang, B.G.; Roy-Campbell, Z. Optimum input mode in the modality and redundancy principles for university ESL students’ multimedia learning. Comput. Educ. 2018, 127, 190–200.
  17. Montero Pérez, M.; Peters, E.; Clarebout, G.; Desmet, P. Effects of captioning on video comprehension and incidental vocabulary learning. Lang. Learn. Technol. 2014, 18, 118–141.
  18. Aldera, A.S.; Mohsen, M.A. Annotations in captioned animation: Effects on vocabulary learning and listening skills. Comput. Educ. 2013, 68, 60–75.
  19. Peters, E. The effect of imagery and on-screen text on foreign language vocabulary learning from audiovisual input. Tesol. Q. 2019, 53, 1008–1032.
  20. Teng, F. Incidental vocabulary learning for primary school students: The effects of L2 caption type and word exposure frequency. Aust. Educ. Res. 2019, 46, 113–136.
  21. Lotto, L.; de Groot, A.M.B. Effects of learning method and word type on acquiring vocabulary in an unfamiliar language. Lang. Learn. 1998, 48, 31–69.
  22. Ellis, N.C.; Beaton, A. Psycholinguistic determinants of foreign language vocabulary learning. Lang. Learn. 1993, 43, 559–617.
  23. Wang, A.Y.; Thomas, M.H. Effects of keyword on long-term retention: Help or hindrance? J. Educ. Psychol. 1995, 87, 468–475.
  24. Hirata, Y.; Kelly, S.D.; Huang, J.; Manansala, M. Effects of hand gestures on auditory learning of second-language vowel length contrasts. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 2014, 57, 2090–2101.
  25. Kelly, S.D.; Özyürek, A.; Maris, E. Two sides of the same coin: Speech and gesture mutually interact to enhance comprehension. Psychol. Sci. 2010, 21, 260–267.
  26. Macedonia, M. Bringing back the body into the mind: Gestures enhance word learning in foreign language. Front. Psychol. 2014, 5, 1467.
  27. McNeill, D. Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1992.
  28. McNeill, D. Gesture and Thought; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2005.
  29. Paivio, A. Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Can. J. Psychol. 1991, 45, 255–287.
  30. Ortega, G.; Özyürek, A. Systematic mappings between semantic categories and types of iconic representations in the manual modality: A normed database of silent gesture. Behav. Res. Methods 2020, 52, 51–67.
  31. Özyürek, A. Hearing and seeing meaning in speech and gesture: Insights from brain and behaviour. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2014, 369, 20130296.
  32. Holle, H.; Gunter, T.C. The role of iconic gestures in speech disambiguation: ERP evidence. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 2007, 19, 1175–1192.
  33. Glenberg, A.M.; Gutierrez, T.; Levin, J.R.; Japuntich, S.; Kaschak, M.P. Activity and imagined activity can enhance young children’s reading comprehension. J. Educ. Psychol. 2004, 96, 424–436.
  34. Koriat, A.; Pearlman-Avnion, S. Memory organization of action events and its relationship to memory performance. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 2003, 132, 435–454.
  35. Glenberg, A.M.; Sato, M.; Cattaneo, L. Use-induced motor plasticity affects the processing of abstract and concrete language. Curr. Biol. 2008, 18, R290–R291.
  36. Marstaller, L.; Burianová, H. The multisensory perception of co-speech gestures–A review and meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies. J. Neurolinguistics 2014, 30, 69–77.
  37. De Ruiter, J. The production of gesture and speech. In Language and Gesture; McNeill, D., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2000; pp. 284–311.
  38. 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. 2003, 48, 16–32.
  39. Hostetter, A.B.; Alibali, M.W. Visible embodiment: Gestures as simulated action. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 2008, 15, 495–514.
  40. Krauss, R.M.; Chen, Y.; Gottesman, R.F.; McNeill, D. Language and Gesture; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2000.
  41. Goldin-Meadow, S. Beyond words: The importance of gesture to researchers and learners. Child Dev. 2000, 71, 231–239.
  42. Goldin-Meadow, S. Hearing Gesture: How Our Hands Help Us Think; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2003.
  43. Butcher, C.; Goldin-Meadow, S. Gesture and the transition from one- to two-word speech: When hand and mouth come together. In Language and Gesture; McNeill, D., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2000; pp. 235–258.
  44. Özçalişkan, Ş.; Gentner, D.; Goldin-Meadow, S. Do iconic gestures pave the way for children’s early verbs? Appl. Psycholinguist. 2014, 35, 1143–1162.
  45. Holler, J.; Shovelton, H.; Beattie, G. Do iconic hand gestures really contribute to the communication of semantic information in a face-to-face context? J. Nonverbal Behav. 2009, 33, 73–88.
  46. Singer, M.A.; Goldin-Meadow, S. Children learn when their teacher’s gestures and speech differ. Psychol. Sci. 2005, 16, 85–89.
  47. De Grauwe, S.; Willems, R.M.; Rueschemeyer, S.A.; Lemhöfer, K.; Schriefers, H. Embodied language in first-and second-language speakers: Neural correlates of processing motor verbs. Neuropsychologia 2014, 56, 334–349.
  48. Kelly, S.D.; Creigh, P.; Bartolotti, J. Integrating speech and iconic gestures in a Stroop-like task: Evidence for automatic processing. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 2010, 22, 683–694.
  49. Macedonia, M.; Knösche, T.R. Body in mind: How gestures empower foreign language learning. Mind Brain Educ. 2011, 5, 196–211.
  50. Macedonia, M.; Kriegstein, K. Gestures enhance foreign language learning. Biolinguistic 2012, 6, 393–416. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12528/1489 (accessed on 18 August 2023).
  51. So, W.C.; Sim Chen-Hui, C.; Low Wei-Shan, J. Mnemonic effect of iconic gesture and beat gesture in adults and children: Is meaning in gesture important for memory recall? Lang. Cogn. Process. 2012, 27, 665–681.
  52. McCafferty, S.; Stam, G. Gesture, Second Language Acquisition and Classroom Research; Taylor & Francis: Abingdon, UK, 2008.
  53. Asher, J.J.; Price, B.S. The learning strategy of the total physical response: Some age differences. Child Dev. 1967, 38, 1219–1227.
  54. Krashen, S.D.; Terrell, T.D. The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom; Alemany Press: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1983.
  55. Kelly, S.D.; Hirata, Y.; Manansala, M.; Huang, J. Exploring the role of hand gestures in learning novel phoneme contrasts and vocabulary in a second language. Front. Psychol. 2014, 5, 673.
  56. Straube, B.; Green, A.; Weis, S.; Kircher, T. A supramodal neural network for speech and gesture semantics: An fMRI study. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e51207.
  57. Yang, J.; Andric, M.; Mathew, M.M. The neural basis of hand gesture comprehension: A meta-analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging studies. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2015, 57, 88–104.
  58. Goldin-Meadow, S.; Alibali, M.W. Gesture’s role in speaking, learning, and creating language. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2013, 64, 257–283.
  59. Helstrup, T. One, two, or three memories? A problem-solving approach to memory for performed acts. Acta Psychol. 1987, 66, 37–68.
  60. Bäckman, L.; Nilsson, L.G.; Chalom, D. New evidence on the nature of the encoding of action events. Mem. Cogn. 1986, 14, 339–346.
  61. Kormi-Nouri, R.; Nilsson, L.G. The motor component is not crucial! In Memory for Action: A Distinct Form of Episodic Memory? Zimmer, H.D., Cohen, R.L., Guynn, M.J., Engelkamp, J., Kormi-Nouri, R., Foley, M.A., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2001; pp. 97–111.
  62. Knopf, M. Gedächtnis für Handlungen: Funktionsweise und Entwicklung. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität, Heidelberg, Germany, 1992.
  63. Craik, F.I.M.; Tulving, E. Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 1975, 104, 268–294.
  64. Muzzio, I.A.; Levita, L.; Kulkarni, J.; Monaco, J.; Kentros, C.; Stead, M.; Kandel, E.R. Attention enhances the retrieval and stability of visuospatial and olfactory representations in the dorsal hippocampus. PLoS Biol. 2009, 7, e1000140.
  65. Engelkamp, J.; Zimmer, H.D. Motor programme information as a separable memory unit. Psychol. Res. 1984, 46, 283–299.
  66. Engelkamp, J.; Zimmer, H.D. Motor programs and their relation to semantic memory. Ger. J. Psychol. 1985, 9, 239–254.
  67. Vukovic, N.; Feurra, M.; Shpektor, A.; Myachykov, A.; Shtyrov, Y. Primary motor cortex functionally contributes to language comprehension: An online rTMS study. Neuropsychologia 2017, 96, 222–229.
  68. Macedonia, M.; Mueller, K. Exploring the neural representation of novel words learned through enactment in a word recognition task. Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 953.
  69. Denis, M.; Engelkamp, J.; Mohr, G. Memory of imagined actions: Imagining oneself or another person. Psychol. Res. 1991, 53, 246–250.
  70. Macedonia, M.; Müller, K.; Friederici, A.D. The impact of iconic gestures on foreign language word learning and its neural substrate. Hum. Brain Mapp. 2011, 32, 982–998.
  71. Takashima, A.; Bakker, I.; Van Hell, J.G.; Janzen, G.; McQueen, J.M. Richness of information about novel words influences how episodic and semantic memory networks interact during lexicalization. NeuroImage 2014, 84, 265–278.
  72. Cook, S.W.; Yip, T.K.; Goldin-Meadow, S. Gestures, but not meaningless movements, lighten working memory load when explaining math. Lang. Cogn. Process. 2012, 27, 594–610.
  73. Yap, D.F.; So, W.C.; Melvin Yap, J.M.; Tan, Y.Q.; Teoh, R.L.S. Iconic gestures prime words. Cogn. Sci. 2011, 35, 171–183.
  74. Feyereisen, P. Further investigation on the mnemonic effect of gestures: Their meaning matters. Eur. J. Cogn. Psychol. 2006, 18, 185–205.
  75. Kelly, S.D.; McDevitt, T.; Esch, M. Brief training with co-speech gesture lends a hand to word learning in a foreign language. Lang. Cogn. Process. 2009, 24, 313–334.
  76. Macedonia, M.; Klimesch, W. Long-term effects of gestures on memory for foreign language words trained in the classroom. Mind Brain Educ. 2014, 8, 74–88.
  77. Asher, J.J. The Learning Strategy of the Total Physical Response: A Review. Mod. Lang. J. 1966, 50, 79–84.
  78. Aleven, V.; Koedinger, K.R. An effective metacognitive strategy: Learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based cognitive tutor. Cogn. Sci. 2002, 26, 147–179.
  79. James, B. Learning by Doing: The Real Connection between Innovation, Wages, and Wealth; Yale University Press: Yale, NH, USA, 2015.
  80. Nakatsukasa, K. Gesture-enhanced recasts have limited effects: A case of the regular past tense. Lang. Teach. Res. 2021, 25, 587–612.
  81. Allen, L.Q. The effects of emblematic gestures on the development and access of mental representations of French expressions. Mod. Lang. J. 1995, 79, 521–529.
  82. Krönke, K.M.; Mueller, K.; Friederici, A.D.; Obrig, H. Learning by doing? The effect of gestures on implicit retrieval of newly acquired words. Cortex 2013, 49, 2553–2568.
  83. Barbieri, F.; Buonocore, A.; Dalla Volta, R.; Gentilucci, M. How symbolic gestures and words interact with each other. Brain Lang. 2009, 110, 1–11.
  84. Bernardis, P.; Salillas, E.; Caramelli, N. Behavioural and neurophysiological evidence of semantic interaction between iconic gestures and words. Cogn. Neuropsychol. 2008, 25, 1114–1128.
  85. Kircher, T.; Straube, B.; Leube, D.; Weis, S.; Sachs, O.; Willmes, K.; Green, A. Neural interaction of speech and gesture: Differential activations of metaphoric co-verbal gestures. Neuropsychology 2009, 47, 169–179.
  86. Kelly, S.; Healey, M.; Özyürek, A.; Holler, J. The processing of speech, gesture, and action during language comprehension. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 2015, 22, 517–523.
  87. Kutas, M.; Hillyard, S.A. Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science 1980, 207, 203–205.
  88. MacLeod, C.M. Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychol. Bull. 1991, 109, 163.
  89. Goldin-Meadow, S. The role of gesture in communication and thinking. Trends Cogn. Sci. 1999, 3, 419–429.
  90. Goldin-Meadow, S.; Levine, S.C.; Zinchenko, E.; Yip, T.K.; Hemani, N.; Factor, L. Doing gesture promotes learning a mental transformation task better than seeing gesture. Dev. Sci. 2012, 15, 876–884.
  91. Cutting, J.; Iacovides, I. Learning by doing: Intrinsic Integration directs attention to increase learning in games. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2022, 6, 1–18.
  92. Cohen, R.L. On the generality of some memory laws. Scand. J. Psychol. 1981, 22, 267–281.
  93. Engelkamp, J.; Zimmer, H.D. Zum Einflu–S von Wahrnehmen und Tun auf das Behalten von Verb–Objekt-Phrasen . Sprache Kognit. 1983, 2, 117–127.
  94. Ganis, G.; Keenan, J.P.; Kosslyn, S.M.; Pascual-Leone, A. Transcranial magnetic stimulation of primary motor cortex affects mental rotation. Cereb. Cortex 2000, 10, 175–180.
  95. Chu, M.; Kita, S. Spontaneous gestures during mental rotation tasks: Insights into the microdevelopment of the motor strategy. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 2008, 137, 706–723.
  96. James, K.H.; Swain, S.N. Only self-generated actions create sensori-motor systems in the developing brain. Dev. Sci. 2011, 14, 673–678.
  97. Engelkamp, J.; Zimmer, H.D.; Mohr, G.; Sellen, O. Memory of self-performed tasks: Self-performing during recognition. Mem. Cogn. 1994, 22, 34–39.
  98. Stefan, K.; Cohen, L.G.; Duque, J.; Mazzocchio, R.; Celnik, P.; Sawaki, L.; Classen, J. Formation of a motor memory by action observation. J. Neurosci. 2005, 25, 9339–9346.
  99. Rizzolatti, G.; Craighero, L. The mirror-neuron system. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 2004, 27, 169–192.
  100. Cherdieu, M.; Palombi, O.; Gerber, S.; Troccaz, J.; Rochet-Capellan, A. Make gestures to learn: Reproducing gestures improves the learning of anatomical knowledge more than just seeing gestures. Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 1689.
  101. Baills, F.; Suarez-Gonzalez, N.; Gonzalez-Fuente, S.; Prieto, P. Observing and producing pitch gestures facilitates the learning of Mandarin Chinese tones and words. Stud. Second. Lang. Acquis. 2019, 41, 33–58.
  102. Sweller, N.; Shinooka-Phelan, A.; Austin, E. The effects of observing and producing gestures on Japanese word learning. Acta Psychol. 2020, 207, 103079.
  103. Tellier, M. The effect of gestures on second language memorisation by young children. Gesture 2008, 8, 219–235.
  104. Hadley, E.B.; Dickinson, D.K.; Hirsh-Pasek, K.; Golinkoff, R.M.; Nesbitt, K.T. Examining the acquisition of vocabulary knowledge depth among preschool students. Read. Res. Q. 2016, 51, 181–198.
  105. Boulenger, V.; Hauk, O.; Pulvermüller, F. Grasping ideas with the motor system: Semantic somatotopy in idiom comprehension. Cereb. Cortex 2009, 19, 1905–1914.
  106. Childers, J.B.; Tomasello, M. Two-year-olds learn novel nouns, verbs, and conventional actions from massed or distributed exposures. Dev. Psychol. 2002, 38, 967–978.
  107. Hauk, O.; Johnsrude, I.; Pulvermüller, F. Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron 2004, 41, 301–307.
  108. Golinkoff, R.M.; Chung, H.L.; Hirsh-Pasek, K.; Liu, J.; Bertenthal, B.I.; Brand, R.; Hennon, E. Young children can extend motion verbs to point-light displays. Dev. Psychol. 2002, 38, 604–614.
  109. Tardif, T.; Shatz, M.; Naigles, L. Caregiver speech and children’s use of nouns versus verbs: A comparison of English, Italian, and Mandarin. J. Child Lang. 1997, 24, 535–565.
  110. Gentner, D.; Boroditsky, L. Individuation, relativity, and early word learning. In Language Acquisition and Conceptual Development; Bowerman, M., Levinson, S.C., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2001; pp. 215–256.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Psychology
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Ana Belén García-Gámez
,
Pedro Macizo
View Times: 121
Revisions: 3 times (View History)
Update Date: 15 Jan 2024
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Feedback