ArticlePDF Available

Showing and giving: from incipient to conventional forms

The Royal Society
Philosophical Transactions B
Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Understanding humans' motivation and capacity for social interaction requires understanding communicative gestures. Gestures are one of the earliest means that infants employ to communicate with others, and showing and giving are among the earliest-emerging gestures. However, there are limited data on the processes that lead up to the emergence of conventional showing and giving gestures. This study aimed to provide such data. Twenty-five infants were assessed longitudinally at monthly intervals from 6 to 10 months of age using a variety of methods (elicitation procedures, free play observations and maternal interviews), as well as via questionnaires conducted at 11–12 months. A particular focus was on pre-conventional, incipient gestures , behaviours that involved some components of conventional gestures, but lacked other important components. We present observational evidence that at least some of these behaviours (observed as early as 7 months of age) were communicative and make the case for how conventional showing and giving may emerge gradually in the context of social interactions. We also discuss the influence of maternal interpretations of these early behaviours on their development. Overall, the study seeks to draw attention to the importance of understanding the cognitive, motor and interactional processes that lead to the emergence of infants’ earliest communicative gestures. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Revisiting the human ‘interaction engine’: comparative approaches to social action coordination’.
Content may be subject to copyright.
royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rstb
Research
Cite this article: Salter G, Carpenter M. 2022
Showing and giving: from incipient to
conventional forms. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 377:
20210102.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2021.0102
Received: 14 October 2021
Accepted: 9 March 2022
One contribution of 14 to a theme issue
Revisiting the human interaction engine:
comparative approaches to social action
coordination.
Subject Areas:
behaviour, cognition
Keywords:
gesture, showing, giving, development, infancy
Author for correspondence:
Gideon Salter
e-mail: gs213@st-andrews.ac.uk
Electronic supplementary material is available
online at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.
c.6038194.
Showing and giving: from incipient to
conventional forms
Gideon Salter and Malinda Carpenter
School of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of St Andrews, Scotland, UK
GS, 0000-0003-0068-8901; MC, 0000-0003-3983-2034
Understanding humansmotivation and capacity for social interaction
requires understanding communicative gestures. Gestures are one of the
earliest means that infants employ to communicate with others, and
showing and giving are among the earliest-emerging gestures. However,
there are limited data on the processes that lead up to the emergence of
conventional showing and giving gestures. This study aimed to provide
such data. Twenty-five infants were assessed longitudinally at monthly
intervals from 6 to 10 months of age using a variety of methods (elicitation
procedures, free play observations and maternal interviews), as well as via
questionnaires conducted at 1112 months. A particular focus was on pre-
conventional, incipient gestures, behaviours that involved some components
of conventional gestures, but lacked other important components. We
present observational evidence that at least some of these behaviours
(observed as early as 7 months of age) were communicative and make the
case for how conventional showing and giving may emerge gradually in
the context of social interactions. We also discuss the influence of maternal
interpretations of these early behaviours on their development. Overall,
the study seeks to draw attention to the importance of understanding the
cognitive, motor and interactional processes that lead to the emergence of
infantsearliest communicative gestures.
This article is part of the theme issue Revisiting the human interaction
engine: comparative approaches to social action coordination.
1. Showing and giving: from incipient to conventional forms
Understanding the human interaction engine[1] requires understanding the
development of communicative gestures. If Levinson [1] is indeed correct that
human interactions are unique, based on a capacity for cooperative and reciprocal
engagement that is not dependent on language, then it is necessary to understand
the kinds of behaviours that appear in some of humansontogenetically earliest
interactions, before infants have produced their first words.
Communicative gestures are among the earliest ways in which infants can
initiate joint attention and communicate with others [2,3]. Much previous work
has focused on pointing gestures [36], and many researchers have discussed
the interplay of maturation and socialization that leads to the emergence of
conventional pointing gestures [713]. However, if we want to understand the
very beginnings of gestural communication, we need to investigate other key,
earlier-emerging gestures such as showing and giving [1418]. Showing involves
holding up objects so that others can see them [14], and giving involves placing
and releasing an object into anothers hand [19]. These gestures typically first
emerge at around 9 to 10 months, typically before pointing [2,3,14], and,
like pointing, they are associated with later language [18,20]. It is therefore strik-
ing that there is so little research on the development of these earlier-emerging
communicative gestures.
For the emergence of showing gestures, the literature is particularly sparse.
Although several studies have documented when showing emerges in its
© 2022 The Authors. Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original
author and source are credited.
conventional form [2,3,14,15], none has explored where
showing comes from developmentally. By contrast, some
studies have explored the development of giving gestures.
Carpendale et al. [21] reported diary entries in which care-
givers described the giving behaviours of their children
from 7.5 months to 2 years, 6 months of age. They reported
some descriptions of behaviours that preceded conventional
giving gestures. For example, caregivers reported infants
putting food or other objects into the caregivers mouth as
an early form of giving. Other studies have highlighted the
role of give-and-take interactions in giving development,
using case studies [22,23], observations [24] and experiments
[19,25]. For example, Xu et al. [19] demonstrated the influence
of social experience on the development of giving in response
to a request. They compared two one- to two-week inter-
ventions in which 7.5-month-old infants either engaged
in give-and-take interactions with their caregiver or had
experience of putting a toy into a bucket. Only the interactive
intervention led to a significant increase in giving, and infants
in the interactive condition gave objects significantly more
than those in the bucket condition.
In understanding the developmental pathway to conven-
tional gestures, it is important to establish the key features that
mark a gesture as conventional. Broadly speaking, conventions
are reliable patterns in social interaction that facilitate communi-
cation and coordination [26]. Conventional gestures are
recognizable by caregivers, with a consistent behavioural form
that is used regularly and predictably in communicative con-
texts [2]. Importantly, they are also recognizable by members
of the community beyond the caregiverinfant dyad [2].
The current study explores the very beginnings of infants
early showing and giving gestures, focusing on where
they come from developmentally, and the transition from
pre-conventional to conventional forms. That is, conventional
showing and giving do not emerge without developmental
precedent, so we examined related behaviourspartial,
attempted, unclear or idiosyncratic forms of the gesturethat
emerged in infants before conventional showing and giving.
We label these forms incipient gestures. Our aim was not just
to document these earlier incipient forms, but also to explore
how they relate to the emergence of conventional forms.
We also considered whether infants intended them to be com-
municative, presenting evidence that some of these incipient
gestures were accompanied by classic signs of intentional com-
munication, like eye contact, and were not just random
behaviours that coincidentally resembled showing and
giving in some ways. Through maternal interview data, we
also considered the role that caregiver interpretations might
play in the development of these conventional gestures.
Data for this study were taken from a larger study on
the development of joint attention and communication by
Salter [27]. One aim of the larger study was to catch the
very beginnings of communication; thus, we focused on
6- to 10-month-old infants. Longitudinal observations of
25 infantsbehaviours were made from experimental tasks
designed to elicit communicative gestures, as well as free
play interactions between mothers and infants. This provided
a range of contexts for observation, while also, in the former
case, providing situations in which the response of the
recipient was controlled and did not involve the scaffolding
typically provided by caregivers [8]. Maternal reports, taken
from semi-structured interviews that included questions
about the development of gestures, were also examined.
Understanding what caregivers interpret as gestures, or poss-
ible gestures, is relevant for two main reasons. First, it
provides insight into the kinds of behaviours that produce
responses from caregivers, and thus that serve as an input
into the cycles of interactive engagement that have been high-
lighted as a key facet of social development [8,22]. Second,
caregivers have a large number of opportunities to engage
with and observe their infant, in a range of social situations
[28]. Thus, they are uniquely positioned to observe subtle
and gradual developmental changes and infrequently-
occurring behaviours [7]. Observational data were collected
and interviews were conducted monthly when infants were
610 months old, and caregivers remotely provided further
information through questionnaires at 1112 months.
2. Method
(a) Participants
Twenty-five motherinfant dyads participated (14 female infants,
11 male; 14 firstborns; all full term). This sample size was based
on previous similar studies (e.g. [3,14]). Of the 23 infants whose
mothers provided information about educational background,
20 had at least one parent who had completed tertiary education,
and 3 had at least one parent who had completed secondary edu-
cation. No further information on SES or ethnicity was collected,
though all mothers were fluent English speakers (the tasks and
interviews were all conducted in English). Sessions were con-
ducted in the laboratory within a week of infantsmonthly
birthdays, once a month from 6 to 10 months, and only one
infant missed a single session (at 10 months). Because the focus
of the larger study was on the very beginnings of joint attention
and communication, the laboratory sessions were only conducted
from 6 to 10 months. Follow-up questionnaires were provided at
11 and 12 months to provide information about the further
development of participantsjoint attention and communication.
(b) Procedure
The overall study of which the gesture procedures were a part
involved a number of different tasks (e.g. joint attention, attention
following and imitation). The session started with a 6 min mother
infant free play period, followed by the experimental tasks
(including the gesture tasks), followed by the maternal interview.
(i) Showing
Showing gestures were examined in two experimental procedures
and the free play period. The two experimental procedures were
conducted in random order before and after, respectively, the
other tasks taking place at the session, and followed a similar
format. Infants sat on a mat in front of their mother, facing the
experimenter (E), who kneeled in front of them approximately
1 m away. E gave infants a toy (e.g. a rubber, plastic or soft toy)
and then left the room, at which point mothers had been instructed
to either swap the toy for a new toy, or just sit with infants for 10 s.
This created two situations in which a showing gesture could be
encouraged; one in which infants might share an object that had
previously been shared with E [29], and one in which they might
share an object that had not previously been shared with E [6]. E
returned after the swap or after 10 s. He again kneeled 1 m in
front of infants and greeted them. He then verbally expressed inter-
est either in the toy (in the task in which it was swapped: Wow!;
Thats cool!;Can you show me the toy?) or in infants (in the
other task: Hello!;How are you?;Are you having fun?). Each
of these three utterances was repeated, with a 5 s pause between
each utterance. Whether the infant had produced a showing
royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rstb Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 377: 20210102
2
gesture or not, E then waited a further few seconds, with a neutral
but pleasant expression, before moving on to the rest of the session.
In the free play, mothers and infants were positioned facing
each other, with infants either sitting independently or upright
in an infant seat for the first half, and then positioned however
the mother wanted in the second half (sitting independently or
lying). They were given a bag containing a range of different
toys (e.g. rattle, board book and rubber bath toys). Mothers
were asked to interact with infants as they typically would at
home.
(ii) Giving
Giving gestures were examined in a single experimental task.
Infants sat in an infant chair opposite E, who sat on the floor,
such that the infantsand Es eyes were at approximately the
same level. Between them was a small table. Infants were
given a small rubber toy (e.g. frog or ball). E allowed infants to
explore the toy briefly, then extended his hand towards infants
with a palm-up gesture, and requested the object, saying, Hi
[infants name], can I have the toy, please?He did this up to
three times, pausing for 5 s between each repetition. If infants
clearly released the object into his hand, E thanked them and
the task ended. If infants had not done so after the third request,
E continued with the rest of the session.
Giving was not coded from the free play. We were interested
in understanding infantscapabilities, and it was difficult to
determine these in free play as mothers frequently intervened
to take the objects before it was possible to identify whether
infants would release the object themselves. It is important to
note that this means that the giving gestures were elicited, not
spontaneous. However, infantssuccessful responses indicated
an understanding of the request and the ability to produce a
giving gesture.
(iii) Maternal interviews
Each month, E asked mothers questions as part of a semi-
structured interview that covered a range of topics relating to
their infants development. Two of these questions focused
on gestures:
Does your infant produce any gestures? If so, what kind of
gestures?
Does your infant show you interesting objects? If so, how do
they do this?
As needed, E asked follow-up questions, such as asking about
infantsgiving or pointing gestures. The interviews were tran-
scribed. When infants were 11 and 12 months old, mothers
were also sent an online questionnaire that included a number
of interview questions, including the two listed above.
(c) Coding
Coding of both showing and giving followed the same con-
ceptual structure, which distinguished conventional from
incipient gestures; table 1. The electronic supplementary material
contains the full coding scheme for each gesture type (sections S1
and S2) and information on inter-rater reliability (table S1).
The definitions of showing and giving were broadly in line
with previous work (e.g. [14,17]), but with some additional stipu-
lations. For conventional showing (a score of 2), infants had to
raise the object into the view of the adult, keep it stably in place
for at least 1 s and look to both the adults face and the object. For
a score of 2, the coders had to be confident that the act was pro-
duced to draw the adults attention to the target object. For
conventional giving, infants had to place the object in Es hand
and release it such that the object remained in Es hand.
3. Results and discussion
(a) Showing
Figure 1 presents the percentage of infants who received each
score as their highest score for showing gestures at each
month, collapsed across both showing tasks and free play.
The first infant to produce a conventional showing gesture
was 8 months old, in the free play. The number of infants
who produced conventional showing gestures then increased
steadily, with 13 out of 25 infants (52%) having produced a
conventional show at least once by 10 months. Focusing on
incipient gestures, the first infant to produce an incipient
show was 7 months old, in the free play. Overall, 18 out of
25 infants (72%) had produced at least one incipient showing
gesture by 10 months. For individual participantsscores, see
electronic supplementary material, figure S1. For information
on experimental versus free play scores, see electronic
supplementary material, figure S2.
In all cases, the behaviours that were coded as incipient
shows were behaviours that met all but one component of
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
678
age (months)
910
percentage of infants who received each score
score: 0: no show 1: incipient show 2: conventional show
Figure 1. Percentages of infants who received scores of 0,1and 2as their
highest score for showing gestures at each month.
Table 1. Conceptual structure of gesture coding schemes (see electronic
supplementary material, sections S1 and S2 for the detailed coding
scheme for each gesture type).
score description
2 Infants produced a conventional instance of the target
gesture.
1 Infants produced an attempt at the target gesture, a
partial instance of the gesture, or otherwise relevant
behaviour that involved components of the target
gesture but that was missing one or more key
components. This code includes behaviours that may
possibly be considered an instance of the conventional
gesture, but cannot be condently assigned as such.
0 Infants did not produce a gesture or other relevant
action.
royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rstb Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 377: 20210102
3
the criteria for conventional showing gestures. For example,
infants held the toy up towards the adults face, with gaze
alternation, but did not hold it high enough, or sufficiently
stably, or they held it up stably but did not look at the
adult, or did not look at the object.
The key question is how to interpret these behaviours.
There are at least two possible interpretations, each ascribing
different capacities to the infants. The first interpretation is
that these behaviours are non-communicative and are either
unrelated to conventional shows, or potentially serve as
interactional triggers that elicit relevant caregiver responses.
The second interpretation is that these behaviours are commu-
nicative, but not yet conventional. On this reading, the infants
intend to show objects, but cannot yet do so conventionally due
to limited motor and/or cognitive capabilities. It is possible
that both interpretations might be correct and involved in
the pathway toward conventional showing gestures, just at
different moments in development. It is also possible that
different infants may follow different developmental paths.
Under the first interpretation, the behaviours may be
coincidental, exploratory or arousal-based: infants were
simply playing with the object, or got excited by the situation,
and happened to move in a way that resembled a showing ges-
ture. One could thus conclude that these behaviours are
unrelated to showing gestures, or are only related to the
extent that they involve similar motor capacities to those
required in order to produce the conventional behaviour. On
some accounts, it is only after infants have undergone
relevant cognitive developments (such as means-ends under-
standing [2] and understanding of attention and intentions
[30]) that they can start to produce intentionally communica-
tive gestures, suggesting that behaviours that occur prior to
this understanding are not relevant. However, even if these
behaviours are initially non-communicative, it does not pre-
clude them from playing a role in the developmental
pathway towards showing [7,21]. Even unintentional beha-
viours, as long as they are show-like, could elicit a positive
response from caregivers, which in turn would encourage
infants to engage in further instances of these behaviours, pro-
viding a cycle of learning from which infants could gradually
become aware of the effects of these actions [21].
A second way of interpreting incipient showing gestures is
that they are communicative, and that infants intend to draw
the adults attention to the object; it is just that they do not
yet do this in a conventional way. In these cases, infants mani-
fest a burgeoning capacity to engage in showing that is limited
because the infants have limited motor control that prevents
them from producing the conventional form and/or they do
not yet fully understand the optimal form of a conventional
show [2]. For example, in support of this interpretation, in
the current study, there were several cases in which the behav-
iour almost met the criteria for a conventional show, but did
not, because the object was not held stably in place, e.g.:
Participant 1, 9 months: The infant raised the object to the side of
her head, making eye contact with E. She brought her arm for-
ward so the object was held briefly (less than 1 second)
towards Es face, before moving the toy up and down and smil-
ing. Whilst shaking the toy, she attended to it briefly, and twice
the up and down movement was paused so the toy was only
briefly held stable in front of E.
Participant 4, 9 months: After the mother commented on a book
the infant was holding and looking down at, the infant looked up
at the mother, smiled, laughed, and raised the book to his head
height, towards his mothers face, and lowered it, all in a single
arcing motion. The mother smiled and touched the book,
saying, Want me to do it?, but the infant continued to hold it.
There are several features of these examples that provide sup-
port for the thesis that these are not simply coincidentally
show-like movements, but rather attempts to bring the object
into the adults visual attention communicatively. In each
case, there is visual attention to both the object and the adult,
and a smile produced alongside the action. The motion is
towards the adults face, either with a shaking motion or con-
tinuous movement. In the second case, the mother
understood the act as bringing the object into her attention
(though seemingly as a request for help). In each case, it is
plausible that the infants were simply limited by their motor
skills; they attempted to produce an intentional show, but
lacked the coordination or strength to hold the object stably
towards the adult.
Other observations suggest that at least some infants
might gradually incorporate objects into engagements as
they transition from engaging others communicatively in
a dyadic manner, to doing so triadically. Consider the
following example:
Participant 2, 8 months: The infant grasped the object, without
looking at it. He then looked up to his mother, smiled, and
held the object up and out in front of him, at about his head
height. He held the object stable for several seconds as he
rocked his body back and forth, seemingly in excitement. As
he did so, his mother said, Whats that? Whats that?in a
high-pitched tone. The infant then lowered the object.
In this case, the infant consistently looked at his mother and
smiled at her, without visually attending to the object. This
suggests that he was communicatively engaging with her in
a dyadic manner, rather than drawing her attention to the
object. However, his raising and holding stable of the object
was salient, and otherwise very much resembled a con-
ventional show; it was clearly towards the mother and held
stable for several seconds. It is relevant here that his raising
of the object resulted in an excited response from the
motherone that likely would not have occurred without
the inclusion of the object in the act. It is possible that this be-
haviour is declarative in the older sense of the word initially
used by Bates and colleagues [31]: the use of an object to
draw attention to oneself (see also [16] for a discussion of
this behaviour). Alternatively, cases such as these may
represent transitional formsbetween dyadic and triadic
engagements, in that it is not clear that the infant was draw-
ing the adults attention to the object, but the act of raising the
object was salient within the engagement. On this view,
objects are gradually included within the engagement, as
infants become increasingly aware of the role they can play
in interactions, and as caregivers increasingly react to the
inclusion of objects by infants [32,33].
Infants who are motivated to engage another person with
an object may require experience to learn the conventional
positioning of an object when showing ita position that is
optimal spatially but also, critically, with regard to eliciting
a social response. For example, some infants (e.g. Participant
15, 9 months) held the object away from their body and kept
it stable, with gaze alternation between object and adult, but
not clearly up and towards the adults face. However, other
features that have been used to identify intentionally commu-
nicative acts, such as waiting for a response and persisting
with the act when needed [2], were not always present in
these types of examples, so we cannot be sure that they
royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rstb Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 377: 20210102
4
were intentionally communicative (though note that with
cases such as Participant 2, 8 months, above, neither of these
features was necessary as the mother immediately took the
act to be communicative). It may be that an infant can oftensuc-
ceed in getting another to attend to an object with a suboptimal
(e.g. not clearly directed, unstable, with no response waiting) or
non-conventional show, but it is less clear and thus less likely to
elicit a response than a conventional show [15]. However, it is
worth mentioning that another feature commonly used to
identify communicative behaviours, eye contact, was almost
always observed (with just two exceptions; see electronic sup-
plementary material, section S3), suggesting that in most cases
infants were at least engaging with the adult, and potentially
intentionally communicating.
A final methodological point to highlight is the influence
of the properties of the object. When infants had larger
objects, or objects with protruding or dangling elements, it
was sometimes less clear whether they were showing the
object, for example, when they held a dangling element,
e.g. a leg of a soft toy, with the main body of the object hang-
ing below (e.g. Participant 13, 10 months). Furthermore, the
size and/or weight of the object may have been the source
of some of the problems with stability. A unique challenge
of showing gestures (compared to, for example, pointing) is
that infants actively control the position of the object them-
selves, and thus the objectssize and shape play a role in
the form of the showing gesture that is produced. Any multi-
modal properties the object has can also be relevant; for
example, sometimes infants might share the noise made by
an object, the movements it can make, or its tactile properties.
A possible avenue for future research is to explore infants
capacity to show these different properties of objects. How-
ever, if the focus of a study is solely on infantsproduction
of conventional showing gestures, the best objects to use, in
our experience, are small, compact, lightweight, easily
graspable and silent.
To summarize, the majority (72%) of infants produced at
least one incipient showing gesture between 7 and 10 months,
that is, a behavioural sequence that included several com-
ponents of a showing gesture, but lacked a key component.
We have highlighted different plausible ways to interpret
these gestures and have suggested ways in which they
might be implicated in the developmental pathway toward
the emergence of conventional shows. In particular, we
have highlighted the possibility that infants might have
some limited capacity to integrate objects into communicative
exchanges prior to learning to produce conventional showing
gestures, as well as the possibility that they may intend to
show objects, but are limited by their motor capabilities or
not having learnt all the features of a conventional show.
(b) Giving
Figure 2 presents the percentage of infants who received each
score as their highest score for giving gestures at each month.
The first infants to produce a conventional giving gesture
were 9 months old (2 out of 25; 8%). Conventional giving
increased somewhat between 9 and 10 months, with 8 infants
(32%) having produced a conventional give by 10 months.
Focusing on incipient gestures, the first infants (6 out of 25;
24%) to produce incipient gives were 7 months old. Overall,
18 out of 25 (72%) of infants had produced an incipient
giving gesture by 10 months. For individual participants
scores, see electronic supplementary material, figure S3.
In all cases, the behaviours that were coded as incipient
gives were behaviours that met all but one component of
the criteria for conventional giving gestures. For example,
infants placed the object on Es hand without releasing it,
or repeatedly tapped it against Es hand, or released it in
an uncontrolled manner, such that it made contact with Es
hand but did not remain in Es hand. Since coordinated
gaze to the adults face is a potential indicator of communica-
tive intent, it is worth noting that only 1 out of 25 infants (4%)
produced a conventional giving gesture with a look to Es
face at 9 months, and 1 out of 25 (4%) did so at 10 months
(a different infant). Further information regarding gaze
coordination with incipient giving gestures can be found in
the electronic supplementary material, section S3. However,
giving gestures are frequently not coordinated with looks to
the adults face; gaze is frequently on the target object and/
or the adults hand to ensure that the object is successfully
placed onto the adults hand [14,15].
As with incipient showing gestures, there are at least two
possible ways to interpret these incipient giving gestures.
First, it is possible that infants did not have any understand-
ing of Es request and instead were interacting with Es hand
simply as a salient focal point for exploration. Even if so, in
the context of give-and-take games, these behaviours may
serve as interactional triggers for caregiver responses: as
infants place the object, caregivers may encourage them to
release it or simply take the object [21]. This in turn facilitates
the infantstransition from a passive to an active, initiating
participant [23].
Second, there are alternative plausible explanations that
ascribe varying degrees of social understanding to the infants.
For example, after having participated in previous interactions
with caregivers in which caregivers had taken the objects from
infants themselves [2224], infants might mistakenly have
believed that E wanted them simply to put the object on his
hand, expecting that he would take it himself once they did
this. We observed that several infants at 9 and 10 months
looked up at Es face, sometimes with a smile, after initially pla-
cing the object on his hand without releasing it,suggesting that
the placing waswhat they thought they were expected to do. It
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
678
age (months)
910
percentage of infants who received each score
score: 0: no give 1: incipient give 2: conventional give
Figure 2. Percentages of infants who received scores of 0,1and 2as their
highest score for giving gestures at each month.
royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rstb Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 377: 20210102
5
might thus be the case that at least some infants engage in
allowing-to-takebefore actual giving.
In other cases, it seemed clear that infants were actually
trying to give the object, but did not succeed because of var-
ious limitationsmost commonly motor limitations that
prevented them from releasing the object in a controlled
manner once it was placed on Es hand. For example:
Participant 14, 9 months: E requested the object. The infant, look-
ing at Es hand, lowered the object onto it, holding it there for a
few seconds. He smiled broadly, making eye contact with E. He
then released all his fingers from the object, and it fell off Es
hand and onto the table. E repeated the request twice more,
and at the third request, the infant again placed the object onto
Es hand. This time, he closed all his fingers and squeezed the
object, which caused it to fall out of his hand, bounce off Es
hand, and fall onto the table.
That the infant placed the object onto Es hand and released
his fingers from the object plausibly indicates some intention
to give the object to E. Other possibilities for limitations are
that infants may have struggled to inhibit maintaining pos-
session of the object, or may have failed to understand that
giving requires one not just to release the object but also to
leave the object in the others hand. For example, one partici-
pant (Participant 10, 10 months), having seemingly struggled
for several seconds to release the object onto Es hand (includ-
ing removing his fingers from the object and sliding his hand
off the object), retrieved the object immediately after releasing
it onto Es hand.
These observations again suggest the possibility that
these gestures, and the social understanding underlying
them, emerge in a gradual manner, rather than in an all-or-
nothing switch from no capacity or understanding to a
mature capacity and understanding. Further observations
provide evidence that infants may have had an understand-
ing of Es request, and object transfer in general, before
they produced conventional giving gestures. For example,
some infants dropped the object in front of them and
looked up at E (e.g. Participant 5, 9 months), or threw it
towards E or Es hand after making eye contact with him
(e.g. Participant 2, 9 months), which again may have been
with the expectation that E obtain the object. In one case (Par-
ticipant 24, 10 months), the infant grasped Es hand and
moved it towards the object, which was on the table. This
is potentially a hand-taking gesture[26], encouraging E to
take the object himself, and in that case, the infant ultimately
did give E the object conventionally by the end of the task.
The reverse also occurred: an infant (Participant 3, 9
months) grabbed Es hand and moved it away from the
object, which may have been evidence that she understood
but rejected his request.
To summarize, the majority (72%) of infants produced at
least one incipient giving gesture between 7 and 10 months,
that is, a behavioural sequence that included several com-
ponents of a giving gesture, but lacked a key component. We
have highlighted different plausible ways to interpret these
gestures. While some of these actions may have been just
exploratory, in other cases, it appeared that infants had some
understanding of Es request, and object transfer more gener-
ally, before they produced conventional giving gestures.
(c) Maternal interview responses
Mothers, too, reported incipient gestures. For example, in
response to Es question about whether infants produced
showing gestures, there were reports of the object not being
held stable (examples are edited slightly for clarity):
Participant 7, 9 months: ‘…the occasional sort of flail that looks
slightly deliberate, or more like a pause in play, and also getting
eye contact.
Participant 16, 8 months: I suppose sometimes when hes bang-
ing the blocks hell stop and hell kind of go like this [raises a fist
and shakes it] with his hand towards you. But I dont know if he is
or not.
And non-conventional shows:
Participant 5, 10 months: Hell sometimes throw it. I feel like he
throws it at me.
Participant 6, 9 months: Just holds it right up to your face.
Participant 11, 10 months: Yeahbasically shed just bring me
something, like a coolKleenex, shell just put it on your lap.
Similarly, for giving there were reports of it not being
controlled:
Participant 7, 10 months: ’…occasionally I can get her to give me
the spoon. Mostly, she drops it, but sometimes shell actually put
it in my hand.
Participant 13, 9 months: No I dont think so, no. I think she
maybe tries to. But, I dont think it has been that controlled
just yet.
And reports of non-conventional gives
Participant 15, 10 months: ‘…giving somebody something else he
hasnt quite mastered, but hell kind of drop something; hell
have it, and then will drop it and look at you, and thats
almost his way of saying Hey look!”’
In the cases of non-conventional gestures, it appears that
mothers often viewed these as de facto instances of showing
or giving, despite them being non-conventional. This suggests
that mothers may respond not only to the form of the gesture,
but also when they believe the infant is demonstrating the
intention to show or give an object. This intention may be
inferred through infantsuse of gaze alternation, and the con-
text, and also when the relevant interactional outcome (e.g.
object transfer) is achieved, regardless of the gestures conven-
tionality. Conventionality may then result at least in part from
mothersincreasing standards regarding what they respond to
[34], combined with the infant interacting with members of
the wider community, who would be more likely to understand
and respond to conventional rather than idiosyncratic gestural
forms.
A further noteworthy feature of the motherscomments is
that there was often ambiguity between showing and giving,
though this was less common in later assessments (i.e. at 11
and 12 months of age). Previous work has highlighted that
whether an infants initial act of holding out an object
resolves as a show or a give is often an outcome of a dynami-
cally unfolding social situation [14]. Both caregivers [15,35]
and researchers can find it difficult to tell whether infants
intend to show or give an object. Often, mothers responded
to the interview questions about showing with a response
that involved the infant transferring the object to the
mother (e.g. Participant 11, 10 months above). In other
cases, mothers explicitly reflected on the difficulty in inter-
preting the infants potential showing or giving behaviour.
For example, in response to a question about showing,
some mothers said:
Participant 18, 8 months: I think he is. He starts doing the bash-
ing that he does with everything some days, but then hell sort of
catch your eye and hold things. He seems to be holding things up
royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rstb Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 377: 20210102
6
and he knows that if he holds certain toys like that Ill take them
from him and join in and play with him. So he certainly seems to,
whether or not hes meaning to.
Participant 21, 10 months: With showingI actually grab it
[mimes grabbing] [saying,] Oh, thank you!Im not sure if she
actually wants me to take it, but she does hold it towards me.
Not always, though.
These examples suggest that at these ages, sometimes the
specific functional outcome is less important than the engage-
ment with the mother. It has been suggested that infants at
this age may have no social intentions and are simply carried
along by the responses of the caregiver (e.g. [15]). However, it
may also be the case that infants are simply open to whatever
way the interaction unfolds, and only later become more par-
ticular about their specific intention being understood,
perhaps because they better understand the consequences
of different functional outcomes [21].
4. Conclusion
This study has sought to provide new insights into the beha-
viours that precede the emergence of some of the earliest
gestures human infants produce: showing and giving. It
has documented and described incipient gestures; behaviours
that involve components of a conventional gesture but that
are missing key components. Exploring a range of examples
from observations and maternal reports, a case was made
for why these various behaviours should be considered rel-
evant steps along the developmental pathway to
conventional forms of showing and giving. Behavioural fea-
tures have been identified that indicate that young infants
(as young as 7 months) may have some burgeoning capacity
to engage in showing or giving, or at least intend to show or
give objects, even if they are not yet capable of conventional
showing and giving. On this view, conventional showing and
giving are a product of a series of gradual cognitive and
motoric developments that take place in the context of
repeated social engagements.
Future work can explore what capacity and understand-
ing infants might possess at different stages of gesture
development, and, as some researchers have already begun
to do with the development of giving [19,2125], can also
more closely examine changes at the level of the caregiver
infant dyad. By examining the capacities of infants (at the
level of the infant), as well as developments in patterns of
shared activity at the level of the dyad, it will be possible to
articulate the key cognitive, motor and interactive processes
that contribute to the emergence of infantsearliest gestures.
As a methodological note, it may also be beneficial to provide
a more extensive period of free play, or conduct the free play
in a more natural context (e.g. the infantshomes), to increase
the likelihood of observing spontaneous gestures [18].
Additionally, greater attention could be paid to potential
differences between infantsbehaviour in free play inter-
actions with caregivers versus elicitation procedures.
Finally, future work can assess caregiver understanding of
incipient gestures by exploring in depth how caregivers
respond to possible or partial gestures by infants in live
interactions. We have suggested that incipient gestures may
serve as interactive triggersfor caregiver responses, and
examining caregiversverbal and behavioural responses to
incipient gestures will provide further evidence about
whether and, if so, how caregivers respond to incipient ges-
tures, and the role these responses may play in the origins
of showing and giving. Caregivers could also be asked expli-
citly about their understanding of incipient gestures in an
interview context, in order to focus more directly on their jus-
tifications for interpreting incipient or non-conventional
behaviours as de facto instances of showing or giving.
More generally, this study has not only joined other recent
work in calling for greater attention to be paid to infants
showing and giving gestures [1418], but has also stressed
the importance of understanding the developmental pathway
that leads to the emergence of conventional showing, giving
and other gestures. Pursuing this question further will help
contribute to an understanding of humansearly capacity
and motivation for social interaction, as well as the core
role played by gestures [36]. This in turn can help address
the question of precisely what are the cognitive, behavioural
and motivational elements that constitute the human inter-
action engine[1].
Ethics. The research was granted ethical approval by the ethics com-
mittee of the School of Psychology and Neuroscience at the
University of St Andrews (approval code: PS13951). The research
was conducted according to the principles expressed in the Declara-
tion of Helsinki. Informed consent was obtained from all mothers
who participated.
Data accessibility. The data are provided in the electronic supplementary
material [37].
Authorscontributions. G.S.: conceptualization, data curation, formal
analysis, funding acquisition, investigation, methodology, project
administration, resources, software, visualization, writingoriginal
draft and writingreview and editing; M.C.: conceptualization,
methodology, resources, supervision and writingreview and
editing.
Both authors gave final approval for publication and agreed to be
held accountable for the work performed therein.
Conflict of interest declaration. We declare we have no competing interests.
Funding. This study was supported by the University of St Andrews
(PhD Scholarship).
Acknowledgements. Many thanks to the mothers and infants who took
part in the study. Thanks also to Beatrice Bowlby, Kolja Rath and
Grace Upham for help with reliability coding, as well as to those
who helped with parts of the data collection and interview transcrip-
tion process. We also thank the editor and two anonymous reviewers
for helpful comments.
References
1. Levinson SC. 2006 On the human interaction
engine.InRoots of human sociality: culture,
cognition and interaction (eds NJ Enfield, SC
Levinson), pp. 3969. London, UK: Routledge.
2. Bates E, Benigni L, Bretherton I, Camaioni L,
Volterra V. 1979 The emergence of symbols:
cognition and communication in infancy. New York,
NY: Academic Press.
3. Carpenter M, Nagell K, Tomasello M. 1998 Social
cognition, joint attention, and communicative
competence from 9 to 15 months of age. Monogr.
Soc. Res. Child Dev. 63, i. (doi:10.2307/1166214)
4. Liszkowski U, Brown P, Callaghan T, Takada A, de
Vos C. 2012 A prelinguistic gestural universal of
human communication. Cogn. Sci. 36, 698713.
(doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01228.x)
5. Liszkowski U, Carpenter M, Henning A, Striano T,
Tomasello M. 2004 Twelve-month-olds point to
royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rstb Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 377: 20210102
7
share attention and interest. Dev. Sci. 7, 297307.
(doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2004.00349.x)
6. Liszkowski U, Carpenter M, Tomasello M. 2007
Pointing out new news, old news, and absent
referents at 12 months of age. Dev. Sci. 10,17.
(doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2006.00552.x)
7. Carpendale JIM, Carpendale AB. 2010 The
development of pointing: from personal
directedness to interpersonal direction. Hum. Dev.
53, 110126. (doi:10.1159/000315168)
8. Vygotsky L. 1978 Mind in society: the development
of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
9. Masataka N. 2003 From index-finger extension to
index-finger pointing: ontogenesis of pointing in
preverbal infants. In Pointing: where language,
culture, and cognition meet (ed. S Kita), pp. 6984.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
10. Matthews D, Behne T, Lieven E, Tomasello M. 2012
Origins of the human pointing gesture: a training
study. Dev. Sci. 15, 817829. (doi:10.1111/j.1467-
7687.2012.01181.x)
11. Ger E, Altınok N, Liszkowski U, Küntay AC. 2018
Development of infant pointing from 10 to 12
months: the role of relevant caregiver responsiveness.
Infancy 23,708729. (doi:10.1111/infa.12239)
12. Kettner VA, Carpendale JIM. 2018 From touching to
communicating forms of index finger use in the
development of pointing. Gesture 17, 245267.
(doi:10.1075/gest.18005.ket)
13. Liszkowski U, Rüther J. 2021 Ontogenetic origins of
infant pointing. In The Oxford handbook of human
symbolic evolution (eds N Gontier, A Lock, C Sinha).
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
14. Cameron-Faulkner T, Theakston A, Lieven E,
Tomasello M. 2015 The relationship between infant
holdout and gives, and pointing. Infancy 20,
576586. (doi:10.1111/infa.12085)
15. Boundy L, Cameron-Faulkner T, Theakston A. 2016
Exploring early communicative behaviours: a fine-
grained analysis of infant shows and gives. Infant
Behav. Dev. 44,8697. (doi:10.1016/j.infbeh.2016.
06.005)
16. Boundy L, Cameron-Faulkner T, Theakston A. 2019
Intention or attention before pointing: do infants
early holdout gestures reflect evidence of a
declarative motive? Infancy 24, 228248. (doi:10.
1111/infa.12267)
17. Clements C, Chawarska K. 2010 Beyond pointing:
development of the showinggesture in children
with autism spectrum disorder. Yale Rev.
Undergrad. Res. Psychol. 2,4663. (doi:10.1037/
e525772013-004)
18. Choi B, Wei R, Rowe ML. 2021 Show, give, and
point gestures across infancy differentially predict
language development. Dev. Psychol. 57, 851862.
(doi:10.1037/dev0001195)
19. Xu J, Saether L, Sommerville JA. 2016 Experience
facilitates the emergence of sharing behavior
among 7.5-month-old infants. Dev. Psychol. 52,
17321743. (doi:10.1037/dev0000174)
20. Beuker KT, Rommelse NNJ, Donders R, Buitelaar JK.
2013 Development of early communication skills in
the first two years of life. Infant Behav. Dev. 36,
7183. (doi:10.1016/j.infbeh.2012.11.001)
21. Carpendale JIM, Müller U, Wallbridge B, Broesch T,
Cameron-Faulkner T, Ten Eycke K. 2021 The
development of giving in forms of object exchange:
exploring the roots of communication and morality
in early interaction around objects. Hum. Dev. 65,
166179. (doi:10.1159/000517221)
22. Bruner JS. 1983 Childs talk: learning to use
language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
23. Bruner JS. 1977 Early social interaction and
language acquisition. In Studies in mother-infant
interaction (ed. HR Schaffer). New York, NY:
Academic Press.
24. de Barbaro K, Johnson CM, Deák GO. 2013 Twelve-
month social revolutionemerges from mother-
infant sensorimotor coordination: a longitudinal
investigation. Hum. Dev. 56, 223248. (doi:10.
1159/000351313)
25. Hay DF, Murray P. 1982 Giving and requesting:
social facilitation of infantsoffers to adults. Infant
Behav. Dev. 5, 301310. (doi:10.1016/S0163-
6383(82)80039-8)
26. Lewis D. 1969 Convention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
27. Salter G. 2022 The developmental origins of joint
attention and communication in infancy
[dissertation]. University of St Andrews, UK.
28. Adolph KE, Robinson SR, Young JW, Gill-Alvarez F.
2008 What is the shape of developmental change?
Psychol. Rev. 115, 527543. (doi:10.1037/0033-
295X.115.3.527)
29. Liebal K, Carpenter M, Tomasello M. 2010 Infants
use of shared experience in declarative pointing.
Infancy 15, 545556. (doi:10.1111/j.1532-7078.
2009.00028.x)
30. Tomasello M. 1999 The cultural origins of human
cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
31. Bates E, Camaioni L, Volterra V. 1975 The
acquisition of performatives prior to speech. Merrill
Palmer Q. Behav. Dev. 21, 205226.
32. Moll H, Pueschel E, Ni Q, Little A. 2021 Sharing
experiences in infancy: from primary
intersubjectivity to shared intentionality. Front.
Psychol. 12, 667679. (doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.
667679)
33. Bakeman R, Adamson LB. 1984 Coordinating
attention to people and objects in mother-infant
and peer-infant interaction. Child Dev. 55,
12781289. (doi:10.2307/1129997)
34. Zeedyk MS. 1997 Maternal interpretations of infant
intentionality: changes over the course of infant
development. Br. J. Dev. Psychol. 15, 477493.
(doi:10.1111/j.2044-835X.1997.tb00742.x)
35. Dimitrova N, Moro C, Mohr C. 2015 Caregivers
interpret infantsearly gestures based on shared
knowledge about referents. Infant Behav. Dev. 39,
98106. (doi:10.1016/j.infbeh.2015.02.015)
36. Holler J. 2022 Visual bodily signals as core devices
for coordinating minds in interaction. Phil.
Trans. R. Soc. B 377, 20210094. (doi:10.1098/rstb.
2021.0094)
37. Salter G, Carpenter M. 2022 Showing and giving:
from incipient to conventional forms.
FigShare.(doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.
c.6038194)
royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rstb Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 377: 20210102
8
... Gestures are not spontaneously acquired but progressively built in triadic interactions. Transitional behaviors, between actions and gestures, are key to understanding the origins of intentional communication in "pre-conventional" forms Salter & Carpenter, 2022). These are proto-gestures, characterized by the following: (1) having an ambiguous social function, (2) not occurring predictably in expected social contexts, or (3) not having a morphology that is appropriate to the normative gesture (Dimitrova, 2014;. ...
... McGregor and Capone (2004) described the development in children's showing from merely extending objects they were already interacting with to seeking specific objects to share. More recently, Salter and Carpenter (2022) also described changes in ostensive gestures' morphology from pre-conventional to conventional. ...
Article
Research on gesture development has mostly focused on home environments. Little is known about early communicative development in other relevant contexts, such as early-year-schools. These settings, rich in diverse educative situations, objects, and communicative partners, provide a contrast to parent–child interactions, complementing our understanding of gesture development. This study aims to describe the development of the first gestures in the infant classrooms of early-years-schools, focusing on ostensive gestures of showing and giving—their emergence, communicative functions, and relation to the subsequent emergence of pointing. We conducted a longitudinal, observational investigation analyzing the gestures of 21 children (7–13 months). Over 7 months, we observed and registered children’s daily interactions in the classroom, employing a mixed quantitative and qualitative approach to analyze the types and functions of their gestures. We found a significant increase and diversification of gesture types and functions with age. Gestures followed a proximal–distal developmental course. Ostensive gestures were the earliest and most prevalent gestures observed. There was a correlation between the frequency of these gestures, with ostensive gestures fulfilling communicative functions later observed in pointing. Our qualitative analysis revealed the progressive construction of ostensive gestures into spontaneous, complex, and conventional forms of communication. These results highlight the important role of ostensive gestures in early communicative development, paving the way for distal communication through pointing and relating to the origin of intentional communication. More broadly, these findings have significant implications for early educational practices and show the value of conducting research on developmental processes in early education. Full paper available on: https://rdcu.be/dRJ1A
... The commonly accepted milestone of one year is likely too late to capture the earliest intentional communicative acts produced by infants. By around nine months of age, infants are already engaging in acts of showing and giving, which share similar structures with acts of requesting and informing through pointing (see Cameron-Faulkner et al. 2015;Salter and Carpenter 2022). Psychologist Malinda Carpenter is currently investigating even earlier instances of communicative acts, such as communicative looks performed by six-month-old babies (Salter and Carpenter n.d.). ...
Book
Full-text available
This is an open access book that addresses how we treat others and, in particular, infants and children, with first-person authority. We respond to people’s first-person authority when we give our interlocutor’s communication of their mental states more significance in establishing their thoughts, desires, and feelings than if another person were to report those mental states for them. But what happens when our interlocutors are infants and children? Increasingly, practices of responsive childrearing ascribe first-person authority to very young children. Despite this tendency, philosophy seems to be one step behind. The accepted view is one in which first-person authority has its locus in linguistic expressions of one’s self-knowledge. This is an over-intellectualized conception, however, that consequently tends to exclude children. By combining philosophical resources with empirical findings about the onset of human communication, play, and our nature as social beings, this text advances a non-intellectualized, anti-individualist, and non-adult-centered view of first-person authority. This is a view that both accommodates our daily experiences and provides material for advancing the philosophical debate around the phenomenon in an enriched and more inclusive way.
... Infants reach this milestone by actively experimenting with communicative acts such as partial gestures. Through caregiver scaffolding, they gradually refine these behaviors into more conventional means of directing attention, including gestures like pointing (Salter and Carpenter 2022). ...
Preprint
Full-text available
How do infants acquire their first words without any prior knowledge of language? And how do they later use language so effectively, despite considerable differences in individual experience and expertise? This chapter argues that language acquisition draws on the same foundational capacity that supports adult language use: the ability to construct shared frames of reference with others. We suggest that this capacity, essential for transforming behavior into communicative acts, begins to emerge before speech. We further propose that it not only enables the social acquisition of language but also motivates language’s very existence as a tool for efficiently aligning understanding and navigating increasingly complex social landscapes.
... The commonly accepted milestone of one year is likely too late to capture the earliest intentional communicative acts produced by infants. By around nine months of age, infants are already engaging in acts of showing and giving, which share similar structures with acts of requesting and informing through pointing (see Cameron-Faulkner et al. 2015;Salter and Carpenter 2022). Psychologist Malinda Carpenter is currently investigating even earlier instances of communicative acts, such as communicative looks performed by six-month-old babies (Salter and Carpenter n.d.). ...
Chapter
Full-text available
This chapter proposes an alternative, non-adult-centered view of first-person authority, focusing on communication with pre-linguistic infants. It argues that when we engage in a communicative interaction where another person conveys their mental states to us, we are already within the realm of first-person authority. The chapter further explores the interdisciplinary question of the origins of communication in humans, integrating philosophical reflections with empirical research in developmental psychology. Research on early human communication shows that infants convey their mental states through typical communicative acts, which can be treated—or fail to be treated—with first-person authority.
... Many research programs in cognitive development describe how the cognitive capacities necessary for ostensive communication emerge early and reliably in human ontogeny (e.g., Bates, 1979;Bohn & Frank, 2019;E. V. Clark, 1978;Csibra & Gergely, 2011;Goldin-Meadow, 2005;Liszkowski et al., 2012;Salter & Carpenter, 2022;Tomasello et al., 2007). This means, in other words, that the ordinarily developing human phenotype, universal in the species except for pathologies, includes core cognitive dispositions and capacities specialized for the essential tasks entailed by ostensive communication, including language use. ...
Article
Full-text available
Communication is ubiquitous in human social life. There are many possible modes of human communication but language use is plainly of special interest: because it plays a critical role in culture and society; and because languages are important cultural products in their own right, with their own distinctive properties. These properties include in particular grammatical structure. However, we do not presently have any compelling synthesis of our understanding of communication and our understanding of grammar. This problem is important because synthesizing knowledge across neighboring domains can considerably deepen understanding in its own right, and bring new perspectives to bear on old issues. Mature syntheses are major scientific breakthroughs. Here, I argue that contextualist theories of communication, and constructionist approaches to the description of grammars, together provide a cohesive picture. Both bodies of work have proved enormously influential in their respective subfields, but their synthesis provides a unified picture of considerable clarity. Linguistic communication is a coordination problem on the speaker’s informative intentions; and grammars are networks of microconventions (“constructions”) that enable language users to resolve this coordination problem far more easily than they otherwise would. This synthesis in turn provides fresh perspectives on many classical issues in the language sciences. I sketch three examples: literal meaning and “construction modulation”; language learning; and the evolutionary emergence of language in our species.
... K E Y W O R D S infants, pointing, responsiveness, social contingency, social interaction 1 | INTRODUCTION Index-finger pointing is a crucial milestone for the development of referential communication. Infants' pointing frequency is predictive of subsequent language development and risks for language delay (Colonnesi et al., 2010;Golden-Meadow & Rowe, 2009;Lüke et al., 2017;Salter & Carpenter, 2022). In light of its developmental importance, several recent studies have investigated the ontogenetic origins and development of the pointing gesture (Cameron-Faulkner et al., 2020;Choi & Rowe, 2021;Ger et al., 2018;Ger et al., 2023;Matthews et al., 2012;Rüther & Liszkowski, 2023). ...
Article
Full-text available
Infant pointing is predictive of later language development, but little is known about factors enhancing the development of pointing. The current study investigated two possible social learning mechanisms in the development of pointing. Given that infants observe their caregivers' pointing gestures from early on, one possibility is learning via imitation. A second possibility is that caregivers' contingent reactions to infant communication promote communicative exchange, including pointing. To test which of these behaviours influences infants' pointing frequency, we manipulated parents' pointing frequency and their responsive behaviour via instructions in a cross‐sectional 2 × 3 design. We randomly assigned 12‐months‐old infants (N = 131, 65 females) and one of their parents to six different experimental groups. Participants were predominantly central Europeans from middle to high socioeconomic backgrounds. Data were collected with an online remote adaption of the decorated‐room paradigm. Parents successfully adapted their behaviours to the instructions. Parents' increased responsiveness, but not their increased pointing in general, significantly enhanced infants' pointing frequency (d = 0.36). Regression results further revealed that parents' responsive pointing positively predicted infants' pointing frequency. Findings question direct imitation accounts of pointing and identify responsive social interactions, including responsive pointing, as factors enhancing the occurrence of pointing in infancy. Highlights Imitation and responsive social interaction are possible social learning mechanisms in the development of pointing. Experimental manipulation of parental behaviours reveals that infant pointing increases when parents are particularly responsive, but not when parents point a lot in general. Parents' responsiveness through pointing gestures may be especially suited to enhance infants' pointing frequencies.
... However, as pointed out by , the approaches and methodologies used for comparing the properties of the interaction engine across NHP species are very heterogeneous "including detailed video-based transcriptions of action sequences (Mondada and Meguerditchian, 2022;, classical ethological studies of naturalistic interactions (Fröhlich and Van Schaik, 2022;Rossano et al., 2022), experimental paradigms (Melis & Rossano, 2022), longitudinal research (Salter & Carpenter, 2022), and computational modelling approaches (Bohn et al., 2022)" (p7, . This great diversity of methods shows the increasing effort put by the scientific community on empirical tests of the evolutionary continuity of interactional faculties. ...
Preprint
Human language may have evolved as a tool of our complex interactional system. This hypothesis is supported by the results of studies showing that human and non-human primates share some interactional abilities. These comparative studies are sparse however, and their methodologies vary, most of them focusing on a single communication modality, which makes inter-specific comparisons difficult. We propose a new approach together with an open-access code (“Multi-interaction”) that aim at simplifying the study of multimodal interactions and can be applied for comparison purposes to many species, regardless of their communication repertoire. First, we choose to annotate all multimodal behaviors (i.e., communication signals and actions) that contribute to the informational content of the interaction and its overall structure. Second, the code we provide enables multimodal annotated interactions to be transcribed into unique sequences, using a method that preserves the following information: the units making up the interaction, their order of appearance, their emitter, their potential overlap (intra- and/or inter-individual) and their duration. Third, the code provides automatic computation of several quantitative measures that describe the overall structure of each interaction, such as overall duration, number of units, diversity of units, percentage of inter?individual overlap, percentage of intra-individual superposition or each individual "presence" rate during the interaction. We aim to facilitate the processing of multimodal and multi-agent interaction data, enabling large datasets and species comparisons to be handled. By focusing on structure rather than meaning, we hope to promote human-decentered and species-general protocols in the study of interactions in primates, including humans.
Article
There are theoretical debates about the definition of joint attention, and empirical debates about when it emerges in development. Here we addressed both debates by investigating the emergence of infants' communicative joint attention bids: looks to their partner's face, accompanied by communicative facial expressions and/or vocalizations, to attempt to initiate joint attention to a referent. We tested 25 infants monthly, longitudinally, between 6 and 10 months using both novel joint attention elicitation tests and free play observations. Even when using a conservative definition of joint attention involving communication, results indicated that a substantial percentage of infants (44%) had already begun to produce joint attention bids by 6 months, with the vast majority (92%) having done so before 9 months. Joint attention bids emerged gradually, with increasing consistency, and were seen earlier in the novel elicitation tests than in free play, suggesting that previous work focusing on free play might have underestimated infants' joint attention. We discuss the implications of these findings for theories of joint attention and communication.
Article
Full-text available
Prosocial behavior is a distinguishing characteristic of human nature. Although prosocial behaviors emerge early in development, contextual factors play an important role in how these behaviors are manifested over development. A large body of research focuses on the trajectory of prosocial development across diverse cultures and investigating contexts that foster it. Against this backdrop of developmental research endeavoring to understand and enhance the cooperative side of humanity, is the catastrophic impact of profoundly negative forces on social‐emotional development for children forced to flee from violent conflict. Close to half a million Rohingya children, whose families were forced to flee genocide in Myanmar, now live in the largest refugee camp in the world. To examine the resilience of human prosociality in the face of extreme adversity, we documented initial levels of prosociality in Rohingya refugee children living in a mega‐camp (Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh) and the extent to which those levels were improved following a multifaceted intervention designed to foster prosociality. The research was a partnership between Rohingya community members with lived experience, humanitarian practitioners, and developmental researchers. A sample of 152 Rohingya children (5–12 years) participated in pre‐ and postintervention assessments of prosocial behaviors and related cognitive‐affective processes. The 10‐day collaboration‐based intervention was implemented between November 2021 and January 2022 by Rohingya researchers. Birthplace was used as a proxy measure of trauma level. Children born in Myanmar (N = 88) directly experienced relatively higher levels of trauma (genocide, forced migration) than children who were born in the camp after their families fled from Myanmar (N = 64). Children were individually tested pre‐ and postintervention with a task battery, including a helping (Origami) and two sharing tasks (Dictator Game [DG], Forced Choice sharing) measuring prosocial behavior. Assessments of related cognitive‐affective processes included measures of empathic responding and emotion perspective‐taking in story tasks (Imagine, Judgment) and executive function (EF) skills (Younger: Hearts & Flowers; Older: Dimensional Change Card Sorting). Small group intervention sessions conducted over 10 days targeted these prosocial behaviors and cognitive‐affective processes and were based on collaborative activities, emotion perspective taking and EF skills training with the same partner throughout the intervention phase. We used latent change modeling to examine initial levels (preintervention) and intervention‐related changes in these measures from pre‐ to postintervention. Prosocial responding was found across all measures (preintervention) and improvements (pre‐ to postintervention change) were apparent across most measures. Age and birthplace variables were significant predictors of initial levels and intervention‐related change. Initial levels: Regarding age, older children (9–12 years) showed higher levels than younger children (5–8 years) of sharing in the Forced Choice task but lower levels in the DG. Older children also showed higher levels of empathic responding when asked to report how they would feel and respond to another person's misfortune in the Imagine task. Regarding birthplace, prior to the intervention camp‐born children showed higher levels than Myanmar‐born children of helping in the Origami task and reported more behavioral responses indicating how they would respond to misfortune in the Imagine task. In contrast, Myanmar‐born children had higher levels of sharing in the DG and consistently chose equality over inequality in the Forced Choice sharing task, even when their partner would receive more, indicating a pattern of generosity in these children. Myanmar‐born children had lower levels than camp‐born children on EF measures. Intervention‐related change: Regarding age, older but not younger children were more likely to increase choices for equality over inequality on the Forced Choice sharing task following the intervention. Regarding birthplace and helping, camp‐born children increased behaviors that helped their partner make origami shapes themselves (“how‐to” helping), whereas Myanmar‐born children increased behavior that took over folding for their partner (“do‐for” helping). For sharing tasks, Myanmar‐born but not camp‐born children increased sharing in the DG and showed an increased pattern of generosity in Forced Choice sharing task. In the Imagine story task, children born in Myanmar were more likely than those born in camp to increase empathic responding (i.e., imagining how they would feel). Children born in Myanmar showed less improvement on EF measures than children born in the camp. Taken together, these findings provide evidence that in a context of extreme adversity, Rohingya children exhibited prosociality and benefitted from a multifaceted intervention. Our research adds credence to the view that human prosociality is a fundamental characteristic of humanity that not only survives but can be enhanced in even the most adverse of childhood environments. Our multifaceted intervention, which was implemented within a collaborative social context and targeted prosocial behaviors and related cognitive‐affective processes, was designed to be easily implemented within existing psychosocial support programs in refugee contexts. As the numbers of children affected by violent conflict and forced migration rise alarmingly worldwide, there is a critical need to expand research partnerships that aim to improve developmental outcomes for these millions of children.
Article
Full-text available
The view put forward here is that visual bodily signals play a core role in human communication and the coordination of minds. Critically, this role goes far beyond referential and propositional meaning. The human communication system that we consider to be the explanandum in the evolution of language thus is not spoken language. It is, instead, a deeply multimodal, multilayered, multifunctional system that developed—and survived—owing to the extraordinary flexibility and adaptability that it endows us with. Beyond their undisputed iconic power, visual bodily signals (manual and head gestures, facial expressions, gaze, torso movements) fundamentally contribute to key pragmatic processes in modern human communication. This contribution becomes particularly evident with a focus that includes non-iconic manual signals, non-manual signals and signal combinations. Such a focus also needs to consider meaning encoded not just via iconic mappings, since kinematic modulations and interaction-bound meaning are additional properties equipping the body with striking pragmatic capacities. Some of these capacities, or its precursors, may have already been present in the last common ancestor we share with the great apes and may qualify as early versions of the components constituting the hypothesized interaction engine. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Revisiting the human ‘interaction engine’: comparative approaches to social action coordination’.
Article
Full-text available
It is well established that deictic gestures, especially pointing, play an important role in children's language development. However, recent evidence suggests that other types of deictic gestures, specifically show and give gestures, emerge before pointing and are associated with later pointing. In the present study, we examined the development of show, give, and point gestures in a sample of 47 infants followed longitudinally from 10 to 16 months of age and asked whether there are certain ages during which different gestures are more or less predictive of language skills at 18 months. We also explored whether parents' responses vary as a function of child gesture types. Child gestures and parent responses were reliably coded from videotaped sessions of parent-child interactions. Language skills were measured at 18 months using standardized (Mullen Scales of Early Learning) and parent report (MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventory) measures. We found that at 10 months, show+give gestures were a better predictor of 18-month language skills than pointing gestures were, yet at 14 months, pointing gestures were a better predictor of 18-month language skills than show+give gestures. By 16 months, children's use of speech in the interaction, not gesture, best predicted 18-month language skills. Parents responded to a higher proportion of shows+gives than to points at 10 months. These results demonstrate that different types of deictic gestures provide a window into language development at different points across infancy. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
Article
Full-text available
We contrast two theses that make different assumptions about the developmental onset of human-unique sociality. The primary intersubjectivity thesis (PIT) argues that humans relate to each other in distinct ways from the beginning of life, as is shown by newborns' participation in face-to-face encounters or “primary intersubjectivity.” According to this thesis, humans' innate relational capacity is the seedbed from which all subsequent social-emotional and social-cognitive developments continuously emerge. The shared intentionality thesis (SIT) states that human-unique forms of interaction develop at 9–12 months of age, when infants put their heads together with others in acts of object-focused joint attention and simple collaborative activities. According to this thesis, human-unique cognition emerges rapidly with the advent of mind-reading capacities that evolved specifically for the purpose of coordination. In this paper, we first contrast the two theses and then sketch the outlines of an account that unifies their strengths. This unified account endorses the PIT's recognition of the fundamental importance of primary intersubjectivity. Any act of sharing experiences is founded on the communicative capacity that is already displayed by young infants in primary intersubjectivity. At the same time, we question the PIT's interpretation that dyadic encounters have the triadic structure of joint attention. Lastly, we draw on empirical work on the development of joint attention, imitation, and social referencing that serves as evidence that primary intersubjectivity continuously unfolds into the capacity for triadic joint attention.
Article
Full-text available
Infants can extend their index fingers soon after birth, yet pointing gestures do not emerge until about 10 to 12 months. In the present study, we draw on the process-relational view, according to which pointing develops as infants learn how others respond to their initially non-communicative index finger use. We report on a longitudinal maternal diary study of 15 infants and describe four types of index finger use in the first year. Analysis of the observations suggests one possible developmental pathway: index finger extension becomes linked to infants’ attention around 7 to 9 months of age with the emergence of fingertip exploration and index finger extension towards out-of-reach objects infants wish to explore. Through parental responses infants begin to use index finger touch to refer in some situations, including asking and answering questions and to request, suggesting that some functions of pointing might originate in early index finger use.
Article
Full-text available
Gestures are the first signs of intentional communication within prelinguistic infants and can reflect various motives, including a declarative motive to share attention and interest. The ability to use gestures declaratively has been linked to later language development; therefore, it is important to understand the origins of this motive. Previous research has focused on the use of declarative pointing at around 12 months; however, other potential forms of declarative communication, such as holdout gestures, are yet to be studied in detail. The purpose of this study was to examine whether from 10 months, infants use holdouts declaratively. We elicited holdouts from 36 infants and then reacted to these gestures in four different conditions: (1) joint attention: shared interest; (2) infant attention: attended to infant; (3) toy attention: attended to toy; (4) ignore: gesture was not attended to. Infants’ behavioral responses were recorded. When the experimenter engaged in joint attention, infants were significantly more likely to display a positive attitude and produced fewer re‐engagement attempts. In contrast, the three non‐joint attention conditions displayed significantly higher negative attitudes and attempts to re‐engage the experimenter. We conclude that infants display declarative communication prior to 12 months, resetting the age at which these more complex skills emerge.
Chapter
This handbook is currently in development, with individual articles publishing online in advance of print publication. At this time, we cannot add information about unpublished articles in this handbook, however the table of contents will continue to grow as additional articles pass through the review process and are added to the site. Please note that the online publication date for this handbook is the date that the first article in the title was published online. For more information, please read the site FAQs.
Article
Giving is an act of great social importance across cultures, with communicative as well as moral dimensions because it is linked to sharing and fairness. We critically evaluate various explanations for how this social process develops in infancy and take a process-relational approach, using naturalistic observations to illustrate forms of interaction involving the exchange of objects and possible developmental trajectories for the emergence of different forms of giving. Based on our data, we propose that the object becomes a pivot point for interaction, and through the process of such interaction the social actions of showing and giving emerge and take on diverse social meanings within the relations between infants and caregivers.
Article
Infants’ pointing frequency is a predictor of their later language abilities. Yet, predictors of pointing frequency in the first year of life are not well understood. Study 1 explored what factors in infants and caregivers at 10 months would predict the pointing frequency of infants at 12 months (N = 35). Infant‐driven predictors were infants’ fine‐motor skills and point‐following abilities. Caregiver‐mediated predictors were caregivers’ pointing frequency and responsiveness toward infants’ pointing. Relevant caregiver responsiveness at 10 months predicted infants’ pointing frequency at 12 months, controlling for the other factors and infants’ prior pointing frequency. Study 2 explored whether child‐level factors influence caregivers’ responsiveness (N = 49). We examined the hand shape of infants’ pointing (whole‐hand versus index‐finger) and the presence of point‐accompanying vocalizations. Infants’ vocalization‐accompanied points were more likely to elicit relevant responses from caregivers, while hand shapes played a less pronounced role. Together, the findings reveal an early emerging mutual relationship between infant pointing and caregiver behavior such that certain characteristics of infant pointing predict caregivers’ responsiveness, and relevant responsiveness toward infants’ pointing predicts the increase in infants’ pointing frequencies.