Early Communicative Gestures Prospectively Predict Language Developmentand Executive Function in Early Childhood

Laura J. Kuhn and Michael T. WilloughbyUNC-Chapel Hill

Makeba Parramore WilbournDuke University

Lynne Vernon-FeagansUNC-Chapel Hill

Clancy B. BlairNew York University

The Family Life Project Key Investigators

Using an epidemiological sample (N = 1,117) and a prospective longitudinal design, this study tested the directand indirect effects of preverbal and verbal communication (15 months to 3 years) on executive function (EF)at age 4 years. Results indicated that whereas gestures (15 months), as well as language (2 and 3 years), werecorrelated with later EF (φs ≥ .44), the effect was entirely mediated through later language. In contrast, lan-guage had significant direct and indirect effects on later EF. Exploratory analyses indicated that the pattern ofresults was comparable for low- and not-low-income families. The results were consistent with theoreticalaccounts of language as a precursor of EF ability, and highlighted gesture as an early indicator of EF.

The nature of the relation between language andcognition and how it develops during childhoodhas been debated for centuries. Researchers havebeen keenly interested in the link between gestureand language (Bates, Thal, & Marchman, 1991; Iver-son & Thelen, 1999), as well as the influence of lan-guage on a variety of cognitive abilities (Goldstein,Davidoff, & Roberson, 2009; Spaepen, Coppola,Spelke, Carey, & Goldin-Meadow, 2011). Histori-cally, Piaget’s (1962) research in gestural complex-ity, symbolic play, and cognitive milestonessuggested a common origin for linguistic and non-linguistic symbols. Others, like Vygotsky (1962),

examined how verbal scaffolding and shared com-munication assisted children in achieving cognitivemilestones. These scholars advanced our under-standing about what skills precede certain cognitiveabilities. The current study continues with this lineof inquiry by considering the prospective associa-tions between children’s gesture use, emerging lan-guage ability, and a specific dimension of cognitivedevelopment—executive function (EF).

Recent research has demonstrated that language,specifically the timing of certain linguistic mile-stones, is associated with the development ofnumerous cognitive abilities, including children’sconceptualization of objects, spatial relations, andnumbers. For instance, infants as young as 12–13 months can use words to facilitate their objectcategory formation (Waxman & Markow, 1995).Between 18 and 22 months, children can use verbalinformation to update or reorganize their represen-tations of absent objects (Ganea, Shutts, Spelke, &DeLoache, 2007), object locations (Ganea & Harris,2013), and spatial relations (Casasola, Wilbourn, &Yang, 2006). During the preschool years, lan-guage also plays a role in children’s numericalunderstanding (Geary, Bow-Thomas, Liu, & Siegler,

Support for this research was provided by the National Insti-tute of Child Health and Human Development Grants R01HD51502 and P01 HD39667, with cofunding from the NationalInstitute on Drug Abuse. The Family Life Project (FLP) Phase IKey Investigators include: Lynne Vernon-Feagans, The Universityof North Carolina; Martha Cox, The University of North Carolina;Clancy Blair, The Pennsylvania State University; Peg Burchinal,The University of North Carolina; Linda Burton, Duke University;Keith Crnic, The Arizona State University; Ann Crouter, ThePennsylvania State University; Patricia Garrett-Peters, The Uni-versity of North Carolina; Mark Greenberg, The PennsylvaniaState University; Stephanie Lanza, The Pennsylvania State Uni-versity; Roger Mills-Koonce, The University of North Carolina;Emily Werner, The Pennsylvania State University; and MichaelWilloughby, The University of North Carolina. We would alsolike to thank Kathleen Gallagher, Vrinda Kalia, and the WildWriting Group for their helpful comments on the manuscript.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed toLaura Kuhn, FPG Child Development Institute, UNC-CH, Cam-pus Box 8185, 521 South Greensboro Street, Carrboro, NC 27510.Electronic mail may be sent to kuhn@unc.edu.

© 2014 The AuthorsChild Development © 2014 Society for Research in Child Development, Inc.All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2014/xxxx-xxxxDOI: 10.1111/cdev.12249

Child Development, xxxx 2014, Volume 00, Number 0, Pages 1–17

1996) and in the development of higher order cogni-tive abilities, like theory of mind (ToM; de Villiers &Pyers, 2002). For instance, Schick and colleagues(Schick, de Villiers, de Villiers, & Hoffmeister, 2007)found that deaf children who did not have experi-ence with a formal language, like American SignLanguage, exhibited significant delays in ToM. Theyargue that children’s experience with syntax (e.g.,complement clauses), from a formal language, pro-moted the ability to adapt multiple representations,one’s own view, and the view of another (Schicket al., 2007). Taken together, these findings providecompelling evidence to suggest that language mayafford children the ability to think in certain waysthat advance perceptual and cognitive development.

Communicative Gestures and Language

Months before infants utter their first words,they communicate with caregivers via gestures(Acredolo, Goodwyn, & Brown, 2000; Blake, 2000).Communicative gesture use emerges as early as8–10 months, typically in the form of giving, show-ing, or pointing to objects (Bates, Benigni, Brether-ton, Camaioni, & Volterra, 1979). These deicticgestures are considered intentional communicationand are most often used to direct and maintaincaregivers’ attention to a particular object or refer-ent (Bates et al., 1979). Moreover, these gesturesboth predate and predict infants’ oral languageskills (Colonnesi, Stams, Koster, & Noom, 2010;Goldin-Meadow, 2007). In fact, infants’ deictic ges-tures have proved to be more reliable predictors oftheir later language development than the orallanguage input they receive from caregivers (Rowe,€Ozçalışkan, & Goldin-Meadow, 2008), illustratingjust how influential these gestures are in children’slanguage development.

Numerous studies have demonstrated thatinfants’ early pointing gestures predict their firstwords, the size of their vocabularies, and the onset oftwo-word combinations (Iverson & Goldin-Meadow,2005; €Ozc�alis�kan & Goldin-Meadow, 2005; Rowe &Goldin-Meadow, 2008). For example, Iverson andGoldin-Meadow (2005) found that the objects infantsfirst identified with points predictably appeared intheir spoken vocabularies 3 months later. Findingsfrom longitudinal research have also shown that thenumber of different objects infants point to at14 months predicts the overall size of their vocabu-laries at 42 months (Rowe & Goldin-Meadow, 2008).As infants’ nonverbal communication becomes morecomplex, research has shown that the age at whichinfants begin to combine pointing gestures with spo-

ken words (e.g., “ball”) predicts the age at whichthey will produce two-word utterances (Iverson &Goldin-Meadow, 2005). This robust relation betweeninfants’ early gesture use and later language develop-ment has led many scholars to conclude that infants’early deictic gestures (e.g., point, give, show) providethe foundation by which oral linguistic communica-tion is built (Bates, O’Connell, & Shore, 1987; Goldin-Meadow, 2007; Iverson & Goldin-Meadow, 2005).

Children’s points may facilitate their languagelearning in several ways. Werner and Kaplan (1963)contend that, in addition to singling out objects anddirecting others’ attention, infants’ communicativepointing denotes an important first step toward truesymbolic understanding. The link between earlypointing and symbolic understanding may developbecause points often elicit clear labels or referent-specific language from caregivers (Goldin-Meadow,2007), increasing infants’ exposure to word–objectrelations. Infants’ ability to rapidly learn word–object associations (i.e., “goes with”) has beenargued to be a necessary precursor to understandingthat words are symbols or “stand for” objects (Ovi-att, 1980; Werker, Cohen, Lloyd, Casasola, & Stager,1998). Therefore, by increasing infants’ exposure toword–object pairings, infants’ pointing may ulti-mately facilitate their transition from “goes with” toa “stands for” understanding of word–object rela-tions (Blake, 2000). This suggestion is supported byresearch indicating that several months after infantsbegin using deictic gestures, they begin to spontane-ously produce symbolic or representational gestures(Acredolo & Goodwyn, 1990; Blake, 2000). Thesesymbolic gestures (e.g., flapping hands to represent“bird”) are decontexualized from the referent andare used to represent an object that may or may notbe present (Blake, 2000; Werner & Kaplan, 1963).

In typically developing infants, symbolic gestureuse emerges between the ages of 13 and 16 months.Given the complementary function symbolic ges-tures have with first words, scholars posit that theonset of symbolic gesturing, just before the namingburst, is not coincidental (Blake, 2000; Rowe &Goldin-Meadow, 2009a, 2009b) and is likely reflec-tive of a common underlying cognitive ability (e.g.,symbolic understanding). This proposal is sup-ported by recent brain imaging research with adultsdemonstrating that symbolic gestures and spokenlanguage glosses (i.e., labels) are processed in simi-lar, overlapping brain regions (Xu, Gannon, Emmo-rey, Smith, & Braun, 2009). Similar brain regionswere not active when the spoken labels were con-ceptually unrelated to the symbolic gestures. Basedon these findings, Xu et al. (2009) propose that a

2 Kuhn et al.

common, modality-independent system for sym-bolic communication drives the relation betweensymbolic gestures and spoken language. Thismodality-independent communication system mayalso explain why infants’ symbolic gesturing is sohighly predictive of their vocabulary and concep-tual development (Blake, 2000). Taken together,these findings indicate that infants’ early deicticand symbolic gesturing both predicts and contrib-utes to their understanding of symbolic relationsand language learning (Bates et al., 1979; Blake,2000; €Ozc�alis�kan & Goldin-Meadow, 2005). Howthen is this modality-independent communicationsystem related to certain cognitive abilities, like EF?

Executive Function

EF refers to cognitive abilities involved in thecontrol and coordination of information in theservice of goal-directed actions. Although EF is typ-ically conceptualized as a multidimensional con-struct—including inhibitory control, workingmemory, and attention shifting—during middlechildhood and adulthood it is considered an unidi-mensional (undifferentiated) construct in earlychildhood (Hughes, Ensor, Wilson, & Graham,2010; Wiebe, Espy, & Charak, 2008). This periodduring early and middle childhood is specificallycharacterized by substantial developmental changes(improvements) in EF abilities (Best & Miller, 2010).This protracted course of development is supportedby neuroimaging that demonstrates that the brainregions associated with EF, such as the prefrontalcortex, are activated during infancy (Bell & Fox,1992), and that the myelination of prefrontal con-nections continues well into adolescence (Klingberg,Vaidya, Gabrieli, Moseley, & Hedehus, 1999). It isparticularly relevant to study the individual differ-ences in EF during the preschool years becauseboth concurrent and prospective measures havebeen related to aspects of school readiness (Bier-man, Torres, Domitrovich, Welsh, & Gest, 2009;Brock, Rimm-Kaufman, Nathanson, & Grimm,2009; Welsh, Nix, Blair, Bierman, & Nelson, 2010).

In contrast to a focus on the development and pre-dictive ability of early EF, far fewer studies have con-sidered the developmental processes that precedeand facilitate the normative acquisition of EF abilitiesin early childhood. A small number of studies havedemonstrated that, whereas socioeconomic statusrisks compromise the development of EF, the qualityand nature of early parent–child interactions mayfacilitate its development (Bernier, Carlson, &Whipple,2010; Raver, Blair, & Willoughby, 2013). In addition

to these environmental inputs, a number of childcharacteristics likely contribute to individual differ-ences in EF during early childhood. Individual differ-ences in temperament, especially the development ofattention in infancy and early toddlerhood, havebeen implicated as relevant for EF in early childhood(Rueda, Posner, & Rothbart, 2005). A recent study,involving the current sample, demonstrated thattemperamental reactivity interacted with regulatorystrategies, which has strong attentional components,to predict EF in early childhood (Ursache, Blair, Stif-ter, & Voegtline, 2012). This work highlights the needfor early indicators of EF.

Language Development and EF

Substantial research has established that earlylanguage development is associated with children’sperformance on EF tasks. For example, a number ofexperimental studies have demonstrated how chil-dren’s use of language during EF tasks facilitatedtheir performance (Brace, Morton, & Munakata,2006; Kirkham, Cruess, & Diamond, 2003; Zelazo,Reznick, & Pi~non, 1995). Moreover, a number ofstudies have demonstrated that expressive andreceptive language proficiency is correlated withbetter EF performance, and that children with spe-cific language deficits score poorly on EF tasks(Carlson, Davis, & Leach, 2005; for a review, seeM€uller, Jacques, Brocki, & Zelazo, 2009). Whilethese studies have demonstrated associationsbetween language skills and EF, they have notinformed questions regarding the contribution ofearly language development to the emergence of EFduring early childhood.

Zelazo and colleagues have long argued that chil-dren’s language is a fundamental precursor to thedevelopment of EF (Zelazo & Frye, 1998; Zelazo,M€uller, Frye, & Marcovitch, 2003). In their cognitivecomplexity and control theory, Zelazo and col-leagues posit that children’s language skills arerelated to their EF abilities through the formation ofa mental representation of the problem or conflict tobe solved. Further, language is needed for the con-struction and use of the embedded rule structuresthat helps children to solve a given problem or con-flict (Zelazo & Frye, 1998). This idea is expanded inthe hierarchical competing systems model (Marco-vitch & Zelazo, 2009), which proposes that children’sfirst cognitive processes arise from a habit system,based exclusively on infants’ previous experiences.However, with maturation, this initial habit systemtransforms into a representational system (Marco-vitch & Zelazo, 2009). Children’s language plays an

Gestures Predict Language and Executive Function 3

active role in this transformation because thestrength of a representation can be increased if chil-dren label it (Marcovitch & Zelazo, 2009). Althoughthe theoretical work of Zelazo and colleagues pro-vides a basis for predicting that early languagedevelopment should facilitate subsequent EF abili-ties, we are unaware of any prospective longitudinalstudies that have empirically tested these ideas.

Communicative Gestures and EF

Research on language and EF is typically con-ducted with children who are already fluent speak-ers. This leaves open questions to how preverbalindicators, such as gestures, may also provideinsight into the development of the relation betweenlanguage and EF. To explore the degree to whichgesture may scaffold children’s EF skills, O’Neill andMiller (2013) examined children’s gesture use duringan EF task. In their study, 2.5- to 6-year-olds’ ges-tures, oral language, and performance on the Dimen-sional Change Card Sort task were analyzed. Thefindings revealed that gesture use predicted chil-dren’s performance on the task, above and beyondage. While children performed equally well duringthe initial preswitch phase of the task, children whogestured more were more accurate and efficientwhen shifting to the new sorting rule. Moreover,younger children who were “high gesturers” per-formed comparable to (or better than) older childrenwho were “low gesturers.” These findings suggestthat children’s gestures may provide insight into, orbolster, the cognitive abilities needed for successfulperformance on EF tasks. Thus, individual differ-ences in gesture use may have predictive capacitiesfor the emergence of children’s EF abilities.

To understand the complex and dynamic relationbetween language and EF, early indicators, such ascommunicative gestures, are needed. However, thenearly exclusive focus on contemporaneous measure-ment and cross-sectional designs (for exceptions, seeFuhs & Day, 2010; Hughes, 1998) makes it difficult topinpoint the degree to which language may influenceEF throughout development, withholding the poten-tial contribution from gesture. Intuitively, children’sdeveloping language skills reflect advances in theirconceptual development, which in turn reflectschanges in EF. Given the established associationsbetween communicative gestures and language, aswell as other cognitive abilities, gestures may alsoinfluence the relation between language and EF.Longitudinal research provides an ideal opportunityto more fully investigate how these abilities mayemerge and influence each other over time.

The Current Study

The primary objective of this study was to deter-mine whether individual differences in children’searly communicative gestures (measured at 15months) prospectively predict language develop-ment (measured at 2 and 3 years) and individualdifferences in EF (measures at 4 years). In additionto exploring bivariate associations, we also testedwhether early indicators of language are directlyrelated to subsequent EF and/or whether the rela-tion between children’s early gesture use and lan-guage development is directly and/or indirectlyrelated to subsequent EF. We were also interested indetermining whether children’s communicative ges-tures are indirectly related to their later EF through“downstream” effects on subsequent language (e.g.,the effect of communicative gestures and EF may beentirely mediated through subsequent language). Inorder to provide a more rigorous test of whether it islanguage development, per se, that predicts later EF,we also control for a number of potential confound-ers including early (infant/toddler) cognitive devel-opment, family income, and caregiver education.

In addition to testing the relations among vari-ables, we were also interested in determiningwhether the developmental course of these relationswas similar across economically diverse popula-tions. Previous research has shown that poverty isnegatively associated with mean-level differences inchild gesture use (Rowe & Goldin-Meadow, 2009a,2009b), the quantity and complexity of vocabulary(Hoff, 2006; Raviv, Kessenich, & Morrison, 2004;Vernon-Feagans et al., 2013), as well as EF skills(Blair & Razza, 2007; Raver et al., 2013). Despitethese mean differences, it is not clear whether thepattern of covariance between these relations woulddiffer as a function of poverty. To capitalize on ourunique sampling design (over-sampling of low-income families), we conducted an exploratory testto determine whether the associations betweengesture, language, and EF were invariant acrosspoverty groups.

Method

Participants

The Family Life Project (FLP) was designed tostudy young children and their families who livedin two of the four major geographical areas of theUnited States with high poverty rates (Dill, 2001).Specifically, three counties in Eastern North Caro-lina and three counties in Central Pennsylvania

4 Kuhn et al.

were selected to be indicative of the Black Southand Appalachia, respectively. The FLP adopted adevelopmental epidemiological design in whichsampling procedures were employed to recruit arepresentative sample of 1,292 children whose fami-lies resided in one of the six counties at the time ofthe child’s birth. Low-income families in both statesand African American families in North Carolinawere over-sampled (African American families werenot over-sampled in Pennsylvania because the tar-get communities were at least 95% non–AfricanAmerican). Full details of recruitment are summa-rized elsewhere (Vernon-Feagans et al., 2013).

Procedures

All data were collected during home visits,conducted by two experimenters, when childrenwere approximately 15 months (M = 15.7 months,SD = 1.3 months), 2 years (M = 24.8 months, SD =1.8 months), 3 years (M = 37.0 months, SD = 1.7months), and 4 years (M = 48.3 months, SD = 1.3months) old. At the 15-month assessment, care-givers completed a checklist assessing children’scommunicative gestures and participated in a picturebook activity with their child. A detailed descriptionof the picture book activity is provided elsewhere(Vernon-Feagans et al., 2008). These two measurescaptured children’s communicative gestures withboth naturalistic (picture book) and standardized(checklist) methodologies. At the 2-year assessment,children were administered two tasks assessing EFand one standardized language assessment. At the3-year assessment, children completed the samestandardized language assessment. At the 4-yearassessment, an EF battery was administered. The fulldetails regarding the administration rules, psycho-metric properties, and scoring approach of the EFbattery are presented elsewhere (Willoughby, Wirth,& Blair, 2012).

Measures

Covariates

To account for both contextual and within-childfactors that may also account for the associationbetween language development and EF, householdincome, caregivers’ education level, and children’scognitive abilities were included as covariates.

Income-to-needs ratio. At each home visit, pri-mary caregivers were asked to provide detailedinformation about all sources of household income(e.g., employment income, cash welfare/TANF

(Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), socialsecurity retirement, help from relatives, etc.). Thistotal annual income was divided by the federalpoverty threshold to create the family’s income-to-needs ratio (INR). INRs above 1.0 indicated that afamily was able to provide for basic needs, whereasvalues below 1.0 indicated that they were unable.In the current analyses, averages of the INRs fromthe 15-month to 4-year assessments were used.

Caregiver education. Caregivers’ education levelwas derived from the home interview at the 15-month assessment. During this interview, primarycaregivers reported the highest level of educationthat they had obtained at the date of the interview.The mean level of educational attainment was14.6 years (SD = 2.8 years), where 14 years reflec-ted a high school diploma.

Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID–II). TheBSID-II (Bayley, 1993) was administered at the15-month assessment as a measure of infants’ cogni-tive abilities. The BSID–II is a widely used standard-ized measure of children’s cognitive development,with well-established reliability and validity (Bayley,1993). In the current analyses, the total score (i.e., theMental Development Index [MDI]) was used as a co-variate to ensure that early language measures werenot simply a proxy for early general cognitive ability.

Parenting. Primary caregiver interactions werecoded from a 10-min free play activity at the15-month assessment. Consistent with previousresearch from this sample, the seven global ratingscales (Sensitivity/Supportive Presence, Detach-ment/Disengagement, Intrusiveness, Stimulation ofCognitive Development, Positive Regard, NegativeRegard, and Animation; Cox & Crnic, 2002) wereadapted from those used by the NICHD Study ofEarly Child Care (NICHD ECCRN, 1999). Codersrated parenting behaviors on a 5-point scale (where1 = not at all characteristic and 5 = very characteristic).The subscales were combined to create overall Sen-sitive and Harsh-Intrusive composites. Only theSensitive composite, which had acceptable interraterreliability (ICC = .89), was used in the currentanalyses. The Sensitive composite was used as a co-variate to ensure that language measures were nota reflection of a more sensitive caregiving environ-ment.

Communicative Gestures: Observed at 15 months

Picture Book Activity

Children’s communicative gestures were recordedduring a 10-min wordless picture book activity with

Gestures Predict Language and Executive Function 5

their primary caregivers, using the book No, David(Shannon, 1998). The book was modified so that thecharacters were racially ambiguous. All interactionswere videotaped for subsequent offline coding.Trained research assistants observed the picturebook activity from videotapes and coded the ges-tures into a transcript. Only gestures, such as point,nod, shake, shrug, and give, which were used inthe picture book task to communicate with caregiv-ers, were coded. The gestures were selected basedupon previous work by Rowe (2000) and the cod-ing system has been described elsewhere (Abraham,Crais, & Vernon-Feagans, 2013). In the currentanalyses, only points (M = 2.80, SD = 4.15) andsymbolic gestures (M = 0.28, SD = 0.96) were ana-lyzed, because the picture book activity lent itself topointing and there was a theoretical relevance forsymbolic gestures. The transcript software system-atic analysis of language transcripts (Miller & Chap-man, 1985) was used to calculate frequencies foreach type of gesture. On average, the interrater reli-ability for all gesture codes was acceptable(ICC = .90). Individual gesture reliabilities rangedfrom .74 to .99. Reliability was established by pair-ing each coder with a criterion coder and 60 tran-scripts were coded together.

Communicative Gestures: Parent Checklist at 15 months

Communication and Symbolic Behavior ScalesDevelopmental Profile (CSBS; Wetherby & Prizant,2002)

Communicative gestures were also measuredusing caregivers’ report on the CSBS (Wetherby &Prizant, 2002). In the current analyses, only theGestures subscale was used to capture children’sgesture use and other subscales of communicativeacts, like Joint Attention or Oral Language, wereexcluded. Wetherby, Allen, Cleary, Kublin, andGoldstein (2002) have examined the reliability andvalidity of the CSBS with a large sample of youngchildren and found high reliability and validity.

Language Development: Standardized Measuresat 2 and 3 years

Preschool Language Scale 4th Edition (PLS–4;Zimmerman, Steiner, & Pond, 2002)

The PLS–4 is a norm-based measure of chil-dren’s language skills, from birth to age 6. Onlythe Expressive Communication (EC) subscale ofthis assessment was administered. The EC sub-

scale measured children’s vocal development andsocial communication. Items administered at2 years assessed rudimentary aspects of toddlers’expressive language, such as the ability to usevocalizations and gestures to request toys. Lateritems, administered at 3 years, required childrento demonstrate a verbal understanding of lan-guage concepts, such as plural tense. Test–retestreliability for this age group has been found to be.82 for the EC subscale, and internal consistencyestimates have been found to be .91 (Zimmermanet al., 2002).

EF Tasks at 2 years

Three Boxes Task (Diamond, Prevor, Callender, &Druin, 1997)

Children were presented with three boxes ofdiffering shapes and colors, and were observed asthe experimenter placed a sticker in each. Theexperimenter erected a barrier for 5 s whileswitching the location of the boxes, then removedthe barrier and encouraged the child to find asticker. The barrier and switching procedure wasrepeated until the child had retrieved all the stick-ers or made a total of 12 retrieval attempts. Num-ber and location of attempts to retrieve thestickers were recorded.

Snack Delay Task (Kochanska & Murray, 2000)

The experimenter placed a desirable snack (acracker or small candy) underneath a transparentcontainer and told the child to wait until she ranga bell before retrieving the snack. Four trials werecompleted: a 10-s delay followed by 20-, 30-, and45-s delay trials. Children’s responses wererecorded as no wait = 0, partial wait = 1, and fullwait = 2.

EF Tasks at 4 years

EF was assessed with six tasks (administered ina fixed order) that were specifically developed foryoung children. These tasks were designed tomeasure three dimensions of EF: working mem-ory, inhibitory control, and attention shifting (Wil-loughby, Blair, Wirth, & Greenberg, 2010). The EFbattery was developed from a theoretical perspec-tive that supports an undifferentiated construct ofEF in preschool-aged children (Wiebe et al., 2008).The child was tested using an open spiral-boundflipbook and each task took approximately 5 min to

6 Kuhn et al.

administer. For each task, training and up to threepractice trials were administered. The tasks werescored using item response theory models (for areview, see Willoughby et al., 2012). This means thetask scores can be interpreted on a z-score metric,such that negative values indicate easy items, valuesnear zero indicate average difficulty, and positivevalues indicate difficult items. Here, we provide anabbreviated description of each task.

The working memory span task required childrento name and hold two pieces of information inmind simultaneously (i.e., naming an animal andcolor in a series of “houses”). Then, children had toactivate one piece of information (i.e., recall the ani-mal in each house), while overcoming interferencefrom the other piece of information (i.e., the colorin each house). Based on the work from Engle,Kane, and colleagues (e.g., Kane & Engle, 2003), thetask was scored by the number of colors or animalsthat children correctly recalled.

Pick the picture was adapted from a self-orderedpointing task (Cragg & Nation, 2007; Petrides &Milner, 1982) that assessed working memory. Chil-dren were shown an array of pictures that varied inlocation on a page and they were required to toucheach individual picture in a series so that each pic-ture “got a turn.” The task was scored by the num-ber of series in which a unique picture was selectedevery time.

Silly sounds Stroop was derived from the day–night task developed by Gerstadt, Hong, andDiamond (1994) and assessed inhibitory control.Children were asked to make a bark sound whenshown a picture of a cat and meow sound whenshown a picture of a dog. The task was scored bythe number of times children correctly paired theanimal sound and picture.

Spatial conflict arrows was similar to the Simontask used by Gerardi Caulton (2000) and assessedinhibitory control. Children were presented a seriesof arrows pointing in alternating directions. Whilechildren respond to the initial set of items by touch-ing a response card in the same position as thestimuli, the test items require a contralateralresponse. In other words, the stimulus is presentedon the right side but pointing to the left and thecorrect response requires that the child touch theleft side of his or her response card. In this way,the spatial location is no longer informative. Thetask was scored by the number of items childrencorrectly responded based upon the direction of thearrows.

Animal go-no-go (GNG) was a standard GNG task(e.g., Durston et al., 2002). The task included vary-

ing numbers of go trials prior to each no-go trial,including, in standard order, 1-go, 3-go, 3-go, 5-go,1-go, 1-go, and 3-go trials. No-go trials requiredinhibitory control. The task was scored by the num-ber of items that children correctly responded orwithheld responses.

Something’s the same game was derived fromJacques and Zelazo’s (2001) flexible item selectiontask. Children were required to shift their attentionfrom an initial dimension of similarity to a newdimension of similarity. The task was scored bythe number of items in which children correctlyidentified two unique similarities across threepictures.

Analytic Strategy

All research questions were addressed usingstructural equation models (SEM), where communi-cative gestures and EF were represented as latentvariables (due to the availability of multiple indica-tors). Language and covariates were representedusing manifest variables. Analyses proceeded infour steps. First, a measurement model was esti-mated to establish the magnitude of the unadjusted,bivariate associations between communicative ges-tures, language, and EF. Second, an SEM was esti-mated to test for the direct and indirect effects ofcommunicative gestures and language on later EF,adjusting for a number of potential confounds.Third, multiple groups’ SEM was estimated to testwhether the set of direct and indirect effects in thetotal sample differed for children who resided inlow- and not-low-income households. Initially, thisinvolved simultaneously estimating the model forboth groups. Subsequently, this model was reesti-mated with the imposition of parameter constraintson paths relating the focal predictor variables (com-municative gesture, language) to EF. Because thesemodels were nested, a chi-square difference testwas used to test whether the imposition of con-straints resulted in a significant decrement in modelfit. Finally, alternative theories that may have alsoaccounted for the development of EF were consid-ered. All models were estimated using Mplusversion 7 (Muth�en & Muth�en, 1998–2007), and tookinto account the complex sampling design (stratifi-cation, over-sampling of low income, in NorthCarolina, and African American families). We usedHu and Bentler’s (1999) recommendations (i.e.,comparative fit index (CFI) > .95, root mean squareerror of approximation (RMSEA) ≤ .05) as a guidefor evaluating model fit, and chi-square differencetests were performed using maximum likelihood

Gestures Predict Language and Executive Function 7

estimation with robust standard errors (MLR)adjustments (Satorra & Bentler, 2001).

Results

Sample Description

The current study used child variables assessedat the 15-month, 2-, 3-, and 4-year home visits.Families and children who participated in the 4-year assessment (N = 1,066) did not differ fromthose who did not participate in the assessment(N = 226) with respect to race, gender of the child,or being recruited in the low-income stratum. How-ever, children of the families who participated inthe 4-year assessment were more likely to reside inthe state of Pennsylvania (34% vs. 42%, p = .03).Families and children who participated in the 3-year assessment (N = 1,123) did not differ fromthose who did not participate in the assessment(N = 169) with respect to state of residence, race ofthe child, or being recruited in the low-income stra-tum. However, children of the families who partici-pated in the 3-year assessment were more likely tobe female than children whose families did notparticipate (50% vs. 41%, p < .05).

A summary of unweighted descriptive statisticsfor the variables used in the current study ispresented in Table 1. The children in this studyscored in the average, or slightly below averagerange, on norm-referenced assessments of languageand cognitive abilities: Bayley MDI (M = 95.9,SD = 10.8) at 15 months, PLS–4 EC at age 2(M = 100.5, SD = 14.9) and 3 years (M = 98.0,SD = 15.7). On average, families reported a meanINR of 1.9 (SD = 1.7), which indicated a house-hold income that met basic needs but that wascloser to working poor than solidly in the middleclass. Caregivers had a mean education level of14.6 years (SD = 2.8 years), which indicated someschooling beyond high school but not a collegedegree.

The correlations among all indicators are alsopresented in Table 1. Three points are noteworthy.First, the individual EF tasks at age 4 years weremoderately correlated with measures of children’slanguage (rs = .17 to .37) and weakly correlatedwith measures of communicative gestures (rs = .00to .11). Second, the individual EF tasks at age2 years were weakly to moderately correlated withlanguage measures (rs = �.03 to .35) and with theindividual EF tasks at 4 years (rs = �.04 to .24).Third, the language measures at ages 2 and 3 yearswere substantially correlated with each other

(r = .57), and somewhat correlated with the com-municative gesture variables (rs = .08 to .25).

Measurement Model

A measurement model was estimated to evalu-ate the bivariate correlations among the focal pre-dictors (communicative gesture at 15 months,language at 2 and 3 years, and EF at 4 years). Themeasurement model fit the data well, v2(40,N = 1,117) = 60.30, p = .02, CFI = .98, RMSEA =.02. All of the factor loadings for the communica-tive gesture and EF latent variables were signifi-cant, as were the latent variances, which indicatedinterindividual differences for these constructs.Individual differences in communicative gestureand language were positively intercorrelated fromthe age 15 months through 3 years, and all threeassessments were positively correlated with EF atage 4 years (r/φ ≥ .41, ps < .01; see Table 2). Thatis, there were moderate to strong correlations forthe latent communicative gesture with languageat ages 2 years (r = .49) and 3 years (r = .54), aswell as with latent EF at 4 years (r = .41). Further,2-year language (r = .53) and 3-year language(r = .64) were also significantly correlated withlatent EF.

Children’s Communicative Gestures and LanguagePredict 4-Year EF

An SEM model was estimated to determinewhether children’s communicative gestures and lan-guage development were prospectively associatedwith later EF abilities after adjustment for potentialconfounder variables, including primary caregivers’educational achievement, household INR, andchildren’s early cognitive ability, as measured bythe BSID–II. As depicted in Figure 1, the structuralmodel fit the data well, v2(61, N = 1,117) = 102.38,p < .01, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .03. Although commu-nicative gestures were not directly related to EF(b = �.04, p = .75), they were directly related tolanguage at 2 years (b = .49, p = .00) and 3 years(b = .35, p = .00). Moreover, communicative ges-tures were indirectly related to later EF throughlanguage at ages 2 and 3 years. Specifically, allpaths were significant and the indirect effects ofcommunicative gestures on EF were through lan-guage at ages 2 years (bgesture 2yr EF = .08, p = .01),3 years (bgesture 3yr EF = .14, p = .01), and 2 and3 years (bgesture 2yr 3yr EF = .08, p = .01). Hence, thepositive bivariate association between communica-tive gestures at 15 months and EF at age 4 years

8 Kuhn et al.

Tab

le1

Intercorrelatio

nsBetweenVariables

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

17

1.WMS

—

2.SS

S.12

—

3.GNG

.22

.20

—

4.ST

S.23

.19

.17

—

5.SC

A.18

.08

.13

.28

—

6.PT

P.27

.19

.29

.27

.23

—

7.CSB

S.10

.06

.08

.11

.08

.10

—

8.Po

int

�.01

.00

.01

.03

.03

.04

.07

—

9.Gest

.08

.07

.04

.04

.04

.07

.06

.18

—

10.2

year

PLS

.25

.17

.21

.32

.22

.26

.23

.09

.08

—

11.3

year

PLS

.30

.18

.25

.35

.29

.36

.25

.11

.09

.57

—

12.M

DI

.26

.18

.23

.26

.20

.22

.25

.08

.14

.42

.44

—

13.E

du

.24

.08

.07

.25

.18

.22

.06

.01

.07

.25

.37

.21

—

14.INR

.19

.03

.12

.21

.19

.20

.08

.00

.02

.23

.37

.23

.55

—

15.1

5mon

ths

Parent

.23

.06

.13

.21

.18

.18

.07

.03

.13

.19

.27

.22

.38

.33

—

16.2

years

Box

es�.

14�.

04�.

04�.

10�.

09�.

11�.

09�.

03�.

06�.

06�.

12�.

09�.

07�.

07�.

06—

17.2

years

Snack

.13

.13

.12

.16

.09

.24

.11

.11

.09

.25

.35

.19

.18

.14

.19

�.11

—

M(SD)

�0.2

(0.8)

�0.1

(0.8)

�0.3

(0.8)

0.01

(0.7)

0.1(.9

)�0

.4(0.9)

8.1

(2.0)

2.8

(4.2)

.3(1.0)

100.5

(15)

98.0

(15.8)

95.9

(10.7)

14.6

(2.8)

1.8

(1.4)

3.4

(0.7)

.01

(1.5)

�.01

(0.7)

Ran

ge�1

.7to

1.84

�2.0

to1.41

�2.0

to0.85

�2.1

to1.48

�1.7

to1.71

�2.5

to2.25

0–10

0–30

0–14

50–1

4850

–150

59–132

6–22

0–12.4

0–5

1–12

0–2

Note.

WMS=working

mem

orysp

an;SS

S=silly

soun

dsStroop

;GNG

=go

-no-go

;ST

S=something

’sthesame;

SCA

=sp

atialconfl

ictarrows;

PTP=pick

thepicture;

PLS=Pre-

scho

olLan

guag

eScale;

CSB

S=Com

mun

icationan

dSy

mbo

licBeh

aviorScales;M

DI=Men

talDev

elop

men

talInde

x;Edu=Educ

ation;

INR

=income-to-needsratio

;Paren

t=sensi-

tivepa

renting;

Box

es=sixbo

xes;

Snack=snackdelay

.

Gestures Predict Language and Executive Function 9

was entirely mediated through the effects of inter-vening language.

Language at age 2 years was directly related tolanguage at age 3 years (b = .41, p = .01) and EF atage 4 years (b =.17, p = .01). Moreover, there wasan indirect effect of 2-year language on EFexpressed through 3-year language (b2yr 3yr EF = .17,p = .01). Language at age 3 years was directlyrelated to EF at age 4 years (b = .41, p = .01).Collectively, communicative gesture, language, andcovariates explained half of the variance (R2 = .50,p = .01) in latent EF.

Multiple Groups: Low- Versus Not-Low-Income Groups

The next models tested whether the relationsamong children’s communicative gestures, lan-guage, and EF were equivalent across incomegroups. Two income groups were created by usinga family’s average INR from 15 months to 3 years.The low-income group was defined as having an

average INR of 2.0 or lower (N = 762), an INR of 2.0is commonly used to index poor and near-poor fam-ilies, while the not-low-income group was definedas having an average INR > 2.0 (N = 343). First, abaseline model was estimated with all structuralpaths allowed to be free across low- and not-low-income groups. As shown in Figure 2, the model fitthe data well, v2(122, N = 1,105) = 157.35, p = .02,CFI = .97, RMSEA= .02. Across income groups,there was not a significant direct relation betweenchildren’s communicative gestures and EF. How-ever, there were significant relations between com-municative gestures and EF mediated by children’s2- and 3-year language. The amount varianceexplained in latent EF was also approximately equalfor low-income (R2 = .43) and not-low-income(R2 = .50) groups. The model was then reestimatedimposing equality constraints on all of the regres-sion coefficients that linked language variables toeach other and to EF across the two income groups.This model also fit the data well, v2(128, N = 1,105)=171.39, p = .01, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .03. However,the chi-square difference test revealed that themodel that imposed cross-group equality constraintsresulted in worse model fit, v2(6) = 12.45, p = .05.This was unexpected given that the general patternof associations between language and later EFappeared to be comparable across income groups. Aseries of models were reestimated imposing equalityconstraints on each regression coefficient, one at atime, to determine which path(s) might be signifi-cantly different across the two income groups. Theonly path that resulted in a significant difference

Figure 1. Structural model of communicative gestures predicting executive function (EF). Covariates of caregivers’ educational achieve-ment, household income-to-needs ratio, and children’s early cognitive ability were included but not represented in the figure.WMS = working memory span; SSS = silly sounds Stroop; GNG = go-no-go; STS = something’s the same; SCA = spatial conflictarrows; PTP = pick the picture; PLS = Preschool Language Scale; CSBS = Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scales; EF = executivefunction.**p < .01.

Table 2Latent Correlations

1 2 3 4

1. Communicative gestures(15 months)

—

2. Language (2 years) .49** —3. Language (3 years) .54** .58** —4. Executive function (4 years) .41** .53** .64** —

**p < .01.

10 Kuhn et al.

was the path between language at age 2 years andEF, v2(1) = 11.47, p = .01. This path was not signifi-cant (b = �.00, b = �.06, p = .58) for the not-low-income group; however, it was significant for thelow-income group (b = .01, b = .27, p = .01).Although there was a difference in one individualpath, the general pattern of relations between ges-tures, language, and EF was similar across the twoincome groups.

Alternative Explanations to Communicative GesturesEF Model

We attributed the effects of communicativegestures as foundational for early language and

subsequent EF. However, EF is also emerging earlyin life. Moreover, we may be misattributing effectsto children’s gesture use that are better character-ized by parenting practices and language use thatare indicative of caregivers’ engagement. Here, wetest those possibilities by including two additionalpredictors. We considered an alternative model thatincluded measures of EF at age 2 years and qualityof parenting at age 15 months. This model also fitthe data well, v2(75, N = 1,117) = 154.55, p = .01,CFI = .95, RMSEA = .03. The relation betweencommunicative gestures and EF, expressed throughlanguage skills, held even after controlling for par-enting at age 15 months. The mediated relationthrough 2-and 3-year language was not impacted

Figure 2. Unconstrained model: not-low (top) and low-income (bottom) group. Covariates of caregivers’ educational achievement andchildren’s early cognitive ability were included but not represented in the figure. WMS = working memory span; SSS = silly soundStroop; GNG = go-no-go; STS = something’s the same; SCA = spatial conflict arrows; PTP = pick the picture; PLS = Preschool Lan-guage Scale; CSBS = Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scales; EF = executive function.*p < .05. **p < .01.

Gestures Predict Language and Executive Function 11

by the inclusion of EF at age 2 years. In fact, in thisalternative model, the direct relation between EF atage 2 years and EF at age 4 years (b = �.05,p = .16) was not significant. There was, however, asignificant indirect effect from EF at age 2 years,expressed through 3-year language on EF at 4 years(b2yr EF 3yr EF = .03, p = .01). The addition of sensi-tive parenting and EF at age 2 years did not havemeaningful impact on the relation between com-municative gestures and EF, expressed throughlanguage.

Discussion

The purpose of the current study was to determinewhether individual differences in children’s earlycommunicative gestures prospectively predictedlanguage development and EF during early child-hood. To explore this question, we analyzed longi-tudinal data from a diverse population usingmultiple indicators of gesture use (15 months), lan-guage development (2 and 3 years), and EF skills (2and 4 years). The findings revealed that individualdifferences in communicative gestures at age15 months predicted language development at ages2 and 3 years, which in turn predicted EF skills atage 4 years. These interrelations were all positive,demonstrating that infants who used more gestureshad better language and EF skills between the agesof 2 and 4 years. While the link between children’sgesture use and language abilities has been wellestablished (Acredolo & Goodwyn, 1990; Bates,

et al., 1987; Iverson & Goldin-Meadow, 2005), theseresults demonstrate that individual differences ingesture use also forecast EF. It is important to notethat these predictive associations were evident evenafter controlling for potential child (early generalcognitive ability and EF), maternal (education andobserved parenting), and household (INR) con-founders.

The findings revealed that the positive associa-tion between early gesture use and later EF wasmediated entirely by intervening language develop-ment. The relation between language and EF, withthe inclusion of EF at 2 years, was more compli-cated. Children’s 2-year language and EF wereinterrelated, and both independently predicted lan-guage skills at age 3 years. However, children’s EFskills at age 2 years did not predict their later EF;only children’s language skills at ages 2 and 3 yearsprospectively predicted EF at age 4 years. Thus,the relation between children’s EF skills at ages 2and 4 years was completely mediated by 3-yearlanguage.

Considering these complex and dynamic associa-tions, one interpretation of these findings is thatchildren’s gesture use is an early indicator of thecognitive abilities that later manifest themselves asEF. As such, the cognitive abilities (i.e., joint atten-tion, referential attention, and symbolic understand-ing) demonstrated by children’s use of gesturesmay be relevant for understanding the developingconnection between later emerging language andEF. Children’s symbolic understanding may be par-ticularly relevant, given that it has been previously

Figure 3. Alternative explanations model. Covariates of caregivers’ educational achievement, household income-to-needs ratio, chil-dren’s early cognitive ability, and sensitive parenting were included but not represented in the figure. WMS = working memory span;SSS = silly sound Stroop; GNG = go-no-go; STS = something’s the same; SCA = spatial conflict arrows; PTP = pick the picture;PLS = Preschool Language Scale; CSBS = Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scales; EF = executive function.*p < .05. **p < .01.

12 Kuhn et al.

described as a mechanism common to both gestureuse (Blake, 2000) and vocabulary development(Bates et al., 1979). It is possible that the representa-tional skills that children develop through the useof symbolic gestures later transition into wordlearning for verbal communication, and then intothe ability to manage multiple representations (deVilliers & Pyers, 2002) or conflicts (Zelazo & Frye,1998), which is a skill essential for EF. At a mini-mum, a conservative interpretation of our findingsis that gestures can be used to index language andlanguage can be used to index EF.

However, an alternative and, we think, strongerinterpretation of these findings is that children’searly gesture use predicts language development,which ultimately allows children to think in morecomplex ways and to reflect upon information indifferent ways that support the emergence of EF. Inthis interpretation, it is not only that there arecognitive abilities common to gesture, language,and EF, but rather that gesture supports languagedevelopment, which in turn is foundational for theemergence of EF. Support for this alternative inter-pretation is provided by our findings indicatingthat a portion of the variance in EF at age 4 yearsis accounted for by communicative gestures andearlier language development, even after controllingfor children’s early general cognitive abilities. Thisfinding supports the notion that early indicators ofEF can be found in preceding preverbal and verbalcommunication skills. Specifically, children’s com-municative gestures are not only a means toimprove performance during a cognitively demand-ing task (O’Neill & Miller, 2012) but also thefoundation by which language (€Ozc�alis�kan &Goldin-Meadow, 2005) and EF skills develop.

The possibility of a causal relation between lan-guage and EF, with language underlying EF, hasalso been suggested by Zelazo and colleagues (Mar-covitch & Zelazo, 2009; Zelazo & Frye, 1998; Zelazoet al., 2003). This notion is predicated on the ideathat children must have the words to mentally rep-resent the conditions of a problem before being ableto create the hierarchical rule structure needed tosolve that problem. Perhaps, it is the growth in chil-dren’s representational skills as they transition fromusing symbolic gestures, to building a vocabulary,and then to gaining proficiency with multiple-wordphrases that influences the emergence of EF. Forexample, as children learn to distinguish the wordcat from the word dog, while simultaneously under-standing that both labels belong to the category ofanimal, they are demonstrating the ability toorganize symbols in a hierarchical manner (Hall &

Waxman, 1993). Further, as children develop moreadvanced language skills by learning to apply mor-phological rules about word endings and syntacticrules that dictate word order (Rowe & Goldin-Mea-dow, 2008), they are gaining experience with ruleuse (Gelman & Markman, 1985). This understand-ing of rules, derived from the use of language, maytranslate to an enhanced ability to organize infor-mation. The ability to hierarchically organize infor-mation is needed for the cognitive processesinvolved in EF like attention shifting and inhibitorycontrol (Zelazo & Frye, 1998; Zelazo et al., 2003).The specific mechanism by which a causal relationbetween language and EF occurs warrants furtherstudy.

Implications

The current findings indicate that there is adownstream effect of language, beginning with pre-cursors to language like communicative gestures,on EF. This has implications for various types ofresearch dealing with children’s early cognitivedevelopment. For instance, research that examinesbrain development in relation to EF may also needto consider regions of brain related to language andgesture. In one study, Moreno et al. (2011) foundthat a music intervention could improve bothchildren’s language and EF skills. Interestingly,through event-related potential procedures, theauthors established that gains in preschoolers’verbal intelligence were positively associated withchanges in functional brain plasticity during an EFtask (Moreno et al., 2011). This work emphasizesthat early brain development related to languageacquisition may be a neural correlate of EF.

In addition to biological research, the currentstudy also has implications for interventionresearch. Our findings highlight the similarities inthe process by which low- and not-low-incomegroups acquired EF. Other work has found thatpoverty has a negative impact on EF (Blair & Razza,2007; Raver et al., 2013), but that social contextsmediate this effect, specifically parental maritalstatus, responsiveness, and the quality of the homeenvironment (Sarsour et al., 2011). There is exten-sive research suggesting that the relation betweenpoverty and language is mediated by social contexts(Hoff, 2006; Huttenlocher, Vasilyeva, Cymerman, &Levine, 2002). Adding to this literature, our studysuggests that there is an earlier window of opportu-nity for interventions focused on diminishing theeffects of poverty. Other empirical research hasalready demonstrated that increasing children’s

Gestures Predict Language and Executive Function 13

gesture use improves language skills (McGregor,2008). A similar intervention could be designed tohelp parents increase their children’s gesture use,which in turn may improve later EF abilities.

Limitations and Future Directions

Although the current study has established novellongitudinal associations between gesture, lan-guage, and EF over the first 4 years, several impor-tant limitations must be noted. First, despite ourinclusion of potential confounder variables, the pas-sive longitudinal design undermined our ability tomake strong statements regarding causal relationsbetween language and EF. Randomized controlledtrials (RCTs) that provide interventions targetingearly gesture use and/or language would providestronger tests of these questions. In the absence ofRCTs, the capitalization of natural experiments, forexample, examining children’s proficiency in andthe age at which they acquire a second language(Bialystok et al., 2005), might also provide impor-tant insights into the role of early language devel-opment in later EF. Second, it is plausible that otherearly cognitive indicators contribute to the emer-gence of EF, including EF prior to age 2 years. Arecent study has shown that reliable measures ofEF skills can be assessed earlier (Bernier et al.,2010). Third, the indicators of communicative ges-ture used in the current study might have beensuperior if drawn from a different type of task. Forinstance, the frequency of symbolic gesture use dur-ing the picture book activity was relatively low inthe current study. This low rate of symbolic gestur-ing may be attributed to the fact that: (a) picturebook activities readily lend themselves to pointingas opposed to symbolic gesturing and (b) the emer-gence of symbolic gesturing does not typicallyoccur until around age 18 months (Blake, 2000). Asa result, future studies should investigate otherearly correlates of EF and alternative indicators ofgestures.

Few studies have considered which early devel-opmental processes may precede and potentiallyfacilitate the normative acquisition of EF abilities inearly childhood. This stands in stark contrast to theexplosion of work focused on the early develop-ment and predictive validity of EF for school readi-ness. Thus far, only a small number of childcharacteristics have been explored in relation to EF,with temperament being the most prominent (Rue-da et al., 2005), as well as examinations of parent-ing and child stress physiology as influences on EF(Bernier et al., 2010; Vernon-Feagans et al., 2013). It

is important to consider the various other factorsthat may also influence the development of EF.Early language skills and gestures are other exam-ples of correlates that may enrich our understand-ing of the development of EF and provide anopportunity for intervention.

The current study makes an important contribu-tion to our understanding of how language mayenable a certain type of thought that provides forthe emergence of higher order cognitive abilities,like EF. In particular, our findings revealed thatinfants’ preverbal communication (i.e., gestures)contributes to the relation between language andEF in meaningful ways. While scholars will con-tinue to debate how language influences cognitiveabilities and seek to identify other precursors to EF,we are the first to provide evidence for the predic-tive capacities of language for EF.

References

Abraham, L. M., Crais, E., & Vernon-Feagans, L. (2013).Early maternal language use during book sharing infamilies from low-income environments. American Jour-nal of Speech-Language Pathology, 22, 71–83. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2012/11-0153

Acredolo, L. P., & Goodwyn, S. W. (1990). Sign languagein babies: The significance of symbolic gesturing forunderstanding language development. In R. Vasta & R.Vasta (Eds.), Annals of child development: A researchannual (Vol. 7, pp. 1–42). London, UK: Jessica KingsleyPublishers.

Bates, E., Benigni, L., Bretherton, I., Camaioni, L., & Volter-ra, V. (1979). The emergence of symbols: Communication andcognition in infancy. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Bates, E., O’Connell, B., & Shore, C. (1987). Language andcommunication in infancy. In J. Osofsky (Ed.), Handbookof infant development, 2nd ed. (pp. 149–203). Oxford,UK: Wiley.

Bates, E., Thal, D., & Marchman, V. (1991). Symbols andsyntax: A Darwinian approach to language develop-ment. In N. A. Krasnegor, D. M. Rumbaugh, R. L.Schiefelbusch, & M. Studdert-Kennedy (Eds.), Biologicaland behavioral determinants of language development(pp. 29–65). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bayley, N. (1993). Bayley Scales of Infant Development (2nded.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

Bell, M. A., & Fox, N. A. (1992). The relations betweenfrontal brain electrical activity and cognitive develop-ment during infancy. Child Development, 63, 1142–1163.doi:10.2307/1131523

Bernier, A., Carlson, S. M., & Whipple, N. (2010). Fromexternal regulation to self-regulation: Early parentingprecursors of young children’s executive functioning.Child Development, 81, 326–339. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01397.x

14 Kuhn et al.

Best, J. R., & Miller, P. H. (2010). A developmental per-spective on executive function. Child Development, 81,1641–1660. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01499.x

Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., Grady, C., Chau, W., Ishii,R., Gunji, A., & Pantev, C. (2005). Effect of bilingualismon cognitive control in the Simon task: Evidence fromMEG. Neuroimage, 24, 40–49.

Bierman, K. L., Torres, M. M., Domitrovich, C. E., Welsh,J. A., & Gest, S. D. (2009). Behavioral and cognitivereadiness for school: Cross-domain associations for chil-dren attending head start. Social Development, 18, 305–323.

Blair, C., & Razza, R. P. (2007). Relating effortful control,executive function, and false belief understanding toemerging math and literacy ability in kindergarten.Child Development, 78, 647–663.

Blake, J. (2000). Routes to child language: Evolutionary anddevelopmental precursors. Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Brace, J. J., Morton, J. B., & Munakata, Y. (2006). Whenactions speak louder than words: Improving children’sflexibility in a card-sorting task. Psychological Science,17, 665–669.

Brock, L. L., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Nathanson, L., &Grimm, K. J. (2009). The contributions of “hot” and“cool” executive function to children’s academicachievement, learning-related behaviors, and engage-ment in kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quar-terly, 24, 337–349.

Carlson, S. M., Davis, A. C., & Leach, J. G. (2005). Lessis more: Executive function and symbolic representa-tion in preschool children. Psychological Science, 16,609–616.

Casasola, M., Wilbourn, M., & Yang, S. (2006). Can Eng-lish-learning toddlers acquire and generalize a novelspatial word? First Language, 26, 187–205. doi:10.1177/0142723706060746

Colonnesi, C., Stams, G. M., Koster, I., & Noom, M. J.(2010). The relation between pointing and languagedevelopment: A meta-analysis. Developmental Review,30, 352–366. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2010.10.001

Cox, M. J., & Crnic, K. (2002). Qualitative ratings for par-ent-child interaction at 3–12 months of age. Unpublishedmanuscript, University of North Carolina at ChapelHill.

Cragg, L., & Nation, K. (2007). Self-ordered pointing as atest of working memory in typically developing chil-dren. Memory, 15, 526–535.

de Villiers, J. G., & Pyers, J. E. (2002). Complements tocognition: A longitudinal study of the relationshipbetween complex syntax and false-belief-understand-ing. Cognitive Development, 17, 1037–1060. doi:10.1016/S0885-2014(02)00073-4

Diamond, A., Prevor, M. B., Callender, G., & Druin, D. P.(1997). Prefrontal cortex cognitive deficits in childrentreated early and continuously for PKU. Monographs ofthe Society for Research in Child Development, 62(SerialNo. 252). doi:10.2307/1166208

Dill, B. T. (2001). Rediscovering rural America. In J. R.Blau (Ed.), Blackwell companions to sociology (pp. 196–210). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Durston, S., Thomas, K. M., Yang, Y. H., Ulug, A. M.,Zimmerman, R. D., & Casey, B. J. (2002). A neural basisfor the development of inhibitory control. DevelopmentalScience, 5, F9–F16.

Fuhs, M. W., & Day, J. D. (2010). Verbal ability and exec-utive functioning development in preschoolers at headstart. Developmental Psychology, 47, 404–416. doi:10.1037/a0021065

Ganea, P. A., & Harris, P. L. (2013). Early limits on theverbal updating of an object’s location. Journal of Experi-mental Child Psychology, 114, 89–101. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2012.04.013

Ganea, P. A., Shutts, K., Spelke, E. S., & DeLoache, J. S.(2007). Thinking of things unseen: Infants’ use of lan-guage to update mental representations. PsychologicalScience, 18, 734–739. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01968.x

Geary, D. C., Bow-Thomas, C., Liu, F., & Siegler, R. S.(1996). Development of arithmetical competencies inChinese and American children: Influence of age, lan-guage, and schooling. Child Development, 67, 2022–2044.doi:10.2307/1131607

Gelman, S. A., & Markman, E. M. (1985). Implicit contrastin adjectives vs. nouns: Implications for word-learningin preschoolers. Journal of Child Language, 12, 125–143.doi:10.1017/S0305000900006279

Gerardi Caulton, G. (2000). Sensitivity to spatial conflictand the development of self-regulation in children 24-36 months of age. Developmental Science, 3, 397–404.

Gerstadt, C., Hong, Y., & Diamond, A. (1994). The rela-tionship between cognition and action: Performance ofchildren 3 1/2-7 years old on a Stroop-like day-nighttest. Cognition, 53, 129–153.

Goldin-Meadow, S. (2007). Gesture with speech and with-out it. In S. D. Duncan, J. Cassell, & E. T. Levy (Eds.),Gesture and the dynamic dimension of language: Essays inhonor of David McNeill (pp. 31–49). Amsterdam, TheNetherlands: Benjamins.

Goldstein, J., Davidoff, J., & Roberson, D. (2009). Know-ing color terms enhances recognition: Further evidencefrom English and Himba. Journal of Experimental ChildPsychology, 102, 219–238. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2008.06.002

Goodwyn, S. W., Acredolo, L. P., & Brown, C. A. (2000).Impact of symbolic gesturing on early language devel-opment. Journal Of Nonverbal Behavior, 24, 81–103.doi:10.1023/A:1006653828895

Hall, D. G., & Waxman, S. R. (1993). Assumptions aboutword meaning: Individuation and basic-level kinds.Child Development, 64, 1550–1570. doi:10.2307/1131552

Hoff, E. (2006). How social contexts support and shapelanguage development. Developmental Review, 26,55–88.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fitindexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventionalcriteria versus new alternatives. Structural EquationModeling, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118

Gestures Predict Language and Executive Function 15

Hughes, C. (1998). Finding your marbles: Does preschool-ers’ strategic behavior predict later understanding ofmind? Developmental Psychology, 34, 1326–1339.

Hughes, C., Ensor, R., Wilson, A., & Graham, A. (2010).Tracking executive function across the transition toschool: A latent variable approach. DevelopmentalNeuropsychology, 35, 20–36.

Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva, M., Cymerman, E., & Levine,S. (2002). Language input and child syntax. CognitivePsychology, 45, 337–374. doi:10.1016/S0010-0285(02)00500-5

Iverson, J. M., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2005). Gesturepaves the way for language development. PsychologicalScience, 16, 367–371. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01542.x

Iverson, J. M., & Thelen, E. (1999). Hand, mouth andbrain: The dynamic emergence of speech and gesture.Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6, 19–40.

Jacques, S., & Zelazo, P. D. (2001). The Flexible ItemSelection Task (FIST): A measure of executive functionin preschoolers. Developmental Neuropsychology, 20, 573–591.

Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2003). Working-memorycapacity and the control of attention: The contributionsof goal neglect, response competition, and task set toStroop interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology-General, 132, 47–70.

Kirkham, N. Z., Cruess, L., & Diamond, A. (2003). Help-ing children apply their knowledge to their behavioron a dimension-switching task. Developmental Science, 6,449–476.

Klingberg, T., Vaidya, C. J., Gabrieli, J. D., Moseley, M.E., & Hedehus, M. (1999). Myelination and organiza-tion of the frontal white matter in children: A diffusiontensor MRI study. Neuroreport, 10, 2817–2821.

Kochanska, G., & Murray, K. T. (2000). Mother–childmutually responsive orientation and conscience devel-opment: From toddler to early school age. Child Devel-opment, 71, 417–431. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00154

Marcovitch, S., & Zelazo, P. D. (2009). A hierarchicalcompeting systems model of the emergence and earlydevelopment of executive function. Developmental Sci-ence, 12, 1–18. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00754.x

McGregor, K. K. (2008). Gesture supports children’s wordlearning. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathol-ogy, 10, 112–117. doi:10.1080/17549500801905622

Miller, J. F., & Chapman, R. S. (1985). Systematic analysisof language transcripts. Madison: Language AnalysisLaboratory, Waisman Center on Mental Retardationand Human Development, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Moreno, S., Bialystok, E., Barac, R., Schellenberg, E. G.,Cepeda, N. J., & Chau, T. (2011). Short-term musictraining enhances verbal intelligence and executivefunction. Psychological Science, 22, 1425–1433.

M€uller, U., Jacques, S., Brocki, K., & Zelazo, P. D.(2009). The executive functions of language in pre-school children. In A. Winsler, C. Fernyhough, I.Montero, A. Winsler, C. Fernyhough, & I. Montero

(Eds.), Private speech, executive functioning, and thedevelopment of verbal self-regulation. (pp. 53–68). NewYork, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511581533.005

Muth�en, L. K., & Muth�en, B. O. (1998–2007). Mplus usersguide (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muth�en & Muth�en.

NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (1999).Child care and mother–child interaction in the firstthree years of life. Developmental Psychology, 35, 1399–1413. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.35.6.1399

O’Neill, G., & Miller, P. H. (2013). A show of hands: Rela-tions between young children’s gesturing and executivefunction. Developmental Psychology, 49, 1517–1528.doi:10.1037/a0030241

Oviatt, S. L. (1980). The emerging ability to comprehendlanguage: An experimental approach. Child Develop-ment, 51, 97–106. doi:10.2307/1129595

€Ozc�alis�kan, S�., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2005). Gesture is atthe cutting edge of early language development. Cogni-tion, 96, B101–B113. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2005.01.001

Petrides, M., & Milner, B. (1982). Deficits on subject-ordered tasks after frontal- and temporal-lobe lesions inman. Neuropsychologia, 20, 249–262.

Piaget, J. (1962). The stages of the intellectual develop-ment of the child. Bulletin of The Menninger Clinic, 26,120–128.

Raver, C., Blair, C., & Willoughby, M. (2013). Poverty asa predictor of 4-year-olds’ executive function: New per-spectives on models of differential susceptibility. Devel-opmental Psychology, 49, 292–304. doi:10.1037/a0028343

Raviv, T., Kessenich, M., & Morrison, F. J. (2004). A medi-ational model of the association between socioeconomicstatus and three-year-old language abilities: The role ofparenting factors. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19,528–547. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2004.10.007

Rowe, M. L. (2000). Pointing and talk by low-incomemothers and their 14-month-old children. First Lan-guage, 20, 305–330. doi:10.1177/014272370002006005

Rowe, M. L., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2008). Early gestureselectively predicts later language learning. Developmen-tal Science, 12, 182–187.

Rowe, M. L., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2009a). Differences inearly gesture explain SES disparities in child vocabu-lary size at school entry. Science, 323, 951–953. doi:10.1126/science.1167025

Rowe, M. L., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2009b). Early gestureselectively predicts later language learning. Developmen-tal Science, 12, 182–187. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00764.x

Rowe, M. L., €Ozc�alıs�kan, S�., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2008).Learning words by hand: Gesture’s role in predictingvocabulary development. First Language, 28, 182–199.

Rueda, M. R., Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K. (2005).The development of executive attention: Contributionsto the emergence of self-regulation. Developmental Neu-ropsychology, 28, 573–594.

Sarsour, K., Sheridan, M., Jutte, D., Nuru-Jeter, A.,Hinshaw, S., & Boyce, W. (2011). Family socioeconomic

16 Kuhn et al.

status and child executive functions: The roles of lan-guage, home environment, and single parenthood. Jour-nal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 17,120–132. doi:10.1017/S1355617710001335

Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled differencechi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis.Psychometrika, 66, 507–514. doi:10.1007/BF02296192

Schick, B., de Villiers, P., de Villiers, J., & Hoffmeister, R.(2007). Language and theory of mind: A study of deafchildren. Child Development, 78, 376–396. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01004.x

Shannon, D. (1998). No, David! New York, NY: Blue SkyPress.

Spaepen, E., Coppola, M., Spelke, E. S., Carey, S. E., &Goldin-Meadow, S. (2011). Number without a languagemodel. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ofthe United States of America, 108, 3163–3168. doi:10.1073/pnas.1015975108

Ursache, A., Blair, C., Stifter, C., & Voegtline, K. (2012).Emotional reactivity and regulation in infancy interactto predict executive functioning in early childhood.Developmental Psychology, 49, 127–137. doi:10.1037/a0027728

Vernon-Feagans, L., Cox, M., Blair, C., Burchinal, M., Bur-ton, L., Crnic, K., . . . Willoughby, M. (2013). The Fam-ily Life Project: An epidemiological and developmentalstudy of young children living in poor rural communi-ties. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Devel-opment, 78(Serial No. 310).

Vernon-Feagans, L., Pancsofar, N., Willoughby, M., Odom,E., Quade, A., & Cox, M. (2008). Predictors of maternallanguage to infants during a picture book task in thehome: Family SES, child characteristics and the parent-ing environment. Journal of Applied Developmental Psy-chology, 29, 213–226. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2008.02.007

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and word. In E. Hanf-mann & G. Vakar (Eds.), Thought and language (pp.119–153). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. doi:10.1037/11193-007

Waxman, S. R., & Markow, D. B. (1995). Words as invita-tions to form categories: Evidence from 12- to 13-month-old infants. Cognitive Psychology, 29, 257–302.doi:10.1006/cogp.1995.1016

Welsh, J. A., Nix, R. L., Blair, C., Bierman, K. L., & Nel-son, K. E. (2010). The development of cognitive skillsand gains in academic school readiness for childrenfrom low-income families. Journal of Educational Psychol-ogy, 102, 43–53.

Werker, J. F., Cohen, L. B., Lloyd, V. L., Casasola, M., &Stager, C. L. (1998). Acquisition of word–object associa-tions by 14-month-old infants. Developmental Psychology,34, 1289–1309. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.34.6.1289

Werner, H., & Kaplan, B. (1963). Symbol formation. Oxford,UK: Wiley.

Wetherby, A. M., Allen, L., Cleary, J., Kublin, K., & Gold-stein, H. (2002). Validity and reliability of the commu-nication and symbolic behavior scales developmentalprofile with very young children. Journal of Speech, Lan-guage, and Hearing Research, 45, 1202–1218. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2002/097)

Wetherby, A. M., & Prizant, B. M. (2002). Communicationand symbolic behavior scales: Developmental profile (1stnormed ed.). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Wiebe, S. A., Espy, K. A., & Charak, D. (2008). Using con-firmatory factor analysis to understand executive con-trol in preschool children: I. Latent structure.Developmental Psychology, 44, 575–587.

Willoughby, M. T., Blair, C. B., Wirth, R. J., & Greenberg,M. (2010). The measurement of executive function atage 3 years: Psychometric properties and criterionvalidity of a new battery of tasks. Psychological Assess-ment, 22, 306–317. doi:10.1037/a0018708

Willoughby, M. T., Wirth, R. J., & Blair, C. B. (2012).Executive function in early childhood: Longitudinalmeasurement invariance and developmental change.Psychological Assessment, 24, 418–431. doi:10.1037/a0025779

Xu, J., Gannon, P. J., Emmorey, K., Smith, J. F., & Braun,A. R. (2009). Symbolic gestures and spoken languageare processed by a common neural system. Proceedingsof the National Academy of Sciences of the United States ofAmerica, 106, 20664–20669.

Zelazo, P. D., & Frye, D. (1998). Cognitive complexityand control: II. The development of executive functionin childhood. Current Directions in Psychological Science,7, 121–126.

Zelazo, P. D., M€uller, U., Frye, D., & Marcovitch, S.(2003). Study 4: Negative priming and executive func-tion. Monographs of the Society for Research in ChildDevelopment, 68(Serial No. 274), 73–92.

Zelazo, P., Reznick, J., & Pi~non, D. E. (1995). Responsecontrol and the execution of verbal rules. DevelopmentalPsychology, 31, 508–517. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.31.3.508

Zimmerman, I., Steiner, V., & Pond, R. (2002). PreschoolLanguage Scale (4th ed.). San Antonio, TX: PsychologicalCorporation.

Gestures Predict Language and Executive Function 17