• This paper investigates iconic gesture comprehension of monolingual Turkish children (between 22 and 30 months of age) with respect to age and receptive vocabulary development. The topic is timely, concerning the growing consensus on how we should avoid drawing conclusions based on English-speaking participants and integrate other languages, such as Turkish, in this particular case. Irrespective of the participants' specific language, this study's results are significant in broadening our understanding of iconic gesture comprehension by young children and particular correlates that it might relate to. However, the manuscript could have lived up to my expectations in how it reviews the previous literature and situates the findings with respect to a broader audience. Below, I listed my concerns and room for revision.
• The introduction section covers much of the literature on gesture and language development in the early ages, both from the production side and from what has been known about comprehension. However, I had difficulty following which paragraphs talk about which evidence and why I am reading these paragraphs at that point in the manuscript. Moreover, some sections were slightly repetitive, concerning the whole introduction as one body. The introduction should be better streamlined.
• Moreover, within the introduction, the authors put too much emphasis on iconic gesture production and language development by detailing the findings of most previous studies. Since this paper investigates iconic gesture comprehension and its link to language development, the introduction should also reflect this rather than putting a detailed emphasis on iconic gesture production. It also seems unproportional considering the weight of the gesture production literature discussed in the discussion section with this introduction while situating the results of this article.
• In the present study section, it was unclear what authors refer to by the "pronounce shift" at the end of page 10.
• The sentences motivating the choice of age range for the participant group could be more accessible to grasp. After reading this sentence, I am trying to understand who produced iconic gestures earlier than who did.
  "As Turkish learning children produce iconic gestures earlier than English-learning children (Furman et al., 2014), an earlier comprehension of iconic gestures can be observable in Turkish-learning children. We chose a younger age for iconic gesture comprehension (i.e., 26 months) – the age at which English-learning children produce iconic gestures (Özçalışkan et al., 2014)."
  -- Authors might benefit from situating the work that represents a tight link between early action schemes and the appearance of gestures and first words (Capirci et al., 2005; Volterra et al., 2017).
  Capirci, O., Contaldo, A., Caselli, M. C., & Volterra, V. (2005). From action to language through gesture: A longitudinal perspective. Gesture, 5(1-2), 155-177.
  Volterra, V., Capirci, O., Caselli, M. C., Rinaldi, P., & Sparaci, L. (2017). Developmental evidence for continuity from action to gesture to sign/word. Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 8(1), 13-41.
• The authors claimed that "children with higher receptive vocabulary knowledge understand speakers' iconic gestures better than children with lower receptive vocabulary knowledge"; however, I am not sure if "understand" is the best word to describe what the authors demonstrate with their results.
• Referral to Sauter et al. (2012) when discussing the possibility that "if children already know the concepts that are represented in co-speech gestures, the experimenter's gestures might be more meaningful" I suggest authors to draw careful conclusions as the children employed in Sauter et al. (2012) study are older compared to the group presented in this paper.
• Other than these points, the manuscript was clear in its writing. Moreover, the methods and the results sections were detailed enough to follow what has been done and what has been found.

I thank the authors for elegantly implementing all my suggestions. I have only a few comments on the revised version of the paper.
- Page 4 (lines 15-16) It is unclear what the authors mean: "Yet, the exact mechanism underlying this age-related difference remains elusive.” And whether or not this paper contributes to our understanding of the exact mechanism underlying age-related differences. İ suggest authors tone down such statements. I believe the manuscript provides data to our understanding of the mechanism, but the exact mechanism is yet to be understood. Relatedly, I believe the contribution of this particular study to our understanding of the mechanism underlying age-related differences in gesture comprehension should be stated explicitly in the conclusion section of the manuscript.
- Page 4 (lines 26-29) What “mapping” refers to in this sentence is not clear “18-month-olds do not demonstrate sensitivity to iconicity over arbitrary gestures in mapping (Namy et al., 2004).”
- Minor Issue: There was inconsistent use of the spacing before and after “=”, “<”