Thank you for the opportunity to read this manuscript, it was a highly interesting read and makes an important contribution to the field. Much research on gesture is conducted in English-speaking children, and an examination of Turkish-learning children is highly valuable. I have some points which the authors may consider in improving their manuscript.

I found the logic around the ages rather confusing. English-learning children have the “iconic spurt” at 26 months, but Turkish-learning children use iconic gestures earlier, at 22.5 months. On page 3 it is noted that the authors expect Turkish-learning children to comprehend iconic gestures earlier than 26 months. Why then does the study split the Turkish-learning children at 26 months? The present study section on pages 10-11 needs clarifying, as the logic behind expecting a shift at 26 months in Turkish-learning children seems at odds with the assertion that they use iconic gestures earlier.

The above point relates to the age of the child participants as well. If Turkish-learning children typically use iconic gestures at 22.5 months, why are the youngest children 22 months? Wouldn’t it have been sensible to have some younger children, to more fully see the development of iconic gesture comprehension?

Again related to the above, the data analysis approach would make detection of iconic gesture comprehension shifting earlier than 26 months difficult. It would not be possible to detect, for example, if the Turkish-learning children began to comprehend gestures at 24 months (or 25, or any other number under 26), by collapsing between the children aged 22-26 months. Can the authors provide further justification for splitting the data at the English-language learning children’s “iconic spurt” age, rather than allowing examination of an earlier age that might match Turkish-language learning children’s iconic gesture production?

On a separate point, there seems to be some contradiction between the results presented and some of the conclusions drawn. On page 16, line 32 results are noted showing the older age group performed AT chance level for comprehension of iconic gestures, whereas in the discussion on page 22 (line 54), and in the Abstract, it is concluded that children above 26 months performed ABOVE chance level. Is one of these (either the results or the conclusions drawn) in error?

My other comments are minor:
Abstract – line 33. “only children in the younger group with a higher receptive vocabulary performed better in the gesture comprehension task”. Performed better than who? Or on what? It’s not clear what the reference point here is. Should this instead read "receptive vocabulary was positively related to gesture comprehension for the younger, but not the older, group"?

Page 12 – what does “fuzziness” refer to, as the reason 13 children did not perform the receptive vocabulary task?

Page 12 – If 13 children did not perform the receptive vocabulary task, why is it then stated that the final sample consisted of 92 children? Shouldn’t it be the 80 participants who completed both tasks?

Thank you to the Authors for their careful addressing of both mine and the other Reviewer's comments. The manuscript is much clearer to follow now, and I have no concerns with how the Authors have addressed the comments.

Following the Authors' clarification in the previous revision regarding the chance-level performance of the older age group however, I am left wondering what the implications of this finding are. The younger age group performed below chance; the older age group performed at chance. This effect is not addressed at all in the Discussion. The Authors do address the finding that the older age group performed better than the younger age group, but not the findings relating performance to chance. Why do the authors think the younger age group performed below chance? Why do the authors think the older age group only performed at chance level, not above? Given the effect is highlighted in the Abstract, I would expect further discussion of it in the body of the manuscript. I might have expected the younger age group to perform at chance and the older group to perform above chance, so the current findings are somewhat counter-intuitive and a discussion of the effect is warranted. This does not have to be extensive, but an interpretation paragraph would be helpful.