EYE GAZE IN TURNTAKING IN SIGN LANGUAGE INTERACTION

1
EYE GAZE IN TURNTAKING IN SIGN LANGUAGE
INTERACTION

• Anne Baker
• Beppie van den Bogaerde

2
Visual attention in sign languages

• Signers focus on each others faces when signing
  in signing space.
• Manual signs are seen.
• Children have to learn to divide their attention
  between sign language and environment.

3
Strategies in turntaking

• Adults wait for eye contact before signing
  (Harris 1987, van den Bogaerde 2000, Loots
  Devisé 2003)
• In Child Directed Signing adults shift the
  signing space into visual field of child
• Waving or tapping used to attract attention or
  sometimes to signal desire to take turn

4
Strategies in turntaking (2)

• Collaborative floor (simultaneous signing) occurs
  easily in adult sign language interaction
  (Coates Sutton-Spence 2001)
• Overlap in adult-adult signing
• for feedback
• for feedback using repetition
• for clarification

5
Research Questions

• In early mother-child interaction
• Is visual attention to signing established at the
  beginning of utterances?
• How much overlap is found?
• What is the function of overlap?
• Are there differences between deaf and hearing
  children?

6
Method

• one deaf child
• one hearing child (brothers)
• at ages 20, 30 and 60
• in interaction with same deaf mother
• Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT) and Dutch
  are used, plus combinations
• Five minutes of interaction analyzed per session
• Units of analysis
• turns, utterances and signs

7
Contribution of child
Results general measures

• Percentage of turns produced by the child in dyad
• 20 30 60
• Deaf-deaf 37 43 44
• Deaf-hearing 52 46 42
• Jonas (H) is more active at age 20 than Mark (D)
• Probably related to Jonas general language level
  (further in spoken Dutch than Mark in NGT)

8
MLU in signs
Results general measures

• Average number of signs per utterance
• 20 30 60
• Mother M 1.9 2.1 3.0
• Mark (D) 1.5 2.3 2.3
• Mother J 2.0 2.0 2.3 Jonas (H) 1.1 1.8 2.3
• Mother mostly ahead of child in MLU as expected
• Both children increase their MLU
• Jonas has a slower start in signs only 36 of
  utterances contain a sign at 20, but 78 at 60

9
How often is the beginning of the utterance seen
by addressee ()?
R Results

• 20 30 60
• Deaf-deaf (Mark)
• seen by mother 85 95 99
• seen by child 77 91 98
• Deaf-hearing (Jonas)
• seen by mother 44 49 67
• seen by child 72 61 62
• Jonas sees 80 of signs Mark 99

10
Percentage of overlapping utterances in dyad
Results

• 20 30 60
• Deaf-deaf 40 42 63
• Deaf-hearing 18 26 44
• Increase in overlap in both dyads
• Deaf-deaf dyad far more overlap collaborative
  floor
• Deaf-deaf dyad - long chains of overlaps not in
  Deaf-hearing

11
Percentage of child interruptions and
simultaneous starts
Results

• 20 30 60
• Child Interruptions
• Mark (D) 32 28 43
• Jonas (H) 58 14 34
• Simultaneous starts
• Deaf-deaf 10 28 17
• Deaf-hearing 10 14 17

12
Functions of overlap
Results

• Mother uses all functions at all ages
• Mark Jonas
• Feedback after 20 few
• Repetition few few
• Clarification small increase none
• Other most most

13
Mark with his mother (60)
14
Jonas with his mother (60)
15
Conclusions

• Visual attention at start of turn
• - mother at 20 waits for attention
• - deaf child learns to check for signing
• - hearing child looks when mother speaks
• Amount of overlap increases with age
• - Deaf-deaf dyad high percentage of overlap
• - Deaf-hearing dyad increase as Jonas signs
  more

16
Conclusions (2)

• Child Interruptions
• - Mark slight increase between 20 and 60,
• learning collaborative floor
• - Jonas overlaps with speech at 20, learns not
• to by 30 and sign overlap at 60
• Simultaneous start
• - Mark more active at 30 resulting in more
• - Jonas increases slightly

17
Conclusions (3)

• Functions
• - most overlap for children real interruption
• - Mark is learning functions of overlap
  (feedback and clarification)
• Deaf-deaf dyad moving towards collaborative
  floor
• Deaf-hearing dyad functions more as hearing,
  voice used by mother to gain attention/turn
• Fine-tuning in deaf-hearing dyad more complex due
  to mothers deafness

18
References

• Bogaerde, B. van den 2000 Input and interaction
  in deaf families, UvA. Utrecht Lot
  (wwwlot.let.uu.nl)
• Bogaerde, B. v.d. A. Baker 2002 Are deaf young
  children bilingual? In G.Morgan B.Woll,
  Directions in sign language research, Amsterdam
  Benjamins
• Coates J R. Sutton-Spence 2001 Turn-taking
  patterns in Deaf conversation. Journal of
  Sociolinguistics 5/4, 507-529
• Harris M.J. et al. 1987 Communication between
  deaf mothers and their deaf infants. Proceedings
  of CLS. In P.Griffith et al. (eds) Univ. of York
• Loots, G. I. Devisé (2003) The use of
  visual-tactile communication strategies by deaf
  and hearing mothers of deaf children. JDSDE 8,
  31-42.

19
CONTACT

• a.e.baker_at_uva.nl
• Sign linguistics / ACLC
• University of Amsterdam
• Spuistraat 210
• 1012 VT Amsterdam
• The Netherlands

• beppie.vandenbogaerde_at_hu.nl
• Bachelor/master NGT
• Faculty of Education
• Hogeschool Utrecht
• Archimedeslaan 16
• 3584 BA Utrecht
• The Netherlands

20
Amount of overlap