Visual attention in sign languages Signers focus on each other’s faces when signing in signing space. Manual signs are seen. Children have to learn to divide their attention between sign language and environment.

1. 1
EYE GAZE IN
TURNTAKING IN SIGN
LANGUAGE INTERACTION
DR.SYED JAUWAD

2. CLS July 2006 2
Visual attention in sign languages
• Signers focus on each other’s faces when
signing in signing space.
• Manual signs are seen.
• Children have to learn to divide their
attention between sign language and
environment.

3. CLS July 2006 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. CLS July 2006 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. CLS July 2006 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. CLS July 2006 6
Method
• one deaf child
• one hearing child (brothers)
• at ages 2;0, 3;0 and 6;0
• 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. CLS July 2006 7
Contribution of child
Percentage of turns produced by the child in dyad
2;0 3;0 6;0
Deaf-deaf 37 43 44
Deaf-hearing 52 46 42
• Jonas (H) is more active at age 2;0 than Mark (D)
• Probably related to Jonas’ general language level
(further in spoken Dutch than Mark in NGT)
Results: general measures

8. CLS July 2006 8
MLU in signs
Average number of signs per utterance
2;0 3;0 6;0
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 2;0, but 78% at 6;0
Results: general measures

9. CLS July 2006 9
How often is the beginning of the
utterance seen by addressee (%)?
2;0 3;0 6;0
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%
R Results

10. CLS July 2006 10
Percentage of overlapping
utterances in dyad
2;0 3;0 6;0
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
Results

11. CLS July 2006 11
Percentage of child interruptions
and simultaneous starts
2;0 3;0 6;0
Child Interruptions
Mark (D) 32 28 43
Jonas (H) 58 14 34
Simultaneous starts
Deaf-deaf 10 28 17
Deaf-hearing 10 14 17
Results

12. CLS July 2006 12
Functions of overlap
• Mother uses all functions at all ages
Mark Jonas
• Feedback > after 2;0 few
• Repetition few few
• Clarification small increase none
• Other most most
Results

13. CLS July 2006 13
Mark with his mother (6;0)

14. CLS July 2006 14
Jonas with his mother (6;0)

15. CLS July 2006 15
Conclusions
• Visual attention at start of turn
- mother at 2;0 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. CLS July 2006 16
Conclusions (2)
• Child Interruptions
- Mark slight increase between 2;0 and 6;0,
learning collaborative floor
- Jonas overlaps with speech at 2;0, learns not
to by 3;0 and sign overlap at 6;0
• Simultaneous start
- Mark more active at 3;0 resulting in more
- Jonas increases slightly

17. CLS July 2006 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 mother’s deafness

18. CLS July 2006 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. CLS July 2006 19
CONTACT
a.e.baker@uva.nl
Sign linguistics / ACLC
University of Amsterdam
Spuistraat 210
1012 VT Amsterdam
The Netherlands
beppie.vandenbogaerde@hu.nl
Bachelor/master NGT
Faculty of Education
Hogeschool Utrecht
Archimedeslaan 16
3584 BA Utrecht
The Netherlands

20. CLS July 2006 20
Amount of overlap
2;0
M J
3;0
M J
6;0
M J
Total no.utt.
+ overlap
103
40
221
18
96
42
218
26
185
63
139
44
Overlap by
mother
60 32 45 71 40 49
Overlap by
child
32 58 28 14 43 34
Sim.start of
overlap
10 10 28 14 17 17