1 / 39

TURNTAKING IN SIGN LANGUAGE INTERACTION

TURNTAKING IN SIGN LANGUAGE INTERACTION. Anne Baker. BACKGROUND. The importance of turn taking?. Ever had the feeling of : not getting a word in edgeways? that the other person would rather you stopped talking? that the other person wants you to do all the talking. BACKGROUND.

ivie
Download Presentation

TURNTAKING IN SIGN LANGUAGE INTERACTION

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. TURNTAKING IN SIGN LANGUAGE INTERACTION Anne Baker London February 2007

  2. BACKGROUND The importance of turn taking? Ever had the feeling of : • not getting a word in edgeways? • that the other person would rather you stopped talking? • that the other person wants you to do all the talking London February 2007

  3. BACKGROUND What is turn taking? • Universal pragmatic principle: conversations involve different speakers who take the floor. • The taking of turns is regulated: - behaviour to hold the floor - behaviour to give the floor to another London February 2007

  4. BACKGROUND Regulators of turn taking • Transition Relevance Place (Sachs, Schlegloff & Jefferson 1974) • Verbal signals • Vocal signals • Somatic signals All for both turn holding and turn yielding. • Feedback or backchannels London February 2007

  5. CULTURAL DIFFERENCES The form of the signals • Verbal signals questions, syntactic completeness • Vocal signals intonation, speed of talking, vocalizations • Somatic signals eye contact, head movement, body contact London February 2007

  6. CULTURAL DIFFERENCES The use of the signals • Verbal signals is a direct question polite? what are the indicators of completeness? • Vocal signals intonation contours vary • Somatic signals is eye contact polite? London February 2007

  7. CULTURAL DIFFERENCES Simultaneous talk/sign • Vocal/verbal feedback tolerance/requirement varies • Interruptions tolerance varies • Quick uptake amount of time between turns varies • Floor sharing joint construction of talk London February 2007

  8. A STUDY OF TWO CULTURES Variables • Speed of talk • Length of turn • Length of pauses • Turn at syntactic break • Interruptions and overlap • Feedback • Type of feedback London February 2007

  9. A STUDY OF TWO CULTURES Method(Baker & Junefelt 2007) • Conversation between 4 people • 2 men: 1 older, 1 younger • 2 women: 1 older, 1 younger • Topic: what is typical of your culture? • Length 30 minutes London February 2007

  10. Speed of talk Length of turn Length of pauses Turn at syntactic break Interruptions and overlap Feedback Type of feedback Swedish Slower Fewer and longer Longer More at break Fewer Fewer Fewer in total More vocal, less verbal A STUDY OF TWO CULTURES Results Dutch/Swedish comparison London February 2007

  11. A STUDY OF TWO CULTURES Quantitative Results London February 2007

  12. A STUDY OF TWO CULTURES Quantitative Results London February 2007

  13. A STUDY OF TWO CULTURES Gender differences • Men in both cultures had more interrruptions than the women • Men had longer turns • Older men more than younger. London February 2007

  14. The role of vision • Somatic signals are mostly seen • What happens in turn taking when you cannot see these? e.g. telephone conversations? in the dark? if you are blind? London February 2007

  15. Speed of talk Length of turn Length of pauses Turn at syntactic break Interruptions and Overlap Feedback Type of feedback Blind vs sighted Quicker Longer DU: shorter; SW:longer More Fewer DU:more; SW: fewer DU:more verbal; SW: less vocal No somatic A STUDY OF TWO SUB-CULTURES Results London February 2007

  16. A STUDY OF TWO SUB-CULTURES Explanations for the differences between blind and sighted? • Fewer and longer turns? Visual cues missing, so continue longer. • Turn at syntactic break more often? More use of this non-visual cue. • Fewer interruptions? Two conflicting auditory signals more confusing London February 2007

  17. A STUDY OF TWO SUB-CULTURES Why the cultural differences? • Dutch blind shorter pauses than sighted; Swedish blind longer pauses than sighted? • Dutch more overlap; Swedish less? • Dutch more verbal feedback; Swedish more vocal. London February 2007

  18. A STUDY OF TWO SUB-CULTURES Why the cultural differences? • Dutch shorter pauses; Swedish longer? • Dutch more overlap; Swedish less? • Dutch more verbal feedback; Swedish more vocal. Swedish lack of tolerance for simultaneous talk and tolerance of silence Dutch more pressure to grab floor. Both follow feedback patterns of own culture. What will happen in a blind-sighted conversation? What happens in children? London February 2007

  19. A STUDY OF TWO (SUB-)CULTURES Conclusions • Clear cultural differences • In the absence of visual cues blind adults have learned to adapt to their cultural pattern leading to different behaviours. • Blind children have to learn the pattern. London February 2007

  20. TURNTAKING IN A SIGN LANGUAGE A STUDY OF 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. London February 2007

  21. TURNTAKING IN A SIGN LANGUAGE 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 London February 2007

  22. TURNTAKING IN A SIGN LANGUAGE 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 London February 2007

  23. TURNTAKING IN NGT ACQUISITION 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? London February 2007

  24. TURNTAKING IN NGT ACQUISITION 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 London February 2007

  25. Results: general measures 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) London February 2007

  26. Results: general measures 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 London February 2007

  27. R Results 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% London February 2007

  28. Results 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 London February 2007

  29. Results 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 London February 2007

  30. Results 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 London February 2007

  31. Mark with his mother (6;0) London February 2007

  32. Jonas with his mother (6;0) London February 2007

  33. 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 London February 2007

  34. 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 London February 2007

  35. 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 London February 2007

  36. Effect of turntaking patterns • Jonas as CODA makes different language choices than his mother and than Mark: - more Dutch - more Dutch Base Language (code-blending) • Jonas’ mother asks very few clarification questions compared to other mothers of CODAS. • Effect on his language choice? London February 2007

  37. References • Baker, A.E. & B. v.d. Bogaerde (2006) Factors influencing child CODAs in early bilingual language acquisition. TISLR9, Brazil. • 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. London February 2007

  38. CONTACT a.e.baker@uva.nl https://home.medewerker.uva.nl/a.e.baker ACLC University of Amsterdam Spuistraat 210 1012 VT Amsterdam The Netherlands London February 2007

  39. Amount of overlap London February 2007

More Related