deaf haptic behavoir
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/26/2019 Deaf Haptic Behavoir
1/16
Mary Alice Betines, Payson Hall
Sign Language Studies, Volume 56, Fall 1987, pp. 245-259 (Article)
DOI: 10.1353/sls.1987.0005
For additional information about this article
Access provided by SUNY College @ Purchase (29 Oct 2014 16:34 GMT)
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/sls/summary/v1056/56.betines.html
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/sls/summary/v1056/56.betines.htmlhttp://muse.jhu.edu/journals/sls/summary/v1056/56.betines.html -
7/26/2019 Deaf Haptic Behavoir
2/16
Haptic
Bohavior
DEAF
HAPTIC
BEHAVIOR
Mary
Alice
Betines
Payson
Hall
Abstract. Afield
study of
the
h ptic
behaviorof deaf
school
childrenfound three essential
ypes:
self-directea
iterpersonal ttention-getg,
andinterpersonal
motionally
expressive,
also
that the
communicative
role ofhap/icbehavior
varies with
sez
age,and the presence or absenceo/spoken
language
sills.7heseresults bearon the problem ofpreparing
both
heariganddeaf
school
popu/ations
or ains/reaming ad
suggest
uture research
directions.
Another channel.
Two million
people in
the
United
States
cannot hear and do not have intelligible
speech
(Higgins
1980).
Those
who
work with
the
deaf, especially
the professionals involved
in
the recent mainstreaming
efforts,
are well aware
of
the
implications
of
these
figures: should
the
goal
of complete integration with the
rest
of society ever be attained,
approximately
one out of
every 130 communicative interactions
would
be
between a hearing person
and a deaf person. Yet studies
continue
to
show
that
communication
problems inhibit
the
interaction between
hearing
and hearing-impaired
individuals
(Brill 1975, Hus 1979).
This study was initially conceived
as
an
inquiry into
inter-
cultural communication
between the
hearing
and
the deaf. In
his
pioneering
effort
to
stimulate theory
building
specific
to
intercul-
ural
communication,
Sarbaugh
(1979) offers
a taxonomy
of
critical
communication
variables as
a framework
for analyzing
intercultural
interactions;
one
of the most critical
of those
variables is the code
system
(op.
cit.,
143):
The combination
of
verbal
and
nonverbal utterances
and acts
which may
be expected
to
elicit
similar
meanings in
oneself and homogeneous
others.
Despite
Sarbaugh's
rigorous attempts
to
be as
comprehensive and
at
the
same
time
as culture-free in his
use
of
terminology
as
Copyright
1987
by
Linstok
Press
Inc.
See note
insi
front cover.
ISSN 3 2 1475
Butinue
OcHall
SLS 56
Fall11987
-
7/26/2019 Deaf Haptic Behavoir
3/16
Haptic
Behavior
possible,
it
is
clear
that
he
was addressing
communication
of
hearing individuals. To
increase
our terminological
precision and to
avoid the
dominant
(i.e. hearing)
cultural
values and
biases that
have
come
to be associated with
the
terms
verbal and
'nonverbal, we will follow
Stokoe's (1978) implicit
suggestion
and avoid
these
terms
altogether.
For
the
hearing,
the
principal
language-carrying
channel
is
vocal,
and nonvocal
behaviors
function
as auxiliary
forms
of
communication
to
complement,
modify,
and
even contradict
the
spoken
message.
For
the
deaf,
the language-carrying channel
is
primarily gestural,
involving arms and hands,
facial expression,
head
position and movement, and gaze
(Baker Cokely
1980 .
Other nongestural
behaviors
apparently serve the same auxiliary
communicative
functions for deaf
persons
that
nonvocal behaviors
do for hearing
persons. The
different language-carrying channels
and
the probably
different roles played
by the respective auxiliary
communication
channels
point to potential
sources of
communication
problems when
members
of these
two
cultures
interact
(Antia
1982).
For example,
just as vocal
paralanguage (i.e. volume
stress,
inflection,
silent
and vocalized
pauses,
etc.)
modifies
and
elaborates
the spoken
language
of the
hearing, the
deaf
also
use
a
paralanguage
within the gestural
channel
to
complement their
signing.
The mood
and intensity
attached
to
the
meaning
of a
sign
is indicated
in
the
way the sign
is executed:
i.e. in
the speed
of
the
sign, the size
of the
sign, and
the
amount of
body energy
expended
in the production
of
the sign.
Higgins
(1980)
has noted that
hearing Americans,
who
tend to
be
relatively
reserved in
their
body movements,
may become
alarmed at
the
more
animated
movements
of deaf
signers.
Vandell
and
George
(1981)
have
also
investigated
the
respective
roles
of kinesics
in
the
interaction
of
deaf
and
hearing
communicators.
Other
auxiliary
communication
channels
have
received
comparative
research
attention:
the
relative
sensitivity
to
and
interpretation
of
visual cues
by
hearing
persons
and
those
with
impaired
hearing
has
been
investigated
(e.g.
by
Comalli
1976,
Lindsey
O'Neal
1976).
Communication
problems
caused
by
differences
in
the ways
that
the
deaf and
the
hearing
utilize space
Fall
1987
Betines
Hall
SLS
56
-
7/26/2019 Deaf Haptic Behavoir
4/16
Haptic
Behavior
have
been examined (Kaplan
McHale 1980). And a number
of
studies have
indicated
an
elevated sensitivity
in deaf
subjects
to
tactile
stimuli (Carroll
Surtees
1976, Schiff
Dytell 1972,
Vargha-Khadem
1982 .
Yet
haptics, a crucial mode
of
communication for everyone,
has
been a largely
neglected
research
area. This deficiency
holds
not only
for
interactions between
the
deaf and the hearing
but
also
for research focused
solely
on the
deaf.
Thus
the intercultural
origins of this research were
largely abandoned. Instead,
the study
reported here
deals
with the
haptic behavior
of
the deaf.
Because
previous research
was
lacking to
guide
hypothesis
making,
we considered a field
study
most
appropriate.
Our
research was exploratory
in nature
and
dealt
with the
deaf
person's normative patterns of
haptic
behavior
as
they occurred
in
institutional
settings.
As
with most
exploratory
field research,
the
direction of the research
was developed and
refined as the
research progressed.
At
first
the
principal investigator's
guiding
question was quite general:
are there differences in deaf
haptic
behavior
that can
be linked to
other observable
variables?
Early
in
the
research, however,
this
question became:
Are
there differences
in deaf
haptichbehavior
hat
can
be
inked to
the
indviWduals
languageskills or
ack
of them?
Method. Deaf
persons
for this
study were
considered to
be
those
in
whom the sense
of
hearing
is
non-functional
for
the
ordinary interactions of daily life and who
can
understand little
or
no speech
through auditory
means,
with or without
a hearing
aid.
Subjects in the
study
had
hearing
losses ranging from
moderately
severe
to
profound. The
accidental
samples at various
sites
ranged
across
age
groups,
sex,
and spoken
language
skills.
All
nine study sites were
within
a public,
state-funded
school
for
the
hearing impaired
in
a mid-Atlantic state. It is the
only
school
for the
hearing impaired in
the state and
is attended by
children resident
in
the state.
It
has adopted the policy or
philosophy of Total Communication
and
uses
Si g
Eact
English
(Gustason et al.
1972). Most
of
the study
sites were
classrooms in which
students
were engaging
in a variety of
activities. Unsupervised sites were also selected -- the lobby of
the
Fall 1987
Betines
Hall
SLS '56
-
7/26/2019 Deaf Haptic Behavoir
5/16
Huptiu Buhuviur
school,
the faculty lounge,
and the
hallways; to
allow
for
observation of more natural,
less institutionally structured,
behavior.
At
all
sites the
researcher
(MAB)
attempted
to remain
strictly
an
observer;
however,
as a substitute
teacher at
the school,
her
status
as
observer
only
was occasionally
compro-mised.
Nevertheless,
she was
only once
actually
drawn
into
the
participant-observer
role.
Haptic
behavior
among
hearing-impaired
interactants
was
observed
at
each
of
the
sites.
For
the
most
part the interaction
was
among
peers
in
age
and
hearing
status.
The observer
used a field
journal,
jotted notes
in
which were
expanded
into full
notes
at
the
end of
the observation, usually
by the
end
of
that
day.
Two
general
types
of haptic
behavior
were
distinguished
throughout
the study,
self-directed
and interpersonal
(or other-
directed).
Haptic behavior
classified as interpersonal was also
observed
to see whether it served
to
express emotion
or to
gain
attention.
In
addition, frequency,
duration,
and the
context
in
which
the haptic behavior
occurred
were noted.
The
age,
sex,
and
spoken language attempts of
the participants
in
the interaction
were
also recorded, and free
form notes were taken on
all
observations.
Results.
The following
discussion is
arranged by sites according
to the
order in
which
each
site
was visited.
For
each set
of observations,
the
character
of the
site, the
extent
to
which the
subjects seemed
to
attend to
the
observer,
the
general nature
of
the observed
interactions,
and
the pertinent
characteristics
of each
participant
have been noted. Description
of
the
observation
is
followed,
where
appropriate,
by a brief
speculative
discussion
of
the
findings
as
a guide
to
later
observations.
Site
Z Classroom,
intermediate
grade,
4
children.
Persons: 2
boys,
2 girls.
Awareness:
All
appeared
to
ignore
the observer
completely.
The
boys
were
first
observed
in
conversation.
One
was
a
13
year-old
who
did not
attempt
speech.
His
conversational
partner
was a 14
year-old
boy who
attempted
spoken language.
The two
talked about
their
favorite
basketball
team; each
favored
a
rival
Fall
1987
Dutinv
cHall
SLS
56
-
7/26/2019 Deaf Haptic Behavoir
6/16
Haptic
Behavior
team.
Throughout the conversation
each
directed
haptic behavior
at
the other.
While on two occasions this
behavior srved
as an
attention
getting
function, all other
touching
was expressive
of
emotion; e.g.
much
of
the
haptic
behavior directed at
the
other
consisted
of punctuations to
statements of scorn:
the elder
signed,
Nets
are stupid and hit the younger
on
the arm. The other
signed,
You
are wrong and
retaliated with
a
slap
on the shoulder. The
interpersonal haptic behavior was
about
as frequent with
one as
the
other.
Self-directed
haptic behavior
was
also
observed.
The
boy
who
did
not attempt
speech
signed
at
all times more rapidly
than
his older
speech-attempting partner,
and his
self-touching was less
frequent
and shorter in
duration.
When
the
elder
boy
attempted
speech, he
exhibited
a
greater
amount
and longer
self-directed
haptic behavior, and
his
sign
execution
was
slower
than when he
signed without speaking.
The other two
children
in
the
room
were girls
13 years old;
both
attempted speech
at
all
times
while involved in conversation.
In
comparison
with
the boys
there
was
less interpersonal
haptic
behavior
and
that
which
did
occur
served attention-getting
or
attention-directing functions.
Interestingly,
while
the
boys seemed
to
direct emotion-laden touches at one another, the two 13-year-
old
girls expressed
their
emotions
with
gestures directed at
nearby
objects,
at
the
air
between
them, or in exaggerated
signs;
e.g.
in
conversation about
a particular boy, when
calling him
stupid,
one
of
the girls swung her
non-signing arm
to
her left and hit the
desk.
Observations at this site
suggested the possibility
of sex-
related
differences
in
the
use
of
interpersonal touch as well
as
a
relationship between self-directed haptic
behavior
and speech
attempts.
Site 2:
A
classroom.
Pariconts Three 15-year-old girls.
A wareness
Except
for
an
occasional
glance from one of the girls,
the researcher
was
ignored.
As was
the
case
for
the speech-attempting
boy in Site
1,
when the
two girls attempted speech,
they
signed at a slower
rate
and
exhibited
more
frequent
and
prolonged
self-directed
haptic
behavior than when they ceased attempting speech. In
addition,
Fall 1987
Betines
Hall
SI.S
56
-
7/26/2019 Deaf Haptic Behavoir
7/16
Haptic
Behavior
the
girl
with
no
spoken
language
skills employed
self-touch
less
frequently
than
her speech-attempting
peers,
and
that which
she
did
use
was
of much
shorter
duration
and appeared
to be
part
of
her
sign
language
execution.
Although
she
used
less
self-directed
haptic
behavior
than the
others,
she
exhibited
a
great
deal more
interpersonal
touch
than
they
did.
Observations
at this
site tended
to support
the earlier
suggestion
of
a
relationship
between
frequency
and duration
of
self-directed
haptic
behavior
and
attempted
speech,
or
perhaps
the
presence
or absence
of spoken
language
skills.
Given
speech
skills,
speech attempts
may
regulate
self-directed
haptic
behavior.
With these notions
to
explore,
the
observer
next
looked at an
older
group
to inquire
into
the
possibility of
age-specific
haptic
behavior.
Site 3: Two
locations,
gymnasium
during class
and
halls on
the
way
to next class.
Persons
Five
girls, 17
to 19 years old.
A wareness.-
None
appeared
to
notice the researcher
in
either
location.
All five
girls
had
spoken
language skills;
three
of them
con-
sistently attempted speech;
the other
two used speech
only
sporadically.
The former three showed
longer periods of
self-
directed
haptic
behavior
than
the others.
The
latter two
showed
more
self-touching
behavior
during speech attempts
than when
they did not use
voice.
All five used extensive interpersonal haptic
behavior,
but nearly
all
of
it served
attention-getting functions.
One
of
these five
girls
was an
acquaintance
of the researcher.
Interestingly,
in
contrast to her behavior
with
her
deaf
peers,
when
with the researcher
she
invariably
signed much
more
slowly,
used her voice
more
consistently,
and never
directed
even
attention-getting
haptic
behavior
toward the
researcher.
Site -f A classroom,
two
boys playing
a board
game.
Persons.:
A
14-year
and a 15-year-old
boy.
A wareness:
Both
seemed
to ignore the researcher.
Both boys
attempted speech
sporadically
and
showed
more
self-directed
haptic
behavior
when
vocalizing
than
when
not.
Emotionally
expressive
interpersonal
haptic behavior
occurred
frequently
through
both speech
and nonvocal
utterances;
e.g.
Fall 1987
Betines Hall
SLS
56
-
7/26/2019 Deaf Haptic Behavoir
8/16
Haptic
Behavior
friendly
blows
to
the
arm or shoulder were exchanged
to
express
scorn
at
a
particular move
made in the course
of
the game,
or
to
express exasperation
at
losing
the match.
Observations
here
confirm the
notion that
speech attempts result in increased self-
directed haptic behavior.
The extensive
interpersonal
haptic
behavior
seen
serving
emotional
functions
among
males aged 13 to
14 matches
the observations
at Site
1.
Site 5:
The school lobby.
Persons.:
Two boys,
18
and
19
years old
in
casual conversation.
A
wareness:
Researcher,
on
bus
duty,
was ignored
as
a normal
part
of
the
environment.
Unlike the
younger
males
observed at
Sites
1 and 4,
the two
here
used
no emotionally
expressive
interpersonal haptic
behavior; what
did occur was for attention
getting
or greeting or
parting, suggesting that such behavior
is
more
characteristic
of
younger than of older
males.
Site 6 Kindergarten gym
class.
Persons:
Four
boys,
three
girls,
5
to
6
years
old
(in a game that
two
hearing
female
instructors supervised).
A
wareness: None;
children absorbed
in game.
The haptic interaction between the instructors and
the
children
provided
an interesting contrast
to the
interaction among
the
children themselves.
The
latter, while
always firm and
sometimes quite forceful, did
not seem
to
be regarded
by
the
peers
as
antagonistic;
e.g.
one
young boy
was seen
to hit
one
of the
girls with
obvious force. The
girl's
response
was a
mere
head
turning. Another girl
was
seen
to tap
a fellow classmate's stomach
during play;
no
protest was
made
by the boy,
and
he was later
seen
to return
the
not-so-gentle
tap
as
but
a matter of play
routine. On the other hand, the instructor's typically light touches
were
seldom effective
in
gaining
the
children's
attention.
Despite
this
apparent
difference,
one of
the
instructors
was
observed
reprimanding
the children
on several occasions
for
so
forcefully
touching
others.
Haptic
expressiveness was exhibited
in
this group
to
a
much
greater extent than
in any
previously
observed group, and there
were
no
apparent
differences between the
haptic
behaviors of the
boys and
the
girls.
Most of
the children's
copious
haptic
behavior
Fall
1987
Betines
Hall
SLS 56
-
7/26/2019 Deaf Haptic Behavoir
9/16
Haptic Behavior
was
interpersonal
in
nature
and
seemed
to
serve
not
only
as
emotional
outlet
but
also to communicate directly
feelings of
affection, comfort, and reassurance. In
addition,
the
range
of
areas
these children touched
was
more
extensive than
that
of
older
children observed.
The
older children's
interpersonal
touching was
generally
on
the shoulders, arms, and hands;
but
the younger
children
also touched the
waist and abdomen.
Site
7
A classroom,
two instructors, showing children
a
puppy.
Persons:
girls and a boy,
5-6 years,
seated
in
a circle
on floor.
A
wareness: Attention
on
puppy;
observer
unnoticed.
Again much
more
interpersonal
haptic behavior than among
older children.
Here
an
outlet
for emotions and
a primary means
of communicating
excitement or fear
to
others; e.g. several after
excitedly
striking the
floor with
both
hands
diverted these
blows
to
classmates. Several other
children sought the quieting
embrace
of the
instructors. As
in
the
previous
observation,
instructors
reprimanded the children several times for their haptic behavior.
The
reprimands
may indicate the
presence
of a
socialization
process
toward the
standards
of
hearing
society.
Observations
at
this
and
the
previous site also seem to
indicate
that
haptic
behavior may
play a
larger
role in the
behavior
of
younger
children than
in
that
of older
children. (No
sex
difference here in
interpersonal
haptic
usage
suggests that sex-related
differences
emerge at a later time.)
Site
8: An
art classroom.
PersonsTwo
girls,
age 8 and
12.
A
wareness
The elder
occasionally
addressed
a
comment but
no
haptic behavior
toward the
observer.
The
girls'
interpersonal
haptic behavior was expressive
of
emotion
and
used to
get attention;
however,
it
was
not as
extensive
as that
of
the
12
and
13
year
old boys
observed
earlier,
nor
as
extensive
as
that
observed
in
the
two
kindergarten
groups.
Both girls
attempted
speech
sporadically
and
used
more
frequent
self-touch
of
longer
duration
with
the
attempts
than
in
strictly
gestural
communication.
(These
observations
lend
even
more
support
to
the
idea
that
speech
attempts
increase
and
lengthen
self-directed
haptic
behavior.)
Fall
1987
Betines
Hall
SLS
56
-
7/26/2019 Deaf Haptic Behavoir
10/16
Haptic
Behavior
Site
9:
The
teachers'
lounge
at
coffee
break
and
lunch time.
Persons:
Several
staff members;
see
below.
A
awareness
Observer
on
a couch
at
the
side
was totally
ignored
by
the
observed
at
a
table in
middle
of
the room.
A
congenitally
deaf
31-year-old male with no
language
skills
was
observed conversing.
His
signing was
rapid in
execution
with
a minimal
amount
of
self-directed haptic behavior. Pauses in his
stream of signed
conversation
were filled
with
gestures.
No
touching behavior directed at another person was observed, not
even
for
attention getting.
A
50-year-old
woman, who
lost
her hearing
in
her
late
30s,
was
next observed. She
always
used
voice; her
sign
was markedly
slower than
the
preceding subject's, and it
involved
a
large
amount of self-touching. During pauses
she
often rested her hands
on
her
chest.
No
interpersonal
haptic
behavior
was noted.
A second
adventitiously
deaf
adult,
a male
in
his
mid-30s,
who had
lost
his
hearing
at the age
of
5, was
observed.
Like the
woman
just described, he always
used
voice
and
used
a greater
amount of self-touch than
the first male observed.
No
interpersonal
haptic behavior
was
observed.
Observations at this site tend
to
support the earlier
suggestion that the
possession
of spoken language
skills
may
be
positively
related
to both
frequency and
duration of self-directed
haptic
behavior
during
conversation.
It
also appears
that deaf
adults tend to
refrain
from the
use
of interpersonal haptic
behavior.
Discussion.
Results of this exploratory
study provide
a number
of
qualified
answers
to
the
initial
research
question
about possible
links between haptic behavior
and
the
spoken
language
skills of deaf
persons.
Two broad
categories of haptic
behavior,
self
-directed
and
interpersonal, were noted throughout.
The
latter
kind
served to attract attention
or
express
emotions.
It
seems clear from
the observations
that
haptic behavior
is an
important channel
of communication for
many
deaf people. It also
seems clear that
its communicative
role varies
according to
two
principal
factors: the
individual's
age and spoken language
skills.
The
following
tentative
propositions summarize our findings.
Fall
1987
Betines
Hall
SLS
56
-
7/26/2019 Deaf Haptic Behavoir
11/16
Haptic
Behavior
1.
Deaf persons
with
no
spoken
language
skills
are less
likely
to
utilize
self-directed
haptic
behavior
than
deaf
persons
with
spoken
language
skills.
The
apparent
relationship
between
vocalization
skills and
self-directed
haptic
behavior
may
have
an adaptive
significance. Deaf
persons
without
vocal
language
skills must
rely primarily
on
their
signing
ability
to
communicate,
but
persons
who
have
speech
skills
have
an
additional
mode
of
communication,
they
have
less
need
to
depend
on
the
sign
channel
to
present
all
information.
The
additional
channel
available
to
the
person
with spoken
language
skills
may
allow
the
freedom
for the
individual
to
adapt
self-directed
haptic
behavior
as a
complement
to
their
signing.
[Alternatively,
the
need
to
manage
language
output
in
two
modes may
impose
stress
on
the
signer-speaker
who
cannot
hear
and
cause self-directed
touching
of the
kind
often
seen
in
stammerers.
Ed.]
2. Deaf persons
with
spoken language
skills tend to
use
self-
directed
haptic behavior
more frequently and
their self-touch
tends
to be
of
longer
duration when
they
are
attempting
speech
than
when they are
not.
The speculation
above could
also
be true of
one who
shifts
between
signing
only and
signing
while
speaking.
There is
another possible explanation: signers
with
spoken
language
skills are bilingual (Stokoe
1969),
and
may be
trimodal
(Wilcox
in
SLS
55). When deaf
persons employ
speech
during signed
conversation,
they
are
either
encoding in two
languages simultaneously or they are so rapidly switching from
one
to
the other
as
to
seem to
be. Whichever
the
case
may be,
it is reasonable to expect that
the
dual
encoding process
would
slow
the meaning stream -- a
speculation supported
by the
observations
that signed
conversation without
coupled speech
attempts is more rapid than that with such attempts.
Additionally, the
non-native language,
whether
spoken or
signed,
probably
influences
the lower
limit
of a bilingual
person's dual encoding rate.
Perhaps the
greater amount
and
duration of
self-directed
haptic behavior
during
speech can be
viewed as gestural filler -- like
the uh's,
um's, and er's
that
speakers
use, during
those times when
the utterer's attention
Fall 1987
Betines Hall
SLS 56
-
7/26/2019 Deaf Haptic Behavoir
12/16
Haptic Behavior
has switched from
the gestural
to
the
speaking
mode.
3. Younger
deaf
children
tend
to use more
interpersonal
haptic
behavior
that is more
emotionally
expressive than do
older
deaf
children. (Kaplan
and McHale's
study
(1980),
which found
that
younger deaf
children interact
primarily through tactile
means, would appear to
support this
proposition at the
low
end
of the age
range. The
decrease
in emotionally
expressive
interpersonal
haptic behavior associated
with
increasing
age
observed
in
this study
suggests
the
influence of
socialization,
probably toward hearing
society's
haptic behavioral
norms
of
how
much
and
what
kind of
touching is acceptable.
This is
at
least partially
supported by the
observation of instructors
reprimanding
kindergarten children
for
their interpersonal
haptic behavior. The
fact that the older girls
who interacted
with
the
researcher
(e.g.
in
Site 3 and
Site 8) did not
direct
any
haptic
behavior toward the
researcher, although they
did
toward
deaf peers, suggests
that
they
may
already have been
partially socialized
to the haptic norms
of hearing adults.
The
fact
that
no
interpersonal haptic behavior was noted in the
observation
of
adults,
and
that
one
adult even
utilized
table
tapping as a substitute
for attention-getting touch,
also
support
this
speculation
about
socialization.
A
reasonable
alternative explanation, drawing on
the Kaplan
and
McHale
study,
is that touch plays a
greater
role
in
communication
at a younger age primarily because
young
children are still developing
their
signed language
skills.
With
increasing
age their signing becomes more
proficient and
so
they
can more
thoroughly express the
detail
and nuance
of
their
emotions
in linguistic
forms,
and
thus
have
less
need
to
rely
on
paralinguistic expression
such
as pantomime or
interpersonal
haptic behavior.
4. Interpersonal
haptic
behavior
to
get attention tends
to
be
used
with about
the same
frequency
by
deaf children regardless
of
age. This finding appears to
have a relatively
obvious
explanation,
when
we consider
that
there
are
few
alternatives
to
the use of touch for gaining the attention of a deaf person;
e.g. sudden
large or unusual
movements
within others' field
of
view,
or
the
table tapping
mentioned
above.
But such
Fall 1987
Betines
Hall
SLS 56
-
7/26/2019 Deaf Haptic Behavoir
13/16
Haptic
Behavior
alternatives
are less
natural
and
often situationally
constrained;
e.g. by
the
other person's
field of view
or contact
with the
table.
5.
Emotionally
expressive
interpersonal
haptic
behavior
tends
to
decrease
for deaf
female
children
at
an earlier
age
than
for
deaf
male
children.
For the
younger
children
there
appeared
to
be
no sex-related
differences
in the
use
of
emotion-expressing
haptic
behavior.
By
the
age
of
13,
however,
the
girls
were
noted
to
have
markedly
decreased
their
use
of haptics
in
conveying
emotions,
while
males of
the same
age
were
observed to
continue
using
extensive haptic behavior
for
expressing
emotion.
In
the
boys,
haptic behavior
was
observed
to have decreased
markedly
by
age 18,
compared
to
age 13
for
the girls.
If
there is
merit
to
the
socialization
speculation,
these
facts
may
indicate
that deaf
females
are
socialized
toward-the
haptic
norms of
the hearing
at
an
earlier
age than
are
deaf
males.
Implications.
Several
implications
may
be drawn from
this
study
by
those
who seek
to
mainstream
deaf
children
into hearing
society.
The
age-related
differences
in
the
use of haptic behavior
suggest
different
training
strategies
for
different age groups,
not
only for
the deaf children
to be
integrated
but
for the
population
they
are
to
join. For
example,
young hearing
children
should be trained
to expect a
much higher
degree of
interpersonal touch
from
deaf
children -- a
training
concern that
would
not
be as
crucial
for older children.
The
findings
also suggest
that
training
for
the
hearing population
should
include the
expectation interpersonal touch will be
used to
a
greater extent to gain
attention
by those
deaf children
who have
had
little experience with
the
hearing
world
or
who do
not have
spoken language skills.
More
importantly, hearing children
must
learn
to use interpersonal
touch
to
gain
the attention
of
their
deaf
peers.
Doubtless
greater detailed knowledge
of deaf
persons
haptic behavior that further study could give would add
suggestions
to
be noted
by professionals
concerned
with
mainstreaming.
As with
any field
study,
the propositions
suggested
here
are
Fall
1987
Betines
Hall
SLS 56
-
7/26/2019 Deaf Haptic Behavoir
14/16
Haptic
Behavior
by
no
means
conclusive.
Limitations
include lack
of consistency
in
observational sites,
activities,
and conversational
topics,
as well
as
inability
to
obtain
more
detailed
information
about
those
observed,
and
of
course
the
limited
number
of subjects
--
a
problem
of all field
studies.
The
lack of
consistency
clearly
limits
the strength
of the
study's
conclusions;
e.g. children
engaged
in a
game are
likely
to
exhibit
more
emotionally
charged
interpersonal
haptic behavior
than are
friends engaged
in casual
conversation
in
the
hallway
between classes.
Future
studies might
control
for
this
by
systematically
observing
the conversational
topics
of
a
variety
of
children at
a
given
site and engaged
in
similar
activities.
Another
limitation
was the
consequence
of working
within
an institutional
setting
in
which, because
official records
are
confidential,
detailed demographic
data on
the subjects
was
not uniformly available. Institutional
staff
persons were
helpful
in
volunteering
general
information,
additional detail would
have
been
useful; e.g.
student
records include
personal history,
language
level, signing
skills,
and
overall
communicative
functioning.
Given
these
limitations, the
principal
purpose
of
this
field
study has
been
fulfilled:
it
breaks
necessary
ground
and provides
guidance for further
inquiry. An appropriate
follow-up
study
might, e.g., use
video and sound
taping of
communicative
interactions of deaf children at various ages at a single site, thus
reducing the
obtrusiveness
of an
observer's
presence.
The
ability
to replay such tapes
would allow
for the
kind
of coded
observations
of haptic detail not possible
for a
single
on-site
observer and would also
provide for
reliability
checking
of
several coders. Coding sheets
that
would formalize and
make
observation more
systematic might include
these breakdowns:
(1)
frequency and duration of haptic behavior;
(2)
direction
(self,
other, object);
(3) function
(getting
attention,
expressing emotion);
(4) type (stroke, strike, grasp,
touch);
(5) area
touched
(hand, arm,
shoulder, head,
waist,
back, front, etc.); (6)
intensity
of
haptic
behavior (gentle, firm, forceful,
etc.);
(7) the presence or absence
of simultaneous speech attempts; and (8) the topic of the
conversation. The degree of institutional cooperation required by
such a systematic study would probably
allow
scrutiny of student
Fall
1987
Betines Hall
SLS
5)6
-
7/26/2019 Deaf Haptic Behavoir
15/16
Haptic
Behavior
files
to
gather
such
information as degree
of hearing loss,
onset of
loss,
amount
and history
of
training
in various modes
of
communication.
The
importance
of the information
to
be gained
from
such
a systematic
study
of deaf persons'
haptic
behavior
should
not be underestimated.
REFERENCES
Antia
S.
1982 Social
interaction of partially
mainstreamed
hearing-
impaired
children American Annals
of
the
Deaf
127
18
25.
Baker
C.
D.Cokely
1980 AmerIcan
S;7n Language-
A
teacher s
resource
text
grammar
and
culture Silver
Spring
MD: T.J
Publishers.
Brill
R.
1975
Mainstreaming:
Format or quality? American
Annals
of the
Deaf
120 377-38
1.
Carroll
D. P.Surtees
1976
The
electrodermal
component
of
the
orienting
response
in
blind deaf
individuals
BrltlshJournal
of
Psychology
67
367-375.
Comalli P.
1976
Comparison
of
deaf
hearing
children
on body-object
localization
Perceotual
MrotorSk/s1142,
747-750.
Higgins P.
1980
Outs/ders
#2
alHearing
World Beverly
Hills, CA:
Sage.
Hus, Y.
1979
The
socialization
process
of hearing-impaired
children
in
a summer
day camp
VoltaReview
81
146-156.
Kaplan
B. F.McHale
1980
Communication
play
behaviors
of
a young
deaf
preschooler
his younger brother
Volta Review
82
476-
482.
Lindsey
D.
J.
O Neal
1976
Static
dynamic
balance
skills
of eight
year old
deaf
hearing children
Amer/Annals
of
thelDeaf
124
49-55.
Fall 1987
Betines Hall
SLS '56
-
7/26/2019 Deaf Haptic Behavoir
16/16
Haptic
Behavior
(Lytle,
J.
MS
Nonverbal
communication
of the deaf.
Unpublished
ms.,
Gallaudet
College
1981.1
Sarbaugh
L.
1979
/ntercu/tura/Commun/cati. on.
Rochelle
Park
NJ: Hayden.
Schiff
W.
R.Dytell
1972
Deaf
hearing
children s
performance
on
a tactual
perception
battery
Perceotual
/lotor
Sk///s35,
683
706.
Stokoe W.
1980 Sign
languages
the verbal/nonverbal
distinction.
In
Sight,
Sound
Sense,
ebeok
ed
Bloomington:
Indiana
University
Press
157-172.
1969
Sign
language
diglossla
Stuo /es
bin7guistics21,
27-41.
Vandell
D. L. George
1981
Social
Interaction
in
hearing
deaf
preschoolers:
Successes
failures
in initiations
Ch//'deve/doment
52
627-635.
Vargha-Khadem
F.
1982
Hemispheric
specialization
for
the
processing
of tactual
stimuli
in
congenitally
deaf
hearing
children
Cortex
18 277 286.
Mary
Alice
Betines
is a Pediatric Audiologist
at Children's Specialized
Hospital, Mountainside,
NJ.
She
holds an
M.A. in
Audiology
Hearing
Impairmentfrom
Northwestern University
and
a B A from the University
of
Delaware.
Payson
Hall
is Assistant
Professor
of
Intercultural
International
Communication in
the Department
of
Communication,
Radford
University
(Radford,
VA
24142).
He has taught at the Universities
of
Washington,
Delaware,
and
Hawaii.
He is
particularly interested
in the
cognitive
aspects
of communication
behavior.
Fall
1987
Be tines Hall
SLS 56