Deaf Haptic Behavoir

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


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


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


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


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


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


7/16

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Date post:	13-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	anonymous-t51rwinj
View:	222 times
Download:	0 times

Deaf Haptic Behavoir

Documents