1. CLS July 20061 EYE GAZE IN TURNTAKING IN SIGN LANGUAGE INTERACTION Anne Baker & Beppie van den Bogaerde

2. CLS July 20062 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 20063 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 20064 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 20065 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 20066 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 20067 Contribution of child Percentage of turns produced by the child in dyad 2;03;06;0 Deaf-deaf 374344 Deaf-hearing524642 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 20068 MLU in signs Average number of signs per utterance 2;03;06;0 Mother M1.9 2.13.0 Mark (D)1.52.32.3 Mother J2.02.02.3 Jonas(H)1.11.82.3 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 20069 How often is the beginning of the utterance seen by addressee (%)? 2;03;06;0 Deaf-deaf (Mark) seen by mother 859599 seen by child779198 Deaf-hearing (Jonas) seen by mother 444967 seen by child726162 Jonas sees 80% of signs; Mark 99% R Results

10. CLS July 200610 Percentage of overlapping utterances in dyad 2;03;06;0 Deaf-deaf 404263 Deaf-hearing182644 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 200611 Percentage of child interruptions and simultaneous starts 2;03;06;0 Child Interruptions Mark (D) 322843 Jonas (H)581434 Simultaneous starts Deaf-deaf 102817 Deaf-hearing101417 Results

12. CLS July 200612 Functions of overlap Mother uses all functions at all ages Mark Jonas Feedback> after 2;0 few Repetitionfew few Clarificationsmall increase none Othermost most Results

13. CLS July 200613 Mark with his mother (6;0)

14. CLS July 200614 Jonas with his mother (6;0)

15. CLS July 200615 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 200616 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 200617 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 200618 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 200619 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 200620 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 603245714049 Overlap by child 325828144334 Sim.start of overlap 10 281417