You are on page 1of 16

'HDI+DSWLF%HKDYLRU

Mary Alice Betines, Payson Hall

Sign Language Studies, Volume 56, Fall 1987, pp. 245-259 (Article)

3XEOLVKHGE\*DOODXGHW8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV
DOI: 10.1353/sls.1987.0005

For additional information about this article


http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/sls/summary/v1056/56.betines.html

Access provided by SUNY College @ Purchase (29 Oct 2014 16:34 GMT)

Butinue OcHall

Haptic Bohavior

DEAF HAPTIC BEHAVIOR


Mary Alice Betines
Payson Hall
Abstract. Afield study of the haptic behaviorof deaf school
children found three essentialtypes: self-directea'
iterpersonalattention-getg,andinterpersonalemotionally
expressive, also that the communicativerole of hap/icbehavior
varies with sez age,and the presence or absence o/spoken
language sills.7hese results bearon the problem of preparing
both heariganddeaf schoolpopu/ationsfor 'ains/reaming "ad
suggestfuture 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 intercultural communication between the hearing and the deaf. In his
pioneering effort to stimulate theory building specific to interculural 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,
front
cover. ISSN 0302-1475

SLS 56

Inc.

See

note inside

Fall11987

Betines & Hall

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

SLS 56

Fall 1987

Betines & Hall

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 haptichbehaviorthat can be inked to the indviWduals
languageskills orlack 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

SLS '56

Fall 1987

Dutinv) &c Hall

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 otherdirected). 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

SLS 56

Fall 1987

Betines

&Hall

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-yearold 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 sexrelated 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,

SI.S 56

Fall 1987

Betines & Hall

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 consistently attempted speech; the other two used speech only
sporadically. The former three showed longer periods of selfdirected 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.

SLS 56

Fall 1987

Betines & Hall

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 selfdirected 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

SLS 56

Fall 1987

Betines & Hall

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: 6 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.)

SLS 56

Fall 1987

Betines & Hall

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.

SLS 56

Fall 1987

Betines & Hall

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 selfdirected 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

SLS 56

Fall 1987

Betines & Hall

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

SLS 56

Fall 1987

Betines & Hall

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

SLS 56

Fall 1987

Betines & Hall

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

SLS 5)6

Fall 1987

Haptic Behavior

Betines & Hall

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 hearingimpaired children, American Annals of the Deaf 127, 1825.
Baker, C.& D.Cokely
1980 AmerIcan S;7n Language- A teacher's resource text on
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, BrltlshJournalof 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 #2alHearing 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, 476482.
Lindsey, D.& J. O'Neal
1976 Static & dynamic balance skills of eight year old deaf &
hearing children, Amer/Annals of thelDeaf 124, 49-55.

SLS '56

Fall 1987

Be tines & Hall

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, 683706.
Stokoe, W.
1980 Sign languages & the verbal/nonverbal distinction. In
Sight, Sound& Sense,Sebeok 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
Impairment from 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.

SLS 56

Fall 1987

You might also like