The Landscape of Touch

Deafblind International

Tactile Communication Network

Sept 2011
The work of the Deafblind International Communication network
what lies behind their work?
Communication breakdowns:
Can I have a doughnut?

Quest for the Holy Grail:
Journeys where new worlds beckon (Zeedyk,
2006)
being able to make reference to displaced objects
and events (Goldin-Meadow, 2005)
things external in space(and) events distant in
time (Reddy, 2003)

Hypothesis
Congenitally deafblind people and their non-deafblind
communication partners can expand their awareness of the objects
of each others attention within the tactile medium. As they do this,
movements, gestures or signs, introduced by either partner, are
developed by the partnership such that they come to be perceived
and understood by both. Such movements, gestures and signs then
allow the partnership to move away from the here-and-now.
Main developmental areas I
was interested in
Early Communicative Exchanges dyadic interactions
Expanding beyond this common touchpoint triadic interactions (
Deaf children learning a language
The evolution of language in humans
Roles and relationships within communication partnerships
Moving towards language (Illustrated with videos)
Early Communicative Exchanges
dyadic interactions

Four functions of imitation:
attracts attention
stimulates turn-taking
allows people to recognise each other
builds morality (I-You)

Primary intersubjectivity

Mismatch of modalities (Julie Rattray)

Expanding beyond this common touchpoint
triadic interactions

interpersonal and language developments flow from such joint
attention

functional equivalence in the tactile medium

body, hands and the placement of them in space as well as
spontaneous emotional expressionstake on the same
functions of vision, voice and pointing for achieving shared
attention towards something in the world (Rieber-Mohn)
Resilient language features in deaf children

Deaf children develop natural gestures that perform language functions

the deaf childrens gestures are structured more like the spoken
languages they cannot hear than like the gestures they can see. The
lack of a usable language model does not prevent the human child from
communicating with self and other, in the here-and-now and in the non-
present... (Goldin-Meadow)

Nicaraguan children developed a new fully-formed sign language over
a 25 year period (Senghas et al, 2004; Morford and Kegl, 2000; Goldin-
Meadow, 2005)

Non-linguistic input
Although children do not need a language model... other non-linguistic
input is playing a role in the acquisition of language (Morford and Kegl):

There were ample opportunities for shared communication.
There were partners willing to communicate in a visuo-spatial
modality.
There were new communication demands associated with
preferred accommodation to visually oriented deaf partners.
The evolution of language in humans

First languages were gestural (Stokoe)
Comprehension before production
(Burling)
A gesture may express both noun-like
and verb-like meanings and at the same
time show them related (Stokoe, 2000,
p.388).
Roles and relationships within
communication partnerships

Rejection of three standard approaches:
Move too quickly towards language
See imitation as the final destination
Start with imitation but scaffold, using standard
developmental model
Instead we can adopt:
Co-creation of communication and language
Double-sided Zone of Proximal Development
(ZPD)
Vasu Reddy
Expanding awareness of the
object of others attention:
Attending to self
Attending to what self does
Attending to what self perceives
Attending to what self
remembers
























Operational Definition - Attending to self

In these two sections, the deafblind person him/herself is the focus of attention for the communication partner.

1a) Responding to attention to self

Evidence that the deafblind person is responding to the communication partners attention to him/her will be:

a) The deafblind person responds by displaying emotion (e.g. pleasure, distress, excitement);
b) The deaflind person responds by displaying interest (e.g. stilling behaviour, moving towards the partner);
c) The deafblind person responds by displaying disinterest (e.g. withdrawing or moving away from the partner);
d) The deafblind person responds by co-ordinating his /her expressions with the partner (e.g. smiling, laughing,
vocalising etc).


1b) Directing attention to self

Evidence that the deafblind person is directing attention to him/herself will be:

a) The deafblind person makes an initial utterance (in any medium) that directs attention to self (e.g. wiggling
toes, tapping pens, vocalising);
b) The deafblind person directs attention back to self by asking the communication partner to repeat or continue
an action that was directed to the deafblind person (e.g. blowing on him /her, tapping on his / her arm, leg, hand
etc)
c) The deaflind person seeks engagement with the communication partner (e.g. reaching out to the other
person).

























Operational Definition - Attending to what self remembers

In these two sections, past events or absent targets are the focus of attention for the communication partner.

4a) Responding to attention to what self remembers

Evidence that the deafblind person is attending to the communication partners reports of past events and absent
targets will be:

a) The deafblind person uses or completes an action, gesture or sign that originates in the past event that is
being referred to;
b) The deafblind person co-ordinates his / her actions with the partners actions after reminding the partner of the
rules of an ongoing interactive sequence;
c) The deafblind person prevents an activity happening that has been referred to by the partner;
d) The deafblind person makes an appropriate response to a gesture or sign with a previously negotiated
meaning (e.g. stands up after a sign stand is given).



4b) Directing attention to what self remembers

Evidence that the deafblind person is making reference to a past event or object not present will be:

a) The deafblind person initiates an action, gesture or sign that originates in the past event that is being referred
to;
b) The deafblind person reminds the partner of the rules of an ongoing interactive sequence;
c) The deafblind person uses an action, gesture or sign to refer to an object that is not seen, heard or felt;
d) The deafblind person uses a gesture or sign that has an agreed negotiated meaning with another person.

Study 1 - Congenitally deafblind partners
expanding their awareness of the objects of
their non-deafblind partners attention.

Introduction
Results at each of Reddys four stages
Discussion

At the final stage of the analysis I was tackling
these two aims:

1. To demonstrate that congenitally deafblind people can
respond to attention a) to self; b) to what self does; c) to
what self perceives; and d) to what remembers.

2. To demonstrate that congenitally deafblind people can
direct the attention of a communication partner a) to self;
b) to what self does; c) to what self perceives; and d) to
what remembers.

Findings (Study 1)
There are two key findings that emerge from this study:

Congenitally deafblind people can respond to and
direct attention at all four stages of Reddys model.
When doing so, congenitally deafblind people use a
range of movements, gestures and signs, primarily in
the tactile medium but sometimes directed to
perceptual modalities that they themselves do not
have (e.g. vision).

Implication 1 (Study 1)
Firstly, and arguably the most important, non-deafblind
partners must recognise these abilities within their
congenitally deafblind partners because they support
the view that congenitally deafblind people can be equal
communication partners. This points to essential
attitudes that non-deafblind partners should adopt.

Implication 2 (Study 1)
Secondly, it becomes important to understand how
deafblind people use movements, gestures and signs to
respond to and direct attention because this then
informs non-deafblind partners about ways to share
attention to these same objects. This suggests a range
of skills and approaches that non-deafblind partners will
need if they are to learn how to share attention in the
tactile medium.

Implication 3 (Study 1)
Finally, it provides convincing evidence that congenitally
deafblind people are able to move away from the here
and-now. If our interactions are to be respectful and
productive then it becomes incumbent on the non
deafblind partner to take this journey with them. This
suggests that non-deafblind partners should combine
essential attitudes with an appropriate range of skills
and approaches so that they can become fellow
travellers and confidently journey away from the here
and-now.

Video Examples


Study 2 - Non-deafblind partners expanding their
awareness of the objects of their congenitallly
deafblind partners attention.
1. To demonstrate that non-deafbind partners can respond
to attention a) to self; b) to what self does; c) to what self
perceives; and d) to what remembers.

2. To demonstrate that non-deafbind partners can direct the
attention of a congenitally deafblind person a) to self; b)
to what self does; c) to what self perceives; and d) to
what remembers.

Findings (Study 2)
There is one central finding in this study:

Non-deafblind partners can respond to
and direct attention at all four stages of
Reddys model using a range of
movements, gestures and signs
primarily within the tactile medium.




Study 3 - Moving towards language...


There is one principal aim for this third Study:

To demonstrate that movements, gestures or signs that
refer to people, objects, places or events, brought by
either partner to a communicative meeting place, are
developed and modified by the partnership through a
dynamic process of exchange. In this way such these
movements, gestures or signs take on jointly negotiated
meanings and are presented in jointly perceivable forms.

Findings (Study 3)
There are three key findings in this study:
1) Partnerships involving at least one congenitally deafblind person do use
movements, gestures and signs originally brought by either partner to jointly
refer to people, objects, places or events. Dynamic alterations are made to such
movements, gestures or signs within the partnerships so that their meaning is
understood by both partners and their form is perceivable by both.
2) Although both partners bring such movements, gestures and signs, there are
significant differences in their level of iconicity. Those brought by the deafblind
partner are more closely linked to the activities and experiences that they are
referring to. Those brought by the non-deafblind partner are often amended
signs from their previous cultural and linguistic experience.
3) There is a greater willingness on the part of deafblind partners to use
referential signs and gestures brought by non-deafblind partners rather than the
other way around. This was surprising. But it is even more surprising given the
abstract nature of signs that are both understood and produced by the deafblind
person.

Video examples
Two additional questions
1) Why do deafblind partners introduce
iconic gestures more often than
the non-deafblind partner?

2) Why would the deafblind partner use
the non-deafblind partners movements,
gestures or signs more frequently than
vice versa?


Evidence in support of Reddy

Attending without vision is possible

There is more to the third element than meets
the eye

The mind-body gap needs to be reconsidered
(And I will focus here today).
What then counts as symbolic
language?
Symbol - something that stands for
something else (Hobson)
Symbol - an abstract representation of a
referent (Bruce; Rowland; Burling)

For full references please consult Paul
Harts thesis:

Moving Beyond the Common Touchpoint
Discovering Language with Congenitally
Deafblind People
https://discovery.dundee.ac.uk/handle/10588/
1299)