Introduction and Literature Review
Since the publication of the first sign language dictionary in 1960 by William Stokoe, the study of sign language has expanded and has been the focus of different fields, ranging from linguistics to anthropology to neuroscience, for different purposes.
Some general tendencies have emerged: the studies tend to expand the understanding of the principles behind signing and sign language. Second, these studies focus on trying to understand more about human ability. Third, the studies focus on how best to apply these principles to daily activities, ranging from education to socialization. This article presents a discussion of proxemics, a subject I feel is important for scholars to use and consider. This research can foster better understanding of the relationship between space and language. The information in this article is based on the research I did for my master’s thesis on proxemics.
Background
First, let’s look at how my previous research project originated. Back in 2007, Gallaudet University had a project called the Deaf Space Project. The project spanned three years, and included classes and interaction, and so forth, to analyze how our way of “being” relates to space. The purpose was to develop a design book or guidebook that would include principles and guidelines pertaining to architecture and the like. One day, a teacher asked me a question: “Do you see this picture?” This picture shows three deaf people walking along and chatting, with one person walking on the street. This shows how our way of being and the way we design the space of sidewalks are misaligned. The sidewalk is too narrow, and needs to be widened. That teacher asked me to find what factors would determine the optimal sidewalk width. I took on that challenge of researching and sought to find a formula behind determining that space, which was the beginning of my research. In my research, I analyzed different systems, and found the best fit was proxemics. Anthropologist Edward Hall developed proxemics in the 1960s. Proxemics is the study of people, personal space, and interaction. As we study personal space, and people’s comfort levels in being physically closer or farther apart, we can see that different cultures have different standards. Proxemics has been growing as a field of study, and there are a lot of strong applications to architecture and planning. Proxemics also examines anthropology, in the studies of other cultures. Proxemics also now applies to computer game programs—for example, The Sims, such as how the characters walk around, how we program them to look accurately spaced, and so forth.
1.2 Proxemics
Before I go into explaining how I designed my research on proxemics, I’d like to discuss a bit of what scholars say about the field of proxemics. Hall, who founded the field of proxemics, also developed a notation system. This system included the distance between two people’s bodies, the orientation of their bodies with respect to one another, how they looked at each other, how they touched each other, and so on. This system has been used in the field, and through the years it has evolved.
One thing that’s worth pointing out is that Edward Hall noted that the most important factor in determining the distance between two people is auditory. He meant that if two people talk loud, one will back off, or if one talks in a low voice, the other will move closer. Hall also presented a model of circles of varying radii, which represented how far apart people stood, whether they were friends, strangers, or the general public.
Several years later, researchers Argles and Dean added to this, stating that visual factors played a role in the distance between people. Years later, another researcher by the name of Hyaiuk returned to Hall’s circular distance model and stated that the interpersonal distances were not perfectly circular, but instead were oval in shape. This modifier was based on visual influences. For example, someone in front would be a little farther away, while someone to the side would be closer, and someone behind would be even closer still.
Later, another proxemics researcher, Delong, found evidence to support the change from circular to an oval model by observing how people interacted with furniture in a lobby. If someone were sitting in a chair, for example, a stranger would not come very close in front of that person. To the side, however, they would come closer and even closer behind them.
More recently, new research by Balliston and his team found that eye gaze plays a strong role in maintaining distances between people. Their experiment was to observe people who walked past a column-like object. In another situation, they had a similar column, but put moving eyes on the column. Observation showed that people would walk directly past the plain column but would swerve and walk wide around the column with the eyes.
Creating Research Framework
When we look at proxemics as a field of study, we can see that interest is growing and understanding of the field is rising. There, however, still has been little to no research on how language and its modality relate to space. The general assumption is that people will speak vocally to one another, so I’ve had to adapt and make modifications to fit the situation of two people signing to one another. There are three different topics that I’d like to review, with respect to what scholars are discussing related to proxemics: 1) sign language and its modality, 2) the influence of senses, feelings, and culture and 3) the relationship between language and space.
2.1 Linguistic Modality
In the 1960s, William Stokoe published the first ASL dictionary, and he asserted that ASL was in fact a language, a visual communication system. This assertion has been at odds with the general assumption that language must be sound-based and involve hearing and speaking. Stokoe’s research was not focused on interpersonal relations with respect to language, but instead on the language itself, the linguistics, developing notations, and so on. In the 1970s, Single published an article in which he argued the importance of considering visual constraints, and he also contributed to the basic proxemics research framework and sign language. He did this by showing the value of signing space fitting the viewer.
Another researcher, Battison, also contributed to this theory after reviewing entries in the sign dictionary. He showed that approximately one-fourth of signs occurred in the area below the breastbone, while the remainder occurred above this area. This analysis fits the assertion that sign language must consider the importance of fitting the viewer’s eye gaze constraints.
Banker, another researcher, later wrote an article on the importance of maintaining eye contact while signing. Even if the signer disagrees with an idea, eye contact should still be maintained. This is often a contribution to misunderstanding between a skilled signer and a new signer. A teacher, Robert Seremeth, from The George Washington University, who had many years of experience in teaching sign language, shared his view that fingerspelling is not only designed for the ease of seeing by the viewer, but also for the ease of the signer’s expression. For example, the letter P is turned so that it’s easy to view. The letter E has evolved into allowing an open space between the thumb and the fingers, which makes it easier to express.
In summary, interpersonal space, eye gaze, and the spatial relationship of language and its modality led to the natural investigation of the proxemic view of signers walking next to each other.
2.2 Culture and Senses
In the previous section, I discussed how language influenced my research into the proxemics of people walking and signing. Now I’d like to discuss another key influence, our senses and culture.
People have discussed for a long time the role that sensory knowledge has in influencing our culture. After World War II, there was a major growth in this field of study with formal research and published works. Articles discussed the influence of senses on culture. People are born with senses for their bodies, such as seeing, smelling and feeling. These senses have a role in establishing culture, and the inverse is also true; culture influences and reinforces how we use our senses to perceive reality.
There was a renowned paper written by Gibson in the 1960s that stated our senses were responsible for collecting outside data, and transmitting that data to the brain. The brain then decides how to process that information, and how to interpret it. From that point on, there were numerous articles written and published in what has come to be called “sensorium studies.” A recent paper by Howes discussed the basic foundational social analysis of how to assess culture and society from a sensorium perspective.
The reason I bring this up in my research is that it is a fact that often signers happen to be deaf. Being deaf, they have their own sensory orientation in how they perceive the world. There have been a number of articles and discussions in Deaf studies, academics, Deaf education, and other fields discussing the visual and tactile sensory orientation of deaf people. One of the most comprehensive articles was written by Bahan, Sensory Orientation. He discussed the different areas that our sensory experiences influence. These influences include how we navigate the world, occupy space, interact with people, develop expectations, develop training behaviors, and participate in discourse in literature.
I’d like to share a few examples from that article and show how they apply to my research. The first example is eye-gaze: because deaf people cannot hear what is happening behind them, the eyes take over an increased role in obtaining environmental information. This often causes conflicts with other people, for example, in a hallway or a store. Perhaps there is a hearing stranger present. The deaf person looks at the hearing person, who is bothered by the gaze’s strength. The hearing individual might think that the deaf person is upset or attracted, when in reality, the gaze is a pre-requisite for communication and interaction. Another example of how our behavior is influenced is found in Bahan’s article. He shared how his father repeatedly emphasized, when Bahan was growing up, the importance of always looking back when leaving a room, to make sure that everything was all right. The rationale behind this was that deaf people behind him could not get his attention. So, by looking back, he was practicing good manners. If he left without looking back, the other person might have had to chase him down to say something—which would have been inconsiderate.
Another example related to this research is Bahan’s discussion on tactile influences. Bahan identified several points related to how deaf people touch, pointing out that there were several purposes. Hearing people typically only “permit” minimal touching, especially with strangers. Touching is really only done in extraordinary situations such as an emergency, or in sudden alarm. In general, however, it’s not acceptable to touch another person. Deaf people, on the other hand, touch often, and consider it to be normal and ordinary. They might touch each other to get the other person’s attention or engage in casual backslapping during a conversation. There are even examples of legal issues that have arisen because deaf people touched hearing people, who then misunderstood the deaf person’s intentions.
Another example from Bahan’s article is the situation of two people walking side by side while conversing, and the expected practices associated with this. In his example, two deaf people were walking side by side in Italy; note that in Italy, they do not use ASL, but their own language—but it has the same language modality and sensory orientation. In the situation, the camera showed two people walking, and a car came down the street. The person to the inside of the sidewalk pulled the person on the outside towards her, out of the path of the oncoming car, and informed the cameraperson (who was also deaf) that a car was coming. Stories of this type of behavior among deaf people are often repeated.
In another example, if two people are walking along, and one person walks into a post, the first reaction is to address his annoyance at the companion. It’s almost as if the message is, “Why didn’t you let me know? You failed me. I was talking with you, therefore you should take responsibility for letting me know that there is a post there.” In contrast, if both people are hearing, and one bumps into a post, he will just laugh, or brush it off, but there is no fault assigned to the companion. This is a notable difference between the two cultures. Hearing people can walk, talk, and look ahead at the same time; they are responsible for themselves. They must be aware of their surroundings and avoid obstacles independently. Deaf people, on the other hand, if they are chatting together and walking together, must also overlap their visual abilities.
So, why have I brought up these points—the overlap of the visual responsibility, the behavior, the expectations, practices, and the tactile influences? Why are these important? These all helped me decide, when I recorded and analyzed people walking along, what to write down, what was important, and what I should record. It also helped me interpret the results. For example, if there was increased touching between the two people, how should this behavior be interpreted? The second reason is that they offer an explanation as of why things happen, with respect to the senses and culture.
2.3 Sign Language and Space
I have an example of how space influences language, and how language influences space modification. Let’s start with language. I have two examples. The first example is from a thesis by Malzkuhn, who researched how deaf people buy a house, and then modified it to fit their needs such as taking down walls and doing renovations, to accommodate optimal communication. The second example is with a Gallaudet theater faculty member, Sinnott. He discussed how to modify the theater stage to increase the visual experience. He made the seating more elevated in the back, so that audience members could better see the actors as they moved around the stage. For his most recent production, he made the stage tilted to provide greater elevation at the back of the stage, instead of a flat stage. This was so that the actors would not block each other as they moved around. This is an example how language influences space. Now let’s look at how space influences language. There’s a variety of research; one study by Mirus and Keatings was an anthropological study that investigated how deaf people would converse in a car while driving. The study examined different seating alignments, such as how someone in the backseat would sit in the middle and use the mirror to talk to the driver, and so on. Another research project by Mirus, Keating, and Edwards focused on how using a videophone affects optimal opportunity for signing, because of the screen’s constraints. Other factors they studied included how people would sign off-screen to another person in the same room. In the third study, currently underway, Mirus and Siu research how people adjust signing when using FaceTime on an iPhone, adjusting their signing to fit the screen size, and a smaller restricted space.
These examples demonstrate how much language can influence space and vice versa. These factors are important influences upon the proxemics of two people walking. There are lots of influences, factors, and variants to consider, such as the angles of the signers’ bodies, the space between the two people, the influence of people walking by, and so forth.
Methodology: Sensory Reach, Visual Field, and Spacing
Navigational Proxemics Research
Now we will address the actual research on proxemics of people simultaneously walking and communicating via sign language. I have some pictures here that demonstrate the complexity of the research problem, and some of what was involved. The goal behind my research was to investigate and understand the mechanics of the process involving two people walking together. The complexity that I showed offers an idea of what notation was involved, what I looked at, how it worked, and what I saw.
First, I chose Gallaudet University as my site for obvious reasons. Gallaudet has the world’s largest number of signers. Gallaudet’s mission statement states that it is bilingual, fostering both ASL and written English. Specifically, I chose two areas on campus. I had four cameras, with two at each site. The first one, Site 4, was indoors, and was in the student union building and the Student Academic Center, in the hallway. The second location, Site 5, and outdoors in a large area between the Student Academic Center, the Sorenson Language and Communication Center (SLCC), and Hall Memorial Building (HMB).
The subjects were people who signed. I watched to find people who were walking and signing. I did not screen them to determine if they were deaf or hearing, but merely looked for signing. I didn’t intervene in their presence. I left them to naturally move and converse. I recorded their movements via camera as they passed. I did not pay attention to what happened before or after they were in the camera’s field of view. My recordings were made over two different days. Each camera ran for about two hours, totaling about eight hours of data. After capturing the movements on camera, I had to determine how to control the data.
The data was recorded in the computer and then chopped up. I chopped it up so that I could look at each piece in turn and develop the notation. As we can see from the picture, each line shows one case, and each column shows different information, such as the time from start to finish, how many people were recorded, gender, movement direction, and other details. I paid attention to whether they stayed together throughout the entire trip through the field of view, or whether they separated and went into different directions. Or perhaps they met and passed each other. I recorded if they took turns signing, and if so, how many times the control of the conversation passed back and forth or if one person did all the talking. I also looked at if they were left-handed or right-handed, and if they signed everything with one hand or alternated hands. If they alternated hands, how many times they changed hands was examined. If they touched each other, I recorded where the touching was and how many times it happened. Were the subjects holding anything, such as a coffee cup, a briefcase, or a backpack? I noted all of these things. From this data, I performed both quantitative and qualitative analyses. With qualitative analysis, I looked for things that were interesting or caught my eye.
Results and Discussion
I will now discuss the results and findings of my study. Again, I want to emphasize that this is a summary of my research specifically for this article. First, I collected data on a total of 255 cases. Fifteen included more than two people, meaning three people; there were no cases with four people. Out of the 255, 189 were important—meaning, these cases were when people passed by from beginning to end in the camera’s range. The remainder consisted of people who came into the frame and then parted ways or met and then passed each other.
3.2 Qualitative Observation Sensory Reach
I now want to share select examples from the videos. This picture, for example, shows people coming down the steps while talking, and then one person starts to walk away. The second person then realizes he wants to say more, and tries to get the attention of the person moving away by waving his/her hands. The person moving away happens to see the reflection in the glass door, and turns around. This is a perfect example of how deaf people are very skilled at capturing visual cues from their environment. The subject took advantage of a reflection to see something behind him, rather than being focused on what was in front.
3.3 Visual Field
This video shows two people emerging from the building. They walked up the stairs, one quicker than the other. The person lagging behind then increased the length of her strides to catch up. Once she caught up, the first person immediately started signing. This deals with peripheral vision constraints. If a person is behind, clearly signing can’t occur, but once both enter the same visual field, it can. The person who was behind knew she had to catch up, so she increased her stride; once they were in the same visual field, they slowed down.
3.4 Spacing I
With the next video, I want to explain a bit before I show it. Two people emerged through a doorway. One then looked back, and quickly turned around to face the other person. This is a good example of a quick turnaround to maintain visual connection. In addition, note their behavior when they approached the pillar. They both moved to the side to avoid the pillar. There was no communication; the outside person naturally moved to give the inside person space as they walked. This is strong evidence that when I’m talking with someone while walking, I not only have to consider my space, but theirs as well.
Spacing II
This last video shows two people approaching the pillar. It looks like one of them is going to bump into the pillar. Watch what happens. If you watch the video, it seems like nothing happened; they swerved and avoided hitting the pillar. There is no warning or alert. They simply moved to one side effortlessly to avoid the pillar. Another thing I noticed was that the timing was perfect with their gait. They smoothly stepped over and avoided the pillar. So, my question became: how did this happen? Did one move, and the other followed? Did both see the pillar at the same time? That’s very unlikely. It seems that if I am looking at someone, and talking to them, I also rely on that person’s
body movements to guide me, and so they swerve smoothly, without needing verbal cues.
Overall, these videos confirm that we cannot avoid space as a factor in how we connect with our sensory way of being. Space influences language, influences navigation and prevents collisions from occurring. With space and language working together, we are able overcome space obstacles easily.
3.6 Imaginary Midpoint
Next, I want to focus on one of the situations that I observed. It was not a walk-through (WT). It was a situation that I call Intersection/Not Join. People would meet, chat and then leave. They would walk into the situation, intersect with each other for maybe for a few minutes, have a conversation, and then continue walking on their way. I watched a total of 19 cases like this. When these happened, I observed behaviors that I’d like to share. See the picture, which shows how, as people approached each other and signed, they stopped at an imaginary line about midway between them. In all cases, as they approached each other, they stopped at some midpoint. As they chatted, they would slowly revolve around this midpoint, and then finally go on their ways. They never directly walked up, talked, and then continued on in a straight line. They never entered each other’s personal space. This shows that there is a connection in space established by vision. This connection is different than when people are walking side by side.
3.7 Qualitative Observation Touch
Next, I’d like to show some cases from my research. I recorded instances where the people who were conversing touched each other. The statistics show that out of 61 cases, 24.9% of total cases had incidents of touching. Wow—that indicates that 25% of all cases involved touching, a high number. But I did further analysis into what kind of touching occurred. I found that there was affectionate touching, handshaking, hugging, shoulder holding, tapping to get the other’s attention, walking and tapping to emphasize a point, and I then broke the touching down into categories.
Twenty-five percent may seem like a lot, but a large percentage was really related to ASL and its way of being. The highest percentage touch type was attention-getting. The listener’s eye gaze went away, the speaker touched to re-establish eye gaze. Second, touching is discourse-related, which is a new term that I developed. It means that while maintaining eye gaze, the speaker will then touch the listener to emphasize a point; the purpose is not to get attention, but it is merged into the conversation itself. The rest of the touching incidents were affection or regular touching, and had very low numbers associated with them. If we disregard the first two categories, then the percentages would be much lower.
My point is that it was beneficial to record the number of touches, and to develop this notation system. Once we have a quantitative analysis, we must also analyze the data from cultural experiences, I know that some touching types are not like outside public touching; for example, some people love to hug all the time. That’s not what’s happening here. This is part of the research process.
Attention and Signing Hands
Quantitative Opportunities and Incidences
Now, let’s look at some numbers that I discovered in my research and data collection. Comparing between Site 4, in the hallway, and Site 5, which was out in open, I counted how many opportunities occurred. An opportunity means any people walking by versus an incident that became a case, like two people walking together communicating. I measured opportunities versus incidents, and looked at percentages of incidences. With Site 5, the percentage of incidents was low, about 40%. For Site 4, opportunities increased, and incidences also increased very slightly. The statistics rate difference for incidents, between the two sites, was half of one percent. This might not appear significant, but statistically, it’s quite significant.
This introduces the question, “If a space is open, does this create more opportunities for incidents?” My response to that would be, “Maybe not.” It should balance out; in an open space, there’s more opportunities, but limited motivation for an incident. In the hallway, it’s obviously a smaller space. The space is still big enough to sign, but people are forced to be closer together, which causes an increase in the incidence rate as compared to open space. An open space does not necessarily mean more encounters between people. More research is needed in how to balance restricted and open space, when planning design for a healthy community.
4.1 Quantitative Signing Hands
Next, I looked at how many hands the signer used to communicate and recorded this for all the individuals. Did they use one hand, both hands or none at all? I developed a notation system for this: 1-1 meant both persons signed using only one hand, and 2-2 meant that both signers were using both hands. There was also 2-1, and 1-2. I looked at these statistics on an individual basis, then broke them down into percentages. Look at these statistics: a high percentage, almost two-thirds, signed with one hand. I wondered how this differed from the signs in a sign dictionary often found in a bookstore. How many signs in such a dictionary used two hands versus one? I found the percentage to be only 1%. Yet one-handed signing is what happened in the real world. This information reminds us that it’s important to keep in mind that when we are in formal setting, in the lab signing, there are no space complexities. There is a plethora of research on signing, but does it really apply to real life? This is something we have to be conscious of.
These statistics show that the walking pairs that used 2-2 (both people using two hands) wasn’t very common, while 2-1 (two people, one of whom is using one hand) was higher, almost equal to 1-1. Perhaps this is a clue for how body positioning, eye gaze, and peripheral vision interact. If I use both hands, does it affect any of these? If we are closer together in space, moving forward, do I only use one hand? A similar situation exists when riding in a car: if the passenger signs using both hands, the driver struggles – so the passenger will sign with one hand, but a little farther forward, to make it easier for the driver to see while maintaining his field of vision on the road. Next, I focused on cases where two people were passing through the frame, both having nothing in their hands that would interfere with their signing such as drinks, briefcases or bags. Let me show you the statistics. This resulted in a slight increase in the statistics for both signers using both hands, but it was not a significant increase. The majority was found situations with 2-1.
4.2 Quantitative Observation - Signing Hands Proximity
Next, I focused on hands proximity. I notated which hands the signers were using on camera, and if it depended on whether they themselves were the right hand person of a pair or the left hand person. Before I show the results, I want to describe how I notated this. BB: The first letter represents that the person on left used both hands. The second B represents that the person on right also signed with both hands. The next notation I used was BR, which represents that the person on the left signed with both hands, while the person on the right signed with just one hand, the right hand. The notation LR represents that both signed with one hand, using their left or right, respectively. Other notations included BL, RL, and so on. The notation RR means that both signed using their right hand, LL both used the left hand. And the last notation, BN, means that one person was not signing; rather, he or she was just listening.
Now I’ll show results of the various incidences. See the close-up of the statistics. I want to start with a comparison between incidents where both people signed using just their right hands and incidents where both people signed using just their left hands. The results were not surprising because most people write and sign with their right hands, while few people write and sign with their left hands. Yet, there was something that was notable: I compared the frequency of LR— one person signing with the left hand, the other with the right hand, person right, compared to situations notated as RL? This showed a disparity that was a noticeable difference. If I follow the assumption that people conversing will follow their dominant hands, the hands they are most comfortable using, then the statistics should be similar to the number of right-handed vs. left-handed signers. But the analysis shows that this is not what happened. Let me show a graphic that may help us understand, and maybe offers an explanation.
The picture shows the difference between RL and LR in terms of signing space. LR means that the signers are signing in the inside space between the two of them, while RL indicates they are signing outside of their interpersonal space. There is more room to sign and see. This might be a good explanation for the statistical difference.
This brings up the question of the role of space between people as they converse, pass by, navigate, talk, etc. Maybe it’s related to visual access, how easy is it to see signing while continuing to walk, to navigate. Or is it simply more comfortable? This needs additional research and analysis.
Now, continuing with the discussion of inside/outside signing between BR and RB, this means that one person is signing with both hands, and the signs with one hand to the inside of their space. I labeled this “extended inside.” The other situation, RB, means one person signing with both hands, and the other person signing with just one hand, to the outside of their shared space. I labeled this “extended outside.” Statistics showed a significant difference between extended inside and extended outside. It seems that extended inside is more prevalent than extended outside.
Next, let’s look at the same concept of extended outside and extended inside, and compare between LB and BL. BL is extended outside. In this case, extended outside is more prevalent than extended inside, but the numbers are very close, varying only by one case.
In summary, results of these analyses seem to indicate that space indeed is a significant factor in which hand we sign with, and how we navigate space with oncoming people and obstacles. This needs additional research, however: are the results because of navigation, or because of what’s easy to keep in the field of vision? It is obvious, however, that positioning of the signers makes a significant difference.
4.3 Quantitative Observation Attention
The next area of focus was to notate details on where a person’s gaze and/or attention was focused when signing. Were they looking ahead or were they looking at the listener? I based this notation on head orientation. My notation used an A to show that the signer was looking at the other the entire time. A notation of AB means that the signer split attention between the listener and looking where s/he was going. A notation of B means that the person watched the signer while listening, but then would look straight ahead while signing. This notation (A, AB, B) represented one person. To notate two people, I added a slash between the notations, such as AB/B. A notation of A/A, for example, means that both signers were looking at each other nonstop. A notation of A/AB means one person watched all the time, while the other person would split attention. A notation of A/B means that the B person looked forward while signing. Overall, that’s how the notation system worked.
These results show all two-people cases. The results show that AB/A and A/AB were prevalent and almost equal in occurrence, which means that regardless of environment,
eye gaze between the signers is important. A/AB means one person talks, and when the other person starts talking, the first person will also take on responsibility of navigating. My first set of results showed all couples in the study. Next, I removed all situations like chance encounters, convergence, or other situations. I focused on couples walking together throughout from beginning to end. The notation for this was WT, which means walking together through the frame. This left 189 cases; let’s see how their results differed from the previous set.
These results show that in situations where two people were together all the way through the frame, the situations classified as A/A were reduced. With chance encounters, eye gaze between the two people was stronger. With couples together through the frame, eye gaze was more flexible, with each watching, then navigating in turn. Couples were more likely to be classified as A/AB. There were almost no cases of B/B. Likewise, A/B was also rare. This supports the concept that eye gaze between two people is important while conversing, instead of randomly looking around while signing.
4.4 Quantitative Observation Signing Hands & Attention
Now that we’ve seen the results of attention, let’s overlay that data onto the previously discussed data for the number of hands used. Recall that 2/2 means both people used both hands, 2/1 means one person signed with both hands, while the other signed with just one hand, and 1/1 means both people signed with only one hand.
By overlaying the data, we can see how it correlates between attention of the signer and the signing hands. The interesting thing about the results is that as I mentioned before, the incident of 2/2, where both signers used both hands, was very low, and seemed to be evenly spread across A/AB, and the other categories. With 2/1, however, one category really stood out; the data was not evenly spread among all of the attention categories. The category that stood out was A/AB and 2-1; this suggests that something has weight, that there is a balance of roles. One person has to take responsibility for navigating, while the other person can just keep his/her gaze on the signer. Perhaps what happens is if one person doesn’t look away, the other person automatically looks away. The first person then may not feel the need to look. How do they decide who has which role, and which responsibility is done by whom?
With the hallway scenario, I feel that additional research is needed, maybe with better methods and equipment. For example, the video shows head orientation, but eye gaze was difficult to capture. This would be an important area to further research.
Conclusion
In my research, I used proxemics as my approach in methodology. The results definitely prompted many new questions. For example, questions arose on how to determine the
principles and mechanics behind navigating spaces. Perhaps we need to test our assumptions about connections between signers, and what they mean. Real-life situations show variations in behavior compared to lab studies, such as number of hands being used when signing. In the real-life scenarios seen on camera, more signs were performed using only one hand. The signers’ orientation was also significant, among other things.
There are more leads for research, such as how space influences dialogue, how space influences language, and vice versa. Such questions may be addressed with better experimental equipment, better cameras, or even glasses that track eye gaze. Perhaps experimenters could use motion capture fixtures on the wrist and elbow, to determine if people sign in a more condensed space while walking and conversing, as opposed to standing still and conversing. What is the relationship between the expressed signing space, and the listener’s viewpoint?
Out of all this, however, one thing is definite. Evidence shows that our traditional view of the roles of two discrete individuals is not accurate; there is a blurring between the two. Proxemics allows us to examine all the mitigating factors, not only the language. This includes physical presence, eye gaze, and other factors. I recommend that we continue to pursue proxemics as a research methodology to expand our knowledge and understanding of the basic underlying principles of our language, and our way of being as it applies to navigation.