Перегляд вихідного коду сторінки The Beneficial, The Unhealthy As well as SKAP1

In all of these cases, the model ��one-at-time�� is in fact warranted as a basic principle, because deviations from it are either interactionally [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKAP1 SKAP1] meaningful or repaired. For signed interaction, Cicourel (1973; cited by McIlvenny, 1995, p. 138) suggested that deaf participants may not be ��constrained by the sequential ordering or chaining rules, because several signers can allow their signing to overlap continuously and several types of information can be communicated simultaneously which fall under the general notion of kinesic-visual communication.�� In a similar vein, Baker (1977) stated that the visual mode of interaction in sign language ��allow[s] interactants to sign  and observe another's signs without a loss of understanding, whereas in oral languages, it is more difficult to hear another's speech while talking.�� (Baker, 1977, p. 216). In fact, since Baker's seminal  paper there have been several discussions especially on the issue of overlap in signed languages. Some scholars clearly contest the validity of Sacks et al.'s ��one-at-a-time model�� for sign language interactions. On the basis of informal conversations between native signers, Coates and Sutton-Spence (2001) for example observe frequent overlapping and conclude that deaf (female) signers do not orient to the interactional organization of ��one speaker at a time�� but to a ��collaborative floor�� as described in Edelsky (1981) for spoken language interaction among women. As previously Coates and Sutton-Spence (2001),  also Lackner (2009) observes numerous overlaps in her data of dyadic semi-experimental conversations in Austrian Sign Language. She reports that in 3 of 13 dialogs there is a preferred ��successive�� structure (i.e., participants orient to the one-at-a-time organization), whereas in 4 of 13 dialogs the participants are constantly in overlap. The rest (6 dialogs) present a varying organization (Lackner, 2009, p. 94). Lackner (2009) also provides some information regarding the characteristics of the overlapping turns (cf. also Martinez, 1995). She mainly differentiates two categories. A first category is built by minimal responses such as GOOD, RIGHT, YES (for the manual minimal responses), which are often realized by smaller movements and in lower sign position than the regular signing space (i.e., they are prosodically attenuated). A second category is formed by the occurrences where the addressee initiates a short turn in overlap with the current signer for the accomplishment of a question, a complement or a comment (Martinez, 1995, p. 94). Lackner mentions that in this case the overlapped signer waits for the end of this overlap and then continues with his turn. Besides these categories of simultaneous signing, Lackner (2009) refers to two other interactional dynamics where a lot of overlaps occur. First, she mentions dialogs where participants accomplish multiple questions or comments during the telling of a participant.