Usage of Maritime Sign Language on Board

Year 2019, Volume: 14 Issue: 4, 183 - 199, 26.10.2019

Kaan Koyuncu , Leyla Tavacıoğlu

Abstract

            Seafarers must be able to
communicate effectively in English at sea and in port to ensure the safety and
security of ships, crew and passengers. International Maritime Organization
(IMO) adopted English as the official language to solve the communication problems. Research shows
that the usage of English by seafarers is not encouraged and they have
difficulty in communicating not only among themselves but also with the outside
agencies. In this paper, it is indicated that the interactions onboard are not
only verbal, but also non-verbal that can be realized through Maritime Sign
Language, the purpose of which is to enhance onboard communication. In
addition, it aims to increase the safety on board and interaction among crew members
through the usage of simplified, standardized and universalized sign language,
which proves to be much more efficient in loud working environments or in the
cases where verbal means of communication are inadequate. Within the scope of this
research, descriptive statistics, reliability of questionnaire, ANOVA with Tukey's
test for non-additivity, Hotelling's T-Squared test, Chi-Square, and Factor
analysis are utilized for the interpretation and analysis of quantitative data.
 Therefore, quantitative research design
was used through a self-reported questionnaire to collect data about the
participants’ sea experience, cultural factors, and verbal and non-verbal
communication skills and to investigate the relation between these factors. As the
result analyses conducted, the study indicates that Maritime Sign Language is beneficial
for the marine language. 

Keywords

Sea Language, Maritime Sign Language, SMCP, Deck, Non-Verbal

Project Number

9151

References

• [1] Ziarati, M., Ziarati, R., Bigland, O.B.O., and Acar, U., (2011). Communication and Practical Training Applied in Nautical Studies, International Maritime English Conference, At Constanta, Romania, 41.
• [2] Ziarati, R., Ziarati, M., and Çalbaş, B., (2009). Improving Safety at Sea and Ports by Developing Standards for Maritime English. Bridge Conference, Finland.
• [3] Wang, Y. and Fu, Y., (2007). Language Barriers in Maritime Communication and Countermeasures in Teaching. International Maritime English Conference, Netherlands.
• [4] SOLAS, Ch V.
• [5] STCW Code Table A-III/1.
• [6] IMO Resolution, A.850(20).
• [7] Maritime and Coastguard Agency Annual Report and Accounts (2005-2006) [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2018 Sep 15]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/282966/mca-annual-report-accounts-2005-2006.pdf.
• [8] Cole, C., (1999). The Impact of Multicultural and Multilingual Crews on Maritime Communication. A Paper Presented at the Maritime English Workshop (WOME 10) Croatia.
• [9] Halid, E. and Genova, B., (2011). Cultural Factors Involved in Maritime Communication. Volume: I, Number: 2, Nautical and Environmental Studies.
• [10] Čulić-Viskota, A., (2007). Cultural and Linguistic Differences as Factors of Ineffective Communication. International Maritime English Conference, IMEC 19.
• [11] Umut, T., Tavacıoğlu, L., and Bolat, P., (2017). Age and Experience Based Neurocognitive Performance of Seafarers. NWSA: Engineering Sciences, 12(3):168-177.
• [12] Macrae, C., (2009). Human Factors at Sea: Common Patterns of Error in Groundings and Collisions, Maritime Policy and Management, 36(1):21-38.
• [13] Wiegmann, D. and Shappell, S., (1999). Space, Medicine E. Human Error and Crew Resource Management Failures in Naval Aviation Mishaps: A Review of US Naval Safety Center data, 1147-51.
• [14] Kroeber, A.L. and Kluckhohn, C., (1952). Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. Peabody Museum of American Archeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, XLVII:1. Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
• [15] Ricard, V.B., (1993). Developing Intercultural Communication Kills. Malabar, FL: Krieger. HM 258.R47.
• [16] Dzugan, G., (1998). An Investigation into Multicultural Communication and Its Effect on maritime safety: Implications for Maritime Trainers (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). World Maritime University, Malmo, Sweden.
• [17] Yıldırım, H. and Tavacıoğlu, L., (2017). Behavioral Dimensions of Seafarers and Self-Confidence Analysis, Eurasian Academy of Sciences Eurasian Business & Economics Journal, 9(9):33-44, ISSN: 10.17740.
• [18] Enhancing Safety for Navigation by Using Pictography, (2015). (Access: 15 September 2018). Available from: http://www.maritimesymposium-rotterdam.nl/uploads/Route/COMPIC.pdf.
• [19] Sign Language in the Workplace, (2012). (Access: 15 September 2018). Available from: http://www.signedlanguage.co.uk/sign-language-workplace.html.
• [20] Mörek, U., Tavacıoğlu, L., aand Bolat, P., (2016). The Role of Human Organizational Factors on Occupational Safety; A Scale Development Through Tuzla Region Dockyards, Constanta Maritime University Annals, 4:159-165, Nautica.
• [21] Kılıç, K. and Tavacıoğlu, L., (2016). Influence of Emotional Intelligence on the Work Performance of Seafarers, Constanta Maritime University Annals, 2:213-220, Nautica.
• [22] Cohen, R.J., Swerdlik, M.E., and Phillips, S.M., (1996). Psychological Testing and Assessment: An Introduction to Tests and Measurement: Mayfield Publishing Co.