Yes, No, Visibility, and Variation in ASL and Tactile ASL

Abstract

In American Sign Language (ASL), a receiver watches the signer and receives language visually. In contrast, when using tactile ASL, a variety of ASL, the deaf-blind receiver receives language by placing a hand on top of the signer’s hand. In the study described in this article we compared the functions and frequency of the signs YES and #NO in tactile ASL and visual ASL. We found that YES and/or #NO were used for twelve functions in both. There was, however, some variation. In one environment YES occurred in tactile ASL but not in visual ASL. With regard to frequency, the two signs occurred far more often in tactile ASL. Unexpectedly, significant variation was also found within visual ASL, depending on the number of interviewees in a session. YES and #NO were used more frequently with two or more interviewees and less often when only one interviewee was present. These findings led us to the concept of a "visibility continuum" to account for the variation between visual and tactile ASL, as well as for the variation within visual ASL. The data also reveal variation in tactile ASL that correlates with role and gender, as well as the age at which a participant started using tactile ASL (i.e., similar to age-of-acquisition effects).

Sensing the rhythms of everyday life: Temporal integration and tactile translation in the Seattle Deaf-Blind community

“…Apart from biographical accounts of the lives of Deaf-Blind individuals such as Helen Keller (Davidson 1969; Herrmann 1998) and Laura Bridgman (Freeburg 2001; Gitter 2001), the bulk of research about Deaf-Blind people comes out of the fields of education and vocational rehabilitation, primarily oriented toward teaching and counseling methods for individuals (Bruce 2002; Bourquin & Sauerburger 2005; Janssen, Riksen-Walraven, & van Dijk 2003 Nelson 2005; Arthur-Kelley, Foreman, Bennett, & Pascoe 2008; Correa-Torres 2008; Dammeyer 2009; Parker 2009) and practical instruction for signed language interpreters (Sauerburger 1993; Smith 1994; Frankel 2002; Metzger, Fleetwood, & Collins 2004; Nuccio & Smith 2010). This project builds, instead, on the few studies that have sought to describe language and interaction among Deaf-Blind people (Collins & Petronio 1998; Mesch 2001; Collins 2004; Petronio & Dively 2006). However, my research differs from these studies in two respects.…”

Co-forming real space blends in tactile signed language dialogues

“…Frankel (2002) examines the use of negation by Tactile American Sign Language (sighted) interpreters. Related to the use of manual and non-manual assertion and negation, Petronio and Dively (2006) found that Tactile American Sign Language utilizes the manual signs for "yes" and "no" more often than Visual American Sign Language (which uses more non-manual behaviors to express these meanings, i.e., head nodding and shaking). Edwards (2012) takes an anthropological approach to describe unfolding communication between a deafblind signer and an interpreter.…”

To Deaf or not to deaf: That is the Question

“…With the TC approach, one would often see "SimCom" utilized even though this approach is a misapplication of the TC philosophy. 5 Tactile ASL is a communication system where the person (receiver) puts their hand(s) on top of the other person's hands (signer) while signing ASL to feel the different linguistic features such as handshape, palm orientation, movement, or location of the signs (American Association of the DeafBlind, 2009;Petronio & Dively, 2006). 6 ProTactile is a socio-cultural philosophy that includes its own philosophy, method, and attitude that provides tactile opportunities and feedback to environmental information for richer communication and natural feedback between DeafBlind and sighted Deaf/hearing individuals.…”