Conversational Pro Tactile v Interpreted Pro Tactile by

Conversational Pro. Tactile v. Interpreted Pro. Tactile by : E s the r Fass Introduction Limitations This study was conducted from a sighted and privileged viewpoint, which includes some possible bias because I did not consult with a Deaf. Blind individual about this topic, I do not know what it is like to be a consumer of Pro. Tactile and integrate it in my daily life. Another limitation is that I did not have a formal training in Pro. Tactile and Deaf. Blind culture. The knowledge of Pro. Tactile are based on reading articles, word of mouth, my work experience with several Deaf-Blind persons and seeing Deaf Interpreters at work. My experience with Pro. Tactile use was limited to a small group of individuals, in small settings, which were low-risk content based on my pro-bono requirements. • Visual aids are critical in our daily lives. Can you imagine not knowing what is around you all of the time? • “Deaf-Blind persons who use and depend on a tactile signed language as their primary language cannot acquire or perceive grammatical information through visual means. The visual acquisition of syntactic markers on the face and shoulder in ASL must occur through the tactile expression of syntactic markers on the hands in TASL” (Collins, 2004). • My specific research question examines communication with Deaf. Blind persons in a conversational event where two Deaf. Blind persons are seated, and communication with Deaf. Blind persons occurring through interpreters while standing. Methodology This study was conducted by looking at both videos and noting the similarities and differences between conversational and interpreted Pro. Tactile. Those strategies came from what Edwards (2014) mentioned in her article. Different types of register, fingerspelling, and characteristics of Pro. Tactile use were noted analyzed. Data Collection Two videos: 1. Welcome to Pro. Tactile: The Deaf. Blind Way 2. Pro. Tactile: Culture, Experience and Respect and Deaf. Blind Way Conclusion Analysis • Comparison between conversational/seated & platform/standing TASL/Pro. Tactile communication Discussion • Similarities & Differences in discourse • Some features that are similar/different • Similar: fingerspelling with both hands, backchanneling • Act of co-presence displayed in both videos Findings • Displaying c o -p re s e n c e : different ways • Conversational: hand on signer’s knee • Platform: interpreters in use • Signal for the other hand The findings suggest that there may be differences between conversational/seated and platform/standing use of Pro. Tactile. In addition, the interpreters who worked with the signers had their own set of experiences, knowledge and training so it is possible that they used Pro. Tactile according to their own method or training. Because these individual factors cannot be sorted out in this short and limited project, it remains an area of study for future research to determine. • Fingerspelling with both hands • Signing with both hands (DEAFBLIND, FAVORITE, EXPERIENCE…etc) • Pro. Tactile use: different body areas for type of setting/register • Ex: knee & elbow The recommendations for future research could involve working with a Deaf. Blind person as a coresearcher in order to have an authentic perspective from one’s experience. It will be a benefit to use numerous of videos of interpreted Pro. Tactile with novice and specialized deaf interpreters to see what is incorporated in the use of Pro. Tactile and what is not. References Collins, S. (2004). “Adverbial Morphemes in Tactile American Sign Language” Edwards, T. (2014). “From compensation to integration: Effects of the pro -tactile movement on the sublexical structure of Tactile American Sign Language. ” Frankel, M. (2002). “Interpreters’ use of negation in Tactile American Sign Language. ”