Conversational ProTactile v. Interpreted ProTactile by : Esthe r Fass Introduction Limitations Visual aids are critical in our daily lives. Can you imagine not knowing what is around you all of the time? This study was conducted from a sighted and privileged viewpoint, which includes some possible bias because I did not consult with a DeafBlind individual about this topic, I do not know what it is like to be a consumer of ProTactile and integrate it in my daily life. Another limitation is that I did not have a formal training in ProTactile and DeafBlind culture. The knowledge of ProTactile 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 ProTactile use was limited to a small group of individuals, in small settings, which were low-risk content based on my pro-bono requirements. “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 DeafBlind persons in a conversational event where two DeafBlind persons are seated, and communication with DeafBlind persons occurring through interpreters while standing. Methodology Conclusion This study was conducted by looking at both videos and noting the similarities and differences between conversational and interpreted ProTactile. Those strategies came from what Edwards (2014) mentioned in her article. Different types of register, fingerspelling, and characteristics of ProTactile use were noted and analyzed. The findings suggest that there may be differences between conversational/seated and platform/standing use of ProTactile. 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 ProTactile 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. Analysis Discussion Comparison between conversational/seated & platform/standing TASL/ProTactile communication Similarities & Differences in discourse DataCollection Two videos: Welcome to ProTactile: The DeafBlind Way ProTactile: Culture, Experience and Respect and DeafBlind Way Some features that are similar/different Fingerspelling with both hands Similar: fingerspelling with both hands, back- channeling The recommendations for future research could involve working with a DeafBlind person as a co- researcher in order to have an authentic perspective from one’s experience. It will be a benefit to use numerous of videos of interpreted ProTactile with novice and specialized deaf interpreters to see what is incorporated in the use of ProTactile and what is not. Signing with both hands (DEAFBLIND, FAVORITE, EXPERIENCE…etc) Act of co-presence displayed in both videos Findings Displaying co -presence : different ways ProTactile use: different body areas for type of setting/register References Conversational: hand on signer’s knee Collins, S. (2004). “Adverbial Morphemes in Tactile American Sign Language” Platform: interpreters in use Ex: knee & elbow Edwards, T. (2014). “From compensation to integration: Effects of the pro-tactile movement on the sublexical structure of Tactile American Sign Language.” Signal for the other hand Frankel, M. (2002). “Interpreters’ use of negation in Tactile American Sign Language.”