Adverbial Morphemes in Tactile ASL - Gallaudet University

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Intellectual Context and Literature Review
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
this shift, Deaf-Blind receivers cannot. Closer examination showed that as the upper body
shifted to the right or left, subsequently the signing space of the signs also shifted to the right or
left. Thus, Deaf-Blind receivers were able to tactually perceive the ‘role-shift’ by the
corresponding shift in the signing space.
In examining two-handed signs, the data showed that the majority were easily understood
using one-hand tactual reception because either the information on both hands were the same
information signs (Battison 1978), or the two hands contacted each other providing the tactile
receiver with enough information to understand the sign. There were a few instances of signs
with two different handshapes that were difficult to tactually perceive, e.g., JUNIOR, CANDLE,
and PEANUT BUTTER. In these cases, the Deaf-Blind signer held the sign a little longer and
often add fingerspelling for further clarification, e.g. CANDLE-hold C-A-N-D-L-E.
It was hypothesized that the targeted one-handed number signs, SIX and SEVEN, were
difficult for tactual reception because the information was on the signer’s finger tips, and the
receiver’s hand was on the back of the signer’s: in the sign for SIX, the top of the pinkie contacts
the tip of the thumb, while in the sign for SEVEN, the top of the ring finger contacts the tip of
the thumb. In all instances when these signs were signed, the Deaf-Blind signers held the sign
slightly longer and the Deaf-Blind receiver shifted their receiving hand so they could feel the
base of the signer’s knuckle and determine which finger was bent. In one specific case, the
receiver also added their other hand to feel which of the signer’s fingers were in contact. In
contrast to the two-handed ‘difficult’ signs, e.g., JUNIOR and CANDLE, the signer’s never
added fingerspelling to help clarify these one-handed number signs.
Interestingly, a study on reception of tactile signing by Reed et al. (1995) reported that
when Deaf-Blind receivers misunderstood, the misunderstanding often occurred within the
handshape parameter. A Deaf ASL user who had little experience communicating with Deaf-
Blind tactile ASL users signed the test. Based on the findings in Petronio (1986), we can
hypothesize that if a skilled Deaf-Blind Tactile ASL adult administered the receptive test, the
confusion would have been avoided by having the Deaf-Blind signer modify or vary the
“tactually difficult” signs by either lengthening or reiterating the sign and adding fingerspelling
when needed.
25