Adverbial Morphemes in Tactile ASL - Gallaudet University

ADVERBIAL MORPHEMES IN TACTILE AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE
A
PROJECT DEMONSTRATING EXCELLENCE
Submitted to the
GRADUATE COLLEGE OF UNION INSTITUTE AND UNIVERSITY
by
Steven Douglas Collins
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
For the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
IN
INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES
MAY 2004

Abstract
This PDE discusses an aspect of linguistic use of adverbial morphemes as applied to a
single case study of Tactile American Sign Language (TASL) as used by some American Deaf-
Blind signers. TASL, a variation of the visual language recognized as American Sign Language
(ASL), is not visually based. Significantly, the term TASL, while descriptive of the language
used by deaf-blind persons, is not officially recognized among the members of this community.
For the purposes of this study, the use of the term TASL describes not only an approach towards
building a bridge of understanding of the cultural norms and language habits of deaf-blind
persons, but as well, this study affords a locus for the improvement of the interpreting process for
the American deaf-blind community.
In ASL adverbial morphemes occur on the face and are non-manual signals that the Deaf-
Blind signer does not see. This requires the ASL signer to make a slight modification, from these
“invisible” non-manual morphemes to a tactile morpheme.
The researcher presents a structural analysis of a conversation between two Deaf-Blind
subjects with Usher’s Syndrome Type I who have used TASL for at least ten years. The study is
based on a 50-minute videotaped conversation utilizing multiple video views of key angles for a
detailed analysis of tactile components, non-manual signals and signing space.
Accrued data concentrates on six fundamental features of adverbial morphemes intrinsic
to TASL: manner/degree, time, duration, purpose, frequency, and place/position/direction. A
total of 284 sign sequences were observed and analyzed comparing the tactile signing with the
same message signed in visual American Sign Language.

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Acknowledgement
Acknowledgments
While a graduate student majoring in interpreting, I became
involved with the Deaf-Blind community. I wish to thank the
Deaf-Blind community for welcoming me into their community,
sharing their experiences, and allowing me to research their
language.
I wish to thank Mr. Randall Hogue and Dr. Ceil Lucas for the
time they took to support me through this process. Additionally I
thank Ms. Heather Johnson who was willing to pose for example
pictures for this PDE.
I especially want to thank the late Dr. Clayton Valli who
was my peer on this project and who provided me with many years
of mentoring, as well as being a good friend.
I thank Dr. Val Dively for her insightful input on nonmanual
signals.
Thanks, also, to Gallaudet University for allowing me to
use their equipment and lab resources during the collection of data
for this project.
Lastly, I wish to thank my family for all their support and
encouragement in accomplishing this task.
A big thank you is due Mr. Ed Singer who, with his
coaching and support, I have finished this project.

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1
1.1. Biography ........................................................................................................ 3
1.2. Statement of the Problem............................................................................... 6
1.3. Scope. .............................................................................................................. 7
1.4. Social Relevance............................................................................................. 8
2. Intellectual Context and Literature Review........................................................ 10
2.1. Background and Recent Research.............................................................. 10
2.2. Language Variation....................................................................................... 19
2.3. Tactile ASL .................................................................................................... 22
2.4. Introduction of the Terminology.................................................................. 32
2.4.1. Deaf-Blind ........................................................................................................................32
2.4.2. Usher’s Syndrome ..........................................................................................................33
2.4.3. Non-manual Signals (NMS) in ASL................................................................................33
2.4.4. Tactile ASL.......................................................................................................................34
2.4.5. Deaf-Blind Interpreting ...................................................................................................35
2.5. Scope ............................................................................................................. 36
3. Methods ................................................................................................................ 38
3.1. Logistics and the Selection of a Site........................................................... 40
3.2. Coding and maintenance of the videotapes and database ....................... 42
4. Findings and Interpretation................................................................................. 44
4.1. Semantic Based Categories......................................................................... 44
4.1.1. Manner/Degree ................................................................................................................46
4.1.1.1. Example One (Manner/Degree) ...................................................................................46
4.1.1.2. Example Two (Manner/Degree) ...................................................................................47
4.1.1.3. Example Three (Manner/Degree).................................................................................48
4.1.1.4. Example Four (Manner/Degree)...................................................................................49
4.1.1.5. Example Five (Manner/Degree) ...................................................................................50
4.1.1.6. Example Six (Manner/Degree) .....................................................................................51
4.1.1.7. Summary (Manner/Degree)..........................................................................................52
4.1.2. Time..................................................................................................................................53
4.1.2.1. Example One (Time).....................................................................................................53
4.1.2.2. Example Two (Time).....................................................................................................54
4.1.2.3. Example Three (Time)..................................................................................................55
4.1.2.4. Example Four (Time)....................................................................................................56
4.1.2.5. Summary (Time)...........................................................................................................57
4.1.3. Duration ...........................................................................................................................58

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Table of Contents
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.1.3.1. Example One (Duration)...............................................................................................58
4.1.3.2. Example Two (Duration)...............................................................................................59
4.1.3.3. Summary (Duration) .....................................................................................................59
4.1.4. Frequency ........................................................................................................................60
4.1.4.1. Example One (Frequency)............................................................................................60
4.1.4.2. Example Two (Frequency)............................................................................................61
4.1.4.3. Summary (Frequency)..................................................................................................61
4.1.5. Purpose............................................................................................................................62
4.1.5.1. Example One (Purpose) ...............................................................................................62
4.1.5.2. Example Two (Purpose) ...............................................................................................63
4.1.5.3. Summary (Purpose)......................................................................................................64
4.1.6. Place/Position/Direction.................................................................................................65
4.1.6.1. Example One (Place/Position/Direction) ......................................................................65
4.1.6.2. Example Two (Place/Position/Direction) ......................................................................66
4.1.6.3. Summary (Place/Position/Direction).............................................................................66
4.2. Overall Patterns across the various adverbial types................................. 67
5. Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................... 71
A. Appendix A – References.................................................................................... 74
B. Appendix B - Notes on Transcription Symbols................................................. 79
B.1 General Glossing conventions .................................................................... 79
B.2 Other Transcription symbols and conventions.......................................... 80
C. Appendix C – Data for Adverbial Phrases for Analysis .................................... 82
D. Appendix D – Transcription of Conversation Session ..................................... 97
E. Appendix E – Consent Form ............................................................................. 119
F. Appendix F – Informant Background Information........................................... 122
ii

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Introduction
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. Introduction
Imagine being totally Deaf and totally blind and walking into a room where you are about
to partake in a presentation of a subject that is of interest to you. You have engaged a fully
certified and qualified interpreter who will act as your personal interpreter for the proceedings.
What is the atmosphere within the room? What is the apparent level of enthusiasm of the other
persons attending the presentation? What is the physical description of the person making the
presentation? It has always been a matter of deep personal concern to me that many interpreters
consider their only duty to be to deliver a verbatim translation of the words that the presenter
says without conveying all of these other very important and interesting factors. So much
additional "message" is contained in the facial expressions and mannerisms of the presenter as
well as the reaction of the audience. How much of this will actually be conveyed to the Deaf-
Blind 1 person during the session? What will be the worth of the total experience to the Deaf-
Blind person?
In the above scenario, one can appreciate the information that facial expressions
communicate at the paralinguistic level. However, in American Sign Language (ASL), facial
expressions, or what are commonly called non-manual signals (NMS), communicate much more.
Emotions and moods are shown, but so are grammatical features such as question types,
adverbial and descriptive features (i.e., adjectives). NMS are also used to help remove the
ambiguity of meanings in such words as “recommend”, “propose”, or “suggest”. This linguistic
information, if not accurately conveyed, will distort the message drastically thus impacting the
Deaf-Blind individual in social and personal ways.
I have an intense interest in researching and improving the quality of interpreting for
persons that are Deaf-Blind. For the past thirteen years, I have been working with Deaf-Blind
persons both in the capacity as an interpreter and as a researcher, studying their techniques for
1 Throughout this PDE, there are references to Deaf, deaf, Deaf-Blind, and deaf-blind. A culture is generally
considered distinct when it has its own unique language, values, behavioral norms, arts, educational institutions,
political and social structures, etc. In this respect, Deaf people have a unique culture and, in this context, the use of
the word Deaf or Deaf-Blind is used with the capital letter “D” or “B”. The word deaf is being used to refer either
to those who are unable to hear or, refers to a context unrelated to the Deaf culture, it is used with a small letter “d”.
Likewise, the term deaf-blind will refer to those who are deaf and blind but are not associated with the Deaf or
Deaf-Blind cultures.
1

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Introduction
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
communication. In looking back at my earlier experiences at the North Carolina School for the
Deaf, a residence school that I attended, I realized that my Deaf-Blind friends had a significant
influence on me. My observation is that there is very little ongoing research in this area.
Additionally, only a small amount of work related to understanding and describing the actual
process of deaf-blind communication is being undertaken. The process of interpreting for a
Deaf-Blind person is somewhat different from the more conventional process of interpreting for
a Deaf person. Although each use American Sign Language as a basis for communication, a
Deaf-Blind person must depend on tactile reception of signing as a replacement for those aspects
of the language that are customarily conveyed through such sight-dependent functions as facial
expressions.
I have spent many research hours videotaping Deaf-Blind persons and sighted Deaf
persons in order to gather data that will demonstrate the subtle nuances of their communication.
I regularly collaborate with linguistic experts who have an interest in this area and I have made it
a specific professional goal of mine to research this field in depth in an attempt to evolve a
formal approach to the linguistic process discussed in the PDE. By doing so, it is my goal to
garner an understanding of the process to a degree that I may provide high-quality training for
interpreters who have a desire to interpret for Deaf-Blind clients.
In my current position as a faculty member at Gallaudet University in the Department of
Linguistics and Interpretation, I have an excellent opportunity to carry out these research
objectives. I plan to develop a curriculum and refine it to a specific course of study for
interpreters, as part of their training, so that they may better serve Deaf-Blind consumers. I have
determined that my pursuit of a Ph.D. will provide a strong research foundation that includes a
multi-disciplined educational approach to successfully meet my goals.
This PDE reflects on three types of learning: 1) experience, 2) learning by studying, and
3) research. The experiences that have greatly influenced this work came primarily from being a
part of the Deaf-Blind community as a result of living with Deaf-Blind people, and attending
deaf-blind conferences, meetings and lectures with deaf-blind (and Deaf-Blind) people. Part of
this experience also included having close friends in the deaf-blind community who have had a
great influence on my life. As well, I have observed the communication difficulties that Deaf-
Blind persons have with members of their own family and other sighted persons. These
2

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Introduction
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
experiences and observations instilled in me a desire to investigate obstacles specific to the Deaf-
Blind experience, communication-wise. More specifically, I see a need to teach interpreters how
to better meet the linguistic needs of the Deaf-Blind community. In order to accomplish this
interpreters must have an intimate familiarity with, and knowledge of the structure of Tactile
American Sign Language. With this in mind, I have conducted research on aspects of the
language used by Deaf-Blind individuals with the overall goal of applying new linguistic
findings to the field of tactile interpreting.
1.1. Biography
I was born in 1959 in Asheville, North Carolina. I grew up in a very close-knit family
with three older hearing siblings. My siblings and I are the sixth generation born away from
England and raised in North Carolina. On my mother’s side, one family member was Deaf. She
was my Great Aunt and her spouse was Deaf. My early education was at the North Carolina
School for the Deaf and I considered the people there to be my “Deaf family” consisting of many
of the significant culturally Deaf persons in my life. I am congenitally Deaf, i.e., heredity is the
cause of my deafness and research has shown that genetics plays a role in only about 10% of
Deaf persons.
At the age of four, my family made the decision to move to Morganton, North Carolina in
order for me to attend the North Carolina School for the Deaf. This move allowed me to
commute to school each day and still remain at home with my family while I received my
education. During my school years I gained invaluable perspective towards both hearing and
Deaf cultures. As a day student, I interacted with teachers and peers in an environment much
like the Deaf community. Then at home, I was able to experience hearing culture through daily
interaction and activities with my family. I developed an awareness of the different forms and
methods of communication and began an exciting and challenging venture in learning about
linguistics and how language is structured differently between hearing and Deaf cultures.
It is particularly important to note that my entire family made a significant commitment
on my behalf in making the move to Morganton. For twenty years, my father commuted 65
miles each way every day to his business in Asheville, North Carolina so that I could live in
Morganton in proximity to the Deaf school. This strong commitment to give me their support
3

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Introduction
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
has always had a significant impact on me. When I compare the opportunities that this opened
up for me with the more limited opportunities of some of my friends whose families did not
make such a commitment, I truly realize the importance of family and community pitching-in to
help others.
I graduated from the North Carolina School for the Deaf in 1979 with honors as the
Salutatorian of my class. I knew by this time that I wanted to continue learning and develop the
necessary skills that provide insight into the differences in communication between Deaf and
hearing cultures. I was certain that I would excel in this field because of the experience I
obtained while growing up in both cultures. I applied to and was accepted at Gallaudet
University in Washington, DC, where I majored in Communication Arts. While at Gallaudet, I
was a co-founder of a local chapter of the Kappa Sigma Fraternity.
While attending Gallaudet, I developed friendships with several Deaf-Blind students and
began to interpret for them on an informal basis. This interaction provided me with an
opportunity to gain perspective on the differences between communication within Deaf culture
and communication within Deaf-Blind culture. Through these friendships, I gained additional
insight into how language is used and structured.
After my graduation in 1984, I worked for several years as a free-lance interpreter and
contract instructor of American Sign Language (ASL) for the College of Continuing Education
program at Gallaudet University. When Gallaudet created a Master’s degree in the field of
Interpretation, several of my colleagues encouraged me to enroll because of my strong
interpersonal communication and interpreting skills. I felt this would be a great opportunity for
me to learn about linguistics and theories of interpretation as well as to begin cross-cultural
research in these two areas. Specifically, I continued to be intensely interested in communication
within the Deaf-Blind community and I wanted to pursue research in this area. I enrolled and
became the first Deaf person to receive a Master of Arts degree in Interpretation from Gallaudet
University in June 1992. Much of my research for my Masters degree centered in this same area
of Deaf-Blind communication. Subsequent to my graduation, I went to work as a supervisor for
Gallaudet Interpreting Services specializing in Deaf-Blind interpreting requirements. Later, I
joined the faculty as an Interpretation instructor in the ASL, Linguistics and Interpretation
Department where I currently work.
4

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Introduction
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Between the time of my undergraduate education and my return to graduate education, as
mentioned above, I worked for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) as a
clerk in the Legal Affairs division. During this time, I also started to work as a free-lance
American Sign Language teacher at various community colleges and schools. In addition to my
interpreting skills, I had computer skills and subsequently changed jobs to work for two different
high-tech companies configuring and testing computer hardware and software and preparing
them for delivery to customers. In addition, I had responsibilities for purchasing and inventory.
While I was doing this work, I continued to teach and free-lance interpret for deaf-blind persons.
During this period, I realized that my real vocation is to teach language and interpreting. At this
time, I became very interested in the complex issues of Deaf-Blind culture and, particularly, the
aspects of interpretation and communication in the deaf-blind community.
In 1990, I decided that I would focus my professional life in the fields of linguistics,
interpreting, and teaching. My goal would be to do research in the specific area of Deaf-Blind
communication in order to enhance the interpreting experience for people in the Deaf-Blind
community. I began collaborating with several others in this field and subsequently have given
numerous workshops and presentations as well as published several professional papers on these
subjects. As previously mentioned, I enrolled in the Master of Arts degree program in
Interpretation at Gallaudet University and became the first Deaf student to graduate from that
institution with a Master's Degree in Interpretation.
Upon graduation, I went to work at the Gallaudet Interpreting Service as the supervisor of
the interpreting program for students and as the coordinator of Deaf and hearing interpreters. I
supervised 100 free-lance interpreters and 12 staff interpreters. I qualified for, and received, my
certification as an interpreter from the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID). In 1995, I
received a temporary appointment to the faculty as an instructor in the ASL, Linguistics and
Interpretation Department. In 1997, I competed for, and received a permanent appointment to
that department. I am currently in this faculty position doing research and teaching interpretation
and linguistics.
To date, I have remained active in my research area of interest, Deaf-Blind
communication, and I continue to give regular workshops and presentations around the country.
In addition, I was chairman of the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) special task force
5

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Introduction
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
for setting certification standards for Deaf interpreters (CDI Task Force). I was also an advisory
committee member for the State of Connecticut National Interpreter Education Project. As well,
for three years, I served as chairman of the National Coalition of Deaf and HIV (NCDH). In this
capacity, I worked with the White House Aids Czar in the Clinton administration as an advisor
on issues related to the education of AIDS prevention awareness within the Deaf community.
Conventional public service communication is generally not effective for this population.
During this period I collaborated with the author of a Time Magazine article on the subject (Van
Biema 1994).
In summary, I have brought my professional goals into focus specifically in the area of
teaching and researching Linguistics, ASL, and Interpretation, especially as it pertains to the
Deaf-Blind community. It is my goal to continue to do research to improve the interpreting
environment in support of the Deaf-Blind community and to improve the teaching of interpreters
who serve this community.
1.2. Statement of the Problem
Settings for interpreting include a variety of communicative events in which two
individuals have a need to communicate with each other but cannot communicate directly
because they use different languages. During my doctoral program, I gained additional insight
into the process of providing better deaf-blind interpreting services by conducting preliminary
investigations with a specific group of Deaf-Blind consumers' non-visual and tactile signed
language, Tactile ASL (TASL), and their interpreters' ASL to TASL interpreting performance.
In the field of Deaf-Blind Studies, there are several primary categories of Deaf-Blind persons
and these include variations in degree of visual and hearing loss. For purposes of this research,
only the terms ”blind” and “Deaf-Blind” are used and I am focusing on a specific group within
the Deaf-Blind community, those individuals with Usher’s Syndrome Type I. Further, within
each of these categories, it is essential to keep in mind that there will be a significant cross
section of educational backgrounds as well as a diversity of modes of communication between
and among individuals in the deaf-blind community. The social variations in this specific group
affects communication styles and interpreting needs of Deaf-Blind individuals.
6

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Introduction
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
To effectively interpret in a tactile signed language, an interpreter for the Deaf-Blind
must carefully observe the manner in which information is tactually presented. This includes
non-manual signals such as the grammatical use of space, as well as movement in time and
space. 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.
One of the major implications that I have found in my earlier studies is that further
research is necessary in all syntactic aspects. This doctoral program and PDE does that. Hence,
interpreters for the Deaf-Blind will be able to express syntactic markers in their tactile
production of TASL, rather than simply relying on the non-manual markers of ASL. As well,
my research proves that this transformation must occur during the ASL to TASL cognitive
interpreting process.
1.3. Scope.
In this PDE the focus is on a specific category of Deaf-Blind persons who have a
condition known as Usher's Syndrome Type I. This condition generally results from a
degeneration, over time, of the retina, resulting in most cases, in the person being nearly totally
deaf-blind by the age of 30 to 35. In addition to this pattern of becoming blind, Deaf-Blind
persons with Usher's Syndrome Type I are congenitally deaf from birth. In view of the fact that
the onset of their becoming blind occurs later in life after they have acquired fluent
communication in ASL, these individuals will make the transition from ASL, a visual language
that involves manual, facial, and other body movements, to TASL, a non-visual and tactile
language, as their vision diminishes. An important element of the research relates to aspects of
ASL that become apparent in this later tactile phase of deaf-blind communication. This study is
concerned with a specific group of individuals who identify themselves as culturally Deaf, who
are also blind.
This researcher found that there is a very small body of research on Tactile Sign
Language. This appears to be due primarily to a lack of knowledge and skills associated with
interpreter training programs, thus leading to the heart of the PDE. Research on TASL and
7

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Introduction
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
interpreters requires an understanding of the linguistic features of TASL. Therefore, the
fundamental research question for the present project is: “What is the nature of adverbial use in
Tactile American Sign Language?”
In previous collaborative research in which this researcher has been involved with, TASL
and ASL sentence types were analyzed. It was found that in ASL, a sentence type mainly is
determined by a set of certain non-manual signals. For example, ASL yes-no questions involve
non-manual features such as the raising of eyebrows, the widening of the eyes, and the forward
tilting of the head and/or body (Baker and Cokely 1980; Liddell 1980). In addition to providing
grammatical cues that define sentence or phrase types, visual ASL uses non-manual signals in an
adverbial manner; however, the deaf-blind person cannot see these signals and, consequently,
they communicate these adverbs by using tactile signals. For example, according to Valli and
Lucas (1995), visual ASL has “features of a sign that carry adverbial meaning [which] often are
incorporated directly into the structure of the adjective sign or the predicate sign.” Specifically,
the two researchers explain that, for instance, “the sign TALL 2 is a two-handed sign in which the
active hand moves from the base to the fingertips of the passive hand. The sign can be glossed
VERY-TALL when the sign begins well below the passive hand, brushes it, and ends above the
fingertips, along with a marked facial expression.” This study demonstrates the consistent use of
linguistic factors in this tactile sign language. TASL has many interesting features; my focus is
on adverbials.
1.4. Social Relevance
My internship leading up to this PDE consisted of ongoing learning experiences as an
interpreter for the Deaf-Blind and as an interpreter educator, whereas my PDE is a preliminary
investigation of adverbs in Tactile Sign Language. This section briefly notes how my internship
and PDE integrate a process of improvement for the field of interpreter training along with a
fundamental socially relevant result of an improved quality of life for Deaf-Blind persons.
Initially, I participated in classes, seminars, and other doctoral learning events that are
necessary in relation to my program. Thereafter, I did an internship that gave me practical
2 The use of capital letters as in TALL indicates Gloss is being used in the notation. See Appendix B for a full
explaination of Gloss.
8

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Introduction
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
benefits from these learning experiences. Moreover, this internship contributed to my designing
and developing a solid investigation of TASL and ASL-to-TASL interpreting in the United
States and Italy. My internship program was done while working as a Fulbright Scholar in Italy.
As an intern, the focus of my attention was to develop and incorporate deaf-blind interpreting
services for Deaf-Blind employees and students. This internship provided me with a fertile
ground for research and information gathering.
Additionally, there is a large deaf-blind community in Seattle, Washington. I did much
of my studies while working with contacts I developed primarily in the community college and
interpreter training areas in Seattle. With the completion of this PDE, I will be able to share my
findings with Deaf-Blind consumers, interpreters for the Deaf-Blind, deaf-blind interpreter
educators, and signed language linguists regarding TASL and TASL interpreting.
My PDE is a preliminary investigation of one group of syntactic markers found in
communication between Deaf-Blind persons. The PDE's data collection will consist of at least
two videotaped sessions of a significant communication event between two Deaf-Blind subjects.
I anticipate that these findings will contribute to improved TASL interpreting services and
greater sensitivity and familiarity on the part of deaf-blind interpreter education programs
towards the deaf-blind community.
By conducting research, establishing a program in Italy, networking with various
communities on a nation wide basis, and further studying of TASL, I hope to further enlighten
those who are in the field of interpreter education that TASL and ASL are variations of a unique
language. By providing an improved training process for interpreters who will serve the Deaf-
Blind community, both hearing and Deaf interpreters will be able to provide a means of
communication access to a specific group of individuals who have historically been socially
isolated from the world. Implementation of the PDE’s research findings into interpreter training
programs should result in more Deaf-Blind persons leading successful and fruitful lives.
9

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Intellectual Context and Literature Review
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2. Intellectual Context and Literature Review
2.1. Background and Recent Research
William Stokoe is known in Deaf culture as the “Father of American Sign Language
(ASL)”. In his studies of American Sign Language (Stokoe 1960), Stokoe applied the idea of
minimal pairs to reveal the distinctive parts of a sign. In doing so, he discovered the existence of
three parameters: handshape, movement and location. Eventually, additional research
demonstrated that orientation and a non-manual component were also distinctive, and these two
parameters were then added. Although the physical form of a sign differs from the physical form
of a spoken word—many of the same phonological processes and principles, such as
assimilation, epenthesis, and metathesis, are found in both spoken and signed languages (Padden
and Perlmutter 1987; Liddell and Johnson 1989).
Currently, there are several competing theoretical models of ASL phonology, each trying
to best represent the hierarchical structure, the relationship between the parameters, and the
features within each parameter (Coulter 1992). Liddell and Johnson’s (1989) model proposes
that a sign consists of a sequence of hold and movement segments, somewhat analogous to
consonants and vowels, and each segment contains specifications for the four parameters.
Movements are segmented in Liddell and Johnson’s model.
Dr. Ceil Lucas (1995) has also done studies focused on the sociolinguistics of Deaf
communities, including issues of sociolinguistic variation within signed languages, issues of
bilingualism and language contact, language policy and planning, and language attitudes. She
has also researched the structure of sign language discourse and is the editor of a journal series
entitled Sociolinguistics in Deaf Communities, which produces a yearly volume consisting of
papers in all areas of sociolinguistics pertaining to Deaf communities from around the world. As
Lucas (1995) notes, Liddell & Johnson’s model is particularly suited for describing phonological
processes often found in variation studies.
10

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Intellectual Context and Literature Review
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The following is an example of the movement-hold notation for American Sign Language
developed by Liddell and Johnson, as shown in Valli and Lucas (1995): “The sign WEEK as
shown on page [37] in a simplified version of the Movement-Hold notation.
“The sign WEEK begins with a hold (H), with the right hand (for right-handed signers) at
the base of the left hand. It then moves (M) to the tip of the left hand and ends with a hold in
that location. The change in the sign is in the location of the active hand, from base to tip of the
passive hand.”
11

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Intellectual Context and Literature Review
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Using the Liddell and Johnson notation, the following examples are from the Learner’s
data on Tactile American Sign Language. This example shows the adverb SHOCK with
emphasis, showing the degree to which the person reacted to the specific situation.
“The sign SHOCK begins with a hold (H), with the right hand (for right-handed signers)
at the forehead. It then moves (M) to the position next to the left hand and ends with an
extended hold in that location. The change in the sign is in the location of the active hand, from
the head to a position next to the passive hand.”
12

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Intellectual Context and Literature Review
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A second example of the notation is seen with the adverb EVERY-TWO-WEEKS. In
the Tactile ASL production of the sign, the signer must make it clear that the “every two weeks”
is meant to convey the frequency aspect as well as its regularity. Since the citation form of
EVERY-TWO-WEEKS involves two identical movements already, it was modified to have three
movements, resulting in three distinct locations. For the visual ASL signer, the non-manual
signal of the lip protrusion is sufficient to convey this concept.
The sign EVERY-TWO-WEEKS begins with a hold (H), with the right hand (for righthanded
signers) at the base of the left hand. It then moves (M) to the tip of the left hand and
ends with a hold in that location. The change in the sign is in the location of the active hand,
from base to tip of the passive hand.
This notation system can very easily describe the specific features that the researcher
finds in the data, such as prolonged hold, tenseness, extended location, and repeated movement.
For the purposes of this paper, the researcher utilizes parts of this model when studying
morphological variation in the Tactile ASL data.
When people think of ASL, they usually mistakenly only think of the manual component,
specifically, the signs articulated by the hands. However, ASL has a complex non-manual
component that involves specific configuration and movements of: facial features (the eyes,
13

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Intellectual Context and Literature Review
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
eyebrows, tongue and mouth); head movements (tilts, nods, or shakes); muscle tenseness (tense,
lax, or neutral); and upper body positions (leans and tilts). Several ASL signs include a nonmanual
feature in their underlying form. Many adjectives and adverbs in ASL consist of a nonmanual
facial configuration that co-occurs while a manual predicate is being articulated (Liddell
1980; Padden 1988). The adjectival and adverbial configurations generally use the lower face,
e.g., clenching of the teeth, tensing of the open lips and pursing of the mouth (Bienvenu and
Colonomos 1991). This paper examines which features of TASL function as non-manual
adverbs in visual ASL.
The following illustrations show six examples of non-manual components of ASL which
function as adverbs. These figures illustrate adverbials that are inherent in the facial grammar of
ASL. Each of the six examples is shown in two forms, with and without the NMS.
Figure 1
VERY–WOW
Figure 2
WOW
Figure 1 shows the sign glossed 3 as VERY–WOW. The NMS is described as “puffed
cheeks” with narrowed eyes. The NMS is an intensifier similar to the English word very. Figure
2 shows a similar sign glossed as WOW without the puffed cheeks and widened eyes. Without
the NMS the sign loses the intense meaning.
3 A gloss is a symbol for a sign in ASL. Throughout this PDE, glosses are used. For a more detailed description of
glosses and gloss conventions, see Appendix B.
14

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Intellectual Context and Literature Review
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 3
TOO–EXPENSIVE
Figure 4
EXPENSIVE
Figure 3 shows the sign glossed as TOO-EXPENSIVE. Figure 3 also shows the NMS
described as “SS” or “teeth clenched with cheeks pulled back” and the eyes are squinted. The
NMS is an intensifier similar to the English word too. Signs accompanied by this non-manual
component may also have a larger movement than the citation form. Figure 4 shows a similar
sign glossed as EXPENSIVE without the intensifier. Without the NMS, the sign means simply
“expensive”.
Figure 5
VERY–RAINY
Figure 6
RAIN
Figure 5 shows the sign glossed as VERY-RAINY. The NMS is described as a
“tightened facial expression”. Signs occurring with this NMS often have sharp forward
movements. The NMS is a modifier similar to an English word ending in “y” such as in the
English word “rainy”. This ASL sign means raining very hard. Figure 6 shows a similar sign
glossed as RAIN without the intensifier. Without the NMS the sign loses the intense meaning.
15

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Intellectual Context and Literature Review
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 7
VERY-STORMY
Figure 8
STORM
Figure 7 shows the sign glossed as VERY-STORMY. The NMS is described as “CH”
with squinting eyes, a spread mouth and spread fingers. The NMS is also a modifier whose
meaning here is similar to the English word very stormy. Figure 8 shows a similar sign glossed
as STORM without the intensifier.
Figure 9
REALLY-GOOD
Figure 10
GOOD
Figure 9 shows the sign glossed as REALLY-GOOD. The NMS is described as “SH”
with a tilting of the head downwards, squinting eyes and a strong quick movement of the hand.
The NMS is also an intensifier similar to the English word very or really. The sign in
combination with the “SH” non-manual component means really good. Figure 10 is a similar
sign glossed as GOOD without the intensifier. Without the intensifier, the added component of
really is removed.
16

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Intellectual Context and Literature Review
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 11
VERY-CLOSE
Figure 12
CLOSE
Figure 11 shows the sign glossed as VERY-CLOSE. The non-manual component is
described as “EE” with clenched teeth and a slightly turned head. The NMS is an intensifier
similar to the English word very. The sign and NMS in Figure 11 means that the location is not
far away. Figure 12 is a similar sign glossed as CLOSE without the intensifier. Thus the
location is “close by” and not “very close by”.
In addition to providing semantic content, non-manuals also play a key role in syntax.
ASL verbs are divided into several classes determined by their morphological properties (Fischer
and Gough 1979; Padden 1988). These classes include ‘spatial/locative verbs’ which contain a
classifier, ‘plain verbs’ which cannot inflect for subject or object agreement, and ‘agreement
verbs’, which can inflect for subject and/or object agreement (Padden 1988). With agreement
verbs, the beginning point, end point, and/or orientation of the verb changes to reflect subject
and/or object agreement. In ASL, locations in the signing space can be associated with different
entities and, later reference to that location is taken to be co-referential with the entity. For
instance, after signing, B-O-B, a signer can point to a location on their left. In a sense, the
location is now associated with Bob. If, in the articulation of the agreement verb INFORM, the
hand starts pointing to the space to the signer’s left (the same as indicated by IX-lf), the verb is
inflected for third person subject agreement and has the meaning “He/Bob informed me.”
B-O-B IX-lf…
(left) INFORM (PRO1)
17

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Intellectual Context and Literature Review
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Null arguments are missing subjects or objects which are not needed in some usages
because either the context or a verb ending has a specific meaning that makes it clear what the
missing subject or object would be. These null arguments i.e., deleted subjects and/or objects in
both subject and object position, can occur with agreement verbs as in the example above and
with plain verbs in ASL. Examining data from syntactic islands within a Government and
Binding (GB) framework, Lillo-Martin (1986) proposed that the null arguments with plain verbs
were licensed or, controlled, differently from those with agreement verbs. She argues that null
arguments with agreement verbs are licensed through agreement, similar to the licensing in other
agreement languages such as Spanish. However, null arguments with plain verbs are licensed
through discourse in a manner similar to the discourse licensing in non-agreement languages
such as Japanese and Chinese. Following this work, Lillo-Martin (1986) proposed this discourse
licensing occurred through the mechanism of topic chaining.
More recently, and of relevance to this study, Bahan (1996), proposed an alternative
analysis, which employs the interactions of non-manual eye-gaze, and head tilts with spatial
locations. In this proposal, agreement, (the head of the AGR phrase), licenses the null arguments
that occur with both agreement and plain verbs. Therefore, in addition to the null argument
being licensed through verbal agreement, it can also be licensed by ‘agreement’ that occurs by
eye gaze and/or head tilt directed toward a specific location. In a large-scale study of
sociolinguistic variation in ASL, Lucas et al, (2001) looked at variation that occurs with null
arguments. Variation studies on null arguments can provide further data to be considered by the
two very different analyses, and potentially provide support for one analysis over the other.
Though null arguments were not a focus of this study, the fact that they may be at least partially
licensed by eye gaze demonstrates once again that some critical elements of ASL are nonmanual.
Furthermore, the function of eye gaze must be executed by some means that can be
perceived tactually for users of TASL.
The underlying word order of ASL is subject-verb-object (SVO). However, as a result of
phrase and clause organization and the use of null arguments, other word orders are made
possible. Word orders other than SVO tend to require non-manual grammatical markers. Nonmanuals
also mark such structures as: topics, yes/no questions, wh-questions, rhetorical
18

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Intellectual Context and Literature Review
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
statements, conditionals, and relative clauses (Liddell 1980; Coulter 1978, 1979; Baker-Shenk
1983). At the discourse level, in addition to manual signs, there are also independent nonmanual
configurations such as tensing of the muscles around the nose, around the mouth, eyegaze
direction, and specific types of head nods that are used to provide turn-taking cues and
back-channel feedback for regulating conversations (Baker 1976; Baker and Padden 1978;
Nowell 1989).
Clearly, non-manual signals are a pervasive component of ASL. They accompany single
lexical items with the purpose of modifying the canonical meaning of the sign with which they
occur. They are involved in the licensing of null arguments. Their presence allows alternate word
orders and they are essential parts of sentence, clause and phrase types. Even at the discourse
level, NMS are crucial for conversing in acceptable and predictable ways. The prominence of
non-manuals in ASL strongly suggests that at least some of their functions must be carried out by
some other means in TASL.
2.2. Language Variation
In 1966, William Labov and his colleagues pioneered studies in which the focus was on
linguistic variation in relation to a multiplicity of social and cultural factors. Ethnicity, for
example, has played a central role in current discussions of identity, and was the focus of
Labov’s 1966 study of New York City English among Italian, Jewish, Irish and Black
Americans. It was also the topic of Gumperz’s extensive work on cross-cultural miscommunication
(Gumperz 1966). Labov’s work illustrated that non-linguistic factors could affect
the use of one linguistic form over another. In his groundbreaking study, he showed that while a
strict linguistic analysis could not account for optional “r” deletion in the speech of Lower East
Side New Yorkers, an analysis that took into account a person’s socioeconomic background and
their speech style, could account for this variability. Since Labov’s findings, sociolinguists have
found many types of linguistic variation that are correlated with external, non-linguistic
constraints. These external constraints include social and personal characteristics, such as age,
gender, education, and ethnicity, and also characteristics of the interaction in which speech
occurred, i.e., the formality or casualness of the situation, the context (a bar brawl versus a
19

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Intellectual Context and Literature Review
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
sermon), or the status relations between participants (talking to a lawyer versus talking to a Deaf
friend.)
In addition to external constraints, variation studies also consider internal linguistic
factors and take into account their possible correlations with linguistic variations. Internal
constraints that can affect variability include the neighboring linguistic environment, the
grammatical category of the word (adjective, noun, verb, etc.), and the position of the variable
within the sentence or discourse. While some linguistic variation can be accounted for by
external constraints, or internal constraints, it is often the case that variation results from a
combination of both.
It appears that Croneberg (1965) was the first to systematically look at variation in ASL.
As he traveled around to different states on the east coast, and to the Carolinas and Virginia, he
used a 134-item sign vocabulary list and asked local people for their signs. Croneberg found that
lexical variation correlated with geographic region, which was, and still is, influenced by state
boundaries and the location of the residential schools for the deaf.
In the 1970’s, there were several ASL studies that looked for correlations between
external and internal constraints, and phonological, morphological or lexical variation. For
example, Woodward (1973 a, b: 1974), and Woodward and DeSantis (1977) examined the
variable use of three morphological inflections and found that the inflections were used more by
those who learned ASL before they were age six, and those who had Deaf parents. In 1975,
Battison, Markowicz, and Woodward studied thumb extension variation within certain signs.
They found weighted linguistic constraints including a correlation between thumb extension and
the bending of other fingers in the sign, the extension of the middle finger in the sign, and the
sign having a twisted movement. No relationship was found between external factors such as the
signer’s gender, the audiological status of the signer’s parents, or if the signer learned ASL
before they were age six.
Woodward, Erting and Oliver (1976) looked at the varied use of a sign that had two
forms; one form was near the face and the other in neutral space, such as RABBIT. Results
showed that New Orleans signers used the form that was near the body more often, while
Atlantic signers used the other form. In 1976, Woodward found lexical variation when African-
American signers and Caucasian signers were studied. Shortly after, Woodward and DeSantis
20

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Intellectual Context and Literature Review
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1977b) looked at variation in the use of a one-handed and an older two-handed form of the same
sign. They report weighted internal constraints such as that of one-handed forms which have an
outward movement as opposed to an inward movement, and are articulated at a higher facial
location as opposed to a lower placement on the face. Woodward and DeSantis also noted
external constraints, finding that older, southern, and African-American signers use the older
two-handed form more often than do younger, northern and Caucasian signers.
After this spurt of variation studies in the 1970’s, few studies appeared again until the
1990’s. Between the 1970’s and the 1990’s, however, there has been a tremendous increase in
our knowledge of the linguistic structure of ASL and in our understanding of the complexities
and diversity of the language situation in the Deaf community (Padden & Humphries 1988;
Lucas & Valli 1992; Paranis 1997). This knowledge has lead to a re-examination and concern
about the methodologies used in sociolinguistic studies of ASL, particularly in informant and
interviewer selection, and data collection methods (Lucas 1995; Patrick and Metzger 1996). For
example, several of the earlier studies used written questionnaires or direct elicitation, often had
hearing researchers conducting the interviews, made broad generalizations based on a very small
number of informants, and used informants with varying language backgrounds, e.g., one
informant might be a native signer while another might have learned to sign when they were 19
years old. Recent methods now reflect contemporary efforts in using “natural” data. Data is
videotaped and coded for further analysis, and careful attention is given to ensuring that subjects
are representative of the group being studied (Milroy 1987 a, b; Lucas 1995).
Lucas et al (2001) conducted a large study on ASL variation in the deaf black community
and in the deaf white community. The ongoing analysis is based on videotaped conversational
data from 207 White and African-American ASL signers in three age groups, in two
socioeconomic groups, and in seven sites around the United States. In the study, three
phonological variables and the linguistic and social constraints on participants were analyzed: 1)
the sign DEAF which, in citation form, is produced from ear to chin and can also be produced
from chin to ear or as a single contact on the cheek: 2) a class of signs represented by the sign
KNOW, which, in citation form, is produced on or at the side of the forehead. The variants of
KNOW, for example, were produced on or at the side of the forehead or were formed at lower
locations including the cheek or even the space in front of the signer, and 3) signs produced with
21

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Intellectual Context and Literature Review
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
a 1-handshape (index extended, all other fingers and thumb closed) which show a wide range of
variation: thumb extended, all fingers extended etc.
In all three cases, it was hypothesized that the variation would be driven by phonological
factors such as features of the preceding or following sign. While there is some phonological
involvement in all three cases, a Varbrul analysis with a total of 10,000 tokens has shown that
the most significant factor is grammatical function: in the case of DEAF, whether the sign
functions as an adjective or part of a compound, as a predicate, or as a noun – adjectives and
compounds favoring non-citation forms, nouns being neutral, and predicates disfavoring them;
the location study involving signs like KNOW with preposition signs favoring non-citation forms
and noun and verbs disfavoring them; and in the 1-handshape signs, first-person pronouns
strongly favoring non-citation forms, second-person pronouns being neutral and third-person
pronouns, nouns, and verbs disfavoring non-citation forms. This data was also analyzed for
variation on the presence of grammatical subjects and for lexical variation.
2.3. Tactile ASL
As stated earlier, it is primarily Deaf-Blind adults who have Usher Syndrome Type I who
use Tactile ASL. These individuals typically grow up using ASL as their primary means of
communication. Eventually, when their vision deteriorates, they start receiving ASL tactilely
because Deaf-Blind people have increasing difficulty seeing the non-manual signals (NMS) that
are an integral part of ASL. What we are seeing is that these non-manual signals are being
represented manually. This manual representation of NMS is the variation that this paper
examines, specifically as it pertains to the representation of adverbs. Variation defines the
different ways of saying or signing the same thing where meaning remains constant. (Fasold,
1984). That is precisely what is happening with Tactile ASL: signals that are represented nonmanually
in ASL are being represented manually in Tactile ASL, with no change in meaning.
Using ASL in a tactile mode may appear to be a contradiction. That is, ASL, which is described
as a visual language, includes non-manual components which the Deaf-Blind person cannot see;
and many ASL signers use two hands while the Deaf-Blind person usually has tactual contact
with only one hand. Additionally, many signs use handshapes involving combinations of the
fingers, yet the Deaf-Blind person’s hand is on the back of the signer’s hand, not in contact with
22

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Intellectual Context and Literature Review
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the fingers. Furthermore, Tactile ASL is a clear example of a dialect in a signed language, for
two reasons: 1) we see variation at all levels of the language – phonological, morphosyntactic,
and lexical, and 2) there is a community of users who show systematic use of the dialect.
Opportunities for Deaf-Blind adults to interact and socialize with each other have greatly
increased over the past 30 years. With the establishment of the American Association of the
Deaf-Blind, Deaf-Blind adults from all over the United States have begun to convene for
weeklong conventions and have established local chapters in various states. As state agencies
are set up, and Deaf-Blind people learn of cities that provide quality services, they have begun to
move to these cities, e.g., Seattle and Minneapolis. This fact, and the addition of job and
leadership opportunities, has lead to the emergence of many Deaf-Blind communities
(McNamara 1997).
Padden and Humphries (1988), Lucas and Valli (1992), Patrick and Metzger (1996), and
Parasnis (1997) discuss the wide range of language diversity that occurs in the Deaf Community.
It is because many Deaf-Blind persons were first members of the Deaf Community, similar
language diversity is found in the Deaf-Blind community. In fact, one of the problems that
appeared in early research on ASL is that Deaf informants were not always ASL users. The
same is true of research into Tactile ASL: not every Deaf-Blind person who uses tactile signing
is a Tactile ASL user and some might use a more English-like form of signing, or one of the
manual systems developed and used in educational settings. The focus of this review as well as
the focus of this paper’s research study is to show that language diversity exists between Tactile
ASL users, as opposed to other types of tactile signing, and other communication methods used
by deaf-blind persons such as palm writing, Tadoma and others.
While the Deaf-Blind community in the United States is growing and Tactile ASL is
receiving increased recognition, there has not been a corresponding growth in the amount of
information about Tactile ASL. When Tactile ASL is mentioned, it is usually in materials for
sign language interpreters. This material is generally based on personal experiences and
observations of the authors, most of whom are involved in the field of Deaf-Blind interpreting,
e.g., Smith (1977, 1994); Petronio (1988); and Atwood, Clarkson and Laba, (1994). Dr. Theresa
Smith, an anthropologist and author of Guidelines: Practical Tips for Involving and Socializing
with Deaf-Blind People, has worked as an interpreter at international conferences in Tokyo, Paris
23

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Intellectual Context and Literature Review
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
and Vienna and has been on the Coordinating Board for national conventions of the American
Association of the Deaf-Blind since 1984. She has published a book on communicating with and
interpreting for Deaf-Blind people and has often presented workshops as either a visiting or guest
lecturer on interpreting for Deaf-Blind people, interpreting in legal settings, and the cultural
aspects of interpreting and discourse. Smith states that while tactile interpreting, the interpreter
must “pay particular attention to the manner in which grammatical information is presented,
including: non-manual signals, the grammatical use of space, movement in time and place, and
movement in space (arc, zigzags, bounces, etc.) to inflect and inform individual signs, phrases
and larger chunks” (Smith 1994, p.91). Smith notes that these areas have to be ‘modified
somewhat’ to fit the tactual mode.
With the exception of Smith’s work, there is little information available for interpreters
on how to modify their signing. For example, Deaf-Blind interpreting was the theme of the
December 1997 issue of Views, the monthly publication of the Registry of Interpreters for the
Deaf. However, while this issue contains 11 articles on Deaf-Blind Interpreting, none of the
articles describes the linguistic features of Tactile ASL. As well, there is not one article
suggesting what linguistic modifications should be made while tactile interpreting.
Petronio (1986) did the first study examining linguistic features of Tactile ASL as used
by fluent Deaf-Blind adults. This study questioned how Deaf-Blind adults are able to
successfully use and understand ASL tactually when placing one hand on the back of the signer’s
hand. In Petronio’s study, three skilled Deaf-Blind Tactile ASL users were videotaped as they
retold a short story to each other tactually. They also retold the story non-tactually to two Deaf
ASL users. Three 2-3 minute stories were designed which contained examples of three targeted
features: 1) sequences involving non-manual ‘role-shifts’ and eye gaze, 2) examples of
two-handed signs, and 3) examples of signs with detailed information provided by the fingers.
Petronio’s study compared and contrasted the use of these features in the tactile and non-tactile
story retellings.
Additional findings show that Deaf-Blind signers use role-shift and eye-gaze in both
tactile and non-tactile signing. In ASL, role-shift and eye gaze can be used to indicate direct
speech: a signer’s upper body will “shift” and their eye-gaze will be directed toward a spatial
location, e.g., to the left or to the right (Valli and Lucas 1995). Deaf receivers can visually see
24

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

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Intellectual Context and Literature Review
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A study done by Collins in 1993 included videotaping and an examination of the tactile
signing of interpreters as they interpreted for Deaf-Blind persons. Collins found that signing
differences occurred when the interpreter used standard ASL compared to when they interpreted
in Tactile ASL. The study examples point to phonological, lexical, and syntactic variation. For
instance, when an interpreter used Tactile ASL, the location parameter of some signs varied:
DRY, PARENTS, and REASON were signed lower than they are in standard ASL. Interpreters
also used a manual sign instead of a non-manual signal that had a similar meaning. For example,
instead of using the non-manual nose-twitch to show affirmation, the interpreter used the manual
sign YES. In ASL, there are some signs whose phonological form is so similar they can easily
be confused with another sign. While using tactile ASL, there were instances when the
interpreter resorted to fingerspelling instead of using a potentially confusing sign. For example,
instead of using GUN, which can be confused with the sign for TWENETY–ONE, the interpreter
fingerspelled G-U-N and, when signing the yes/no question ‘MARRIED YOU’ (Are you
married?), one interpreter added a forward movement to the string of signs, apparently to
indicate that the sentence was a question.
The next study of Tactile ASL was done by O’Brien and Steffen (1996). The data from
this study came from a one-hour videotape of two experienced Deaf-Blind Tactile ASL users
signing fairy tales to each other. The data was examined for phonological variation and locative
predicates. Locative predicates, also referred to as classifier verbs, spatial verbs, or verbs of
motion and location, are verbs that contain specific points within the signing. Findings showed
that locative predicates in Tactile ASL are used in the same manner as they are in standard ASL.
For example, in the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears, the Deaf-Blind signer ‘located’
Papa Bear on his left, close to his body, while Mama and Baby Bear were on the right, further
from his body. After these places were ‘established’, locative predicates were signed in a
respective location, e.g., those related to Papa Bear to the left near the signer’s body, those
related to Mama and Baby Bear to the right, further from the signer’s body. It is significant that
location predicates using spatial locations occurred in both tactile and standard ASL. This
provides another case, in addition to role shifting, where Deaf-Blind receivers are not able to
visually access the information, however they tactually perceive the information by the place
where the signing occurs.
26

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Intellectual Context and Literature Review
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
O’Brien and Steffen’s data also contained a one-handed variant of the sign BEAR, a sign
which is normally two handed. The dropping of the second hand in this variant, is attributed to
‘weak hand drop’, a phonological process that commonly occurs in standard ASL (Padden and
Perlmutter 1987). The authors report that instances of phonological variation occurred,
particularly within the location parameter type that is found in standard ASL. Weak-hand drop is
therefore not unique to Tactile ASL.
Prior to this PDE’s research on adverbial morphemes in TASL another paper influenced
this PDE. This was research done by the Learner in conjunction with Dr. Karen Petronio (1998).
The goal of that study was to compare Tactile ASL to standard ASL and begin to write a
description of Tactile ASL. The primary data used in that 1998 study came from unobtrusive
videotaping of Tactile ASL conversations that took place between 11 Deaf-Blind adults during a
four-hour informal party. The 11 Deaf-Blind people, who knew the researchers, were asked and
gave permission to videotape the party for linguistic purposes. The videotaping was done with a
small hand-held camcorder with a zoom lens. While this data appears to be very natural and
includes a number of people, one disadvantage is there were no long signing segments from any
one person. Secondary data came from the videotaped retelling of stories by the three Deaf-
Blind adults used in Petronio (1986). All 14 of the Deaf-Blind people involved in this study had
Usher Syndrome Type I and used ASL before they became legally blind. As well, the
participants regularly socialized with other Deaf-Blind adults and were comfortable and
experienced in using Tactile ASL.
Collins and Petronio hypothesized that variation could occur at any level of language.
The researchers utilized the following questions to formulate and examine their hypothesis:
Phonology: In Tactile ASL, the receiver’s hand is placed on the signer’s hand. Does
this physical difference result in changes in any of the sign parameters: handshape,
movement, location, and orientation?
Morphology: Deaf-Blind persons are unable to see the non-manual adverbs and
adjectives that accompany many predicates. How are these non-manual morphemes
conveyed in Tactile ASL?
27

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Intellectual Context and Literature Review
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Discourse: The back-channel feedback given by addresses in visual ASL is
inaccessible to Deaf-Blind persons. What type of back-channeling in Tactile ASL
replaces the head nods, head tilts, and facial expressions of back-channeling of
standard ASL?
In regards to physical changes influencing the parameters of a sign, it was noted that the
same type of variation occurred in the tactile data as have been found in standard ASL.
However, in addition to signing variation resulting from phonological processes such as
regressive and progressive assimilation, Tactile ASL has a specific variation that is sometimes
due to: 1) the signer and receiver being physically closer to each other than they generally are in
standard ASL, and 2) the receiver’s hand is in closer contact with the signer’s hand. For
example, because of the physical closeness, the signing space used in Tactile ASL is generally
smaller than that used in visual ASL. This smaller space results in the signs having smaller
movement paths than typically occurs in standard ASL. Also, the receiver’s hand is in close
contact with the signer’s hand, and thus the signing space shifts to the area where the hand is in
contact. Correspondingly, the location of signs articulated in neutral space also shifts to this
same area. In order to accommodate the receiver’s hand placement on the signer’s hand it
appears that more variation occurred within the orientation parameter than is found in standard
ASL. One change, unique to Tactile ASL, occurred with several signs that included body
contact: In addition to the signer’s hands moving toward the body, the torso also, often moves
towards the hands. This adaptation allows the receiver to maintain comfortable contact with the
signer. However, it should be noted that this varies, as some signs with body contact occur when
the signer’s body does not move forward. A data corpus would permit further examination of
probable constraints within the different types of signs that include body contact.
Questions posed in standard ASL can have a variety of word orders (Humphries, Padden,
& O’Rourke 1985, Petronio and Lillo-Martin 1997). Wh-questions have a non-manual whquestion
marker that includes a furrowing of the brow typically found in standard ASL, e.g., whsigns
appeared at the beginning of wh-questions, at the end, or they appear at both the beginning
and end. In standard ASL, under certain conditions, a wh-sign can be null (Lillo-Martin and
Fischer, 1992). In this regard, the data on Tactile ASL appeared to differ from standard ASL: all
the wh-questions had an overt wh-sign. This finding has a certain logic to it: since Deaf-Blind
28

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Intellectual Context and Literature Review
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
receivers cannot see the non-manual wh-questions marker, instead they rely on the wh-sign to
indicate that the sentence is a wh-question. Without a wh-sign, it would be easy to
misunderstand the sentence, because the sentence is ungrammatical. As grammatical markers
are not observed by Deaf-Blind people, this “dialect community” has a restricted set of whconstruction.
In standard ASL, a signer looks directly to the receiver while asking a wh-question, and
thus, the receiver knows the question is specifically for them. In the Tactile ASL data, several
wh-questions were preceded by the sign YOU directed toward the receiver. However, YOU was
not the subject or the object of the sentence, e.g., YOU WHAT PLANE WHAT “What kind of
plane was it?” In these cases, it appears that the sign YOU was a substitute for the signer’s eyegaze.
The sign YOU gets the receiver’s attention, and informs them something will be directed
toward them.
Yes/No questions in standard ASL occur with a non-manual syntactic marker that
includes a brow raise and head tilt. In standard ASL, yes/no questions can optionally occur with
a manual sign glossed as QUESTION. All of the examples of yes/no questions in the tactile
ASL data occurred with the sign QUESTION. Thus, it appears that while the sign QUESTION
is optional in standard ASL, in Tactile ASL, it is acting as a substitute for the q-marker and its
use has become obligatory.
Back-channel feedback was the last area investigated by the Collins and Petronio 1998
study. The use of back-channel feedback in all languages allows receivers to provide feedback to
the speaker/signer, e.g., they can indicate if they understand, agree, disagree, doubt, or are
puzzled. In standard ASL, back-channel feedback is often given non-manually with a head nod
or a shake; with eyebrows rising or lowering; and with nose wrinkles. The data was examined to
determine how Deaf-Blind receivers were providing back-channel feedback to the Deaf-Blind
signer. An unexpected unique tactile system was found. This system included a one-finger tap,
a four finger tap, squeezes and tactile nods in which the receiver tapped, squeezed or nodded on
the back of the signer’s hand. For instance, the one finger tap was used to show “I understand”.
Subtle differences of meaning were expressed by varying the speed or number of repetitions of
the tap. A squeeze was used to ask for repetition. Further study is needed to better describe this
unique means of providing feedback. This back-channeling system is a clear example of a
29

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Intellectual Context and Literature Review
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
change that has occurred in Tactile ASL. This is a system that has replaced the standard ASL
non-manual back-channel system. After collecting and analyzing the data from this study, the
findings were presented to the Deaf-Blind persons who were videotaped. Of note is the
participant’s reaction to the back-channeling information: they were equally surprised and
unaware that they were using this tactile feedback system. Yet, once they learned of this, the
participants remarked on how extensively they use it. This system, which has unconsciously
evolved in the Deaf-Blind community, is widespread: all of the signers used it, regardless of
geographic location.
Despite the limited amount of data that was analyzed in the Collins and Petronio 1998
pilot study, the findings have provided ample evidence that language variation and language
change occurs in Tactile ASL. Further studies of Tactile ASL have tremendous potential to
contribute to the field of language change and language variation. The aim of the current
research project is to create a more extensive Tactile ASL corpus that can then be used for a
more in-depth analysis of a wider variety of variables. Having longer data samples from a
variety of Tactile ASL signers will allow the analysis to include a description of linguistic and
social constraints on the variables.
The Deaf Swedish linguist, Dr. J. Mesch (2001) focused her study on turn-taking and
questions in conversations between deaf-blind persons using tactile sign language. Her material
consists of video tape recordings of six conversations, four with two deaf-blind persons and two
where one was deaf and the other was deaf-blind.
The Mesch study demonstrates that deaf-blind signers use their hands in two different
conversation positions. In the monologue position both of the signer's hands are held under the
hands of the listener, whereas in the dialogue position both participants hold their hands in
identical ways: the right hand under the other person's left hand, and the left hand on top of the
other person's right hand. The research also describes how these two positions affect two-handed
signs, and how feedback is given in the two positions.
Also, Mesch discusses how differences in the vertical and horizontal planes between the
two persons are used in turn-taking regulation. In the study, four different conversational levels
were identified in the vertical plane, i.e. places where the hands are positioned during
conversation:
30

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Intellectual Context and Literature Review
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Resting level (neutral)
Turn level
Hesitation level
Turn change level
The speaker (turn-holder) may signal that he is ready to end his turn by lowering the
hands from the turn level to the turn change level. Alternatively, he may signal that he is not
ready to give up his turn, but needs a moment to think before continuing by holding the hands at
the hesitation level.
In the horizontal plane three different turn zones were identified:
Closest to the speakers are their own turn zones.
In the middle is the joint zone. When finishing his turn, the speaker moves the hands
to the joint zone.
Furthest from the speaker is the other speaker’s turn zone.
Mesch’s (2001) study also analyzes 137 questions in the material, both yes/no questions
and wh-questions, to determine which elements in tactile sign language take over the role of
visual interrogative facial expression. She hypothesized that yes/no questions are marked with a
manual signal that has an extended duration of the final sign of the utterance. In her study only
46% of the extended durations resulted from actual yes/no questions and the remainder of the
durations were for other reasons such as a signal for turn-taking. Mesch concluded that, in
general, if there were no interrogative signals, the context of the utterance would account for its
interpretation as a question.
In summary, the topics that have received special focus in the research on tactile sign
language are as follows:
Hand arrangements
Turn taking
Marking of questions
Feedback
31

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Intellectual Context and Literature Review
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Transformation of non-manual grammatical elements
Effectiveness (how fast and accurate) – and where it fails
All of the researchers discussed in this PDE express the need for further research in
tactile sign language, and on deaf-blind communications in general. The rest of this paper will
focus on adverbial morphemes in the U. S. Deaf-Blind community. At this point, this researcher
knows of no other research on this same topic. However, European researchers might be
researching this same topic.
The present study examines the linguistic properties and variation found in Tactile
American Sign Language, a variety of American Sign Language used in the Deaf-Blind
community. This project is a continuation of the pilot study done by Collins and Petronio
(1998). The 1998 study examined target features in a limited corpus of Tactile ASL data and
found examples of variation on phonological, lexical, syntactic and discourse levels. The current
study does an in-depth look at how non-manual adverbials are conveyed tactually, using a case
study methodology.
2.4. Introduction of the Terminology
2.4.1. Deaf-Blind
Prior to defining relevant terminology in this paper, two words must first be discussed:
the terms “d/Deaf” and “b/Blind”. Naturally, these terms refer to a person who is both deaf and
blind to certain degrees. Yet, the definition of these two terms necessarily includes factors such
as a Deaf-Blind individual’s background, medical history and upbringing.
Medical professionals such as ophthalmologists may view the “Deaf-Blind” from the
medical perspective – an individual with both vision and hearing losses. In some cases, some
vision and hearing difficulties can be corrected with aids, glasses or even surgery. In other cases,
the damage is inevitable and so far, there is no way to reverse the effects of genetic traits or alter
much of the physiology of vision and hearing loss.
Members of the Deaf-Blind community view the label “Deaf-Blind” from a cultural
perspective. The Deaf-Blind community is composed of a rich range of sight/blindness giving
the Deaf-Blind community its character and personality (Brennan 1997).
32

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Intellectual Context and Literature Review
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Mark Landrenau (1995) documented varied communication styles between hearing,
Deaf, and Deaf-Blind people, in terms of: greetings, introductions, eye contact, space, language,
communication, conversation turn-taking, conversation maintenance, lighting, equipment, other
devices/aids, how information is presented and valued, the value of time, and recreational
activities. His research proved that Deaf-Blind individuals live independent and productive lives.
Theresa Smith (2002) described how a positive self-identification and active participation
as a vital member of the Deaf-Blind community contributes to an overall sense of well being and
mental health of Deaf-Blind individuals.
2.4.2. Usher’s Syndrome
Usher’s Syndrome is a condition in which Retinitis Pigmentosa (RP) occurs along with a
significant congenital hearing loss. This condition manifests as several types and this paper
focuses exclusively on individuals with Usher’s Syndrome Type I. This recessive genetic
condition results in individuals who are born deaf and then, later on in life, begin to lose their
vision due to RP which causes progressive night blindness and a progressive narrowing of the
field of vision (tunnel vision), and then results in the loss of all usable vision. In view of the fact
that significant effects of RP do not occur until early adulthood, many persons with Usher’s
Syndrome Type I grow up unaware that they will have vision problems. Most of them grow up
as members of the Deaf community, attend residential schools for the Deaf, and use ASL as their
primary language. Later, when their vision has become significantly affected to the degree that
they can no longer see ASL effectively, they switch to receiving ASL tactually by placing either
one or both hands on top of the signer’s hand or hands. This population was chosen because
their primary means of communication was visual ASL prior to their loss of sight.
2.4.3. Non-manual Signals (NMS) in ASL
As members of the Deaf Community, many Deaf-Blind individuals claim American Sign
Language as their native language. In recent years, ASL and its accompanying culture have been
the topics of much research, debate and scholastic analysis. Thanks in large part to William
Stokoe (1960) ASL has withstood the debate and linguistic scrutiny of its status as a language.
33

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Intellectual Context and Literature Review
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Early on, the first linguistic researcher of American Sign Language, William Stokoe
(1960), claimed non-manual signals were used as grammatical markers. Stokoe recognized that
the negative side-to-side head shaking without a manual sign, clearly conveyed independent
information. Liddell (1989) in the late 70s and early 80s demonstrated in his research that facial
expressions and other non-manual signals provide emotive, lexical and grammatical information.
As well, other non-manual grammatical signals take the form of changes in eyebrow movements.
Additionally, Bridges and Metzger’s work (1996), while not exhaustive, provides a fairly
comprehensive look at the large gamut of non-manual signals, their functions and their
meanings. The authors categorized NMS’s into six roles: “reflections of emotional states,
constructed action, conversation regulators, lexical, grammatical markers and modifiers such as
adverbs”. Based on this discussion, the question can be asked: How do non-manual signals,
which are provided visually, become incorporated into the language of those producing and
processing tactile ASL?
2.4.4. Tactile ASL
According to Collins and Petronio (1998), Tactile ASL is the process wherein a Deaf-
Blind person places his/her hand on top of another signer’s hand and receives the ASL message
through the sense of touch. There is a limited amount of research that describes the differences
or similarities between the structure of forms of signs used in visual and tactile ASL. Space does
not permit a detailed discussion of the findings pertaining to phonology, syntax and discourse,
but a full account can be found in Collins & Petronio (1998). In that work, signs were examined
in terms of their handshape, location, movement, and orientation.
One major finding of this 1998 work was the phonological assimilation that occurred due
to the necessity of the signers’ proximity. Certain sign production parameters were changed due
to the need for body contact or to the physical limitations of space. A second finding, related to
ASL syntax, was also discussed. As previously mentioned, attention has been given to the
sentence types produced in visual ASL and how they are translated into tactile ASL. Collins and
Petronio describe the tactile substitutions necessary for the non-manual markers to be
communicated clearly to the Deaf-Blind individual.
34

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Intellectual Context and Literature Review
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Another finding in the Collins & Petronio research was in regard to discourse. When
individuals are communicating with one another, certain actions provide feedback to the speaker
or listener that the communication was received, understood, agreed to or disagreed with. This
process of back-channeling goes through phonological assimilation when tactile ASL was used.
These variations, adaptations and assimilations that Collins and Petronio describe are
examples of linguistic change that has occurred and is continuing to occur in the United States
Deaf-Blind community. The authors attribute these sociolinguistic changes to the expanding
socialization opportunities for Deaf-Blind individuals. Through various organizations Deaf-
Blind individuals who were once isolated now have opportunities to get together, communicate
and make language contact changes that fit their linguistic needs.
The researchers had the opportunity to discuss adverb and adjective changes in tactile
ASL in the 1998 work. It was mutually agreed on by both Collins & Petronio that the pilot study
was just the beginning step of a vast journey into morphemic assimilation. The pilot study
determined that with certain ASL non-manual adverbials and adjectival morphemes an auxiliary
muscle tension and movement were added to a specific facial configuration such as: “oo” with
mouth pursed to mean thin or objects with a small size; “mm” with mouth closed in a normal
way meaning regularity; ”cha” with mouth opened means objects of a big size; and “ee” with
mouth widened meant caution or anxiety. This paper supports the 1998 findings and expands
upon other morphemes serving the same function; however these facial configurations are not
the subject of this study.
2.4.5. Deaf-Blind Interpreting
Research states firmly that it is very important for interpreters to be familiar with
linguistic variation. According to Frankel (2002), it is essential that an interpreter must be able
to mediate the language as well as the variation that occurs when the modality changes from
visual to tactile. One such communicative setting occurs when one of the interlocutors is Deaf-
Blind as they have unique tactile language needs. Thus it is crucial that an interpreter adjusts
their interpreting to clarify information received from non-manual signals.
This paper’s research elucidates on the variation that occurs in a Deaf-Blind person’s use
of non-manual signals (facial expression) that are used as adverbials. To clearly understand how
35

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Intellectual Context and Literature Review
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
NMS carry into tactile American Sign Language, it is first necessary to comprehend what
happens in formal TASL discourse.
In the 1992 pilot study the research showed that sighted individuals adjust their language
to accommodate understanding during a Deaf-Blind interaction. The same is true for nonsighted
individuals. Individuals who have Usher’s Syndrome Type I communicate in their
primary language, ASL, while making adaptations to fit a tactile mode. Tactile ASL has
phonological, lexical, and syntactic variation, specifically concerning the representation of nonmanual
signs and their location during production.
Furthermore, interpreting between English and ASL, two distinct languages, is a complex
cognitive process. Research done by Cokely (1996) investigated error types when interpreting
between these two languages. Adding a fairly unfamiliar variation of ASL to the formula when
interpreting from English complicates the matter further. Errors will continue to occur in the
form of miscues in movement, handshapes, orientation, and non-manual signals. Dr. Melanie
Metzger has worked as an interpreter serving the American Deaf and hearing communities. Her
graduate education is in linguistics with a concentration in sociolinguistics. Her research has
addressed pronoun variation, the use of space, non-manual signals, issues in language acquisition
and multilingual-multicultural education including issues in data collection unique to signed
language research and the analysis of interactive interpreting. According to Bridges and Metzger
(1996), authors of Deaf Tend Your: Non-Manual Signals in American Sign Language, the misuse
of non-manual signals by non-native speakers clearly identifies them as much less fluent
users of the language.
2.5. Scope
While it would be vastly beneficial to develop a curriculum for Deaf-Blind interpreting,
that is outside of the scope of this research project. Before a language can truly be taught to nonnative
speakers, the language must first be understood in its linguistic and sociolinguistic
contexts. Tactile ASL has yet to be examined to the degree necessary for that to happen. The
current work is one of the preliminary steps to understanding the language used by members of
the Deaf-Blind community. This paper expands upon the initial work of Collins and Petronio
(1998). However, the paper does not examine all of the phonological, morphological, syntactic,
36

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Intellectual Context and Literature Review
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
and grammatical and discourse features of tactile ASL. Rather, the way in which adverbial nonmanual
signals in visual ASL are produced manually in TASL is isolated and analyzed. Once
the research is completed the learner then analyzes the data for effectiveness of the isolated
morphemes and not the effectiveness of the overall piece. Upon careful examination and
understanding, interpreters will then be asked to incorporate the non-manual signal information
in a tactile interpretation. This research is not meant to evaluate the quality of the interpreters’
work but rather to identify if any adaptations were made to incorporate the visual information.
Tactile ASL has many interesting features to analyze in terms of variation; the learner’s focus
hereon is adverbials. It is a perfectly reasonable narrowing of focus.
Furthermore, the analysis here focuses on features of Tactile ASL, features which are
linguistic in nature. One might be tempted to characterize them as paralinguistic features but this
would be incorrect. Paralinguistic features have to do with features that may accompany
linguistic units but are not themselves analyzable as linguistic units. Bussman (1996: 347) states
that paralinguistic factors include “particular types of articulation and phonation (breathing,
murmuring, whispering, or clearing one’s throat, crying, and coughing) and intonation.” Some
linguists do not consider intonation to be a paralinguistic feature and not surprisingly, no
mention is made of paralinguistic factors as they pertain to sign languages. However, the
features of adverbials that I am analyzing here are of a linguistic nature: they contribute directly
to the creation of linguistic units that have specific meanings. The features that I am describing
do not accompany linguistic units; they are themselves linguistic units, without which the desired
meaning cannot be realized.
37

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Methods
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. Methods
This Project Demonstrating Excellence (PDE) takes the form of a qualitative linguistic
case study of two Deaf-Blind individuals conversing in Tactile ASL. The objective of the
research was to determine the nature of adverbial use in tactile American Sign Language. A
pilot study was first conducted. Two Deaf-Blind individuals were matched for sex, age, vision
loss, and involvement in the Deaf and Deaf-Blind communities. A topic was provided to the
subjects and the resulting conversation was videotaped. Key information regarding the logistics
of collecting data was used in the main study. This included experimenting with various
positions to discover optimal placement of the video cameras to ensure that the subjects could be
clearly observed.
For the main study, again each Deaf-Blind participant in the communicative event had
Usher’s Syndrome Type I, and were also matched for sex, age, vision loss and involvement in
the Deaf and Deaf-Blind communities. Both subjects were males, in their 50s, native users of
ASL and have used Tactile ASL for at least 10 years. Additionally, each of the subjects had used
standard ASL before they used Tactile ASL, and they regularly interact and socialize with other
Deaf-Blind adults. It was important that the participants be members of this community as this
research investigated adverbial variation as a sociolinguistic phenomenon.
The subjects were asked to complete a consent form expressing their willingness to
participate in this project. In addition, answers to the questionnaire provided important
information needed for the analysis of the session. A copy of the Consent Form used is provided
in Appendix E.
The videotaped sessions were approximately 50 minutes in duration, producing a sample
of interactive natural discourse. The range of topics that were suggested prior to taping related to
oppression, life experience as a Deaf-Blind person, and a discussion stemming from their
experiences related to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack. The purpose of suggesting the
topic was to elicit conversation that would likely contain adverbial use. This was based on
experience gained in the 1998 pilot session. Pairs of signers were used because the two signers
must be in physical contact with each other. Since tactile communication is almost always oneon-one,
the use of group interviews would be a marked situation and likely to skew the results.
38

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Methods
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A variety of data collection methods were considered prior to the pilot. One option was to
use the taping method used in the 1998 pilot study but would change the environment: the
taping would occur during a social event with naturally occurring conversations. However, this
option has three possible drawbacks. The first is related to respect for the privacy of individuals.
It would not be ethical to videotape persons in signed conversation when they are unaware of the
taping activity. This would be particularly true for deaf-blind persons since they would very
likely be totally unaware of the cameras. The second drawback is the likelihood that the
conversation might not contain the type of desired data. A third drawback is that multiple
cameras would be needed in order to capture unobstructed views necessary for the analysis.
The final controlled session, as developed from the pilot, was unique in that the learner
was able to obtain the individual subjects’ permission and they were aware of the videotaping.
In this manner, the privacy of the individuals was maintained. During the videotaping session,
the subjects occasionally lapsed into conversation that, in fact, did discuss information of a
private nature. The goal of the data collection effort relates primarily to capturing certain
formational aspects of the conversation and not to the actual content of the conversation.
Consequently, the full videotape session will be kept confidential and only short pertinent video
clips showing the desired results will be released as part of the study. In addition to providing
the above-mentioned controls to insure privacy, the subjects were given the suggested topics for
their conversation. However, the subjects were not informed of the specific observations that
were being made. In this way, they would not be predisposed to any of the target structures.
The duration of the sessions were approximately 50 minutes of conversation followed by
an opportunity for the researcher to interview the subjects to collect the information on the
questionnaire.
Once the videotaped sessions were completed, the entire piece of discourse was
transcribed into a glossed format. The transcript, in conjunction with video footage, was then
analyzed to determine whether or not any assimilations or adaptations occurred with regard to
the adverbials under study. The pool of adverbial expressions was then classified according to
function. The transcription of the full conversation session shows the features and functions of
the adverbials in tactile sign language. The full transcription is provided in Appendix D.
39

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Methods
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.1. Logistics and the Selection of a Site
The learner has full access to the use of the Gallaudet University Interpreting Lab. The
sessions were videotaped using five video cameras. These cameras, four of which were digital
video, recorded in a high quality mode that allows for editing and the future possibility of
disseminating research findings on CD-ROMS or via the Internet. Multiple cameras were
needed for the interview sessions. If a single camera had been used, the receiver’s hand, which
was positioned on the signer’s hand, may have blocked some of the signing. Due to the fact that
all of the communication happens in the area where the two hands are in contact, the camera
shots were from the waist up to ensure that all aspects of the signing space was properly captured
on the videotape. The equipment was set up and operated automatically and no other person was
in the room at the time of the session. Figure 13 shows the arrangement of the subjects and the
cameras for the taping sessions.
Figure 13. Arrangement of subjects and cameras
40

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Methods
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(A) Long shot providing a framed view of the entire discourse not focused on
specific detail.
(B) Close up view of subject #1 including a view of the face, hands, and the signing
space.
(C) Close up view of subject #2 including a view of the face, hands, and the signing
space.
(D) Close up view, from the front, of the hands and signing space.
(E) Close up view, from overhead, showing a very detailed view of the hands from
an unobstructed angle.
41

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Methods
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.2. Coding and maintenance of the videotapes and
database
A previous study on Tactile Sign Language by Karen Petronio, Val Dively and their
assistants used a software program called Filemaker Pro and transcription software developed in
Germany for use in coding sign language data. This researcher decided not to follow this
method. For the analysis of the 50-minute conversation between two deaf-blind men, a database
was developed using a transcription format which indicates specific symbols for each utterance.
The entire conversation was analyzed and each occurrence of an adverb in the conversation was
entered into an Excel spreadsheet according to six categories as discussed in more detail in the
next section. During the transcriptions the code “C” and “D” were used for the two subjects.
From the pilot study, various past studies on the structure of ASL, and from recent
studies on ASL variation there are a variety of features that have been identified as target
features/variables for study. This paper focuses exclusively on adverbs. Information on these
features was entered into the database along with information on the linguistic environment in
which they appear, their grammatical category, their phonological form, and other information
that was determined to be relevant, or potentially relevant. This is in addition to considering
usual social constraints such as age, gender, educational background, audiological status of
parents and siblings, and the age at which ASL was acquired. The following information was
obtained from the Deaf-Blind informants:
The age at which they used Tactile ASL for the first time
The age at which they started using Tactile ASL as their primary receptive means of
communication.
The age at which they first became aware of the process of Tactile ASL.
Their degree of involvement in the Deaf-Blind community.
How often do they interact with other Tactile ASL users?
This information was included in the database for later study and research concerning variability.
The purpose for analyzing the data was to account for and describe variation that occurs
between Tactile ASL and standard ASL. The analysis involved a quantitative and qualitative
42

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Methods
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
analysis of specific variables. The data also analyzed how often, when and where the variability
occurred, specifically in the use of adverbial forms. This resulted in a description of the form of
and the use of variability, and an analysis and description of linguistic and social constraints.
The reason the learner uses semantically based categories in this analysis is because the variation
in form observed has direct bearing on the meaning of the adverbials. As I will show, specific
phonological features such as hold, lengthening, and tenseness help produce adverbial meaning
in the TASL forms. Clearly, the categorization of adverbials based on semantic category is both
conventional (see for example, Klima and Bellugi 1979, Liddell 1980; Baker and Cokely 1980;
Padden 1988; Bienvenu and Colonomos 1991; and Bridges and Metzger 1996), and theoretically
supportable. In addition, or perhaps because of these two factors, if the learner were to attempt a
phonetically-based categorization of visual ASL adverbials, this would constitute a dissertation
topic in its own right. This is so because it would be a new area that counters conventions in the
literature with an attempt to reclassify and analyze the visual nature of these linguistic forms.
This question is beyond the scope of this paper’s research questions. It would make an
interesting topic for a future project.
43

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Findings and Interpretations
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4. Findings and Interpretation
It is important to keep in mind that this paper investigates Tactile ASL as a variety of
ASL, the visual sign language of the North American Deaf community. The source of the data
was a videotaped conversation between two Deaf-Blind men. Section 3 discussed the
methodology utilized in establishing the parameters of the research of the conversation and
recording of the results.
4.1. Semantic Based Categories
Initially it was suggested to the subjects that they have a conversation about the
September 11 th terrorist attack. However, the two subjects had very little detailed knowledge of
this event and their conversation changed to topics including assistive devices for Deaf-Blind
people, guide dogs, work, and current football standings. The videotaped session consisted of a
50-minute Tactile ASL conversation. This conversation was transcribed and analyzed for
adverbs and adverbials. The analysis showed a total of 284 adverb/adverbial tokens. The 284
target units were then classified according to the meaning they contributed to the discourse. This
paper discusses both single-sign adverbs and multi-sign phrases as adverbials. The target units
yielded the following six semantic-based categories:
Manner/Degree
Time
Duration
Frequency
Purpose
Place/Position/Direction
Each category is described below along with several examples of each taken from the
transcription of the session. Analysis provides a comparison of Visual ASL and Tactile ASL.
This comparison is crucial, as it serves to demonstrate the unique structure of Tactile ASL and
the specific nature of the variation. For each selected example, a table is provided containing the
following essential elements:
44

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Findings and Interpretations
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A gloss taken from the transcription. The target adverb is shown in bold text.
Appendix B provides a detailed description of the glossing conventions and the
transcription symbols.
An English transcription of the conversation segment.
A discussion of how the target adverb is signed in visual ASL.
A discussion of how the target adverb is signed in Tactile ASL.
An analysis of the variation in the signing between the two.
Comments as required or applicable to the parameters of the research objectives.
Specific features occurred consistently, depending on the adverbial. Each adverbial and
its features will be described and discussed.
45

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Findings and Interpretations
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.1.1. Manner/Degree
Adverbials of manner or degree answer these questions: How? In what manner? To
what degree? The following are several examples of this usage as taken from the transcription of
the subjects’ videotaped conversation:
4.1.1.1. Example One (Manner/Degree)
Gloss from Transcription:
English Translation:
PRO1 LOOK-AT (man) SHOCK (emph)
I looked at him and was very shocked.
Visual ASL:
The signer uses a non-tactile production of the sign with a facial expression in
which the eyebrow is raised with a widening of the eyes.
Tactile ASL:
In the production of the sign, the Deaf-Blind individual prolongs the final hold
segment with a tense feeling in the hands. The path for the tactile version is
also longer.
Analysis of Variation:
In the visual ASL production of the sign, the use of a non-tactile facial
expression is sufficient to communicate the adverb. The sign for SHOCK
does not need to have a prolonged hold in the final segment. In the Tactile
ASL production of the sign, a Deaf-Blind individual is not able to observe the
non-tactile portion of the sign and substitutes the prolonged hold segment with
a tensing of the hands and longer path to convey the same information.
Comments:
This is an example of the adverb SHOCK with emphasis, which shows the
degree to which the person reacted to the specific situation.
46

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Findings and Interpretations
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.1.1.2. Example Two (Manner/Degree)
Gloss from Transcription:
HEY/ WITH (emph) // COME WITH KEYBOARD YES+++ OVER 6-
THOUSAND 5-HUNDRED YES++ MEAN ALONE++++++
[WELL]//BRAILLE ALONE+++++ 3-THOUSAND 7-HUNDRED //
English Translation:
When the Braille device comes with a keyboard the cost is $6,500. If it is only
the Braille device, it costs $3,700.
Visual ASL:
The signer uses a non-tactile production of the sign WITH with a facial
expression in which the eyebrows are raised with a widening of the eyes.
Tactile ASL:
In the production of the sign WITH, the Deaf-Blind individual prolongs the
final hold segment with a tense feeling in the hands.
Analysis of Variation:
In the visual ASL production of the sign, the use of a non-tactile facial
expression is sufficient to communicate the adverb. The sign for WITH does
not need to be prolonged in a hold of the segment. In the Tactile ASL
production of the sign, a Deaf-Blind individual is not able to observe the nontactile
portion of the sign and substitutes the prolonged hold segment with a
tensing of the hands to convey the same information.
Comments:
In this example, the adverb WITH is in the category of Manner/Degree in that
its use is in the context of differentiating the Braille device with the other
keyboard or without the other keyboard.
47

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Findings and Interpretations
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.1.1.3. Example Three (Manner/Degree)
Gloss from Transcription:
CL:3 bent “securely mounted box on the CL:B ‘door jamb’ “ MORE++ T-I-N
CL:C “securely mounted box on the CL:B ‘door jamb’” STRONG (emph) ///
English Translation:
The box is mounted on the doorjamb with tin. It is really secure.
Visual ASL:
The signer uses a non-tactile production of the sign with a facial expression in
which the eyebrows are lowered and the sign is made with a slightly tense and
quick movement.
Tactile ASL:
In the production of the sign, the Deaf-Blind individual signs STRONG
(emph) with a quick tense movement and holds the final segment.
Analysis of Variation:
In the visual ASL production of the sign, the use of a non-tactile facial
expression is sufficient to communicate the adverb. The sign for STRONG
does not need to be prolonged in a hold of the segment. In the Tactile ASL
production of the sign, a Deaf-Blind individual is not able to observe the nontactile
portion of the sign and substitutes with a prolonged hold segment. In
addition, the movement of STRONG has tense emphasis to indicate that it is
holding quite securely.
Comments:
This is an example of the adverb STRONG, which shows the degree to which
the tin box is attached to the doorjamb.
48

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Findings and Interpretations
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.1.1.4. Example Four (Manner/Degree)
Gloss from Transcription:
YOU CL:C “fire alarm mounted on CL:B ‘ceiling’ “ FINISH(that’s all) NONE
CL:II “cord coming down” ?
English Translation:
Is the fire alarm attached to the ceiling a wireless device that does not need a
wire running down from it?
Visual ASL:
In visual ASL, the sign for NONE does not need to be used. The signer uses a
non-tactile production of the sign with a facial expression in which the
eyebrow is lowered and there is a squinting of the eyes while moving the head
back and forth in a motion that indicates “no”. In addition, the visual ASL sign
would indicate “does not have” at the end.
Tactile ASL:
In the production of the sign, the Deaf-Blind individual signs NONE by
prolonging the hold segments. Additionally, the movement of the sign NONE
is done with a tenseness that places emphasis on the holds.
Analysis of Variation:
In the visual ASL production of the sign, the use of a non-tactile facial
expression is an important component of the sign. There is a specific sign for
“does not have”. The sign does not need to have a prolonged hold segment. In
the Tactile ASL production of the sign, a Deaf-Blind individual is not able to
observe the non-tactile portion of the sign and substitutes the prolonged hold
segment. In addition, the movement of NONE has a tense emphasis to
indicate that it is holding. The other component of the sign that is different is
that a Tactile ASL signer adds a specific sign indicating a question. Whereas,
a visual ASL signer has conveyed this with a non-manual facial expression.
Comments:
This is an example of the adverb NONE showing degree in the sense that it is
emphasizing that there is no wire coming from the wireless alarm.
49

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Findings and Interpretations
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.1.1.5. Example Five (Manner/Degree)
Gloss from Transcription:
INTERESTING(emph) IX(second one/doorbell) DOOR++++ CL:C
“mounted box on the CL:B ‘flat surface’ “ // NONE CORD(from CL:B “down
the wall”)
English Translation:
It is very interesting that there is no cord coming down from the wall.
Visual ASL:
The signer uses a non-tactile facial expression of mouthing with pursed lips
while signing INTERESTING.
Tactile ASL:
The Deaf-Blind individual signs INTERESTING with a movement away
from the chest in an extended distance. This movement is then followed by a
prolonged hold.
Analysis of Variation:
In the visual ASL production of the sign, the use of a non-tactile facial
expression is sufficient to communicate the adverb. The sign for
INTERESTING does not need to have a prolonged hold segment. In the
Tactile ASL production of the sign, a Deaf-Blind individual is not able to
observe the non-tactile portion of the sign and substitutes the longer and slower
movement away from the chest as well as a prolonged hold segment. In
addition, the movement of INTERESTING has tense emphasis to the sign.
Comments:
INTERESTING (EMPH) is an adverb of manner/degree in that it expresses
the signer’s degree of interest and/or understanding of the subject being
discussed.
50

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Findings and Interpretations
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.1.1.6. Example Six (Manner/Degree)
Gloss from Transcription:
PHONE YES++ ONLY PLUG-INTO(phone) CONNECT PHONE CL:Ob
“cord runs from phone over to tty) PLUG-INTO(tty) TTY FINISH(that’s all)
?
English Translation:
There is a phone plugged into the TTY. There is a cord running between the
TTY and the phone. Is that all?
Visual ASL:
The signer uses a non-tactile production of the sign with a facial expression of
the mouthing of “SS” and a widening of the eyes and a raising of the eyebrows
without actually signing FINISH.
Tactile ASL:
The Deaf-Blind individual signs FINISH with a hand movement with a
tensing of the hand and a final hold segment. As a question the movement of
FINISH is signed with a movement forward in the direction of the other
person to show it is a question.
Analysis of Variation:
In the visual ASL production of the sign, the use of a non-tactile facial
expression is sufficient to communicate the adverb. The sign for FINISH does
not need to be prolonged in a hold of the segment. In the Tactile ASL
production of the sign, a Deaf-Blind individual is not able to observe the nontactile
portion of the sign and substitutes a tensing of the hand during the sign
along with a final hold segment. In addition, the movement of FINISH
includes the push forward to show it is a question. This push in the Tactile
ASL sign is equivalent to the raised eyebrow in the visual ASL sign.
Comments:
This example demonstrates that “finish” is posed as a question and involves a
push movement forward for the Tactile ASL as opposed to the raising of the
eyebrow or the necessity of adding a question sign at the end of the sentence.
51

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Findings and Interpretations
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.1.1.7. Summary (Manner/Degree)
This series of examples of adverbs of the type manner or degree show that one of the
features that characterizes many of the Tactile ASL variations of a sign is the use of an extended
final hold segment often accompanied by a tensing of the hand during this hold.
52

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Findings and Interpretations
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.1.2. Time
Adverbials of time answer one question: When? Following are four examples of this
usage as taken from the transcription of the subjects’ video-taped conversation:
4.1.2.1. Example One (Time)
Gloss from Transcription:
English Translation:
Two years ago …
Visual ASL:
TWO^YEAR PAST / TWO
The signer uses a non-manual production of the sign with a facial expression of
the head moving from up to down accompanied by a downward eye gaze. The
signer would not add the additional TWO at the end of the sign.
Tactile ASL:
In the production of the sign, the Deaf-Blind individual adds an additional
TWO at the end of the sentence
Analysis of Variation:
In the visual ASL production of the sign, the use of a non-tactile facial
expression is sufficient to communicate the adverb. There is no need for the
signer to repeat the additional TWO at the end of the sentence. In the Tactile
ASL production of the sign, a Deaf-Blind individual is not able to observe the
non-tactile portion of the sign and substitutes a second occurrence of TWO at
the end of the sentence to clarify the fact that this is an adverb specifying time.
53

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Findings and Interpretations
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.1.2.2. Example Two (Time)
Gloss from Transcription:
WHEN PRO1 CALL-BY-TTY YOU[held] /// YOU WALK-OVER-TO (the
phone) CL:Y “pick up the handset from the cradle and set it down” #OR
#WHAT WELL?
English Translation:
When I call you, do you go over to the TTY, pick up the handset and set it [on
the TTY], or what?
Visual ASL:
In visual ASL, the sign for WHEN in “when I call you” is expressed with an
upwards tilt of the head and a raising of the eyebrows. It is not explicitly
signed.
Tactile ASL:
In Tactile ASL, the sign for WHEN must be explicitly signed because a Deaf-
Blind individual cannot observe the non-manual signal.
Analysis of Variation:
In the visual ASL production of the sign, the use of a non-tactile facial
expression is sufficient to communicate the adverb. There is no need for the
signer to sign WHEN. In the Tactile ASL production of the sign, a Deaf-Blind
individual is not able to observe the non-tactile portion of the sign and
consequently, WHEN must be signed explicitly.
54

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Findings and Interpretations
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.1.2.3. Example Three (Time)
Gloss from Transcription:
SHOW-ME PRO1 LATER / YOU CURIOUS YOU [hesitation] YOU++
HAVE THREE(emph) RIGHT V-I-B-R-A-C-A-L-L INCLUDED? //
English Translation:
You can show me the Vibracall later. I am curious, you have three Vibracall
units installed, right?
Visual ASL:
The signer uses a non-tactile production of the sign with a facial expression in
which the head tilts upwards and there is a raising of the eyebrows. LATER is
not explicitly signed.
Tactile ASL:
In Tactile ASL, the sign for LATER must be explicitly signed because a Deaf-
Blind individual cannot observe the non-manual signal. LATER is signed
after the subject and, in this case, the hand is moved slowly.
Analysis of Variation:
In the visual ASL production of the sign, the use of a non-tactile facial
expression is sufficient to communicate the adverb. There is no need for the
signer to sign LATER. In the Tactile ASL production of the sign, a Deaf-
Blind individual is not able to observe the non-tactile portion of the sign and
consequently, LATER must be signed explicitly. The sign is used after the
subject and is accentuated by having it signed slowly.
Comments:
The adverb LATER is functioning as an adverb showing time.
55

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Findings and Interpretations
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.1.2.4. Example Four (Time)
Gloss from Transcription:
THREE THAT / PLUG-INTO CL:1 “wire goes around over the table” TABLE
/ WHERE PUT a,b,c,… LEAVE-IN-THAT-PLACE /// NOT USE IX-lf
(control unit?) WAVE-NO UNTIL YOU FEEL++ / SEE #IF PAGER STILL
WORK // PUSH-BUTTON (on phone transmitter) KEEP+++ UNTIL GOOD
PUSH-BUTTON (on phone transmitter)++ / DEAD // SAME-AS CL:C
“mounted box on the CL:B ‘door jamb’” // PUSH-BUTTON(on doorbell
transmitter)++++ DEAD / CHANGE(battery) IX(doorbell)++ V-O-L-T 9++++
// IX(phone transmitter) V-O-L-T 9 CHEAP / PAGER EXPENSIVE(emph) /
EXPENSIVE
English Translation:
I just leave the three transmitters where I put them. You don’t touch the
control unit unless you want to test if the pager is still working. You keep the
button pressed until you see (the battery) is good. This is similar to checking
the doorbell battery. Use a 9-volt battery when changing the battery. A 9-volt
battery is inexpensive while it is very expensive to replace the pager battery.
Visual ASL:
In visual ASL, it is rarely necessary to use a sign for UNTIL in order to show
a time frame. Conditionals like this are produced with a facial expression
consisting of a movement of the head up and then downwards.
Tactile ASL:
In Tactile ASL, the sign for UNTIL must be explicitly signed because a Deaf-
Blind individual cannot observe the non-manual signal.
Analysis of Variation:
In the visual ASL production of the sign, the use of a non-tactile facial
expression is sufficient to communicate the adverb. There is no need for the
signer to sign UNTIL. In the Tactile ASL production of the sign, a Deaf-Blind
individual is not able to observe the non-tactile portion of the sign and
consequently, UNTIL must be signed explicitly.
Comments:
The adverb expressing time is UNTIL.
56

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Findings and Interpretations
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.1.2.5. Summary (Time)
This series of examples of adverbs of the type time characterizes many of the Tactile
ASL variations of a sign and the use of an additional signed word in order to make the context of
time clear. Often this additional sign is produced more slowly to make it clear.
57

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Findings and Interpretations
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.1.3. Duration
Adverbials of duration answer the question: For how long? The following shows several
examples of this usage as taken from the transcription of the subjects’ videotaped conversation:
4.1.3.1. Example One (Duration)
Gloss from Transcription:
CL: LL “signaler” #IF PUSH-BUTTON MAKE STILL LIVE VIBRATING-
ALARM+++ THAT
English Translation:
You push the button to make sure the [battery] still has a good charge [and will
vibrate the pager].
Visual ASL:
The signer uses a non-tactile production of the sign with a facial expression in
which the head tilts downwards slightly and there is a raising of the eyebrows.
STILL does not have to be explicitly signed.
Tactile ASL:
In the production of the sign STILL must be explicitly signed because a Deaf-
Blind individual cannot observe the non-manual signal. STILL is signed with
a movement of the hand followed by a hold segment and a tensing of the hand.
Analysis of Variation:
In the visual ASL production of the sign STILL, the use of a non-tactile facial
expression is sufficient to communicate the adverb. There is no need for the
signer to sign STILL. In Tactile ASL, it is necessary for STILL to be signed.
Additionally, the lengthening of the final hold segment with a tensing of the
hand is used. Pragmatically speaking, visual ASL typically uses non-manuals
to signal conditionals along the lines of “If…then…” statements in English.
The addition of signs like IF and in this case, STILL, would be redundant in
visual ASL.
Comments:
In this example STILL is an adverb of duration.
58

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Findings and Interpretations
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.1.3.2. Example Two (Duration)
Gloss from Transcription:
UP-TIL-NOW NONE++++ WHY(rh) PRO1 LOOK-FOR++ MY
FAVORITE BALTIMORE RITENOFF PRO1 BUY(from Ritenoff)+++++
COME(to me) ORDER (from Ritenoff) TIME PRO1 SEND-TO (Ritenoff)
CALL-TO (Ritenoff) /// SAY O-W-N-E-R QUIT / SELL OTHER NEW O-W-
N-E-R LOOK-AT WEAVING / THROW-OUT DON’T-KNOW HOW
IX(new owner) THROW-OUT / NONE EMPTY // PRO1 DISAPPOINTED
GIVE-UP WOOD BUY++++ IX(Baltimore)
English Translation:
I [haven’t bought] any for a while because I was looking for my favorite
[vendor] in Baltimore, Ritenoff, that I bought from all the time. I ordered it
and it came to me. One time, I called them…They said the owner quit, sold
[the business] to a new owner who took one look at the weaving [supplies] and
threw them out. I don’t know how he did it but he threw it all out—there’s
nothing left. I’m disappointed that I have to give up buying it in Baltimore.
Visual ASL:
The signer uses a non-tactile production of the sign by raising the eyebrows
and tilting the head back slightly. Additionally, there is a movement of the
sign UP-TIL-NOW in a small arc.
Tactile ASL:
In the production of the sign, a Deaf-Blind individual signs UP-TIL-NOW
with a bigger and more pronounced movement in a larger arc.
Analysis of Variation:
The primary difference in the signing of UP-TIL-NOW in this example, is
that a Tactile ASL signer follows a far more pronounced movement in a larger
arc. A visual ASL user signs with a smaller arc.
4.1.3.3. Summary (Duration)
This series of examples of adverbs of the type duration demonstrates that one of the
features that characterizes many of the Tactile ASL variations of the sign is the use of an
extended hold segment often accompanied by the use of a larger sign space. Duration is also
shown in Tactile ASL by use of a specific sign such as UP-TIL-NOW, not just with the use of
extended holds.
59

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Findings and Interpretations
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.1.4. Frequency
Adverbials of frequency answers the question: How often? Following are several
examples of this usage as taken from the transcription of the subjects’ videotaped conversation:
4.1.4.1. Example One (Frequency)
Gloss from Transcription:
YES // COMPANY VISIT LIKE W-SIGN-NAME++ HUSBAND #JOHN
WATCH++ #tv W-SIGN-NAME++ CL:Vb “sit Deaf-Blind style” CHAT++
FOUR-HOURS #JOHN WATCH++ #tv // SOMETIMES (I) VISIT (them)
#JOHN WATCH (his TV) PRO CHAT (with W) WELL /
UNDERSTAND+++
English Translation:
It is confirmed that there is company who visits like W–. Her husband, John
watches TV sometimes. W– and I will chat for four hours while John watches
the TV. Sometimes I visit them. John watches TV and she chats. [John]
understands.
Visual ASL:
The signer uses a non-tactile production of the sign with a nodding of the head
up and down while the sign for SOMETIMES moves in a fast circle making it
an adverb of frequency.
Tactile ASL:
In Tactile ASL, a Deaf-Blind individual needs a slow movement of the sign in
a bigger circle in order to make it clear that the meaning is SOMETIMES, as
opposed to a similarly formed sign.
Analysis of Variation:
In the visual ASL production of the sign, the use of a non-tactile nodding of
the head and the movement of the sign in a fast circle is sufficient to convey
the adverb SOMETIMES. A Tactile ASL signer must slow the movement
and move in a larger circle in order to clarify the sign in the context of
frequency. This movement compensates for the inability of a Deaf-Blind
individual to observe the head movement.
60

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Findings and Interpretations
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.1.4.2. Example Two (Frequency)
Gloss from Transcription:
WAVE-NO COMMUNITY PRO1 HAVE TWO[HOLD] / GIRL++ / HELP++
#SSP // EVERY-TWO-WEEKS+++ / GIRL FROM BALTIMORE // COME
(to my house) TAKE (out) STORE++ …
English Translation:
Every two weeks, the girl who is the SSP, helps me out. She is from
Baltimore. She comes to my house and takes me to the stores…
Visual ASL:
The signer uses a non-tactile production of the sign with a reduplicated
movement and protruding lower lip. The protruding lip indicates regularity. It
is not necessary to sign EVERY-TWO-WEEKS three times. Furthermore, this
is a two-handed sign.
Tactile ASL:
In Tactile ASL it is necessary to demonstrate regularity with repetition. This is
a necessary substitute for the facial expression. Also, the non-dominant hand
has been dropped. The dropping of the non-dominant hand results from having
the added duty of watching for feedback.
Analysis of Variation:
In the Tactile ASL production of the sign, the signer must make it clear that the
“every two weeks” is meant to convey the frequency aspect as well as it’s
regularity. Since the citation form of EVERY-TWO-WEEKS involves two
identical movements already, it was modified to have three movements. For
the visual ASL signer, the non-manual signal of the lip protrusion is sufficient
to convey this concept.
4.1.4.3. Summary (Frequency)
This series of examples of adverbs of the type frequency demonstrates that one of the
features that characterizes many of the Tactile ASL variations of a sign is the use of repeating
signed words or phrases in order to make the meaning clear. Redundancy occurs in other places
in TASL discourse as well to ensure comprehension. Often this additional movement is
produced in a larger signing space
61

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Findings and Interpretations
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.1.5. Purpose
Adverbials of purpose answer these questions: Why? For what purpose? For what
reason? Following are several examples of this usage as taken from the transcription of the
subjects’ videotaped conversation:
4.1.5.1. Example One (Purpose)
Gloss from Transcription:
YOU V-I-B-R-A-C-A-L-L FOR PHONE RING ONLY ?
English Translation:
Do you have the Vibracall [signaler] just for indicating that the phone is
ringing?
Visual ASL:
The signer uses a non-tactile production of the sign along with a facial
expression by raising the eyebrows. FOR is not explicitly signed.
Tactile ASL:
In Tactile ASL, a Deaf-Blind individual cannot see the non-manual facial
expression and, consequently, FOR PHONE RING ONLY is signed to
indicate purpose (for what purpose).
Analysis of Variation:
In the visual ASL production of the sign, the use of a non-tactile facial
expression is sufficient to communicate the adverb. There is no need for the
signer to sign FOR. In Tactile ASL, there must be a compensation for the
Deaf-Blind person who is unable to observe this non-manual signal. The
additional sign is added to show purpose.
62

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Findings and Interpretations
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.1.5.2. Example Two (Purpose)
Gloss from Transcription:
YES BUY /// YOU NEED WRITE-LIST SEND (to Silent Call) TO S-I-L-E-
N-T ASK (multiple) ABOUT MORE++ TWO E-X-T-R-A?? TWO-OR-
THREE CONNECTED // YES FOR FLASHER THAT // WELL // CAN
ASK- (Silent Call) REQUEST-lf (from Silent Call) S-I-L-E-N-T C-A-L-L
COMPANY IX-lf (Silent Call) ///
English Translation:
Yes, you can buy one. You should write down the questions you have about
connecting two or more signaler systems at once in order to flash [light signals
to your roommates]. Sure, ask the Silent Call company.
Visual ASL:
The signer uses a non-tactile production of the sign along with a facial
expression of a raising of the eyebrows. FOR is not explicitly signed.
Tactile ASL:
In Tactile ASL, a Deaf-Blind individual cannot see the non-manual facial
expression and, consequently, FOR FLASHER is signed to indicate purpose
(for what purpose).
Analysis of Variation:
In the visual ASL production of the sign, the use of a non-tactile facial
expression is sufficient to communicate the adverb. There is no need for the
signer to sign FOR. In the Tactile ASL, there must be a compensation for the
Deaf-Blind person who is unable to observe this non-manual signal. The
additional sign is added to show purpose.
Comments:
The adverb here, FOR is used to indicate purpose. The purpose is to buy a
flasher and this is what FOR signifies.
63

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Findings and Interpretations
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.1.5.3. Summary (Purpose)
This series of examples of adverbs of the type purpose shows that one of the features that
characterizes many of the Tactile ASL variations of the sign is the use of an additional signed
word in order to make the context and purpose clear. In the examples shown here, the extra
word FOR was signed. There are “extra” words because the conventional way of expressing the
same purpose as the signer intended would not include the sign FOR. A conventional way of
referring to the purpose of the flasher would be to use the sign POSS, a possessive pronoun sign
that refers to the flasher’s purpose, rather than FOR. If the sign POSS were used in this example
it would have a higher risk of being misunderstood.
64

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Findings and Interpretations
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.1.6. Place/Position/Direction
Adverbials of Position/Location/Direction answer these questions: Where? Which
location? In which direction? Following are several examples of this usage as taken from the
transcription of the subjects’ videotaped conversation:
4.1.6.1. Example One (Place/Position/Direction)
Gloss from Transcription:
WHERE PHONE CL: Y “put down phone handset” WHERE WELL? ///
[waits for response] PHONE SUPPOSE YOU SUPPOSE PRO1+++ CALL
YOU (stressed) // PRO1 CALL-BY-TTY (I call you) HOW YOU YOU HOW
KNOW YOU WELL?
English Translation:
Where do you put the handset? If I call you…I call you with the tty…How do
you know that I’m calling?
Visual ASL:
The signer uses a non-tactile production of the sign with a facial expression of
raising the eyebrows for a question or direction. WHERE is not explicitly
signed.
Tactile ASL:
In Tactile ASL, WHERE is signed, with emphasis, at the end of the sentence.
It is a tense and fast movement.
Analysis of Variation:
In the visual ASL production of the sign, the use of a non-tactile facial
expression is sufficient to communicate the adverb. There is no need for the
signer to sign WHERE. In the Tactile ASL, it is necessary to sign WHERE
with the emphasis and tense movement it conveys to show that it is an adverb
of place.
65

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Findings and Interpretations
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.1.6.2. Example Two (Place/Position/Direction)
Gloss from Transcription:
K-R-O-W-N / IX-lf WILL SHOW-YOU DON’T HAVE-TO++ CL: Y “move
handset from –lf to –rt” / LEAVE BECAUSE CONNECT #WIRE IX-lf CL: I
“wire moved to -rt” FROM // (interrupted) B-R-A-I-L-L-E-H-P-H-O-N-E CL:
I “wire moved to –rt”
English Translation:
Krown. I’ll show you. You don’t have to move the handset from the tty. You
just leave it there because it’s connected by a wire to the BraillePhone.
Visual ASL:
In visual ASL, the sign FROM uses a non-manual facial expression of an eye
gaze at the same time as the sign is indexing to the BraillePhone. It is not
explicitly signed.
Tactile ASL:
In Tactile ASL, FROM, must be signed because a Deaf-Blind individual
cannot observe the eye gaze non-manual facial expression.
Analysis of Variation:
The primary difference in this example is the necessity of explicitly signing the
adverb FROM in the Tactile ASL production to compensate for the inability
of a Deaf-Blind individual to observe the facial expression and eye gaze.
Comments:
Here the adverb FROM is used to make clear the direction. It is accompanied
with eye gaze to show direction.
4.1.6.3. Summary (Place/Position/Direction)
This series of examples of adverbs of the type place/position/direction demonstrates that
one of the features that characterizes many of the Tactile ASL variations of the sign is the use of
an additional signed word in order to make the context clear. Here again, we see redundancy in
the content as a way of reducing ambiguity.
66

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Findings and Interpretations
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.2. Overall Patterns across the various adverbial types
The data in Section 4.1 shows examples from each of the adverb types considered. In
each of the adverbial types, Tactile ASL has a characteristic pattern of variation differentiating it
from the visual ASL signing pattern. In summary, the findings are as follows:
Adverbial
Feature:
Prolonged
Hold
Specific
or Extra
Sign
Tenseness
of the
Hand
Extended
Location
Longer and
Slower
Movement
Redundancy
Manner/Degree √ √ √ √ √
Time
√
Duration √ √ √ √
Frequency √ √ √ √
Purpose √ √
Place/Position/
Direction
√
√
Table 1 - Summary of Findings
In the table above (√) indicates that the feature is sometimes found in an adverbial of the
indicated type. Whereas, this same feature is generally not present in visual ASL. The features
observed, as shown in the table are:
1. Prolonged Hold. The signer will introduce a final hold segment into the sign in order to
provide clarity.
2. Specific or Extra Sign. The signer will introduce an extra sign that substitutes for the
unobserved non-manual signal.
3. Tenseness of the Hand. The signer will tense the muscles in his/her hand in a way that
can be felt by the other person.
4. Extended Location. The signer will expand the size of the signing space in order to
provide the other person with an opportunity to understand the sign.
5. Longer and Slower Movement. The signer will slow-down the production of the sign
thus spreading it out over a longer time.
6. Redundancy. This means the signer will repeat information that would otherwise be
unnecessary.
67

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Findings and Interpretations
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Five of these features – prolonged hold, tenseness, extended location, longer and slower
movement, and redundancy have to do exactly with phonetic production of the adverbials and
very adequately capture the nature of the variation. The sixth feature, specific or extra sign, is a
feature of a syntactic nature. In addition, the five phonetic features are identical to or similar to
features used by other sign language researchers to describe adverbials, starting with Klima and
Bellugi in 1979 and continuing with work by Baker and Cokely (1980), Liddell and Johnson
(1989), Metlay and Supalla (1995), Bridges and Metzger (1996), to name a few.
In ASL, manner is often “fused” with the verb, that is, the verb is modulated so that it
includes information on how the action was carried out. For example, verbs describing actions
that were performed quickly may have rapid movements, while verbs that provide temporal
information may have reduplicated segments or circular movements. This type of modulation
has generally been treated as a morphological process which marks aspect. In addition to
movement modulation, non-manual signals contribute adverbial-type meaning. This non-manual
component is one of the focal points of the current project. Non-manual signs provide an
additional layer of meaning to adjectives, predicates and adverbials. Without the non-manual
component, the meaning of a sign or group of signs is the canonical “uninflected” denotative
meaning.
The 50-minute videotaped conversation used in this PDE was analyzed to find and
identify occurrences and distribution of the types of adverbials as described above. There were a
total of 282 sign sequences containing a total of 284 adverbials identified and coded in the
50-minute session. Most of the sequences contained a single adverbial. However, some of the
sequences contained more than one adverbial. Data was summarized and presented showing the
number of occurrences of each type of adverbial among all of the adverbials.
Type Number of Occurrences Percentage
Duration 28 9.96%
Manner/Degree 105 37.37%
Time 76 27.05%
Frequency 4 1.42%
Place/Position/Direction 60 21.71%
Purpose 11 3.91%
Table 2 - Occurrence of data by type
68

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Findings and Interpretations
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 2 shows each of the adverbial types as described above. The Number of
Occurrences denotes the number of times the adverbial type appeared in the videotaped session.
The Percentage box shows the percentage of this particular adverbial type present among all of
the adverbials. By observing the percentage, one gets a sense of the relative frequency that each
of the adverbial types occurs in a prolonged conversation. It is important to note that these
observations apply only to the specific conversation observed. The following chart presents this
data in the form of a pie chart.
Percentage of Type in All
Place/Position/Direction
21%
Frequency
1%
Purpose
4%
Duration
10%
Manner/Degree
37%
Duration
Manner/Degree
Time
Frequency
Place/Position/Direction
Purpose
Time
27%
Figure 14 - Percentage of Occurrence of Types
In this data three adverbial types of Manner/Degree, Time, and Place/Position/Direction
accounted for the majority of occurrences. The conversation between the two subjects that
resulted in this data could, very easily, have ventured into a far different subject matter. They
spent a significant amount of the conversation describing “how things work”. There was a
discussion about various text communication devices and devices that are used for signaling such
69

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Findings and Interpretations
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
as doorbells and TTY 4 devices. As a result, there was a good deal of discussion of manner and
degree of describing the performance of these devices and the positioning of these devices in the
subjects respective homes. As well, there was a lengthily discussion about sports. The subjects
discussed how various teams did at various points in time in the past. This produced a large
number of adverbial samples of the type time.
Regarding the fact that relatively few adverbs of frequency were used, it is generally
acknowledged that ASL makes use of a rather rich inflectional system in which some temporal
senses are marked on the verb itself rather than with a separate adverb sign. The ability of the
language to encode some types of frequency in its morphology indicates that the presence of
certain adverbs is either unnecessary or redundant. At least some of the aspectual markers in
visual ASL involve non-manual signals as well as the manual component. The meaning carried
by the non-manual signal is somewhat redundant. It does seem though, that Deaf-Blind people
are also expressing redundancies. Along with the manual portion of the verb marked for
frequency, there is some evidence that a specific adverb sign is also added. Due to the low
incidence of such signs in the data, the addition or deletion of adverbs of frequency needs to be
examined more closely.
Although, this researcher does not have data to support this conclusion, there is a
suspicion that any given conversation would tend to have more frequent representations of
specific adverbial types depending on the topic and flow of the conversation. This conclusion
acknowledges that some adverbial types would appear less frequently than others. This sample
is, therefore, an accurate reflection of general tendencies to use or omit certain adverb types.
That is to say, the types of adverbs that appeared less frequently in the transcribed conversation
is itself an interesting point.
This researcher’s intent, in future analysis, is to study in more depth the factors presented
here. An important aspect that is demonstrated in this paper is the consistent pattern in the
manner in which the Deaf-Blind individual incorporates one or more of the features, as
summarized in Table 1, into their signing that introduces a tactile component into their
conversation as a compensation for the visual NMS that they cannot observe.
4 A TTY device is a teletypwriter device that allows for a text conversation to be conducted over a telephone line.
They are widely used in the deaf community.
70

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5. Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations
This study has demonstrated that grammatical variation exists between visual ASL and
Tactile ASL. It has, for a long time, been recognized that non-manual signals are a significant
component of a full and rich communication in ASL. It has been demonstrated here that a
specific class of Deaf-Blind individuals, those with Usher’s Syndrome Type I, compensate for
their inability to observe these non-manual signals with a system of specific and consistent
variations in their use of Tactile ASL.
Non-manual signals are important in all areas of ASL structure including phonology,
morphology, syntax, semantics, and discourse. For example, in morphological structure the
signals can have independent meaning and may attach to a variety of signs. The mouth
configuration glossed as “MM” has the meaning of regularity or normalness and can be produced
with many different verbs such as drive, study, read, and walk. A different mouth configuration
glossed as “TH” can be used with these same verbs, and many others, and carry a meaning of
carelessness. Non-manual signals are, similarly, important for ASL discourse, that is, at the level
of language above the individual sentence either in a one-way communication such as a speech
or lecture, or in a two-way conversation where they play an important part in turn-taking or topic
control.
The subjects of my research, Deaf-Blind individuals with Usher’s Syndrome Type I, were
selected because persons in this group almost always begin in early life as Deaf and sighted and
then, later in life, the onset of blindness occurs often leaving them completely blind by mid-life.
As a consequence of this factor, these individuals are skilled at visual ASL and are familiar with
the non-manual signals that are a part of their language. This provides a basis for them to
compensate for the non-manual signals with a system of “tactile non-manual signals” as they
lose their ability to observe the visual non-manual signals. Through this adaptive pattern, the
subjects in this study are quite capable of a full conversation and are able to understand each
other very well in spite of the fact that they no longer can observe the non-manual signals.
In this study, I focused on the non-manual signals associated with six types of adverbs
used in everyday conversation:
71

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Adverbs of manner or degree
Adverbs of time
Adverbs of frequency
Adverbs of duration
Adverbs of location or position
Adverbs of purpose, place, or direction
The transcripts of an extended conversation between two subjects were analyzed in detail
and each adverb phrase in one of the above categories was compared to the way a visual ASL
signer would sign the sequence and the way the subjects of the study altered the language to
compensate for the lack of non-manual signals. In order to collect the data, a carefully controlled
setup of five video cameras was used to capture each and every handshape, motion and nuance
of the signing technique. This extensive detail was then captured in the transcripts of the
conversation. Analysis depended both on the written transcripts and the actual videotape footage
of the conversation.
The findings from the analysis were significant in that they demonstrated that in almost
all cases, the Tactile ASL signers had a specific and consistent system of compensations for each
of the categories of adverbs observed. This is clear evidence of sociolinguistic variation. For
example, in the case of adverbs of manner or degree, there is a specific pattern of extra
movement of the signing hand with a marked tenseness of the hand and finger muscles. This
motion and tenseness does not occur in the same sign produced by a visual ASL signer. In
adverbs of time and frequency as used in TASL shows that there is a pattern of making a sign
clear by the insertion of an additional word or repeating a word as a compensation for the nonmanual
signal.
As a result of many years of experience with working with Deaf-Blind persons, this
researcher has set out to formulate and demonstrate the validity of a theory of a system of nonmanual
signals transposed into Tactile ASL communication. The purpose of this research is to
contribute to the effectiveness of communication for people who want to work with persons in
the Deaf-Blind community, especially with those who have Usher’s Syndrome Type I. It is my
72

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
belief that this dialect of ASL, that Deaf-Blind people use naturally, will provide a far superior
means for interpreters and other sighted ASL signers to engage in conversations with Deaf-Blind
individuals rather than asking Deaf-Blind people to decode English influenced “word-for-word”
signing or fingerspelling of full English sentences as a means of tactile communication.
This paper strongly recommends that interpreters who work with deaf-blind consumers
must be aware of the linguistic forms described here. The process of interpreting should include
the use of prolonged holds, tension in the hands and additional lexical items in order to match the
language used by Deaf-Blind people. Additionally, professionals in the field, such as educators,
need to include training in the Tactile ASL dialect and interpreter training programs should be
enhanced to include this variation, as well.
Finally, based on the findings shown here, further study of Tactile ASL communication
should be conducted to gain insight into other linguistic adaptations used in Tactile ASL.
Incorporating the techniques demonstrated in the findings will contribute greatly to breaking
down the barriers to communication for Deaf-Blind persons.
73

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix A - References
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A. Appendix A – References
References
Atwood, A., J. Clarkson, & C. Laba. 1994. Being in Touch: Communication and Other Issues
in the Lives of People who are Deaf-Blind. Washington D.C.: Gallaudet University.
Bahan, B. 1996. Non-Manual Realization of Agreement in American Sign Language. Boston,
MA: Boston University
Baker, C. 1976. Eye-openers in ASL. Sixth Annual California Linguistics Association
Conference: Proceedings. 1-13.
Baker, C. 1976. What’s not on the other hand in ASL. In Papers from the Twelfth Regional
Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, eds. S. Hufwene, C. Walker, & S. Streeven.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Baker, C. & C. Padden. 1978. Focusing on the Non-manual Components of American Sign
Language. In Understanding Language through Sign language Research, ed. P. Sipe, 59-90.
New York, NY: Academic Press
Baker, C. & D. Cokely. 1980. American Sign Language: A teacher’s resource text on Grammar
and Culture. Silver Spring Md.: T.J. Publishers. Reprint, Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet
University Press 1991.
Baker-Shenk, C., 1983. A micro-analysis of the non-manual components of questions in
American Sign Language. Ph.D. Diss., University of California, Berkeley.
Battison, R. 1978. Lexical borrowing in American Sign Language: Phonological and
Morphological restructuring. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press.
Bienvenu M. J. & B. Colonomos. 1991. The Face of ASL. Videotaped series. Burtonsville,
MD: Sign Media, Inc.
Brennan, M. 1997. Point of View Mental Health Issues of Deaf-Blind Adults. In JADARA,
vol.30, #2&3, pp.28-35.
Bridges B, & M Metzger, 1996. Deaf Tend Your: Non-Manual Signals in American Sign
Language. Calliope Press
Bussman, Hadumod. 1996. Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. London:
Routledge. P. 347.
74

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix A - References
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
References
Cokely D. 1986. The Effects of Lag Time on Interpreter Errors. Sign Language Studies,
Vol. 53.
Collins, S. 1993. Deaf-Blind interpreting: The structure of ASL and the interpreting Process. In
Gallaudet University Communication Forum 1993, ed. E. Wilton, 20-36. Washington, D.C.:
Gallaudet School of Communication.
Collins, S. & K. Petronio. 1998. What is Tactile ASL? In Pinky Extension and Eye Gaze:
Language Use in Deaf Communities, ed. C. Lucas. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University
Press.
Coulter, G. 1978. Raised eyebrows and wrinkled noses: The function of facial expression in
relative clauses and related constructions. In Proceedings of the Second National Symposium
on Sign Language Research and Teaching, ed. Caccamise. Silver Spring, MD: National
Association of the Deaf.
Coulter, G. 1979. American Sign Language Typology. University of California, San Diego.
Coulter, J. ed. 1992. Phonetics and Phonology. Volume 3, Current Issues in ASL Phonology.
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Croneberg C. 1965. The Linguistic Community. In A Dictionary of American Sign Language,
eds. W. Stokoe, D. Casterline, and C. Croneberg. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University
Press
Fasold, Ralph. 1984. The Sociolinguistics of Society. Oxford: Blackwell.
Fischer, S. & B. Gough. 1978. Verbs in American Sign Language. In Sign Language
Studies 18:17-48.
Fischer, S. & B. Gough. 1979. Verbs in American Sign Language. In The Signs of Language,
eds. U. Bellgui & E. S. Klima. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Frankel, M. A. 2002. Deaf-blind interpreting: interpreter’s use of negation in tactile American
Sign Language. In Sign Language Studies 2: 2, 169-181.
Gumperz, John J. 1966. On the Ethnology of Linguistic Change. In: W. Bright (ed.),
Sociolinguistics, pp. 27-29. The Hague: Mouton. (Reprinted in: D. Cherubin (ed.), Zur
Theorie des Sprach Wandels. Frankfort: Degrayer 1975.)
Humphries, T., C. Padden, & T. J. O’Rourke. 1985. Videotaped series that accompanies A
Basic Course in American Sign Language. Silver Spring, MD: T.J. Publishers, Inc.
75

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix A - References
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
References
Landrenau, M. 1995. Personal interview by Steven D. Collins.
Liddell, S. 1980. American Sign Language syntax. The Hague: Mouton.
Liddell, S. 1980. Non-Manual Signals in American Sign Language. In Proceedings of the First
National Symposium on Sign Language Research and Teaching. 193-228.
Liddell, S. 1989. American Sign Language: The phonological base. In Sign Language
Studies 4: 195-227.
Liddell, S. & R. E. Johnson. 1989. American Sign Languages: The Phonological Base. In Sign
Language Studies, 64, 195-278.
Lillo-Martin, D & S. Fischer. 1992. Overt and Covert wh-questions in American Sign
Language. Paper presented at the First International Symposium on Sign Language
Research, Salamanca, Spain. May 1992.
Lillo-Martin, D. 1986. Two Kinds of Null Arguments in American Sign Language. In Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 4: 415-444.
Lucas, C. 1995. Sociolinguistic Variation in ASL. The Case of DEAF. In Sociolinguistics in
Deaf Communities, ed. C. Lucas, Vol. 1, 3-25. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University
Press.
Lucas, C. 1995. Sociolinguistics in Deaf Communities, ed. C. Lucas. Washington, D.C.:
Gallaudet University Press.
Lucas, C. & C. Valli. 1992. Language Contact in the American Deaf Community. New York,
NY: Academic Press, Inc.
Lucas, C., R. Bayley, & C. Valli [in collaboration with Mary Rose, Alyssa Wulf, Paul Dudis,
Laura Sanheim, & Susan Schatz]. 2001. Sociolinguistic Variation in ASL Sociolinguistics
in Deaf Communities, vol. 7. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
McNamara, J. 1997. Deaf-Blind Interpreting. RID Views. Vol. 24, Issue 11, December 1997,
pp. 10-11.
Mesch, J. 2001. Tactile sign language: turn taking and questions in signed conversations of
deaf-blind people. In International Studies on Sign Language and Communications of the
Deaf. Vol.38. Hamburg: Signum.
76

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix A - References
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
References
Metlay, Donald S. & Supalla, Ted. 1995. Morpho-syntactic structure of aspect and number
inflections in ASL. In: Emmorey, Karen & Reilly, Judy S. (eds): Language, gesture, and
space. (International Conference on Theoretical Issues in Sign Language research)
Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum (1995) – pp. 225-284.
Milroy, L. 1987a. Language and social networks, 2 nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Milroy, L. 1987b. Observing and Analyzing Natural Language. Oxford: Blackwell.
Nowell, E. 1989. Conversational Features and Gender in ASL. In The Sociolinguistics of the
Deaf Community, ed. C. Lucas. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
O’Brien & C. Steffen. 1996. Tactile ASL: ASL as used by Deaf-Blind Person. In Gallaudet
University Communication Forum vol. 6, eds. L. Byers. & M. Rose, 145-158. Washington,
D.C.
Padden, C. 1988. Interaction of morphology and Syntax in American Sign Language.
Outstanding dissertations in Linguistics Series. New York, NY: Garland Publishing. (from
Padden 1983)
Padden, C. & D. Perlmutter. 1987. American Sign Language and The Architecture of
Phonological Theory. In Natural Languages and Linguistic Theory. 5, 335-375.
Padden, C. & T. Humphries. 1988. Deaf in America: Voices from a Culture. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Parasnis, I, ed. 1997. Culture and Language Diversity and the Deaf Experience. Cambridge,
England, Cambridge University Press.
Patrick, P. & M. Metzger. 1996. Sociolinguistic Factors in Sign Language Research. In
Sociolinguistic Variation: Data, Theory and Analysis, eds. J. Arnold, R. Blade, B. Davison,
S. Schwenter, & J. Solonon. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Petronio, K. & D. Lillo-Martin. 1997. Wh-Movement and the Position of Spec CP: Evidence
from American Sign Language. In Language 73 (1): 18-58.
Petronio. K. 1986. Some Features of Tactile ASL. Unpublished manuscript. Washington, DC:
Gallaudet University.
Petronio. K. 1988. Interpreting for the Deaf-Blind students: Factors to consider. In American
Annuals of the Deaf, 133(3): 226–229.
77

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix A - References
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
References
Reed, C. M., L. A. Delhorne, N. Durlach, Il, & S. D. Fischer. 1995. A study of the Tactual
Reception of Sign Language. In Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 38:
477-489.
Smith, T. 1977. Guidelines for working/playing with deaf-blind people. Unpublished paper.
Seattle, WA: Seattle Community College.
Smith, T. 1994. Guidelines: Practical tips for working and socializing with Deaf-Blind people.
Burtonsville, MD: SMI, Inc.
Smith, T. 2002. Guidelines: Practical tips for working and socializing with Deaf-Blind people.
Burtonsville, MD: SMI, Inc.
Stokoe, W. C. 1960. Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication systems
of the American Deaf. In Studies in Linguistics: Occasional Papers 8. New York, NY:
University of Buffalo.
Valli, C. & C. Lucas. 1995. Linguistics of American Sign Language: A resource text for ASL
users, 2nd edition. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
Van Biema, David. 1994. AIDS. Time Magazine, April 4, 1994.
Woodward, J. & S. DeSantis. 1977. Two to One it Happens: dynamic Phonology in Two Sign
Languages. In Sign Language Studies. 17, 329-346.
Woodward, J. C. 1973a. Implicational lecturers on the deaf diglossic continuum. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. Georgetown University: Washington, D.C.
Woodward, J. C. 1973b. Interrule implication in American Sign Language. In Sign Language
Studies 3, 47-56.
Woodward, W., C. Erting, & S. Oliver. 1976. Facing and Hand(l)ing variation in American
Sign Language. In Sign Language Studies. 10, 43-52.
78

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix B – Notes on Transcription symbols
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
B. Appendix B - Notes on Transcription Symbols
Throughout this paper, glossing symbols are used to describe signs. This section
provides a key to understanding these symbols:
B.1 General Glossing conventions
Signs glossed in English are presented in all capital letters; for example: MAN.
Where more than one English word is needed to provide the essence of a sign’s
meaning, the gloss takes the form of several words separated by hyphens as in: ONE-
MORE.
More recent ASL gloss transcriptions often include script-based representations of
some important non-manual signals. These are generally shown as a letter or series
of letters that are intended to represent corresponding mouth postures, head positions
or movements, eyebrow positions and/or nose movements. A horizontal line that
appears above the glossed sign or signs with which the non-manual signal co-occurs
accompanies the abbreviated facial expressions. In the example below, the nonmanual
signal t is an abbreviated convention used for topic marking in ASL. The
topic NMS includes raised eyebrows and a slight backward and sideways tilt of the
head. In the example below, this topic marker is held throughout the production of
the first three signs. A somewhat literal translation appears under the ASL sentence.
t
MAN STAND IX-lf MY FATHER
As for the man standing over there on the left, he is my father.
Lexicalized fingerspelling is shown as a number sign (#) followed by the gloss as in:
#JOB. Non-lexicalized fingerspelling is documented as the sign for each letter
separated by hyphens as in: K-R-O-W-N.
79

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix B – Notes on Transcription symbols
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
B.2 Other Transcription symbols and conventions
General directional information about the sign is given in the form of: -lf, -rt, -high,
etc. This means that the signs were aimed at, or positioned in, that direction or area.
Some formational information is provided in brackets such as [osc] for oscillating
movement, [held] for an extended hold segment. Discourse features like hesitations,
false starts, interruptions, clarification requests, overlaps and other transcription notes
are also shown in brackets. Signs that seem to function as discourse markers are
noted by [dm]. Manual signals that appear to function like gestures are shown as
[gesture].
Information about subjects, objects and locations that are indicated by a sign’s
location, placement, aiming or movement is provided by comments in parentheses
such as the bolded comments in this example:
PRO1 OBSERVE THAT IX++ (AADB) AT A-A-D-B EXAMPLE IX++ (man at
AADB) MAN TELL^ME 6 (moves C’s thumb to read number better)…
Plus signs indicate reduplication or repetition. Unmarked glosses mean there is one
iteration of the sign, two plus signs (++) indicate a repeated movement as in the
example: YOU++.
Some signs have two or more forms, one in which the transition between hold
segments includes a simple flexion of the finger or fingers at one or more joints and
one in which the flexion is reduplicated. The reduplicated form appears as
“wiggling” and is signified by –wg as in the example: WANT –wg.
Some signs are marked by emphasis, usually a sharp or accelerated movement. This
is shown by using either ! or (emph).
80

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix B – Notes on Transcription symbols
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A single slash (/) marks a short pause. These tend to be phrase boundaries or topic
changes. A longer pause, possibly a sentence boundary is marked by a double slash
(//). A long pause, possibly a sentence boundary or the end of a turn is marked by a
triple slash (///).
Signs in brackets are signed on the weak hand as in: [WELL]. WELL is the gloss
used for the Wh-sign often glossed as WHAT. I chose this gloss to show the
difference between WHAT, with the index finger brushed across the palm and the
gesture-like sign with the palms up.
Signs with a ^ between them appear to be compounded as in: LOOK^LIKE.
The first person singular pronoun I or ME is shown as: PRO-1.
Some signs include the index finger pointing to the right or left. This is shown as:
IX-lf. This may be a pronoun, a determiner, or a location in space. For the purpose
of this study, I have chosen to collapse these items under one gloss.
Some signs have traditionally been glossed as FINISH but actually have distinct
forms and meaning as in: FINISH (that’s all) [osc]. This sign had the meaning
“that’s all” and has an oscillating movement.
The use of …[overlap] is used to show that a signer has been overlapped in
conversation and the corresponding overlap of the other person appears in the next
line. Where “…” appears at the beginning of a line means that the signer continued
without any more overlap.
Classifiers are notoriously difficult to document briefly in print as in the following
example: CL:Y “pick up the handset from the cradle and set it down”. For this
transcription, I have indicated classifiers with the abbreviation CL: followed by a
short notation for handshape, Y, in this case, and finally, a short description of it’s
meaning in quotes such as “pick up the handset from the cradle and set it down”.
81

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix C – Data for Adverbial Phrases for Analysis
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
C. Appendix C – Data for Adverbial Phrases for Analysis
Spreadsheet.
Data from Transcription showing Adverbial Phrases in each of the selected categories. This data is in the form of an Excel
Manner/Degree Time Duration Frequency Purpose Place/Position/Direction
1 TWO^YEAR PAST
2 WITH(emph) AT A-A-D-B
3 WITH KEYBOARD
4 SHOCK
5 THAT’S-ALL
6 STILL
7 STILL
8
WHEN PRO1CALL-BY-
TTY(I call you)
9
FROM //(interrupted) B-R-A-I-L-L-E P-H-
O-N-E CL: “wire moved to –rt”
10 NEXT-THING
11 STILL
12 FROM NATIONAL F-L-A-S-H
13 FOR PHONE RING ONLY
14 ON PHONE
15 FOR PHONE+++ ALARM+++
82

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix C – Data for Adverbial Phrases for Analysis
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Manner/Degree Time Duration Frequency Purpose Place/Position/Direction
16 STILL
17 OUTSIDE-OF-THE-DOOR++++
18 OUTSIDE+++
19 OUTSIDE-THE-DOOR
20 OUTSIDE(emph)
21 ON(emph) DOOR
22 ON(emph) DOOR
23 IX(here on the jam)++
24 STRONG(emph)
25 STRONG(emph)
26 FINISH
27 GOOD
28 GOOD(emph)
29 OUTSIDE+++
30 BETTER
31 IX”door on the inside”
32
33 LITTLE-BIT
34 INSIDE
35 INSIDE
36 BETTER
IX(here on your right of trim of the outside
door)++++++++
83

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix C – Data for Adverbial Phrases for Analysis
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Manner/Degree Time Duration Frequency Purpose Place/Position/Direction
37 LONG(emph)
38
FOR CL:C “mounted box on
the CL:B ‘door jam’”
39 FINISH(that’s all)
40 INSIDE
41 LATER
42 WHERE
43
UNTIL YOU
FEEL++
44 STILL
45
UNTIL GOOD
PUSH-
BUTTON(on
phone
transmitter)++
46 EXPENSIVE(emph)
47 EXPENSIVE
48 IX(ceiling)
49 IX(up on ceiling)
50 FINISH(that’s all)
51 INTERESTING(emph)
52 ONLY PLUG-INTO(phone)
53 FINISH(that’s all)
54 STILL
55 FINISH
84

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix C – Data for Adverbial Phrases for Analysis
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Manner/Degree Time Duration Frequency Purpose Place/Position/Direction
56 FINISH
57 SEPARATE[emph]
58 FOR FLASHER
59 FINISH
60 THEN
61 FOR FLASH+++
62
WHEN ANY PERSON
PUSH-DOORBELL
63
SAME TIME MY
PAGER-GOES-OFF+++
64 SAME TIME
65 AGAIN
66 IN
67 R-O-C-H-E-S-T-E-R #MICH
68 FINISH
69 ONLY
70 FINISH(that’s all)
71 FREE(emph)
72 NOT-YET++
73 WHEN PRO1 RETIRE
74 BETTER
75 BIG!(emph)
76 BIG!(emph)
85

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix C – Data for Adverbial Phrases for Analysis
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Manner/Degree Time Duration Frequency Purpose Place/Position/Direction
77 BIG!(emph)
78 WOW
79 NEW++
80 AGAIN
81 FINISH
82 NO-MORE
83 UP-TO-LIMIT 15
84 FOR GUIDE-AROUND
85 UP-TO-LIMIT 10
86 ENOUGH
87 ENOUGH
88 THEN
89 FINISH
90 3-WEEKS^AGO
91 BIG
92 BIG
93 STRONG(emph)
94 REALLY
95 NICE(emph)
96 HELP WOW!
97 AFTER PRO1 RETIRE
86

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix C – Data for Adverbial Phrases for Analysis
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Manner/Degree Time Duration Frequency Purpose Place/Position/Direction
98 FROM HOME
99 TO A-A-D-B HOME^OFFICE
100 NICE
101 FINISH (that's all)
102 THAT’S-ALL
103 NEXT-YEAR(emph)
104 REALLY
105 #TOO
106 EARLY[emph]
107 #TOO
108 NOW
109 FUTURE!(emph)
110 WOW
111 STILL
BECAUSE PRO1ALONE
WANT ACCOMPANY-
EVERYWHERE
112 IN MY HOUSE
113 IN MY HOUSE
114 STILL
115 FINISH(that’s all)[osc]
116 IX(path far out in front of me)
117 REALLY
118 REALLY
87

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix C – Data for Adverbial Phrases for Analysis
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
119 JUST
120 ONLY
Manner/Degree Time Duration Frequency Purpose Place/Position/Direction
121 IN YOUR #APT RIGHT
122 BETTER
123 BETTER
124 YOUR #APT
125 REALLY
126 NEAR-FUTURE
127 BIG(emph)
128 WOW++++
129 SO-FAR
130
NOT-
YET+++++++
131 NOT-YET
132 NOW++
133 TO V-A-S-S #NORTH-CAROLINA
134 IX(Vass)
135 FAR!(emph)
136
NEAR #SOUTH-CAROLINA #SOUTH-
CAROLINA
137 NOT-YET
138 ALL-ALONG
139 UP-TIL-NOW
88

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix C – Data for Adverbial Phrases for Analysis
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Manner/Degree Time Duration Frequency Purpose Place/Position/Direction
140 IX(Baltimore)
141 NOW
142 OTHER PLACE
143 IN #NC
144
TIL SIGN-NAME-K[false
start] [COMPUTER
BRAILLE
ARRIVE](cond)
145 WITH L-A-R-R-Y
146 FROM #PA+
147 NEAR PRO1
148 NOW
149 FOR …?… #STAIN
150 #OFF
151 NOW+++??
152 FINISH
153 FROM THAT COMPANY
154
#SO THAT PRO1 CAN RUN
POSS1 BUISNESS
SELL(different things)
155 NEW++++
156 GOOD[emph]
157 EXPANDING[quickly]
158
#SO PRO1 USE POSS
#WWW[hold for feedback]…
89

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix C – Data for Adverbial Phrases for Analysis
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Manner/Degree Time Duration Frequency Purpose Place/Position/Direction
159 TO SELL ADVERTISE
160 THEN
161 NOW
162 REALLY
163 MONTHS-AGO[hold]
164 3 MONTHS[hold]
165 FROM MY FRIEND
166
167 THEN
168 NOW
169 NOW+++++
170 LATER
171 GOOD[emp]
#SO PRO1 BUY(business) F-
R-A-N-C-H-I-S-E[hold]
172 IN W-H-E-A-T-O-N
173 FINE-wg
174 NONE[emph/hold]
175 ALL-ALONG
176 NONE[emph]
177 ALL-THOSE-IN-LIST
178 NONE[emph]
179 #ALL
90

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix C – Data for Adverbial Phrases for Analysis
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Manner/Degree Time Duration Frequency Purpose Place/Position/Direction
180 #ALL
181 ALL[emph]
182 CLOSE-TO STORE
183 NEXT-TO-BEYOND(Amhern)
184
EVERY-TWO-
WEEKS-
BEGINNING-
AND-AND-OF-
MONTH+++
185 FROM BALTIMORE
186
TO PRO1 #MA #MA M-E-T-R-O A-C-C-E-
S-S[hold]
187 FINE-wg
188 ALL-ALONG
189 NOW
190 ALL-ALONG
191 GOOD[emph]
192 TIME 1:30
193 2:00 TIME
194 11 [to] 1:10
195 AT 1:10
196
TO PRO1 EXPECT
TWO-OF-
US(appointment)
197 FINISH
91

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix C – Data for Adverbial Phrases for Analysis
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Manner/Degree Time Duration Frequency Purpose Place/Position/Direction
198
THEN TWO-OF-US(you
and I) EAT
IX(reference?)
199 BIG[emph]
200 BIG[emph]
201 BACK
202 BACK-THERE(rt)
203 DOWN-HALLWAY(on right)
204 IX(up far right)
205 IX(path snakes)
206 …#ALL(whole apt)
207 IX-to left
208 FOUR-HOURS
209 SOMETIMES
210 STILL
211 SOME
212 BEHIND![emph]
213 BEHIND![emph]
214 FINISH
215 STILL[emph]
216 AWESOME
217 WOW
92

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix C – Data for Adverbial Phrases for Analysis
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Manner/Degree Time Duration Frequency Purpose Place/Position/Direction
218 YESTERDAY
219 PAST SUNDAY
220 NOW
221 FINISH++
222 HEAVY-COMPETITION[emph]
223 BIG-LEAD
224 STRONG[emph]
225 WOW![emph]++
226 GOOD
227 WOW++
228 REALLY
229 BACKWARDS
230 BAD
231 HUGE-IMPROVEMENT[emph]
232 IMPROVE[emp]
233 NOW
234 WOW!+++
235
TREND-DOWN-UP-DOWN-AND-
UP-DRAMATICALLY
236 LOUSY
237 ALL-ALONG
238 FROM OAKLAND
93

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix C – Data for Adverbial Phrases for Analysis
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Manner/Degree Time Duration Frequency Purpose Place/Position/Direction
239 CLOSE+++(to others in division
240 YESTERDAY
241 YESTERDAY
242 STILL
243 FAR-AHEAD(against team a)
244 FAR-AHEAD(against team b)
245 FAR-AHEAD(against team c)
246 FAR-AHEAD(against team d)
247 GOOD[emph]
248 LAST-YEAR
249 ONE-WEEK-AGO
250 ONE-WEEK-AGO
251 TRAVEL-DOWN-FAR
252 MORE++
253 YESTERDAY
254 OUTSTANDING[emph]
255 WOW!+++
256 NEW[emph]
257 WOW!++++
258 STRONG
259 LAST-YEAR
94

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix C – Data for Adverbial Phrases for Analysis
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Manner/Degree Time Duration Frequency Purpose Place/Position/Direction
281
NEXT-
YEAR[unattended]
282 NEXT-YEAR
96

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix D – Transcription of Conversation Session
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
D. Appendix D – Transcription of Conversation Session
Transcription of Full conversation Between Subject C and Subject D – 50
Minutes
D: OK GO-AHEAD HOW-MUCH WORTH KNOW YOU
C: BRAILLE PRICE 3 THOUSAND 7 HUNDRED DETERMINER Quantity – tells how
many dollars
D: 3 [checking for clarification] N/A
C: 3 THOUSAND[signed in D’s palm] 7 HUNDRED DETERMINER Quantity – tells
how many dollars
D: DROPPED-IN-PRICE
C: YES++++++
D: TWO^YEAR PAST TWO – DETERMINER. However, the whole phrase is an
adverbial TWO^YEAR PAST – Tells When (time) // PRO1 OBSERVE THAT
IX++(AADB) AT A-A-D-B Adverbial of PLACE EXAMPLE IX++(man at AADB)
MAN TELL^ME 6 [moves C’s thumb to read number better]… [overlap] //
C: [dm: Uh-huh]
D: …THOUSAND FIVE-HUNDRED+++++ DETERMINER Quantity// YOU
DROPPED-IN-PRICE WIDE-EYED
C: HEY/ WITH(emph) MANNER It comes how? // COME WITH KEYBOARD
MANNER It comes how? YES+++ OVER 6-THOUSAND 5-HUNDRED Determiner
YES++ MEAN ALONE++++++ MANNER [WELL]// BRAILLE ALONE+++++
MANNER 3-THOUSAND 7-HUNDRED // Determiner
D: NO++++ / PRO1 REMEMBER IX(man at AABD) MAN PRO1 ASK(man)
HOW^MUCH PRICE BOX ONE CL:CbCb “small thin tty” NAME++ K-R-O-W-N
BRAILLE T-T-Y PRO1 ASK(man) SCREEN? GOOD? 6 [twists wrist to reposition C]
6+++++++ THOUSAND 5-HUNDRED Determiner
// PRO1 LOOK-AT(man) SHOCK DEGREE/EXTENT How shocked?
// PRO1 TELL(man) PRO1 FEEL++++/++ ONE-MORE ADD LIKE S-P-E-E-D
CONTROL LIST-OF-SPECIFIC-THINGS PRO1 WILL THINK-ABOUT BUY(tty)
BUT WELL-NOT-SURE /// YOU 3-THOUSAND 5-HUNDRED YOU PRO1
CURIOUS YOU++ 3-THOUSAND 5-HUNDRED DOLLARS THINK #IF YOUR
BRAILLE MUST PAY-FOR WITH OTHER COMPUTER QUESTION-wg NONE
C: NONE Adv MANNER/DEGREE
D: THAT ONLY-ONE? Adj.? Adv? MANNER/DEGREE??
C: ONLY-ONE / ONLY-ONE Adv-Frequency
MONITOR-SCREEN BRAILLE++ THAT’S-ALL Adv Time.
D: WHERE PHONE CL:Y“put down phone handset” WHERE WELL? /// [waits for
response] PHONE SUPPOSE YOU SUPPOSE PRO1+++ CALL YOU(stressed) //
PRO1 CALL-BY-TTY(I call you) HOW YOU YOU HOW KNOW YOU WELL?
97

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix D – Transcription of Conversation Session
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Transcription of Full conversation Between Subject C and Subject D – 50
Minutes
C: 3 // KEYBOARD CL:1”plug in back of keyboard”/ PUT-IN(back of braille display)
BRAILLE PUT-IN(put in back of braille display)YES++ // 2 / / PUT-IN(back of braille
display) / PUT-IN(back of keyboard) YES++++++++
D: WAVE SUPPOSE PRO1 CALL-BY-TTY(I call you) // MEAN PHONE RING CL:Y
“phone handset taken off hook and placed down” #WHERE WELL?
C: makes a point to repeat the information on how to connect the phone line. I noticed
also that he holds the final segments longer than a sighted person might.
C: OH-I-SEE HOLD-ON[dm] PRO-1+++ 2 GET NEW C-BR-(false start) UMM
PHONE(false start?) B-R-A-I-L-L-E P-H-O-N-E TWO / IX-lf IX-rt CL:Y“put down
phone handset on -rt” K-R-O-W-N CL:Y“put down phone handset on -rt”YES+++
Note: it seems clear that C is using YES+++… to indicate assertion. Whereas sighted
Deaf use a non-manual head nod for assertion, C uses the manual sign YES to show it.
C: SEPARATE verb? #IF PRO-1 CL:(remove cord from tty-lf) CL:(insert cord into ttyrt)
PHONE(handset) LEAVE -lf IX-lf+++ / CL:Y“phone handset on -rt” LEAVE –lf /
IX-rt EMPTY STILL WORK++ Adv. Duration
STILL WORK++ Adv. Duration
D: YOU MEAN CL:Y “handset [Transcription Note: cannot see the sign from the video]
CL:? “cord runs from ?? and plugs into the Krown” K-R-O-W-N FINISH(that’s all)?
C: YES+
D: WHEN PRO1CALL-BY-TTY(I call you) Adverb - Time YOU [held] /// YOU
WALK-OVER-TO(the phone) CL:Y “pick up the handset from the cradle and set it
down” #OR #WHAT WELL?
C: K-R-O-W-N / IX-lf WILL^SHOW-you DON’T^HAVE-TO++ CL:Y“move handset
from –lf to –rt”/ LEAVE BECAUSE Conj? CONNECT #WIRE IX-lf CL: “wire moved
to –rt” FROM //(interrupted) B-R-A-I-L-L-E P-H-O-N-E CL: “wire moved to –rt”
Adverbial - Location
D: OH-I-SEE
C: B-RA-I-L-L-E- P-H-O-N-E
D: WAVE[dm] BRAILLE?[emph meaning ‘Braille-what?’ asking for clarification]
C: WAVE[dm] B-R-A-I-L-L-E[overlap]
D: B-R-A-I-L-L-E[overlap]… NEXT-THING Adverb - Time IX-(C’s hand)[dm asking
for repetition of the next word C had spelled]
C: /// THOUGHT^DISAPPEAR /// THOUGHT-DISAPPEAR WAIT-A-MINUTE
D: T- H- YOU SAY BRAILLE NEXT-THING…
C: [interrupts]WAVE-HEY B-R-A-I-L-L-E P-H-O-N-E(slower)… [overlap]
D: #OH #OH THAT
C: …PHONE+++ CL:Y“phone handset on top of machine -lf”IX-lf+++++
LEAVE(emph) / Just looks like emphasis. PRO-1 ICL:(remove cord from tty-lf)
ICL:(insert cord into tty-rt) // PHONE(false start) IX-lf ALARM TYPE STILL /
[overlap] Adv. Duration
D: OH-I-SEE(emph)++
C: …YOU HAVE LEAVE –lf LEAVE-lf WITH 2 WELL
98

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix D – Transcription of Conversation Session
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Transcription of Full conversation Between Subject C and Subject D – 50
Minutes
D: HOW YOU KNOW PRO1 CALL-BY-TTY(I call you) / WHERE YOU FEEL BOX
RING HOW YOU FEEL
C: PAGER++++ SHAKE VIBRATE[overlap]
D: [dm gesture “tell me more”]
C: V-I-B-R-A-T-O-R /
D: OH -I-SEE++++++
C: NAME++ S-I-L-E-N-T-C-A-L-L ///
D: YES+++ YOU BUY [false start] PAGER IX-pager FROM NATIONAL F-L-A-S-H
Adv. Location THAT++ YOU
C: WAVE-NO / OLD IX-high-lf R-R-(city sign name) R-R-(city sign name) #MICH //
NAME++ COMPANY S-I-L-E-N-T-C-A-L-L
D: YES+++++
C: NAME V-I-B-R-A-C-A-L-L ///
D: YES++ REMEMBER YES++++
C: 8-HUNDRED++ LOWERED 4-HUNDRED++++ LESS 4-HUNDRED++ MAYBE
Modal/Aux PRO-1 GET++ BREAK SEND-AWAY GET++ NEW++
D: YOU V-I-B-R-A-C-A-L-L FOR PHONE RING ONLY Adverbial – Purpose
QUESTION
C: PHONE++ AND DOOR++^BUTTON DOOR++ …
D: [false start]
C: …FIRE
D: PRO1 CL:II “cord” CL:II “cord” IX-down(tty) / NONE CL:II “cord”
C: NONE+++++
D: REALLY / MEAN VIBRACALL HOW YOU EXPLAIN PRO1 ONE MORE
ABOUT V-I-B-R-A / C-A-L-L // MEAN THAT PAGER CL:Cc “pager unit put on
pants” /// YOU UMM OTHER CL:LL “small box” CL:C “box mounted on the CL:
‘door’” ON DOOR // OTHER [interrupted]…
C: OTHER
D: …CL: “small box mounted” ON PHONE Adverbial - Location
C: YES++++ RIGHT(interrupted)
D: NONE WIRE / NONE
C: WAVE-ATTENTION PHONE++ CL:FF[false start] CL:1“box outline” CL:1“wire
runs over to jack and plugs in” J-A-C-K-S // THIS Pronoun
FOR PHONE+++ ALARM+++ CL:1“box outline”/// [moves under D’s hands] CL:1“box
outline-lf” FINISH / CL:o “cord runs over to jack-rt” J-A-C-K-S
D: YES++
C: CL: LL”signer” #IF PUSH-BUTTON MAKE STILL Adverb – Duration LIVE
VIBRATING-ALARM+++ THAT
D: WHAT ABOUT DOOR+++
C: YES++ CL:BB“flat surface of the inside of the door” CL: C“signaling box mounted
on the inside of the door” CL:o“small clip? on top of the signaling box” CL:C“clamped
onto the edge of the door” FINISH(that’s all) YES+++
99

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix D – Transcription of Conversation Session
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Transcription of Full conversation Between Subject C and Subject D – 50
Minutes
D: WIRE
C: WAVE-NO NONE+++++
D: REALLY?
C: YES++++ // BETTER // CL:C“signal box on the door”AND / CL:C“clamped onto the
edge of the door”ALARM—[interrupted]
D: INSIDE DOOR // KNOW DOOR++ OUTSIDE-OF-THE-DOOR++++ Adverbial –
Location Note: (subject combines the signs OUTSIDE with the CL for the door)
C: OUTSIDE+++ Adverbial - Location
D: OUTSIDE-THE-DOOR Adverbial - Location PUT(next to the door) verb
DOORBELL++ // OR[gesture] PUT(inside next to the door) PUT-THERE QUESTIONwg
C: OUTSIDE(emph) Adverbial - Location / PRO-1++ CL:BB“door frame on right and
left” / DOOR / CL: “door surface in front of me”/ CL:B-lf “door jam on my left” CL:C-rt
“box mounted on the door jam on the left” // DOOR CL: “door surface in front of me”
CL:B-lf “door jam on my left”/ CL: “large door surface in front of me”/ CL:B-lf “door
jam on my left”/ DOOR CL: “door surface in front of me” CL:B-lf “door jam on my
left”/ CL:C-rt “box mounted on the door jam on the left”// YES++ // TAPE(mounted on
the door jam)
V-E-L-C-R-O—WAVE-NO CL:C “mounted box”FINISH(ok then) TAPE(mounted on
the door jam) S—[false start] T-I-N CL:C “mounted signal box”SCREW++++
BECAUSE HOT / WHY-rhq DOOR—[interrupted]
D: ON(emph) DOOR Adverbial - Location // #OR / CL:B-lf “door” CL:c-lf “flat wire
goes up the left side of the door, across the top, and down the right side” CL:C-rt “signal
box mounted on the left” ON(emph) DOOR Adverbial - Location
C: DOOR / WAVE-NO++++ CL:B-lf “door jam on my left” CL:C “the board that goes
down” S-I-D-E CL:C “the board that goes down”/ DOOR CL:B-rt “the edge of the door
meeting the jam, and the door swings open out to the right”++++ // D-O-O-R CL:B-rt
“the edge of the door meeting the CL:B ‘jam’, and the door swings open out to the right”
CL:c “mounted box on the CL:B ‘door jam’” IX(here, on the jam)+++ // CL:B-lf “door
jam extends out far to the left” BUILDING CL:BB “walls extend out to the left and
right” / CL:BB “doorway is here”/ DOOR / CL:C “mounted box on the CL:B ‘door
jam’” IX(here on the jam)++ Adverbial - Location CL:C “mounted box high up on the
CL:B ‘door jam’” HIGH CL:C “mounted box high up on the CL:B ‘door jam’”…
C: …CL:3bent “securely This is a CL. We said we weren’t doing Cls mounted box on the
CL:B ‘door jam’” 1-HUNDRED Det MORE++
T-I-N CL:C “securely This is a CL. mounted box on the CL:B ‘door jam’”
STRONG(emph) Adverbial – Manner/Degree ///
D: YOU MEAN [takes C’s other hand for clarity] CL:BB “walls extend out to the left
and right” / CL:BB “doorway is here”/ DOOR(opens to the right) CL:c “mounted box on
the CL:B ‘door jam’”
C: YES+++(back channel)
D: HOLD-ON HOW PEOPLE PUSH-DOORBELL[held] / YOU PAGER
100

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix D – Transcription of Conversation Session
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Transcription of Full conversation Between Subject C and Subject D – 50
Minutes
C: SIGNAL-RECEIVED STRONG(emph) Adverbial – Manner/Degree UMM LIMIT
100 M-I-L-E—NO-WAIT 100 F-E-E-T // FINISH Degree LIMIT 100 Det. F-E-E-T
WELL(discourse marker) ?? // …[overlap]
D: YOU[overlap]…
C: …GOOD Adverbial – Manner WORK++ GOOD(emph) Adverbial – Manner/Degree
/// Let me explain why these two are different… GOOD tells how it worked but
GOOD[emph] tells to what degree it worked GOOD. There’s an added element with the
[emph]
D: YES++YOU [hesitation] SUPPOSE++++ YOU YOUR DOOR++ CL:C “Doorbell
signaler mounted outside” …
C: YES++
D: …OUTSIDE+++ Adverb – Location YOU DOOR CL:C “Doorbell signaler mounted
there” RIGHT?
C: YES++++
D: RAIN+++ CL:B “rain run down onto the signaler” WHICH HURT WELL?
C: PRO1+++ CL:BBbent “roof over the entance”// YOU CAN COVER MAYBE
BETTER WARN++ BECAUSE Conj.? HAVE H-O-L-E CL:F “thin gap” [made on D’s
CL:B ‘wall’” A-I-R CL:5 “wind blowing through hole” CL WEATHER RAIN++
MAYBE / BETTER Modal CL: Bbent “small roof to shelter the box”ALSO Conj - ? A-
W-N-I-N-G SMALL CL:Bbent “awning draped over CL:Bbent ‘place where box is’” //
BETTER Degree
D: REASON PRO1 ASK-FAVOR YOU BECAUSE MINE++++ CL:BB “walls come in
from both sides with doorway coming in” TWO DOOR++ CL:B “door to the outside”
CL:B “door on the inside” …
C: YES+++
D: … IX”door on the inside” CL:B “inside door” WOOD DOOR CL:B “inside door
opens in to the right”++ CL:B “outside door” I-R-O-N …
C: YES+++
D: B-A-R-S CL:4 “iron bars coming down” WITH GLASS CL:B “surface of glass on
the door” CL:BB “outside door opening out to the right” CL:BB “inside door opening in
to the right” …
C: YES
D: …HAVE MINE DOORBELL(on your right of the outside door) OUTSIDE-THE-
DOOR // CL: B “outside door” CL:B “inside door” IX(here on your right of trim of the
outside door)++++++++ // RAIN++ CL:5 “rain runs down the trim and across the
doorbell” HURT QUESTION
101

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix D – Transcription of Conversation Session
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Transcription of Full conversation Between Subject C and Subject D – 50
Minutes
C: GOOD QUESTION ABOUT RAIN++ YES++ HAVE CL:01 “small gap” LITTLE-
BIT Degree YES++ CL:F “thin gap” [made on D’s CL:B ‘wall’ and Cb ‘about 1 inch
wide’” CL:4 “rain can go into the gap” INSIDE Adverb – Location
CL:01 “small gap” SMALL++ RAIN INSIDE Adverb – Location YES++++ //
BETTER Degree COVER-OVER A-W-N-I-N-G SMALL+++ CL:Bbent “awning draped
over CL:Bbent ‘place where box is’”// (takes D’s rt-hand, D’s hand represents the box.
C’s rt-hand represents awning.) PUT(over the box, to shelter it.) WELL
D: INTERESTING // YOU CURIOUS V-I-B-R-A C-A-L-L YOU [false start and
hesitation] INSIDE B-A-T-T-E-R-Y #OR WHAT
C: B-A-T-T-E-R-Y B-A-T-T-E-R-Y SPECIAL POSS++(Silent Call) S-I-L-E-N-T
C-A-L-L POSS++(Silent Call) SPECIAL LONG(emph) Adverb – Extent DON’T USE
V-O-L-T 9+++++ WAVE-NO // V-O-L-T 9 FOR CL:C “mounted box on the CL:B
‘door jam’”DOOR++ CL:C “box mounted on wall” PHONE+++ CL:Lbent “phone
signaler”/ TWO FINISH(that’s all) Adverb – Manner/Degree // PAGER++ …
C: PRO1 HAVE++ PRO1 PAGER IX(left)++ SUITCASE HAVE INSIDE Adverb –
Location IX(left) WHERE POSS1 SUITCASE (looking around)
D: SHOW-ME PRO1 LATER Adverb – Time YOU CURIOUS YOU [hesitation]
YOU++ HAVE THREE[emph] RIGHT V-I-B-R-A-C-A-L-L INCLUDED? //
THREE++ / FIRST PAGER SECOND-IN-LIST DOOR CL: C “door signaler attached to
the CL:B ‘wall’” / THIRD-IN-LIST PHONE CL:C “phone signaler with CL:Lb “wire
coming from signaler” TO K-R-O-W-N THEN …?… RIGHT?
C: ONE CALLED J-A-C-K-S CL:X “plug into jack”
D: [interrupts] THAT #OK WHAT IX-“the thing just referred to”
C: THAT / CL:CCbaby “small box-like object” CL: 1“plug into CL:B ‘flat surface’”
PHONE ++++ CL: 1“plug into CL:B ‘flat surface’” ///
D: YOU MEAN PHONE / CL:BB “box-shape of phone” PHONE-DIAL
CL: 1“plugs into back of phone”
C: WAVE-NO++++ J-A-C-K-S W-A-L-L CL:BB “wall surface” W-A-L-L-S CL:BB
“wall surface” CORNER CALLED J-A-C-K-S
D: YES++[tap on C’s leg] YES+++
C: THREE THAT / PLUG-INTO CL:1 “wire goes around over to the table” TABLE /
WHERE Adverb – Location PUTa,b,c,… Locative Verb LEAVE-IN-THAT-PLACE
Locative Verb /// NOT USE IX-lf(control unit?) WAVE-NO UNTIL YOU FEEL++
Adverbial - Duration / SEE #IF PAGER STILL Adverb - Duration WORK // PUSH-
BUTTON(on phone transmitter) KEEP+++ UNTIL GOOD PUSH-BUTTON(on phone
transmitter)++ Adverbial - Duration / DEAD // SAME-AS CL:C “mounted box on the
CL:B ‘door jam’”// PUSH-BUTTON(on doorbell transmitter)++++ DEAD /
CHANGE(battery) IX(doorbell)++ V-O-L-T 9++++ // IX(phone transmitter) V-O-L-T
9++ CHEAP / PAGER EXPENSIVE(emph) Adverbial – Manner/Degree / EXPENSIVE
Transcriber Note: I see when D and C want to emphasize certain things, the last segment
of the sign is held for a longer time. For example see: D: CL: 1“plugs into back of
phone” or C: EXPENSIVE(emph)
102

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix D – Transcription of Conversation Session
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Transcription of Full conversation Between Subject C and Subject D – 50
Minutes
D: YES++ MASS YOU THREE LIST-OF-THREE THIS(first) PAGER / THIS(second)
DOOR++ / THIS(Third) PHONE PLUS CL:CbCb “small box” ALL-TOGETHER
FOUR?
C: TWO / IX(D’s finger) IX(ceiling) Adverb - Location W-A-L-L WAVE-
NO[simultaneous with shaking D’s hand side-to-side] C-E-I-L-I-N-G BREAK // C-E-I-
L-I-N-G / CL:CC “fire alarm” IX(up on ceiling) Adverb - Location CL:BB “fire alarm
mounted on ceiling” FIRE ALARM // WAVE PUSH-BUTTON(on D’s index, middle,
ring, and little fingers)++++ verb - Location / SHOW-YOU // FOUR(emph) PUSH-
BUTTON(on D’s index,middle, ring, little fingers) verb – Location, Loc, Loc, Loc /
UMM PUSH-BUTTON(first button)++++verb - Location FIRE / PUSH-
BUTTON(second) verb - Location DOOR / PUSH-BUTTON(third) verb - Location /
PHONE PUSH-BUTTON(fourth)++ verb - Location WELL(doubtful) NECESSARY
WELL E-X-T-R-A
D: YOU #OK YOU CL:C “fire alarm mounted on CL:B ‘ceiling’” HAVE
C: NO++++ NONE+++…
D: NONE!?
C: YES TWO(emph)++ BATTERY CL:HH “2 batteries lying side by side” // BUT
BROKE / BROKE / PAGER ALARM MEAN WAITING-LONG-TIME W-A-[false
start] NO-WAIT V-R IX(VR) FORGET FORGET FORGET NEED NEW CL:C “fire
alarm” S-A-F-E
D: YOU CL:C “fire alarm mounted on CL:B ‘ceiling’” FINISH(that’s all) Adverb –
Manner/Degree NONE CL:II “cord coming down”
C: NONE++
D: INTERESTING(emph) Adverb – Manner/Degree IX(second one/doorbell)
DOOR++++ CL:C “mounted box on the CL:B ‘flat surface”// NONE CORD(from CL:B
“down the wall”)
C: NONE++++
D: PHONE YES++ ONLY PLUG-INTO(phone) Adverb – Manner/Degree CONNECT
PHONE CL:Ob “cord runs from phone over to tty) PLUG-INTO(tty) TTY FINISH(that’s
all) ? Adverb – Time.
C: YOU[false start] WAVE UMM / PHONE WAVE-NO TOUCH(phone) NONE++
P-H-O-N-E CL:1 “cord runs over to the wall jack” PLUG-IN-JACK W-A-L-L
W-A-L-L CL:1 “cord runs down and under then into the wall jack” // CL:BB “wall”
CL:C “jack mounted on the wall” W-A-L-L PLUG-IN-JACK // CL:Ob “cord from the
wall jack runs over to CL:LL ‘small control box’” TABLE // SMALL CL:L drawing
outline on D’s hand “signaler box is about this big / PUSH-BUTTON(in the middle of
signaler box)” ALARM-RING VIBRATION FEEL S-A-F-E STILL Adverb – Duration
ALIVE BATTERY ///
D: PRO1 CURIOUS YOU-[false start] …?… YOU KNOW PRO1 HAVE TWO HOUSE
MATE++++ LIVE IN MY HOUSE …
C: YES++[shake]
103

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix D – Transcription of Conversation Session
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Transcription of Full conversation Between Subject C and Subject D – 50
Minutes
D: …THREE-OF-US / #OK / OK-THEN TWO-OF-THEM DEAF // CAN SEE TWO-
OF-THEM // PRO1 DEAF^BLIND MEAN PRO1 SUPPOSE PRO1 BUY V-I-B-R-A
C-A-L-L FINISH Adverb – Time / SET-UP(in different places) FINISH Adverb – Time /
PUT-ON-PAGER / SUPPOSE CL”1 “person comes up to CL: B “door” PUSH-
DOORBELL++++ WILL TWO-OF-THEM KNOW LIGHT FLASH++++ QUESTION
C: NONE++
D: NONE / MEAN MUST BUY TWO SEPARATE[emph] Adverb – Manner/Degree
(So, you mean I’d have to buy two separate systems)
C: YES BUY /// YOU NEED WRITE-LIST SEND(to Silent Call) TO
S-I-L-E-N-T ASK(multiple) ABOUT MORE++ TWO E-X-T-R-A?? TWO-OR-THREE
CONNECTED // YES FOR FLASHER THAT // WELL // CAN ASK-lf(silent call)
REQUEST-lf(from silent call) S-I-L-E-N-T C-A-L-L COMPANY IX-lf(Silent Call) ///
D: OH-I-SEE+++ PRO1 WANT TO UH PRO1 WANT SET-UP SYSTEM[emph] SET-
UP(in different places)+++ FINISH Adverb – Time THEN Adverb – Time UH ONE
FOR FLASH+++ OTHER WHEN ANY PERSON PUSH-DOORBELL Adverbial –
Time LIGHT FLASH+++ SAME TIME MY PAGER-GOES-OFF+++ Adverbial – Time
SAME TIME Adverbial – Time WANT-wg++++[overlap]
C: YES++++++[overlapping with D] +++++ ASK-lf(Silent Call) IX-lf(Silent Call)
CAN(emph)
D: YOU NAME COMAPANY AGAIN Adverb – Freq YOU
C: S- SILENT C-A-L-L
D: IN / WHERE?
C: R-O-C-H-E-S-T-E-R #MICH Adverbial – Location
D: YES THAT WHERE LEADER #DOG PROGRAM IX-front/ctr (Rochester MI)
C: YES++++++++[overlapping]
D: OH-I-SEE+++++[overlapping]
C: / PRO1 SLEEP / UMM /// REMEMBER STUCK
D: YOU KNOW K-E-I-T-H M-C-G-R-E-G-O-R YOU?…
C: YES++++++
D: KNOW YOU?
C: WAVE-NO
D: K-E-[hesitates, lowers hand] …THINK K-E-I-T-H…
C: [overlap ‘nodding++++++’backchannel]
D: …-M-C-G-R-E-G-O-R // IX(Keith) MAN[false start] HEARING MAN WHO TRAIN
DEAF^BLIND PEOPLE WITH #DOG LEADER #DOGS
C: YES+++++
D: YOU FINISH Adverb - Time MEET K-E-I-T-H?
C: NO++++++
D: IX-rt(Keith) GO GO TO A-A-B-D MEETING GO GO GO
104

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix D – Transcription of Conversation Session
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Transcription of Full conversation Between Subject C and Subject D – 50
Minutes
C: YES++ / PRO1 J-A-N-E NAME J-A-N-E-T J-A-N-E-T IX-high/center(Janet)
DONATE(to me)+++ WORTH TEN THOUSAND PRO1 NO+++ V-R WILL NOT
PAY(me) PRO1++ MONEY NO+++ PRO1 GIVE-UP NO+++ PRO1 GIVE-UP // TEN
THOUSAND BUT NEW-YORK BIG FREE // WELL
D: NO++ YOU MEAN LEADER #DOG MEAN YOU?
C: YES++ NEW-YORK++ FREE / WHY(rh) …
D: NO++[C drops attention]
C: …MONEY DONATE-alt hands(to the db)+++ MONEY A-LOT IX-high center(New
York)
D: NO++ IN #MICH FREE // FREE YES++++++[overlap]
C: YES+++[overlap] #MICH YES++++
D: YES++ FREE ONLY Adverbial – Manner/Degree YOU PAY-OUT-OF-POCKET
FLIGHT FINISH(that’s all) Adverbial – Manner/Degree
C: YES++++[unattended to]
D: TO SLEEP FOOD TRAINING PLUS #DO INCLUDE FREE(emph) Adverb –
Manner/Degree
C: YES++++ PRO1 MONEY WELL / PRO1 MONEY WELL[overlapping]
D: …YOU FINISH #DOG WELL?[overlapping]
C: PRO1 NO+++ NOT-YET++ Adverb – Time / YOU++?
D: PRO1 YES++ WHEN PRO1 RETIRE Adverb – Time PRO1 WILL BUY(dog)
YES+++
C: BUY P-O-N-Y
D: NO++++ HA-HA+++
C: TRAIN++++ P-O-N-Y
D: YES+++++++ BUT DEFECATE+++ IN HOUSE OUTRAGED PRO1
C: TEACH(the pony)++ BETTER Adverbial – Manner/Degree C-L-Y-D-E-S-D-A-L-E
D: IX-C’s hand(what did you sign)?
C: C-L-Y-D-E-S-D-A-L-E
D: WHO THAT IX-clydesdale ?
C: BIG!(emph) Adverbial – Manner/Degree BROWN REMEMBER HORSE+++++
KNOW BIG!(emph) Adverbial – Manner/Degree
D: #OH! OH+++++
C: THAT NAME C-L-Y-D-E-S-D-A-L-E BIG!(emph) Adverbial – Manner/Degree
[overlapppng]… WOW Adverbial – Manner/Degree
D: …#HA-HA+++++++[overlapping]/ PRO1+++ WILL // YOU KNOW H-A-R-R-Y A-
N-D-E-R-S-O-N HAVE NEW++ If this means more than just new it’s - Adverbial –
Manner/Degree GUIDE DOG
C: AGAIN Adverb – Freq // OLD[overlap]…
D: WELL FINISH[overlap]
C: …R-O-C-K-Y?
D: OLD / FINISH Adverbial – Time RETIRE QUOTE RETIRE[overlap]…
C: YES+++++++[overlap]
105

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix D – Transcription of Conversation Session
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Transcription of Full conversation Between Subject C and Subject D – 50
Minutes
D: …BUT H-A-R-R-Y KEEP(Rocky)
H-A-R-R-Y / R-O-C-K-Y STAY BUT BECOME YOUR GUIDE NO-MORE Adverbial
– Duration // THEN[false start] #SO HARRY IX-lf-ctr(Harry) / YOU KNOW ROCKY
OLD^11 OLD^11++++++
C: DON’T-KNOW / GOOD UP-TO-LIMIT 15 Adverbial – Duration UP-TO-LIMIT 15
tells to what degree/. BIG! tells to what degree.
D: [hesitation] FOR GUIDE-AROUND UP-TO-LIMIT 10… Adverbial – Duration
C: OH-I-SEE
D: … AGE^11 12 13 ?[false start] UM START UM QUOTE OLD[signed slowly]
START FORGET FORGET FORGET
C: YES++++++
D: …#SO PHOOEY ENOUGH Adverbial – Manner/Degree ADD-ON 11 ENOUGH
Adverbial – Manner/Degree THEN Adverbial – Time GO GET TRAINING GET NEW
#DOG // PRO1 FINISH Adverbial – Time MEET 3-WEEKS^AGO Adverbial – Time //
PRO1 PET(dog) (it)LICK(my hand) // BIG BIG Adverbial – Manner/Degree / THIS-
HIGH / STRONG(emph) Adverbial – Manner/Degree / NICE / TWO BLOOD++ MESH
TWO-IN-LIST G-O-L-D…G-O-L-D #OR G-O-L-D-E-N O-L[false start] FORGET
STARTS-WITH-R GOLD R-SOMETHING…
C: [touches hand to interrupt] R-…
D: GOLD G-O-L-D-E-N R-E-T-R-I-E-V-E-R[overlap]…
C: YES++++[overlap]
D: MATCH WITH YELLOW L-A-B YELLOW L-A-B[overlap]
C: WOW[overlap]
C: NO(“head shake”)
D: REALLY NICE(emph) Adverbial – Manner/Degree PRO1 LOOK-AT-dwn lf(dog) //
H-A-R-R-Y EXPLAIN+++ HOW^MUCH THAT #DOG HELP IX(Harry) WOW!
LONG-LIST / PRO1 LOOK-AT(dog) PRO1 MULL-OVER PRO1 WILL GO TO
#MICH AFTER PRO1 RETIRE Adverbial – Time PRO1 WILL^GO(to Mich) #DOG
BECAUSE PRO1 WILL^MAYBE COMMUTE-BACK-AND-FORTH NEED #DOG
TO HELP PRO1 WALK FROM HOME Adverbial – Place TO A-A-D-B
HOME^OFFICE Adverbial – Place HELP++ J-A-M-I-E WITH CALL-BY-
TTY(different places)+++ WELL^I-DON’T-KNOW // PRO1 THINK NICE Adverbial –
Manner/Degree PRO1 ?? #DOG GUIDE-AROUND GO-DOWN-UNDER SUBWAY
WELL
C: TRAIN TRAIN TRAIN(response)
D: THREE THREE-WEEKS FINISH (That’s all) Adverbial – Manner/Degree /
THREE[overlap]…
C: YES+++++[overlap]
D: …THREE-WEEKS / THREE THREE-WEEKS Adverbial -TimeTHAT’S-ALL
Adverbial – Manner/Degree
C: WHEN RETIRE YOU
D: I-DON’T-KNOW(emph)
106

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix D – Transcription of Conversation Session
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Transcription of Full conversation Between Subject C and Subject D – 50
Minutes
C: NEXT-YEAR(emph) Adverbial – Time
D: NO++ REALLY Adverbial – Manner/Degree PRO1 CAN(emp?) BECOME E-L-I-G-
I-B-L-E NEXT-YEAR BUT PRO1 NOT READY // MAYBE FOUR MORE YEAR
FOUR / YEAR / FOUR
C: WELL UM
D: BECAUSE PRO1 DON’T WANT TO RETIRE #TOO Adverbial – Manner/Degree
EARLY[emph] Adverbial – Manner/Degree YOUNG #OR #TOO Adverbial –
Manner/Degree OLD WELL-DOUBT NOW Adverbial – Time PRO1 59+++++ [checks
for clarification]
C: YES++[unattended]++++[attended] 59[affirms understanding]++
D: PRO1 PREDICT PRO1 RETIRE 6[hold] 3 #or 6-4
C: FUTURE!(emph) Adverbial – Manner/Degree WOW Adverbial – Manner/Degree //
PRO1 …
D: WELL 3 / 4
C: PRO1 69 69 69
D: YES++++ KNOW^THAT YOU #SEPT 6++++ 1933
C: YES+++++++
D: WELL
C: 9-6-33 BORN 9-6-33 9-6-33(slower) Adverbial – Time
D: YES++++ // YOU / YOU NO-MATTER / YOU DON’T-WANT #DOG / YOU
DON’T-WANT #DOG
C: PRO1 STILL Adverbial – Time MULL-OVER BECAUSE Adverbial – Purpose
PRO1[overlap]…
D: WHY[overlap]
C: …ALONE WANT ACCOMPANY-EVERYWHERE [overlap] …
D: YES++++++++[overlap]
C: …#DOG MULL-OVER
D: PRO1 THINK #DOG WILL HELP YOU SOCIALIZE PLAY[continuous] / YOU
KNOW^THAT PRO1 HAVE TWO #DOG IN MY HOUSE Adverbial – Location PRO1
HAVE TWO[hold] [checks for understanding]
C: TWO(held long) [signaling understanding]
D: WIFE POSS-lf(wife) M-O-N-I-C-A’S
C: OH-I-SEE
D: IX-lf(Monica) LIVE IN MY HOUSE Adverbial – Place
C: OH-I-SEE STILL Adverb – Time
D: YES++++ BUT NOT TWO-OF-US TOGETHER NO+++++ TWO-OF-US BECOME
GOOD FRIENDS FINISH(that’s all)[osc] Adverb – Manner/Degree //
NO-MATTER[overlap]…
C: YES+++++(unattended to)
107

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix D – Transcription of Conversation Session
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Transcription of Full conversation Between Subject C and Subject D – 50
Minutes
D: IX-lf(Monica) HAVE TWO #DOGS // HAVE MINE ENJOY SIT READ READ-
BRAILLE[interative?] #DOG …?… CL:V-bent “dog comes and sits on my lap” POSS
HEAD CL:S “head draped over my leg” PRO1 PET(dog)++++ …?… PLAY WITH
Adverb – Manner/Degree DOG PRO1 GET THROW #BALL CL:CC “ball” THROW(lf)
IX(path out from me) #DOG CL:Vbent “animal running along path” CL:C>O “mouth
closes to grab ball, pick it up and return to me” PRO1 GET THROW(rt) IX(path far out
in front of me) Adverb – Place #DOG IX(path out around) PICK-UP / IX(path back to
me) PLAY[iterative] IX(dog) REALLY Adverb – Manner/Degree ENJOY #DOG
REALLY Adverb – Manner/Degree CAN KEEP YOU KEEP YOU AND[emph] Adverb
– Manner/Degree GOOD FOR YOU Adverb – Purpose
C: CHATTING COMMUNICATION YES++ IMPORTANT COMMUNICATION /
YES++++
D: YOU PRO1 UNDERSTAND THAT YOUR #APT ALLOW YOU TO HAVE
ROOMMATE… [overlap]
C: …[tapping yes] #IF #DOG WORK++ LANDLORD LAW WILL [?I don’t have a
good gloss for this sign] MUST ALLOW(emph) verb /// NONE JUST Adverbial –
Manner/Degree PET NO++ ONLY Adverbial – Manner/Degree WORK #DOG
ALLOWED // BECAUSE LAW(emp) A-D-A WOW++++ DM
D: YES+++++++ PRO1 PRO1 [false start] / PRO1 THINK YOU+++ CAN’T HAVE
ROOMMATE+++++ IN YOUR #APT RIGHT Adverbial – Place
C: YES++++++++
D: CAN[emph] YOU CAN?
C: #IF CATHOLIC PRO1 CAN(emph) // DISCUSS-BACK-FORTH CAN(emph) ///
WE’LL-SEE WELL [overlap]
D: YOU NEED YOU ONE ROOMMATE YOU NEED++
C: (taps ‘yes’) YES++++ // HELP-ME++ [false start]DEAF / HEARING / WHATEVER
NOT BLIND WAVE-NO++++ // PROBLEM BETTER Adverbial – Manner/Degree
PRO DRIVE / SEE DRIVE / BETTER Adverbial – Manner/Degree
D: YES+++++ HOW-MANY ROOM YOUR #APT
C: PRO1++ REALLY Adverbial – Manner/Degree BED[ROOM] TWO(hold long) /
PRO1^HAVE TWO-INTO-ONE // CHANGE S-H-O-P / S-H-O-P PRO1 MAKE
CHAIR++ // S-T-O-O-L-S WEAVING SELL++ ENJOY PRO1 WELL(dm) /// START
NEAR-FUTURE Adverbial – Time START BUSINESS BUT NEED MOVE-TO
BIG(emph) Adverbial – Manner/Degree // DON’T-KNOW WHO-KNOWS DON’T-
KNOW / MULL-OVER / DON’T-KNOW++ Adverb – Frequency
D: YES+++++++++ HOW YOU YOU++ #IF YOU ROOMMATE MOVE-front(your
house)[hold] // MEAN YOU CLOSE[hold] S-H-O-P MOVE(shop from there to other
place) ALLOW OTHER ROOMMATE MOVE(where shop is) #OK?
C: MAYBE HAVE-TO BUT NEED WORK WEAVING WELL(dm) //[checks for
feedback] HAVE? MONEY+++ INCREASE+++++ [checks for feedback]…
D: YES+++
108

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix D – Transcription of Conversation Session
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Transcription of Full conversation Between Subject C and Subject D – 50
Minutes
C: …LIKE(emph) PRO1 // GOOD MONEY 600 600 700 700 CHAIR WORTH
WOW++++ Adverbial – Manner/Degree
D: YES YOU MAKE LIVING SELL++ SO-FAR Adverbial – Duration
C: WAVE / NOT-YET+++++++ Adverb – Time START NOT-YET Adverb – Time /
NOW++ Adverb – Time PRO1 START / IX(store in NC)++ SEND E-M-A-I-L PRO1
WAIT FOR E-M-A-I-L SEND(to store in NC) TO V-A-S-S #NORTH-CAROLINA
IX(Vass) Adverbial Place FAMOUS BIG STORE / WEAVING / PRO1 #WWW
EXPLAIN WITH K-E-N-T IX(Kent) WHAT #WWW EXPLAIN // LIKE LIKE LIKE
Adverbial – Frequency PUT-IN-LIST PRO1 SEND(to Kent) // BRING-TO-ME / PRO1
MAKE+++ MAKE(different ones) FAMOUS V-A-S-S FAR!(emph) Adverb –
Manner/Degree NEAR #SOUTH-CAROLINA #SOUTH-CAROLINA Adverbial – Place
D: YOU YOU [false start] WEAVE++ NOT-YET Adverb – Time START WEAVE++
ALL-ALONG Adverb – Duration
C: UP-TIL-NOW Adverb – Time (Duration) NONE++++ WHY(rh) PRO1 LOOK-
FOR++ MY FAVORITE BALTIMORE RITENOFF PRO1 BUY(from Ritenoff)+++++
COME(to me) GO-THERE(Ritenoff) TIME PRO1 SEND-TO(Ritenoff) CALL-
TO(Ritenoff) /// SAY O-W-N-E-R QUIT / SELL OTHER NEW O-W-N-E-R LOOK-AT
WEAVING / THROW-OUT DON’T-KNOW HOW IX(new owner) THROW-OUT /
NONE EMPTY // PRO1 DISAPPOINTED GIVE-UP WOOD BUY++++ IX(Baltimore)
Adverb – Place
D: NOW Adverb – Time WHERE YOU MEAN MEAN LOOK-FOR OTHER PLACE?
C: THAT NAME V-A-S-S #NC[interrupts]
D: V-WHAT? [asks for clarification]
C: V-A-S-S #N[interrupted]
D: IN #NC Adverbial – Place
C: #NC YES+++ / NAME FAMOUS B-A-S-K-E-T W-A-R-E-H-O-U-S-E
C: PRO1 CHAIR[multiple]+++++ WOMAN O-W-N NAME S-U-Z-A-N-N-E
M-O-O- R-E IX(Suzanne) // PRO1[interrupted]
D: YOU PRO1 CURIOUS WHAT KIND YOU HAVE WEAVE / LIKE CHAIR
SECOND-IN-LIST TABLE WELL ?
C: DIFFERENT++ YES++++ CHAIR IX[multiple] DIFFERENT+++ YES+++
C: PRO1 HAVE 6+++++ HIGH S-T-O-O-L-S PUT(on stools) WEAVING / WAIT TIL
SIGN-NAME-K[false start] [COMPUTER BRAILLE ARRIVE](cond) Adverbial –
Duration START ORDER(from NC) GET CL:Cb “strips of caning” C-A-N-I-N-G-S
GET++++(from NC) WEAVING[multiple] /// PRO1 (Larry)BRING(to me) WITH L-A-
R-R-Y Adverbial – Place // YOU DON’T-KNOW IX(Larry) CONTINUE[interrupted] L-
[interrupted]
D: WHO++
109

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix D – Transcription of Conversation Session
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Transcription of Full conversation Between Subject C and Subject D – 50
Minutes
C: LARRY / YOU DON’T-KNOW / FROM #PA+ Adverbial – Place / LIVE NEAR
PRO1 Adverbial – Place NOW Adverbial – Time MOVE-AWAY THAT IX(Larry)
HELP(me) STORY GET PAINT TELL PRO1 PAINT PRETTY C-H-E-R-R-Y
IX(Larry) IX(pointed to that one) / #OK / PRO1 BRING(home) / …?… CL:B “dip brush
in stain” CL:B “paint surface” WATER WONDER / CL:B “dip brush in stain” CL:B
“paint surface” / SMELL(stain) WONDER PHOOEY-ON-IT CL:C “put lid on can”
CL:S “pounded the lid down” / IX-lf(Kent) CALL-ON #KENT COME-OVER(to the
shop) SAY NO++ IX-dwn(paint) FOR …?… #STAIN RUB #OFF / PAINT FULL L-A-
R-R-Y DUMB[emph] L-A-R-R-Y NOT THINK
L-A-R-R-Y[overlap]
D: [overlap]#HA-HA // #HA-HA-HA
C: WANT PAINT? PRO1 DONATE(to you)
D: NO++++ PRO1 START SMALL BUSINESS++++ PRO1 HAVE SETUP SMALL
CALLED INTERNET I-N-T-E-R-N-E-T BUSINESS+++++ NOW+++?? Adverb – Time
[false start] SIGN WITH ONE COMPANY NAME QUOTE Q-U-I-X-T-A-R[held for
feedback]
C: YES[shake]++++
D: IX(Quixtar) HAVE? FINISH Adverb – Time BUY A FRANCHISE FROM THAT
COMPANY Adverbial – Place #SO THAT Adverbial – Purpose PRO1 CAN RUN
POSS1 BUISNESS SELL(different things) DIFFERENT++++++ THINGS LIKE WELL
LIKE S-E-A-R-S PRO1 CAN SELL #REF MICROWAVE
C: ADVERTISE WELL?
D: YES++++++++++++ PRO1 PRO1 NOW PRO1 IX(the business) KNOW IX(the
business?)+ NEW++++ Adverb – Manner/Degree BUSINESS GOOD[emph] Adverb –
Manner/Degree EXPANDING[quickly] Adverb – Manner/Degree // PRO1++++ SIGN
TO BUY F-R-A-N-C-H-I-S-E #SO PRO1 USE POSS #WWW[hold for feedback]…
Adverbial – Purpose
C: YES[shake]++++
D: TO SELL ADVERTISE[false start?] ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER THEN
Adverb – Time PRO1 SIGN++ WITH POSS1 9+++++ ASSISTANT PRO1 TRY
TEACH(assistants)++ HOW TO RUN+++ BUSINESS+++ DO-THINGS NOW Adverb
– Time PRO1 GIVE TRAINING LEARN(various things)+++++++++ PRO1 REALLY
Adverb – Manner/Degree ENJOY PRO1 JOIN THAT BUSINESS WORLD ] 3-
MONTHS-AGO[hold] Adverbial – Time // 3 MONTHS[hold] ] Adverbial – Time
C: YES[shake]++++
D: PRO1 LEARN FROM MY FRIEND Adverbial – Purpose IX(friend) EXPLAIN /
PRO1 LOOK-AT(idea) FASCINATED PRO1 DECIDE JOIN #SO PRO1
BUY(business) F-R-A-N-C-H-I-S-E[hold]
C: YES++
D: THEN Adverb – Time NOW Adverb – Time SAME[false start] PRO1 SATISFIED
THAT SMALL BUSINESS NOW+++++ Adverb – Time // PRO1 MAYBE EXPLAIN
YOU LATER Adverb – Time WELL
110

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix D – Transcription of Conversation Session
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Transcription of Full conversation Between Subject C and Subject D – 50
Minutes
C: GOOD[emp] Adverb – Manner/Degree YES++++ TAKE-CARE BUSINESS ENJOY
/ LOOKING-AROUND-BORED WELL
D: YES+++++++++[overlap]
C: YES++[overlap]
D: YOU YOU++ THINK YOU WILL YOU STAY IN W-H-E-A-T-O-N? Adverbial –
Place
C: YES+++[unattended]++++ / MONEY FINE-wg Adverb – Manner/Degree GET-
GOVERNMENT-INCOME PAY NONE WELL
D: PAY NONE[emph/hold]? Adverb – Manner/Degree ALL-ALONG Adverb –
Duration YOU
C: PAY NONE[emph] Adverb – Manner/Degree ELECTRIC WATER ALL-THOSE-IN-
LIST Adverb – Purpose NONE[emph] Adverb – Manner/Degree
D: #ALL Adverb – Manner/Degree FREE / #ALL[overlap] Adverb – Duration
C: YES++[overlap] ALL[emph] Adverb – Manner/Degree FREE YES++++++
D: YOU BETTER STAY
C: YES+++++ MULL-OVER POSSIBLE CLOSE-TO STORE Adverbial – Place GOOD
M-A-L-L IX-lf / YOU KNOW WHERE MY M-A-L-L IX-lf
D: NAME++
C: C-[false start] WOODS? P-L-A-Z-A M-A-L-L WOODS? W-H-E-A-T-O-N /
PRO1++++ MY++++ #APT CL:1 “road near the apt” /[overlap]…
D: YES+++++++
C: …A-M-H-E-R-N CL:1 “road near the apt” NEXT-TO-BEYOND(Amhern) Adverbial
– Place IX- …?… M-A-L-L IX+++
D: YES YOU LIVE IX ALONE+++
C: WAVE-NO COMMUNITY PRO1 HAVE TWO[hold] / GIRL++ / HELP++ #SSP //
EVERY-TWO-WEEKS-BEGINNING-AND-AND-OF-MONTH+++ Adverbial –
Frequency / GIRL FROM BALTIMORE Adverbial – Place // COME(to my house)
TAKE(out) STORE++ …?… DOCTOR TO PRO1 #MA #MA M-E-T-R-O A-C-C-E-S-
S[hold]
D: YES++++
C: FINE-wg Adverb – Manner/Degree PRO1 LIKE #MA
D: YES++[overlap]
C: (metro)PROVIDE(to me)[overlap] [interrupted]
D: YOU CHARGED[unattended]…YOU START USE #MA ALL-ALONG Adverb –
Duration NOW Adverb – Time
C: ALL-ALONG Adverb – Duration GOOD[emph] Adverb – Manner/Degree
D: HOW THERE-AND-BACK …?…
C: K-E-N-T[overlap]
D: WELL[overlap]
C: …DROP-OFF / PRO1 HOME #MA / TIME 1:30 Adverb – Time #OR 2:00 TIME
Adverb – Time IX(Kent) B-I-S-R-T-A NO-WAIT-SEC B-I-S-T-R-N WAVE-NO B-I-
S-T-R-N…
111

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix D – Transcription of Conversation Session
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Transcription of Full conversation Between Subject C and Subject D – 50
Minutes
D: YES+++
C: IX(Kent?) MEET ME EAT++
C: …YOU PRO1 IX(Kent) EAT++ MEET[overlap]…
D: YES+++[unattended]
C: …YOU …?… #OK
D: HAVE MEETING …?… 11 [to] 1:10 PRO1 APPOINTMENT AT 1:10 Adverb –
Time TO PRO1 EXPECT TWO-OF-US(appointment) Adverb – Time FINISH Adverb –
Time THEN TWO-OF-US(you and I) EAT IX WELL // ANYWAY YOU++
YOUR[hesitation] /// FORGOT // YOUR #APT BASEMENT RIGHT?
C: NONE+++++ BIG[emph] …?… FLOOR[big] …?… FLOOR BIG[emph] Adverb –
Manner/Degree
D: YES++ / HOW^MANY ROOMS YOUR #APT?
C: LIVING-ROOM BIG[emph] Adverb – Manner/Degree CL:5 “large area on the left”
COMPUTER CL:Cb “desk with computer spans length of wall on left” CL:5 “area in
center” CL:Vb “sofa is left of center”? …?… CL:Vb “chair one here close right of center,
one here further right of center” IX(further than the chair) #TV #TV BACK Adverb –
Place #WALL(on right) FOOD TABLE BACK-THERE(rt) Adverb – Place IX(up ahead
of table” KITCHEN DOWN-HALLWAY(on right) Adverb – Place / IX(up far right)
Adverb – Place BED[ROOM] IX(path snakes) Adverb – Place [interrupted]
#TV[unattended]
D: YES+++[shake] CLEAN(all around)+++ YOURSELF[overlap]…
C: YES++++[unattended overlap]
D: …#ALL(whole apt) Adverb – Manner/Degree YOU // [overlap]…
C: YES+++++++ BATHROOM TWO / BATHROOM TWO / BATH TWO[hold]
D: OH-I-SEE+++
C: BATH TWO
D: YES+++
C: IX-to left / IX-up and to right MY PRIVATE IXthumb-right / IX-to left Adverb –
Location GENERAL IX-lf
D: YES++ / YOU HAVE #TV RIGHT #TV #TV #TV[overlap]
C: YES++++[overlap]
D: FOR? SOME FRIEND COME(to your house) TO INTERPRET WELL-HOW YOU
C: YES // COMPANY VISIT LIKE W-SIGN-NAME++ KNOW W-SIGN-NAME++
HUSBAND #JOHN WATCH++ #TV W-SIGN-NAME++ CL:Vb “sit DeafBlind style”
CHAT++ FOUR-HOURS Adverb – Duration #JOHN WATCH++ #TV // SOMETIMES
Adverb – Frequency (I)VISIT(them) #JOHN WATCH(his TV) PRO CHAT(with W)
WELL / UNDERSTAND+++
D: YES++++ / YOU YOU STILL Adverb – Duration WATCH SOME Adverb –
Manner/Degree COME(to your house) INTERPRET FOOTBALL GAME /
BASKETBALL GAME YOU
C: BEHIND![emph] Adverb – Manner/Degree PRO1 BEHIND![emph] Adverb –
Manner/Degree / NONE COMPUTER WELL! / BEH—[interrupted]
112

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix D – Transcription of Conversation Session
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Transcription of Full conversation Between Subject C and Subject D – 50
Minutes
D: WANT PRO1 INFORM-YOU+++
C: IX(Jim) J-I-M MEASURE TOLD-ME PRESS-KEY A-L-T C-T-L “I” / COME-UP-
ON-SCREEN FINISH Adverb – Time STAY-THERE …?… ROCKING R-O-C-K-E-R-
S ROCKING THEN IX-up right U-S-A-T-O-D-A-Y N-E-W-S
D: OH-I-SEE++
C: YOU #WWW PRO1 NOT-HAVE-TO NOT-NECESSARY PRO1 WONDER …?…
D: YES YES PRO1+++ STILL[emph] Adverb – Duration READ++ #WWW
AWESOME Adverb – Manner/Degree LOVE-IT WOW Adverb – Manner/Degree PRO1
READ-THROUGH-A-LOT-OF-THINGS Verb [dm gesture] YESTERDAY Adverb –
Time M-I-A-M-I DEFEAT CHICAGO BEARS / WELL/OR PAST SUNDAY Adverb –
Time GREEN-B-A-Y BEAT M-I-N-N // UMM NOW Adverb – Time FIRST-PLACE
ONE-AND-THREE // NEXT-BELOW PHILADELPHIA IX 25 / KNOW^THAT TWO/
8+++ DIFFERENT++ N-F-C HAVE 4 GROUPS(under AFC) OTHER A—
[interrupted]
C: [taps to interrupt]++++ YES++ KNOW^THAT FINISH++ Adverb – Time
D: YOU KNOW?
C: YES+++ NOT-KNOW / KNOW++ GROUP SEPARATE++ NEW++ YES++ BUT—
[interrupted]
D: BUT WHO FIRST-PLACE / DON’T-KNOW YOU?
C: FIRST-PLACE DON’T-KNOW
D: YOU WANT PRO1 SPELL-OFF(to you)
C: YES++++ /
D: M—
C: GREEN-B-A-Y
D: START WITH N-F-C
C: YES+++
D: CL:1,4 “four competing for first place” FIRST-OF-FOUR PHILADELPHIA /
SECOND-OF-FOUR NEW-YORK G[IANTS] / THIRD-OF-FOUR D-A-L-L-A-S /
FOURTH-OF FOUR WASHINGTON
C: YES++
D: FIRST-OF-FOUR PHILADELPHIA 10-AND-3 / NEW-YORK SECOND-OF-FOUR 7-AND-6 / THAT[dm] / D-A-L-L-A-S
AND WASHINGTON CL: “thumb down/ lost”
5-AND-8[held] 5-AND-8 /
C: SAME 5-AND-8 5-AND-8
D: YES D-A-L-L-AS[overlap]…
C: 5-AND-8++ 5-AND-8++ [overlap]
D: …AND WASHINGTON SAME[overlap]
C: SAME[overlap] PHOOEY [finger snap gesture “darn it”]
D: WELL
C: …HEAVY-COMPETITION[emph] Adverb – Manner/Degree BIG-LEAD Adverb –
Manner/Degree WELL THANKSGIVING[overlap]…
113

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix D – Transcription of Conversation Session
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Transcription of Full conversation Between Subject C and Subject D – 50
Minutes
D: [dm gesture “yeah that’s them”] YOU WASHINGTON D-A-L-L-A-S STINK PHOOEY(on Dallas) PHILADELPHIA LEAD
STRONG[emph] Adverb – Manner/Degree PHILADELPHIA WOW![emph]++ Adverb – Manner/Degree //10-AND-3 GOOD
Adverb – Manner/Degree PASSING / RUSHING / DEFENSE / INCLUDE WOW++ Adverb – Manner/Degree BUT name??
THROWN-OUT FOR THREE…TWO-OR-THREE TWO-OR-THREE [Transcription note: could not see this sign on video]
KNOW M-C-N-A-B-B
C: YES[shake]+++
D: …THAT WHO SPRAIN IX(leg) A-N-K-L-E SPRAIN / [dm gesture “so that’s that] FOUR-IN-COMPETITION [dm gesture
“now as for the other…”] NORTH CALLED
N-F-C NORTH FIRST-OF-FOUR G[REEN]-B-A-Y 10-AND-3 / SECOND-OF-FOUR
CHICAGO 3-AND-10? / THIRD-OF-FOUR DETROIT 3-AND-10 /
C: WOW?[shake]+++
D: FOURTH-OF-FOUR #MINN 3-AND-10 // REALLY Adverb – Manner/Degree
DOWNHILL DIVISION-BETWEEN-FIRST-AND-SECOND-OF-OF-FOUR // FIRST-
OF-FOUR 10-AND-3 NEXT-ONE-DOWN 3 BACKWARDS 3-AND-10 / 3-AND-
10(third place team)3-AND-10(fourth place team)
C: WOW[shake]+++
D: BAD Adverb – Manner/DegreeWELL // MOVING-ONTO N-F-C SOUTH++
IX(South Division) FOUR-IN-COMPETITION FIRST-OF-FOUR #T[ampa]B[ay]
SECOND-OF-FOUR NEW-ORLEANS / THIRD-OF-FOUR ATLANTA FOURTH-
…FOURTH-OF-FOUR C-A-R-O-L-I-N-A #“C” // FIRST-OF-FOUR #T[ampa]B[ay]
HUGE-IMPROVEMENT[emph] Adverb – Manner/Degree 10-AND-3 / 10-AND-
3[overlap]
C: YES[shake] /
D: SECOND-OF-FOUR NEW-ORLEANS 9-AND-4 NEW-ORLEANS 9-AND-4
FOURTH-OF-FOUR ATLANTA 8-4-AND-1/
D: 8-4-AND-1 TIE …?… THINK ONE TIE YES++++ FOURTH-OF-FOUR
#C[AROLINA] / WAIT // [hand drops] 5-AND-8
C: YES[shake]+++
D: UMM #T[AMPA]-B[AY] IMPROVE[emp] Adverb – Manner/Degree BETTER
DEFENSE WHOLE #T[AMPA]-B[AY] BETTER IX(TB) // KNOW^THAT NOW
Adverb – Time IX(GB) GREEN-B-A-Y(spaceX) #T[AMPA]-B[AY](spaceY)
PHILADELPHIA(spaceZ) SAME(zxy) 10-AND-3 [dm gesture “ok now over here”]
WEST+++ FIRST-OF-FOUR++ #S[an]-F[rancisco]++ 9-AND-4 / SECOND-OF-FOUR
THIRD-OF-FOUR S-T-A-L-L DOWN-HILL 5-AND-8 / THIRD-OF-FOUR++++
ARIZONA 5-AND-8 FOURTH-OF-FOUR SEATTLE S-E-A-T-T-L-E 4-AND-9
C: WOW[overlap]
D: SEATTLE FINISH NOW MEAN PHILADELPHIA FIRST-PLACE #GBAY #SF
REMEMBER YOU
C: YES++++[shake]
D: #OK [dm gesture: that’s that now let’s go over here”] A-F-C EAST FOUR-IN-COMPETITION FIRST-AND-SECOND-
OF-FOUR ENGLAND NEW ENGLAND
M-I-A-M-I LEAD 8-AND-5[held]
C: YES[shake]
D: 8-5 // MOVING-DOWN(to third of four) NEW-YORK G[false start] J-E-T-S
7-AND-6 / FOURTH-OF-FOUR BUFFALO 6-AND-7
C: YES[shake]
114

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix D – Transcription of Conversation Session
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Transcription of Full conversation Between Subject C and Subject D – 50
Minutes
D: FIRST-AND-SECOND-OF-FOUR NEW ENGLAND M-I-A-M-I TIE 8-AND-5 #OK
// [gesture “moving over here”] N-[false start?]A-F-C North FIRST-OF-FOUR
SECOND-OF-FOUR PITTSBURGH / THIRD-OF-FOUR CLEVELAND BALTIMORE
SECOND-AND-THIRD-OF-FOUR++ TIE CLEVELAND AND BALTIMORE TIE
C: B-R-O-W-N-S?
D: IX-[false start] YES++++++++++ // THIRD-OF-FOUR LAST #CINN STINK
WOW!+++ Adverb – Manner/Degree / PITTSBURGH 7[repeats hold] 7-AND-5
“S”[teelers]
C: YES++
D: SECOND-AND-THIRD-OF-FOUR BALTIMORE AND CLEVELAND TIE
7-AND-6 / FOURTH-OF-FOUR #MINN FOURTH-OF-FOUR 0?-AND12
C: WOW+++
D: WELL
C: #CINN TREND-DOWN-UP-DOWN-AND-UP-DRAMATICALLY
D: NO++ #CINN LOUSY ??If it describes the team it’s an adj. If it describes how they
play it’s an adv. ALL-ALONG Adverb – Duration // DON’T-KNOW WELL[overlap]
C: YES+++++[overlap]
D: MOVING-ON-TO-low A-F-C SOUTH FOUR-OF-FOUR FIRST-OF-FOUR++ FIRST-AND-SECOND-OF-FOUR // TWO
TIE I?? T-E-N-N? 8-AND-5 8-AND-5
THIRD-OF-FOUR J? J? 5-AND-8 / FOURTH-OF-FOUR HOUSTON++++ NEW++
TEAM YOU KNOW HOUSTON+++[overlap]
C: YES[shake]
D: 4-AND-9 / NOT-BAD IX(Houston?) MOVING-ON-TO-rt A-F-C WEST+++
FIRST-PLACE OAKLAND++++
C: WHAT-ARE-YOU-SIGNING?[touches D’s signing hand for clarification]
D: OAKLAND++++[simultaneously] [feels C’s hand signing the same, makes
adjustment by extending pinky on C’s hand]
C: OAKLAND++++[simultaneously]
D: MEAN O-A-K-L-A-N-D[overlap]
C: OH-I-SEE++++
D: SAY SIGN OAKLAND+++ PRO1 FOLLOW DEAF PEOPLE FROM OAKLAND[overlap] Adverb – Location
C: OH-I-SEE++++ / OAKLAND++
D: SIGN OAKLAND++++ / WELL ANYWAY ??? FIRST-PLACE OAKLAND 9-
AND-4 NEXT-ONE-IN-LIST SECOND-AND-THIRD-OF-FOUR++++++ D-E-N-V-E-
R AND #SC NO-WAIT WRONG ME / 9-AND-4 NEXT-ONE-IN-LIST #SD #SD 8-
AND-5
C: YES++[shake]++
D: NEXT-ONE-IN-LIST-THIRD-OF-FOUR D-E-N-V-E-R 7-AND-6[held]
C:YES[shake]++
D: FOURTH-OF-FOUR #KC #KC #KC 7-AND-6
C:YES[shake]+++
115

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix D – Transcription of Conversation Session
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Transcription of Full conversation Between Subject C and Subject D – 50
Minutes
D: …?… …. TWO EAST NEW^ENGLAND #MINN FIRST-PLACE 8-AND-5 //
IX(REFERENCE?) PITTSBURGH CLOSE+++(to others in division?) Adverb –
Location // MOVING-DOWN I? AND D-E-N-V-E-R TIE MOVING-(to the West Div.)
OAKLAND WELL …?… YOU
C: YES+++ PRO1 CURIOUS V-U-V[false start] NO-WAIT C-A-C-C BASKETBALL
PRO1 DON’T-KNOW A-C-C BASKETBALL
D: YES+++ YESTERDAY [hesitation] Adverb – Time YESTERDAY Adverb – Time
PRO1 SEE[unique form] …?…
C: YES[shake]++++
D: FIRST ARIZONA 7-AND-0
C: WOW[shake]++
D: SECOND-PLACE A-L-A-B-A-M-A
C: YES[shake]++
D: THIRD-PLACE D-U-K-E
C: YES[shake]++++
D: YOU KNOW D-U-K-E?
C: YES[shake]++++
D: 7-[hesitates] THINK 7-AND-0 7-AND-0 D-U-K-E STILL Adverb – Duration
GOOD[emph] FAR-AHEAD(against team a) Adverb – Manner/Degree FAR-
AHEAD(against team b) Adverb – Manner/Degree …
D:… FAR-AHEAD(against team c) Adverb – Manner/Degree FAR-AHEAD(against
team d) Adverb – Manner/Degree CREAMING-OPPONENT++ GOOD[emph] Adverb –
Manner/Degree IX- [interrupted]
C: LAST-YEAR Adverb – Time CHAMPION I-N-D-I-A-N-A RIGHT?
D: WAVE-NO #MD[overlap]
C: WHAT-DID-YOU-SIGN
D: …#MD #MD…
C: #MD
D: #MD #MD / BEAT #IND
C: YES++++ FORGOT AWFUL Either adj or adv depending what it modifies (the team
or their playing WOW!
D: YOU FORGOT YOU[overlap]
C: #MD[overlap] / #MD #MD THAT++ WON #MD / THINK SAME #IND[overlap]
D: YES++++ / NO+++ / #MD CATCH-UP #IND FOR CHAMPION GAME IX
C: YES[shake]+++++
D: #MD BEAT #IND
C: YES[shake]++
D: SPAN-OF-TIME FUNNY THAT ONE-WEEK-AGO Adverb – Time #IND
CRUSHED #MD ONE-WEEK-AGO Adverb – Time
C: YES[shake]++++
D: FUNNY WELL / #MD TRAVEL-DOWN-FAR Adverb – Place
C: WOW[shake]++++
116

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix D – Transcription of Conversation Session
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Transcription of Full conversation Between Subject C and Subject D – 50
Minutes
D: PRO1 THINK 18++++ #MD #MD IS MORE++ Adverb – Manner/Degree
18+++++++++++ PRO1 IX PRO1 PREDICT YESTERDAY Adverb – Time FIRST
ARIZONA++ OUTSTANDING[emph] Adverb – Manner/Degree WOW!+++ Adverb –
Manner/Degree // PRO1 PREDICT ARIZONA WILL GET N-C-A-A CHAMPION
INFORM(you) // [punch on the leg] // YES+++
C: MEAN ARIZONA A-R-I-Z-O-N-A?
D: YES++++++
C: NEW[emph] Adverb – Manner/Degree WOW!++++ Adverb – Manner/Degree
D: YES+++++ SAME STRONG Adverb – Manner/Degree LAST-YEAR Adverb – Time
2-YEARS-AGO Adverb – Time 3-YEARS-AGO Adverb – Time ARIZONA STRONG
STRONG STRONG Adverb – Manner/Degree ALL-ALONG Adverb – Duration YES++
GOOD C-O-A-C-H [held]
C: YES++++
D: NAME++ L—U—K—E C-O-L-S-O-N ONE #OF GOOD MOST C-O-A-C-H-E-S IN
U-S-A Adverb – Place INFORM(you) GOOD IX(Colson) NO-MATTER FIRST
ARIZONA SECOND #ALA ALABAMA THIRD D-U-K-E …?…
C: YES[shake]++
D: …FOURTH+++ UMM PRO1 FORGOT FOUR WELL CAN’T REMEMBER //
REMEMBER++ FOUR / FIFTH UMM REMEMBER++ NOTRE-DAME+++
HOT![emph] Adverb – Manner/Degree DEFEAT(a,b,c) THREE GOOD TEAM LAST-
WEEK Adverb – Time NOTRE-DAME DEFEAT #MD / DEFEAT UMM [Transcription
Note: cannot see the sign from the video] SUNDAY WEEK-END Adverb – Time THAT
TIME Adverb – Time [Transcription Note: cannot see the sign from the video] WAS
NUMBER TWO NOTRE-DAME BEAT(them)
C: WOW+++
D: NOTRE-DAME MOVE-UP-THROUGH-RANKS MOVE-UP-THROUGH-RANKS-
TO NUMBER 10++++++++++++++ Adverbial – Location // PRO1 REMEMBER
[Transcription Note: cannot see the sign from the video] THIRD D-U-K-E / MOVE-
FURTHER-DOWN 7+++++++ #IND /
C: YES[shake]+
D: #IND // MOVE-FURTHER-DOWN / 10++ NOTRE-DAME / MOVE-FURTHER-
DOWN MY+++ FAVORITE+++ M-A-R-Q-U-E-T-T-E[overlap]…
C: YES[shake]++++
D: …NUMBER 16+++++++++++
C: YES[shake]++
D: MOVE-FURTHER-DOWN #MD #MD NUMBER 18++++++++++ WELL
C: #UVA #UVA?
D: NO NONE++++++++
C: DOWNHILL
D: NOT ON TOP 25 Adverb – Location NOT ON 25 Adverb – Location NOT-YET
Adverb – Time
C: READ #UVA #VA T-E-C-H FOOTBALL WEAK
117

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix D – Transcription of Conversation Session
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Transcription of Full conversation Between Subject C and Subject D – 50
Minutes
D: YES++ UMM WIN #VA TECH CRUSH #UVA RIGHT? TWO-WEEKS-AGO
Adverb – Time
C: YES++
D: YES+++
C: WELL
D: HOLD-ON-A-SEC BUT #UVA GOOD YEAR IX(UVA) WAIT FOR NEW HEAD
C-O-A-C-H / YOU KNOW THAT / YOU KNOW #UVA HAVE NEW HEAD
COACH?
C: YES++ / DON’T-KNOW OLD NAME W-A-L-S-H[overlap]
D: RETIRED[overlap]
C: LONG-TIME-AGO Adverb – Time YES++++++[overlap]
D: FINISH
C: YES++++
D: THEN Adverb – Time / YOU MAN NAME+++ STRANGE LAST NAME++ A-S-
[false start] UMM FUNNY NAME #AL S-T-U-P-P-O-H S-T-O-H THINK IX(coach)
LONG-AGO PLAY FOR #UVA UNDER W-A-L-S-H LONG-AGO IX(coach) LONG-
AGO AROUND 1980 Adverb – Time AROUND [false start] IX(coach) LEFT / PLAY
FOOTBALL / LATER Adverb – Time BECOME HEAD C-O-A-C-H #NY JETS #BUT
FOUND-OUT IX(Walsh) W-A-L-S-H RETIRED IX(Stroh) A-S-T-R-O-H S-T-R-O-
H…WELL-WHATEVER VOLUNTEER BACK START BUILDING THEN Adverb –
Time #UVA IX LOOK GOOD YES++ Adverb – Manner/Degree
C: NEXT-YEAR[unattended] Adverb – Time NEXT-YEAR Adverb – Time Adverb – Frequency
D: WHAT OTHER S-P-O-R-T-S YOU KNOW?
C: UMM UMM B-I-G E[AST]
D: [taps leg for clarification]
C: B-I-G E[AST] U-V[false start] #UT #UVA-TECH B-I-G E[AST]
D: HEY IX DON’T-KNOW / IX[term Big E] NAME WELL?
C: B-[false start] NAME W-E-L-S-H MEAN B-I-G E[AST] FIRST SECOND
D: HOLD-ON B-I-G EAST[emph] YES++++++++[overlap]
C: YES++++++[overlap]
D: BASKETBALL #OR FOOTBALL WHICH YOU?
C: BOTH [taps for attention] / TIME RUN-OUT [checks watch] 12:10 12:10
D: IX[thumb] YES+++
118

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix E – Consent Form
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
E. Appendix E – Consent Form
Union Institute & University
440 E. McMillan Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45206-1925
513.861.6400 / 800.486.3116
TDD 800.486.9968 / Fax 513.861.0779
DOCTORAL PROGRAM
INFORMED CONSENT FORM
RESEARCH WITH HUMAN SUBJECTS
Date:
Study Of: Tactile Sign Language Linguistic Aspect of Adverbial Morphemes.
Dear Research Participant:
I am conducting a study of linguistics aspect of Tactile Sign Language as part of my Ph.D.
program in Communication at the Doctoral Program of Union Institute & University. Your
participation in this research project will increase our understanding of the cultural aspects of
linguistics in Tactile American Sign Language and will help in the future by making a
contribution to the Deaf-Blind and interpreting communities.
During this research study, you will be observed. Your involvement will require about ninety
minutes of your time. After the research is completed, I will forward to you by mail a summary
of my findings and implications.
I am not aware of any risks involved in participation of this project. In fact, it should be an
enjoyable experience for you. You will be identified by number and not by name. All responses
will be confidential, and your name will not be used in any report regarding this research. You
are free to decline to participate or to withdraw at any time.
119

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix E – Consent Form
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
If you have any questions about this study, please contact me at (2026515450). Please leave a
message if I am not immediately available. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Steven D. Collins
I,___________________________________________), consent to participate in the
(participant- name)
study of Tactile Sign Language, conducted by Steven D. Collins
I understand that I may refuse to participate or withdraw from this study at any time. I
understand that all responses will be confidential. I understand that I may direct questions about
this project to Steven D. Collins.
Participant’s Name and Signature
___________________________
Date
120

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix E – Consent Form
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Union Institute & University
440 E. McMillan Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45206-1925
513.861.6400 / 800.486.3116
TDD 800.486.9968 / Fax 513.861.0779
DOCTORAL PROGRAM
INFORMED CONSENT FORM
RESEARCH WITH HUMAN SUBJECTS
Consent Form
Steven D. Collins and Union Institute and University
I hereby give permission for the videotapes or digital media and written information obtained
during this interview to be used for research purposes. I understand that I can withdraw from
participation at any time with no penalty. I understand that this information may be included in
research publications and presentations and that the videotapes or digital media may be shown
during presentations about the project. In addition, selected segments of the videotapes/digital
media will be used in the preparation of comprehensive videotapes or digital media about the
project, or training materials that will be based on research findings. I understand that neither I
nor anyone I mention during this interview will be identified by name in any publication or
presentation.
(name print)
(signature)
(date)
121

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix F – Informant Background Information
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
F. Appendix F – Informant Background Information
Informant Background Information
Name: _________________________________________________
Address: ______________________________________________
City: _______________________ State: _______________Zip: _________________
Phone No. : _______________________________________________
(area code)
Education information
1. When you were in elementary school, were you at:
a. Deaf Institute
b. Hearing school
i. With interpreter
ii. Without interpreter
c. Mainstream program
i. With interpreter
ii. Without interpreter
iii. Only with special group
d. None
e. Other: _____________________
2. When you were in elementary school, which communication did you use:
a. Oral
b. Contact Sign (PSE)
c. Sign English
d. ASL
e. Other: __________________
122

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix F – Informant Background Information
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. When you were in middle school, were you at:
a. Deaf Institute
b. Hearing school
i. With interpreter
ii. Without interpreter
c. Mainstream program
i. With interpreter
ii. Without interpreter
iii. Only with special group
d. None
e. Other: _____________________
4. When you were in High School, were you at:
a. Deaf Institute
b. Hearing school
i. With interpreter
ii. Without interpreter
c. Mainstream program
i. With interpreter
ii. Without interpreter
iii. Only with special group
d. None
e. Other: _____________________
5. Were you attend any college? Yes/No
a. If yes, Which degree do you get?
i. Associate of Art
ii. Bachelor of Art
iii. Bachelor of Science
iv. Masters of Art
v. Doctorate
6. If you were graduate from a college, What major were you in?
a. ___________________________
Personal Information
7. When you were born, which category were you identify?
a. Deaf
b. Hard of hearing
c. Hearing
123

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix F – Informant Background Information
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
8. If you born hearing, what age did you lose your hearing?
a. 0 – 5
b. 5-10
c. 10-15
d. 15-30
e. 30-35
f. 35-40
g. 40-45
h. 45-50
i. 50-60
j. 60-over
9. What vision do you have when you born?
a. Sighted
b. Visual impairment
c. Blind
d. Unknown
10. If you were born sighted, what age did you identify that you have visual problem?
a. 0 – 5
b. 5-10
c. 10-15
d. 15-30
e. 30-35
f. 35-40
g. 40-45
h. 45-50
i. 50-60
j. 60-over
11. How do you find out you have visual problem?
a. By doctor
b. By friend
c. By family members
12. What kind of visual problem do you have?
a. Ushers Syndrome
i. Type: ______
b. Optical Atrophy
c. Other: ___________________
124

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix F – Informant Background Information
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
13. Do you feel you are part of Deaf community?
a. Yes
b. No
14. Do you feel you are reject by Deaf Community because of DeafBlind?
a. Yes
b. No
15. Are you culturally part of DeafBlind community?
a. Yes
b. No
16. Do you consider yourself a culturally deafblind person?
a. Yes
b. No
Family History
17. Do you have Deaf or DeafBlind relatives?
a. Yes
b. No
18. Does your family sign?
a. Yes
b. No
19. Does your family accept your visual problem?
a. Yes
b. No
20. How long does your family accept you, if any?
a. Years: _____________
Communication
21. At what age do you learn sign?
a. Age: ___________
22. At what age do you start to use tactile?
a. Age: __________
23. How often do you use tactile currently?
a. At all the time
b. Sometimes
c. Night Only
125

PDE – Steven D. Collins
Appendix F – Informant Background Information
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
24. How often do you communicate with another deafblind people who depend on tactile?
a. Daily
b. Once in a while
c. Night only
126