Study Notes on the Effects of the Pro-Tactile Movement on Tactile American Sign Language

Examination of divergence in sublexical structure between Visual American Sign Language (VASL) and Tactile American Sign Language (TASL).
Central claim: TASL is a distinct language rather than merely a relay for VASL.
Analysis of interaction structure changes driven by the pro-tactile movement, contributing to complexity redistribution across grammatical subsystems.
Emergence of a new tactile language signifies a contextual integration rather than liberation from context.

The article discusses how the sublexical structure of VASL and TASL has diverged.
Central claim that TASL is a legitimate language.
Changes in interaction structure, influenced by the pro-tactile movement, lead to different grammatical subsystems.
Language emergence is framed within the context of integration, not liberation, drawing on concepts from Hanks (2005a) and Edwards (2012).

In both spoken and signed languages, morphemes consist of repeatable, meaningless elements combinable in arbitrary, language-specific ways.
Sublexical: Refers to meaningless elements that combine in rule-governed ways to form lexical signs.
Lexical signs have contrastive handshapes, locations, and movements that vary cross-linguistically.

Studies addressing social foundations of language emergence: Fusellier-Souza (2006), Nonaka (2007), R.J. Senghas (2003), Zeshan and de Vos (2012).

Prior to the pro-tactile movement, DeafBlind communication relied heavily on sighted interpreters, described as "accommodations" and "adjustments" (Collins and Petronio, 1998; Collins, 2004; Petronio and Dively, 2006).
Collins (2004): TASL is a dialect of signed language.
Petronio and Dively (2006): defines TASL as a variation of ASL used specifically within the DeafBlind community.
Seattle DeafBlind community established conventions for direct tactile communication recently.

Most from the Seattle DeafBlind community are born deaf, losing vision later in life due to genetic conditions.
They attempt to maintain engagement in visual fields, contributing to ineffective communication methods.
Pro-tactile movement initiated changes in community communication styles, fostering tactile interaction.

20 pro-tactile workshops in spring 2011 with 11 participants, without interpreters.
Each participant, regardless of sight, required to communicate tactually, triggering significant grammatical divergence.

DeafBlind individuals transitioned from visual communication to tactile under the influence of the pro-tactile movement.
Bourdieu’s notion of Habitus:
- Habitus: Shaped by social and historical patterns, influencing perception, thought, and action across life.
- Forms a ground for common sense, responses rooted in social constructs.
Field: Encompasses social organization and the process through which actors occupy positions.

Semantic Field: Structured sets defining cohesive meanings.
Deictic Field: Describes agents' relationships to communicative frameworks, objects, and access dimensions.
Social Field: Relates to social roles and historical processes of interaction in social structures.

Giddens noted social actors possess practical, discursive consciousness, facilitating different levels of awareness in meaningful interactions.
Kockelman categorizes interpretants as affective, energetic, and representational, relating to embodied responses.

A foundational process where form-meaning correspondences undergo reshaping as values are integrated from social and deictic fields.
Mechanisms of Embedding: Practical equivalences, counterparts, rules of thumb, and integration, specifically addressed for the transformation of language properties.

DeafBlind individuals historically depended on sighted interpreters, which greatly fragmented their interaction capabilities.
Interactions became mere representations, fostering feelings of disconnection.

Pro-tactile workshops fostered tactile sensibilities through new communication conventions, leading to a redefined participant framework.
Effective and reciprocal tactile communication frameworks solidified.
Changes influenced linguistic system structure, leading to complexity redistribution in sublexical components.

Framework shifts during workshops encouraged attention to two competing interaction roles (e.g., "speaker-addressee" vs "speaker-addressees").
Weight of the non-dominant hand began to shift as tactile interaction evolved to address complexities in multi-person configurations.

Variations of two-handed signs adapted to new functional communication needs in TASL, shifting from VASL norms.
Gradually, signers adopted these changes, with instructors modeling the adjustment process.
Overall patterns indicated a minimization of complexity in TASL (e.g. all hands must perform symmetrical roles).

The pro-tactile movement prompted a reevaluation of norms in DeafBlind communication, allowing tactile modalities to reclaim legitimacy.
This transformation facilitated a shift towards tactile language recognition, framing TASL construction as a language fully embedded in sociocultural contexts.

Further research is proposed on the nature of language emergence under social influences, especially as related to tactile modalities.
Continued exploration of integration, emphasizing the coexistence of language structures with their contextual environments.