Morrison’s Space: A DeafBlind Activist

DeafBlind Interpreting vs. ASL Interpreting

DeafBlind Interpreting and ASL Interpreting: Distinct Linguistic, Cultural, and Modal Practices

April 27, 2026

By Morrison

The persistent conflation of American Sign Language (ASL) interpreting with DeafBlind interpreting reflects a broader misunderstanding of the linguistic, cultural, and sensory foundations that differentiate these two professions. Although both forms of interpreting operate within communities that “appear” to have similarities when in fact they are grounded in fundamentally different modalities, theoretical frameworks, cultural and communicative priorities. Treating them as interchangeable obscures (difficult for most to understand) the specialized competencies required for DeafBlind access and contributes to systemic inequities in service provision.

ASL interpreting is rooted in the visual‑spatial grammar of ASL and relies on the parameters of handshape, movement, location, palm orientation, and non‑manual signals. These features are expressed in air space and are designed to be perceived visually by Deaf, sighted signers. ASL interpreters are trained to listen to spoken English, translate it into ASL, and convey tone, affect, and discourse structure through facial expressions, eye gaze, spatial mapping, and other visual cues. The modality presupposes access to visual information and assumes that the receiver can track subtle shifts in expression, movement, and spatial organization. As such, ASL interpreting is not inherently designed for DeafBlind individuals, particularly those who rely on tactile or low‑vision modalities.

DeafBlind interpreting, by contrast, constitutes a distinct linguistic and cultural practice grounded in Protactile philosophy and tactile language. Protactile theory reconceptualizes communication as a contact-space, contact‑based, co-presence relational process in which meaning is constructed through touch, shared tactile attention, and continuous sensory grounding. They incorporate this approach for those with low vision. DeafBlind interpreters (DBIs) are trained to work through tactile modalities, integrating linguistic content with environmental, relational, and affective information that is inaccessible through visual channels. Their work is not a modification of ASL. It is an entirely distinct language that is transformed into a DeafBlind‑centered modality.

A common misassumption is that DBIs “copy” or “mirror” the ASL produced by hearing interpreters or ASL interpreters. This assumption reflects a visual‑centric understanding of language and fails to account for the linguistic shift that occurs when information is rendered tactilely or through a low vision based modality. DBIs do not reproduce ASL parameters; rather, they re‑render the message using Protactile principles such as continuous contact, reciprocal feedback, tactile affect, and environmental mapping and feedback. For example, where an ASL interpreter conveys sarcasm through facial expression, a DBI may communicate the same effect through changes in pressure, rhythm, or movement through touch. Or, for a low vision person, they will ensure to incorporate this information using a mixed approach that’s aligned with the Protactile philosophy. Where ASL uses spatial referencing in air space, a DBI maps spatial relationships through touch. When a speaker smiles, frowns, leans forward, or displays tension, the DBI conveys these cues through tactile description or tactile affective markers. This process is not duplication but linguistic transformation grounded in a different modality. Here’s an example: 

A person is laughing. 

ASL: Person laugh laugh (signs laughing and incorporates the facial expression of this mannerism)

Protactile: (on DB’s body, with consent) Person (on leg or on upper corner of chest), scratch scratch (laughing, the intensity of this shows how’s the person is laughing)

Environmental information represents one of the most significant distinctions between the two practices. ASL interpreters convey environmental cues visually, often implicitly, through facial expressions, body shifts, and spatial organization. DeafBlind interpreters must make this information explicit and tactile via contact space. They provide continuous updates about who is present, how individuals appear, where they are positioned, how the room feels, and what movements or changes occur in the environment. This information is not ancillary; it is integral to DeafBlind access, as it situates linguistic content within the broader sensory and relational context in which communication occurs.

The Rationale for the Term “DeafBlind Interpreter (DBI)”

The term DeafBlind interpreter (DBI) is used deliberately to reflect both the scope of the work and the diversity of the DeafBlind community itself. DeafBlind individuals do not constitute a monolithic group; they represent a wide range of sensory profiles, communication preferences, cultural identities, and linguistic practices. Some rely primarily on tactile language, others on close‑vision or low‑vision modalities, and many shift between modalities depending on context, setting, fatigue, lighting, or health. The term “DBI” acknowledges this diversity and affirms that interpreting for DeafBlind individuals requires a flexible, multimodal, and culturally grounded approach that cannot be reduced to a single linguistic system. However, it is rooted in Protactile theory and its principles. 

While Protactile language is central to contemporary DeafBlind communication, DBI work extends beyond Protactile alone. DBIs must be able to navigate across tactile language, contact space, close‑vision support, and low‑vision adaptations. They must also demonstrate proficiency in DeafBlind etiquette, relational norms, and environmental inclusion practices. Their work involves integrating the DeafBlind individual into the physical and social environment by providing continuous updates about who is present, how individuals appear, what activities are occurring, and how the environment is shifting. This includes conveying affective information, spatial relationships, and social dynamics that are not accessible through visual channels. The term “Protactile interpreter” would inaccurately narrow the scope of the work to a single modality and obscure the broader linguistic and cultural competencies required. Additionally, there have been an issue with interpreters falsely claiming they are “Protactile Interpreters” or know Protactile, when in fact they do not. There are ASL Interpreters taking on this role when they do not have the experience (except for a workshop here and there) which does not qualify them for the job. There are very few people, in which the Protactile based DeafBlind community knows who are considered as legitimate Pt interpreters. There may be those who have pursued the Protactile Language Institute Training program, but don’t adhere to its’ Protactile roots. The next paragraph will review this further…

The distinction between DBIs and interpreters who are not trained in DeafBlind practice becomes evident in their behavior. Interpreters who claim familiarity with Protactile principles but lack formal training often reveal this through visual‑centric habits. For example, waving to a DeafBlind person from across the room rather than approaching and establishing contact through a shoulder tap demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of DeafBlind relational norms. Or some will show up on the job, but don’t make themselves known to be present. Similarly, asking whether a DeafBlind person can “see them,” failing to maintain contact during communication, or neglecting to include the DeafBlind individual in the spatial and social environment reflects a lack of grounding in DeafBlind etiquette. These behaviors are inconsistent with Protactile philosophy and highlight the difference between interpreters who have merely encountered Protactile concepts and those who have internalized the linguistic, cultural, and sensory foundations of DeafBlind communication.

DBIs, by contrast, demonstrate a fundamentally different orientation to communication. They approach DeafBlind individuals through touch, establish immediate relational grounding, and maintain contact throughout the interaction. They incorporate environmental information continuously, not as an afterthought. They understand how to shift between tactile, close‑vision, and low‑vision modalities based on the DeafBlind person’s needs and the demands of the setting. Their practice is informed by Protactile principles such as co‑presence, shared tactile attention, and reciprocal feedback, but it is not limited to Protactile alone. The term “DeafBlind interpreter” therefore more accurately captures the full range of competencies required and affirms the linguistic and cultural diversity within the DeafBlind community.

Because DeafBlind interpreting is a distinct linguistic and cultural practice, the screening and qualification of DBIs cannot be conducted using ASL‑centric standards. Agencies and institutions often attempt to evaluate DBIs using criteria developed for ASL interpreters, resulting in inappropriate placements and inadequate access. Qualified screening must be conducted by DeafBlind Protactile educators, individuals who use touch, Protactile language, and DeafBlind cultural frameworks in their daily lives and who possess the linguistic and sensory expertise necessary to assess DBI competency. These educators are uniquely positioned to evaluate whether an interpreter demonstrates proficiency in tactile language, environmental tracking, co‑presence, sensory grounding, and Protactile principles. Without this expertise, agencies cannot reliably determine whether an interpreter is prepared to work with DeafBlind individuals.

The distinction between ASL interpreting and DeafBlind interpreting underscores the need for structural recognition of DeafBlind interpreting as its own profession. Just as not all hearing or Deaf interpreters are trained for ASL, not all Deaf and hearing interpreters are trained for DeafBlind work. Being Deaf does not inherently confer competency in tactile language, Protactile philosophy, or DeafBlind cultural practices. DeafBlind interpreting requires specialized training, sustained practice, and a deep understanding of the sensory and relational dimensions of DeafBlind communication.

Recognizing these distinctions is essential for ensuring equitable access. When DeafBlind interpreting is treated as a subset of ASL interpreting, DeafBlind individuals are routinely provided with interpreters who lack the necessary training, resulting in incomplete, inaccurate, or unsafe communication. When DeafBlind interpreting is understood as a distinct linguistic and cultural practice, service providers can secure appropriate DBIs, institutions can develop accurate policies, and DeafBlind individuals can participate fully and equitably in their environments.