Exploring Academic Language in ASL and English: Insights from Dr. Raychelle Harris

Raychelle Harris, PhD, introduces the concept of academic language, emphasizing that it encompasses the expectations and norms for language use in academic settings, as noted by Cazden (2001). This language is not limited to formal education but can occur in various social contexts.

Harris explains that academic language varies significantly across disciplines such as biology, physics, and social work. Each discipline has unique norms and expectations, and what is acceptable in one may be prohibited in another, highlighting the importance of understanding these differences.

Academic language is not confined to classrooms or universities; it can be found in diverse settings like churches, bars, and playgrounds. The essential requirement for academic discourse is the presence of at least two individuals engaging in conversation, as defined by Gee (2004).

Harris discusses the evolution of academic language in both ASL and English, noting that it has developed over many years through contributions from experts, such as philosophers. These experts have established norms and expectations, which newcomers learn to emulate through practice and engagement.

Typical academic work in ASL can be found in various publications and platforms, including the Deaf Studies Digital Journal and TEDxGallaudet. However, Harris points out that the presenters in these contexts are often white, abled, and sighted, which raises concerns about representation and inclusivity in academic ASL.

Harris elaborates on the concept of language register in ASL, identifying five distinct registers: frozen, formal, consultative, casual, and intimate. Academic language predominantly occurs in the formal, consultative, and casual registers, while the intimate register is rarely used in academic contexts.

James Paul Gee, a prominent researcher, has published extensively on academic language, offering insights that contribute to the understanding of how academic language functions across different contexts and disciplines.

The speaker discusses James Paul Gee's theoretical framework for academic language, emphasizing its applicability to various specialized discourses, including American Sign Language (ASL), religious signs, automotive mechanics, and fishing terminology. Gee argues that all specialized discourses are equally important and complex, countering the societal notion that academic language holds a superior status due to its association with higher education and prestigious careers.

The speaker highlights the intuitive knowledge that students and teachers possess regarding acceptable academic language. This knowledge can be categorized into two main areas: 'form' and 'function'. 'Form' encompasses visible features such as posture, attire, and presentation background, while 'function' relates to the cognitive intent and adaptability of the presenter based on the audience's familiarity with the topic.

The distinction between 'form' and 'function' is further elaborated through analogies. 'Form' refers to the visible aspects of a presentation, such as the overall format of a paper or the clarity of signing, while 'function' involves the organization and effectiveness of the content. The speaker emphasizes that mastering both aspects is crucial for successful academic communication, illustrating that a presenter may excel in one area while struggling in another.

The discussion shifts to the specific features of academic language, particularly in signing. The speaker introduces phonology, a subset of linguistics that examines handshape, movement, location, orientation, and non-manual grammar, as essential components of academic signing. This focus on language features aims to clarify what constitutes effective academic communication in sign language.

The presenter demonstrates the casual and formal signs for 'KNOW', highlighting the differences in phonological structure. In a classroom setting, the casual sign may be more acceptable during fast-paced discussions, while the formal sign is preferred for video recordings intended for formal publications.

The discussion introduces 'fillers', which are gestures or sounds like 'umm' or 'ahh' used to fill gaps in thought processes. In signed discourse, fillers manifest as hand movements attempting to grasp the next thought. While fillers are common in live presentations, they are deemed unacceptable in formal video recordings, where they can be edited out.

Non-manual signals (NMS), such as eyebrow grammar, are crucial in ASL for indicating sentence types, including conditionals and wh-questions. The presenter argues that NMS is not restrained in academic discourse; rather, it is more precise and emphasized in formal settings. Differences in NMS usage between casual and formal registers are noted, particularly in how certain expressions, like showing the tongue, vary.

The presenter emphasizes the importance of sign choices in academic presentations, noting that casual signs like 'WHOA' or 'SICK-YOU' are generally inappropriate unless quoted directly from a source. Formal sign choices, such as 'Research shows' or 'An analysis of the research', are preferred in academic discourse, reflecting a marked reduction in the use of first-person pronouns, similar to trends in English academic language.

The presenter raises questions about the prevalence of fingerspelling in academic ASL compared to casual conversations, suggesting that certain discipline-specific terms in fields like Biology or Linguistics may require fingerspelling due to the absence of established signs. This indicates a potential increase in fingerspelling in academic settings, warranting further research.

The discussion concludes with the observation that academic discourse tends to utilize more complete sentences, which are harder to identify in signed communication compared to written language. The presenter notes that disruptions in topic flow can lead to confusion, emphasizing the need for organized presentations that maintain clarity and coherence.

The discussion begins with the assertion that academic discourses may utilize more complex sentences than casual conversations. Examples of complex sentences are provided, including wh-questions, rhetorical questions, relative clauses, and conditionals. Raychelle demonstrates these with sentences like 'The liquid is being poured into this cylinder' and 'If pouring the liquid in the cylinder causes an explosive reaction, use this canister.' The conclusion drawn is that casual conversations also incorporate complex sentences frequently, challenging the assumption that academic discourse is more complex.

Raychelle transitions to discussing the role of pausing and transitions in academic discourse. She illustrates how pauses evoke a sense of structure akin to paragraphs in academic essays, contrasting this with the more casual transitions found in everyday conversations, such as 'eventually' or 'later.' Academic discourse employs formal pauses and transitions, demonstrated through her use of ASL, which includes rhythmic pauses and specific hand movements. The structured nature of academic transitions is emphasized, highlighting the differences in timing and salience compared to casual conversations.

The focus shifts to emotive markers, or facial expressions, which differ from facial grammar. Raychelle explains that while grammar follows strict rules, emotive markers express emotions like happiness or frustration. In academic discourse, these markers are often restrained, with emotional expressions being less common unless quoted directly or used to explain a situation. In contrast, emotive markers are more suitable for casual conversations, literature, and performances, indicating a clear distinction in their appropriateness across different contexts.

Raychelle discusses the frequent use of space in academic discourse, which aids in making dense content accessible to the audience. She describes how space is utilized to categorize concepts visually, enhancing understanding. For instance, she illustrates the water cycle using a vertical signing plane to depict precipitation, condensation, and evaporation. The use of space is not limited to the signing plane; presenters can also move to establish timelines or compare concepts, demonstrating the efficiency and purposefulness of spatial movement in academic signing.

The final point addresses the expectation of an authoritative tone in academic discourse, both in writing and signing. Raychelle emphasizes that academic writers and signers are expected to convey authority, confidence, and assertiveness, avoiding any semblance of apprehension or uncertainty. This authoritative tone is crucial for effectively presenting academic information, reinforcing the standards of academic communication.

In academic signing, speakers are expected to convey information confidently, as demonstrated by Raychelle's crisp signing that reflects expertise. In contrast, her unsure and awkward signing illustrates a lack of confidence, which is not characteristic of academic discourse. Academic language functions include comparing, inferring, synthesizing, analyzing, describing, and evaluating, while casual discourse involves functions like introducing and making requests.

A key feature of academic language is emotional detachment. Raychelle's emotional attachment to her topic is evident when she uses phrases like 'You must' and 'Children who don't read- that's a catastrophe!' This emotional connection is more suitable for casual conversations rather than academic presentations, which require a neutral demeanor. Academic discourse demands presenters to discuss all perspectives without emotional bias, as seen in Raychelle's attempt to maintain a stoic expression while discussing research findings.

Eye gaze is a crucial grammatical component in signed academic languages, unlike in spoken or written modalities where it is not required. Raychelle demonstrates different types of eye gaze: 'A-gaze' for large audiences, 'group-gaze' for smaller groups, and 'individual gaze' for direct engagement. Each gaze type serves a specific purpose in academic settings, and presenters must adapt their eye gaze according to the audience size and context.

To become fluent in academic discourse, Gee (2004) suggests engaging with skilled users in a 'social practice.' This involves attending classes, participating in academic conversations, and learning from feedback. Strategies for improvement include analyzing one's own signing, watching others, and listening to recorded academic lectures. As students progress from their freshman to senior years, they will refine their general academic skills and specialize in their specific fields.