1

Rhetorical Analysis of Digital Media in the Deaf Community

Rachel S. Leavitt

University of Central Florida

ENC 1102: English Composition

Professor Mooney

April 12, 2020

 2

Linguist Ann Johns describes communities of practice as individuals who "share genre,

language, values, concepts, and ‘ways of being’” (322). Upon hearing this definition and

learning more about involuntary discourse communities that shape an individual’s life, I knew

that I wanted to research the Deaf community. From my own prior knowledge, I understood that

Deaf individuals encompass their own culture community through the shared use of language

(American Sign Language), values, and ways of being. I recognized certain themes recurring

throughout my secondary research: the communication barrier between signed and spoken

languages, visual rhetoric, and activism. I was interested in investigating the unique perspective

of the Deaf, focusing on the integration of technology and how it has helped this community by

educating outsiders and providing a sense of community for its members.

Having already been familiar with the history of American Sign Language, I knew that

the Deaf community has a history of being overlooked by the majority hearing society, in part

due to the face-to-face communication barrier imposed between these communities. Keeping this

in mind while collecting my sources, I noted the gap in research done exploring the influence of

digital media use in the Deaf community. This could be attributed to the limited academic

conversation from the Deaf perspective as a whole or the relative newness of digital technology

and its widespread use. I believe that the rise of the digital age has transformed minority

communities by providing members with a platform to tell their story and the Deaf community is

no exception. This is why I wanted to ask the question: how do different digital texts influence

communication for the Deaf community?

In particular I was interested in how digital technology might alleviate the deaf-to-

hearing communication barrier. In Schneider's article, The Effects of Electronic Communication

on American Sign Language, it is revealed that “e-com acronyms” made popular by the
 3

widespread use of digital media, such as “LOL”, were found to be present in Deaf ASL users’

signed lexicon (p. 366). This shows that the use of electronic communication has been integrated

into Deaf culture Given this evidence, it is clear that the obstacles of communication between

Deaf and hearing can be mitigated through the use of text-based digital media. Another article I

chose discussing this barrier was Pizer’s article exploring communication between CODAs and

their parents (CODA refers to hearing children of Deaf adults). Their survey collected qualitative

data relating to language ideologies and found that an important factor for both Deaf parents and

hearing children alike is the amount of effort each party gives in learning to communicate with

one another (p. 90).

Downs explains in his article that our physical bodies influence our daily communication,

as they “contain our embodied sensory apparatus for perceiving and filtering signals our physical

surroundings generate.” (p. 461). This is significant to my research because this concept of

rhetorical embodiment is displayed differently in the Deaf community, as they experience and

perceive the world in a unique way when compared to the hearing community. This could

potentially be explored through multimodal analysis of YouTube ASL music videos, where ASL

users sign the lyrics of a popular song on-screen while the music plays in the background.

The focus in most of my sources was on visual rhetoric, as signed language is known to

be more visual. In Butler’s article, it’s explained that ASL is based upon movement and

interpretation of hand gestures and facial expressions. “This visual-spatial communication shapes

the Deaf cultural values placed on maintaining eye contact and connections between bodies.” (p.

292). In other words, Butler’s research recognized that cultural differences exist between hearing

and deaf people simply due to the nature in which they communicate, respectively. While these

differences in communication are still relevant to the deaf/hearing communication barrier, they
 4

pertain solely to face-to-face communication. That being said, it is possible that the text-based

nature of digital communication has the potential to set up a dialogue between these two groups.

Both Ellcessor and Brueggemann’s articles discussed the perception of the Deaf

community from the outside looking in, with Ellcessor focusing on the American media.

Ellcessor demonstrated how the hearing community has used the visibility of American sign

language for entertainment purposes, mocking the “flamboyant and distracting” nature of ASL,

providing screencaps of a popular TV show segment making fun of sign language interpretation.

(p. 592). Similarly, Brueggemann’s article discussed deaf perception with the rhetoric that

oppresses deaf individuals by marking them as “disabled” (p. 417). I found this research helpful

as it sheds light on how the Deaf are portrayed outside their community, as well as the

frustrations they face due to ignorance surrounding Deafness. Additionally, In Deaf

Epistemology: Deafhood and Deafness, Hauser et al explain that societal perception toward

deafness and audism (the belief that able-bodied individuals are superior), contribute to the poor

self-esteem of deaf children (p. 490). Their research goes on to detail how this negative self-

image can cause what they call “failure syndrome”, impeding the child’s ability to learn English

despite having the aptitude to learn it successfully.

The main purpose of my researched article is to help fill the gap in the academic

conversation regarding rhetoric used in the Deaf community online, while also supporting the

argument that the communication barrier between signed and spoken languages does exist but

could be mitigated through the use of technology. After conducting my multimodal textual

analysis of three different social media platforms, I found that each of their posts was relevant to

issues facing the Deaf community—issues I recognized from conducting my secondary research.
 5

Methods

In order to adequately explore the Deaf community’s online presence, I utilized a

multimodal textual analysis and chose posts from Twitter, Instagram and YouTube to get a sense

of the problems or topics being addressed in the Deaf community. I collected the YouTube data

first, adhering to a randomized method of selection. I searched for keywords “ASL music video”

and chose one that incorporated dynamic captioning. The next platform I explored was Twitter,

where I simply searched for accounts that were associated with the keyword “deaf”, either in the

description of their account or in their usernames, and narrowed them down based on subject and

positive community engagement—which I felt was a necessary indicator of the Deaf

community’s perspective on these accounts.

Despite gathering enough primary research to rhetorically assess various posts from each

site, I did recognize some limitations with my research, mainly the generalizability. While the

reach of the Deaf community encompasses a large expanse of online space, I was limited to only

choosing up to five posts that would reflect the current state of the Deaf community in regard to

the issues they were spreading awareness of. Additionally, my analysis of community

engagement might affect the generalizability of my paper’s results. I chose one post from

YouTube, one from Twitter, and two from Instagram. Considering this, I can see how it would

be difficult to accurately compare the levels of community activity in platforms that gauge

engagement in different ways. However, having my research be informed with the knowledge of

my secondary research, I believe I was able to come to a resolute conclusion concerning my

research question.
 6

Results

After choosing my five pieces of primary data from various social media platforms, I

devised a coding chart (Appendix A) which then helped me recognize the central codes that were

occurring in the messages behind these posts from Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube. I listed

these codes on the left-hand side of my coding chart and began to fill in each column (four pieces

of primary data) and eventually identified three common themes that relate to my research

question: rhetoric, communication access, and community engagement or interaction.

Multimodal Textual Analysis

Twitter Post

The first social media post I chose to use for my analysis came from Twitter, where it has

a total of 181,000 views, 767 retweets and just under 7,000 likes. The tweet, posted by Nyle

Dimarco, a deaf popular actor with a following of 419,000 (Figure 2), is accompanied with video

proof of an incident that happened at an airport, mistakenly assuming that he would need

wheelchair assistance due to his congenital deafness. The attachment of the video to the tweet

makes it more meaningful due to its multimodal element—the incorporation of visual rhetoric.

The sarcastic tone in the tweets message serves to call out the ignorance of a hearing people who

perpetuate the stigma that Deaf individuals should be seen as “handicapped” and need physical

accommodations, such as a wheelchair. The intended purpose of the tweet was to spread

awareness and stop misunderstandings of the sort from happening, as the comments show

(Figure 3), this is not an isolated incident and is quite common for Deaf people to experience.

This societal perception presuming that deafness is associated with either mental or physical

disability is a product of the rhetoric we use discussing deafness, and as this tweet demonstrates,

many in the Deaf community outright reject.

 7

Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3

Instagram Post 1

Another post I found relevant to the Deaf community came from Instagram, where I noticed it

under the hashtag #SignLanguage. The post is comprised of a colorful background displaying a

brief message urging the hearing community to be mindful not to make fun of sign language

interpreters or criticize its visibility on the news during essential news updates on CO-VID19.

Rhetorically, this post conveys meaning with the visual elements of using color to attract the

audiences’ eye and using bold font to illustrate importance. Additionally, in the caption of the

Instagram post, the incorporation of a facepalm emoji demonstrates the frustration that the Deaf

community feels toward this matter. The comment section of this post is also reflective of how

the community received this message, with many commenters sharing applause and praise

emojis indicating that the message was one that needs to be addressed and made widely known

for the sake of equal access.

 8

Figure 3 Figure 4

Instagram Post 2

The next post I analyzed in my multimodal analysis was from a different Instagram

account with less community engagement, but I nevertheless found relevant to my research

question. This post only had 11 comments but almost every one of them included positive

rhetoric and praise for the image (Figure 6) which I found to be indicative of its relevance and

relatability within the community. The image reads, “When a signing-impaired waitress sees a

group of 25 deaf people walking into the restaurant” and is accompanied with the visual of a dog

with a concerned-looking expression. In other words, this meme, posted by a popular deaf
 9

comedy account on Instagram, attempts to convey the experience of a deaf-hearing encounter

where communication is hindered. Rhetorically, I think the use of the term “signing-impaired” is

significant. It plays off of the term “hearing-impaired” (which is rejected by those who are

culturally Deaf because they do not believe they are inferior) and instead points the finger at

hearing individuals who do not understand sign language because in the deaf community, a

hearing person who does not sign would be seen as the minority. I found this unique perspective

refreshing and the comments section indicates that several users enjoyed the use of this term as

well (Figure 6).

Figure 5 Figure 6
 10

YouTube Post

The media piece I chose from YouTube illustrated several multimodal elements that

added to the meaning of the finished product. American Sign Language music videos like the

one I have chosen incorporate music, ASL, and often times creative captioning (Figure 7). The

inclusion of multiple different ways to understand the text promotes the concept of language

access—a problem that the Deaf minority have struggled with for decades. Having both aural

and visual rhetoric on display makes for the most accessible piece of media possible, with the

community engagement reflective of this. While many of the comments were from Deaf

individuals, a large number were hearing commenters who claimed to know ASL or were

interested in learning. I found this finding relevant as it indicates that the digital presence of the

Deaf community in this format has piqued the interest of the hearing community and could

possibly mitigate the communication barrier as they become exposed to ASL by watching these

dynamic music videos.

 11

Figure 7 Figure 8

Discussion

The synthesis of my primary data has allowed me to recognize the similar themes they all have

in common. The main purpose of each of the digital publications’ postings was to spread

awareness on topics relevant to the Deaf community (although these topics varied from post to

post). The posts also has in common the method in which they were appealing to their online

audience, with each incorporating a piece of visual rhetoric.

Communication Barrier

Hauser et al (2010) explained that the communication barrier that exists between Deaf

and hearing communities is one predicated on subconscious audism and the lack of language

access for deaf children (p. 489). Moreover, Ellcessor’s contributions illustrate how this
 12

subconscious audism could yield potentially dangerous for the Deaf community’s reputation if

they are spectacularized by ignorant outsiders. I was interested in how this communication

barrier could be tackled or at least mitigated through the use of digital technology, and my

collection of primary data helped me do this. The data I chose from Twitter shows a real-life

example of how using oppressive rhetoric such as “disabled” can confuse public perception and

ultimately affect the way Deaf people are treated. The Instagram post for the cessation of

mocking sign language interpreters also relates to the communication barrier theme, as the

visibility of ASL in an “mocking” way takes away from the real value of ASL as an important

language.

Community Interaction

While my secondary research provided me with ample evidence that communication obstacles

between the deaf and hearing exist, I found that my primary data was more helpful in

establishing public perception of these obstacles. For instance, the Instagram meme I analyzed

conveying the shock of a hearing waitress who must interact with deaf people was full of

positive comments praising the post for its alternative perspective—the perspective of a Deaf

individual. While there was no evidence of the hearing community interacting with the Instagram

pages, the YouTube video I analyzed had diverse community engagement, with comments from

Deaf and hearing people alike. These comments provided me with insight as I discovered that

ASL music videos not only serve the purpose of conveying the message in an accessible way,

but could also be used as an education tool for hearing individuals who find these types of videos

online.

Ultimately, my primary research has provided me with evidence that suggests the mitigation of

deaf-to-hearing communication may be possible with the help of online platforms that situate
 13

both communities in a space where written English and the use of visual rhetoric is conventional.

Additional research could be done by means of a survey of Deaf individuals to gauge whether or

not they feel the issues of the community are being adequately represented online, however I feel

that there is adequate evidence through my primary research to suggest that the Deaf community

has benefited from these digital platforms, by spreading awareness and engaging hearing and

deaf individuals alike.

 14

References

Brueggemann, B. J. (1995). The Coming out of Deaf Culture and American Sign Language- An

Exploration into Visual Rhetoric and Literacy. Rhetoric Review, 13(2), 409–420.

Butler, J. (2018). Integral Captions and Subtitles: Designing a Space for Embodied Rhetorics and

Visual Access. Rhetoric Review, 37(3), 286–299. doi: 10.1080/07350198.2018.1463500

Covarrios, L. [@little_l0u]. (2019, July 03). Don’t you hate it when you’re in public, others see

you signing and approach you, saying ‘I’ll pray for you’. [Instagram post] Retrieved

from: https://www.instagram.com/p/BzeSWHPgu4H/

Dameron, J. [julesdameron]. (2013, November 10). "Rolling in the Deep" in American Sign

Language (Amber Zion). [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=QOUb6PhDBNc

DEAFinitely Dope [@deafinitelydope]. (2020, March 25). REALLY THOUGH. Let this sink

in… [Instagram post]. Retrieved from: https://www.instagram.com/p/B-KJcshD6H7/

Deaf Humor [@deaf.humor]. (2019, December 10). When a signing impaired waitress sees a

group of 25 deaf people walking into the restaurant. [Instagram post]. Retrieved from:

https://www.instagram.com/p/B56f5tpnoWa/

Dimarco, N. [@NyleDimarco]. (2018, December 18). Not a clear video but apparently being

deaf at an airport means I need a wheelchair. [Tweet]. Retrieved from:

https://twitter.com/NyleDiMarco/status/1075194951414226945

Downs, D. (2017). Rhetoric: Making Sense of Human Interaction and Meaning-Making. In

Writing About Writing (3rd ed., pp. 457–481). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's.
 15

Ellcessor, E. (2015). Is There a Sign for That? Media, American Sign Language Interpretation,

and the Paradox of Visibility. Perspectives, 23(4), 586–598. doi:

10.1080/0907676x.2015.1056814

Hauser, P., O’Hearn, A., McKee, M., Steider, A., & Thew, D. (2010). Deaf Epistemology:

Deafhood and Deafness. American Annals of the Deaf, 154(5), 486-492.

Johns, A. M. (2017). Discourse Communities and Communities of Practice. In Writing About

Writing (3rd ed., pp. 319–341). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's.

Pizer, G., Walters, K., & Meier, R. P. (2012). "We Communicated That Way for a Reason":

Language Practices and Language Ideologies Among Hearing Adults Whose Parents Are

Deaf. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 18(1), 75–92. doi:

10.1093/deafed/ens031

Schneider, E., Kozak, L. V., Santiago, R., & Stephen, A. (2012). The Effects of Electronic

Communication on American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 12(3), 347–370.

doi: 10.1353/sls.2012.0004

Appendix A
 16

Twitter Post Instagram Post #1 Instagram Post YouTube ASL

(Nyle Dimarco) (PSA) #2 (meme) music video

Purpose To call out airlines Discouraging hearing Relates to Integrating multiple

for offering Deaf people from making members of the modes (audio/signing/
passengers jokes about or Deaf community; captioning) to create a
wheelchairs mocking ASL Indirectly dynamic piece of
presuming they are interpreters encourages media
physically disabled hearing to learn
Spreading awareness ASL Raises awareness for
Spreads awareness ASL

Community 181,000 views 1,477 likes 3,377 views 4,200 likes

Engagement 6,544 likes 25 comments 11 comments 110 comments
767 retweets
-praise in comments -praise in
comments

Rhetorical Visual rhetoric with Use of facepalm Visual rhetoric of 1) Visual rhetoric:
Elements the inclusion of emoji in caption scared dog incorporation of
video to document conveys frustration conveys meaning dynamic captioning
the incident at the with situation 2) Gestural rhetoric:
airport “signing impaired” utilization of ASL to
Several hashtags convey meaning to
added to focus the Deaf/HOH audience
reach of the post 3) Aural rhetoric:
popular song plays
throughout

Hashtags None #SignLanguage None N/A

#SignLanguageInterp
reter

Relation to Brueggemann: Ellcessor: Pizer: Butler:

secondary Rhetoric that Spectacularization of CODA and integrated/dynamic
research: oppresses deaf sign language Deaf parents captioning: use of
individuals; marks ASL, subtitles, sound
them as disabled