Communication plays a vital role in the perception of forensic anthropology as a necessary and beneficial component ofsociety, and, as anthropologists, we are responsible for communicating in a way that is considered appropriate by the communities weserve. Consequently, understanding what constitutes “appropriate” and “inappropriate” language is an important component of forensicanthropology. Despite the importance of communication, classroom learning and professional training in forensic anthropology do notalways directly address language use. Using concepts from linguistic anthropology, the aim of this study is to determine what registersexist within forensic anthropology; how they are learned, understood, and communicated; the ways in which they compare to language usein other forensic disciplines; and why it is important to address professional language use in forensic anthropology. The term registerrefers to linguistic repertoire associated with particular persons and social settings, varying culturally with individuals and their socialpractices (Agha 1999). Data collected from an online questionnaire distributed to members of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences(AAFS) were used to analyze individual perceptions of language use in professional settings. Results show that register is affected bydemographic variation among professionals, audience, location, and professional experience. Registers that commonly appear includetechnical jargon, professional, respectful, and humorous language. This study concludes that language competency is vital in maintainingan ethical relationship with both public and professional communities, and that students and early professionals would benefit from a moredirect approach to learning the significance and use of language in forensic settings.
Self‐rated daily language use, more than self‐rated bilingual language competency, moderates the effects of brain on cognition in a Hispanic cohort
