Humanity 2007

Contents >Defining Disability Linguistically or How to obstruct someone with a dictionary by Belinda Downes ( University of Newcastle)

Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Defining Disability Linguistically or
How to obstruct someone with a dictionary

by Belinda Downes
University of Newcastle

Abstract

Does language describe a disability, a person with a disability, or does language itself add to the disability? Whether we fear it or are quite comfortable talking about it, our private perceptions towards any type of disability are given away by our choice of words and the way we choose to frame attitudes using language. But are we really aware of where those language choices come from? In an age of so called political correctness who or what teaches us how to talk about disability?

In this presentation, the answer is at the same time not a surprise about our own guilty perceptions of disability, but also a new awareness of how we project our own feelings and thoughts about ourselves onto other people generally. We will also discover how the media and gossip provide us with packages of language to give us the 'right' thing to say when we are at a loss for words. (And we will see why a lot of advertising uses celebrities.)

On the one hand, we need to discriminate because that is how and why language works. But when does that discrimination cease being useful, and become, well, discriminatory?

We will look at the role of different types of meaning, including assumptions, connotative, denotative (dictionary) and politically correct, somewhat illogical ones. These illogical meanings are especially interesting as they tend to say more about us than the person being spoken about.

After this, there will a brief discussion of some examples in current and not so current media, where these choices abound in very subtle but powerful ways.

Lastly we will look at a much overlooked feature of language towards people with a disability, that of avoidance and silence. A lot is said when not much is said.

Defining Disability Linguistically

Definition or classification, by its very nature is discriminatory.

This may seem a strange place to start, but it does need to be pointed out that discrimination itself is not a problem, in fact it is necessary. If we wanted to be completely non-discriminatory the only thing we could say would be "Someone did something to someone" or words to that effect.

This would be useless and highlights something fundamental about language: that language by its very nature is discriminatory, it has to be, for it to work. We make decisions on a moment by moment basis discriminating between one concept and another while working out how to express that concept.

So imagine the problems associated with expressing a concept that a speaker is not only unfamiliar with, but the consequences seem to be socially harsh if it is done 'incorrectly'. This is the tension between being appropriately discriminatory (as above) and being 'politically correct' or non-offensive. Added to this mix is at one time a wish to be inclusive (recognising the person) and at the same time to make sure you do not include yourself as being the same way (recognising and adding positive and negative values to a perceived difference).

This is the difficult, often guilty world, of talking about disability.

How do we learn how to talk about disability?

Many people think talking about disability only means what terminology to use when referring to the disability. Axioms like 'Put the person first' and ' Be respectful' are helpful, but there is so much more to how people put known and unknown attitudes to disability - and people with those disabilities - into words. It is, however extremely rare to find cases of overt teaching on how to talk about disability. Anecdotally, cues and clues are picked up from many conflicting sources. For example:

This includes other things that we would not normally pay close attention to. For example if I want to stop the alarm that I set on my mobile phone from going off, I press the menu key that says 'disable'. Disable in this sense means to stop working. This can imply complete impairment.

Breaking down a conversation

As was said before, language is fundamentally about discriminating between this and that, but to leave it at that would be to deny the richness of language. The best way to look at these other levels of meaning is to look at a slightly over-simplified example.

Level 1 - Functional Definition: Hard-of-hearing

The functional definition is best described as the dictionary or common-use medical definition. When most people are asked "What is a disability?" for example, almost invariably they will give a dictionary type answer or an example they have seen (Toilet or parking space and other examples). This is also the last level where most people are aware of their language decisions, but not necessarily the choices available to them.

Within the debate about terminology, as mentioned before, sometimes people are loathe to suggest a functional definition like autism, because of its connotative or emotional meaning - in this case one new term is aspie which refers to the positive traits of Asperger's Syndrome (close to high functioning autism) like increased focus and enhanced memory for dates and phone numbers. Aspie was coined to have less negative connotation, time will tell if this remains the case.

What many do not realise or remember is that most terms that are now deemed highly offensive towards people with a disability were once neutral medical terms that have taken on a negative value. An example of this are the words 'cretin', 'retard' and 'dumb', but there are many more. This type of terminological change will keep on occurring until people realise that it is not the words themselves that are the problem, but our propensity as users of the language to add value to them. Any new model needs to take that into consideration.

Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Contents >Defining Disability Linguistically or How to obstruct someone with a dictionary by Belinda Downes ( University of Newcastle)