Person-First versus Identity-First Language for Mental Illness: A Discourse Analysis
Location
FA-152
Start Date
26-4-2024 10:30 AM
Department
Linguistics
Abstract
A general consensus on the most appropriate language in reference to people with disabilities has yet to be established. Advocates of person-first language, such as "a person with autism," argue that such language emphasizes the whole person, as opposed to focusing on their disability or impairment (Granello & Gibbs, 2014). However, those in favor of identity-first language, such as "an autistic person," believe that this language usage allows individuals to claim their diagnosis, as there is nothing inherently wrong with the adjectival form (Dunn & Andrews, 2015). There is a lack of research of written works regarding whether person-first or identity-first language should be used when speaking about people with mental illness. Through a discourse analysis of graduate-level special education textbooks, methods of reference for people with mental illness are identified. A cultural approach to discourse (Shi-xu, 2009, 2012) is also utilized, in which people with mental illness are interviewed about their thoughts and preferences surrounding the language that is used to describe them. The most inclusive language for people with mental illness is established, guiding textbook publishers, teachers-in-training, and society as a whole toward appropriate language usage.
Faculty Sponsor
Richard Hallett
Person-First versus Identity-First Language for Mental Illness: A Discourse Analysis
FA-152
A general consensus on the most appropriate language in reference to people with disabilities has yet to be established. Advocates of person-first language, such as "a person with autism," argue that such language emphasizes the whole person, as opposed to focusing on their disability or impairment (Granello & Gibbs, 2014). However, those in favor of identity-first language, such as "an autistic person," believe that this language usage allows individuals to claim their diagnosis, as there is nothing inherently wrong with the adjectival form (Dunn & Andrews, 2015). There is a lack of research of written works regarding whether person-first or identity-first language should be used when speaking about people with mental illness. Through a discourse analysis of graduate-level special education textbooks, methods of reference for people with mental illness are identified. A cultural approach to discourse (Shi-xu, 2009, 2012) is also utilized, in which people with mental illness are interviewed about their thoughts and preferences surrounding the language that is used to describe them. The most inclusive language for people with mental illness is established, guiding textbook publishers, teachers-in-training, and society as a whole toward appropriate language usage.