The first person language ( PFL ), also called the first person language ( PFL ), is a type of linguistic recipe to avoid marginalization or dehumanization (consciously or unconsciously) when discussing people with health problems or disabilities. This can be a type of disability etiquette but more often applied to any group that would otherwise be defined or mentally categorized by a condition or trait (eg, disease, age, disability, or appearance) rather than as a group of people who < i> the condition or character of it. Instead of using labels or adjectives to define a person, the language of the first person puts people before the diagnosis and describes what the person has (eg, "someone with diabetes" or "someone with alcoholism"), not a statement about what the person is is (for example, "diabetic" or "alcoholic"). So someone is the first and second person with some traits. The advocates of the person-first language show that failing to separate one's mental nature tends to reinforce an understanding (albeit only unconsciously) that both nature and person are fundamentally bad or inferior and thus tend to marginalize or even humanize people. It also tends to implicitly reinforce a sense of immortality even on temporary issues; for example, a person with substance use disorders has a fair chance of achieving long-term remission - years where he is healthy and productive - but calling him "substantial offender" reinforces the unspoken feelings that he is inherently and permanently polluted and throws too much doubt on the maintenance of remission.
Video People-first language
Definisi
The first person's language is a type of linguistic recipe in English. It aims to avoid perceived and unconscious dehumanization when discussing disabilities and is sometimes referred to as a type of disability etiquette. The first person language can also be applied to any group defined by a condition rather than as a person: for example, "the homeless" rather than the "homeless".
Instead of using labels to define individuals with health problems, it is more appropriate to use terminology, which describes an individual as being diagnosed with a disease or disorder. People who use the first language place the person before the diagnosis and describe what the person does not have about the person.
The basic idea is to use a sentence structure that names the person first and the second condition, for example, "people with disabilities" rather than "disabled" or "disabled", to emphasize that "they are the first." Since it is a common practice in English to place adjectives before nouns, adjectives may be replaced by relative clauses, for example, from "people with asthma" to "someone with asthma". Furthermore, the use of to has been deprecated in order to use to have .
By using such sentence structure, the speaker articulates the notion of disability as a secondary attribute, not a person's identity characteristic.
Maps People-first language
History
The term first person language first appeared in 1988 as recommended by advocacy groups in the United States. This use has been widely adopted by pathologists and researchers of tongues, with "stutterers" (PWS) replacing "stutter." Though it is believed that language originated from the mental health community, its origins originate from the Denver Principles (1983) , which states, "We condemn the effort to refer to us as" victims, "a term that implies defeat, and we are only occasionally" patients, "a term that implies passivity, helplessness and reliance on the care of others." We are " People with AIDS. "
Use has been recommended in other increasingly common chronic conditions, such as asthma and diabetes. Nonprofit organizations, such as the Obesity Action Coalition have expanded advocacy for First-Person Languages ​​for obesity. In 2017, 5 US medical communities have pledged to it, and use it in their communications: the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, the Obesity Society, the American Society of Bariatric Physicians, the Academy of Nutrition and Diet, the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeon.
The most common alternative to person-first language is usually called the first-identity language, as it places the conditions of identification before the personal term. For example, while someone who prefers a first-person language might ask to be called "a person with autism", someone who prefers the first language of identity will ask to be called an "autistic person". There is no general term to use identification conditions as a noun, but is usually disliked apart from certain communities, such as dwarfs. Others have proposed a "people-centered language", which, instead of being a substitute linguistic rule, promotes prioritizing their referenced preferences and argues for greater nuance in the language used to describe people and groups of people.
Rationale
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is the basis for ideologically motivated linguistic prescriptivism. The hypothesis states that the use of language significantly shapes the perception of the world and shapes ideological preconceptions.
In a person's first language, prejudice is considered to be negative from placing the name of the condition before the term "person" or "person", such as "white person" or "Jew". First-person language supporters argue that this places an undue focus on conditions that divert attention from the humanity of community members of people with the condition.
In a 2008 publication about experiments on the perception of adolescent with disabilities, scientists collect evidence to prove why first person language, or word order, is important. scientists divide teenagers from summer camp into two groups; one group was asked questions using the term "people with epilepsy" and other groups were asked to use the term "epilepsy". They asked teenagers questions like, "Do you think that people with epilepsy/epilepsy have more trouble at school?" and "Do you have prejudice against people with epilepsy/epilepsy?" Studies show that adolescents have a higher "stigma perception" on the Epilepsy Stigma Scale when it comes to "epilepsy", as opposed to "people with epilepsy".
Usage guidelines
Some US organizations such as the United Spinal Association have published guidelines on the ethics of disability, which prescribe the first-person language. Guide 2007 For Dummies for the ethics of the first person language specified.
Since 2017, first person language rules have become normative in federal government agencies in the federal (eg CDC) and at the state level in the health department of the Disabled Persons Council, for example. Michigan West Virginia Idaho, Missouri Georgia, or Texas,
By 2017 this has become a requirement in the AMA Manual of Style for academic journals.
Criticism
Critics have objected that the language of the first person is strange, repetitive and painstaking writing and reading. C. Edwin Vaughan, an old sociologist and activist for the blind, argues that since "in general use the positive pronoun usually precedes the noun," "the awkwardness of the preferred language focuses on disability in a new and potentially negative way". According to Vaughan, it only serves to "focus on disability in a rigid new way" and "call attention to someone as having some kind of 'sprinkled identity'" in terms of Erving Goffman's identity theory.
In 1993, the National Federation of the Blind adopted a resolution condemning the language of the first person. The Resolution rejects the notion that "the word 'person' must always precede the word 'blind' to emphasize the fact that the first blind and especially the person" as "utterly unacceptable and destructive" and leads to the opposite of the intended Purpose, because "it is too defensive, implying shame, not true equality, and portraying the blind as sensitive and warlike people. "
In deaf culture, the language of the first person has long been rejected. In contrast, deaf culture uses the first language of deafness because cultural deafness is a source of positive identity and pride. The correct term to use for this group is "The Deaf" or the "hard-to-hear" person. The phrase "hearing-impaired" can not be accepted by most hearing-impaired or people who have difficulty hearing because it emphasizes what they can not do.
Autism activist Jim Sinclair rejected the first person's language, arguing that saying "people with autism" suggests that autism can be separated from that person. Other advocacy groups and organizations such as Autism Speaks, The Arc and Disability Is Natural support use the language of the first person.
However, the first-language identity is preferred by the many autistic people and organizations run by them. One such organization, the Autistic Advocacy Network Autism, says this:
In the autism community, many self-supporters and their allies prefer terminology such as "Autistic," "Autistic person," or "Autistic individual" because we understand autism as an inherent part of an individual's identity... It is impossible to assert the value and value of an Autistic person without recognizing his identity as an Autistic person. Referring to me as "someone with autism," or "someone with ASD" disparages who I am because it denies who I am... When we say "people with autism," we say that it's unfortunate and an accident that someone is autistic. We affirm that the person has values ​​and values, and that autism is entirely separate from what gives it value and value. In fact, we say that autism harms values ​​and values ​​as a person, which is why we separate conditions with the word "with" or "own." In the end, what we say when we say "people with autism" is that the person will be better if not autistic, and that it would be better if he was born typical.
See also
- Political truth
References
Further reading
- La Forge, Jan. "Preferred language practice in professional rehabilitation journals". The Journal of Rehabilitation 57 (1): 49-51.
- Lynn, V. A. (2017). Language and HIV communication. HIV/AIDS (Auckland, NZ), 9, 183.
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments