Preferred Language Practice in Professional Rehabilitation Journals

This study examined the use of preferred language relative to persons with disabilities in three major rehabilitation journals: Journal of Rehabilitation, Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, and Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin. The central preferred guideline identified from the literature on language is to stress person over the disability. Results show that preferred language is used about half the time over more conventional forms. Reasons for inconsistency in using preferred language forms are explored. Primary consideration is given to lack of explicit language directives in the relevant professional literature. The relationship between language and attitudes and possible ambivalence of professionals' personal attitudes towards people with disabilities are also discussed. For more than a decade the rehabilitation profession has been dealing actively with the issue of appropriate language usage in referring to people with disabilities. A general consensus has developed that language communicates attitudes and that inappropriate language encourages negative stereotypes (Boland, 1980; Handley & Brodwin, 1988; Kailes, 1985; Manus, 1975; Patterson, 1988; Wright, 1983). Consequently, there has been strong support for language that does not devalue the person or encourage stereotypic images. The primary general language recommendation of the past decade is that "person " or people " should precede the disability (Hadley and Brodwin, 1988; Kailes, 1985; Manus, 1975). Moreover, disability descriptors should not be used as nouns because this tends to identify the person with, or in terms of, the disability. For example, "person who is blind" or "person with paraplegia involvement" is preferable to blind person," "the blind," or "paraplegic" (Boland, 1980; Hadley & Brodwin, 1988; Kailes, 1985; Manus, 1975). Other more specific recommendations on preferable language use include the following: (1) Emotional or sensationalist terms- such as "sufferer" or "victim"- should be avoided because of their negative connotations and tendency to evoke pity (Hadley & Brodwin, 1988; Kailes, 1985; Staff, 1985). (2) The term "patient" and similar medical terminology implies that people with disabilities are sick," connotating "disease" and possible contagion- which is not the case (Hadley & Brodwin, 1988). Moreover, "patienthood," consistent with the medical model, implies a relatively passive role whereas rehabilitation philosophy and practice stress active cooperation in a joint venture of provider and client. (3) The term "disabled" should be used in place of "handicapped" since not all disabilities are handicapping, and some are handicapping only part of the time (Kailes, 1985; Staff, 1985). (4) The term "normal" implies that people with disabilities are abnormal" and so should be avoided (Kailes, 1985). (5) The term "wheelchair user" is preferable to wheelchair bound" or "confined to a wheelchair" (Hadley & Brodwin, 1988; Kailes, 1985; Staff, 1985). Still, "wheelchair user" sounds like someone has made a career out of using a wheelchair; "person who uses a wheelchair" is preferred (Hadley & Brodwin, 1988). Although there appears to be professional consensus on preferred language forms, ambiguity abounds in the advisory literature on language. For example, the brochures Guidelines for Reporting and Writing about People with Disabilities (1984) and What Makes Disabled People Disabled? (Catalog number 6-12) are designed to improve the public's attitudes and language. Consistent with the above guidelines, both recommend: 1) emphasizing the person over the disability- as in "persons with disabilities" rather than "the disabled," and 2) avoiding sensationalist terms which evoke inappropriate emotional responses. Yet both these brochures manage to mix preferred with non-preferred or conventional usage such as "disabled people," "mentally ill people," and "deaf persons;" that is, putting the disability descriptor first. …