In an earlier post we asked the question "Does it matter what we call things?". This article from today's Guardian goes some way towards answering that question - at least with regard to the language used to describe some specific medical conditions. It's only a short piece, but one of the more interesting points the writer makes is about the use of words like 'schizophrenic' as nouns labelling individuals, rather than as adjectives used to describe their condition. The writer argues that the latter is acceptable, while the former is less so, because it reduces the person concerned to nothing more than a sufferer of their condition, defining them solely in terms of their disability.
You might remember us discussing this very process in class in relation to ethnicity: we talked about the use of adjectives such as 'Chinese' - as in 'Chinese people' - as compared with the generally less acceptable noun 'Chinese', as in 'the Chinese' (or, even more contentious, the use of 'black' as a noun rather than as an adjective). You might think this is 'linguistic pedantry', but it's worth asking yourself whether these subtle differences actually make a difference to people's perceptions of the group or individual being represented. In some cases maybe not... but in other cases I think there is something to be considered here.
No comments:
Post a Comment