[ Contents | Search | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: J Scott Yaruss, Univ of Pittsburgh
Date: 11 Oct 2011
Time: 12:26:58 -0500
Remote Name: 150.212.49.36
Hi all - interesting discussion on person-first language. Of course, there's research on this conducted by Ken St. Louis showing that many people who stutter don't mind being called a stutterer... I'll let him and others comment on that. For my part, though, I want to pick up on the use of the acronym. I have to tell you that personally I hate the use of the acronym to refer to people. I know I'm probably alone on this, given the widespread use of the acronym in both informal and formal writing in our field. It seems to me, however, that if we're using person-first language so as not to dehumanize somebody, then when we switch to an acronym, we've actually moved in the wrong direction. Personally, I never use the acronyms "PWS" or "CWS" in written or spoken language. If I'm going to go to the trouble to refer to somebody with person-first language, I will actually say "person" or "individual" who stutters... Or, as Michael Sugarman and I put it in an ISAD paper a few years ago, "a person living with stuttering." This refers to the condition of stuttering rather than the behavior of stuttering because, as pointed out elsewhere in this thread, people who stutter only stutter sometimes. FURTHERMORE, if the point of using the acronym is to save time or to be more efficient, then I must reflect on the fact that saying "person who stutters" requires 6 syllables and saying "PWS" also requires 6 syllables. So, there's no benefit! Yes, this is sort of a pet peeve for me (I have several)... but I would personally love to never read the acronym PWS or CWS again (and I'd love to never hear somebody say "I have 3 CWSses on my caseload") and instead say "I am working with 3 children who stutter..." (Note that doing that actually saves you a syllable because CWSses costs you an extra one.) To me, it comes down to the purpose of person-first language - to maintain the dignity and humanity of the individual experiencing a problem. If saying "person who stutters" helps to do that, then we should do so. (Of course, many people who stutter feel perfectly comfortable with "stutterer," too, so it's fine to call them that if they are fine with it...) Either of those options seems better to me than the acronym. Again, I know I'm kind of odd about this... ask my students... but there it is. End of rant. OH YES: for some reason, it doesn't bother me as much to refer to speech-language pathologists as SLPs, so go figure... (I actually prefer clinicians or, dare I say it, therapists because that keeps the focus on the clinical interaction rather than the pathology... But that's a point for another rant...) G'day all! Thanks for letting me emote. S