[ Contents | Search | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Ken St. Louis
Date: 19 Oct 2006
Time: 09:10:18 -0500
Remote Name: 157.182.15.42
Hi Bethany, Thanks for the thoughtful post. I'm gratified that your response was tempered more by the data than by what you had been told over the past few years. Yes, changing a term does not change the meaning associated with the condition. Still, in the interest of being sensitive, we try to avoid terms that are inherently negative. Take a look at the terms for individuals whose intellectual abilities are less than most others. Over the years words like "idiot," "moron," "retarded," have been abandoned because they assumed negative qualities and were used derogatorily for other people. But such words are actually quite rare. "Stuttering" is not a pleasant thing (to most people) but the term "stutterer" was no more negative when the term "person who stutters" was advocated than it was years and years earlier. In fact, I would argue (based on my reading of the literature) that "stutterer" is LESS negative today than it was 50 or 100 years ago. Relative to your question about changing attitudes, I honestly don't know if using the word "stutterer" would be more effective than "person who stutters." Arguing from the data, I would have to hypothesize that there would be no difference. Thanks again for your reply. Ken