[ Contents | Search | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Kristin in Erin Olson's Class
Date: 19 Oct 2006
Time: 18:20:05 -0500
Remote Name: 24.196.87.254
I wasn't that surprised that it seems as though the data is split in reference to a stutterer/person who stutters/PWS. I am wondering though and it is only my assumption: Why does everyone who stutters refer to their dysfluency in a negative context? Or does everyone? With the lists that you gave in your article, I found myself referring to people first if I felt that the opposition would relay a negative name (ie. Person who stutters vs stutterer). However, I found myself reffering to the verb term if the name would present a positive or neutral name or feeling to that person being named (ie. swimmer vs. person who swims). In the both instances I felt as though it was about how the term of reference makes a person feel. By "labeling" a child as a stutterer, are we really saying that this is the only attribute of this child? And by labeling a child a swimmer, are we saying he belongs to an elite group and is this person, a swimmer, not just a part of that group? Both instances to me seem that we may be leaving out the other part. Getting to the point...do you think the reason we are so torn down the middle on what the correct reference should be is because some look at the reference more negatively/positively than others and the real issue is in understanding the context in which the communicator is trying to express? Had you looked into this while composing your research?