People-first language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

People-first language is a type of linguistic prescription in English. It aims to avoid perceived and subconscious dehumanization when discussing people with disabilities and is sometimes referred to as a type of disability etiquette. People-first language can also be applied to any group that is defined by a condition rather than as a people: for example, "those that are homeless" rather than "the homeless."

The basic idea is to use a sentence structure that names the person first and the condition second, for example "people with disabilities" rather than "disabled people" or "disabled", in order to emphasize that "they are people first". Because English syntax normally places adjectives before nouns, it becomes necessary to insert relative clauses, replacing, e.g., "asthmatic person" with "a person who has asthma." Furthermore, the use of to be is deprecated in favor of using to have.

By using such a sentence structure, the speaker articulates the idea of a disability as a secondary attribute, not a characteristic of a person's identity. Critics of this rationale point out that separating the "person" from the "trait" implies that the trait is inherently bad or "less than", and thus dehumanizes people with disabilities.[citation needed]

The term people-first language first appears in 1988 as recommended by advocacy groups in the United States.[1] The usage has been widely adopted by speech-language pathologists and researchers, with 'person who stutters' (PWS) replacing 'stutterer'[2]

The most common alternative to person-first language is usually called identity-first language, as it places the identifying condition before the personal term. For example, while someone who prefers person-first language might ask to be called a "person with autism", someone who prefers identity-first language would ask to be called an "autistic person". There is no common term for use of identifying conditions as nouns, but it is not usually preferred apart from select communities, such as dwarfs. Others have proposed "person-centered language," which, instead of being a replacement linguistic rule, promotes prioritizing the preferences of those who are being referred to and argues for greater nuance in the language used to describe people and groups of people.[3]


The Sapir–Whorf hypothesis is the basis for ideologically motivated linguistic prescriptivism. The Sapir–Whorf hypothesis states that language use significantly shapes perceptions of the world and forms ideological preconceptions.

In the case of people-first language, preconceptions judged to be negative allegedly arise from placing the name of the condition before the term "person" or "people", such as "white person" or "Jewish people". Proponents of people-first language argue that this places an undue focus on the condition which distracts from the humanity of the members of the community of people with the condition.

Usage guidelines[edit]

Many organizations publish disability etiquette guides that prescribe people-first language.[4][5] The For Dummies guide to etiquette (2007) also prescribes people-first language.[6]

Adherence to the rules of people-first language has become a requirement in at least one academic journal.[7]


Critics have objected that people-first language is awkward, repetitive and makes for tiresome writing and reading. C. Edwin Vaughan, a sociologist and longtime activist for people who are blind, argues that since "in common usage positive pronouns usually precede nouns", "the awkwardness of the preferred language focuses on the disability in a new and potentially negative way". Thus, according to Vaughan, it only serves to "focus on disability in an ungainly new way" and "calls attention to a person as having some type of 'marred identity'" in terms of Erving Goffman's theory of identity.[8]

The National Federation of the Blind adopted a resolution in 1993 condemning people-first language. The resolution dismissed the notion that "the word 'person' must invariably precede the word 'blind' to emphasize the fact that a blind person is first and foremost a person" as "totally unacceptable and pernicious" and resulting in the exact opposite of its purported aim, since "it is overly defensive, implies shame instead of true equality, and portrays the blind as touchy and belligerent".[9]

In Deaf culture, person-first language has long been rejected. Instead, Deaf culture uses Deaf-first language since being culturally deaf is a source of positive identity and pride.[10] Correct terms to use for this group would be "Deaf person" or "hard of hearing person".[11] The phrase "hearing impaired" is not acceptable to most Deaf or hard of hearing people because it emphasizes what they cannot do.[12]

Autism activist Jim Sinclair rejects person-first language, on the grounds that saying "person with autism" suggests that autism can be separated from the person.[13] Other advocacy groups and organizations such as Autism Speaks,[14] The Arc[15] and Disability Is Natural support using people-first language.

However, identity-first language is preferred by many autistic people and organizations run by them.[16][17] One of those organizations, the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, has this to say on the issue,

In the autism community, many self-advocates and their allies prefer terminology such as “Autistic,” “Autistic person,” or “Autistic individual” because we understand autism as an inherent part of an individual’s identity...It is impossible to affirm the value and worth of an Autistic person without recognizing his or her identity as an Autistic person. Referring to me as “a person with autism,” or “an individual with ASD” demeans who I am because it denies who I am...When we say “person with autism,” we say that it is unfortunate and an accident that a person is Autistic. We affirm that the person has value and worth, and that autism is entirely separate from what gives him or her value and worth. In fact, we are saying that autism is detrimental to value and worth as a person, which is why we separate the condition with the word “with” or “has.” Ultimately, what we are saying when we say “person with autism” is that the person would be better off if not Autistic, and that it would have been better if he or she had been born typical.[18]


  1. ^ BusinessWeek (letter to the editor), Issues 3059–3062, 1988 [1]; Supportive housing needs of elderly and disabled persons: hearing before the Subcommittee on Housing and Urban Affairs of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, United States Senate, One Hundred First Congress, first session on S. 566 ... the National Affordable Housing Act, June 2, 1989, Volumes 22–23: "All references to 'handicapped individuals' in the Act must be changed to 'people with disabilities'" – We join with many of our fellow advocacy organizations in emphasizing the importance of using 'people first' language throughout the Act."
  2. ^ Folkins, John (December 1992). "Resource on Person-First Language". American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Archived from the original on May 11, 2015. 
  3. ^ Kapitan, Alex (2017). "On "Person-First Language": It's Time to Actually Put the Person First". Radical Copyeditor. Retrieved July 5, 2017. 
  4. ^ "Disability Etiquette" (PDF). United Spinal Association. 2011. 
  5. ^ "Tools for Reporters: Disability Etiquette". United Cerebral Palsy. Retrieved June 29, 2013. 
  6. ^ Fox, Sue (2007). "Being Sensitive about Disabilities and Illnesses". Etiquette for Dummies. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9781118051375.
  7. ^ "Shaping attitudes through person-first language". Life Span Institute, University of Kansas. Retrieved June 29, 2013. 
  8. ^ Vaughan, C. Edwin (1997). "People-First Language: An Unholy Crusade". National Federation of the Blind.
  9. ^ Jernigan, Kenneth (March 2009). "The Pitfalls of Political Correctness: Euphemisms Excoriated". Braille Monitor 52 (3). "Be it resolved by the National Federation of the Blind in Convention assembled in the city of Dallas, Texas, this 9th day of July, 1993, that the following statement of policy be adopted: We believe that it is respectable to be blind, and although we have no particular pride in the fact of our blindness, neither do we have any shame in it. To the extent that euphemisms are used to convey any other concept or image, we deplore such use. We can make our own way in the world on equal terms with others, and we intend to do it."
  10. ^ Lum, Doman (2010). Culturally Competent Practice: A Framework for Understanding. Cengage Learning. p. 441. ISBN 9780840034434. 
  11. ^ "Terminology Describing Deaf Individuals". Gallaudet University. Archived from the original on June 5, 2013. Retrieved June 29, 2013. 
  12. ^ "Community and Culture – Frequently Asked Questions". National Association of the Deaf. Retrieved 2014-05-22. 
  13. ^ Sinclair, Jim. "Why I dislike person-first language". Autism Mythbusters. Retrieved January 7, 2016.
  14. ^ Autism Speaks (PDF) Retrieved 7 January 2016.  Missing or empty |title= (help)
  15. ^ "What is People First Language?". The Arc. Retrieved 7 January 2016. 
  16. ^ Kenny L, Hattersley C, Mollins B, Buckley C, Povey C, Pellicano E (2016). "Which terms should be used to describe autism? Perspectives from the UK autism community". Autism. 20 (4): 442–462. PMID 26134030. doi:10.1177/1362361315588200. 
  17. ^'t-always-put-the-person-first/
  18. ^ Brown, Lydia. "Identity First Language". Autistic Self Advocacy Network. 

Further reading[edit]

  • La Forge, Jan. "Preferred language practice in professional rehabilitation journals". The Journal of Rehabilitation 57 (1): 49–51.