Abstract
Language is one of the elements that create reality. The following paper aims at showing the role of particular languages in constructing the image of disability. Speaking in a parti-cular way, people portray different items, persons etc. The process of the construction may result in shaping varied attitudes and emerging different labels. The paper is a comparison of words used in the eld of disability in two countries: Poland and the United States. The vocabulary comes from two sources: in the case of Poland it is the website niepelnosprawni.plwhile in the case of the United States – the resources of Disability History Museum, which are available online. There are two reference points for the analysis. The first one is the Stigma concept by Erving Goffman. It implies stereotyping and labeling. On the other side there is the Other – the idea by Emmanuel Levinas. In turn, the basis of his approach are respect and love. The paper aims at demonstrating in which country the vocabulary used is closer to the Levinas` theory. It is also a try to show where the usage of words may be more challenging.
Highlights
Before the proper analysis will be performed, we need to clarify some terms
The meaning of the last one clari es one of the paragraphs in the Act: “An individual meets the requirement of “being regarded as having such an impairment” if the individual establishes that he or she has been subjected to an action prohibited under this Act because of an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment whether or not the impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity” (ADA, 1990)
There are two de nitions of disability in Poland: legal and statistical
Summary
Before the proper analysis will be performed, we need to clarify some terms. The rst one is “disability”. The meaning of the last one clari es one of the paragraphs in the Act: “An individual meets the requirement of “being regarded as having such an impairment” if the individual establishes that he or she has been subjected to an action prohibited under this Act because of an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment whether or not the impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity” (ADA, 1990). We can see that this de nition as well as the de nition from the ADA are similar, because they involve the impact of external barriers, sometimes caused by the society. Is this similarity mirrored in the language? Both of them will be discussed in the two sections
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
