metaphor vs. euphemism

[Dona Avery]

Philip writes:
> The logic of containment, transfer, and giving/receiving apply to Language,
> and it becomes what it is, in part, by virtue of the metaphor. . .
> we no longer say "crippled" because of its derogatory connotation and
> substitute the euphemism "disabled."  Under the prevailing definition, this
> euphemism doesn't seem to be metaphoric.  "Disabled" doesn't bring to bear a
> second domain of experience.

   Ah, but it does bring a 2nd domain: How many 'disabled vehicles' has your
favorite traffic control broadcaster recently reported?  'Disabled' acts as a
metonymic reduction of personhood, and boils down to connotations of
'machinery' or functionality.

As Chungmin Lee wrote:
> the 'leg' of a chair comes from the leg of a human or an animal, based on
> their similarities in shape and function

However, the disability-rights movement prefers the term 'disabled'--and uses
it to highlight the fact that *impairment* is less disabling than the *shape
and function* of the environment and attitudes one encounters in an 'ableist'
world.

If 'euphemism' makes something sound better, then 'disabled people' is a term
that elevates the status of the 'able-bodied.'  BUT if we use a negative
prefix for 'the norm,' things change: NONdisabled people then are
'the contained' or the marked.  The point is to realize that disability is
ability compromised by restrictive access and perceptions of 'normalcy.'
And that 'ability' is a social construct.

These are my thoughts, anyway.  I'd love some feedback, for 'disabling
language' is the focus of my PhD research.

Cheers,

Dona Avery
Arizona State University