1887
Volume 30, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-9971
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9994
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

During the last decades, disability policy has undergone considerable changes at European level, evolving from a disregarded branch of social policy to an essential area centered on equal rights and non-discrimination. In this context, terminology and definitions have proved to be of pivotal importance since they can bear and impose more or less appropriate theoretical perspectives, depending on the prevailing ideologies within society in different historical periods (Priestley 2007). Drawing on the assumption that the way disability is linguistically and discursively construed at institutional level has a crucial effect on how it is experienced, the activities of supra-national institutions appear all the more central to how disability is structured in relation to social policy, change, and politics. Within the context of the EU, the European Commission seems particularly relevant since it plays a major role in policy development. In fact, although the Parliament can amend or veto legislative acts, only the Commission can propose new legislation.

This study concentrates on disability-related legislation and strategies – which increasingly shape the lives of about 87 million disabled people estimated to live in Europe – by investigating how disability is framed in the EU’s institutional discourse. Linguistic (qualitative and quantitative) analysis of two of the most recent documents issued by the European Commission (namely the European Disability Strategy 2010–2020 and the European Disability Strategy 2021–2030) is meant to explore the main principles through which disability is theorised and construed in relation to the dominant ideological system of beliefs and values (Drake 1999; Grue 2020). Against the backdrop of previous research (Waldschmidt 2009) which took into account EU disability-related documents over a time-span ranging from 1958 to 2005, this paper seeks to shed light on the way discourses about disability are created and perpetuated, to be then translated into policy outcomes in the last decades and the years to come.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/term.00079.nis
2024-07-18
2025-02-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anthony, Laurence
    2017 “Corpus Linguistics and Vocabulary: A Commentary on Four Studies.” Vocabulary Learning and Instruction6 (2): 79–87. 10.7820/vli.v06.2.Anthony
    https://doi.org/10.7820/vli.v06.2.Anthony [Google Scholar]
  2. Barnes, Colin
    2007 “Disability Activism and the Struggle for Change: Disability, Policy and Politics in the UK.” Education, Citizenship and Social Justice2 (3): 203–221. 10.1177/1746197907081259
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1746197907081259 [Google Scholar]
  3. Barritt, Anna L.
    2018 The Rhetoric of Disability: A Foucauldian Discourse (Master Thesis), Edmond (Oklahoma), https://shareok.org/handle/11244/325077
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Clay, Edward
    2022 “A Corpus-based Approach to Examining Terminological Variation in EU Law.” International Journal of Language and Law111: 142–162.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Corker, Mairian, and Sally French
    1999 “Reclaiming Discourse in Disability Studies.” InDisability Discourse, ed. byMairian Corker and Sally French, 1–11. Buckingham: Open University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Darling, Rosalyn B., and D. Alex Heckert
    2010 “Orientations toward Disability: Differences over the Lifecourse.” International Journal of Disability, Development and Education571: 131–143. 10.1080/10349121003750489
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10349121003750489 [Google Scholar]
  7. Disability Advocacy Resource Unit (DARU)
    Disability Advocacy Resource Unit (DARU) 2019How We Talk about Disability Matters. Melbourne: DARU, https://www.daru.org.au/how-we-talk-about-disability-matters/why-are-the-medical-and-charitable-models-of-disability-inconsistent-with-human-rights
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Davis, Lennard
    (ed.) 2006The Disability Studies Reader, 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Drake, Robert
    1999Understanding Disability Policies. London: Bloomsbury. 10.1007/978‑1‑349‑27311‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-27311-9 [Google Scholar]
  10. European Commission
    European Commission 2010European Disability Strategy 2010–2020. European Commission: Brussels, https://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM%3A2010%3A0636%3AFIN%3Aen%3APDF
    [Google Scholar]
  11. European Commission
    European Commission 2011EU Ratifies UN Convention on Disability Rights. European Commission: Brussels, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_11_4
    [Google Scholar]
  12. European Commission
    European Commission 2021European Disability Strategy 2021–2030. European Commission: Brussels.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. European Parliament
    European Parliament 2020Topical Digest: EU Policy for Persons with Disabilities. European Parliament: Strasbourg, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/EPRS/TD_Persons_with_disability.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  14. European Parliament
    European Parliament 2022Understanding EU Policies for People with Disabilities, European Parliament: Strasbourg, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_BRI(2021)698811
    [Google Scholar]
  15. European Union
    European Union 2021Union of Equality: Strategy for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. European Union: Luxembourg, https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=8376&furtherPubs=yes
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Foucault, Michel
    1982 “The Subject and Power.” Critical Inquiry8 (4): 777–795. 10.1086/448181
    https://doi.org/10.1086/448181 [Google Scholar]
  17. FXB Center for Health and Human Rights
    FXB Center for Health and Human Rights 2013Health and Human Rights Resource Guide. Harvard School of Public Health: Harvard University.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Garland-Thomson, Rosemarie
    1996 “Disability, Identity and Representation.” InExtraordinary Bodies: Figuring Disability in American Literature and Culture, ed. byRosemarie Garland-Thomson, 5–18. New York: Columbia University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Gramsci, Antonio
    1971Quaderni dal carcere. Roma: Editori Riuniti.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Grue, Jan
    2011 “Disability Discourse and Analysis: Some Topics and Issues.” Discourse & Society22 (5): 532–546. 10.1177/0957926511405572
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926511405572 [Google Scholar]
  21. 2015 “Disability Discourse.” The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction, 10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi010
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi010 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2020Disability and Discourse Analysis. London, New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Hughes, Bronwen, and Maria Cristina Nisco
    (eds) 2022Disability, Shame and Discrimination on the International Journal of Language Studies16 (4) (special issue).
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Mabbett, Deborah
    2005 “The Development of Rights-based Social Policy in the European Union: The Example of Disability Rights.” Journal of Common Market Studies43 (1): 97–120. 10.1111/j.0021‑9886.2005.00548.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9886.2005.00548.x [Google Scholar]
  25. Nisco, Maria Cristina
    2019 “Disability in the Populist Press: An Investigation of British Tabloids.” InPopulist Discourse. Critical Approaches to Contemporary Politics, ed. byEncarnacion Hidalgo Tenorio, Miguel-Angel Benitez Castro, Francesca De Cesare, 172–189. London, New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780429026751‑11
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429026751-11 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2023 “Framing Disability and Sexuality: An Analysis of Instagram Users’ Comments.” Textus36 (1): 157–178.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Oliver, Michael
    1990The Politics of Disablement. Critical Texts in Social Work and the Welfare State. London: Macmillan Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Priestley, Mark
    2007 “In Search of European Disability Policy: Between National and Global.” Alter1 (1): 61–74. 10.1016/j.alter.2007.08.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alter.2007.08.006 [Google Scholar]
  29. Sherry, Mark, Olsen, Terje, Vedeler, Janikke, and John Eriksen
    2020Disability Hate Speech. Social, Cultural and Political Contexts. London, New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. United Nations
    United Nations 2007Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. New York: United Nations.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Waldschmidt, Anne
    2009 “Disability Policy of the European Union: The Supranational Level.” Alter3 (1): 8–23. 10.1016/j.alter.2008.12.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alter.2008.12.002 [Google Scholar]
  32. Wodak, Ruth
    1997Gender and Discourse. London: SAGE. 10.4135/9781446250204
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446250204 [Google Scholar]
  33. Wodak, Ruth, de Cillia, Rudolph, Reisigl, Martin, and Karin Liebhart
    1999The Discursive Construction of National Identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Wodak, Ruth, and Theun A. van Dijk
    (eds) 2000Racism at the Top: Parliamentary Discourses on Ethnic Issues in Six European States. Klagenfurt: Drava Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/term.00079.nis
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/term.00079.nis
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): definitions; disability; discourse analysis; EU institutional discourse; EU policies
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error