Disability in EU’s institutional discourse

IF 0.9 4区 文学 N/A LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Terminology Pub Date : 2024-07-18 DOI:10.1075/term.00079.nis
Maria Cristina Nisco
{"title":"Disability in EU’s institutional discourse","authors":"Maria Cristina Nisco","doi":"10.1075/term.00079.nis","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":44429,"journal":{"name":"Terminology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Terminology","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/term.00079.nis","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"N/A","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
欧盟机构话语中的残疾问题
在过去的几十年里,残疾政策在欧洲层面经历了相当大的变化,从一个被忽视的社会政策分支发展成为一个以平等权利和非歧视为中心的重要领域。在此背景下,术语和定义被证明具有举足轻重的意义,因为它们可以根据不同历史时期社会中的主流意识形态,承载并强加或多或少合适的理论观点(Priestley,2007 年)。根据残疾在机构层面上的语言和话语解释方式对其体验方式具有关键影响这一假设,超国家机构的活动对于残疾如何与社会政策、变革和政治相关联的结构显得更加重要。在欧盟范围内,欧盟委员会似乎尤为重要,因为它在政策制定方面发挥着重要作用。事实上,虽然议会可以修改或否决立法法案,但只有欧盟委员会可以提出新的立法建议。本研究集中探讨了与残疾相关的立法和战略--这些立法和战略日益影响着欧洲约 8700 万残疾人的生活--研究欧盟的机构话语是如何界定残疾问题的。对欧盟委员会最新发布的两份文件(即《2010-2020 年欧洲残疾战略》和《2021-2030 年欧洲残疾战略》)进行语言学(定性和定量)分析,旨在探讨残疾理论化的主要原则,以及与主流意识形态信仰和价值观体系相关的解释(Drake,1999 年;Grue,2020 年)。之前的研究(Waldschmidt,2009 年)考虑了 1958 年至 2005 年期间欧盟与残疾相关的文件,在此背景下,本文试图揭示有关残疾的论述是如何产生和延续的,并在过去几十年和未来数年中转化为政策成果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Terminology
Terminology Multiple-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: Terminology is an independent journal with a cross-cultural and cross-disciplinary scope. It focusses on the discussion of (systematic) solutions not only of language problems encountered in translation, but also, for example, of (monolingual) problems of ambiguity, reference and developments in multidisciplinary communication. Particular attention will be given to new and developing subject areas such as knowledge representation and transfer, information technology tools, expert systems and terminological databases. Terminology encompasses terminology both in general (theory and practice) and in specialized fields (LSP), such as physics.
期刊最新文献
Metaphors for legal terms concerning vulnerable people Term circulation and connotation Climate knowledge or climate debate? Variation in psychopathological terminology Disability in EU’s institutional discourse
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1