Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-gwv8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-11T12:18:07.743Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What should we call patients with schizophrenia? a sociolinguistic analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Rahman Haghighat  and
Roland Littlewood
Rahman Haghighat*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University College & Middlesex Medical School University of London, WC1N 8AA
Roland Littlewood
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University College & Middlesex Medical School University of London, WC1N 8AA
*
∗ Correspondence
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

To avoid identifying patients with a class while classifying disorders, DSM-IV specifies that it will not use such expressions as a schizophrenic but instead will use the designation an Individual with schizophrenia. This review aims to explore the sociolinguistic connotations of various designations used for patients suffering from schizophrenia. An analysis of these designations from six perspectives, using conceptually different sociolinguistic paradigms, systematically supports the DSM-IV comment. Further research is required into the social impact of the language of psychiatry.

Information

Type
Original Papers
Information
Psychiatric Bulletin , Volume 19 , Issue 7 , July 1995 , pp. 407 - 410
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1995

References

American Psychiatric Association (1994) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, (4th edn) (DSM-IV), Washington DC: APA. pp xxil.Google Scholar
Bouncer, D. (1980) Language, the Loaded Weapon. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Fromm, E. (1973) To Have or To Be. London: Cape.Google Scholar
Gay, H., O'Kill, B., Seed, K. et al (eds) (1984) Longman Dictionary of the English Language. Longman.Google Scholar
Gelder, M. G., Gath, D. & Mayou, R. (1989) Oxford Textbook of Psychiatry. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1964) Stigma. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Issit, D. (1983) Crazic, Menty and Idiotal An Inquiry into the use of suffixes -AL, -IC, -LY and -Y in Modern English, Göteborg: Acta Universitalis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
Kempson, R. M. & Quirk, R. (1971) Controlled activation of latent contrast. Language, 47, 548–572.Google Scholar
Kendell, R. E. & Zealley, A. K. (1993) Companion to Psychiatric Studies. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.Google Scholar
Marchand, H. (1969) The Categories and Types of Present- Day English Word-Formation. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Quirk, R. Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvi, R. J. (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ramon, S. (1978) The meaning attached: attitudes towards the mentally ill. Mental Health and Society, 5, 164–182.Google Scholar
Scambler, G. (1986) Epilepsy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.