Introduction
This article traces the development of the language and concepts around disability and the role persons with disabilities have played. It is argued here that the demands for adequate linguistic representation of a group’s self image may at times negatively affect clarity of identification of such a group and consequently dilute resultant policy representation of the group.

Persons with disabilities have wrestled for years with what they consider pejorative words – words that have offensive connotation – like “cripple”, “dump”, “deaf”, and “blind” traditionally used to define their physical and social state. The consequences of these attempts are the substitution of these words with such words as “disabled people”, or “persons with disabilities”.

To some extent these substitutions have addressed the immediate needs of persons with disabilities, that is they are “persons” first rather than the traditional concept that saw or depicted their disablement as paramount in relation to their humanity. Yet, as Mitchel (1989) observes, at present there is a significant amount of vagueness in the terminology used to describe this human constituency and this is turn may lead to vague concepts which results in vague ideas.

Function of Language
The basic function of language must be to facilitate communication among humans. But languages carry with it the users’ attitudes and beliefs which then form part of the communication message. It is therefore right that language used in defining any issue be constantly reviewed and refined so that it can carry the message agreed upon among parties to the communication. The purpose of any definition of terms and concepts must be to enhance this process of human communication, a working tool, not an end in itself.
The starting point in this discussion must be an attempt at a definition of the major terms and concepts used namely: “Persons with “disabilities” and “Disability”.

Persons with Disabilities
At various times in human history persons with disabilities have been referred to in such a manner as to suggest they were less than human. The Greek city-states killed them because they were considered useless. Many African societies regarded the birth of a person with disabilities as a curse from the Gods for past sins or omissions. The Jewish culture too saw the onset of disability in this light. The names given to various disability groups reflected this attitude. “Persons with speech impairments” were referred to as “dump” which is also used to describe “stupid” or “unintelligent” people. Persons with physical disabilities “were called “cripples”, a word also used to describe other less pleasant situations. etc.

As persons with disabilities got better and better educated particularly during the 20th century (thanks to a few daring professionals), they began to lobby for changes in these descriptions. They argued that they were no less human than other humans. They organized themselves for the purpose of improving their welfare and soon they started making an impact on social attitudes.

In the 1980s, new descriptions gained currency. “Crippled” was replaced by “disabled person” and “deaf” by “hearing impaired” etc.

Today, these constituent of humanity is described as “persons with disabilities” or “persons with impairments” or “persons with handicaps”. There is still confusion as to how best to identify this population group. But in general, it is recognized that they are those people who have a disability, impairment or handicap severe enough to require special aids or skills or other assistance to overcome the limitations imposed by this disability, impairment or handicap. It seems that however undesirable, these persons are defined by their disability, for the time being. This may explain why persons with disabilities are taking a keen interest in the definition of disability, and why, of necessity, they have given new meaning to words they feel stuck with to achieve an acceptable self image.

Definition of “disability, impairment and handicap” has changed with the times so that it could better reflect the desired image of persons with disabilities.

Disability
It is impossible to discuss the meaning of “disability” without also considering the twin concepts of “impairment” and “handicap” as in fact much of the confusion referred to above results from the interchange in use of these terms and concepts which in turn obscures their meaning.
The most widely used definition of these three terms are derived from the World Health Organization (WHO) International Classification of Impairments Disabilities and Handicaps (ICIDH) adopted in the early 1980s. Primarily, the ICIDH definition deals with medical or health experiences of a person and the departure from what is considered the norm in terms of performance of what is considered normal tasks as performed by a normal person of the same age, sex etc.

So according the ICIDH, “Impairment is defined in the context of health experience as any loss of abnormality of psychological or anatomical structure of function”. This concept of impairment pre-supposes a consensus of what is a whole person, a highly contentious fact.

Disability on the other hand is defined as “any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in a manner or within the range which is considered normal…” that is, as David Symington notes, “disability represents a departure from the norm in terms of performance of the individual as opposed to that of the organ or mechanism”. (Quoted in Mitchel, 1989).

The ICIDH defines Handicap as “a disadvantage for a given individual, resulting from impairment or a disability that limits or prevents the fulfillments of a role that is normal for that individual (depending on age, sex, social and cultural factors).” Thus, “the state of being handicapped is relative to other people, hence the importance of existing societal values, which in turn are influenced by the institutional arrangements of society.” (Mitchel, 1989).

These definitions have generated much discussion and debates which have fundamentally changed the concept of disability, impairment and handicap. A number of observations can be made:

• Although the basic premise of the ICIDH definitions is supposed to be biological or anatomical health experiences (especially in respect of impairments), there is recognition of social judgments (especially in respect of disabilities and handicaps). This recognition led to much criticism of these definitions in the 1980s particularly by the Disabled Peoples International (DPI) and other professionals who in the process precipitated new definitions in the 1990s. By the close of the last century, two distinct models for representing disability had developed. The medical model largely retained the language and concepts of the functional or medico-legal definition of disability and by extension persons with disabilities. The social model, however, introduced the language of inclusion and modification of the environment in its totality as the basis for defining disability and persons with disabilities.

• Subsequent definitions of disability first stressed economic consequences and later shifted to interaction between the person with disabilities and his/her environment. Disability is now seen as a result of the interaction between the social, political, economic and physical environment and the person with disabilities. Harlan Hahn summarizes this shift thus:

“In recent years, the definition of disability has shifted from a medical approach, which stressed function impair-ments, and from an economic orientation, which emphasized vocational limitations, to a socio-political perspective, which regards disability as a product of the interaction between the individual and the environment”.

The definition largely does away with the need for categorization of disability, impairment and handicap that ICIDH attempts since the emphasis now shifts from the person’s deficiencies to the person’s total interaction with the environment. It seems that there is no longer any difference between the consequences of disabilities, impair-ment or handicap as all three impose limitations to a greater or lesser degree, but basically in the same manner, to the way a person with disability interacts with his/her environment. Symington seems to clinch this point then the concludes:

“From the latter vantage point, the principal problems confronting persons with disabilities can be attributed to a disabling environment rather than to individual defects of deficiencies.” (quoted by Mitchel, 1989).

• Whatever the shortcomings of this definition of disability, it has one major advantage over previous ones: it is “person” based stressing an interactive relationship between the person and the environment in totality. It is simple as one does not need to make abstruse distinctions between disability, impair-ment and handicap which no doubt supporters of the ICIDH definition will prefer.

• The short-term socio-political gains resulting from this shift in emphasis can already be seen in the growing clamour for social, economic, political, and educational and access rights for persons with disabilities particularly in the UN system which is now engaged in developing an international convention on the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities and inclusive policies in the education and other services. The long-term benefits will come when persons with disabilities are empowered sufficiently to take control over their own destiny to the extent that they will have proactive say on all issues affecting them. To achieve this goal, a series of actions must be taken individually and collectively by persons with disabilities, and on their behalf by professionals and policy makers involved either directly or indirectly in working with persons with disabilities.

• The basis of these redeeming actions must be persons with disabilities, their potential abilities, needs and desires; and the total environment within which they live.

• The approach to the conceptualization of disability and persons with disabilities should remove many of the linguistics disparities which now beset these concepts. Thus, intervention services such as prevention of disabilities will concentrate equally on the person, the disability and the environment, rather than is the case at present where action is geared primarily at fitting the person into the environment. In economic terms, for instance, the benefits of economic reforms to persons with disabilities will be judged on the degree by which the program’s policies hinder or restrict the capacity of persons with disabilities to interact not only with their economic environment, but with the environment in its totality. The same would apply to educational, social, technological and other policies.

• To facilitate such action, opportunities must not only exist, they must be equalized between persons with disabilities and persons without disabilities to minimize (or preferably to eliminate) the former’s limitations in the process of interacting with the environment. This requires policies to make the environment also “disability friendly”.

• The resultant policies must be written in clear and unambiguous language which emphasizes both the recognition of persons with disabilities as deserving beneficiaries and upholding their dignity and self esteem.

Conclusion
Policy recognition is important especially for marginalized sections such as persons with disabilities. This recognition, however, needs to take account of the perceptions and desires of the beneficiaries at the formulation and implementation stages. Use of correct language to identity such groups is essential.