Title

Preposterous Prepositions: Emotional Responses to 'of' versus 'for' in Deafness-Centered Titles

Date

5-26-2016 3:00 PM

End Time

26-5-2016 3:15 PM

Location

WUC Santiam Room

Department

Deaf Studies and Professional Studies

Session Chair

Michael Olivier

Session Title

Topics in American Sign Language, Interpreting, Deaf Education, and Mental Health

Faculty Sponsor(s)

Michael Olivier

Abstract

"What is your reaction when you read these two titles: Psychology for the Deaf versus Psychology of the Deaf? What connotations or gut feelings arise with the difference of one small word?" The question initially arose in a Deaf Mental Health class at Western Oregon University in 2016, with feelings on this grammatical difference mixed. Some students believed that the preposition 'of' created a distanced, clinical feel but was argued that it empowered the Deaf community. On the other hand, 'for' was believed to be more personal and connected, but a double-edged sword in the sense that it sounded as though it had been gifted down to a minority group. The purpose of this study was to give this originally simple discussion question the linguistic attention it deserved. The study itself took place through an online survey of 41 people over the period of a week. Participants ranged in age, ethnicity, culture, and audiological identity to ensure a wide spread of emotional response possibilities.

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS
 
May 26th, 3:00 PM May 26th, 3:15 PM

Preposterous Prepositions: Emotional Responses to 'of' versus 'for' in Deafness-Centered Titles

WUC Santiam Room

"What is your reaction when you read these two titles: Psychology for the Deaf versus Psychology of the Deaf? What connotations or gut feelings arise with the difference of one small word?" The question initially arose in a Deaf Mental Health class at Western Oregon University in 2016, with feelings on this grammatical difference mixed. Some students believed that the preposition 'of' created a distanced, clinical feel but was argued that it empowered the Deaf community. On the other hand, 'for' was believed to be more personal and connected, but a double-edged sword in the sense that it sounded as though it had been gifted down to a minority group. The purpose of this study was to give this originally simple discussion question the linguistic attention it deserved. The study itself took place through an online survey of 41 people over the period of a week. Participants ranged in age, ethnicity, culture, and audiological identity to ensure a wide spread of emotional response possibilities.