Disability presents a form of diversity, similar to ones of gender, race, ethnicity, social class, and religion. This study seeks to establish the construction of disability among the Bukusu of Kenya within a linguistic and discursive context. Focus is on the cultural beliefs and knowledge that shape disability construction and words used to refer to people with disabilities. Disability in this study is defined as a condition or quality linked to a particular person. Knowing how to sensitively refer to members of diverse groups is important. Language is one of the elements that create reality. Languages play a role in constructing the image of disability. Speaking in a particular way, people portray different items, persons etc. The process of the construction may result in shaping varied attitudes and emerging different labels. Because there is undoubtedly the great distance between disability and able-bodiedness. The difference is also supposed to be expressed linguistically. Creating new words for naming new phenomena has been practiced for ages. Disabled people are significantly affected by the way in which culture(s) explain the cause of disabilities ( God’s will, reincarnation, witchcraft); the images disability evokes (the sick/deformed body); and how they are described (cripple, invalid, retard).These interact in a circular way to produce the ways in which society at large is socialized to think about disability. This paper set out to investigate the linguistic and discursive construction of disability in Bukusu society.

There exist different types of disabilities among them communication difficulties, sexual disabilities, sickness disabilities, physical impairment, sensory impairment, cognitive impairment, intellectual impairment, genetic conditions, mental illness, various types of chronic diseases and social relationships. This study sought to establish the linguistic nature in representation of disability. The focus was on names (nicknames), diminutive and/or augmentative language, coded expressions, imagery and symbolic language.

Prior to becoming disabled, certain privileges and statuses are taken for granted [1]. Rose asserts that to become disabled is to be relegated to a marginalised status in society and brings into high relief for the disabled person the advantages accorded those who inhabit the unacknowledged "centre". To become disabled is to lose access to these privileges and, in so doing, to begin to be defined in very different ways. These processes are subtle such that the recruitment of disabled subjects into inferior subject positions derives from the creation of identities which seem natural and very much the responsibility of the individual psyche. Although the loss of one's comparatively privileged subject position may be very sudden and momentous according to the particular nature of the accident, illness or injury, the overall summoning to a new level of identification is a gradual process whereby the doubts from within, the stares and snubs from without, and the lack of access to previously available social locations and resources erode one's prior claim to social acceptability.

Drawing from Foucault's [2] concept of subjecthood identity can be claimed to be a social construction. "subjectification" is a word already in existence which means 'the action of making or being made subjective’ which seems to suit very well Foucault's statement. Disability is the only one that can happen to anyone, in an instant, transforming that person's life and identity forever' [3]. It is therefore a unique site of subjectification, one which can exemplify with great clarity and intensity the ways in which identity as a process of labeling, differentiation and social positioning joins the personal to the political, the subjective to that which subjugates. Hughes [4] describes the construction of disability as a process of 'invalidation', an 'othering process that has both produced and "spoilt" disability as an identity.

Theoretical Background 

This study combines Saussurean linguistics with Foucault's understanding of discourse to explore the ways in which language functions to stigmatise and to devise ways of challenging it. Ferdinand de Saussure [5] founded his linguistic theories on three main premises, each of which are relevant to the development of a better understanding of the creation of the disabled subject through language. He argued that language is socially constructed, that the symbols we use to create meaning are arbitrary, and, most importantly for our purposes, that we can only understand the meaning of these symbols through contrasting them with what they are not. When Saussure argues that 'language is not a function of the speaking subject' he is stating the basic principle of semiotics which is that language is predetermined in its possibilities by the structure, already in place, by which a particular culture governs its realm of linguistic signification. He refers to this structure as la langue which Hall [6] describes as 'the underlying rule-governed structure of language...the language system'. Alternately, there exists la parole which is the individual speech act which express itself through this system. Hedley [7] refers to langue and parole as 'the two different modes in which language exists for us simultaneously: as a system of already encoded meanings and as ongoing open-ended meaning-making activity.

This concept of the system of language and the speaking subject is analogous to Foucault's [8] explication of the two forms of subjectification, i.e., subjection and subjectivity. Being 'subject to someone else by control and dependence' can be said to rely on the existence of la langue, a socially governed system of linguistic possibilities, while being 'tied to [one's] own identity by a conscience or self-knowledge' is similarly related to the individual speech act, la parole. In his earlier work, Foucault [8] argued that these two realms of language and, thereby, subjecthood, are connected by simple discourse which transmits politically accepted definitions. When he states that 'between these two regions [language and parole], so distant from one another, lies a domain which, even though its role is mainly an intermediary one, is nonetheless fundamental. 

A semiotic perspective is also useful to the analysis of subjectification through language because it demonstrates that meaning is not transparent, that is, that the language we use to describe things does not mirror reality. Saussure [5] expresses it thus: 'a linguistic sign unites not a thing and a name, but a concept and a sound-image. According to this argument, words are arbitrary, they have no inherent connection to the thing they describe. It is the meaning behind the words, the concepts they bring to mind when they are spoken, that gives them their power. 

Semantics, Discourses and Muted Voices

It is certainly significant that single words express very strong ideas about what is desirable and undesirable in a particular culture. The words "disabled", "cripple", "spastic", "invalid", "weak" and "abnormal" evoke very intense, very negative images. However, it is the framework within which these words are embedded, the sentences, the discourses which inform their use and their possibilities, which bring us to the heart of the connection between language and power. The word "disability", for example, conjures up the images it does because it mediates between the recipient of the word and the larger discourse within which disability is framed. This discourse includes sociological discourse.

Therefore, we need to understand not only how language functions symbolically, but also how these symbols are tied, through discourse, to systems of power. Discourses are ways of thinking which have been institutionalised through culturally approved apparatuses of power. Hall [6] states that Foucault sees discourse as 'a group of statements which provide a language for talking about - a way of representing the knowledge about - a particular topic in a particular historical moment... Discourse is about the production of knowledge through language. But... since all social practices entail meaning, and meanings shape and influence what we do - our conduct - all practices have a discursive aspect [8]. There are two reference points for the analysis. The first one is the Stigma concept by Erving Goffman. It implies stereotyping and labeling. On the other side there is the Other – the idea by Emmanuel Levinas. Thus, while labels stigmatise, discourses silence. Discourse silences disabled people in many ways. It leaves them with no language with which to express themselves, it invalidates their narratives and, therefore, their subjective realities, and it renders them invisible.

The study used a phenomenological approach to data collection and analysis. Data was collected using focus groups of 230 participants. Audio recording of the discussions was done. Data was transcribed and thematic analysis carried out. Visual maps were created to illustrate any interconnectedness before establishing the final decisions. Key ideas and concepts were identified and recorded in note form.

The following is a linguistic presentation of the disability labels in Bukusu society.

Names

These comprises names used to refer to persons with disability in Bukusu society. They also include nicknames.

Diminutives and/or Augmentatives Expressing Disability in Bukusu Society 

An onomasiological analysis of diminutives was adopted in this study. This is so because it is difficult to state what the meaning of a diminutive is hence talking the approach of context-based meaning. The semantic range of diminutives may thus take the negative or positive evaluations of the referent. A standard description of diminutive meaning is that the meaning of the base word is essentially retained, and that the semantic component SMALL is added through the diminutive marker. This additional component does not change the meaning of the base word, but merely modifies it. Diminutives may express a negative evaluation of the referent, i.e. a negative attitude of the speaker/hearer towards the referent, and, more precisely, such emotions as contempt [9].

Essentially, three positions are found in the research literature about the nature of diminutives: 1) diminutives have to express ‘smallness’, and only ‘smallness’; 2) diminutives have to express ‘evaluation’, and only ‘evaluation’; or 3) diminutives have to always express both, ‘smallness’ and ‘evaluation’ [10]. This study adopted both aspects that is diminutives as expressing both smallness and evaluation. Further, in this study, diminutive was conceptualized as a reduction in the number or amount of something in terms of smallness littleness whereas argumentativeness is an act of of increasing the value, amount, effectiveness of something. In Bukusu society both diminutives and /or augmentatives are used to label disability.

The following data is indicative of disability labelling in Bukusu Society by use of diminutives and/or augmentatives. 

The data in Table 8 indicates that in Bukusu society, diminutives and/or augmentatives are expressed by the addition of suffixes to the root word. For instance, the suffix [kha, khe] are used as prefixes for diminutization. Whereas the suffix [ku] is used for augmentatives. In Bukusu society diminutives serve to belittle and ridicule a person with disability further. It represents the extent of the negative evaluation besides the normal othering. On the other hand, augmentatives in Bukusu society serve to magnify the extent of the disability to a level that goes beyond the normal disability. 

Table 1: Names Referring To Physical Disability in Bukusu Society

Table 2: Names Referring To Sensory Impairment in Bukusu Society

Table 3: Names Referring To Visual Impairment in Bukusu Society

Table 4: Names Referring to Mental Impairment in Bukusu Society

Table 5: Names Referring to Sexual Disability in Bukusu Society

Table 6: Names Referring to Genetic Disabilities in Bukusu Society

Table 7: Names Referring to Customary/Traditional Disabilities in Bukusu Society

Table 8: Diminutives and/or Augmentatives in Disability Labelling in Bukusu Society

Imagery/Symbolism /Coded Expressions in Disability Labelling in Bukusu Society

Bukusu society is also uses imagery/symbolism and coded expressions in disability labelling. This means of labelling to some extent reveals the cultural beliefs and knowledge of the Bukusu which further shape our understanding of disability. In addition, the labelling helps to reveal the etymology of the disabled terminology in Bukusu society.

Imagery/Symbolism

In Bukusu Society, the one with a hump (Nasikufu) is always regarded with mystery. In Bukusu Oratory, Nasikufu is a representation of good luck and wisdom. However, though this mythology constructs a positive evaluation of a humped person, most people in Bukusu society still view persons with humps in a negative way and thus diminutivise their labelling.

Animal images are also used in Bukusu society in disability labelling. The following labels are illustrative of the same:

• Embwa (dog) is an image used to refer to women with sexual disability of prostituting around. Thus the import of a dog is indicative of negative evaluation of such women

• Ekhisi (antelope) is an image which indicates secret love with a married woman

• Likhese (sheep) is an image used to refer to people who are naturally stupid or suffer from down syndrome. The import of the image of a sheep is indicative of a sacrificial lamb hence such a person portends bad luck

• Wanenguye (dwarf with big head) is an image which originated from the presence of dwarf people from Congo. Such persons have unusually big heads and they are too short. The Bukusu society looked down upon such people and most often than not were considered as bad luck and cursed. Therefore, any person with such disability is considered a bad omen

• Ekhaniafu (chameleon) is an animal symbol used to refer to persons either with cross eyes or very slow and cursed. In Bukusu mythology, a chameleon is perceived as an animal with a lot of wisdom but it was cursed to be walking slowly when it failed to deliver a message to the world in time and as a consequence, the world perished. However, its use as a referent for people with cross-eyes or slow is still negative

• Namusiekhele a type of pupa that moves slowly. It is used to refer to persons who are very slow. In Bukusu mythology, Namusiekhele is a bad omen because it portends the death of a young person or a child. Therefore, a person who is naturally slow due to disability is considered as a dead person

• Ututu/ kusikhikhi (owl) big eyes. In Bukusu mythology, the owl is a bird which portends death. They believe that when an owl perches in your compound and sings from there, (khusucha) is an indication of calling a family member to death. It is usually chased away from the compound with flames of fire. They also believe that such a bird is always used by witches to bewitch a person. So, when it comes to your compound to sing (khusucha), then you have been bewitched. Therefore, a person born with big eyes is likened to an owl hence a sign of bad omen

• Eyola (a cock that resembles a hen in stature) refers to people who are transgender. In Bukusu mythology, Eyola is sterile and cannot sire chicks. A similar import is therefore used to perceive transgender persons as sterile and thus cannot have progeny. They are thus useless and a bad omen in society

• Engili (Warthog) is a symbol used to refer to persons who naturally have peeping teeth like those of a warthog

• Litete(grasshopper) refers to a person who is naturally very Skeltonian/skinny

• Namunyu (hyena) refers to a child who was thrown away because the mother gives birth to children who die. In this case the unlucky child is perceived to have eaten all the other children. This perceives a lineal disability. In this case, when a child is born, it is thrown away or given a bad name such as that of namunyu (hyena) so that it is not eaten by the unlucky child

• Wanangali (monster). In Bukusu mythology, a monster is a hideous character who is evil and very ugly. A monster is equally a mysterious character whose activities are beyond human understanding. As such an ugly person (wanangali) is a solitary person who lives in fear because no one wants to associate with him

• Tietie/ namukango/ litete. Tietie is a type of bird with very tiny legs. Namukango is a praying mantis. Litete is a grasshopper. A woman who is naturally tiny due to a form of disability is referred to as tietie or namukango because of the features inherent in the two objects

• Kupicha (a picture). This symbol refers to a person born without legs and arms. A picture is inanimate. The import of the symbolism is that person with such a disability is just a reflection of a human being but not a being as such hence a picture

Coded Expressions 

In Bukusu society, coded expressions are used to label persons with disability. Coding is not only offensive but serves as a way of excluding individuals with disabilities. The coded expressions are culture bound and thus cannot be analysed and interpreted outside the Bukusu culture. They thus express the traditions of the community and acts as an eye opener to the understanding of disability from the cultural perspective. 

The following disability labels are illustrative of coded expressions:

Childlessness

Omukhasi is a term which normally refers to a woman in Bukusu society. However, the same term is used to label men who are barren and cannot therefore sire children. The import of this coded expression is that such a man is a woman.

Kakwa eluchi is a term which literary mean ‘falling at the river.’ However, in Bukusu society, this term is used to label men who are barren. Traditionally, women are the ones who go to the river to fetch water and falling with a pot is breaking it is a normality for women. The import of this coded expression is that a man who is childless is as good as a woman and so should do all the other duties of women. He has no place in the circle of men. 

Sumbanaperi is also a coded expression which literally translates to not eating with people. Naperi is a term which means eating ugali while the other side is cold. The cold side of ugali is metaphorically the absence of children. In Bukusu society, ugali is a maize flour meal which is eaten by the whole family as a form of togetherness. A man who has no children eats ugali alone and thus he is naperi. Sumba metaphorically means childless. 

Mono-Eyed Person 

The Bukusu have a coded expression wabunukha busa nga wemoni ndala nabunukha lilo (literally translates as pretending to sleep just like a mono-eyed person). The import of this coded expression is that a mono-eyed person a person who is partially asleep and thus cannot be trusted.

Squint 

The Bukusu coded expression for a squint is lola nga kulola oli kulolile mwangalekha (which literally translates as ‘see how he looks as if the one looking beyond.) the import of this coded expression is that a squint is directionless and one cannot tell exactly where he is looking. 

Stammerer 

The coded expression for a stammarer is lola ngaayingana oli wekimichi mukhanwa which literary translates as see how he argues /talks like one with water full in his mouth.). naturally, a mouth full of water cannot open is a stammerer. The import of this expression is that a stammerer is child playing with water in his mouth and so no one can listen to him/her.

Very Dark Complexion 

The coded expression for people with very dark complexion is kumali nge engoywe which literally translates as dark as a certain type of bird which is so black-called engoywe or nasimali. The import of this expression is that persons with very dark skins are considered to be unattractive and so likened to useless birds which are not even edible. 

Epilepsy 

khukwa chitaru literally means falling down in threes is a coded expression which is used to refer to people who are epileptic. Threes describes the style of an epileptic fit. The Bukusu believe that people with epilepsy are filled with demons that sometimes torment and throw them on the ground, when they so wish. This believe is in agreement with the Ghanaian perception of epileptic persons [11]. In the Ewe tribe, persons with epilepsy are labeled ‘dzeanyikplatowo,’ derogatory tribal language that literally means ‘falling down sicknesses’. No one is allowed to touch or be near them when the convulsion occurs, in the belief that anyone who does so will also be possessed with the demons. In a similar way, the Bukusu people don’t touch an epileptic person when he/she falls on the ground, instead they run away leaving him to his fate.

Language is constantly changing and the major concern has been whether words to refer to disability are appropriate. The findings of this study are indicative of use of language through labelling, diminutives and or augmentatives, imagery/symbolism and coded expressions that negatively refer to persons living with disability it is also evident that such words and expressions serve to offend and exclude people with any kind of disability. The labelling discourse is further rooted in the dominant discourse of the Bukusu people. This is evidenced through imagery/symbolism and coded expressions which reveal the etymology of most of the disability labelling. This is illustrative of the cultural beliefs and knowledge which shape the perception of persons with disability. Therefore, based on the Bukusu mythology, persons with disability are perceived as cursed, stupid, bad luck, animals, birds, insects, evil, monstrous, hideous, non-human and thus they are a deviation from normality or what is considered valid resulting in marginalisation. People with disabilities are therefore labelled as social misfits and social outcasts and that is why most are labelled as animals or insects. This labelling consequently become powerful tools, or weapons that society use to suppress and to exclude persons with disabilities.

This study thus recommends that studies in vernacular contexts should be done with a view to sensitizing the language users to the use of inclusive language which not only respects all members of the community but encourages individuals to achieve their maximum potential.

1. Agbenyega, Joseph S. “The need for transitional services for students with intellectual disabilities in Ghana.” Unpublished honours thesis, Faculty of Education, Monash University, 2002.

2. Foucault, Michel. The archaeology of knowledge. Tavistock, 1972.

3. Foucault, Michel. “The subject and power.” Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, edited by Hubert L. Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow, University of Chicago Press, 1983.

4. Galvin, Rose. “The making of the disabled identity: A linguistic analysis of marginalization.” Disability Studies Quarterly, vol. 23, no. 2, 2003, pp. 149–178.

5. Hall, Stuart. “The work of representation.” Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices, edited by Stuart Hall, Sage, 1997, pp. 13–74.

6. Hedley, Jane. “Surviving to speak new language: Mary Daly and Adrienne Rich.” Language and Liberation: Feminism, Philosophy and Language, edited by Christina Hendricks and Kelly Oliver, State University of New York Press, 1999.

7. Hughes, Bill. “Medicine and the aesthetic invalidation of disabled people.” Disability and Society, vol. 15, no. 4, 2000, pp. 555–568.

8. King, Ynestra. “The other body.” Ms., vol. 3, no. 5, 1993, pp. 72–75.

9. Saussure, Ferdinand de. Course in general linguistics. Translated by Wade Baskin, Philosophical Library, 1959.

10. Schneider, Klaus P. Diminutives in English. Niemeyer, 2003.

11. Schneider, Klaus P. and Susanne Strubel-Burgdorf. “Diminutive -let in English.” SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, vol. 9, no. 1, 2011, pp. 15–32.