4.1Non-euphemistic PC expressions

Syntactically, PC language can be divided into person-first, or people-first expressions, where the person is emphasised (‘person who is deaf’, ‘person with autism’), and identity-first expressions, where a certain disability or condition becomes the focus (‘deaf person’, ‘autistic person’). The rules for choosing the appropriate term are quite flexible. Many people would find ‘deaf person’ impolite and too direct but, as Dunn and Andrews (2015)Dunn, Dana S., and Erin E. Andrews 2015 “Person-First and Identity-First Language: Developing Psychologists’ Cultural Competence Using Disability Language.” American Psychologist 70 (3): 255–264. Dunn, Dana S., and Erin E. Andrews 2015 “Person-First and Identity-First Language: Developing Psychologists’ Cultural Competence Using Disability Language.” American Psychologist 70 (3): 255–264. point out, some deaf individuals prefer to be called ‘Deaf’ (capitalised) rather than ‘people with hearing loss’ or ‘people who are deaf’. Both approaches to language are fine choices overall, and mixing this language helps to avoid cumbersome repetition of ‘person with…’ (American Psychological Association 2022aAmerican Psychological Association 2022a “Disability.” https://​apastyle​.apa​.org​/style​-grammar​-guidelines​/bias​-free​-language​/disability​?_ga​=2​.239701315​.1961225062​.1672569664​-1795807778​.1671185872 (accessed 29 October 2022).American Psychological Association 2022a “Disability.” https://​apastyle​.apa​.org​/style​-grammar​-guidelines​/bias​-free​-language​/disability​?_ga​=2​.239701315​.1961225062​.1672569664​-1795807778​.1671185872 (accessed 29 October 2022).). From a linguistic standpoint, person-first expressions tend to be less defining of the people and in this way more indirect than identity-first language. As Quirk et al. (1985Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik 1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik 1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman., 1242) argue, items placed in postmodification position have a notably temporary reference, whereas premodification denotes permanent or characteristic traits. Due to its indirectness, people-first language is treated by Halmari (2011Halmari, Helena 2011 “Political Correctness, Euphemism and Language Change. The Case of “People First”.” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (3): 828–840. Halmari, Helena 2011 “Political Correctness, Euphemism and Language Change. The Case of “People First”.” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (3): 828–840. , 829) as postmodification euphemism. However, the indirectness of person-first expressions consists only in circumlocution – “a way of saying or writing something using more words than are necessary instead of being clear and direct” (“Circumlocution,” n.d.“Circumlocution.” n.d. In Collins Online Dictionary. https://​www​.collinsdictionary​.com​/dictionary​/english​/circumlocution (accessed 14 October 2023).“Circumlocution.” n.d. In Collins Online Dictionary. https://​www​.collinsdictionary​.com​/dictionary​/english​/circumlocution (accessed 14 October 2023).). Even though person-first circumlocutions may de-emphasise an undesirable feature or condition, they do not necessarily decrease the sensitivity of a topic and shift its affective polarity from negative to positive or neutral. For example, ‘people experiencing homelessness’ sounds less harsh and stigmatising than does ‘homeless people’ because it presents homelessness as a temporary state, but the negative overtones generated by the term ‘homelessness’ still remain. Thus, the criterion of indirectness does not suffice to characterise person-first periphrases as euphemisms.

Let us turn to the corpus data and consider the use of ‘visually impaired’ and ‘vision impaired’ in the excerpts below.

Generally, ‘visually impaired’ has a broader denotation than ‘blind’, as it describes “any defect of vision, whether disabling or not” (“Visually Impaired,” n.d.“Visually Impaired.” n.d. In Collins Online Dictionary. https://​www​.collinsdictionary​.com​/dictionary​/english​/visually​-impaired (accessed 30 October 2022).“Visually Impaired.” n.d. In Collins Online Dictionary. https://​www​.collinsdictionary​.com​/dictionary​/english​/visually​-impaired (accessed 30 October 2022).). To find an interpretation of ‘blind and visually impaired people’ and ‘adults who are blind or vision impaired’, which will satisfy the expectations of relevance raised by these utterances, the hearer has to construct the ad hoc concept blind*, i.e. ‘unable to see’, and the narrowed ad hoc concepts visually impaired* and vision impaired*, i.e. ‘visually/vision impaired but not to the point of blindness’. Here, ‘visually/vision impaired’ is used to describe people with a partial visual impairment, and therefore it is intended for accuracy rather than for avoiding offence. Processing ‘visually impaired people’ in the context of (2) should lead to the construction of the narrowed ad hoc concept visually impaired*, i.e. ‘with a visual impairment which is disabling’. In this utterance, ‘visually impaired’ denotes both people who are blind and people who have a partial visual impairment. Identifying the referent of this expression involves accessing highly salient logical information encoded by its conceptual content. By adding this information to the utterance context, the hearer can supply the contextual assumption that visually impaired people are people who cannot travel independently because of their disability, and thus arrive at an interpretation which yields a positive cognitive effect and requires minimal processing effort. This assumption is communicated explicitly and expresses the speaker’s meaning. The use of ‘visually impaired’ in (2) can be seen as a politically correct way of describing people who are functionally unable to see.

The circumlocutions ‘people who are living with sight loss’ and ‘those living on the autism spectrum’ can be classified as politically correct inasmuch as they suggest that disability or disorder is not characteristic of a person and is possible to live with. The abstract terms ‘sight loss’ and ‘autism spectrum’ make the illness appear slightly less severe or frightening. Despite being roundabout, these expressions are logically precise and give an accurate indication of their referent. To find the intended interpretation, the hearer does not need to draw upon any encyclopaedic information. Inferring ‘blind people’ and ‘autistic people’ might call for a greater processing effort that would not be offset by any significant cognitive reward in terms of improvement in knowledge or in understanding. According to the Cognitive Principle of Relevance, “human cognition tends to be geared to the maximisation of relevance. What makes an input maximally relevant to individuals is that it yields greater effects, for less effort, than any other input available to them at the time” (Wilson 2016Wilson, Deirdre 2016 “Relevance Theory.” In The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Yan Huang, 79–100. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Wilson, Deirdre 2016 “Relevance Theory.” In The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Yan Huang, 79–100. Oxford: Oxford University Press., 84). The lexically encoded logical forms of ‘people who are living with sight loss’ and ‘those living on the autism spectrum’ should supply enough positive cognitive effects to satisfy the addressee’s expectations of relevance.

The phrase ‘people recovering from drug or alcohol dependence’ was coined to soften stigma attached to drug and alcohol addiction. Here, drug dependence is conceptualised as a disease and a person who has had it as a patient getting back to a normal state of health. The information linguistically encoded by recover, i.e. ‘get well’, provides easy access to the logical assumption which can ensure the derivation of the expected cognitive effect. The circumlocution ‘people with experience of the criminal justice system’ gives a clear description of the intended referent. The need to look for a straightforward term – ‘ex-offenders’ or ‘ex-convicts’ – is not urgent, and, what’s more, finding this term may not result in the achievement of additional cognitive effect. According to a relevance-guided comprehension heuristic, hearers should follow a path of least effort in constructing an interpretation of the utterance, and stop when their expectations of relevance are satisfied (Wilson 2011Wilson, Deirdre 2011 “Parallels and Differences in the Treatment of Metaphor in Relevance Theory and Cognitive Linguistics.” Studia Linguistica Universitatis Lagellonicae Cracoviensis 128: 195–213. Wilson, Deirdre 2011 “Parallels and Differences in the Treatment of Metaphor in Relevance Theory and Cognitive Linguistics.” Studia Linguistica Universitatis Lagellonicae Cracoviensis 128: 195–213. , 204). Recovering the meaning from the lexically encoded logical form of this expression is not cognitively costly and yields enough cognitive effects to enable the hearer to find an interpretation consistent with expectations of relevance. These two circumlocutions are similar in the sense that they represent an addiction and a term in prison as a thing of the past, almost as a feature of one’s personal experience.

The periphrases ‘people fleeing domestic abuse and their children’ and ‘the transgender people who lost their lives to violence’ were coined to bypass the negativity of the term ‘victims’. In the former, the lexeme ‘flee’ suggests that people who find themselves in a dangerous situation choose to act rather than suffer and put up with a threat. Thus, hearers are encouraged to develop a more respectful attitude to individuals who faced domestic abuse. Use of ‘the transgender people who lost their lives to violence’ could also be motivated by the need for accuracy – this expression refers specifically to individuals who were killed and not injured or harmed by an act of violence. Within the criminal justice system, the term ‘victim’ does not imply weakness. It is a legal definition used to illustrate that a crime has been committed against a person (Sexual Assault Kit Initiative, n.d.Sexual Assault Kit Initiative n.d. “Victim or Survivor: Terminology through Investigation to Prosecution.” https://​sakitta​.rti​.org​/toolkit​/index​.cfm​?fuseaction​=tool​&tool​=80 (accessed 15 November 2022).Sexual Assault Kit Initiative n.d. “Victim or Survivor: Terminology through Investigation to Prosecution.” https://​sakitta​.rti​.org​/toolkit​/index​.cfm​?fuseaction​=tool​&tool​=80 (accessed 15 November 2022).). ‘Survivor’ is another word used to denote a person who experienced violence. ‘Victim’ typically refers to someone who has recently experienced an assault, whereas ‘survivor’ refers to an individual who is going or has gone through the recovery process. They can be used interchangeably in a respectful way; yet the latter is viewed as a term of empowerment (ibid.). In writing, a combination of the two words conveys meanings and attitudes expressed by the separate lexemes, e.g. ‘a victim/survivor-focused approach’. The present research indicates that the choice of the particular word is a matter of terminological accuracy or the speaker’s preference. In (3), ‘victims’ and ‘survivors’ are used as synonyms, but precedence is given to the latter, and the former helps to avoid repetition.

‘Survivors’ occupies a leading position in the text probably because it is considered less stigmatising or condescending: logical and encyclopaedic knowledge activated by the concept survival generates mental representations about strength, resilience and success. In (4), ‘survivors’ also functions as a PC term. Since the immediate context does not contain any expressions denoting people who experienced violence other than ‘survivors’, the use of this word looks redundant, but the lack of linguistic variation makes its PC status even more obvious.

Importantly, ‘survivors’ is not intended to stand for or to implicate ‘victims’. ‘Survivors of domestic abuse’ should be understood as ‘people who survived domestic abuse’, ‘survivors of sexual violence’ as ‘people who survived sexual violence’, etc. Yet, it must be admitted that use of this term might trigger a non-intended effect – i.e. evoke the more common ‘victims’. The topics of abuse, violence and slavery are strongly associated with suffering and harm, and the possibility of ‘survivors’ implicating ‘victims’ cannot be ruled out. This implicature, however, seems to be inessential, as it will not make the speaker’s meaning more complete or explicit. The lexically encoded content of the ‘survivors’ expressions yields an interpretation that makes the utterance in (4) optimally relevant, i.e. (a) it is at least relevant enough to be worth the addressee’s processing effort, and (b) it is the most relevant one compatible with the speaker’s abilities and preferences (Wilson 2016Wilson, Deirdre 2016 “Relevance Theory.” In The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Yan Huang, 79–100. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Wilson, Deirdre 2016 “Relevance Theory.” In The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Yan Huang, 79–100. Oxford: Oxford University Press., 85). From the speaker’s perspective, the use of ‘survivors’ is the most cognitively effective way of describing people who have faced violence or abuse. From the hearer’s perspective, accessing logical information lexically encoded by this term and adding it to the utterance context to supply the appropriate assumption should be the least effort-consuming way of inferring the speaker’s meaning.

Guidelines for avoiding biased and offensive language recommend replacing terms characterising people by their conviction history, like ‘criminal’, ‘offender’ and ‘inmate’, with expressions that acknowledge people’s capacity to change and grow, e.g. ‘person or individual with justice system involvement’ (The Fortune Society, n.d.The Fortune Society n.d. “Words Matter: Using Humanising Language.” https://​fortunesociety​.org​/wordsmatter/ (accessed 15 November 2022).The Fortune Society n.d. “Words Matter: Using Humanising Language.” https://​fortunesociety​.org​/wordsmatter/ (accessed 15 November 2022).). The data under analysis contain several PC expressions aimed at reducing stigma associated with serving a prison sentence. For example, ‘formerly incarcerated persons’ and ‘individuals with arrest and conviction records’ refer to people released from custody or prison. It can be argued that these circumlocutions might imply ‘ex-prisoners’ or ‘ex-offenders’ for some people. However, if any one of these direct terms springs to mind, it seems unlikely that it will bring about an improvement in knowledge and be more indicative of the speaker’s meaning than the exhaustive descriptions provided by the periphrases. Decoding the lexically encoded meanings of ‘formerly incarcerated persons’ and ‘individuals with arrest and conviction records’ requires minimal processing effort and ensures the achievement of a positive cognitive effect. “Since relevance varies inversely with effort, the fact that an interpretive hypothesis is easily accessible gives it an initial degree of plausibility” (Wilson 2016Wilson, Deirdre 2016 “Relevance Theory.” In The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Yan Huang, 79–100. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Wilson, Deirdre 2016 “Relevance Theory.” In The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Yan Huang, 79–100. Oxford: Oxford University Press., 86). The literal interpretations, thus, should provide the most plausible hypotheses about the speaker’s meaning.

The term ‘African American’ is sometimes viewed as a PC alternative for ‘Black’. The APA states that “both are acceptable, but ‘Black’ is appropriate rather than ‘African American’ to describe people of African descent from various national origins, e.g. Haitian, Nigerian, etc.” (American Psychological Association 2022bAmerican Psychological Association 2022b “Racial and Ethnic Identity.” https://​apastyle​.apa​.org​/style​-grammar​-guidelines​/bias​-free​-language​/racial​-ethnic​-minorities (accessed 15 November 2022).American Psychological Association 2022b “Racial and Ethnic Identity.” https://​apastyle​.apa​.org​/style​-grammar​-guidelines​/bias​-free​-language​/racial​-ethnic​-minorities (accessed 15 November 2022).). Consider how these terms are used in (5).

‘Black-owned’ in ‘Black-owned businesses’ conveys the ad hoc concept black-owned*, i.e. ‘owned by dark-skinned Americans’; ‘Black’ in ‘Black communities’ communicates the ad hoc concept black*, i.e. ‘dark-skinned American’. In the second sentence, ‘Black Americans’ and ‘African Americans’ are used as synonyms. By contrast, finding an interpretation that would make the expression ‘African American and Black students, families, and communities’ relevant in the expected way involves constructing the ad hoc concept black*, i.e. ‘dark-skinned’, whose denotation does not include ‘African American’. Here, ‘Black’ refers to dark-skinned people who were not born in the US or who do not identify as African or American. Unlike ‘African American’, which is nation-specific, ‘Black’ is a universal term that is suitable for describing dark-skinned people of different origins. In (5), as well as generally, the lexeme ‘African American’ is understood as conveying the ad hoc concept african american*, i.e. ‘dark-skinned American of African descent’. To construct this concept, hearers have to select two highly salient assumptions: the logical assumption that a certain ethnic community living in the US originated in Africa and the encyclopaedic assumption that African people are dark-skinned. Any other encyclopaedic information that might be activated by use of ‘African American’ is far less accessible. Therefore, this term is unlikely to be used in reference to light-skinned immigrants from North-African countries, like Egypt, Libya or Morocco. The assumption that people of some African nations have fair or light brown skin is hardly available at all.

Other lexical expressions which I classified as non-euphemistic include ‘people nearing the end of their life’, ‘people experiencing mental health issues’, ‘people in treatment with drug and alcohol dependence’, ‘families and individuals who are recovering from or at risk of homelessness’, ‘undocumented individuals, including Black noncitizens’, ‘a mental health first aider’ and ‘communities impacted by persistent poverty’.

4.2Euphemism-based PC expressions

Euphemisms can be defined as words and phrases that replace other lexical expressions more accurately describing states, actions, events, people or things but rejected for socio-cultural reasons, such as negative connotations and taboo language. This replacement is intended to soften a reference to or disguise a sensitive topic. On a relevance-theoretic approach, the meaning encoded by a euphemistic expression should give an indication of the meaning intended by the speaker, which can be communicated explicitly or implicitly. The analysis of the data has shown that some PC expressions contain broad or vague terms that can qualify as euphemisms. Consider the bolded phrases in (6).

The expressions ‘underserved youth’ and ‘at-risk youth’ have indeterminate meanings and communicate a range of implicated assumptions that can be derived either logically, by using contextual clues, or by accessing encyclopaedic information. Who are these at-risk and underserved youth? The term ‘underserved youth’ typically refers to young people who have inadequate access to educational resources or training. According to Cardichon and Darling-Hammond (2017Cardichon, Jessica, and Linda Darling-Hammond 2017 Advancing Educational Equity for Underserved Youth. Palo Alto: Learning Policy Institute.Cardichon, Jessica, and Linda Darling-Hammond 2017 Advancing Educational Equity for Underserved Youth. Palo Alto: Learning Policy Institute., 1), the group ‘historically underserved youth’ includes “youth of colour, those with disabilities, and those from low-income families”. The YouthBuild programme was set up “to provide specialised training for young people who are at risk of not completing or have not completed their high school education” (Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, n.d.Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development n.d. “YouthBuild Program.” https://​mn​.gov​/deed​/job​-seekers​/find​-a​-job​/targeted​-services​/youth​-employment​/youthbuild​.jsp (accessed 10 December 2022).Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development n.d. “YouthBuild Program.” https://​mn​.gov​/deed​/job​-seekers​/find​-a​-job​/targeted​-services​/youth​-employment​/youthbuild​.jsp (accessed 10 December 2022).). The participants are high school dropouts and potential dropouts, youth at risk of involvement with the juvenile justice system, chemically dependent youth, youth with disabilities, homeless youth and teen parents (ibid.). Parker and Griffith (2016)Parker, Emily, and Michael Griffith 2016 The Importance of At-Risk Funding. Policy Analysis. Education Commission of the States.Parker, Emily, and Michael Griffith 2016 The Importance of At-Risk Funding. Policy Analysis. Education Commission of the States. argue that the term ‘at-risk students’ commonly refers to economically disadvantaged students. Criteria for determining a student’s at-risk status may also include unsatisfactory academic performance, foster youth, child abuse victims and English language learners.

The ad hoc concepts underserved youth*, i.e. ‘youth with inadequate access to educational resources’, and at-risk youth*, i.e. ‘youth at risk of not completing their education’, generate a number of weakly manifest encyclopaedic assumptions. However, which of them will be selected for deriving contextual implications, and whether any of them will be selected at all depends on the state of the hearer’s cognitive environment and the context for interpretation. In relevance theory, cognitive environment is seen as “the set of assumptions that are manifest to an individual at a given time” (Carston 2002Carston, Robyn 2002 Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. Carston, Robyn 2002 Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. , 376). The context for interpretation is treated as a complex multi-tiered construct made up of verbal and situational contexts, as well as the hearer’s assumptions about the world – “it is these assumptions, rather than the actual state of the world, that affect the interpretation of an utterance” (Sperber and Wilson 1986/1995Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson 1986/1995 Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson 1986/1995 Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell., 15–16). In (6), the assumptions that underserved youth and at-risk youth are low-income young people with disabilities, foster youth, homeless youth and youth involved in the justice system follow logically from the verbal context; consequently, they are communicated stronger than the others and are included in the speaker’s meaning.

Generally, the terms ‘underserved’ and ‘at-risk’ are not positively connotative: the former is associated with shortage or bad quality, the latter suggests a probability of failure or a negative event. Nevertheless, in ‘underserved youth’ and ‘at-risk youth’ they function as euphemisms relative to sensitive topics, such as poverty, disability, homelessness, drug and alcohol addiction, and ethnic discrimination. Use of ‘underserved youth’ seeks to shift focus from social and psychological problems facing young people to limited access to education or training, caused by these problems. ‘At-risk youth’ decreases the sensitivity of the underlying topics by indicating that problems affecting young people are not a certainty and can be prevented. This expression is also used in (7), but here the context does not contain any clues about its interpretation; hence, all of the encyclopaedic assumptions are very weak. If any of them are manifest to the audience, they may be selected for deriving contextual implications and constructing an overall interpretation. These assumptions, though, do not form part of the speaker’s informative intention, and it is the addressee who takes responsibility for deriving them.

The euphemistic expression ‘high-risk and justice-involved youth’ is used in reference to a sensitive topic – juvenile delinquency. The vague term ‘justice-involved’ could in theory be applied to any person with involvement in the justice system, like legal professionals and law enforcement personnel, but, in fact, it was coined specifically to describe individuals who have been convicted, incarcerated, or detained. Identifying the referent of ‘justice-involved youth’ in (7) involves supplying the encyclopaedic assumptions that youth are involved in the criminal justice system, and that they have committed an offence. The narrowed ad hoc concept justice-involved*, i.e. ‘involved in the criminal justice system as a defendant’, conveys the speaker’s meaning. In processing ‘high-risk youth’, the hearer has to enrich its lexical meaning so that it communicates the narrowed ad hoc concept high-risk youth*, i.e. ‘youth who are at high risk for committing an offence’, which yields an interpretation consistent with the expectations of relevance raised by this utterance.

In the data under analysis, the terms ‘underserved’, ‘disadvantaged’, ‘marginalised’ and ‘vulnerable’ are used to build phrases with broad meanings which can be difficult to specify in the immediate context, e.g. ‘underserved populations’, ‘students from disadvantaged backgrounds’, ‘historically marginalised groups’, ‘the most vulnerable’. The referents of these phrases can be identified solely via background knowledge. From the relevance-theoretic standpoint, background knowledge represents general information about the world and everyday situations stored as accessible sets, or chunks of encyclopaedic information that help to make sense of the intended ‘scenario’ for utterance comprehension. These sets of encyclopaedic information can be referred to as ‘make-sense frames’ (Yus 2013Yus, Francisco 2013 “Analysing Jokes with the Intersecting Circles Model of Humorous Communication.” Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 9 (1): 3–24. Yus, Francisco 2013 “Analysing Jokes with the Intersecting Circles Model of Humorous Communication.” Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 9 (1): 3–24. , 8–9). Prototypical information about culture and community, which is stored as cultural frames, also forms part of background knowledge (ibid.). Utterances activate certain cultural and make-sense frames that have a bearing on how the former are interpreted. In different contexts and for different addressees the referents of the above-mentioned expressions may be people of colour, minorities, migrants, low-income people, unemployed people, people with disabilities, homeless people, seniors, women, children, or people who live in rural areas. These social groups can be described as underserved because they often have limited or no access to necessary resources and services, or as disadvantaged because they are in a situation or condition that causes them to be less successful than others. They can be characterised as marginalised because they are relegated to a marginal position within a society, and as vulnerable because they are more exposed to harm or attack because of their socioeconomic status, state of health, ethnicity or age. ‘Underserved’, ‘disadvantaged’, ‘marginalised’ and ‘vulnerable’ soften a reference to or even camouflage sensitive topics such as poverty, homelessness, ill health, old age, unemployment, ethnic and gender discrimination. The term ‘economically disadvantaged’ (e.g. ‘economically disadvantaged communities’) is generally regarded as a euphemism for ‘poor’ and ‘low-income’. Access to the euphemistic meaning is provided via certain encyclopaedic information – economic disadvantage is strongly associated with lack of money. Importantly, ‘economically disadvantaged’ is not typically used in another sense – the euphemistic meaning has become its salient, conventional meaning.

Euphemism-based expressions are also used to speak about disability and mental/neurological disorders. Consider the phrases in bold in Excerpt (8).

According to the UK Department for Education, SEN support is provided for pupils who “have a learning difficulty or a disability that requires extra or different help to that normally provided as part of the school’s usual curriculum offer”, and an Education, Health and Care plan is “issued for a pupil who needs more support than is available through SEN support” (Department for Education 2023Department for Education 2023 “Special Educational Needs and Disability: An Analysis and Summary of Data Sources. June 2023.” https://​assets​.publishing​.service​.gov​.uk​/government​/uploads​/system​/uploads​/attachment​_data​/file​/1164690​/Special​_educational​_needs​_and​_disability​_an​_analysis​_and​_summary​_of​_data​_sources​.pdf (accessed 14 October 2023).Department for Education 2023 “Special Educational Needs and Disability: An Analysis and Summary of Data Sources. June 2023.” https://​assets​.publishing​.service​.gov​.uk​/government​/uploads​/system​/uploads​/attachment​_data​/file​/1164690​/Special​_educational​_needs​_and​_disability​_an​_analysis​_and​_summary​_of​_data​_sources​.pdf (accessed 14 October 2023).). Thus, ‘children with special educational needs’ and ‘children with education, health and care (EHC) plans’ were coined exclusively to refer to children with learning difficulties and disabilities. These euphemisms reduce sensitivity of the underlying topic by switching attention from disorders preventing children from studying at school to the necessity of educational and healthcare support for such children. The interpretation of ‘children with the most complex needs’ as ‘children with disabilities’ is determined not only by the utterance context, but also by conventionality – the term ‘needs’ is frequently used in a euphemistic sense in certain discourse contexts. In particular, the research by Gernsbacher et al. (2016Gernsbacher, Morton A., Adam R. Raimond, M. Theresa Balinghasay, and Jilana S. Boston 2016 ““Special Needs” Is an Ineffective Euphemism.” Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications 1: 29. Gernsbacher, Morton A., Adam R. Raimond, M. Theresa Balinghasay, and Jilana S. Boston 2016 ““Special Needs” Is an Ineffective Euphemism.” Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications 1: 29. , 2) has found that ‘special needs’ is an increasingly popular euphemism for ‘disabilities’. The euphemistic meanings of these three PC expressions are fixed and constitute the explicit, truth-conditional content of the utterance. By contrast, the euphemistic meaning of ‘vulnerable children’ is conveyed implicitly. This phrase has a wide extensional range and, generally, can apply to any children who happen to be at a disadvantage because of their social or financial status, or the state of their health. It implicates a number of encyclopaedic assumptions, e.g. ‘children from poor families’, ‘orphans’ or ‘chronically ill children’. However, deriving the contextual implication that vulnerable children are children with disabilities and learning difficulties is key to finding an interpretation that will make the utterance relevant to the addressee. This implicature is strong and together with the ad hoc concept vulnerable children*, which displays some indeterminacy and thus is recovered as a weak explicature, is included in the speaker’s meaning.

It is noteworthy that ‘children with SEND’, ‘children with EHC plans’ and ‘children with the most complex needs’ are, in fact, euphemistic replacements of what were euphemistic replacements – ‘children with learning difficulties’ and ‘children with disabilities’ used to stand for ‘mentally retarded children’ and ‘handicapped children’ (also former euphemisms), which were discarded as rude and insulting (see O’Neill 2011O’Neill, Ben 2011 “A Critique of Politically-Correct Language.” Independent Review 16 (2): 71–98.O’Neill, Ben 2011 “A Critique of Politically-Correct Language.” Independent Review 16 (2): 71–98., 281–282). This cyclical process of word-replacement has been dubbed “the euphemism treadmill” (Pinker 1994Pinker, Steven 1994 “The Game of the Name.” New York Times, April 5. http://​pinker​.wjh​.harvard​.edu​/articles​/media​/1994​_04​_03​_newyorktimes​.pdfPinker, Steven 1994 “The Game of the Name.” New York Times, April 5. http://​pinker​.wjh​.harvard​.edu​/articles​/media​/1994​_04​_03​_newyorktimes​.pdf) and “x-phemistic recycling” (Allan and Burridge 2006Allan, Keith, and Kate Burridge 2006 Forbidden Words. Taboo and the Censoring of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Allan, Keith, and Kate Burridge 2006 Forbidden Words. Taboo and the Censoring of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. , 243). Euphemisms tend to undergo semantic change – they gradually take on pejorative connotations, become as objectionable as the words they have displaced and therefore need to be rejected and replaced in their turn.

In Excerpt (9), the term ‘needs’ also serves a euphemistic function – it communicates the broadened ad hoc concept needs*, i.e. ‘disorders’.

This example contains another widely used PC term – ‘neurodivergent’. It is a derivative of the word ‘neurodiversity’ which was coined and popularised by Australian sociologist Judy Singer to combat negative, deficit-based stereotypes of people with autism. Later, usage of ‘neurodiversity’ and ‘neurodivergent’ has broadened to include people with learning disabilities, such as dyslexia, ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder), dysgraphia, dyspraxia, and other types of neurological conditions (Neurodiversity Hub, n.d.Neurodiversity Hub n.d. “What Is Neurodiversity?” https://​www​.neurodiversityhub​.org​/what​-is​-neurodiversity (accessed 10 April 2023).Neurodiversity Hub n.d. “What Is Neurodiversity?” https://​www​.neurodiversityhub​.org​/what​-is​-neurodiversity (accessed 10 April 2023).). These umbrella terms can count as euphemisms, since they decrease sensitivity by suggesting that people who have neurological disorders are not sick or disabled but merely different from others in terms of how their brain works. Processing ‘neurodivergent offenders’ in (9) involves deriving the strongly implicated assumption that neurodivergent offenders are offenders with autism, ADHD and dyslexia, which follows logically from the ad hoc concept neurodivergent offenders* and the verbal context. In Excerpt (10), ‘neurodiverse’ functions as a synonym of ‘autistic’.

To find an interpretation that will make this utterance relevant in the expected way, it is necessary to narrow the lexically encoded meaning of ‘neurodiverse people’ by supplying the contextual assumption that people with autism have certain variations in their neural or mental functions. The ad hoc concept neurodiverse people*, i.e. ‘autistic people’, will convey the speaker’s (euphemistic) meaning.

The analysis of the data has shown that PC language can include medical terms. Consider the bolded phrases in (11).

According to Rosen (1997Rosen, Alan 1997 “Crisis Management in the Community.” The Medical Journal of Australia 167 (11–12): 633–638. Rosen, Alan 1997 “Crisis Management in the Community.” The Medical Journal of Australia 167 (11–12): 633–638. , 633), ‘crisis’ was first used as a specific term in psychiatry by Gerald Caplan (1964)Caplan, Gerald 1964 Principles of Preventive Psychiatry. New York: Basic Books.Caplan, Gerald 1964 Principles of Preventive Psychiatry. New York: Basic Books. after considering earlier evidence that survivors of severe trauma had much better outcomes if they received immediate psychiatric help. A ‘crisis’ was seen as a brief non-illness response to severe stress, and ‘crisis intervention’ emerged to detect maladaptive responses to crises. ‘Crisis intervention’ is referred to as ‘psychotherapeutic intervention’ by Mackey (1968Mackey, Richard 1968 “Crisis Theory: Its Development and Relevance to Social Casework Practice.” The Family Coordinator 17 (3): 165–173. Mackey, Richard 1968 “Crisis Theory: Its Development and Relevance to Social Casework Practice.” The Family Coordinator 17 (3): 165–173. , 165) and is defined as ‘emergency first aid for mental health’ by Ehly (1986)Ehly, Stewart 1986 Crisis Intervention Handbook. Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.Ehly, Stewart 1986 Crisis Intervention Handbook. Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.. The expression ‘people in crisis’ dates back at least to the 1970s. It was used by American psychiatrist Lee Ann Hoff (1978)Hoff, Lee Ann 1978 People in Crisis: Understanding and Helping. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.Hoff, Lee Ann 1978 People in Crisis: Understanding and Helping. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. in her book People in Crisis: Understanding and Helping to describe people who need urgent psychiatric care. This term and its variations ‘person(s) in crisis’ and ‘individual(s) in crisis’ have retained their original meanings and do not usually apply to people experiencing any other type of crisis, for example, a midlife crisis or a personal financial crisis. These expressions reduce sensitivity of the underlying topic by veiling their referents: mentally ill people, people who attempt suicide, individuals with a drug or alcohol addiction. They also shift focus from the illness or disorder afflicting a person to the urgent necessity of helping this person. The terms ‘crisis intervention’ and ‘crisis counselling’, which denote urgent short-term psychotherapy, can also count as euphemisms – they contribute to the perception of psychiatric help as a kind of intentional involvement or professional guidance aimed at tackling a difficult or dangerous situation, and thus reduce negative bias towards people seeking psychiatric assistance. In (11), the euphemistic meanings of ‘individuals in crisis’, ‘crisis intervention’ and ‘crisis counselling’ are communicated implicitly, both strongly and weakly. The contextual assumptions that individuals in crisis are people who have mental illness, anxiety or depression, and that crisis intervention and crisis counselling are provided for people with these disorders, constitute strong implicatures and form part of the speaker’s meaning. Other encyclopaedic assumptions which may be triggered by the use of these expressions, e.g. ‘individuals in crisis are people who had a trauma’, ‘crisis intervention is for people who are emotionally stressed and prone to committing suicide’, are recovered as weak implicatures.

PC expressions which I also classified as euphemisms are ‘behavioural health disorders’, where ‘behavioural’ stands for ‘mental’, ‘economically inactive’ – ‘unemployed’, ‘opportunity youth’ – ‘dropouts’, ‘mental health support specialist’ – ‘psychotherapist’, ‘rough sleeping’ – ‘homelessness’.