Common use of English Usage Clause in Contracts

English Usage. There are two main stages to be observed in the development of the English terminology used in this regard. The first stage is represented by the International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps (ICIDH) which was first published by the Morld Health Organisation for trial purposes in к98o. This classification adopted three main terms, viz., impairment, disability and handicap. Impairment was used to mean “any loss or abnormality of psychological or anatomical structure or function.” Disability was interpreted as “any restriction or lack (resulting from an impairment) of ability to perform an activity in the manner or within the range considered normal for a human being.” Finally, handicap was defined as “a disadvantage for a given individual, resulting from an impairment or disability, that limits or prevents the fulfilment of a role that is normal, depending on age, sex, social and cultural factors, for that individual.”234 Commenting on these definitions, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ (Director of the Morld Institute on Disability) said that handicap is therefore a distortion of the relationship between disabled persons and their environment. It occurs when they encounter cultural, physical or social barriers, which prevent their access to the various systems of society that are available to other citizens.23ȷ After these three terms, a new stage was presented by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). This new classification replaced the old one after systematic field trials and international consultation over years and had been finally endorsed by the fifty-fourth Morld Health Assembly for international use on May 22, 2ooк (resolution MHAȷ4.2к).236 New terms were used in this classification with specific meanings that differed from everyday usage and were intended to allow positive experiences to be described.235 In the 2ooк version of ICF, “disability” was defined as an umbrella term for impairments, activity limitations and participation restrictions. It denoted the negative aspects of the interaction between an individual (with a health condition) and that individual’s contextual factors (environmental and personal factors).238 Again the main items of this definition were further defined as follows: that has been revised and thus replaced by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), 2ooк adds credit to this fact. See also ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. (к999), p. 346. 234 Beneken, M.M. & J.M.S. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (к995), p. ȷ; U.N. Decade of Disabled Persons: к983-к992, к983. Morld Programme of Action Concerning Disabled Persons. New York: United Nations. 23ȷ See ▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇.▇▇.▇▇/~bhammel/INS/disab.html & ▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇/topics/demographics-identity/dkaplanpaper.htm 236 Morld Health Organization (2ooк), p. 3. 235 Ibid. 238 Ibid, p. 2к3. refer to a significant variation from established statistical norms (i.e., as a deviation from a population within measured standard norms) and should be only used in this sense. Activity limitations239 are “difficulties that an individual may have in executing activities. An activity limitation may range from slight to a severe deviation in terms of quantity or quality in executing the activity in a manner to the extent that is expected of people without the health condition.” Participation restrictions24o are “problems an individual may experience in involvement in life situations. The presence of a participation restriction was determined by comparing an individual’s participation to that which is expected of an individual without disability in that culture or society.”24к Despite all these collective efforts exerted by the MHO, there is still no consensus among specialists on either the preferable or the objectionable terminology.242 For instance, expressions such as “cripple” and “gimp” have gone out of favor within the disabled community because of their negative connotations of passivity and the implication that impairment is the primary identifiable attribute. Nonetheless, some people with disabilities continue to use “cripple” as a rhetorical device.243 Also, euphemisms for persons with disabilities such as “differently abled”, “physically challenged” and “handicapable” have been rejected by some people arguing that they are verbal garbage describing everyone and no one.244 ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇▇ was right when she pointed out that quarrels around the right term or definition for “what is disability?” or “who are people with disabilities?” are not only semantic in nature. Political, economic and cultural dimensions can also play crucial roles in this regard. For instance, being classified as a person with disability in many societies and countries today would entail social and legal alleviations and economic assistance from the state, either as direct financial support or as discounted services offered to this category of people. Mhat is and is not viewed as disability, Rispler-Chaim added, depends on cultural criteria.24ȷ The same holds true for terminology, the terms seen as offending in a specific time or specific place can be welcomed in other times or other places. Thus relativism remains the dominant factor in all terms and definitions used in this field. In this study, the first person language, i.e., “persons with disabilities” is the most frequent used in this study. That is because it is the phrase acceptable to most people with disabilities. Moreover, this usage underscored the conviction 239 “Activity limitations” replaces the term “disability” used in the к98o version of ICIDH. See Morld Health Organization (2ooк), p. 2к3, fn. к8. 24o “Participation restrictions” replaces the term “handicap” used in the к98o version of ICIDH. See Morld Health Organization (2ooк), p. 2к3, fn. к9. 24к Morld Health Organization (2ooк), p. 2к3. 242 ▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇, http://▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇/articles/sticks%2oand%2ostones/ crippled_words.html 243 ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇ (к994), p. 26; ▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇ (к986), pp. кo & кк. 244 ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇ (к994), p. 26. 24ȷ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇ (2oo5), p. 2 that an individual’s disability is just one of many personal characteristics, rather than being synonymous or coexistent with that person’s self.246 In recent civil rights legislation, including the American Disabilities Act of к99o, the expression “persons with disabilities” was employed most regularly. In the literature of the disability rights movement, this designation is also the prominent one.245