FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2610853828> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2610853828 endingPage "434" @default.
• W2610853828 startingPage "433" @default.
• W2610853828 abstract "A 19th century children's rhyme goes: ‘Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me’. But, there is a wealth of evidence that words can wound (Fig. 1). While humans’ ability to interact with words is overwhelmingly beneficial overall, words can be harmful when deliberately or unthinkingly used to demean, abuse, belittle or ridicule someone. The victim of such abuse is often vulnerable, such as a child, someone who has a physical deformity or belongs to a minority group. The harm may be magnified if the words refer to real underlying preoccupations of a victim who lacks power to fight back. The internet has provided new opportunities for damaging with words, many involving children and adolescents. In families, emotions often run highest and words can be particularly hurtful and linger longest in the mind. When the mother of the neurologist and author Oliver Sacks learned that he was gay, she said to him: ‘You are an abomination. I wish you had never been born’. Sacks wrote that he forgave her, but he never forgot those words.1 Repetitive, sustained verbal abuse and criticism by parents may cause life-long self-criticism with associated anxiety and depression, often continued down generations.2 In a large US study, harsh verbal discipline to 13-year-olds from either parent predicted conduct problems and depression in the next 2 years, an effect unmitigated by parental warmth.3 Even well-meaning words can harm inadvertently. Stephen Grosz, a psychoanalyst, describes his dismay at excessive praise given to his young daughter by a nursery assistant.4 In explanation of his seemingly puzzling concern, Grosz cites an experiment conducted by psychologists Carol Dweck and Claudia Mueller, who asked 128 pupils aged 10–11 years to solve mathematics problems. Afterwards, they told all the students they had done really well, but told half ‘you are so clever’, and the other half ‘you must have tried really hard’. When given more difficult questions, the children told they were clever, solved fewer problems and worried more about failing than those told they tried hard. Some ‘clever’ children even exaggerated their scores, indicating how adults’ unrealistic expectations had caused harm. ‘All it took to knock these youngsters’ confidence, to make them so unhappy that they lied, was one sentence of praise’, writes Grosz.4 People sometimes use harsh language in the workplace, often to others lower in the hierarchy, either deliberately or inadvertently. This may be in emails, on the telephone or even in person, although we are generally less likely to be rude to people's faces than when we use less personal forms of communication. The tone is important as well as the actual words. It is incumbent on us all to try to be aware when we use abrupt and hurtful language, and to try to avoid doing so. We should also be brave enough to point out to colleagues if they use inappropriate language. It is wise to delay sending an angry email, at least overnight, no matter how apparently justified the anger, and wiser still to ask a confidante to read it first. Paediatricians should always choose their words carefully when talking to children and parents, particularly about critical topics. Many parents of children with cancer or disability counselled insensitively never forget the exact words the paediatrician used.5 Parents and children need to be able to hope.5, 6 Politicians have long recognised the importance of language, used selectively to advance their own ends, but also in terms of protecting freedom of speech. In his prescient novel Nineteen Eighty Four, George Orwell described Newspeak, a fictional language introduced by the state of Oceania to limit the freedom of expression. The power of language reflects the language of power. The language used by politicians must be confusing for children. Donald Trump regularly refers to his opponents using school bully terms: loser, nobody, bimbo and dumb. When exposed as having made disgusting sexist comments, Trump said ‘It's just words, folks’. Actions are certainly more important than words, but words cannot be dismissed so lightly. Australian politician Pauline Hanson uses language that demeans Aboriginal people, Asians and Muslims. Preventing bullying in school and the workplace is harder when we elect politicians who bully with words. Should we prevent people using bullying words in public? There is an inherent tension between two principles, both so-called human rights7: freedom of speech and freedom from discrimination on grounds such as race, colour, sex, language, religion or political opinion. Even liberal democracies take different approaches to issues such as hate speech and defamation. During 2010–2011, Australian journalist Andrew Bolt was sued in the Federal Court over two newspaper blog posts and found guilty of breaching the Racial Discrimination Act by comments regarded to be representative of a ‘eugenic’ approach to Aboriginal identity.8 Bolt's supporters argue that Aboriginal people are oversensitive about language and should learn not to take offence. The contrary view is that the appalling violence and subsequent institutionalised racism to which Aboriginal people have been subjected ever since European colonisation, so movingly described by another journalist Stan Grant,9 deserves better recognition. A corollary is that Aboriginal people deserve our respect and our protection from verbal abuse. Arguably, the person on the receiving end of words, not the person speaking them, has the greater moral claim on whether the language is offensive. Words can wound and we should use them with care. Thanks to Tony Delamothe, Chris Elliot, Steve Isaacs, Tom Isaacs and Ken Nunn for helpful comments." @default.
• W2610853828 created "2017-05-12" @default.
• W2610853828 creator A5025335270 @default.
• W2610853828 creator A5065026316 @default.
• W2610853828 date "2017-05-01" @default.
• W2610853828 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W2610853828 title "Words that wound" @default.
• W2610853828 cites W2066308776 @default.
• W2610853828 cites W2105651180 @default.
• W2610853828 cites W2470053107 @default.
• W2610853828 cites W2530383636 @default.
• W2610853828 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/jpc.13545" @default.
• W2610853828 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28470809" @default.
• W2610853828 hasPublicationYear "2017" @default.
• W2610853828 type Work @default.
• W2610853828 sameAs 2610853828 @default.
• W2610853828 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2610853828 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2610853828 hasAuthorship W2610853828A5025335270 @default.
• W2610853828 hasAuthorship W2610853828A5065026316 @default.
• W2610853828 hasBestOaLocation W26108538281 @default.
• W2610853828 hasConcept C11171543 @default.
• W2610853828 hasConcept C118552586 @default.
• W2610853828 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W2610853828 hasConcept C139719470 @default.
• W2610853828 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W2610853828 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2610853828 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W2610853828 hasConcept C2775868214 @default.
• W2610853828 hasConcept C2776867660 @default.
• W2610853828 hasConcept C2777363581 @default.
• W2610853828 hasConcept C2780876879 @default.
• W2610853828 hasConcept C2781298115 @default.
• W2610853828 hasConcept C542102704 @default.
• W2610853828 hasConcept C558461103 @default.
• W2610853828 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2610853828 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W2610853828 hasConcept C7991579 @default.
• W2610853828 hasConceptScore W2610853828C11171543 @default.
• W2610853828 hasConceptScore W2610853828C118552586 @default.
• W2610853828 hasConceptScore W2610853828C124952713 @default.
• W2610853828 hasConceptScore W2610853828C139719470 @default.
• W2610853828 hasConceptScore W2610853828C142362112 @default.
• W2610853828 hasConceptScore W2610853828C15744967 @default.
• W2610853828 hasConceptScore W2610853828C162324750 @default.
• W2610853828 hasConceptScore W2610853828C2775868214 @default.
• W2610853828 hasConceptScore W2610853828C2776867660 @default.
• W2610853828 hasConceptScore W2610853828C2777363581 @default.
• W2610853828 hasConceptScore W2610853828C2780876879 @default.
• W2610853828 hasConceptScore W2610853828C2781298115 @default.
• W2610853828 hasConceptScore W2610853828C542102704 @default.
• W2610853828 hasConceptScore W2610853828C558461103 @default.
• W2610853828 hasConceptScore W2610853828C71924100 @default.
• W2610853828 hasConceptScore W2610853828C77805123 @default.
• W2610853828 hasConceptScore W2610853828C7991579 @default.
• W2610853828 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W2610853828 hasLocation W26108538281 @default.
• W2610853828 hasLocation W26108538282 @default.
• W2610853828 hasOpenAccess W2610853828 @default.
• W2610853828 hasPrimaryLocation W26108538281 @default.
• W2610853828 hasRelatedWork W2373922510 @default.
• W2610853828 hasRelatedWork W2390524002 @default.
• W2610853828 hasRelatedWork W2391217731 @default.
• W2610853828 hasRelatedWork W2602485559 @default.
• W2610853828 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2610853828 hasRelatedWork W2800390539 @default.
• W2610853828 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2610853828 hasRelatedWork W2913425792 @default.
• W2610853828 hasRelatedWork W4245440204 @default.
• W2610853828 hasRelatedWork W870857170 @default.
• W2610853828 hasVolume "53" @default.
• W2610853828 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2610853828 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2610853828 magId "2610853828" @default.
• W2610853828 workType "article" @default.