ศัพท์ น่าสับสน ชุด – A – addicted & devoted
แนะนำการใช้ ตามที่ส่วนใหญ่ใช้ แต่ละท้องถิ่น
ความหมาย อาจผันแปร ตาม ตำแหน่ง/หน้าที่ ในประโยค
ออกเสียง addicted = ‘uh-DIK-tid’
ออกเสียง devoted = ‘dih-VOH-tid’
USAGENOTE FOR ADDICT
Drug and alcohol addiction was historically considered
a moral failing, demonstrating a weakness of character.
This disparaging connotation
persistsin the nouns addict and alcoholic,
in spite of our evolving modern understanding of the problem.
Addiction is the complicated result of genetic predisposition
intersecting with dysfunctional behavior,
environmental factors, and social influences.
Many major medical associationstreat addiction as a disease,
in part because it is a chronic condition
that is demonstrably present in a person’s neurophysiology.
Medical professionals, specialists, and advocates
in the addiction treatmentand recovery community
suggest using language that focuses on the whole person
and specifically mentions addictionor addictive behaviors
only when those details are relevant.
As an alternativeto calling someone an addict or alcoholic,
describethat individual who is addicted to painkillers,
a person with drug addiction,
the one who drinksalcohol excessively,
orsomeone who uses amphetamines.
People who have an addiction are human beings, first and foremost.
They should not be reduced by the label addict or alcoholic
to be defined by a single facet of their complex humanity.
What’s Wrong With The Word “Addict”?
The word addict has been around in English since at least the 1500s, adapted from the Latin addictus,
But the way we talk about people with addiction is changing,
and here at Dictionary.com, we’re changing along with it.
In a major update to Dictionary.com, our lexicographers have
replaced all instances of addict used as a noun
with“a person addicted to” or a “habitual user of.”
For example, we no longer define our second sense of user
as“one who uses drugs, especially an abuser or addict.”
Our definition now reads:
“a person who is addicted to or abuses a controlled substance or alcohol;
one who uses illegalor addictive drugs.”
These and other revisions have improved over 25 entries across our site.
Another big change?
Our definition of addict as a noun, which dates back to the late 1800s,
now labels that the word is sometimes offensive.
We’ve also added
an extensive Sensitive Language Noteto our revised entry for addict.
But whywould a dictionary change a word that’s been around for centuries?
The way we use language evolves—and so does Dictionary.com.
And when it comes to words around addiction,
there’s been a lot of evolution in recent years.
Why calling someone an addict is harmful
“Drug and alcohol addictionwas historically considered
a moral failing, demonstrating a weakness of character,”
explains Dictionary.com Lexicographer Heather Bonikowski.
“This disparaging connotation persists in the nouns addict and alcoholic,
in spite of our evolving modern understanding of the problem.”
Bonikowski specifically notes alcoholic for reason.
She led the implementation of our changes to addict
in parallel with revisions to the sometimes offensive noun alcoholic,
which we now define as
“a person with alcoholismor alcohol use disorder;
a personaddicted to intoxicating drinks.”
From disparaging slang and informal expressions to technical terms, English has many words for people who
—while they may not have alcohol use disorder, another new entry in our dictionary
—are habitual drinkers of alcohol.
Words used for these people,
have been historically glossed using the noun alcoholic;
we revised our definitions of these terms
to be in line with whole-person language.
Using words like addict
to refer to peoplehas become increasingly stigmatizing,
Jess Keefe, a Senior Editor with Shatterproof, tells Dictionary.com.
Shatterproof is a national nonprofit
focused on educating the public on the disease of addiction.
“There’s a lot of disdainfor the people we call addicts,” Keefe says,
“It’s the only medical conditionwhere you’re criminalized for what your body does.”
That’s what the noun addict has come to connote to most English speakers: “criminal,” “problem.”
And to the people who are facing addiction,
hearing themselves described asnothing more than
an addict can be extremely dehumanizing.
“You start to believe it; you start to internalizeit,” Keefe says.
“If people don’t believe they can get better, they won’t.”
Changing societal perception of substance-use disorders
means changing the language surrounding the topic of addiction,
and as the updates to Dictionary.com show, that’s happening.
How doctors helped drive dictionary changes
Providing insight into the complex nature of addiction,
“Addiction is the complicated result of genetic predisposition
intersecting with dysfunctional behavior, neurochemical modification, environmental factors, and social influences.
Many major medical associations treat addiction as a disease,
in part because it is a chronic condition
that is demonstrably present in a person’s neurophysiology.”
Dictionary.com’s updates reflect the change in language surrounding addiction has been led in large part by medical practitioners.
In 2013, the American Psychiatric Association published
its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM–5)
in relation to addictive(and often illegal) substances.
In 2017, the director of the federal Office of National Drug Control Policy directed all federal agencies
to adjust both internal and external communications
Organizations from the American Medical Association
tothe American Society of Addiction Medicine
have made similar calls to their membership
to adopt non-stigmatizing languagefor all communications
(written and spoken) about addiction.
Newsrooms are doing their part, too
Changeshave been recorded on a cultural level too.
In 2017, the Associated Press (AP) added a new entry
to its AP Stylebook
—an English grammar style and usage guide
used by thousands of publications across the country
—that includes guidance to avoid the use of words
In their new entry, AP editors note:
“Many researchers and organizations,
including the Office of National Drug Control Policy
and the International Society of Addiction Journal Editors,
agree that stigmatizingor punitive-sounding language
can be inaccurate by emphasizing the person, not the disease;
can be a barrier to seeking treatment;
and can prejudice even clinicians.”
Individual newsrooms have been following suit.
In spring 2018, the Philadelphia Media Network,
which includes the Inquirer, Daily News, and Philly.com,
put its own kibosh on use of the word addict as a noun.
The move was in part due to the AP’s recommendations
and in part because of requests by local health officials,
Assistant Managing Editor David Sullivan tells Dictionary.com.
With proximity to the so-called “Pharmaceutical Belt,”
in addition to the effects of the country’s opioid crisis
in the greater Philly area,
an increasing amount of column inches
are being devoted to issues of addiction
—and that meant making a choice on how to codify language for reporters.
The Philadelphia Media Network’s style guide
leaves room for the use of addict in quotes or usage
by those who want to self-identify as addict,
but it makes a general rule for writers to
“use a phrase that respects the individual as a person
who is not defined by being addicted
— a person in (or with) addiction, an addicted person, and the like.”
And it’s not just editors and copyeditors:
many writers, notably food writers,
are also transforming how they characterize foods.
Based on the guidance of health experts,
these writers are no longer casually describing extremely delicious foods
—the sorts of grub you just can’t resist noshing
—as addictive or like crack,
as such terminology make light of addictions.
What is person-first language?
The switch from calling a person an addict
a person addicted to, habitual user, a person with an addiction, and someone facing addiction
are in line withwhat’s called person-first language.
Person-first language puts the human being
ahead oftheir diagnosis.
Person-first language has been around for decades,
with its champions arguing that it prevents
the dehumanizing of people that comes with limiting discussion
about them to a disease or condition.
For example, it’s preferred to refer to
a person with a physical disability—not a quadrapalgeic,
which reduces a whole personto their disability.
But speaking of preferences,
it’s always advisable to ask a person, if you can,
howthey prefer to refer to themselves.
Its application extends beyondaddiction,
with the Centers for Disease Control
and similar organizations requiring person-first language
when talking about (or addressing) people
with a range of health conditionsand disabilities.
A person with cerebral palsy, for example,
is a use case that is encouraged,
while calling someone a CP victim
has been determined to be offensiveand disparaging.
The Special Olympics has long been
a proponent of person-first language
in its campaign to end the usage of the offensive “R-word,”
replacing itwith more inclusive language
that references a person with intellectual disabilities.
Why whole-person language matters
Changing the language of addiction
and replacing words like addict with more human, holistic,
and person-first descriptorsis a good thing to do,
but does it make a difference?
Yes, according to science.
In 2010, Harvard Medical School Professor John Kelly
conducted two studies to test a theory
that exposure to specific terms associated with addiction
affect our unconscious biases.
In one, Kelly worked with health clinicians,
and in another he worked with the general public,
presenting each group to descriptions
of someone facing a substance-use disorder.
In some descriptions,
the person was referred to as a “substance abuser,”
while in others, they were described as
having a “substance-use disorder.”
The findings were even more conclusive
and impactful than Kelly anticipated.
“In that study with mental-health clinicians
and one that followed with the general-public sample,
we found that the ‘abuser’ terminology evoked more negative,
punitive, blaming attitudes toward individuals
suffering from substance-related conditions
thanthe term ‘substance-use disorder’,”
Kelly tells Dictionary.com.
“The implications of these findings struck me
as being very important given how stigma
prevents people from seeking help,
and we found that the language we use
can systematically bias someone’s viewpoint
toward that individual increasing stigma and discrimination.”
As a result of his study,
Kelly helped the Recovery Research Institute
to create what’s called the Addictionary,
a database of addiction-related terms
to help both clinicians and the general public
find the right words to usewhen talking about addiction.
So, what’s the final word on the word addict?
Here’s what the “Addictionary”has to say:
Don’t say addict.
Describe them as “a person with, or suffering from, addiction
or substance use disorder.”
After all, a person is a person. They’re more than “just an addict.”
Addicted & devoted
Addict is notable because it's not a drug word
repurposed asa general word:
in fact, when people first began using it,
it often was in reference to coffee, rather than morphine or opium.
The earliest known use of the noun form of addict
is a slightly judgmental articlein the Illinois Medical Journal from 1899:
“Indulgers in stimulating food, gluttonous feeders, tea and coffee addicts, are much more prone to beget degenerate and inebriate offspring
than are the moderate usersof alcohol with generally temperate habits.”
So, the use of addict
to describe any sort of chemical dependency isn't new: it's very old.