Person-first language places the person before the condition, as in “person with schizophrenia” or “people with disabilities.” Its rationale is that a diagnosis should not define an individual, and that separating the person from the label preserves dignity and humanity. Identity-first language, by contrast, leads with the condition, as in “autistic person” or “disabled people.” Advocates of this style argue that conditions such as autism or deafness are integral to identity rather than detachable afflictions, and that framing them as something one “has” implies they are undesirable burdens to be shed. The debate is not merely semantic; it reflects deep disagreements about the nature of mental illness, disability, and selfhood.

To map these shifting preferences empirically, the research team turned to two of the largest text corpora available to linguists and social scientists. The first was Google Books, covering the years 1980 through 2019, which offers a broad window into published writing across genres and decades. The second was the News on the Web corpus, spanning 2010 to 2025, which captures the fast-moving language of contemporary journalism. Rather than tracking a handful of terms, the researchers evaluated the frequency of “X person” or “X people” expressions relative to “person with X” or “people with X” expressions across a wide collection of mental health conditions, disability categories, and other conditions, making this the largest investigation of its kind.

The analytical logic was straightforward but powerful. For each condition, the researchers computed the relative share of identity-first constructions compared with person-first constructions over time. If person-first language were simply winning the culture, its share would rise steadily. Instead, the data told a more nuanced story. Consistent with the team’s predictions, person-first language did become more popular from 1980 onward, reflecting decades of professional and institutional endorsement. Style guides, clinical organizations, and advocacy groups had long promoted formulations such as “person with a mental illness,” and the corpus data confirmed that this advice translated into actual usage in books and news.

But that upward trajectory did not continue unbroken. The study found that the early rise of person-first language was counteracted by a more recent swing back toward identity-first language, producing what statisticians call a curvilinear trend—an inverted pattern in which one style gains ground, peaks, and then cedes it. In other words, the linguistic pendulum has swung. What was once framed as outdated or stigmatizing phrasing has been reclaimed by many communities, particularly in the autism and Deaf worlds, where identity-first formulations such as “autistic person” and “Deaf people” are now widely preferred by self-advocates. The corpus evidence suggests this reclamation is not confined to activist circles but is visible in mainstream published and journalistic language.

One of the study’s more intriguing secondary findings concerned grammar. Identity-first language proved to be more prevalent in singular expressions than in plural ones. People write “an autistic person” more readily than “autistic people,” a pattern that may reflect how singular constructions foreground the individual and lend themselves to personal narrative, while plural forms are more common in epidemiological, policy, and clinical contexts where person-first conventions have historically been entrenched. This grammatical asymmetry hints that the two styles occupy different communicative niches rather than simply competing head-to-head across all contexts.

Perhaps the most important qualification the researchers emphasize is that broad trends conceal enormous diversity. Beyond the overall curvilinear pattern, there was substantial variation in terminological preferences and trajectories across individual conditions. Some conditions followed the general arc of person-first ascendancy followed by identity-first resurgence; others showed stable preferences in one direction or the other throughout the study period. Conditions with strong self-advocacy movements, such as autism, appear to have shifted more decisively toward identity-first usage, while other conditions may retain entrenched person-first conventions in professional writing. The lesson is that there is no single linguistic norm governing how society talks about mental health and disability—there are many, evolving at different speeds and in different directions.

These findings carry real implications for anyone who writes about mental health, from clinicians drafting reports to journalists covering breaking news. For decades, institutional style guides have prescribed person-first language as a universal rule, treating it as the neutral, respectful default. The corpus evidence now complicates that prescription. If the communities being described increasingly prefer identity-first terms, blanket adherence to person-first conventions may itself feel dismissive to those communities. The study suggests that language choices should be informed by the preferences of the people concerned, which vary by condition and community, rather than by a one-size-fits-all rule frozen in professional guidance.

The methodological achievement here is worth appreciating on its own terms. Historical claims about language are notoriously difficult to test, relying often on anecdote or on small surveys conducted at single points in time. By quantifying usage across forty years of books and fifteen years of news text, the researchers converted a heated normative debate into measurable empirical trends. The curvilinear result is especially valuable because it demonstrates that linguistic change in this domain is not linear progress toward one style but a dynamic process in which professional endorsement, community advocacy, and shifting cultural attitudes continually reshape usage. It also provides a baseline against which future shifts—driven by social media, self-advocacy, and evolving clinical practice—can be tracked.

The broader cultural story is one of contested ownership over labels. Person-first language emerged from a well-intentioned effort to see the individual before the diagnosis, and its rise through the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s reflected genuine progress in humanizing clinical discourse. Yet the recent swing toward identity-first language shows that many people with mental health conditions and disabilities do not want their conditions treated as detachable accessories. For them, the condition is part of who they are, not merely something they have. The study by Kang, Baes, Wu, and Haslam gives that sentiment empirical weight, documenting in millions of published sentences how the balance of language has tipped, reversed, and diversified. As the debate continues, the evidence suggests that respectful language is not a fixed formula but a moving target—one that writers, clinicians, and institutions must follow with attention to the communities they describe.

Subject of Research: Historical trends in identity-first versus person-first language for mental health and disability conditions in books and news media

Article Title: Who you are or what you have: Historical trends in identity-first and person-first language in books and news media

Article References: Kang, J., Baes, N., Wu, A., & Haslam, N. (2026). Who you are or what you have: Historical trends in identity-first and person-first language in books and news media. PLOS Mental Health, 3(9), e0000684. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmen.0000684

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmen.0000684

Keywords: identity-first language, person-first language, autism, disability, mental health, corpus linguistics, Google Books, News on the Web corpus, language trends, stigma, self-advocacy, terminology

At the heart of the discussion is the juxtaposition of person-first language (PFL)—where the individual precedes the diagnosis, as in “person with autism”—and identity-first language (IFL), which asserts that the diagnosis is an integral part of one’s identity, encapsulated in phrases like “autistic person.” This review takes a deep dive into the existing literature to gauge the preferences of autistic adults, outlining varying responses that highlight the complexities surrounding these terminologies. Understanding these preferences is paramount in cultivating an environment where autistic individuals feel acknowledged and respected, thereby influencing how society addresses neurodiversity.

The systematic review meticulously analyzes a plethora of previous studies that have examined the preferences of autistic adults when it comes to language. With a growing number of autistic individuals publicly advocating for recognition of their identity, there is a noticeable variance in how these individuals align their self-identification with either person-first or identity-first language. The review shows that the preferences are not monolithic; they are shaped by personal experiences, cultural contexts, and societal influences. This individuality underscores the importance of listening to autistic voices in the ongoing conversation about nomenclature.

The implications of this language debate extend beyond mere semantics. Language can deeply impact self-image and external perceptions, leading to significant psychological effects. Autistic individuals who identify strongly with IFL may feel a sense of pride in their identity, while those who prefer PFL might see their autism as a condition separate from their core self. This nuanced understanding of language preferences has profound implications for clinicians, educators, and advocates who are involved in the lives of autistic individuals.

Moreover, the review also discusses how the differing preferences correspond with broader social movements related to disability identity. The advocacy for IFL resonates with the push for the acceptance of disability as an integral aspect of identity, similar to how race and gender have been recognized. In this sense, understanding the language preferences of autistic individuals goes beyond personal choice; it is intertwined with social justice and the fight for visibility and acceptance in society.

A particularly striking finding from the review indicates that younger generations of autistic individuals lean more toward identity-first language. This shift suggests a cultural transformation in how autism is perceived and understood within the broader context of society. As more autistic voices contribute to mainstream discourse, it becomes increasingly vital for researchers, educators, and policymakers to adapt to these evolving preferences and to support the notion that autism is a vital aspect of an individual’s identity.

Despite the advancements in understanding language preferences, the review also highlights the ongoing challenges faced by researchers in this field. Many studies exhibit methodological issues, such as sample size constraints and the representativeness of participants, which could skew results. Furthermore, the stark lack of diverse cultural perspectives within the existing research poses a challenge. The formulation of a universal language that respects individual preferences while promoting inclusivity necessitates further rigorous studies across varied populations.

In addressing the preferences for language use, the authors of the review call upon stakeholders to recognize the gravity of representation. In a world increasingly influenced by social media and digital platforms, where language shapes perceptions, the need for appropriate terminology is urgent. This study amplifies the calls for greater awareness among institutions and individuals in all sectors—education, healthcare, and public policy.

As the authors conclude, the findings advocate for a more profound consideration of language choices in both academic and public discourse. Comprehending and respecting the preferences of autistic individuals can catalyze change, fostering environments that embrace neurodiversity and support personal identities. This shift not only serves the autistic community but educates the broader society about the impact of language and labels, encouraging empathy and understanding.

With the publication of this pivotal review, the ongoing dialogue about identity-first versus person-first language receives increased visibility. The researchers emphasize a need to cultivate spaces where those on the autism spectrum can feel empowered to express their identities—a fundamental right that aligns with their autonomy. Such conversations are vital to improving the lived experiences of autistic individuals and facilitating their journey towards societal acceptance.

This significant systematic review serves as a milestone, pushing the boundaries of current research and challenging traditional narratives within the field of autism. It opens the door to new perspectives and invites further inquiries into how language can shape identity and community. The findings lay crucial groundwork for an enhanced understanding of autistic identity, helping to bridge the gap between research, practice, and the lived experiences of autistic individuals. As the dialogue progresses, it is imperative to remember that language matters, and the choice of words can either empower or disempower individuals within the disability community.

Through this lens, the review underscores the need for a collaborative approach where the voices of autistic individuals are central to the dialogue about identity, language, and social acceptance. Fostering an inclusive environment that respects and honors the preferences of individuals will not only enhance the quality of research but also contribute to a more empathetic society. The findings of this systematic review resonate with anyone concerned with social equity, making it a particularly relevant discussion in today’s socio-political landscape.

In sum, the review serves as an essential resource for understanding the implications of language in the context of autism. It exemplifies the importance of embedding autistic voices in research and policy, advocating for a future where preferences are acknowledged, respected, and celebrated. With an ever-deepening recognition of the diversity within the autistic community, this dialogue marks a pivotal step toward reframing conversations around autism, identity, and empowerment.

Subject of Research: Preferences for Identity-First and Person-First Language among Autistic Adults
Article Title: Preferences for Identity-First and Person-First Language: A Systematic Review of Research With Autistic Adults/Adults With Autism
Article References:

Schuck, R.K., Chetcuti, L., Dwyer, P. et al. Preferences for Identity-First and Person-First Language: A Systematic Review of Research With Autistic Adults/Adults With Autism. J Autism Dev Disord (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-025-07174-3

Image Credits: AI Generated
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-025-07174-3
Keywords: Autism, Identity-First Language, Person-First Language, Neurodiversity, Self-Identification, Psychological Impact, Social Acceptance.