# What do you call somebody who is unable to speak?



## audiolaik

Hello,

I am wondering what you, native speakers, call people unable to speak.

I have found the following, but it says it is old fashioned.

Thank you!


----------



## Porteño

Another word is dumb, as in 'deaf and dumb'. I have often seen the expression 'deaf mute' to describe the same condition.


----------



## Parergon

I would say that mute is correct, but you can also say dumb or unvoiced.
Anyhow, I am not a native speaker, so please wait for further suggestions.


----------



## bibliolept

A common term in AE is "speech-impaired."


----------



## Thomas1

Porteño said:


> Another word is dumb, as in 'deaf and dumb'. I have often seen the expression 'deaf mute' to describe the same condition.


Does this word not convey some negative connotations by any chance?

Tom
EDIT: I have just looked it up in my dictionary:
3
old-fashioned someone who is dumb is not able to speak at all. Many people think that this use is offensive 

So it looks like it is also partly of the same sort as mute.


----------



## El escoces

I guess "speech-impaired" is more modern, more politically correct but in British English "dumb" and (if the person also cannot hear) "deaf mute" are still used (as, of course, is blind, although again it is quite common now to see reference to the visually impaired).

Actually, thinking about it as I type, "dumb" is perhaps not so common now and obviously has colloquial connotations (used, usually unkindly, to refer to someone of lower intelligence).


----------



## Loob

Hi audio - do you mean someone unable to speak because they've been brain-damaged or have some other medical condition? 

In that context I don't think we'd use either "mute" or "dumb", both of which these days usually refer to temporary speechlessness because of nerves, embarrassment etc.

The technical term for the medical condition is, I believe, _aphasia_ (adjective _aphasic_); in everyday language I think we'd say someone had lost the ability to speak.

"Speech-impaired" would work.


----------



## audiolaik

Loob said:


> Hi audio - do you mean someone unable to speak because they've been brain-damaged or have some other medical condition?
> 
> In that context I don't think we'd use either "mute" or "dumb", both of which these days usually refer to temporary speechlessness because of nerves, embarrassment etc.
> 
> The technical term for the medical condition is, I believe, _aphasia_ (adjective _aphasic_); in everyday language I think we'd say someone had lost the ability to speak.
> 
> "Speech-impaired" would work.


 
What I mean is a person who lacks the speaking ability, either due to brain damage or other medical condition. 

If one cannot see, we usually call this person _blind_. If one cannot speak, we call this person....

I like the _speech-impaired _phrase.


----------



## El escoces

Pulling it all together, some of you might know the song "Pinball Wizard" where Elton John (or The Who, if you prefer) refers to Tommy as "that deaf, dumb and blind kid.." who sure plays a mean pinball.


----------



## audiolaik

El escoces said:


> Wait, i thought we were talking about someone who cannot _speak?_
> 
> Someone who cannot hear is, quite simply, deaf.


 
I am extremely sorry for the confusion!!! Yes, we are talking about someone who cannot speak!


PS Thank you, Loob!

PS 2 Where is my whip, again?


----------



## bibliolept

Note that there are many types of aphasia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphasia#Types


----------



## Porteño

audiolaik said:


> I am extremely sorry for the confusion!!! Yes, we are talking about someone who cannot speak!
> 
> 
> PS Thank you, Loob!
> 
> PS 2 Where is my whip, again?


 
Sorry, that was my fault when I slightly side-tracked to other terms which might be considered pejorative in this day and age. They were just similar examples to deaf and dumb or mute.


----------



## JamesM

I don't think "speech-impaired" works as a specific term for someone who cannot speak.  "Mute" may be marked as old-fashioned in your source but it's the word I would use.


----------



## audiolaik

Porteño said:


> Sorry, that was my fault when I slightly side-tracked to other terms which might be considered pejorative in this day and age. They were just similar examples to deaf and dumb or mute.


 

I will not pass the buck, Porteño! It is just my sloppiness!


----------



## Loob

JamesM said:


> I don't think "speech-impaired" works as a specific term for someone who cannot speak. "Mute" may be marked as old-fashioned in your source but it's the word I would use.


On reflection, I think James is right about "speech-impaired": it's too broad.

I still don't think I'd use mute (or dumb) though. 

_After the accident, my grandfather lost the ability to speak._
_After the accident, my grandfather lost the power of speech._

_Since the accident, my grandfather has been unable to speak._
_Since the accident, my grandfather has been mute._


----------



## xqby

Loob said:


> _Since the accident, my grandfather has been mute._


 
Since the accident, my grandfather has been *a* mute. 

An intriguing word: noun, adjective, and verb with no changes in structure.


----------



## Loob

xqby said:


> Since the accident, my grandfather has been *a* mute.


I don't think I'd say that either, xqby.

In fact, I'm sure I wouldn't


----------



## xqby

Is this because you are a mute? Har har.

I'd agree that "lost the ability to speak" is probably a safer bet (and possibly more politically correct) but either of your examples, adjective or noun, sounded fine to me. 
Possibly continental differences.

I definitely wouldn't just call people "dumb" though.


----------



## bibliolept

If you don't have a problem with mute, Loob, then it might be "has become (a?) mute."

If you used "has been" it would be "has been muted."

I'm slavish to political correctness, I'm afraid. I'd go with "has become speech-impaired" and "speech-impaired person" or "person suffering from speech-impairment."

And if you referred to the general population of people with global aphasia, especially those who are completely nonverbal, you would say "the speech-impaired." (Though I suppose it's not politically correct to classify them by this trait, you still hear, if memory serves, "The following has been close-captioned for the hearing-impaired" in cinemas.)


----------



## El escoces

I guess we are talking about two different levels of usage then.  It would still be perfectly correct for a doctor, for example, to write in his notes that "A is mute" (and this would be more likely than him writing A is dumb, which is almost inconceivable), but it might be unlikely that lay people refer to someone who cannot speak as either "mute" or as "a mute".


----------



## Loob

bibliolept said:


> If you don't have a problem with mute, Loob, then it might be "has become (a?) mute."


But I do have a problem with mute

El escoces makes an important point about different levels or types of usage.  Context is everything (where have I heard that before?)


----------



## lablady

El escoces said:


> ... It would still be perfectly correct for a doctor, for example, to write in his notes that "A is mute" ...


 
I agree, and, like JamesM, I also would say it. I guess that makes me old-fashioned. Well, if the shoe fits... 

Perhaps the simplest solution is for the average person to say it just like it was presented in the thread title - "unable to speak". The context would make it clear whether it was speaking of a person with a physical disability or simply talking about a lecturer who couldn't attend a speaking engagement.


----------



## JamesM

bibliolept said:


> If you don't have a problem with mute, Loob, then it might be "has become (a?) mute."
> 
> If you used "has been" it would be "has been muted."


 
I think it would be "has been mute" as in "He has been mute since he suffered a stroke in September."



> I'm a slavish to political correctness, I'm afraid. I'd go with "has become speech-impaired" and "speech-impaired person" or "person suffering from speech-impairment."


 
Honestly, if I heard speech impairment I would assume that the person could still make noises of some kind, even if they were unintelligible.  To me, "impairment" implies a retention of some of the function, just as "impaired coordination" is different from "complete loss of coordination."


----------



## El escoces

To satisfy JamesM's reservations about "speech impaired", how about "speech deprived", in the case of total loss or impairment of speech?

Or, "He has total speech impairment"?


----------



## BAS24

I would probably use "mute" as well. To me, "speech impairment" seems too broad. Like JamesM, an "impairment" could be anything from a slight studdering problem (like another word for "impedement") to a total lack of ability to form sounds. However, there is no confusion as to the meaning of "mute". "Dumb" is out of the question.


----------



## JamesM

El escoces said:


> To satisfy JamesM's reservations about "speech impaired", how about "speech deprived", in the case of total loss or impairment of speech?
> 
> Or, "He has total speech impairment"?


 
If we must avoid "mute" I would go for the much simpler "he is unable to speak" long before I'd use "he has total speech impairment."  I thought we were looking for an adjective. That's what I understood from the initial question.  "Speech-deprived" sounds like his right to speak was taken away.  I wouldn't use that, personally.


----------



## gasman

There is also "aphasia, the lack of ability to speak, and "aphonic", the adverb for such a sentence as "Joe has become aphonic, since the explosion. He suffers from aphasia."


----------



## Thomas1

gasman said:


> There is also "aphasia, the lack of ability to speak, and "aphonic", the adverb for such a sentence as "Joe has become aphonic, since the explosion. He suffers from aphasia."


The word has much broader meaning than just inability to speak, one of the previous posts gives, I think, a link to a website with info on that. 
Anyway, isn't this word too formal? Would for example kids who are in primary school understand it?

Tom


----------



## El escoces

(With apologies in advance) they might, if they weren't dumb...


----------



## gasman

"Would for example kids who are in primary school understand it?"

I very much doubt if they would, but such young children are hardly the yardstick for lucidity or accuracy.


----------



## Porteño

gasman said:


> "Would for example kids who are in primary school understand it?"
> 
> I very much doubt if they would, but such young children are hardly the yardstick for lucidity or accuracy.


 
I'm sorry, but that sounds rather patronising, don't you think?


----------



## Thomas1

Perhaps, but if something is too complicated and overformalised even adults may have problems I guess. I was about to ask about something esle and probably I should have. Is aphasia, and any of its derivatives for that matter a word that would naturally come up in a conversation between laymen about a person who's mute or that would be used in the evening news aired on TV?

Tom


----------



## Eigenfunction

I would say that aphasia is a medical term that hasn't made its way into common English usage. Given that it is also not strictly speaking the right word to simply describe a person who cannot speak for whatever reason, I wouldn't use it in this case.

Personally, I wouldn't use dumb because it has for a long time had negative connotations, but mute as far as I'm concerned has no such connotations and is the right word to use.


----------



## audiolaik

What about _vocally challenged_?


----------



## JamesM

audiolaik said:


> What about _vocally challenged_?


 
It sounds like a bad singer.


----------



## audiolaik

JamesM said:


> It sounds like a bad singer.



I knew it sounds wrong, but learning a language is a process of trial and error.

PS _vocally arrested_?


----------



## BAS24

As much as I've enjoyed this thread, it seems to me there is a word that works perfectly, has had the same meaning for very long time, and is unambiguous: mute. I guess we're trying to change it to be more politically correct. To me, this seems like a no-win situation because the PC terms change every few years or so.


----------



## Porteño

BAS24 said:


> As much as I've enjoyed this thread, it seems to me there is a word that works perfectly, has had the same meaning for very long time, and is unambiguous: mute. I guess we're trying to change it to be more politically correct. To me, this seems like a no-win situation because the PC terms change every few years or so.


 
This si where we came in! So back to square one.


----------



## audiolaik

Porteño said:


> This si where we came in! So back to square one.



Precisely, Porteño!


A little bird told me the thread is going to be closed...sooner then we think


----------



## Eigenfunction

In my experience, politically correct terms usually last a few weeks before becoming either an innuendo of some kind or more insulting than the terms they were supposed to soften. This is especially true if schoolchildren or satirists are involved.


----------



## Porteño

Eigenfunction said:


> In my experience, politically correct terms usually last a few weeks before becoming either an innuendo of some kind or more insulting than the terms they were supposed to soften. This is especially true if schoolchildren or satirists are involved.


 
How very true.


----------



## ewie

I second that, Porteño.
I'm afraid I couldn't quite be bothered to read the whole thread (it's late and I'm tired, and over-emotional) so this is probably repetition: the word I'd use is _mute_, Audio.
_Ewie is (a) mute_ = Ewie is unable to speak, for whatever reason.
_Ewie has become mute_ = Ewie is unable to speak as a result of having been hit very hard on the head etc.
I say leave _aphasia_ to the neuropathologically-minded, and _speech-impaired_ to those who cannot bring themselves to call a metallo-xyloid excavatory implement a spade.


----------



## rainbow84uk

I'm familiar with the term _aphasia _from studying linguistics, but I'm fairly sure that it's not widely understood. I'd be most likely to say "can't/isn't able/is unable to speak":

*Tom hasn't been able to speak since he had the operation.* 

But if we want a single adjective then I'd definitely go for _mute. _
Lauren x


----------



## Forero

_Aphonic_ refers to a person who has no physical voice (perhaps temporarily), but could possibly speak in a whisper.

I would generally say _mute_ except where it might seem to say something else, such as "dumbfounded" or "silenced".  In that case, I would say "unable to speak".


----------



## Loob

I bow to the majority verdict, audio - go with "mute".

It's still not a word I could use - not out of political correctness, but because I can't make it "fit".

_Mute swan_ - sure
_I was mute with embarrassment -_ certainly
_The brain damage made my grandfather mute/a mute_ - for me, just doesn't compute.

I revert to El escoces's really important point: in some contexts, and used by some people, certain words are fine.  In other contexts, and used by other people, they're not.

It's funny how much more difficult this word is than either "blind" or "deaf".

But to repeat: I bow to the majority verdict.


----------



## rainbow84uk

I totally agree with you that in the sentence given, _mute _sounds strange. For me the problem is that, because it's not politically correct now, mute is seen far more often with a figurative meaning than with its literal one, so when you see it you have to work out what exactly is meant. 

Somehow it seems a lot easier to swallow for me if the verb used is not _made _but _left:_

*The brain damage left my grandfather mute.*


----------



## Loob

Rainbow, you're right.

"Left...mute" is much more acceptable than "made...mute".

I still can't, quite, accept "mute" myself, except perhaps as a technical term usable by medical people.

But I'm going to _shut up_ because, clearly, nearly everyone else is happy with it


----------



## Cagey

I would like to point out that the usage Audio is asking about, the usage Cambridge calls "old fashioned" is _mute_ used as a _noun,_ not an adjective.  

Aside from any other issue, I would never designate a person by his or her inability to speak.  I would never use _mute_ as a noun.   I believe this is generally true of the speakers of AmE  with whom I come in contact.  

As a practical matter, like several earlier posters and for similar reasons, I would usually say that someone couldn't speak, or was unable to speak, and probably offer  some explanation.


----------



## Loob

Cagey, you've given me back my faith in myself - thank you!


----------



## El escoces

I come back to my earlier point, it depends on the context and I can go as far as agreeing that you would never, for example, call someone a mute to their face.  I still think a doctor might properly describe someone as a mute.  And didn't the great British actor Sir John Mills play a mute in Ryan's Daughter?  There, again, I think the word is safely and correctly used.


----------



## El escoces

Phew, this has been a long and very interesting thread.  I wonder what the poor soul who posted the original query makes of it all:  does he/she have an answer?!


----------



## gaer

Loob said:


> Cagey, you've given me back my faith in myself - thank you!


I would also not say someone is mute. I don't object to it, but it feels odd.

If someone lost the ability to speak, I would say just that. It's longer and much more clumsy theoretically, but it seems more natural.


----------



## Forero

Although I can imagine sentences where_ mute_ as a noun would clearly and properly mean "a person unable to speak", in using it one has to be ever vigilant for the situations where it might create the impression of defining a person (as the noun_ criple _would).  Come to think of it, I don't know whether naturally occurring contexts in which _mute_ the adjective clearly means "unable to speak" outnumber those in which it doesn't.

So even though I don't think _mute_ is in itself a word to be avoided with its "old fashioned" meaning, and I prefer it for its terseness, it may in fact have limited usefulness.  "Unable to speak" is fine.

Now the word _mutism_ does sound disturbingly like adherence to some sort of belief system, doesn't it?

Speaking of being unable to express oneself, _autism_ has the same problem as _mutism_ only worse, but there is no short phrase I know of that describes any of its various forms.  Autism, even in the medical world, is defined only behaviorly, as if we were to say, instead of "blind", "exhibiting a disorder in which the affected person sometimes bumps into things, fails to switch on the light when entering a dark room, and may show a lack of appropriate awe for the moon, the stars, and the planets.  A person with blindism, however, generally _will_ recognize the importance of the Sun in his or her life."

In contrast to _autistic_, the word _mute_ is easy to understand, but can be avoided, as needed, by simple synonyms like "unable to speak".


----------



## Eigenfunction

Forero said:


> Although I can imagine sentences where_ mute_ as a noun would clearly and properly mean "a person unable to speak", in using it one has to be ever vigilant for the situations where it might create the impression of defining a person (as the noun_ criple _would).



You've beaten me to it! Nowadays, nouns are not favoured for describing illnesses or disorders because it suggests that it defines what the person is. They may be mute, but they are a mute human being, not a mute mute.


----------



## El escoces

So finally we have an uneasy consensus on an answer to audiolaik's initial question (which was, what do native English speakers call a person who is unable to speak): a mute person, in the same vein as a blind person and a deaf person.

This should not be taken as a criticism of anyone, in any way, but it occurs to me that, in the course of the debate, it was suggested by several forer@s that the answer was "someone who is unable to speak" (which was in fact the question!)


----------



## Packard

JamesM said:


> I don't think "speech-impaired" works as a specific term for someone who cannot speak. "Mute" may be marked as old-fashioned in your source but it's the word I would use.


 
I also would use "mute" for this.  It does not sound old fashioned to me.

"Speech-impaired" does not necessarily communicate to me that someone cannot (or will not) speak.  A lisp or stutter, or a hair-lip would fit the bill for "speech-impaired" to me.

I would never use "dumb" for "mute" even if the dictionary defines it as such.  "Dumb" is also used to mean intellectually impaired and the confusion or implication might be demeaning to a mute person.


----------



## BAS24

Not to open another can of worms, but I was wondering why it feels like we should avoid "mute". Obviously, the reasons for not using "dumb" are clear. But why "mute"? In fact, it seems to me we use "deaf" more demeaningly than "mute". Ex: "Are you deaf or something!?"  I agree people shouldn't be defined by their capacities or incapacities, but that's not the word's fault, just how we use it. Is it possible "mute" reminds us of "moot"? I know I confused the two for a long time and "moot" would be considerably more offensive (if it were ever used this way).


----------



## El escoces

That must be an AE thing.  "Moot" is a perfectly respectable BE word meaning "undecided", a "moot point".  But I fear we are in danger of digressing and incurring a moderator's wrath...


----------



## vkp

My daughter cannot speak. I was given the term "non-verbal". That is what her medical ID bracelet says as well. I hope this helps. Good luck.

When someone asks me what is wrong with her I state that she is non-verbal, that she cannot talk but make she can make noises.


----------



## Cagey

Welcome to the forum, vkp.  

This information is indeed helpful.  Thank you.


----------



## natkretep

Psychologists have a term to describe children who will not speak in certain situations such as in school but might speak normally at home - _selective mutism_; the earlier term was _elective mutism_. So the term is definitely used, and a child can be said to be _selectively mute_. It afflicts girls much much more than boys. (Here is wikipedia on SM.)

I assume this is a different situation from vkp's daughter.


----------



## PlainandTall

If you told me that a person was speech impaired, I might be prepared to have a conversation with someone who'd had a stroke and slurred their words.  If you told me someone was mute, I'd expect that they never spoke a day in their life.  

If a person suddenly became mute, after having been a speaker- I would consider this to be a psychological issue maybe from suffering a great emotional trauma. The person has the ability to speak, but something (not physical) is preventing it.

 If a person stopped speaking because a medical issue, I would say they lost their ability to speak. I would not call them mute, which to me would convey a reluctance to speak.

I consider stuttering and lisping speech impairments, but speech can't be impaired if it doesn't exist at all.


----------



## Packard

PlainandTall said:


> If you told me that a person was speech impaired, I might be prepared to have a conversation with someone who'd had a stroke and slurred their words. If you told me someone was mute, I'd expect that they never spoke a day in their life.
> 
> If a person suddenly became mute, after having been a speaker- I would consider this to be a psychological issue maybe from suffering a great emotional trauma. The person has the ability to speak, but something (not physical) is preventing it.
> 
> If a person stopped speaking because a medical issue, I would say they lost their ability to speak. I would not call them mute, which to me would convey a reluctance to speak.
> 
> I consider stuttering and lisping speech impairments, but speech can't be impaired if it doesn't exist at all.


 
*Despite her name, Plain and Tall posessed such beauty as to render me mute when we first met.*

Is *mute* OK here?


----------



## Silver

Hi,

I looked up "dumb" in some dictionaries, but when I turned to "OALD", I got this:

*Dumb used in this meaning is old-fashioned and can be offensive. It is better to use speech-impaired instead. (**link**)

*Then I looked it up in our dictionary, it isn't labelled old-fashioned. And Cambridge.dictionary.com also doesn't say the word is old-fashioned.

I ask this question because I want to say this:

*When I was young my mother told me if I ate the ear wax I would become dumb, but it turned out to be ridiculous.

*So, I don't know which word I can use. It seems that "speech-impaired" is not common, or even it is common it seems not to suit my sentence, right?

Thanks a lot


----------



## ewie

Your question made me _laugh_, Silver
The thought of your mum saying to you, _"If you eat your ear wax, you'll become speech-impaired"_ made me laugh even more

Hold on.


----------



## Silver

Don't just laugh at me, E.

Please tell me whether the word "dumb" is in use and the word "speech-impaired" is better than it.

Thanks a lot


----------



## ewie

I wasn't laughing at you, Silver: I was laughing at your question, and at the thing your mum used to tell you, which I'd never heard before

In a thing like _If you eat ear wax you'll become ____, the word to use is _dumb_. (I'd actually say *go*_ dumb_ there) 'Dumb' means 'totally unable to speak'.

If you were writing a report on speech defects ranging from _lisping_ to _aphasia_, you'd use _speech-impaired_.  'Speech-impaired' means 'unable to speak _perfectly_, for whatever reason.'

As a matter of fact, I wouldn't classify _dumb_ as 'old-fashioned' either: it has a very specific, restricted meaning ['totally unable to speak'], whereas _speech-impaired _doesn't.  Perhaps the people who do classify it as old-fashioned use the alternative term _mute_ instead, which means exactly the same thing.


----------



## grubble

Here's my try - it even has a play on words! *

*_When I was young my mother told me that,  if I ate my ear wax, I would lose the power of speech, but it turned out to be a really dumb idea.

"dumb" = "stupid" in this context._


----------



## ewie

Mr. Grubble makes a good point
In AE the primary meaning of _dumb_ is 'stupid'.
Despite having heard this 742,000 times in American films etc., the primary meaning of _dumb_ for me in BE is still 'totally unable to speak'.
This is a very good reason for _AE-speakers_ to shy away from _dumb_ with the meaning 'totally unable to speak'.

*Moderator note:* I've merged your question with a previous thread, Silver.  Plenty more opinions above

As I said in post #42 above, my own preferred term is _mute_: it conveys the idea 'totally unable to speak' without the (AE-related) problem of 'stupidity'.  It doesn't, however, have any of the imprecision of _speech-impaired._


----------



## natkretep

Also, we use the phrase _dumb-founded_ today - meaning somebody is rendered dumb with amazement. You cannot subsitute _dumb_ with an alternative term!


----------



## JamesM

"Dumbstruck" is also a possibility but not very common in spoken American English these days, in my opinion.  It means "rendered unable to speak" by something.


----------

