I.B. Extended
Essay
Fall, 1996
Table Of Contents
.
Chapter 1-
Introduction and Clarification
Chapter 2-
Everyday Usage of Profanity
Chapter 3- How
Profanity Offends
Chapter 4- A Look
at the Literal Meanings and Taboo
Chapter 5- Phatic
and Emotive Language
Chapter 6- The
Employment of Substitutes
Chapter 7- A
Brief Historical Perspective
Chapter 8- The
Use of Profanity in the Media
Chapter 9-
Conclusions
Bibliography
The Function of
Profanity in Modern English
Chapter 1-
Introduction and Clarification
Since the
beginning of the English language, there have existed certain words that were
considered by the majority to be taboo, or not to be spoken in polite
discourse. Over the centuries, these words have changed, some disappearing from
the language altogether and some simply taking on new meanings or functions.
One wonders why, if these words were considered too rude to be spoken, they
were ever used, and consequently, how they remained a fixture in a language
known for its passing trends and short-lived fashions. Could it be that these
words were, and are, essential for communication? Would the English language be
as effective without these words? Are efforts to repress them futile? Does the
popularization of such vocabulary create the need for new words with the same
taboo status as the original words? To summarize: Does profanity serve a useful
purpose in the English language?
In order to
answer a question this complex, certain guidelines must be set. The word
"profanity" has a long list of taboo words associated with it, not
all of which can be accommodated within such a short study. It is therefore
necessary to limit which words we consider. Since this is a study of modern
English, the words should be representative of the kind of profanity used
today. In his superb study "Swearing," Geoffrey Hughes said:
...A major shift
has occurred in comparatively recent times in that a quite different emphasis
has become dominant. The 'lower' physical faculties of copulation, defecation
and urination have come very much to the fore as referents in swearing.
Therefore it
seems appropriate to choose a set of 'four-letter words' in American English,
known by american linguists as the "Big Six," which range from mildly
to extremely taboo and also cover these 'contemporary' topics in swearing. They
are: fart, piss, shit, fuck, cock and cunt. The first two are of Anglo- Saxon
origin and date from c.1000 and c.1250, respectively. Piss, however, is of
Norman French origin and dates from c.1290. Fuck is a well-known word for
sexual intercourse, and cock and cunt are slang, if not profane, terms for the
male and female organs involved in this activity. All three are of unknown
origin, and date from c.1500 for fuck and c.1400 for cock and cunt.
Unfortunately, we
must also make an attempt at defining "useful purpose," even if it is
impossible to come to a conclusion that will please everyone. A good question
to ask here is: "What properties does a word with purpose have?" Most
linguists would likely respond that a word does not have a purpose unless it
has both a meaning and a grammatical place in a sentence, and some would probably
want to include the use of the words as phatic and emotive expressions. How,
though, do you ascertain when this purpose becomes a "useful
purpose"? Can it be deemed useful merely by having a purpose at all? That
question, fundamentally, presents the answer. One must consider the original
purpose of language: to aid in transferring knowledge or ideas or even emotions
from one person to another. Therefore, any word that assists in this transfer
can be considered both useful and purposeful. It should be noted, however, that
there are different degrees of usefulness. Our choice of words in communication
indicates our preference of one word over another, revealing our belief that a
certain word is more useful for communicating a certain idea than any other in
our active vocabulary.
With these terms
defined, it is now possible to rephrase a question in a way that facilitates a
clear and equally defined response. The new question would look something like:
Do the words fart, piss, shit, fuck, cock and cunt serve to aid in the transfer
of ideas or information between people speaking the English language?
Chapter 2-
Everyday Usage of Profanity
Probably the best
place to start any study of profane language is where it is spoken. Try this
quiz from the sidewalks of New York:
1) A young man
was a step too slow racing for the Second Avenue bus. As it pulled away, he
angrily shouted one word for everyone nearby to hear. It was: (a) Gadzooks; (b)
Doggone; (c) Phooey; (d) Fuck.
2) A fast-moving
bicyclist screamed at a middle-aged man trying to cross Broadway. "Watch
where you're going, you ..." His next two words were: (a) Errant knave;
(b) Brainless dolt; (c) Pedestrian poltroon; (d) Dumb Shit.
It should be
obvious that the correct answer, both times, is (d). These are but two
examples, mild at that, of the vulgarization of a city awash with people who,
if a mere five or six words were removed from their vocabulary, would
effectively be struck dumb. Two men in pinstripe suits, riding the subway to
Wall Street, ignore others' sensibilities as they keep up a high-volume
conversation laced with profanities. The same with three teenagers on a bus.
Ditto for a taxi driver complaining about the "fucking traffic." Or
for a police officer in Times Square who, when asked politely what a street
protest is about, replies: "How the fuck should I know?"
These are not
incidents merely specific to New York, or even the United States. All over the
English-speaking world (of course, outside it as well, but that is impertinent)
and in all sections of society there are other examples of this sort of
language, and the adverse responses it brings about. Take the example of Sissy
Lax, a well-respected teacher who was quietly laid-off when it was revealed
that she let her students use profane language in a series of poetic and
dramatic exercises intended to encourage them to adopt a more socially
acceptable vocabulary.
Chapter 3- How
Profanity Offends
Why does this
language cause such strong reactions? Perhaps it has to do with the way
Malinowski saw language: "The word has power of its own; it is a means of
bringing things about .... Language in its primitive function is to be regarded
as a mode of action rather than as a countersign of thought." All the
people in the examples above were affected deeply, almost physically, by the
words that were used. These words probably didn't require as much thought as,
say, a formal greeting. This is because they are not so much mental responses
to situations as they are physical ones. The childhood rebuttal "sticks
and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" comes to
mind, perhaps because these words are as close as words can get to being
physical expressions.
Mary Ritchie Key
is a professor emeritus of linguistics at UC Irvine. She has studied language
and explored the "socio-linguistics" culture in which profanity and
vulgarisms have flourished. She sees extreme profanity and vulgarity as the
speech equivalent of violent action. "Aren't emotions really important in
human behavior?" she said. "So these are extreme emotional outlets,
and they are important and they do make a difference, because people need that
once in a while. The Victorian Age suppressed anger, and I don't think that
that was especially good for us, so we need a release."
Rather than
actually doing physical damage or bodily harm, the decision is made to use a
strong word, perhaps fuck or cock, as a substitute. Any person hearing the word
recognizes that choice, maybe only subconsciously, and responds almost as if
the speaker had actually opted to take the physical instead of verbal route of
relieving their frustration. Many people then interpret this reaction as
offense. This, of course, isn't the only reason that these words seem so
offensive.
Originally, these
words might have held more meaning to those who spoke and heard them, and the
meaning itself is what offended. Now though, people are simply brought up with
the notion that these words are 'bad' before they are taught what they mean, and
hence they assume that the taboo nature of the words is innate. Of course, more
mature speakers will question the reason behind this, and will most likely
conclude that the words are taboo because of their meaning. Since this is the
case, then it is a good idea to explore briefly what these words really do
mean, how they are used, and what sort of other taboo subjects with which they
have come to be associated.
Chapter 4- A Look
at the Literal Meanings and Taboo
Starting with
piss, which, in noun form, means urine, and in verb form, means to urinate,
placing it in the most basic taboo category, excretion. It is used in forms
ranging from the crude: "to kick the piss out of someone" (to beat
someone quite badly) to the simple: "take a piss" (to urinate). Next
on the taboo ladder is another word in the same category, fart. It is
synonymous with conflagration (in the form: "to fart") but can also
be used, although not nearly as successfully, as a derogatory term for someone
- usually male (i.e. "He was a lazy fart"). Shit is the last word in
this category, most typically used in noun form to mean "feces" and
in verb form to mean "to excrete feces," although it is also commonly
used as an expletive ("Shit!") or improperly as an adjective (i.e.
"That performance was shit"). In "Swearing," Geoffrey
Hughes had this to say about these first three words:
It is a curious
feature in the taxonomy that of the various forms of excretion and erucation,
shit should be the most used term (cf. German scheiss, French merde, Italian
stronzo, English turd). By comparison, fart has diminished force, piss has
little currency (beyond the contemptuous piss artist and the unceremonious piss
off!) while burp has none whatever. It would seem that the two dominant factors
in making terms in this field highly charged or otherwise are their degree of
solidity and their proximity to the genital/anal area.
Fuck has its own
category among these six words, sex (although that does admittedly have a lot
to do with cunt and cock). It is used as a synonym for sexual intercourse as
well as an expletive (i.e. "Fuck that!") and a derogatory term for
someone (i.e. "She's a lazy fuck"). Cock and cunt are alternate words
for the male and female sexual organs, respectively. They are also both used as
derogatory names.
Clearly, these
definitions illustrate how graphic these terms are, and how closely linked they
are to activities and objects most societies categorize as taboo. It is the
shyness and embarrassment with which people approach any of these topics that
more or less dooms these words to their taboo fate. Interestingly, it seems
that most of the traits that we share with other animals (i.e. excretion and
sexual intercourse and organs) are traits that we would rather not discuss. Thus,
words that would be used in an informal discussion about these topics become
taboo. This in turn leads to the words being reduced to use only in flashes of
anger or moments of despair, or perhaps not at all (the mortality rate for rude
words and expressions is astonishing -- the noun/verb bugger and the noun dolt
are two examples of words weakened by time and overuse -- nevertheless they are
continuously replaced by an equally impressive birth rate).
Chapter 5- Phatic
and Emotive Language
Many linguists
would argue that because these words have become part of the English language's
phatic and emotive vocabulary (used only for the purpose of establishing an
atmosphere or maintaining social contact, or in the case of emotive
expressions, used to express rather than to describe), they have no real
function in the language. To prove that phatic and emotive language is indeed a
useful, if not necessary, part of the English language would be to prove that
these six words also have a purpose. Why, then, is phatic/emotive language
useful? Technically, phatic/emotive language includes many expressions common
in conversation (i.e. "Nice day again, isn't it?" and "How are
you? Still sick?") and correspondence ("Dear Sirs" at the
beginning and "Yours truly" at the conclusion of a letter). However,
expletives such as shit and fuck also fall under the labels of phatic/emotive
language. Obviously, as the definition confirms, phatic/emotive language is
necessary for establishing an atmosphere and maintaining social contact. While
the first set of examples from conversation and correspondence are the kind of
phatic/emotive language that maintains social contact, expletives and
exclamations are definitely the 'atmosphere establishers.' Even if the
atmosphere is not a desirable one, it cannot be denied that this sort of
vocabulary succeeds in defining it. In fact, to some degree, the four of the
six that are not used as expletives (piss, fart, cock and cunt) are also good
examples of phatic/emotive language. While their usage would certainly
establish a certain atmosphere, they fall more into the part of phatic/emotive
language that maintains social contact. This is mainly due to expressions such
as the very informal greeting "Hey, you old fart!" and, as Hughes
said, the unceremonious exclamation "Piss off" (British English slang
for "go away").
Chapter 6- The
Employment of Substitutes
This raises the
question: Isn't it possible to establish the same atmosphere with much more
"acceptable" language? In some cases, this is feasible. For example,
to call someone "thick" and to call someone "stupid," two
words with roughly the same connotations, would achieve the same thing.
However, for stronger words, such as the six with which we are dealing, the
distinction between the atmosphere created by one and the atmosphere created by
another becomes much more obvious. Admittedly, this group of words is too small
to prove this theory, but any study of the larger vocabulary of swearing would
find many grammatical synonyms (i.e. words having the same function and literal
meaning). These would be invalid, however, because each of these
"synonymous" words would have completely different insinuations and
implications from the other. For example, using the word crap instead of shit
in the expression "I've had enough of this shit" would induce two
distinct reactions due to the different undertones each word has. Most people
would consider shit a much more angry, vulgar word than crap, and would
probably end up overlooking the use of crap in this sense anyway. Since a
synonym is defined as: "a word having the same meaning as, or a meaning
very similar to, that of another word in the same language" (with the
example: "mix, blend and mingle"), and the different reactions
indicate that the meanings are not the same, these words cannot technically be
synonyms.
The distinction
is not merely technical. As implied above, a simple switch of words can bring
about an entirely different reaction. This is, of course, the purpose of having
different words that mean basically the same thing: it enables the speaker to
more clearly and accurately convey his or her message. To illustrate, imagine
the following situation: A man says to his wife at the dinner table: "If
my boss gives me any more shit about my work, I'm quitting!" Would it have
had the same impact if he had said "complaints" instead of
"shit"? Obviously, the answer is no, and not only because of the
taboo nature of shit, which means that there is probably a reason for his
choice of words. In this case, it is probably because using the word shit
instead of complaints generates more sympathy for his decision to leave his
job, because it implies that the complaints are not justified.
Chapter 7- A
Brief Historical Perspective
Another way to
illustrate the importance of these words is to look at the history of
profanity. It seems that the more taboo the vulgar vocabulary became, the more
it would adapt and metamorphasize into different words and forms of usage,
which either took on their predecessors taboo status and started the cycle over
again or disappeared from the language as the old words were used once again.
One terrific example of this is the Cockney rhyming slang that was developed in
the middle of the 19th century. Consisting of two words, sometimes connected by
and, these phrases ended in a word that rhymed with the disguised term. Using
examples only for our six words, some phrases were: Almond rock (cock),
Berkshire Hunt (cunt), Friar Tuck (fuck), Hit and miss (piss) and Tom tit
(shit). It became so popular and useful as a disguise mechanism that it
eventually stretched to include perfectly civil words, at first as part of a
quasi-code and then, more popularly, as witty terms in themselves (i.e. the
familiar trouble and strife for wife).
Chapter 8- The
Use of Profanity in the Media
If these six
words are indeed useful, and cannot be substituted, then why is it that they
are used so little in the media? The answer is fairly simple. Given the
freedom, most writers for newspapers and magazines (and now the increasingly
popular e-zine) still would choose not to use profanity because it wouldn't
make their message any clearer. However, if a situation arose where it would
aid their communication, they would almost definitely use it. So why is it not
allowed? This is because, given the choice between prohibiting profanity --
which would upset very few people (including the writers themselves) -- and
letting the writers use whatever vocabulary they see fit -- which would cause
at least a small uproar -- the media would rather 'play it safe' than risk
losing business to those who disapprove. Unfortunately, the cost for the
consumer is that we lose that little bit of information that would have
necessitated the use of profanity.
Times are
changing, however, and we are regaining the linguistic freedom that our
medieval ancestors had. Actually, it is a circular process. The more profanity
that makes it into the media, the more acclimatized we become to it, and the
less it bothers us, meaning that the writers are given even more freedom so
they use even more profanity, and so on. The same can be said of nearly all
media, including television, theater and radio. Many television situation
comedies and dramas in particular gain from this because they are able to make
the situations more believable by using realistic language. Call-in radio talk
shows and television programs are screening their callers less and less as it
becomes easier to get away with the occasional on-air expletive. Words that
used to get books banned are now commonplace in corporate boardrooms as well as
bars.
Curiously, the
music industry is one of the slowest to respond to these recent changes.
Despite being the most emotive of the media, using strong language to express
strong feelings is still not considered generally acceptable. Although it is
possible to have an occasional word or two from the 'big six' on an album
without having to display the 'explicit lyrics' label on the front, which is
more than was possible ten years ago, any more requires the label.
Unfortunately, this significantly reduces the potential audience and can
possibly mean that performers never receive the artistic credit they deserve.
However, not all
musicians have ignored the recent revolution in acceptable language. Indeed,
there are entire genres of music that seem to thrive on it. For example, from
the early 1970s the popular music world has been augmented by the genre of
'rap', a predominantly black form of social and political commentary. This
genre is rhythmically accentuated and uses markedly strong language.
Contemporary rap artists who can be included in this category are 'ice T',
'easy E' and the group '2 Live Crew.' The latter released an album in 1990
which included numbers with titles such as 'Bad Ass Bitch' and 'Get The Fuck
Out of My House (Bitch)'.
Chapter 9-
Conclusions
In keeping with
Samuel Beckett's comment: "The air is full of our cries. But habit is a
great deadener," many people would predict that this popularization of
profanity will weaken its effect. Indeed, this is such a common phenomenon
(words such as damn and hell were once just as taboo as fuck and cunt are
today) that it even has its own term in linguistics: "Verbicide."
Many words have survived verbicide in the past - shit, for example - but the
spread of profanity in the media combined with the recent capability to
distribute this media worldwide might lead to an even larger explosion of
profanity, which might linger for an unusually long time. Nevertheless, the
'big six' are probably not in much danger from recent verbicide because, as
H.C. Wyld said: "It seems to be the case that the serious oaths survive
longest... while each age produces its own ephemeral formulas of mere light expletive
and asservation." One can conclude therefore that these words will only
fade from our vocabulary when popular usage moves from "serious oath"
to the realm of "light expletive," not an event in the forseeable
future.
It should be
clear that, although profanity usually does succeed in offending, that is not
always its purpose and certainly not why it should be considered useful. These
six words have not only the grammatical place and function in English, but also
a purpose in communication in general. Even when used as expletives, perhaps as
a method of relieving built up tension orally rather than physically, these six
words are still useful to the speaker. There is more meaning packed into one
fuck then ten maybes. Describing a man as a cunt says just as much about the
speaker as it does the man. 'Taking a piss' doesn't mean the same thing as
urinating. There is no word more useful than a word that communicates simply,
precisely and effectively, which is why these words are not only useful, but
irreplaceable.
Bibliography .
Beckett, S.
(1959). Waiting for Godot. London: Faber.
Burchfield, R.
(1972). Unlocking the English Language. London: Faber.
Haberman, C.
(1996, May 8). Yo, You Stupid *@#&!: Profanity Reigns in N.Y.. The International
Herald Tribune.
Hughes, G.
(1991). Swearing: a social history of foul language, oaths and profanity in
English. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Montagu, A.
(1973). The Anatomy of Swearing. London and New York: Macmillan and Collier.
Partridge, E.
(1960). Slang. 3rd Edition. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Rawson, H.
(1989). Wicked Words. New York: Crown Publishers.
Reader's Digest
Universal Dictionary. (1987). London: Reader's Digest Association Limited.
Turner, J. (1996,
March 24). Bye-Bye Beloved English. The International Herald Tribune.
Ullmann. S.
(1951). Words and Their Use. London: Frederick Muller.
Wyld, H. C.
(1936). A History of Modern Colloquial English. 3rd Edition. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
No comments:
Post a Comment