Essay, Research Paper

The Function of Profanity in Modern English Chapter 1-

Introduction and Clarification Since the beginning of the English linguistic communication, there

hold existed certain words that were considered by the bulk to be forbidden, or

non to be spoken in polite discourse. Over the centuries, these words have changed,

some disappearance from the linguistic communication wholly and some merely taking on new significances

or maps. One wonders why, if these words were considered excessively ill-mannered to be spoken,

they were of all time used, and accordingly, how they remained a fixture in a linguistic communication

known for its passing tendencies and ephemeral manners. Could it be that these

words were, and are, indispensable for communicating? Would the English linguistic communication be

as effectual without these words? Are attempts to quash them futile? Does the

popularisation of such vocabulary create the demand for new words with the same

tabu position as the original words? To sum up: Does profanity function a utile

intent in the English linguistic communication? In order to reply a inquiry this composite, certain

guidelines must be set. The word & # 8220 ; profanity & # 8221 ; has a long list of forbidden words associated

with it, non all of which can be accommodated within such a short survey. It is

hence necessary to restrict which words we consider. Since this is a survey of

modern English, the words should be representative of the sort of profanity used

today. In his superb survey & # 8220 ; Swearing, & # 8221 ; Geoffrey Hughes said: & # 8230 ; A major displacement

has occurred in relatively recent times in that a rather different accent

has become dominant. The & # 8216 ; lower & # 8217 ; physical modules of sexual intercourse, laxation

and micturition have come really much to the bow as referents in cursing. Therefore

it seems appropriate to take a set of & # 8216 ; four-letter words & # 8217 ; in American English,

known by American linguists as the & # 8220 ; Big Six, & # 8221 ; which range from mildly to highly

tabu and besides cover these & # 8216 ; modern-day & # 8217 ; subjects in cursing. They are: flatus,

urine, crap, screw, prick and bitch. The first two are of Anglo- Saxon beginning and

day of the month from c.1000 and c.1250, severally. Piss, nevertheless, is of Norman French

beginning and day of the months from c.1290. Fuck is a well-known word for sexual intercourse,

and prick and bitch are slang, if non profane, footings for the male and female variety meats

involved in this activity. All three are of unknown beginning, and day of the month from c.1500

for screw and c.1400 for prick and bitch. Unfortunately, we must besides do an effort

at specifying & # 8220 ; utile intent, & # 8221 ; even if it is impossible to come to a decision

that will delight everyone. A good inquiry to inquire here is: & # 8220 ; What belongingss does

a word with intent have? & # 8221 ; Most linguists would probably react that a word does

non hold a intent unless it has both a significance and a grammatical topographic point in a sentence,

and some would likely desire to include the usage of the words as phatic and affectional

looks. How, though, do you determine when this intent becomes a & # 8220 ; utile

intent & # 8221 ; ? Can it be deemed utile simply by holding a intent at all? That inquiry,

basically, presents the reply. One must see the original intent of

linguistic communication: to help in reassigning cognition or thoughts or even emotions from one

individual to another. Therefore, any word that assists in this transportation can be considered

both utile and purposeful. It should be noted, nevertheless, that there are different

grades of utility. Our pick of words in communicating indicates our penchant

of one word over another, uncovering our belief that a certain word is more utile

for pass oning a certain thought than any other in our active vocabulary. With

these footings defined, it is now possible to paraphrase a inquiry in a manner that facilitates

a clear and every bit defined response. The new inquiry would look something like:

Make the words flatus, urine, crap, screw, prick and bitch serve to assistance in the transportation

of thoughts or information between people talking the English linguistic communication? Chapter

2- Everyday Usage of Profanity Probably the best topographic point to get down any survey of profane

linguistic communication is where it is spoken. Try this quiz from the pavements of New York:

1 ) A immature adult male was a measure excessively slow racing for the Second Avenue coach. As it pulled

off, he angrily shouted one word for everyone nearby to hear. It was: ( a ) Gadzooks ;

( B ) Doggone ; ( degree Celsius ) Phooey ; ( vitamin D ) Fuck. 2 ) A fast-moving bicycler screamed at a middle-aged

adult male seeking to traverse Broadway. & # 8220 ; Watch where you & # 8217 ; rhenium traveling, you & # 8230 ; & # 8221 ; His following two

words were: ( a ) Errant knave ; ( B ) Brainless stupid ; ( degree Celsius ) Pedestrian craven ; ( vitamin D )

Dumb Shit. It should be obvious that the correct reply, both times, is ( vitamin D ) . These

are but two illustrations, mild at that, of the vulgarisation of a metropolis awash with

people who, if a mere five or six words were removed from their vocabulary, would

efficaciously be struck dense. Two work forces in pinstripe suits, siting the metro to Wall

Street, ignore others & # 8217 ; esthesias as they keep up a high-volume conversation

laced with profanities. The same with three adolescents on a coach. Ditto for a cab

driver kicking about the & # 8220 ; sleep togethering traffic. & # 8221 ; Or for a police officer in Timess

Square who, when asked courteously what a street protest is about, answers: & # 8220 ; How

the screw should I cognize? & # 8221 ; These are non incidents simply specific to New York,

or even the United States. All over the English-speaking universe ( of class, outside

it every bit good, but that is irreverent ) and in all subdivisions of society there are

other illustrations of this kind of linguistic communication, and the inauspicious responses it brings about.

Take the illustration of Sissy Lax, a well-respected instructor who was softly discharged

when it was revealed that she let her pupils use blasphemous linguistic communication in a series

of poetic and dramatic exercisings intended to promote them to follow a more socially

acceptable vocabulary. Chapter 3- How Profanity Offends Why does this linguistic communication

cause such strong reactions? Possibly it has to make with the manner Malinowski saw

linguistic communication: & # 8220 ; The word has power of its ain ; it is a agency of conveying things about

& # 8230 ; . Language in its crude map is to be regarded as a manner of action

instead than as a password of thought. & # 8221 ; All the people in the illustrations above

were affected deeply, about physically, by the words that were used. These words

likely didn & # 8217 ; t necessitate as much idea as, say, a formal salutation. This is because

they are non so much mental responses to state of affairss as they are physical 1s.

The childhood rebuttal & # 8220 ; sticks and rocks may interrupt my castanetss, but words will ne’er

ache me & # 8221 ; comes to mind, possibly because these words are every bit near as words can

get to being physical looks. Mary Ritchie Key is a professor emeritus of

linguistics at UC Irvine. She has studied linguistic communication and explored the & # 8220 ; socio-linguistics & # 8221 ;

civilization in which profanity and obscenities have flourished. She sees utmost profanity

and coarseness as the address equivalent of violent action. & # 8220 ; Aren & # 8217 ; t emotions truly

of import in human behaviour? & # 8221 ; she said. & # 8220 ; So these are utmost emotional mercantile establishments,

and they are of import and they do do a difference, because people need that

one time in a piece. The Victorian Age suppressed choler, and I don & # 8217 ; t think that that

was particularly good for us, so we need a release. & # 8221 ; Rather than really making

physical harm or bodily injury, the determination is made to utilize a strong word, possibly

screw or prick, as a replacement. Any individual hearing the word recognizes that pick,

possibly merely subconsciously, and responds about as if the talker had really

opted to take the physical alternatively of verbal path of alleviating their defeat.

Many people so construe this reaction as discourtesy. This, of class, isn & # 8217 ; t the

merely ground that these words seem so violative. Originally, these words might

hold held more pregnant to those who spoke and heard them, and the significance itself

is what offended. Now though, people are merely brought up with the impression that

these words are & # 8216 ; bad & # 8217 ; before they are taught what they mean, and therefore they assume

that the forbidden nature of the words is unconditioned. Of class, more mature talkers

will oppugn the ground behind this, and will most likely conclude that the words

are forbidden because of their significance. Since this is the instance, so it is a good

thought to research briefly what these words truly do intend, how they are used, and

what kind of other forbidden topics with which they have come to be associated.

Chapter 4- A Look at the Literal Meanings and Taboo Starting with urine, which,

in noun signifier, means urine, and in verb signifier, means to urinate, puting it in the

most basic tabu class, elimination. It is used in signifiers runing from the petroleum:

& # 8220 ; to kick the urine out of person & # 8221 ; ( to crush person rather severely ) to the simple:

& # 8220 ; take a urine & # 8221 ; ( to urinate ) . Following on the tabu ladder is another word in the same

class, fart. It is synonymous with inferno ( in the signifier: & # 8220 ; to break wind & # 8221 ; ) but

can besides be used, although non about as successfully, as a derogative term for

person & # 8211 ; normally male ( i.e. & # 8220 ; He was a lazy flatus & # 8221 ; ) . Shit is the last word in this

class, most typically used in noun signifier to intend & # 8220 ; fecal matters & # 8221 ; and in verb signifier to

mean & # 8220 ; to egest fecal matters, & # 8221 ; although it is besides normally used as an curse ( & # 8221 ; Shit! & # 8221 ; )

or improperly as an adjectival ( i.e. & # 8220 ; That public presentation was shit & # 8221 ; ) . In & # 8220 ; Swearing, & # 8221 ;

Geoffrey Hughes had this to state about these first three words: It is a funny

characteristic in the taxonomy that of the assorted signifiers of elimination and erucation,

crap should be the most used term ( californium. German scheiss, Gallic merde, Italian stronzo,

English crap ) . By comparing, flatus has diminished force, urine has small currency

( beyond the disdainful piss creative person and the unceremonial urine off! ) while belch

has none whatever. It would look that the two dominant factors in doing footings

in this field extremely charged or otherwise are their grade of solidness and their

propinquity to the genital/anal country. Fuck has its ain class among these six

words, sex ( although that does true hold a batch to make with bitch and prick ) .

It is used as a equivalent word for sexual intercourse every bit good as an expletive ( i.e. & # 8220 ; Fuck

that! & # 8221 ; ) and a derogative term for person ( i.e. & # 8220 ; She & # 8217 ; s a lazy screw & # 8221 ; ) . Cock and

bitch are alternate words for the male and female sexual variety meats, severally.

They are besides both used as derogative names. Clearly, these definitions illustrate

how in writing these footings are, and how closely linked they are to activities and

objects most societies categorize as tabu. It is the shyness and embarrassment

with which people approach any of these subjects that more or less dooms these words

to their forbidden destiny. Interestingly, it seems that most of the traits that we portion

with other animate beings ( i.e. elimination and sexual intercourse and variety meats ) are traits

that we would instead non discourse. Thus, words that would be used in an informal

treatment about these subjects become forbidden. This in bend leads to the words being

reduced to utilize merely in flashes of choler or minutes of desperation, or possibly non

at all ( the mortality rate for rude words and looks is amazing & # 8212 ; the

noun/verb sodomite and the noun stupid are two illustrations of words weakened by clip

and overexploitation & # 8212 ; nevertheless they are continuously replaced by an every bit impressive

birth rate ) . Chapter 5- Phatic and Emotive Language Many linguists would reason

that because these words have become portion of the English linguistic communication & # 8217 ; s phatic and

emoti

ve vocabulary ( used merely for the intent of set uping an ambiance or

keeping societal contact, or in the instance of affectional looks, used to show

instead than to depict ) , they have no existent map in the linguistic communication. To turn out

that phatic and affectional linguistic communication is so a utile, if non necessary, portion of

the English linguistic communication would be to turn out that these six words besides have a intent.

Why, so, is phatic/emotive linguistic communication utile? Technically, phatic/emotive linguistic communication

includes many looks common in conversation ( i.e. & # 8220 ; Nice twenty-four hours once more, International Relations and Security Network & # 8217 ; T

it? & # 8221 ; and & # 8220 ; How are you? Still vomit? & # 8221 ; ) and correspondence ( & # 8221 ; Dear Sirs & # 8221 ; at the beginning

and & # 8220 ; Yours genuinely & # 8221 ; at the decision of a missive ) . However, curses such as

crap and screw besides autumn under the labels of phatic/emotive linguistic communication. Obviously,

as the definition confirms, phatic/emotive linguistic communication is necessary for set uping

an ambiance and keeping societal contact. While the first set of illustrations

from conversation and correspondence are the sort of phatic/emotive linguistic communication that

maintains societal contact, curses and exclaimings are decidedly the & # 8216 ; atmosphere

establishers. & # 8217 ; Even if the ambiance is non a desirable one, it can non be denied

that this kind of vocabulary succeeds in specifying it. In fact, to some grade,

the four of the six that are non used as curses ( piss, fart, prick and bitch )

are besides good illustrations of phatic/emotive linguistic communication. While their use would surely

set up a certain ambiance, they fall more into the portion of phatic/emotive

linguistic communication that maintains societal contact. This is chiefly due to looks such

as the really informal recognizing & # 8220 ; Hey, you old flatus! & # 8221 ; and, as Hughes said, the unceremonial

exclaiming & # 8220 ; Piss off & # 8221 ; ( British English slang for & # 8220 ; travel off & # 8221 ; ) . Chapter 6- The Employment

of Substitutes This raises the inquiry: Isn & # 8217 ; t it possible to set up the same

atmosphere with much more & # 8220 ; acceptable & # 8221 ; linguistic communication? In some instances, this is executable.

For illustration, to name person & # 8220 ; thick & # 8221 ; and to name person & # 8220 ; stupid, & # 8221 ; two words with

approximately the same intensions, would accomplish the same thing. However, for stronger

words, such as the six with which we are covering, the differentiation between the

atmosphere created by one and the atmosphere created by another becomes much more

obvious. True, this group of words is excessively little to turn out this theory, but

any survey of the larger vocabulary of cursing would happen many grammatical equivalent word

( i.e. words holding the same map and actual significance ) . These would be invalid,

nevertheless, because each of these & # 8220 ; synonymous & # 8221 ; words would hold wholly different

innuendos and deductions from the other. For illustration, utilizing the word dirt

alternatively of crap in the look & # 8220 ; I & # 8217 ; ve had plenty of this crap & # 8221 ; would bring on

two distinguishable reactions due to the different undertones each word has. Most people

would see denounce a much more angry, vulgar word than dirt, and would likely

stop up overlooking the usage of dirt in this sense anyhow. Since a equivalent word is defined

as: & # 8220 ; a word holding the same significance as, or a pregnant really similar to, that of

another word in the same linguistic communication & # 8221 ; ( with the illustration: & # 8220 ; mix, blend and mingle & # 8221 ; ) ,

and the different reactions indicate that the significances are non the same, these

words can non technically be synonyms. The differentiation is non simply proficient.

As implied above, a simple switch of words can convey about an wholly different

reaction. This is, of class, the intent of holding different words that mean

fundamentally the same thing: it enables the talker to more clearly and accurately

convey his or her message. To exemplify, conceive of the undermentioned state of affairs: A adult male

says to his married woman at the dinner tabular array: & # 8220 ; If my foreman gives me any more craps about

my work, I & # 8217 ; m discontinuing! & # 8221 ; Would it hold had the same impact if he had said & # 8220 ; ailments & # 8221 ;

alternatively of & # 8220 ; shit & # 8221 ; ? Obviously, the reply is no, and non merely because of the tabu

nature of crap, which means that there is likely a ground for his pick of

words. In this instance, it is likely because utilizing the word shit alternatively of ailments

generates more sympathy for his determination to go forth his occupation, because it implies

that the ailments are non justified. Chapter 7- A Brief Historical Perspective

Another manner to exemplify the importance of these words is to look at the history

of profanity. It seems that the more forbidden the coarse vocabulary became, the more

it would accommodate and metamorphasize into different words and signifiers of use, which

either took on their predecessors taboo position and started the rhythm over once more

or disappeared from the linguistic communication as the old words were used one time once more. One terrific

illustration of this is the Cockney rhyming slang that was developed in the center

of the nineteenth century. Dwelling of two words, sometimes connected by and, these

phrases ended in a word that rhymed with the cloaked term. Using illustrations merely

for our six words, some phrases were: Almond stone ( prick ) , Berkshire Hunt ( bitch ) ,

Friar Tuck ( screw ) , Hit and girl ( piss ) and Tom tit ( crap ) . It became so popular

and utile as a camouflage mechanism that it finally stretched to include absolutely

civil words, at first as portion of a quasi-code and so, more popularly, as witty

footings in themselves ( i.e. the familiar problem and discord for married woman ) . Chapter 8-

The Use of Profanity in the Media If these six words are so utile, and can non

be substituted, so why is it that they are used so small in the media? The

reply is reasonably simple. Given the freedom, most authors for newspapers and magazines

( and now the progressively popular e-zine ) still would take non to utilize profanity

because it wouldn & # 8217 ; Ts make their message any clearer. However, if a state of affairs arose

where it would help their communicating, they would about decidedly use it. So

why is it non allowed? This is because, given the pick between forbiding profanity

& # 8211 ; which would upset really few people ( including the authors themselves ) & # 8212 ; and

allowing the authors use whatever vocabulary they see fit & # 8212 ; which would do

at least a little tumult & # 8212 ; the media would instead & # 8216 ; play it safe & # 8217 ; than hazard losing

concern to those who disapprove. Unfortunately, the cost for the consumer is

that we lose that small spot of information that would hold necessitated the usage

of profanity. Timess are altering, nevertheless, and we are recovering the lingual

freedom that our medieval ascendants had. Actually, it is a round procedure. The

more profanity that makes it into the media, the more acclimatized we become to

it, and the less it bothers us, intending that the authors are given even more freedom

so they use even more profanity, and so on. The same can be said of about all

media, including telecasting, theatre and wireless. Many telecasting state of affairs comedies

and play in peculiar addition from this because they are able to do the state of affairss

more credible by utilizing realistic linguistic communication. Call-in wireless talk shows and telecasting

plans are testing their companies less and less as it becomes easier to acquire

off with the occasional on-air curse. Wordss that used to acquire books banned

are now commonplace in corporate council chambers every bit good as bars. Curiously, the music

industry is one of the slowest to react to these recent alterations. Despite being

the most affectional of the media, utilizing strong linguistic communication to show strong feelings

is still non considered by and large acceptable. Although it is possible to hold

an occasional word or two from the & # 8216 ; large six & # 8217 ; on an album without holding to expose

the & # 8216 ; explicit wordss & # 8217 ; label on the forepart, which is more than was possible 10

old ages ago, any more requires the label. Unfortunately, this significantly reduces

the possible audience and can perchance intend that performing artists ne’er receive the

artistic recognition they deserve. However, non all instrumentalists have ignored the recent

revolution in acceptable linguistic communication. Indeed, there are full genres of music that

seem to boom on it. For illustration, from the early 1970s the popular music universe

has been augmented by the genre of & # 8216 ; blame & # 8217 ; , a preponderantly black signifier of societal

and political commentary. This genre is rhythmically accentuated and uses markedly

strong linguistic communication. Contemporary blame creative persons who can be included in this class

are & # 8216 ; ice T & # 8217 ; , & # 8216 ; easy E & # 8217 ; and the group & # 8216 ; 2 Live Crew. & # 8217 ; The latter released an album

in 1990 which included Numberss with rubrics such as & # 8216 ; Bad Ass Bitch & # 8217 ; and & # 8216 ; Get The

Fuck Out of My House ( Bitch ) & # 8217 ; . Chapter 9- Decisions In maintaining with Samuel Beckett & # 8217 ; s

remark: & # 8220 ; The air is full of our calls. But wont is a great deadener, & # 8221 ; many people

would foretell that this popularisation of profanity will weaken its consequence. Indeed,

this is such a common phenomenon ( words such as darn and snake pit were one time merely as

tabu as screw and bitch are today ) that it even has its ain term in linguistics:

& # 8220 ; Verbicide. & # 8221 ; Many words have survived verbicide in the past & # 8211 ; shit, for illustration

– but the spread of profanity in the media combined with the recent capableness

to administer this media worldwide might take to an even larger detonation of profanity,

which might linger for an remarkably long clip. However, the & # 8216 ; large six & # 8217 ; are

likely non in much danger from recent verbicide because, as H.C. Wyld said:

& # 8220 ; It seems to be the instance that the serious curses survive longest & # 8230 ; while each

age produces its ain passing expressions of mere light curse and asservation. & # 8221 ;

One can reason hence that these words will merely melt from our vocabulary

when popular use moves from & # 8220 ; serious curse & # 8221 ; to the kingdom of & # 8220 ; light curse, & # 8221 ;

non an event in the forseeable hereafter. It should be clear that, although profanity

normally does win in piquing, that is non ever its intent and surely

non why it should be considered utile. These six words have non merely the grammatical

topographic point and map in English, but besides a intent in communicating in general.

Even when used as curses, possibly as a method of alleviating built up tenseness

orally instead than physically, these six words are still utile to the talker.

There is more pregnant packed into one screw so ten maybes. Describing a adult male as

a bitch says merely every bit much about the talker as it does the adult male. & # 8216 ; Taking a urine & # 8217 ;

doesn & # 8217 ; t mean the same thing as urinating. There is no word more utile than a

word that communicates merely, exactly and efficaciously, which is why these words

are non merely utile, but unreplaceable.

. 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 * @ # & A ; ! : Profanity Reigns

in N.Y.. The International Herald Tribune. Hughes, G. ( 1991 ) . Cursing: a societal

history of disgusting linguistic communication, curses 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 & # 8217 ; s Digest

Universal Dictionary. ( 1987 ) . London: Reader & # 8217 ; s Digest Association Limited. Turner,

J. ( 1996, March 24 ) . Bye-Bye Beloved English. The International Herald Tribune.

Ullmann. S. ( 1951 ) . Wordss and Their Use. London: Frederick Muller. Wyld, H. C.

( 1936 ) . A History of Modern Colloquial English. 3rd Edition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.