"Lalochlezia" and Swearing: Does It Reflect Taboo, or "Boohoooo"

Language and Society 500631760 Annemarie van der Woude
Module leader: Vincent Hernot IDEE Year 4 June 2014

1
Swearing: Does it express Taboo or Boohoo?
Swearing is the use of provocative or offensive language, and this ubiquitously
present linguistic element is mentioned to have touched every human at a certain
point in live (Van Lancker and Cummings, 1999:83). Due to its social implications, it is
unique within the field of sociolinguistics, which comes from to the fact that the
denotation of a swearword may be insignificant: its connotations can invoke a
derogatory epithet. Society empowers swearwords as social factors assert whether
one is to take offence to ideas or feelings its connotations invoke. This basic analysis
of the social effect of swearing portrays its relationship to emotion. I became
personally impelled to read into swearing and emotions after I had come across a
photo on Facebook, posted by online community Word Porn. Known for sharing
literary content of various genres concerning writing, this picture contained a lexical
entry that read the following: lalochezia, (n.) the emotional relief gained from using
abusive or profane language (appendix 1).
According to Jay (2000:82), humans readily associate swearing with all
emotional states in early childhood. Linguists and psychologists developed language
theories over a century, yet these excluded swearing (10). Jay moreover states that
excluding swearing, also excluded emotions in the language theories discussions
while emotions are as innate in language as they are in humans (11). Moreover, in
most research concerning swearing, emotions are rarely discussed as these studies
have been written from linguistic and historical-social points of view (16). Jay
mentions swearing is an emotional element of language that alters the way we view
ourselves and others (81). In a way, this implies that the powerful and provocative
2
act of swearing is actually a tool to express emotions, disguised as tabooed language.
It will be interesting to compare whether women, whom are stereotypically deemed
to be more emotional than men (Jay, 2000:92), gain more or stronger lalochezia-
emotional relief from swearing than male counterparts. To research this, I
designed a small-scaled online survey, which collected data from 26 female and 22
male participants (appendix 2). This essay aims to show, by conducting literary
research, comparing data and reflecting on findings, the majority of participants
experienced emotional relief. However, degrees of gained relief differed on
individual levels, showing a surprising outcome from the gender viewpoint.
Before commencing on the analysis and interpretation of data, it is important
to briefly discuss swearing in general and review academic research that correlates
with this essays focus on emotion. Thereafter, gender and language use will be
discussed, before focusing on research regarding gender and swearing. There are
abundant descriptors for using provocative language, but for the sake of continuity,
this essay adopts the term and derivations of swearing. While swearing occurs in
many forms, this essay generalizes swearing into three common major categories.
These categories of swearing are adopted in this paper, as I believe its connotations
transcend languages sworn in. The first category regards swearwords alluding to
sexuality and excretion (fuck, shit, cunt, etc.), the second category includes
blasphemous swearwords or otherwise related to religion (damn, Jesus, God)
(Gauthier, 2012:9). The third category of refers to categorizing epithets to e.g. race,
(dis)abilities, sexuality, et cetera (retard, fag, trailer trash) .
In an article by O'Callaghan (2013), several theories and inducements for
human swearing are discussed. She mentions swearwords to be processed
3
differently from more polite words inside our brains. The ability to swear lies in a
different area of the brain, which apparently has been long known. Interestingly she
mentions aphasic persons, impaired by losing aspects of higher cognition because of
injury or neurodegenerative disease, havent lost their ability to swear (2013:72).
Apparently humans, as well as other species evolutionally developed areas housing
automatic reactions to stress in their brain. OCallaghan exemplifies a study in which
triggering the stress-circuit of a cat electronically caused the creature to let out an
ear-splitting howl. In people, whom were stimulated similarly, the trigger elicited an
outburst of rage accompanied by swearing. It seems humans primitive cries of
emotion have assimilated to swearing as basic reflex. According to Jays NPS Theory
(Neuro-Psycho-Social) emotional responses occur at different levels of awareness
and controllability (2000:20). There are two central brain systems that regulate
emotional swearing. In the area controlling emotions: the limbic (subcortical) area
(2000:48), swearing can become an automatic (short) reflex and difficult to control,
while in the cortical area swearing becomes a more complex and strategically aware
response (e.g. jokes or sarcastic responses) (2000:53).
Experiencing (or rather, hearing) his wifes coping with the pain of childbirth,
inspired psychologist Richard Stephens to conduct an experiment to investigate
whether participants experienced relief responding to pain by swearing consistently,
like his wife during labour, and measured the effect of swearing on pain levels. Two
years after successful conductance, Stephens collaborated with Umland and
reconstructed the experiment (2011:1274). Again, the research was able to
demonstrate pain amelioration had been experienced by participating
undergraduates whom swore while trying to hold their hands in ice-cold water as
4
long as possible. Apart from pain relief, participants allowed to swear were
measured to be able to hold their hands an average of thirty-one seconds longer in
the ice water, than non-swearing participants (1278). This effect on pain endurance
has been ascribed: the hypoalgesic effect of swearing (2011:1280). Stephens and
Umland suggest in their paper, that swearing may induce an emotional response in
the speaker, by which pain is relieved. Their academic proposition makes the
actualization of gaining emotional relief from swearing, as suggested by this essays
focus lalochlezia, a more plausible possibility.
Before briefly discussing gender and language and research done into
swearing and gender, it has to be mentioned that in reconstructing Stephens study
a variable was added to the experiment of 2011 related to gender. Participants daily
swearing frequencies were assessed to determine the affect ones swearing
frequency has on the degree of pain relief when swearing. Results showed
participants with higher swearing frequencies, experience a lesser emotional
response () because of habituation to the stimulus of swearing (,) [and]
experience a lesser pain tolerance effect from swearing (2011:1278). Findings from
several psychologists regarding multilingualism and swearing, mentioned by
Abrahams (2013), showed swearing in ones native languages dredges up deeper,
more hellacious emotion than swearing in a "foreign" language. As children
associate swearwords to emotional states at an early age, and value its pragmatics
when they can recast them to acquire attention from parents and they discover
swearwords convey emotional states more accurately than primitive cries and
shrieks (Jay, 2000:53&82). From this perspective, swearing in the language one has
5
first associated and expressed emotions with, rather than languages acquired
thereafter, is likely to induce stronger emotions.
Genetic differences between men and women are hardly matters of dispute
(Wardhaugh, 2010:335). Yet even at physiological level, society affects gender
identity as it set norms to conform physiological representation of language to.
Wardhaugh mentions vocal sounds may be emphasized to match societys
assumptions of how we should sound like when they talk (335), exemplifying this
with Margaret Thatcher being advised to lower her pitch and adjust her speaking
style in correspondence with her position as British Prime Minister (i.e. she had to
sound more masculine) (337). According to Jay (2000:166), cultures aims to mould
children into masculine and feminine adults. He portrays gender identity as set of
cultural prescriptions and expectations (ibid) to which males and females are to
conform. Current Western societies seem to allow women and men freedom to
transcend (and mix) their masculine and feminine characteristics. Yet, despite social
progress, displaying traits different from social norms may still cause stigmatization
and name-calling as gay, tomboy, queer, butch. Wardhaugh (2010:343) states
females are reported to be more polite than men in speech, and makes the
important observation that in studies into language and gender, male speech overall
provided the norm for comparison (335).
Differences regarding use of swearwords between genders appear as soon as
children go to school (Jay, 2000:92). Apparently, boys swear more often and use
more offensive kinds of words than girls. Yet, this could be ascribed to childrens
parents, whom swear more with their male children, whereas they monitor their
speech with their female ones according current research into gender and swearing
6
by Gauthier (2012:128). He reports findings from three main objectives relevant to
this essay (126-8). Analyzing the way women and men perceive swearing, was his
studys first and foremost aim. While he states the outcome may have been
influenced by the traditional stereotypical views representing women as prudish
persona to avoid swearing behaviour around and men being big swearers, it
demonstrates a perceivable difference. Male participants used substantially more
swear words when they were with other men while avoiding avoiding such
behaviour around women (2012:127). This showed men related gender much more
to swearing than females, whom portrayed consistency in swearing disregarding
audience, but rather tended to consider what swear words conveyed and referred
to (ibid). Gauthier his second aim linked to these findings, was investigate how
swearing is used by both genders as well as its differences. As his first aim showed
men swore significantly more in male-only settings, the probability of an unaffected
gender division was excluded. He mentions that among men, swearing has a specific
function, stating this led him to believe that swearing was a bonding factor for men
(2012:127).
Gauthier uses these observations to question his last aim regarding the
stereotypes of language and gender, as these show the relativity of females
assumed prudishness, and that in turn as males being a lot more likely to refrain
from swearing than females, this questions the accuracy of applying prudishness in
discussing gender and differences in swearing. Gauthier proposes an explanation
might lay in the general use of womens swearing compared to mens, as the latter
tend to see swearing as a tool more likely to prove useful in everyday situations
(ibid), i.e., men see swearing having a socializing and bonding function transcending
7
its conveyed connotations. However, Gauthier does states that stereotypical views
may begin to change, as traditional gender expectations may be starting to lose of
their impact, at least among certain speakers (128). He concludes that, despite the
current presence of stereotypes, younger generations are proposed to become more
egalitarian despite current parenting differentiation gender-wise, as young females
(18-25) are mentioned to report swearing sufficiently more than men. As analysis
didnt show potential for women to bond socially over swearing, Gauthier mentions
finalizes his report by the implication that women do not swear more than men to
be accepted by them, but simply to equal, or even surpass them and create a
balance through an equivalent use of strong language(ibid.).
With regards to my own research, I collected data from 48 responders via an
anonymous online survey with ten questions (appendix 2). Although it is common to
devote a section to discussing results, having appended my data summary, the word-
limit of this paper and my non-existing skill to analyse statistics: I will commence
justifying my design and provide interpretation/analysis of findings. I dispersed the
link for the survey among Facebook friends. In making its topic and purpose
apparent in its description, I made clear the language used was English to gather
responses from individuals proficient in English and interested in my study. The first
two questions establish participants gender and age groups, the latter I preferred
over specific age as it caters to anonymity more (Gauthier, 2012:55) which
particularly when dealing with a tabooed subject might hold respondents back, and
also categorizes generations. Gender dyad was quite balanced: 26 females and 22
males, the majority aged between 20-30. The third question assessed frequency of
swearing in everyday discourse, to provide insight in gender difference in use of
8
swearing. Also due to Stephen & Umland (2011) having asserted frequency of
swearing an important variable, due the affect of habituation on gaining relief. All
participants (minus one female) reported to swear yet gender difference found
correlates with discussed research. Women represent 75% of the occasional
swearers and merely 25% of those whom swear everyday.
Questions 4-6 examine how context influenced the frequency of swearing
behaviour. The context in which swearing occurs is an important variable to assess,
as swearwords can merely be perceived provocative or foul when the speakers
social setting and listener, along with other variables, are considered. Given the size
of this study, settings only variable questioned was swearing frequency. The first
context proposed swearing around friends. The first categories of frequency were in
balance among genders. Occasionally reported 42.31% by females versus 9.09% by
males. Swearing everyday showed 31.82% by males and 11.54% by females. In
general this corresponds with Gauthiers (2012:127) findings on male swearing and
can be ascribed to its role in male-socialization. Question 5 regarding swearing
around family members is asserted to show little difference among genders. For the
sake on continuing one can interpret genders overall feel the same about sharing
emotions with family. Question six, enquiring the frequency of swearing around
superiors shows a dyad. 73.08% females reported never to swear in such contexts
while 59.09% males reported occasionally; and 9.09% to often do so. Although these
questions are limited and free to interpret by its few variables, findings portray high-
frequency swearing in men making women appear stereotypically polite in
comparison.
9
Question 7 established frequency of use in the three major categories of
swearing. Although 10 women reported to never epithets, the first category seems
most balanced in use among gender. The four frequencies of religious swearwords
reported to increase consistently in males: 0%; 18.18%; 36.36% and 45.45%. Again,
women reported lower frequenting is use: 11.54%; 38.46%; 38.46% and 11.54%.
Women admittedly report using words alluding to sexuality and excretion, most
even doing so often: 0%; 38.46%; 42.31%; 19.23%. Still, they cant beat the male
figures: 0%; 9.09%; 31.82%; 59.09%. Males reported swearing much more frequent
than women: it even seemed to increase as the survey evolved. Participants could
provide options and examples to these generalized categories, which 7 males and 2
females did. Apart from one -seemingly British- response, generally suggestion
referred to (explicit!) examples of illnesses, particularly cancer (appendix 3). From an
international viewpoint the custom of Dutch language relating swearwords to
diseases appears to be rather unique (Van Sterkenburg, 2001; in Rassin and Muris,
2005: 1673).
The last three questions cover the focus of this study: Lalochlezia. Question 8
asserts whether emotional relief has even been gained from swearing by the
participants, and if so, its frequency. Merely 6 respondents reported never to have
gained emotional relief: 2 male and 4 female. Of the other 42, 25 stated to
sometimes experience emotional relief from swearing (11 male and 14 female); 15
reported gaining lalochlezia from swearing most of the times (7 male and 8 female).
Two participants reported to Always gain relief, both male. To question 9, asserting
whether lalochlezia ever induced one to swear, and if so- its frequency, most
reported not being aware of it, which corresponds to the discussion on the
10
(sub)cortical areas controlling swearing. 3 men stated to never been induced, 8
hadnt experiences emotional relief from swearing to their knowing; 5 men replied
lalochlezia induced swearing a few times and merely 1 reported it was why he swore
so much. That even 9 polite occasionally swearing, females admittedly reported
being induced to swear a few times by its emotional merits shows men are
becoming numbed due to swearing habituation. Entering the 10
th
and last question
of this studys survey: a hypothesis proposed to induce outrage from women, and
misconceptions or no opinions from men. Shockingly, only 13 participants
disregarded the stereotypically composed hypothesis: 7 males and a mere 6 females.
16 (8/8) responded to have no opinion on this personal matter; 7 females and 2
males agreed a little, 2 women and 1 man did so predominantly and an equal
number full-heartily agreed. Luckily, of the four participants whom dared to provide
to the other option (appendix 4) the only (egalitarian) female stated what I was
looking for: I am not a man, so I dont know how they feel.
To conclude, the effect of lalochlezia appeared to correspondence to
assumptions proposed by studies examining pain relief from swearing which
demonstrated the hypoalgesic effect of swearing. Researching the relationship of
swearing and emotions has shown swearing and language theories have long been
kept apart, and connecting these might give more insight into the processing of
emotions. Having investigated swearing and gender in relation to lalochlezia, based
on stereotypical traditions assuming females are the emotional gender, provided the
following interpretations. Firstly it seems that traditional gender-identities in
language and swearing are omnipresent and are seemingly accepted as normal by
society, which hinders society and language evolve into a more egalitarian society.
11
Therefore, women may in fact gain more emotional relief from swearing than men;
as they are too polite to allow habituation numbing lalochlezia, and it may very well
be that keeping these emotions in by refraining from swearing, -unlike men- is what
makes women more emotional. Yet, to end on a pending note: if women are the
more emotional gender, why do men swear so much?

Annemarie van der Woude.

12
REFERENCES
Abrahams, M. (2013, March 18). Does swearing make you feel better? The
Guardian. Retrieved from:
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/mar/18/improbable-research-
art-pain-education [last accessed 19-06-2014]
Gauthier, M. (2012). Profanity and gender: a diachronic analysis of mens and
womens use and perception of swear words. (PDF) Retrieved from:
https://www.academia.edu/2962962/Profanity_and_Gender_a_diachronic_a
nalysis_of_mens_and_womens_use_and_perception_of_swear_words [Last
accessed 12-05-2014]
Jay, T. (2000). Why We Curse: A Neuro-Psycho-Socio Theory of Speech.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins B.V. (print).
OCallaghan, T. (2013). Rude Awakenings: How swearing made us human.
New Scientis, Vol. 2948. No.220: 72-4.
Rassin, E. and Muris, P. : Personality and Individual Differences Vol. 38. 2005:
166974. Retrieved from:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886904003174 [last
Stephens, R. and Umland, C. : Swearing as a Response to PainEffect of Daily
Swearing Frequency. The Journal of Pain, Vol. 12, No. 12 (December), 2011:
1274-81. Retrieved from:
Van Lancker, D. and Cummings, J.L.: Expletives: Neurolinguis- tics and
neurobehavioral perspectives on swearing. Brain Res. Rev. 31:83-104, 1999.
Retrieved from:
Wardhaugh, R. (2010). An Introduction to Sociolingistics, 6
th
edition, Sussex:
Willey-Blackwell Ltd.

13
Appendix 1: Picture from Word Porn as posted on Facebook wall

14
Appendix 2: Data online survey comparing male and female responses

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
Appendix 3: Examples provided to swearing categories (Question 7)

26
Appendix 4: Other optional responses to hypothesis (Question 10)

"Lalochlezia" and Swearing: Does It Reflect Taboo, or "Boohoooo"

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

"Lalochlezia" and Swearing: Does It Reflect Taboo, or "Boohoooo"

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Language and Society 500631760 Annemarie van der Woude

Module leader: Vincent Hernot IDEE Year 4 June 2014

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi