Na Wang: An analysis of the pragmatic functions of swearing

71

An analysis of the pragmatic functions

of swearing in interpersonal talk

NA WANG*
Abstract
In most societies, swearing has always been considered as rude and offensive
language. Nevertheless, many people still frequently use swear words in
their daily lives. Therefore, swear words must fulfil some kind of unique
communicative function that other linguistic means cannot easily
accomplish. As a result, swearing could show some positive effects based on
different contexts. In my study, my goal is to investigate different types of
pragmatic functions swear words are carrying out in everyday conversation
according to different contexts. Mey (2001) states that pragmatics sees the
meaning of a language as largely affected by the context in which it occurs.
This paper will analyse five naturally occurring conversations that were
recorded and transcribed using a Conversation Analysis (CA) transcription
convention developed by Gail Jefferson. The analysis has shown that the
pragmatic functions of swearing in everyday talk are mainly to express
emotions, verbal emphasis, group solidarity and aggression. These are the
positive qualities of swearing which have explained why people often choose
to swear. However, due to the data limitation, it does not cover every aspect
of swearing, therefore, I do not suggest this study as a complete guide on how
people use swear words in everyday conversation. Further studies will be
needed.

1. Introduction

Swearing has always been regarded as undereducated, obscene, rude and profane
language in society. However, many people regularly use swear words in their
everyday lives. Therefore, I believe that it must fulfil some kind of unique
communicative function that cannot be easily accomplished through other linguistic
means. As a result, it could show some positive effects based on different contexts and
situations. This is supported by Ljung (1986), who stated that swearing is regarded to
reflect bad behaviour, lack of education and linguistic poverty, however, people are
strongly tempted to swear, since swearing is also related to some positive qualities.
In this study, my aim is to investigate, based on different contexts, different
pragmatic functions carried out by swearing in everyday conversation. As Mey (2001)
states, pragmatics sees the meaning of a language as largely affected by the context in
which it occurs. This topic has come to my attention as only few studies have been done
on how swear words are used in everyday talk. Therefore, it could be an interesting and
worthwhile project to conduct. For my study, the data was selected based on a series of
naturally occurring conversations which have been transcribed using CA transcription
conventions developed by Gail Jefferson. The transcriptions will be analysed in more

Griffith Working Papers in Pragmatics and Intercultural Communication 6 (2013), 71-79

Na Wang: An analysis of the pragmatic functions of swearing

details in the analysis section to show that the pragmatic functions of swearing in
everyday talk are mainly to express emotions, verbal emphasis, group solidarity and
aggression, respectively.

2. Literature Review

Research conducted by the scholars Trudgill and Andersson (1990) on swearing in
social interactions has shown that swear words are highly versatile. However, the same
swear word can perform different interpersonal functions according to different
contexts.
Similar research within this area has been conducted by Steven Pinker (2008). He
observed that swearing can be used for many different functions within various
situations. He pointed out that swearing can carry powerful emotional feelings - not
only negative but also positive feelings. However, this is only one of the many functions
of swear words.
Pinker (2008) also noticed that swear words, such as fuck, appear frequently in
certain contexts and can play a different range of functions, including the role of
positive politeness. Moreover, fuck can often be associated with expressions of
solidarity, including friendly terms of address and in-group membership.
Studies of Jay and Janschewitz (2008), especially in the field of sociolinguistics and
pragmatics, concluded with the same result as the two studies conducted by Trudgill
and Andersson (1990), and Steven Pinker (2008). They emphasized that functions and
effects of swearing are very much dependent on the context in which it occurs.
Therefore, a range of social factors has been taken into account, such as social norms,
culture, relationships between speaker and listener, settings of physical environment
and expectations. Jay and Janschewitz (2008) have also discovered that, although
swearing in public is a frequent act and most swearing tends to be conversational, this is
not highly confrontational, rude or aggressive.

3. Analysis/Results

Pragmatics is concerned with meaning beyond what is said. In other words, the way we
understand a word, phrase or utterance has to do with the situation in which it is being
used. Mey (2001) stated that pragmatics sees language as largely affected by the context
in which it occurs. It does not look at language as a separate entity from its users, but
rather pragmatics is interested in looking for the underlying, systematic patterns
employed by the language users and it looks at the intention behind the words.
Therefore, a pragmatics-based analysis has been adopted for this project. In my
study, I have focused on speaker intention, in other words, what people are doing with
swear words and what they intend to achieve by using them. As mentioned earlier in
the introduction, the pragmatic functions of speakers swearing in everyday
conversation can express emotions, verbal emphasis, group solidarity and aggression.
The following section of this report will analyse each of these functions in detail, using
representative examples from the data.
3.1 Express emotion

Griffith Working Papers in Pragmatics and Intercultural Communication 6 (2013), 71-79

72

Na Wang: An analysis of the pragmatic functions of swearing

Jay (2000) suggests that the primary purpose of swearing is to express the speakers
emotional state to listeners. Normally, swearing is associated with negative emotions,
such as to express anger or release stress or tension. However, Crawford (1995) stated
that as a form of emotional expression, swearing can also be used to convey a range of
positive emotions such as happiness, excitement, enthusiasm and surprise as shown in
the following example from my data.

Example 1:
37 M: Where about in South Africa? =
38 N: =Cape Town.
39 M: Oh (.) bloo(hh)dy hell, I was in cape town as well.

Bloody hell in this example is uttered by speaker M in response to the information
that speaker N gave, which was that speaker N went and stayed in Cape Town when
she travelled to South Africa. However, according to this particular context , bloody
hell would generally be interpreted as an expression of surprise by speaker M in which
he shows that he is surprised or he cannot believe that speaker N has been to Cape
Town before, as he just went there a few months ago. Therefore, the intention for
speaker M to use swearing is to express his surprise to listener N. In this example,
swearing is playing an important pragmatic role as to show surprise that is the positive
emotion rather than the default negative emotion such as anger or the release of
stress/tension.

3.2 Emphasis

Emphasis as a function of swearing underlines the importance or emotional charge of a
message. A speaker is using swearwords as a means of emphasising his/her feelings
about something. In Stapletons (2003) study, she stated that emphatic function of
swearing is to help speakers to get their messages across, as shown in the example
below:

Example 2:
(Scenario 1)
7 M: And (0.2) yeah, the whole China experience was actually
8 mind blowing, it was hh when I got to De Zhou is fu:cking
9 cold, it was the coldest place I never been in my life, I did not
10 have warm enough clothes to (.) to wear en I had to go
11 shopping?

(Scenario 2)
91 M: fu:cking fireworks were going off 24 fu:cking 7. I am not
92 kidding you .hh I actually thought I was in a war [zone] =

In the utterances above, fucking is acting as an intensifier to strengthen the force of
the adjective cold and the nouns fireworks and 24/7. Moreover, some stress has been
underlined on the swearwords to highlight their use. As in fu:cking cold, fu:cking

Griffith Working Papers in Pragmatics and Intercultural Communication 6 (2013), 71-79

73

Na Wang: An analysis of the pragmatic functions of swearing

fireworks and 24 fu:cking 7. However, in these cases the speakers emphasize their
swearwords using stress and elongated enunciation. These paralinguistic features, such
as stress and elongation, are used in this context in order to emphasize the intended
force of the speakers. As Thomas (1995) illustrated, swear words always represent the
speakers mood when playing an emphatic role. In pragmatics, she called this
phenomenon utterance force, which refers to the speakers communicative intention.
However, according to the first scenario, by using the swear words, the speaker is
trying to convey the message that the place De Zhou is not just as cold as we normally
understand it as being bearable. When the expletive fucking is added to modify cold
it implies that the coldness is unbearable. It also suggests that the speaker probably
cannot handle this coldness and therefore he needs to do something about it, such as go
and wear more clothes to keep warm, otherwise he may catch a cold or get sick.
Based on the second scenario, the swear word fucking depicts the speakers mood
of being sick of fireworks as they are going off 24 hours a day and 7 days a week, and it
never stops. It also indicates that the speaker is trying to make a complaint about the on-
going fireworks, which has caused him to not be able to have some peaceful time.

3.3 Group identity/ solidarity

Another important pragmatic function of using expletives is to establish and reinforce
group identity/solidarity as between friends or classmates. As shown from the example
below:

Example 3:
12 T: Ye:ah look, look at the Myspace badge that Spencer got- I got
13 one as well but it's at work [hah (.5) who the fuck would ever=
14 A: [hh
15 T: = [wear that?

This is a conversation between two male flatmates that occurred at their home.
Speaker T uses the expletive phrase who the fuck, which is not judged as inappropriate
or offensive, instead the swearing here is judged to be contextually appropriate. It is
perceived as non-offensive because, as Jay and Janschewitz (2008) stated, the use of
swearing between close friends is usually an indication of intimacy or group-
membership. Normally, participants who use this function of swearing emphasize that
this way of speaking is accepted as the norm within the group and it shows group
identity/solidarity. Moreover, it also works as a pragmatic marker which separates/
differentiates one social group from another social group.
Furthermore, this instance of swearing occurred at home, which is a more casual
and relaxed environment. As Beers Fagersten (2007) notes, the context in which the
interaction takes place is of central importance when judging the interpersonal effect of
swearing. According to his viewpoint, this instance of swearing can be understood as
swearing in a casual environment between the group members and is not considered to
be rude or inappropriate. As noted, the members of a shared group also have an agreed
idea about where and to whom swearing is appropriate or inappropriate.

Griffith Working Papers in Pragmatics and Intercultural Communication 6 (2013), 71-79

74

Na Wang: An analysis of the pragmatic functions of swearing

3.4 Aggression

Swearing can be used for aggressive purposes towards a specific target. As Holtgraves
(2001) stated, this constitutes a face threating act (FTA). According to Brown and
Levinson (1987), face is defined as the desires of an individual towards his or her
public self-image, and it has two basic dimensions. They also state that persons want
their goals, possessions and achievements to be thought desirable and approved by
other people, this is known as a persons positive face. Whereas, negative face
represents a persons desire to be unimpeded in their actions, in other words, people
can do whatever they want to do without the imposition of something that they do not
want to do. However, a FTA can threaten both a persons positive and a negative face.
Brown and Levinson (1987) listed some ways that the addressees positive face can be
threatened by the speaker through disagreements, disapproval, criticism, complaints
and refusals, whereas, negative face can be threatened by the speaker through directives
and requests. The following example shows speakers using swearing as a form of
aggression:

Example 4:
4. Sarah: you fucking shut up
5. Sophie: you be careful=
6. Sarah: =you be fuck.ing careful all right I have an older brother wholl-

The above utterances have shown the directed aggression towards the
listener, therefore they have constituted a FTA against the listener. In this
example, swearing is used to aggravate the insults and orders where it occurs. It
makes them sound more offensive and rude to the hearer (e.g. you fucking shut
up). In this example, shut up is already a rude directive and fucking is added
to make it more forceful, therefore, it threatens the hearers negative face.

4. Conclusion

In conclusion, to some extent, my study has shown the reason why people would
choose to swear and the types of pragmatic functions which swearing carries out in
everyday conversation. These functions include expressing positive emotions, including
showing surprise, promoting in-group membership, verbal emphasis to emphasize the
speakers feeling about something and negative emotions, such as aggression, which
threaten a persons positive and/or negative face. Even though swearing is often
considered as uneducated, obscene, rude and profane language in society, I do believe it
is a valuable part of a speakers language, because it enables people to have greater
expression and variety within their speech that other linguistic means do not possess.
My data is not substantial enough to cover every aspect of swearing and I do not
propose this study as a complete guide on how people use swear words in casual
conversation. However, I do hope to show how, in a small group of people, swearing is
used in many different interesting ways to add colour to their language use. Because of
the data limitation, I suggest that further investigation be conducted in order to see if
my explanations of the pragmatic functions of swearing cover situations other than

Griffith Working Papers in Pragmatics and Intercultural Communication 6 (2013), 71-79

75

Na Wang: An analysis of the pragmatic functions of swearing

76

swearing in everyday conversation, e.g. formal and informal interaction in the

workplace and/or business settings.

*Author Notes
Na Wang comes from China. She is currently in her third year of a Bachelor in
Languages and Linguistics at Griffith University, majoring in International English and
Linguistics. She has always had an interest in the English language and Anglo culture
through travelling to western countries and interacting with people.


References
Beers Fagersten, Kristy A. 2007. A sociolinguistic analysis of swearword offensiveness. Saarland
Working Papers in Linguistics (SWPL) 1:14 37.

Brown, Penelope, and Levinson, Stephen. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Crawford, Mary. 1995. Talking Difference: On Gender and Language. London: Sage.

Holtgraves, Thomas. 2001. Conversational interaction: Politeness and face management. Available
online at <http://www.bsu.edu/web/00t0holtgrav/619/OVER9.htm>

Jay, Timothy, and Kristin, Janschewitz. 2008. The pragmatics of swearing. Journal of Politeness Research
4:267 288.

Jay, Timothy. 2000. Why We Curse: A Neuro-psycho-social Theory of Speech. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Ljung, Magnus. 1986. Trends in teenage talk: Corpus compilation, analysis and findings. Available
online at <www.ebrary.com>

Mey, Jacob. 2001. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Limited

Pinker, Steven. 2008. Freedoms Curse. The Atlantic Monthly 302:28-29.

Stapleton, Karyn. 2003. Gender and swearing: A community practice. Women and Language 26:22 33.

Thomas, Jenny. 1995. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. Essex: Longman Group
Limited

Trudgill, Peter, and Andersson, Lars. 1990. Bad Language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Limited

Appendix Examples
Example 1:

Griffith Working Papers in Pragmatics and Intercultural Communication 6 (2013), 71-79

Na Wang: An analysis of the pragmatic functions of swearing

30 M: Have you been anywhere recently?
31 N: Uh: no not really. Ive been busy with my studies, (.) but I did
32 travel a lot when I was younger:, I went to South Africa:, I
33 stayed [there for ] three years?
34 M: [Oh did you]?
35 M: Oh, ok. =
36 N: =Yeah:
37 M: Where about in South Africa? =
38 N: =Cape Town.
39 M: Oh (.) bloo(hh)dy hell, I was in cape town as well.
40 N: Oh when? [When] did you go there?

Example 2:
(Scenario 1)
7 M: And (0.2) yeah, the whole China experience was actually
8 mind blowing, it was hh when I got to De Zhou is fu:cking
9 cold, it was the coldest place I never been in my life, I did not
10 have warm enough clothes to (.) to wear en I had to go
11 shopping?

(Scenario 2)
89 M: [Because] I didnt know anything about spring festival.
90 En.hh when I got to this dezhou place (0.3) there (0.2)
91 fu:cking fireworks were going off 24 fu:cking 7. I am not
92 kidding you .hh I actually thought I was in a war [zone] =

Griffith Working Papers in Pragmatics and Intercultural Communication 6 (2013), 71-79

77

Na Wang: An analysis of the pragmatic functions of swearing

78

93 N: [hhhh].

Example3: (GCSAusE02)
12 T: ye:ah look, look at the Myspace badge that Spencer got- I got
13 one as well but it's at work [hah (.5) who the fuck would ever=
14 A: [hh
15 T: = [wear that?
16 A: [hhh heh ha .hh ah good that's what I was thinkin,
17 (0.8)
18 A: I was about to ask I hope you never actually wear that
19 T: <I know it's insane (0.2) [like that'll show up=
20 A: [hh heh
21 T: =in a fuckin (0.4) you know (0.3) likea trash- like a flea market or
22 something in about th-thirty years Te and people'll be [like=

Example 4:
1.

Lewis:

((lots of loud background noise)) right first of all it doesnt I dont Sarah Id just like
to s- Sarah she is very attractive

2.

Sarah:

HES MET MY SISTER

3.

Lewis:

um

4.

Sarah:

you fucking shut up

5.

Sophie:

you be careful=

6.

Sarah:

=you be fuck.ing careful allright I have an older brother wholl-

7.

Lewis:

SARAH SARAH Sarah Sarah one Im not actually (arsey) enough to do stuff like that
two can I point out >youve already said< Im not her type Im not (2) shes way out-

Griffith Working Papers in Pragmatics and Intercultural Communication 6 (2013), 71-79

Na Wang: An analysis of the pragmatic functions of swearing

Griffith Working Papers in Pragmatics and Intercultural Communication 6 (2013), 71-79

79