Euphemisms.Pdf

Masaryk University Brno

Faculty of Education

Department of English Language and Literature

Euphemisms

Brno 2012

Author: Supervisor: Mgr. Kristýna Šebková Mgr. Radek Vogel, PhD.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank my supervisor Mgr. Radek Vogel, Ph.D. for revising my thesis and his helpful and friendly attitude.

Declaration I hereby declare that this paper is completely my own work and that I used only the sources listed in the bibliography.

...... 25 July 2012 3

Annotation

This paper aims to outline the bright and the dark side of euphemizing. In the increasingly complicated, globalised society, there is a rising tendency to avoid speaking directly about sensitive topics. In this atmosphere, a disturbing question arises: is the widespread overuse of euphemisms undermining our ability to recognize euphemisms used as a tool of manipulation by politicians and the media? The main focus of this thesis is exploring the use of euphemisms in public discourse and discussing the way they alter our perception of inconvenient truths.

Key words

Euphemisms, political correctness, doublespeak.

CONTENTS

1. Introduction…………………………………………………………… 6 2. Formation of euphemisms……………………………………… 8 3. Why we need to euphemize…………………………….……. 9 3.1 A euphemizing instinct……………………………………… 9 3.2 The euphemism treadmill………………………………. 10 3.3 Motives for euphemizing………………………………… 12 4. Most commonly euphemized topics……………………… 15 4.1 Religious terms ………………………………………………. 15 4.2 Death and illness…………………………………………….. 15 4.3 Sex………………………………………………………………….. 18 5. Doublespeak: The dark side of euphemisms…………. 27 5.1 Political correctness……………………………………….. 27 5.2 Doublespeak……………………………………………………. 30 5.3 Fighting back……………………………………………………. 35 6. Conclusion……………………………………………………………. 37 Works cited………………………………………………………………. 39

1. INTRODUCTION

Euphemism is usually defined as “the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant. The origin of this word is Greek euphēmismos, from euphēmos auspicious, sounding good, from eu- + phēmē speech, from phanai to speak.” (Webster 428)

Therefore, it may be natural to assume that euphemizing serves good purposes and the speakers use euphemisms with honest intentions, when their aim is not to hurt or offend someone. However, this paper will show that using euphemistic expressions is much more complicated than that. As various articles, comments or blogs suggest, people are increasingly sensitive to avoiding naming things directly. This trend may have resulted from so-called doublespeak, i.e. a term that William Lutz uses to describe “language designed to evade responsibility, make the unpleasant appear pleasant, the unattractive appear attractive. Basically, it is language that pretends to communicate, but really does not. It is language designed to mislead, while pretending not to.” (Lutz “Doublespeak”)

What is more, the reasons why people euphemize keep changing, together with the topics avoided, and the words used to allude to such topics indirectly. Bearing in mind the well-known metaphor that language is the vehicle of thought, one can learn a lot about a society, its knowledge, culture and values by studying euphemisms. As Keyes (30) observes, “Words originally were not considered distinct from what they named.” The superstitious need not to utter certain words that described e.g. evil spirits or things considered sacred is still echoed today in idioms or proverbs, such as “touch/knock on wood“ or “speak of the devil…”.

However, it is very difficult to avoid speaking about unpleasant issues completely. That is why people have always felt the urge to find a way to speak about phenomena they feared, disliked, worshipped or considered taboo, while not naming them directly. Taking this into consideration, it could be concluded that attempts to use euphemisms are as old as our ability to use language. Keyes (30-31) claims that “euphemisms are a key indicator of increasing complexity of speech. Saying what we mean takes a high order of intelligence. It takes an even higher order to not say what we mean, while still conveying our thought.”

In the present paper I will examine the motives behind using euphemisms, ways to create them, I will outline the most commonly euphemized topics, and focus on the so-called bright and dark sides of euphemisms; i.e. euphemisms as a creative source of amusement on one hand, in contrast to using obscure terms in order to blur inconvenient truths and society’s reaction to this form of manipulation.

2. FORMATION OF EUPHEMISMS There have been many attempts to divide the ways of forming euphemisms into several categories. It is not the aim of this paper to suggest its own categorization. Nevertheless, I consider it useful to mention a few examples of different ways to euphemize. The processes by means of which euphemisms are created include:

a. borrowing words from other languages (Williams, Allan and Burridge): in English, Latin and French terms are preferred, e.g. Latin terminology for body parts used by educators, medical terms, e.g. “halitosis” (bad breath)< Latin halitus for breath; “au naturel” < French for naked, “lingerie” < women’s underwear

b. semantic changes (Williams, Allan and Burridge, Rawson, Keyes): this category is very wide and may include circumlocution, i.e. using longer expressions, e.g. “little girl’s room” < toilet, “postconsumer secondary material” < garbage, “terminological inaccuracy” < lie; widening, i.e. increasing the level of abstraction, e.g. “growth” < cancer, “foundation” < girdle, “solid human waste” < feces, “the situation” < pregnancy, “do it” < have sex; metaphorical transfer, e.g. “blossom” < pimple, “the cavalry’s come” < menstruation

c. phonetic distortion (Allan and Burridge, Keyes): this category includes clippings and abbreviation (e.g. “ladies” < ladies’ room, “vamp” < vampire (a seductive woman), “BS” or “bull” < bullshit, “ED” < erectile dysfunction) , reduplication (e.g. “pee-pee” < piss, “jeepers creeper” < Jesus Crist), distortion of pronunciation (e.g. “shoot” or “shite” < shit, “fudge” < fuck, “cripes” or “crust” < Christ)

The ways to euphemize are even more varied than the categories above suggest. Nevertheless, how expressions are euphemized only arises from a more essential issue, which is discussed in the following chapter: the need to actually do so.

3. WHY WE NEED TO EUPHEMIZE

This seemingly simple question has been asked and answered hundreds of times. For instance, Cumming cites Allan and Burridge who claim: "A euphemism is used as an alternative to a dispreferred expression, in order to avoid possible loss of face: either one's own face or, through giving offence, that of the audience, or of some third party." (Cumming)

3.1 A euphemizing instinct

If anyone starts thinking about when they last used a euphemistic expression rather than a word that might cause offence or make someone feel uncomfortable, they will probably not find it difficult to remember; it may have been a few minutes ago, when talking to a colleague and excusing themselves saying “I need to wash my hands”, or “powder my nose”, or “use the restroom”. However, if the motive for using such expressions is analyzed, the answer may no longer be so simple; unless, of course, “everybody says that” is considered a sufficient reason for this behavior. Although the rules by which our society functions seem to be the obvious explanation, the question remains: how does the society create these rules? Who decides what is appropriate and what is not? If this question is narrowed to language, namely the expressions that are considered polite and suitable, the answer might have been given by the University of Chicago linguist Joseph Williams, who said: "Euphemism is such a pervasive human phenomenon, so deeply woven into virtually every known culture, that one is tempted to claim that every human has been pre- programmed to find ways to talk about tabooed subjects." (Walker)

Ralph Keyes calls this a “euphemizing instinct” and uses medical research conducted by Valerie Curtis as evidence. Curtis claims that our need for euphemisms originates in the newer parts of our brain, where complex thoughts are created. By contrast, spontaneously uttered words emerge from the limbic brain. Keyes agrees with Curtis’s theory which suggests that creating euphemisms may have contributed to developing our ability to think, since the brain and our ability to speak have been evolving concurrently. (Keyes 247)

3.2 The euphemism treadmill

As mentioned above, euphemisms help everyone to talk about subjects that the society considers taboo. What can help to understand the ever-changing essence of euphemisms is the process of automatization: “If we examine the general laws of perception, we see that as it becomes habitual, it also becomes automatic.”(Shklovsky 4-5) When this principle is applied to euphemizing, it could be argued that “some words undergo pejoration because of a taboo against talking about the things they name; the replacement for a taboo term is a euphemism…Euphemisms, in their turn, are often subject to pejoration, eventually becoming a taboo. Then the whole cycle starts again.” (Algeo and Pyles 214)

The process, known by linguists as pejoration or semantic change, has also been given another term: the euphemism treadmill. As the feminist author Germaine Greer (298) notes, “It is the fate of euphemisms to lose their function rapidly by association with the actuality of what they designate, so that they must be regularly replaced with euphemisms for themselves”. The term “euphemism treadmill” was introduced and explained in detail by Steven Pinker in his article “The Game of the Name”, where he says: “To a linguist, the phenomenon is familiar: the euphemism treadmill. People invent new ‘polite’ words to refer to emotionally laden or distasteful things, but the euphemism becomes tainted by association and the new one that must be found acquires its own negative connotations. ‘Water closet’ becomes ‘toilet’ (originally a term for any body care, as in ‘toilet kit’), which becomes ‘bathroom,’ which becomes ‘restroom,’ which becomes ‘lavatory.’ The euphemism treadmill shows that concepts, not words, are in charge: give a concept a new name, and the name becomes colored by the concept; the concept does not become freshened by the name.” (Pinker)

The whole process is indeed fascinating; sometimes the topic that is considered taboo persists for centuries, it is just the words used to refer to it that keep changing. Other topics are only perceived as taboo for a limited period; however, the role euphemisms play in destigmatizing some sensitive topics is disputable.

Neil Postman would certainly disagree with Steven Pinker, as may be assumed from his essay on euphemisms which appears in his book Crazy talk, Stupid Talk: “To begin with, we must keep in mind that things do not have ‘real’ names, although many people believe that they do. A garbage man is not really a ‘garbage man’ any more than he is really a ‘sanitation engineer’. There are things, and then there are the names of things, and it is considered a fundamental error in all branches of semantics to assume that a name and a thing are one and the same. It is true, of course, that a name is usually so firmly associated with the thing it denotes that it is extremely difficult to separate one from the other.”

Further in his essay, Postman uses the example of advertizing to show the effect of such associations. He claims that products which would be given names evoking negative feelings or imaginations would not sell well. It is probably true that not many customers would buy a perfume with a name like “Sewage” or “Chimney Fume”. It would be hard to sell a child safety seat called “Killing Joke”, or a sandwich named “Vomit Deli”. This brings Postman to the conclusion that if the names of things are changed, the way people regard those things changes as well, and, as Postman says, that is as good as changing the nature of the thing itself. He believes that people who refuse euphemisms are not more “honest” than those who use them. What is more, Postman develops the idea that “euphemisms are a means through which a culture may alter its imagery and by doing so subtly change its style, its priorities, and its values.” (Postman)

For instance, euphemisms used to talk about people who suffer from various handicaps may have led to the increasing level of acceptance of “the handicapped” by society. Recently, there has been a trend to include “children with special needs” in mainstream education, rather than educating them separately. Nevertheless, it is difficult to prove that such approach has really contributed to changing the image of “the handicapped citizens” for the better. By making the word “crippled” politically incorrect or even taboo, the society creates a better image of itself; however, the individuals may find this hypocritical, feeling no real difference between “the blind” and “the visually challenged”.

Who is right? Does a new name influence the concept or not? Would a negative answer to this question mean people have been euphemizing taboo topics in vain? This almost tempts us to conduct an experiment: spend a day avoiding euphemisms completely. 11

It will probably suffice to make such an experiment in our imagination; the consequences of being blunt with everyone could be disastrous. On the other hand, it could be argued that altering the names of things sometimes changes how people regard those things for the better, other times for the worse. The negative side of euphemisms will be discussed further in this paper.

3.3 Motives for euphemizing

Bearing in mind the ever-changing essence of euphemisms, it is logical that the motives for euphemizing are varied and vacillating as well. They range from fear and superstition, being polite and kind, avoiding embarrassment, playful ways to exclude others from understanding what is being discussed, to white lies and manipulation. A general distinction could be made between an “instinctive euphemism” and a “strategic euphemism”. (Walker)

The “instinctive” group may include avoiding religious terminology and swearwords (e.g. replacing “oh my god” with “oh my gosh” or “hell” with “heck”), careful choice of words when not wanting to hurt or offend someone (e.g. “pass away” instead of “die” when talking about a beloved relative), avoiding embarrassment when mentioning body parts and functions (like when someone announces “going to the little boys room” rather than “taking a piss”), which is closely related to the topic independent of time, place or culture – sex (the creativity with which people refer to coital activity is stunning), followed by more recent political correctness (e.g. calling the “blind” people “visually challenged”), which could be perceived as a transition between the two groups. The widely criticized political doublespeak would then belong to the “strategic” group.

Finally, it is vital to mention language in its written form, which is even more sensitive to offensive terms – what may be considered acceptable in a conversation changes dramatically when used in black and white. Journalists, dramatists, scriptwriters, i.e. all “those subjected to censorship have historically relied on euphemisms to get their message across in the face of strict limits on the words they are allowed to use.” (Keyes 236) For instance, Pauline Kiernan analyzes hundreds of euphemistic allusions to sex in Shakespeare’s plays (e.g. “groping for trouts in a peculiar river”, “making the beast with two backs”).

A question arises as to whether these euphemisms used to prevent a work of art from being censored, or if they should rather be perceived as means of artistic device. If euphemisms are believed to show high level of intelligence and increasing complexity of language, where else but in literature should evidence be found?

Shklovsky explains how “By ‘enstranging’ objects and complicating form, the device of art makes perception long and ‘laborious’… The removal of (this) object from the sphere of automatized perception is accomplished in art by a variety of means.” (Shklovsky 6) He gives examples of allegory, erotic riddles (“a euphemism of sorts”) in Russian folk tales, but also in Boccaccio’s Decameron: “The enstrangement of the sexual act in literature is quite frequent. For example, in the Decameron, Boccaccio refers to ‘the scraping of the barrel’, ‘the catching of the nightingale’, ‘the merry woolbeating work’… Just as frequent is the enstrangement of sexual organs.” (Shklovsky 12) If these ancient euphemisms are compared to some recent ones, numerous similarities in the ways they are created become apparent; in fact, various internet forums show that, although sometimes unaware of their origin, people keep using or altering some of the euphemisms Shakespeare used in his work. For example, “willy” is still slang for a penis. Shakespeare used the word “will” in several of his sonnets, in many different meanings (“penis” being one of them; “sexual appetite” another).

Sonnet CXXXV (by William Shakespeare)

Whoever hath her wish, thou hast thy Will, And Will to boot, and Will in over-plus; More than enough am I that vexed thee still, To thy sweet will making addition thus. Wilt thou, whose will is large and spacious, Not once vouchsafe to hide my will in thine? Shall will in others seem right gracious, And in my will no fair acceptance shine? The sea, all water, yet receives rain still, And in abundance addeth to his store; So thou, being rich in Will, add to thy Will One will of mine, to make thy large will more. 13

Let no unkind, no fair beseechers kill; Think all but one, and me in that one Will.

It is beyond doubt that the potential to enrich the language and spur its users’ imagination belongs to the positive features of euphemizing. As Keyes (237) claims, “creating euphemisms demands far more of a writer than resorting to taboo words does. When comedians rely on profanity for laughs, it is not so much their lack of taste that offends as their lack of imagination.”

4. MOST COMMONLY EUPHEMIZED TOPICS

The most common topics that the society prefers to avoid speaking directly about have been outlined in the previous chapter. I will examine some of them more closely.

4.1 Religious terms

Euphemisms connected to people’s beliefs probably belong to the oldest. As I have already mentioned, people used to believe that words possessed immense power. Therefore, they feared mentioning evil spirits, as it may attract them and bring bad luck. Keyes (29) describes how this type of euphemisms evolved: “Bears are scary animals. They are so scary that early northern Europeans referred to them by substitute names for fear that uttering their real name might beckon these ferocious beasts. Instead, they talked of the honey eater, the licker, or the grandfather. The word ‘bear’ itself evolved from a euphemistic term that meant ‘the brown one.’ It is the oldest known euphemism, first recorded a thousand years ago.” Naturally, society’s fear of bears has decreased, perhaps simply because people have little chance to encounter them except for in zoos, and therefore there is no longer the need to invent other names for bears. Similarly, very few people would now consider “hell” or “damn” very strong swearwords, as the threat for our soul to suffer after death is no longer believed literally. Using the religious terms such as “Jesus Christ”, once perceived as blasphemy, is no longer taboo either, even among many church-goers. However, the superstitious fear of mentioning one’s good fortune in order not to turn it into bad luck persists, as well as euphemizing topics that are feared; these could include the next type of taboo issues - death and illness.

4.2 Death and illness

Death is a “fear-based taboo” (Keith and Burridge 153), independent of time, religion, culture and society. Nobody feels happy and comfortable around dead bodies. Death has always been shrouded in mystery, it is still not fully understood, and that is just one of the reasons why people feel uneasy when talking about it. “Like terms for birth, death and excretion, those for diseases are doubtless rooted in anxiety and superstition.” (Algeo and

Pyles 216) When people did not understand the origins of e.g. plague or someone’s unexpected death, they used to resort to explaining such events as God’s punishment.

Nowadays, such superstitious approach may have been overcome; however, the anxiety associated with death-related topics persists. Death is also connected with pain over the loss of a loved one, and trying not to make this pain worse requires a careful choice of words. As death often occurs away from home these days, i.e. mostly in health care facilities, it has become medical professionals’ common duty to inform the relatives of the deceased. However, the assumption that physicians only use euphemisms for the patients’ (or their families’) benefit seems to be wrong. In fact, Keyes (138) refers to the results of various studies suggesting that doctors are more afraid of dying than the average person, and that studying medicine may even be a way to deal with this fear. When it comes to the choice of words to announce a patient’s death, doctors’ aim is to prevent both themselves as well as patients from trauma; “most often, doctors, like the rest of us, simply say a patient went (“she went peacefully”) or that they have lost a patient. The latter led one immigrant doctor to observe how odd this seemed to him when he arrived in the United States: “I wanted to say, ‘Well, we didn’t really lose your husband…we know where he is. It’s just that he’s not breathing anymore.’ ” (Keyes 137)

On the other hand, media show death so often that it may lead to increasing insensitivity to the tragic news; various computer games’ aim is to kill as many “enemies” as possible. At the same time, few people participate in real battles (there are professional armies). Moreover, as it has already been mentioned, nowadays most people die without their closest relatives being direct witnesses to their death. As a result, death is becoming more abstract in people’s mind and this corresponds to the choice of words when speaking about it. As Orwell (8) suggests in his classical essay, “when you think of a concrete object, you think wordlessly, and then, if you want to describe the thing you have been visualizing you probably hunt about until you find the exact words that seem to fit it. When you think of something abstract, you are more inclined to use words from the start…at the expense of blurring or even changing your meaning.”

Perhaps the perception of death as something abstract is another reason why people resort to using “ready-made” euphemistic expressions. And the variety of euphemisms for death they can choose from is enormous; they range from kind and sensitive to funny and sarcastic, sometimes they rather seem to be dysphemisms or would be perceived so in certain situations. The Internet is full of lists of euphemisms for death and dying; here is a sample of alphabetically ordered expressions:

Tab. 1. Euphemisms for death and dying a race well run feeling no pain meet his/her maker at room temperature final curtain call no longer with us asleep finished out of his/her misery become a root inspector get a one-way ticket pass away bite the dust go into the fertilizer business pushing up the daisies buy a pine condo go west permanently out of print call home in a better place resting in peace check out in a horizontal phone booth six feet under cross the bar join the majority terminated definitely done dancing kick the bucket wearing a toe tag departed kick the oxygen habit with the angels dirt nap living-impaired yield up the ghost

Selected from “Euphemisms For Death”

Apparently, some of the listed euphemisms are well-known and widely used; others may not have the potential to become a catchphrase. Nevertheless, the list above certainly proves how deeply enrooted taboo death is.

Ironically, the awareness of being mortal does not seem to support the willingness to speak about it directly. What is more, being blunt about the processes that eventually lead to death (i.e. illness and the process of ageing) is perceived as equally unpleasant. The most commonly used euphemisms for old people (“senior citizens” and “the elderly”) are becoming slightly boring, yet language users’ creativity knows no borders. Those who are not creative enough can ask advice on websites, such as democraticunderground.com, and learn that good euphemisms for being old may be e.g. “seasoned”, “mature”, “experienced”, “well-traveled”, or “golden”.

Regrettably, no similar playfulness is considered appropriate in so called doctor- speak, i.e. phrases sometimes used by doctors to soften a difficult diagnosis. Terms like "cluster of cells"; "abnormal growth", "mass", "troubling lab results" or "curious shadow on your x-ray" are sometimes used rather than saying the word CANCER, even though, according to American oncology experts, cancer euphemisms have lost their ability to soothe and now disturb people as much as the word cancer itself. (Dunn et el.) This is a good example of the process which has been called automatization. In the end, no words, abstract or not, seem to possess the power to eliminate the fear of illness and death.

4.3 Sex

Compared to death or illness, one common feature can be identified; sex is also a topic widely euphemized in every culture and era. Nevertheless, motives behind euphemisms connected to sex are quite different from fear. People seem to find a great pleasure in making and understanding allusions to various physically intimate activities. As a result, euphemistic expressions referring to sex are often remarkably creative and amusing.

It is possible that the adult ‘game’ of euphemizing sex topics is not dissimilar to children’s passion for solving riddles or speaking in secret codes, so that unwelcome participants could be easily excluded from the conversation. Such language also gives its speaker a feeling of superiority; being able to unveil what is hidden behind a riddle brings satisfaction, being proud of one’s mental capacity.

With few exceptions, sex has always been considered a private matter and as such inappropriate to be discussed in public. However, since sex is such an essential part of life (in fact, till quite recently it has been the only way to create new life), pretending it does not exist by not speaking about it is impossible. Therefore, it is not surprising that euphemisms for sex are much older than Shakespeare’s puns; some of the oldest recorded ones may be tracked in the Bible: “Why does the Bible say, ‘Adam knew his wife’? Asked a young man in a Sunday school class. Someone answered: ‘It seems obvious he should know the woman to whom he was married!’ Most people realize, of course, that the expression ‘Adam knew his wife’ means he had sexual intercourse with her; for, as a result, ‘she conceived’ (Genesis 4:1). To say Adam ‘knew’ his wife (rather than to say ‘he had sex with her’) is an example of euphemism… Biblical euphemisms for sexual intercourse, many of which are listed in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, include the following:

Adam knew Eve ... and she conceived (Genesis 4:1). Go in unto my maid ... obtain children by her (Genesis 16:2). A man ... to come in unto us (Genesis 19:31). Jacob ... went in unto her (Genesis 29:23). Abimelech had not come near her (Genesis 20:4). Thou shalt not approach to his wife (Leviticus 18:14). When I came to her, I found her not a maid (Deuteronomy 22:14). I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived (Isaiah 8:3). Thou hast humbled her (Deuteronomy 21:14). He took her, and lay with her (Genesis 34:2). The manner of as the earth (Genesis 19:31).” (Hunt)

A recent issue of The Economist illustrates how cross-cultural source of euphemisms sex is, using an example of how different languages refer to offering sex for money: “A prostitute accosting a client on the streets of Cairo will ask Fi hadd bitaghsal hudoumak ? (Literally, ‘Do you have someone to wash your clothes?’) Even the most straight-talking obfuscate that line of work. Swedes, like many others, refer to världens äldsta yrke (the world’s oldest profession). A brothel in Russian is a publichny dom—literally a ‘public house’, 19

which causes problems when British visitors with rudimentary Russian try to explain the delights of their village hostelry. In China many hair salons, massage parlors and karaoke bars double as brothels. Hence anmo (massage), falang (hair salon) or a zuyu zhongxin (foot- massage parlour) can lead to knowing nods and winks. For obscure reasons, Germans call the same institution a Puff. In Japan, such places are called sopurando, (a corrupted version of ‘soapland’) or a pin-saro (pink salon).” (“Making Murder Respectable”) In Czech, noční klub (night club) is generally understood as a place where strippers and/or prostitutes might be offering their services; this often causes an amusing misunderstanding among students who do not know that a night club in English is simply a place for entertainment, now usually for dancing. Similarly, very few Czech students would probably guess the real meaning of a call house, if they heard this word out of context.

Another reason why sex is such an abundant source of euphemisms is that it is a very wide topic. What has always called for euphemizing is not only the act itself, but also the events preceding and following it, such as courtship and pregnancy/giving birth, and the body parts involved. Nevertheless, the widest range of euphemistic (as well as dysphemistic) expressions consists of those referring directly to sexual intercourse. As a result, sometimes the level of intimacies hidden behind a euphemism may not be entirely clear. The ambiguity of euphemisms for sex serves well for jokes, like in this legendary courtroom exchange:

“Did you sleep with this woman?”

“Not a wink, your honor.”

Perhaps this ambiguity of expressions for sex is what inspired Bill Clinton when he decided to deny his affair with Monika Lewinsky, saying “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” Clinton’s statement may have had unforeseen impact, as a group of researchers at the University of Kentucky-Lexington suggest. In 2007 they conducted a study in which they surveyed 477 students and their views on sex. The results, which were published in the journal Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health in June 2010, show that only 20 percent of those students considered oral-genital contact to be sex, compared with nearly 40 percent of a similar group of students surveyed in 1991. A term Clinton-

Lewinsky effect has been introduced to refer to the shift in attitude towards this type of sexual contact. (Hans, Gillen and Akande)

The results of this research speak in favor of Postman’s assertion that euphemisms may alter society’s imagery, priorities and values. In case of speaking about sex publicly, the topic itself is no longer taboo, as long as the speakers choose appropriate vocabulary. And it is appropriateness that makes the options limited. When sex becomes a topic of conversation in polite, yet private company, using medical terminology may be just as uneasy and embarrassing as vulgarisms. The entertaining aspect of an exchange between two characters in a popular sitcom, The Big Bang Theory, is based on a genius physicist, Sheldon’s inability to comprehend the inappropriateness of using formal, scientific vocabulary when talking about people’s private lives, in contrast to a wannabe actress Penny, who mixes up scientific words, but shows a higher social intelligence, explaining to Sheldon how people should behave and what they say in everyday situations:

Series 3 Episode 20 – The Spaghetti Catalyst

Scene: The lobby.

Penny: Oh, damn, they cancelled my Visa. Oh, yay, a new MasterCard!

Sheldon: Uh-oh.

Penny: What?

Sheldon: I was going to get my mail.

Penny: Okay. Are, are you hoping to get it telepathically?

Sheldon: I think you mean telekinetically. And no, I just wasn’t sure of the proper protocol now that you and Leonard are no longer having coitus.

Penny: God, can we please just say no longer seeing each other?

Sheldon: Well, we could if it were true. But as you live in the same building, you see each other all the time. The variable which has changed is the coitus.

Penny: Okay, here’s the protocol, you and I are still friends, and you stop saying coitus.

Sheldon: Good, good. I’m glad we’re still friends.

Penny: Really?

Sheldon: Oh, yes. It was a lot of work to accommodate you in my life. I’d hate for that effort to have been in vain.

Penny: Right.

Sheldon: Just to be clear do I have to stop saying coitus with everyone or just you?

Penny: Everyone.

Sheldon: Harsh terms. But all right, I’ll just substitute intercourse.

Penny: Great.

Sheldon: Or fornication. Yeah. But that has judgmental overtones, so I’ll hold that in reserve. (Veloso)

The limited selection of vocabulary which will not offend anyone may be the reason why people often resort to the most general expressions like “do it”, relying on context and exchanging knowing looks to convey the real meaning.

Fortunately, those who consider “doing it” and “sleeping with” unbearably boring have an increasingly wide range of euphemisms to choose from. The internet is obviously the most easily available source and also a tool for people to vote on “top 10 euphemisms for sex”, “the funniest/the worst euphemisms for sex you have ever heard” etc. Popular TV shows also have a strong potential to offer catchphrases. However, the funniest or the most creative euphemisms introduced by TV scriptwriters are often so strongly context dependent, or long and complicated, that they only serve to amuse the viewers and avoid censorship, but do not become widely used.

For instance, here is an extract from an episode of How I Met Your Mother called “The First Time in New York”, where the characters, while waiting in a line to visit the Empire State Building, share their stories of how and when they lost their virginity:

Robin : You only get one shot at losing your virginity. And even though I just barely had sex, it counts.

Lily : What do you mean just barely?

Robin : Well, he didn't dive all the way into the pool, but he... splashed around in the shallow end.

Lily : Then you didn't lose your virginity to him. Just barely doesn't count.

Robin : Yes, it does. Lily : No, it doesn't. Marshall : Yes, it does.

Lily : No, it doesn't. It doesn't count. End of story.

Barney : Ooh, why, Lily Aldrin, you saucy little harlot. Could it be that before Marshall took a swim, someone else tested the water?

Marshall : No. Nobody else tested the water, right? Scooter?

Barney : Who's Scooter?

Lily : My high school boyfriend, who I did not have sex with…

…

Lily : Marshall, why is this such a big deal?

Marshall : Why is this such a big deal? Oh, uh, sorry, Christopher Columbus, guess who actually discovered the New World. Some dude named Scooter. Oh, uh, Neil Armstrong, it actually goes like this: "One small step for man, one giant leap for Scooter." Whoa, hey, Adam, guess who got with Eve before you did...

Lily : Okay, Marshall, I get it.

Marshall : It's a big deal because it rewrites our history.

Lily : No, it doesn't. Look, have you been to the Empire State Building? No. You've only been in the lobby. People don't buy tickets to get in the lobby. They buy tickets to get to the top. Scooter only got in the lobby, and the lobby doesn't count.

Marshall : Really. Excuse me, sir, uh, can you tell me how to get to the Empire State Building?

Man: Um, we're in it right now. Marshall : Thank you, sir. You're a very wise and brilliant man. (Kassie)

This extract, which contains eight different euphemisms for sex, certainly shows that euphemistic expressions can be a brilliant source of humor. The audience could try to imagine what the same conversation would be like if the creative euphemisms were replaced by e.g. “had (un)successful sexual intercourse”, or “coitus”; in this case the entertaining effect would very probably be lost, unlike in The Big Bang Theory.

In the previous example, all participants of the conversation obviously understand very well what the euphemisms refer to. It is the creativity that is the source of amusement here. In contrast, the following example may seem funny to the audience not only due to the euphemisms used, but also because one of the characters does not understand them at first. This extract is from an episode of Fox TV’s House M.D. and includes a conversation between Dr. House and a mother who thinks her young daughter may be having epileptic seizures:

House: In actuality all your little girl is doing is... saying yoo hoo to the hoo hoo.

Concerned Mom: She's what?

House: Marching the penguin... ya ya-ing the sisterhood... finding Nemo?

Little Girl Patient: (giggles) That was funny.

House: It's called gratification disorder, sort of a misnomer. If one was unable to gratify oneself, that would be a disorder.

Concerned Mom: Are you saying she’s masturbating?

House: (making fun of the mother by talking out of the corner of his mouth so the little girl supposedly won't see that he's talking) I was trying to be discreet. There's a child in the room. (“Euphoria”)

As it was mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, euphemistic allusions to sex are sometimes used by the speakers in order to exclude unwelcome participants from the conversation as well as amuse. Keyes gives an example of couples who develop private euphemistic language, which they use in public in order to both convey a secret message without impolite whispering, and to amuse themselves. Such coded messages include e.g. 24

“Let’s go home and watch some TV”, which, in fact, means “Let’s leave and make love”. Another “couple, who had nicknamed the man’s penis ‘Winston’ (based on the cigarette slogan ‘Winston tastes good, like a cigarette should’), enjoyed discussing ‘Winston’s good taste’ in the presence of friends and family.” (Keyes 233)

To illustrate the creativity with which people invent new euphemisms for sex, there are some more examples listed in the following table:

Tab. 2. Euphemisms for sex

Bang hanky panky pop the cork bake cookies hippity dippity put sour cream on the taco bury the bone hit it ride the hobby horse butter the muffin horizontal mambo roll in the hay check the oil in and out ring her bell clean the carpets juice someone shag dippity doo da knock boots sink it in dip your pen in the ink lay piping skin the cat do it make babies score exchange bodily fluids make love scratch your itch feed the kitty mattress dance sexercise fix her plumbing nail sweep the chimney funky chicken park thread the needle get a home run party for two throw a log on the fire get busy pass the gravy walk the dog go fishing pickle tickle water the lawn get into one’s pants play doctor wet the wick get your nuts cracked plug and play whoopty do

Selected from amog.com (OffbeatMOG)

Some of the listed euphemisms are actually becoming old-fashioned, others seem to be very context dependent, but one thing is clear: almost any human activity, including housework, can serve as a euphemism for sex – with the help of a context.

5. DOUBLESPEAK: THE DARK SIDE OF EUPHEMISMS

As the origin of the word “euphemism” suggests, a euphemistic expression is one that sounds good, which does not necessarily mean it is good in essence. Furthermore, even if something is primarily meant to be used for a good purpose, it can usually also be misused, both inadvertently and intentionally. Currently, there seems to be no clear distinction between euphemisms, political correctness or doublespeak; various dictionaries give different definitions, and speakers tend to further confuse these terms, which is unfortunate. Although it is challenging, I believe that the border between honest intentions for using euphemisms and attempts to hide inconvenient truths in public discourse should not be completely blurred.

5.1 Political correctness

In chapter 2.3 “instinctive” and “strategic” motives behind using euphemisms were mentioned. Politically correct expressions seem to overlap these suggested groups, although the “strategic” motives probably prevail. In his essay “A Critique of Politically Correct Language”, Ben O’Neill (279-280) points out that those in favor of politically correct language claim that society discourages the use of words that have negative or offensive connotations in order to become more “civilized”, and, as a result, victims of unfair stereotypes gain more respect. He says that “for the advocates of politically correct language, replacement of existing terminology with politically correct terms has two purported virtues: 1. It reduces the social acceptability of using offensive terms. 2. It discourages the reflexive use of words that import a negative stereotype, thereby promoting conscious thinking about how to describe others fairly on their merits.”

Further in his essay, O’Neill examines how politically correct language is related to euphemisms, how it is influenced by the process of semantic change (similarly to the euphemism treadmill), and the effects of political correctness on discourse. He expresses his disagreement and strongly criticizes the alleged purpose of politically correct language, i.e. discouraging the reflexive use of words and promoting conscious thinking, since in his

opinion the effect is exactly opposite: “Politically correct language is narrow, faddish, and highly reflexive in character, consisting in large part of euphemisms. It sometimes promotes or amounts to outright dishonesty. Moreover, the drive for this kind of language involves aggressive attempts to delegitimize the use of politically incorrect terms that fail to keep up with current fashions.” (O’Neill 286)

Another concern expressed by a rising number of people is that political correctness actually limits open debates; that it threatens the freedom of speech. Citizens of democratic countries tend to highly value the possibility to express one’s opinion openly in public, without being imposed on by those in power, who decide what is (politically) correct and what is not. This concern is reflected in both serious articles and satirical shows or websites. The satire seems to flourish, as it probably results from the increasing sensitivity to politically correct terms which are rather controversial, misleading, or too complicated, and therefore often ridiculed.

Tab. 3. Examples of politically correct terms Retarded mentally challenged; having learning difficulties White Caucasian Blind visually challenged Crippled differently abled Fat overweight

Tab. 4. Terms designed to ridicule political correctness Alive temporarily metabolically abled Bald follicularly challenged Lazy motivationally deficient Fat gravitationally challenged Poor economically marginalized Selected from “A List of PC Terms”

In fact, making the politically correct terms sound ridiculous has become a common means of entertainment. This is another example of a conversation among the characters in a popular sitcom How I Met Your Mother, taken from an episode called “Belly Full of Turkey”, in which the characters discuss how they are going to celebrate the Thanksgiving:

Robin: So, probably hanging out with Barney, then? Ted: No, Barney’s got his own Thanksgiving tradition.

(flashback to Ted, Barney, Lily and Marshall sitting at booth at MacLaren's)

Barney: Thanksgiving in a strip club! Who’s in? The Lusty Leopard has a surprisingly good Thanksgiving buffet. Plus, they do this thing: Heather dresses up as a Pilgrim, and Misty dresses up as an Indian, and they share a meal together…(Barney indicates what sharing a meal really means using his mimes and gestures)

Lilly (looking disgusted, disapprovingly): Oh, Barney!! Barney: I’m sorry. Native American. (Soleine92)

Apparently, in this scene it is not the euphemism used for an erotic performance in a strip club which carries the main amusing aspect; it is rather Barney’s pretence to misunderstand what really annoys Lilly (i.e. Barney showing disrespect to America’s public holiday, based on religious belief and tradition, celebrating it in a rather perverse way), apologizing for using a politically incorrect term instead, as if he “realized” that such language may cause offence.

The question raised in chapter 2.2 of this paper persists. Postman believes that a society changes its values by altering the vocabulary, yet O’Neill (291) argues that “we may legitimately debate whether crippled, disabled, handicapped, or another term is the best, most accurate, and most sensitive term to use in a given context. But to move toward euphemistic terminology that is stripped of all meaning and to attack aggressively those who continue to use meaningful words are not examples of sensitivity…At the heart of politically correct language lies dishonesty, not civility. This reality is manifested in the preference for euphemism over literalism, for vagueness over specificity, and for propaganda over honesty. The politically correct society is not the civilized society, but rather the dishonest society.” 29

His view could be supported by Pinker’s comment on current politically correct terms for racial groups; he notes that “we will know we have achieved equality and mutual respect when names for minorities stay put”. (Pinker)

5.2 Doublespeak

When analyzing the motives behind political correctness (PC) in detail, the honesty of those motives remains disputable. Rather than strictly stating that they are either honest or dishonest, the conclusion may be: it is both. However, compared to PC, there is nothing positive in doublespeak. Having spent many years studying this particular language phenomenon, William Lutz (347-348) has established a widely accepted definition of Doublespeak: “[it] is language that pretends to communicate but really does not. It is language that makes the bad seem good, the negative appear positive, the unpleasant appear attractive or at least tolerable. Doublespeak is language that avoids or shifts responsibility, language that is at variance with its real or purported meaning. It is language that conceals or prevents thought; rather than extending thought, doublespeak limits it.”

It is remarkable how Lutz’s definition of Doublespeak is similar to Orwell’s analysis of the language of politics in his classical essay: “Political language….is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” In fact, the term Doublespeak itself is believed to originate from two words, “newspeak” and “doublethink”, both of which Orwell introduced in his dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty Four. In his essay Politics and the English Language, Orwell (7) claims: “In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible…Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness…Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, "I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so." Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:

While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement. The inflated style itself is a kind of euphemism.”

In Orwell’s essay, just like in O’Neill’s, euphemizing is given negative connotations. However, Lutz makes a clear distinction between euphemisms proper and doublespeak. He divides doublespeak into four categories, or, four kinds: “euphemism, jargon, gobbledygook or bureaucratese, and inflated language.” (Lutz “The World of” 348-351)

A) Euphemisms

Although Lutz (“The World of” 348) admits that euphemisms may be considered doublespeak, he makes it clear that euphemizing itself is a positive thing, as long as the speaker’s intentions to use euphemisms are honest, i.e. concern for someone’s feelings, or respect for a recognized cultural or social taboo. He says that there is nothing wrong with using the expressions such as “pass away” or “go to the restroom”; in fact, in his view such behavior can be regarded as a mark of courtesy and good manners. It is the real purpose of using euphemisms which makes all the difference. Lutz (“The World of” 349) puts it simply: “When a euphemism is used to deceive, it becomes doublespeak.” He believes that a euphemism becomes doublespeak when “it is designed to mislead, to cover up the unpleasant, [when] its real intent is at variance with its apparent intent. It is language designed to alter our perception of reality.”

For instance, when the government’s aim is to cover up the unpleasant reality of war, it designs terminology that makes it sound less concrete and less horrible, e.g. “collateral damage” instead of “killing innocent bystanders”, “asymmetric warfare” for “suicide bombing attacks”, “enhanced interrogation” which in fact means “torture”, etc.

B) Jargon

Similarly to euphemisms, jargon can also be used for its good, original purpose (i.e. allowing the members of a professional group to communicate efficiently with each other), as well as misused and thus become doublespeak. According to Lutz (349), jargon can be perceived as doublespeak when it is “pretentious, obscure, and esoteric terminology used to give an air of profundity, authority, and prestige to speakers and their subject matter. Jargon as doublespeak often makes the simple appear complex, the ordinary profound, the obvious insightful. In this sense it is not used to express but impress.” Again, the intent to impress is often connected with misleading the general public, unfamiliar with particular jargon. Because the speaker using jargon sounds like an expert, the listeners assume that the information is valid, and, if they do not understand what is being communicated, they do not dare to ask, for fear of looking uneducated and ridiculous.

C) Gobbledygook

Lutz (“The world of” 350) established gobbledygook (or bureaucratese) as the third kind of doublespeak. What makes overwhelming the audience with long sentences full of big words doublespeak is again the intention to conceal the reality. Although, gobbledygook could also be the evidence of how doublespeak limits thought rather than supporting it. Sometimes, rather than deliberate attempt to mislead the audience, the analysis of gobbledygook reveals that the speaker himself probably does not even know what he was saying.

D) Inflated language

Inflated language is what Orwell criticized as a negative kind of euphemizing, and what Lutz (“The world of” 351) explains as language “designed to make the ordinary seem extraordinary, to make everyday things seem impressive, to give an air of importance to people, situations or things that would not normally be considered important, to make the simple seem complex.” It is this kind of doublespeak that Lutz considers both amusing and dangerous. Inspired by Lutz’s characterization, I would further divide “Inflated language as 32

doublespeak” into two subcategories, because of the above mentioned controversy (amusement versus danger):

D.1) Extraordinarily ordinary

Expressions belonging to this group are not difficult to notice and are often humorous, or inspire the creation of similarly sounding words which serve to ridicule the original. This is how “secretaries” become “executive assistants”, “car mechanics” are “automotive internists”, and “garbage men” are called “sanitation engineers” while performing the same job, customers are more satisfied when purchasing a “pre-owned”, or “experienced” car rather than a “used” one, politicians do not “lie” but are “economical with the truth”, etc. These expressions can sometimes be perceived as political correctness or euphemisms, and they are mostly harmless, since - if anything - they amuse rather than mislead. Nevertheless, the border between the harmless and harmful doublespeak is thin: it depends on the language users’ ability to recognize and fight the carefully designed terms whose aim is to avoid responsibility and blur inconvenient truths.

D.2) Dangerous doublespeak

What is really hidden behind “revenue enhancement”, “rapid oxidation”, “pre- emptive counterattack”, “poorly buffered precipitation”, or “unmanned aerial vehicles”? Doublespeak becomes dangerous when it is successfully used to mislead, to appear to communicate when it does not, when people fail to notice it and enable doublespeak to alter the perception of reality and corrupt thought. (Lutz “The World of” 352-353) This category corresponds to doublespeak characterized by the political economist and media analyst Edward S. Herman, who stresses that the important thing in the world of doublespeak is the ability to lie successfully, i.e. without being revealed or punished. Moreover, lying according to Herman includes selecting and shaping facts which do not fit an agenda or program, and this is where doublespeak becomes particularly “useful”; the listeners succumb to the illusion that they have been told the truth (i.e. given the important

information), while this information is transmitted in the way which “makes murder sound respectable”. (Herman)

Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman give examples of the structural nature of the use of doublespeak; in Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media they argue that people in modern democratic society consist of decision-makers and social participants who have to be made to agree. They say that those in power in a totalitarian state do not care much about what citizens think, since their actions can be controlled, and, “the monopolistic control over media, often supplemented by official censorship, makes it clear that the media serve the ends of a dominant elite.” However, if citizens have the freedom of speech, the state wants to control what people think. “It is much more difficult to see a propaganda system at work where the media are private and the formal censorship is absent.” And that is what Herman and Chomsky analyze and call a “Propaganda Model”; the “Manufacture of consent”. (Herman and Chomsky 1)

They claim that media are rarely truly impartial, for many reasons. “The media may feel obligated to carry extremely dubious stories and mute criticism in order not to offend their sources and disturb a close relationship. It is very difficult to call authorities on whom one depends for daily news liars… Perhaps more important, powerful sources regularly take advantage of media routines and dependency to “manage” the media… Part of this management process consists of inundating the media with stories, which serve sometimes to foist a particular line and frame on the media, and at other times to help chase unwanted stories off the front page or out of the media altogether.” (Herman and Chomsky 22-23) What is more, not only do those in power decide what to say, but they also pay close attention to how they say it. It is not surprising that doublespeak is mostly employed in the areas of business, advertising, and politics.

Why is this kind of doublespeak dangerous? Because living in illusions and believing lies means losing personal freedom. Lutz (“The World of” 353) warns against the dangers of doublespeak, against the corruption of language which can have far-reaching consequences, as “[it] breeds suspicion, cynicism, distrust, and, ultimately, hostility. Doublespeak is

insidious because it can infect and eventually destroy the function of language, which is communication between people and social groups.” Using the comparison to Orwell’s novel, Lutz is very direct about what failure to understand the dangers of doublespeak may lead to: “If we really believe that we understand such language and that such language communicates and promotes clear thought, then the world of 1984, with its control of reality through language, is upon us.” (Lutz 353)

5.3 Fighting back

The attempts to manipulate, through various means including language, can hardly be eradicated, as they belong to human nature and, unfortunately, are a part of how society is organized. Regrettably, no elections or revolutions seem to be able to change this. The powerful will always dominate the society, and, although the situation in democratic countries is better than in those with totalitarian regimes, it is not ideal. However, similarly to Lutz, I believe that accepting this as a fact and giving up on resisting manipulation might have disastrous consequences. The cynical misuse of language may go as far as speaking about "Jewish problem" which was solved through the "Final Solution" (Endlösung), a euphemism for extermination, infamous concentration camps entrance signs "Work Will Set You Free" (Arbeit Macht Frei), followed by "bath houses" (Badeanstalten) and "special installations" (Spezialeinrichtungen), the harmless-sounding names for the gas chambers and crematoria. That said, I shall suggest the form that the resistance to being manipulated by doublespeak can have.

Fortunately, many useful contributions have already been made by various writers, linguists, political and media analysts (e.g. George Orwell, William Lutz, Hugh Rank, Daniel Dieterich, Jacques Ellul), and committees, such as The National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) Committee on Public Doublespeak, established in 1971. Their effort and ideas deserve to be acknowledged and further developed.

As means of attracting public attention, the Orwell Award (for outstanding contributors to the critical analysis of public discourse), and the Doublespeak Award (an ironic award for speakers who have seriously misused language to deceive, and to advance their agenda) are worth supporting. Political manifestos and speeches, legal and business 35

documents, media discourse, and all other examples of using language to influence listeners and achieve some goals, need to be critically examined. Nevertheless, such analysis would not be very efficient if most language users were not familiar with both the beauty and the power of language, and its potential abuse. Therefore, education is necessary to help fight doublespeak. It is vital for students to learn to use language effectively, to be able to identify euphemisms, doublespeak, and other ways to use or abuse language.

6. CONCLUSION

Recently, I have encountered suggestions that euphemizing should be eradicated, and this became my motive for the closer examination of euphemisms. While writing my paper, I have explored the ways euphemisms are created, the ever-changing essence of both euphemistic expressions and the realities they refer to, the bright and the dark sides of euphemisms.

Furthermore, I tried to find my own answers to several questions raised. Firstly, does the society employ euphemisms in order to gradually change its values, or can the “euphemism treadmill” serve as evidence supporting the claim that taboos persist, independent of the words used to talk about them? I believe that language both reflects and shapes thoughts; therefore, euphemisms have the potential to alter the reality. Nevertheless, there are other aspects that influence the priorities, fears or values of a society; euphemisms alone are not omnipotent. That is why euphemistic expressions remain a helpful tool in the process of changing people’s attitudes, which is sometimes successful, sometimes not.

My answer to the question if euphemisms should be completely avoided, as some people suggest, calling for being more “direct” and “honest”, is clear: it is impossible, and not even desirable. As I discussed in this paper, euphemisms are a necessary part of every culture, they are probably as old as language itself, and, if used with honest intentions, they are related to speakers’ good manners, express concern for the feelings of others, and show respecting cultural taboos. Moreover, euphemisms can carry amusing aspects, spur the listeners’ imagination, and promote complex thoughts.

It is probably due to political correctness and doublespeak that the society is becoming more sensitive to using vague language and demands avoiding euphemisms. However, in my opinion, there is serious misunderstanding. While it is true that, linguistically, euphemisms, politically correct language and doublespeak have much in common, their purpose and effect significantly differ. The purpose of doublespeak is in fact opposite to that of euphemisms; speakers use euphemisms with the expectation that the listeners will understand exactly what is hidden behind the words, in addition to mutual

understanding that the intention to use a euphemism is to avoid offence, or, in some cases, to amuse. By contrast, the purpose of doublespeak is to mislead, to blur the reality, to hide inconvenient truths. Using inflated language confuses the listeners, overwhelming them with words so that they do not detect what is really hidden behind those words (unless, with considerable effort, the listeners consciously analyze the vague expressions). While euphemisms promote complex thoughts, doublespeak aims to limit or prevent clear thinking.

To sum up, I strongly believe that everyone needs to pay attention to language used as a tool of manipulation; language users should be aware that it is not the words themselves, but the intentions that are good or bad. Education or experience is vital to help the speakers distinguish between naked truths and lies in disguise.

WORKS CITED Allan, Keith, and Kate Burridge. Euphemisms and Dysphemisms: Language Used as Shield and Weapon. Oxford: OUP, 1991. Print.

Algeo, John, and Thomas Pyles. The Origins and Development of the English Language. Wadsworth: Cengage Learning, 2009. Print.

Cumming, S. “Language & Power”. Linguistics, 50 (22 Jan. 2003): n. pag. linguistics.ucsb.edu. Web. 21 Feb. 2012.

Dunn, S. M. et al. “Cancer By Another Name: A Randomized Trial of the Effects of Euphemism and Uncertainty in Communicating with Cancer Patients.” Journal of Clinical Oncology, 1993. American Society of Clinical Oncology. Web. 15 Mar. 2012.

“Euphemisms For Death”. You-Can-Be-Funny.com. you-can-be-funny.com. n.d. Web. 12 Mar. 2012.

“Euphoria Part 2”. House M.D. Quotes.com. housemdquotes.com, n.p., n.d. Web. 03 Mar. 2012.

Greer, Germaine. The Female Eunuch. New York: Farrer, Straus and Giroux, 1971. Print.

Hans, Jason D., Martie Gillen and Katrina Akande. “Sex Redefined: The Reclassification Of Oral-Genital Contact”. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 42 (2010): 74–78. onlinelibrary.wiley.com. Web. 7 Apr. 2012.

Herman, Edward S. “Little Versus Big Lies (And Structure of Lies)”. Political Commentaries. 20 May. 2003. musictravel.free.fr. Web. 15 Jun. 2012.

Herman, Edward S., and Noam Chomsky. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, Second edition. New York: Pantheon, 2002. Print.

Hunt, K. M. “Biblical Euphemisms for Sexual Activity”. Restitution of All Things. keithhunt.com. May 2007. Web. 20 Feb. 2012.

Kassie. “How I Met Your Mother>Script vo de l’épisode 2.12”. Hypnoweb.net. Hypnoweb.net, 18 Apr. 2011. Web. 03 Mar. 2012.

Keyes, Ralph. Euphemania: Our Love Affair with Euphemisms. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2010. Print.

“A List of PC Terms”. Bored.com. Bored.com, n.d. Web. 15 Jun. 2012.

Lutz, Wiliam. “Doublespeak”. Interview by Brian Lamb. booknotes.org: 31 Dec. 1989. Web. 14 Jan. 2012.

Lutz, Wiliam. “The World of Doublespeak.” cvhsfalcons.com. Web. 03 Jun. 2012. PDF file.

“Making Murder Respectable. Phoney Politeness and Muddled Messages: A Guide to Euphemisms”. The Economist, economist.com. 17 Dec. 2011. Web. 15 Jan. 2012.

OffbeatMOG . “165 Sex Euphemisms”. AMOG|Alpha Male of the Group. AMOG, 05 Dec. 2008. amog.com. Web. 19 Feb. 2012.

O’Neill, Ben. “A Critique of Politically Correct Language”. The Independent Review, 16.2 (2011): 279-291. independent.org. Web. 27 May 2012. PDF file.

Orwell, George. “Politics and the English Language”. mla.stanford.edu. 2005-2006. Web. 25 May 2012. PDF file.

Pinker, Steven. “The Game of the Name”. The New York Times, 3 Apr. 1994. stevenpinker.com. Web. 20 Jan. 2012. PDF file.

Postman, Neil. “Euphemism”. Crazy Talk, Stupid Talk. myclass.peelschools.org. Web. 20 Jan. 2012. PDF file.

Rawson, H. Rawson's Dictionary of Euphemisms and Other Doubletalk: Being a Compilation of Linguistic Fig Leaves and Verbal Flourishes for Artful Users of the English Language. New York: Crown Publishers, 1995. Print.

Shklovsky, Viktor, and Benjamin Sher – translator. Theory of Prose. Chicago: Dalkey Archive Press, 1991. Print.

Soleine92 [Sosso Soleine]. “How I met your mother >Script VO de l'épisode 1.09”. Hypnoweb.net. Hypnoweb.net, 20 Apr. 2009. Web. 03 Mar. 2012.

Veloso, B. “Series 3 Episode 20 – The Spaghetti Catalyst”. Big Bang Theory Transcripts. Wordpress.com, n.d. Web. 10 Jun. 2012.

Walker, Ruth. “Euphemistically speaking”. The Christian Science Monitor, 19 Apr. 2011. Web. 7 Apr. 2012.

Williams, Joseph M. Origins of the English Language: A Social and Linguistic History. New York: Free Press, 1975. Print.

Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield: Merriam-Webster Inc., 1989. Print.