Lexis Journal in English Lexicology

7 | 2012 as a Word-Formation Process L'euphémisme comme procédé de création lexicale

Keith Allan, Kate Burridge, Eliecer Crespo-Fernández and Denis Jamet (dir.)

Electronic version URL: http://journals.openedition.org/lexis/334 DOI: 10.4000/lexis.334 ISSN: 1951-6215

Publisher Université Jean Moulin - Lyon 3

Electronic reference Keith Allan, Kate Burridge, Eliecer Crespo-Fernández and Denis Jamet (dir.), Lexis, 7 | 2012, « Euphemism as a Word-Formation Process » [Online], Online since 25 June 2012, connection on 23 September 2020. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/lexis/334 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/lexis. 334

This text was automatically generated on 23 September 2020.

Lexis is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction Denis Jamet

Papers

X-phemism and creativity Keith Allan

The Expressive Creativity of Euphemism and Dysphemism Miguel Casas Gómez

Euphemism and Language Change: The Sixth and Seventh Ages Kate Burridge

“Frequent fl- erm traveler” – La reformulation euphémistique dans le discours sur l’événement Charlotte Danino

Lexical Creation and Euphemism: Regarding the Distinction Denominative or Referential Neology vs. Stylistic or Expressive Neology María Tadea Díaz Hormingo

Double whammy! The dysphemistic euphemism implied in unVables such as unmentionables, unprintables, undesirables Chris Smith

The Translatability of Euphemism and Dysphemism in Arabic-English Subtitling Mohammad Ahmad Thawabteh

The tastes and distastes of verbivores – some observations on X-phemisation in Bulgarian and English Alexandra Bagasheva

Lexis, 7 | 2012 2

Introduction

Denis Jamet

1 The English word “euphemism” can be traced back for the first time in a book written in 1656 by Thomas Blount, Glossographia [Burchfield 1985: 13], and comes from Greek euphèmismos, which is itself derived from the adjective euphèmos, “of good omen” (from eu, “good”, and phèmi, “I say”). A euphemism consists in replacing the original signifier, perceived as being offensive or unpleasant, by another one; it is often referred to as a “veil” or a “shroud” thrown over the signified, as if to conceal it.

2 Yet, euphemism is not a mere linguistic device, but participates in a larger, more general phenomenon used by speakers to soften the potentially offensive effects of a taboo area to preserve social harmony in communication and to avoid any face- threatening acts1. Euphemism can be seen as a “deodorizing spray and perfume” [Allan & Burridge 1991: 25], and euphemistic language as a “‘deodorizing’ language” [Allan & Burridge 1985: 25], to avoid mentioning a given taboo. But euphemism is not the only way of dealing with taboos, as taboo can be avoided through another means: by using dysphemisms. Indeed, according to Allan & Burridge [1991: 7], and dysphemisms are “obverse sides of the same coin” which “do not form clear-cut categories” [Crespo Fernández 2007: 15]: A euphemism is used as an alternative to a dispreferred expression, in to avoid possible loss of face: either one’s own face or, through giving offence, that of the audience, or some third party. [Allan & Burridge 1991: 11] A dysphemism is an expression with connotations that are offensive either about the denotatum or to the audience, or both, and it is substituted for a neutral or euphemistic expression for just that reason. [Allan & Burridge 1991: 26]

3 When thinking about “euphemism”, the layman is bound to come up with comments such as: “it is a nice way to put things politely without offending the person you’re talking to”, “it has to do with , good manners and politeness”, “it is a poetical device”, etc. Yet in this issue, we consider that euphemism cannot be simply restricted to a mere stylistic, or even lexical device, but needs to be considered as an everyday, comprehensive phenomenon, a form of “verbal behavior” [Crespo Fernández 2005: 78] which serves a specific, functional purpose in social discourse [Fairclough 2008]. Indeed, euphemism is not just a matter of pure lexical choice – i.e. elegant stylistic variation, a

Lexis, 7 | 2012 3

sort of “linguistic makeup” [Crespo Fernández 2005: 79] – but a real choice made by the speaker in a given discursive context. As Allan & Burridge [1991: 4] write: [E]uphemism and dysphemism are principally determined by the choice of expression within a given context: both world spoken of, and the world spoken in.

4 The articles in this volume aim to discuss the creativity of euphemism as a word- formation process and to show that – whether on a temporary or a more permanent basis – euphemism and dysphemism play a significant role in word-formation processes in any language.

5 The volume opens with an article by Keith Allan, “X-phemism and Creativity”, in which the author shows how X-phemism – i.e. euphemism and its corollary dysphemism – motivates language change through creativity. In “The Expressive Creativity of Euphemism and Dysphemism”, Miguel Casas Gómez follows the path opened by Keith Allan and tackles the expressiveness of euphemism and dysphemism, showing that the dividing line between taboo and dysphemism is, on occasions, quite blurred, and that, consequently, the boundary between euphemism and dysphemism is not entirely clear. Kate Burridge in “Euphemism and Language Change: The Sixth and Seventh Ages” reviews the various communicative functions of euphemisms and the different linguistic strategies that are used in their creation, focusing on the linguistic creativity that surrounds the topic of “old age” in Modern English as well as the ancient and modern perspective of naming. In “Frequent fl- erm traveler – La reformulation euphémistique dans le discours sur l’événement”, Charlotte Danino proposes to study a particular case of rephrasing during the September 11 terrorist attacks: the set phrase frequent flyer, which becomes frequent traveller, can be considered as an example of euphemism created on the spur of the moment. In “Lexical Creation and Euphemism: Regarding the Distinction Denominative or Referential Neology vs. Stylistic or Expressive Neology”, María Tadea Díaz Hormingo shows that the distinction between denominative or referential neology and stylistic or expressive neology is insufficient, and accounts for some of the motivations upon which euphemistic creations are based. Chris Smith in “Double whammy! The dysphemistic euphemism implied in unVables such as unmentionables, unprintables, undesirables” presents a case study of unVables; by producing a list of attested unVables, the author investigates the correlation between lexical complexity, lexical creativity and euphemism. In “The Translatability of Euphemism and Dysphemism in Arabic-English Subtitling”, Mohammad Ahmad Thawabteh focuses on the translatability of Arabic amelioration and pejoration in English subtitling, illustrated with a subtitled Egyptian film, and examines the nature of euphemism and dysphemism, both concepts being approached from the perspective of technical and translation paradigms. Finally, Alexandra Bagasheva in “The tastes and distastes of verbivores – some observations on X-phemisation in Bulgarian and English” aims to elaborate on a hypothesis of X‑phemisation via lexical extension as involving the mechanism of nominal metaphor at the conceptual level, both in English and Bulgarian.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 4

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ALLAN Keith and BURRIDGE Kate, Euphemism and Dysphemism: language used as shield and weapon, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.

BURCHFIELD Robert, “An Outline History of Euphemisms in English”, in ENRIGHT Dominique (Ed.), Fair of Speech. The Uses of Euphemism, Oxford New York: Oxford University Press, 1985: 13-31.

CRESPO FERNÁNDEZ Eliecer, “Euphemistic strategies in politeness and face concerns”, Pragmalingüistica 13, Universidad de Cádiz, 2005: 77-86.

CRESPO FERNÁNDEZ Eliecer, “Linguistic Devices Coping with Death in Victorian Obituaries”, Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 20, 2007: 7-21.

ENRIGHT Dominique (Ed.), Fair of Speech. The Uses of Euphemism, Oxford New York: Oxford University Press, 1985.

FAIRCLOUGH Norman, Discourse and Social Change (1992), Cambridge & Malden: Polity, 2008.

GOFFMAN Erving, Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour, New York: Double Day, 1967.

NOTES

1. The notion of “face” is borrowed from Goffman.

AUTHOR

DENIS JAMET

Université Jean Moulin – Lyon 3, France

Lexis, 7 | 2012 5

Papers Articles

Lexis, 7 | 2012 6

X-phemism and creativity

Keith Allan

My warm thanks to Kate Burridge for her input to parts of this essay. Thanks too to Eliecer Crespo Fernández for comments.

Prefatory remarks

1 I make the assumption that the different kinds of X-phemism – orthophemism, euphemism and dysphemism – are a means of managing the language for taboo topics. And when referring to dysphemism, orthophemism or euphemism, I shall assume the Middle Class Politeness Criterion defined in Allan and Burridge [2006: 33] as the default condition for assessing the X-phemistic value of an expression: In order to be polite to a casual acquaintance of the opposite sex in a formal situation in a middle class environment, one would normally be expected to use the euphemism or orthophemism rather than the dispreferred counterpart. The dispreferred counterpart would be a dysphemism.

2 Dysphemistic expressions may be used to offend and they may be used nondysphemistically to display intimacy; they focus on the (potentially) offensive. The use of orthophemism for a taboo topic may, by tacit mutual agreement, ignore the fact that a topic can be offensive. Orthophemism typically objectifies. Where the taboo is very strong, and/or one or more of the interlocutors has a subjective emotional engagement with the topic, euphemism is preferred because it focuses away from the (potentially) offensive.

3 This paper discusses many kinds of remodelling as a source for euphemisms and euphemistic dysphemisms; the use of contractions in X-phemism; underspecification (general-for-specific euphemisms) and its complement – part-for-whole X-phemism; I survey upgrades, downgrades, deceptions and obfuscations; substitutions (replacement terms from within the language or borrowed from another); appearance based metaphors for tabooed body parts and functions; colour based metaphors for X‑phemisms; sound based metaphors; smell, taste and touch based X-phemisms; then, finally, verbal play. It will become obvious that there is a good deal of overlap between many of these categories of analysis. But overall there are two ways in which

Lexis, 7 | 2012 7

X‑phemisms are created: formally through remodelling and semantically through figurative language. Nonetheless, many X-phemisms display both these characteristics, as can be exemplified by some of the words for NAKEDNESS. There is the orthophemistic term nude, from Latin nudus, often used of photographic or painted representations of naked women and, much more rarely, of a naked man – hence the marked term male nude. Whether a nude is artistic or pornographic depends on the viewer belief. For instance, Goya’s The Nude Maja is normally considered a work of art to be compared with his The Clothed Maja (both painted 1797–98); but a print of it was removed from a University of Pennsylvania classroom following feminist objections that it is dysphemistic.1 A colloquial Australian euphemism for (being) in the nude is in the nuddie. Other euphemisms include as nature intended, in one’s birthday suit, in the altogether, and in the buff (from buff[alo] leather, buff skin transferred to humans). Being naked is often referred to through part-for-whole X-phemisms such as the dysphemism bare-arsed and the more euphemistic butt / buck naked in which buck ⇐ butt (buck derives from butt). The orthophemistic term stark naked and the connected colloquial euphemism starkers also arose by replacing a final /t/ with a /k/: stark ⇐ start ‘tail, arse’. Nudists like to go about in the open air without clothes on and, on account being as nature intended when in natural surroundings, are euphemistically called naturists.

4 Many X-phemisms display folk-culture in a remarkable inventiveness of metaphor and figurative language sourced in the perceived characteristics of whatever is being talked about (the denotatum). For instance, terms for tabooed objects and events provide ready-made material for the dysphemistic language of curses, insults, , and expletives. We shall see that X-phemisms are motivated by Speaker’s want to be seen to take a certain stance by upgrading, downgrading, obfuscating, and deceiving; and they extensively manifest indulgence in verbal play. Although the discussion focuses on English, the categories illustrated occur across the world’s languages, and many of them are significant for the study of language change.

1. Remodelling as a source for euphemisms and euphemistic dysphemisms

5 One source of new terms is remodelling, which maintains a greater or lesser degree of phonetic or orthographic similarity between the original and the novel form. To avoid – careless irreverence for the deity or other religious terms (blasphemy vilifies or ridicules the deity), the word God is remodelled in euphemistic expletives such as the oaths ‘Od’s life! ‘Sblood! ‘Sbodlikins! Zounds! Gad! Gog! Cock! Cod! (all archaic) Gosh! Golly! (previously Gorry!) Cor! Cor lumme! Gorblimey! Gordonbennet! Gordon’ighlanders! Goodness (knows)! (Good) gracious! For goodness’ sake! (There are similar deformations in other languages, e.g. French morbleu ⇐ mort de Dieu ‘death of God’, corbleu ⇐ corps de Dieu ‘body of God’; German potz ⇐ Gottes / Gotts ‘God’s’ as in potzapperment (≈ ‘Shit!’) ⇐ Gottes [sieben] Sakramenten ‘God’s [7] sacraments’; Serbian borami ⇐ boga mi ?⇐ tako mi boga! ‘as God is my witness’.2)

6 How does remodelling work? The following explanation says something about misspellings, which are accidental remodellings. Aoccdrnig to a rsecherear at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is that frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit

Lexis, 7 | 2012 8

porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by itslef but the wrod as a wlohe.

7 No fluent speaker of English has any trouble reading the above (which explains the power of the designer label FCUK3). Taking context into account and working on a system of analysis-by-synthesis we match misspelled words with their normal forms. The point of this digression is that when language is systematically remodelled with the intention of communicating, a person fluent in the language does not normally have too much trouble recognizing the intended meaning. Thus the use of an expression like Golly!, where a profane use of the expletive God! would make perfectly good sense, can communicate effectively.

8 The list of euphemistic expletives for God given above demonstrate various kinds of remodelling, including clippings and substitutions of phonetically similar words and the tabooed form being avoided. In So help me! Swelp me! and So save us! there is complete omission of God (or Lord), and so has not only stepped into its place but may even be a euphemism for God in these exclamative expressions. Then there are (Oh) Lord!, Lordy! Lawdy! La! Land’s sake! and Heavens (above)!4 or Heavens to Betsy! There is also Bless me! – perhaps after having an evil thought. These are all (except perhaps Bless me!) euphemistic dysphemisms and many were commonly used by Victorian ladies (see Montagu 1968: 225). Doubtless they, like Ophelia in Shakespeare’s Hamlet, were blissfully unaware of uttering oaths.

Indeed, la? without an oath, I’ll make an end on’t. [Sings] By Gis, and by Saint Charity, Alack, and fie for shame!! Young men will do’t, if they come to’t; By Cock, they are to blame. Ophelia: Quoth she, before you tumbled me, You promised me to wed. He answers: So would I ha done, by yonder sun, And thou hadst not come to my bed.

[Shakespeare Hamlet IV.v.55]

9 Ophelia in innocent ignorance utters the following mild oaths: “la” ⇐ Lord, “by Gis” ⇐ by Jesus, “by Saint Charity” (that there never was such a saint did not stop people swearing by him/her), “fie” ⇐ [by my] faith, “by Cock” ⇐ by God. Shakespeare weaves in several sexual innuendos: the juxtaposition of “young men”, “come”, “Cock”, “before you tumbled [ostensible meaning ‘tousled’] me, you promised me to wed” yields the meaning confirmed by the man’s answer, ‘before you bedded me you promised to marry me, and now you won’t’; it is a reference to the ageless double-standard – the girl who agrees to sex before marriage is not chaste enough to marry.

10 Chaucer wrote: ‘Ye,’ quod the preest, ‘ye, sire, and wol ye so? Marie! there-of I pray yow hertely.’ [Chaucer 1396 Canon’s Yeoman’s Tale 1061f ]

11 Mary, mother of God, is the source for the Canon’s Yeoman’s “Marie” latter remodelled to Marry as in Marry forbid! and Marry come up!. A rather different kind of semantic relation is exemplified in Holy Mary! Holy mother! whence, probably, Holy cow! and

Lexis, 7 | 2012 9

onward to the double dysphemisms Holy shit! Holy fuck!. Less profane than Holy Mary! are Holy Moses! Holy mackerel! – real euphemisms along with such as Holy toot! (not to mention those used by Batman’s sidekick Robin, such as Holy demolition / Halloween / hallucination / heart failure / nightmare / sardine). Perhaps What in Hades?! is a euphemism for What in hell?! Curiously, although What the deuce?! is formally analogous to What the dickens?! and What the devil?!, “deuce” here derives from the Norman French oath Deus! ‘God’. What the dickens?! avoids calling up by the malevolent spirit of Old Nick, Old Harry, Old Bendy, Old Bogey, Old Poker, Old Roger, Old Split‑Foot, the Old Gentleman, Old Billy.

12 Rather similar in meaning to the expostulary Marry! were Fie! and Fackins! remodelled from Faith! all of them having much the same force as today’s profane God!. Confounding someone or something was euphemized in Od rabbit it from God rot it! lives on in Drat it! or simply Drat!. There was always the explicit Damnation! remodelled to Tarnation! as Damn! is remodelled to Darn! and Dang!5

13 The term profanity once applied only to (supposedly) inappropriate use of religious terms; it has expanded its domain to another kind of ‘bad language’ namely, obscenity. Shit! gets remodelled to Sugar! Shoot! Shucks! and Shizzle!. A fuck up becomes a foul up; the adjective and gerund fucking becomes mucking, freaking, frigging . The insulting appellation bastard is remodelled to basket and bugger ⇒ begger. Historically tydbit was used earlier than titbit. Today the use of tidbits for titbits (primarily in America) seems unnecessary because Britain has a variety of birds named tits which creates no problem – though it does allow for sad jokes like “Twenty WRNS walked into the cold store and forty blue tits came out” (WRNS, homophonous with wrens, is the for Women’s Royal Naval Service). Cunt is reformed into cooch, coochie, hoochie-coochie6 and oochamagoochi. Anglo-Americanized pronunciation of the Hispanic California place name Tres Pinos (‘three pines’) would normally be /ˈtrɛs ˈpinoʊs/, making Pinos almost homophonous with penis /ˈpinəs/ and fully homophonous if the final unstressed syllable of Pinos is reduced to /–nəs/. To avoid embarrassment, pinos is phonologically dissimilated, i.e. remodelled to the un-Spanish-like /ˈpainoʊs/. Before coney ‘rabbit’ dropped out of use in the late 19th century, it was often pronounced to rhyme with honey, /ˈkʌnɪ/. However, this became the standard pronunciation for the homonymous word meaning ‘cunt’ (which lives on in cunnilingus) and so the ‘rabbit’ sense was remodelled to /ˈkoʊnɪ/, as it remains in Coney Island. There is similar dissimilation with the word twat which (in Britain at least) is usually pronounced /twɒt/ to mean ‘idiot’ and /twæt/ to mean ‘vagina’.

14 The dying practice of hlonipha among the Nguni peoples of southern Africa used to taboo a woman using the name of her father-in-law and often the syllables that occur in his name. Hlonipha achieves phonetic deformation through consonant substitution, e.g. Zulu ulucha for ulunya ‘cruelty’, xabuka for qabuka ‘wake up’ (x is a lateral click [ǁ], q a palatal click [ǂ]), umugca for umuhla ‘day’; consonant deletion, e.g. Xhosa eka from hleka ‘laugh’, umenze from umlenze ‘leg’. There is also transfer of a noun from one class (gender) to another: e.g. Xhosa intsana (class 9) from usana ‘baby’ (class 2) or intsapho from usapho ‘’ (see Herbert 1990: 460).

15 A different kind of remodelling is exemplified by secret or play languages like Pig Latin, Eggy-peggy, and Up-up (see Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 1976, Simons 1982). Here is an example of Eggy-peggy; Fanny has just been recognized as the Bolter’s daughter by one of a group of women whom she’d just previously described as “chattering like starlings in a tree”:

Lexis, 7 | 2012 10

‘Come and have your tea, Fanny,’ said Lady Montdore. She led me to the tea table and the starlings went on with their chatter about my mother in eggy-peggy, a language I happened to know quite well. ‘Eggis shegge reggeally, peggoor sweggeet! I couldn’t be more interested, naturally, when you come to think of it, considering that the very first person the Bolter ever bolted with, was my husband. [Mitford 1979: 274. Italics added.]

16 Instead of effecting one-for-one substitution on the pattern described above, there are regular morphophonological changes such as metathesis or affixation to every word in the secret language, as we see in the Eggy-peggy and the Carney Pig Latin in “a couple of steeazicks [sticks = marijuana cigarettes] from Panama as big as your thumb”7 and “bliazasted [blasted = smoked dope] a moment ago”.8

2. Contractions

A Sink, [signifies] a C—t [Swift 1958: 153] that fat a—se b—, my lady Bellaston [Fielding Tom Jones XII.3] Z—ds and bl—d, sister [Fielding Tom Jones XVI.4]

17 There is fore-clipping (something chopped off the front of the word) and end-clipping (something chopped from the end); when underpants are referred as pants it is a fore- clipping, and when as undies it is an end-clipping. ‘Od’s life and ‘sblood are fore-clipped as is the archaic nation ⇐ damnation (Grose 1811). Gee is end-clipped God or Jesus and jeeze from the latter; bra is end-clipped brassiere and pee ⇐ piss.

18 Clipping is a form of contraction often referred to as ‘abbreviation’. Both and alphabetisms are constructed from the initial letters of phrases but acronyms differ from alphabetisms by being pronounced like words rather than a list of letters.9 Thus snafu /ˈsnɑfu/ is an acronym for ‘Situation Normal, All Fucked (euphemistically, ‘ Fouled’) Up’. On the other hand S.O.B. /ˈɛs oʊ bi/ is an alphabetism for ‘ Son-Of-a-Bitch’; RTFM is an alphabetism for ‘Read The Fucking Manual’. The spoken forms of both Gee and pee could be classed as alphabetisms of single words because of their homophony with letters G and P, but they are also end-clippings, and their written forms make them look more like acronyms! So Gee and pee fall into three categories, of which the least controversial is end-clipping. (The fact that Gee and pee fall into three categories is not a source for analytical despair: the three categories support one another to deliver meaning.)

19 When f— is printed in place of fuck we have a case of end-clipping; if we get f*** it is a case not only of end-clipping but also quasi-omission in that each missing letter is replaced one-for-one by a non-alphabetic symbol. We also find quasi-omission in the middle of words and the omitted letters may or may not be indicated severally, e.g. d—n (⇐ damn), d—nation; w—e or wh—re (⇐ whore) (Fielding 1749); and f—k and s—t (The Age, Melbourne, October 17, 2002). CAULIFLOWER. [...] Also the private parts of a woman; the reason for which appellation is given in the following story: A woman, who was giving evidence in a cause wherein it was necessary to express those parts, made use of the term cauliflower; for which the judge on the bench, a peevish old , reproved her, saying she might as well call it artichoke. Not so my lord, replied she; for an

Lexis, 7 | 2012 11

artichoke has a bottom, but a **** and a cauliflower have none. [Grose 1811]

20 This, together with the appearance of **** in other entries of Grose’s Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue, leaves no doubt that the four asterisks are a synonym for that four-letter word that he otherwise calls “the monosyllable” and in today’s media “the c-word”.10 It is highly significant that the monosyllable, the c-word, and the f-word all take the definite article, the: they are as much proper as the Himalayas and the Pope, immediately recognizable to the normal speaker of English despite the fact that, though there is only one set of Himalayas and (today) only one Pope, there are thousands of monosyllables and thousands of words beginning with c- and f-. It is not merely context that leads underspecified expressions like the c-word to be immediately understandable; it is the shared common ground in the salience of the SMD lexicon (the lexicon associated with sex, micturition, and ). As one participant in a survey admitted: If I saw a euphemism written down I guess it would be the same as seeing a swearword as far as I’m concerned, because I know what it would represent. [Millwood-Hargrave 2000: 43]

21 Deformations like c*** and f--k draw attention to the word’s being unprintable and thereby mark the obscenity.

22 The spoken counterparts to dashes and asterisks are non-lexical substitutions like mhm, er-mm. For example, in a novel published in 1926, a lady says on discovering some French novels on her friend’s table: ‘This is a little – h’m – isn’t it?’ ‘I read those things for their exquisitely polished style; the subjects escape me.’ [Pinero 1900: 116f]

23 The answer is classic, and as unbelievable as the heterosexual man who says he buys Playboy for the articles and never looks at the photos of attractive nude nubile women.

24 Full-omissions are also a kind of clipping. There is Gracious! either fore-clipped from Good gracious! or end-clipped Gracious God!; all three make profane reference to God’s graciousness, but Gracious! makes full omission of the name of God. Among full omissions, end-clippings seem to be most common. E.g. the ladies / gents omits lavatory; and I need to go can also be understood to omit to the lavatory. The commonly used jibe There’s the pot calling the kettle black omits arse from the end (anyone who has cooked over a wood or coal fire knows that pots get black bottoms). A magazine advert for VagisilTM Feminine Itching Medication modestly omits to mention the location of the feminine itching – perhaps relying on the product name to aid the unimaginative. This instantly-soothing medication relieves external feminine itching as easily as aspirin relieves a headache. That’s good news because minor feminine itching is about as common as a headache – caused by everyday things like jogging, pantyhose, even normal perspiration.

25 All these examples of full-omissions fall within the category of general-for-specific euphemisms.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 12

3. Underspecification: general-for-specific euphemisms

26 General-for-specific (or whole-for-part) euphemisms, together with part-for-whole X- phemisms are sometimes discussed in terms of ‘’ and ‘synecdoche’. The meanings of the terms metonymy and synecdoche overlap to the extent that there is little point distinguishing between them. The confusion arises because they are almost synonymous: etymologically metonymy means ‘one name exchanged for another’ and synecdoche ‘to take with something else’. The advert for VagisilTM Feminine Itching Medication, quoted above, uses “feminine itching” as a general-for-specific euphemism; that advert was coupled with another in which “feminine moisture” is another general-for-specific euphemism: Feminine moisture end it now and stay fresher all day Now stay drier, feel fresher all day with VAGISILTM, the first Feminine Powder with a totally unique formula to solve wetness problems.

27 Another such euphemism is the use of person for ‘penis’ in legal discourse (this example is also a one-to-one substitution).11 The use of nether regions and down there for ‘genitals’ invokes the-general-area-for-a-specific-area-within-it. Go to bed as a euphemism for ‘ copulation’ invokes the-usual-location-where-a-specific-event-takes-place. It is clear that the second clause of Harry and Sally went to bed, but not together cancels some relevant implicature that is normally expected to expand upon what is actually said in the first clause. Go to bed (together) is a member of a large set of similar go to expressions which underspecify the meaning, yet succeed in referring appropriately by invoking a semantic frame or script,12 e.g. go to a restaurant (being seated, selecting food, being served food, paying for the meal, etc.) and on more delicate topics go to the doctor / hospital, go to the / / loo, go to the block / gallows / electric chair all omit reasons for going. The-maximally-general-and-non-specific-for-something-specific strategy for euphemism is exemplified in former U.S. President Richard Nixon’s references to prething and postthing (where “thing” denoted ‘the [1972] Watergate break-in’ which brought him down), the use of thingummybob for ‘penis’ (or whatever), and expressions like the you-know-what to denote almost anything that can be readily inferred from context. Rather similar was (is?) the use of inexpressibles or unmentionables and perhaps smalls for ‘underclothing’; also Grose’s use of the monosyllable meaning ‘cunt’.

28 Many general-for-specific euphemisms are understatements, e.g. thing for whatever (‘ Watergate break-in’, ‘genitals’) or deed for ‘act of murder’ (or whatever); but also anatomically correct dolls for ‘dolls with sexual organs’; and expressions like companion, friend, this guy I’m seeing and even lover for ‘regular sexual partner’. At one time the French verb baiser meant ‘kiss’ (embrasser has replaced it) and has come to mean ‘screw, fuck’ – the transition shows a nice euphemistic understatement which in this case is also a part-for-whole euphemism.13

4. Part-for-whole X-phemism

29 Part-for-whole euphemisms include powder my nose and spend a penny for ‘go to the lavatory’ (from the days when public lavatories cost a penny to access); and I’ve got a cough may occasionally ignore the stuffed up nose, post-nasal drip, and running eyes.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 13

Afrikaans ghat, originally ‘hole’, is used in much the same way as British or Australian bum, American fanny. The now archaic (?) reference to a woman as tit was usually dysphemistic but could be affectionate; it may be a part-for-whole dysphemism, or a transfer from the tit as bird (genus Parus) metaphor. Referring to a girl-friend as a (bit of) cunt / ass is dysphemistic; as is calling someone an arsehole / . So, the use of offensive body-part terms as insults often fits among this set of X-phemisms. Most part-for-whole are orthophemistic: The pen is mightier than the sword; We are doing Shakespeare next week; The Caesar salad wants a glass of .

5. Upgrades, downgrades, deceptions and obfuscations

30 There is a whole batch of euphemisms for avoiding the mildly distasteful, upgrading what is favoured and downgrading what isn’t. Some euphemisms are downright deceptive and others deliberately obfuscatory. In 1997 Australian Prime Minister John Winston Howard introduced the compound non-core promise into the ; it is defined by www.disinfopedia.org as ‘a promise not kept, in most cases a lie from the start’. Bribes, graft and expenses-paid vacations are never talked about [in the US House of Representatives] on Capitol Hill. Honorariums, campaign contributions and per diem travel reimbursements are. [Time Australia April 17, 1989: 36]

31 With reference to the quoted passage, the terms honorarium, campaign contributions, and per diem travel reimbursements are used as alternatives to the dispreferred expressions bribes, graft, and expenses-paid vacations – because they have positive instead of negative connotations. Take the example of a landlady who prefers to say she has paying guests rather than lodgers because, to her mind, paying guest has fewer negative connotations than does lodger. So does the euphemistic understatement sleep for ‘die’. When Janet

Lexis, 7 | 2012 14

Jackson’s right breast was revealed by fellow singer Justin Timberlake at the NFL Super Bowl show on February 1, 2004, it was described as a wardrobe malfunction.14 On the financial markets, when currency is taking a tumble, dealers and economists talk of it having a substantial downside risk potential; falling stocks go south; rising stocks go up, but never north (except in jest). In 2004 an MBA Alumni event charged a so-called ‘Investment’ of $50 for alumni and $65 for guests.15 An author who reads in a publisher’ s letter After careful consideration we have regretfully concluded that your manuscript falls outside the scope of our current publishing program interprets it to mean ‘We don’t want to publish your manuscript.’ We’ll have to let you go replaces ‘You’re fired’, even when dehiring is merited. Companies restructure and downsize, they don’t lay off employees, let alone sack them. Fifteen employees at Clifford of Vermont, Inc. weren’t laid off. ‘This was not a cut back nor a lay-off. It was a career-change opportunity,’ said John McNulty, president. Valley News (Conn.), 3 May 1990. [Quarterly Review of Doublespeak 17/1, 1990: 1]

32 McNulty was just eliminating redundancies in the human resources area by releasing these employees. Decisions are made about targeted voluntary separation, which seems in fact to be involuntary. People arrested but not yet charged are helping the police with their enquiries. A barrister’s refresher is ‘the fee for the second and each subsequent day of a hearing’. Adult videos are pornographic. And a starter home or a cosy cottage suitable for renovation is so much more enticing than a small dilapidated dwelling. Life insurance supposedly insures the value of your life but, ironically, is in effect ‘insurance for when you are dead’. If a soldier is hit by incontinent ordinance (a kind of friendly fire) s/he may suffer a ballistically-induced aperture in the subcutaneous environment or worse. If you jump out of a 10th-storey window, you’ll suffer sudden deceleration trauma. The final remark on the hospital chart of a case of negative patient care outcome was “Patient failed to fulfil his wellness potential” (Lutz 1989: 66); it is not reported whether this resulted from therapeutic misadventure. Calling vinyl vegetarian leather may be kind of a joke; not so the Third Reich’s final solution nor . Hopefully, the strange fruit that decorated the cottonwoods in the American south will never be seen again. On a lighter note, whereas simple dieting would involve you in negative expenditure, you might be willing to pay for nutritional avoidance therapy. A engineer sounds more exalted than a garbage collector; a vermin control officer has replaced the ratcatcher. The night watchman has become a night entry supervisor. A preloved object sounds more attractive than a second-hand or used one does; they can be found in an opportunity shop, which specializes in reutilization marketing. One is, at best, comfortably off oneself; other people are wealthy or even filthy rich.

33 It is notable that many euphemisms are circumlocutions; they are comparatively verbose and sometimes obfuscatory politically correct expressions that smack of jargon. For instance, a categorial inaccuracy or terminological inexactitude is ‘a lie’; the person I am wont to refer to by the perpendicular pronoun is ‘I/me’, and little girl’s room is ‘(female) toilet’. Education departments refer to those on the lower end of the ability scale, to low ability subjects and educationally disadvantaged / challenged groups (see Peterson 1986: 54). Perhaps litotes like he’s not unintelligent (an affirmative expressed through negating its contrary) should be included here along with ironic hedges like He’s not very bright meaning ‘he’s as thick as two short planks’. Few such circumlocutions warrant dictionary entries in their own right. Some paraphrase a short expression in a kind of semantic analysis in which the meaning of the taboo term is unpacked and its

Lexis, 7 | 2012 15

components listed: e.g. ratcatcher becomes vermin control officer; pet becomes companion animal; rape becomes criminal sexual assault or a serious offence against a woman; urine becomes excrementitious human kidney fluid; faeces becomes solid waste matter; and pus is viscous matter of a wound. Many language expressions castigated as jargon are paraphrases of this kind.

34 Hyperboles (overstatements) are found in euphemisms like flight to glory meaning ‘ death’, or villa in a premier location by the bay referring to a ‘dilapidated artisan’s cottage, five streets away from the bay’, or Personal Assistant to the Secretary (Special Activities) for ‘cook’, which “illustrates a basic rule of bureaucracies: the longer the , the lower the rank” (Rawson 1981: 11) – presumably to upgrade the lower ranks in at least this one inexpensive respect. Hyperbole is a common euphemistic device in obituaries and epitaphs to assist those left alive in coping with the pain of loss and the fear of dying (see Allan and Burridge 1991; Crespo Fernández 2006a, 2011).

6. Substitutions: replacement terms from within the language or borrowed from another

35 When Grose [1811] uses the monosyllable as a euphemism for cunt, the phrase simply acts as a substitute; cf. the use of bottom for ‘arse/ass’, smalls, scanties, frillies or jocks for ‘ underwear’; casket for ‘coffin’; break a leg instead of ‘Good luck’ in the theatre; the somewhat archaic a bit of the how’s your father for ‘have sex’; the adult services advertised in the yellow pages and are ‘sexual services’. The fields of X-phemism, jargon and slang exhibit huge numbers of substitutions.

36 Other peoples are so much more depraved than one’s own people – or so language usage seems to show. For instance, in 1990 Tucson, Arizona, a shop selling so-called adult [i.e. pornographic] books and videos described itself as a Continental Adult Shop, the European continent being, for the English speaking world of the 19th and 20th centuries, the apocryphal home of depravity. The idiom excuse my French derives from the kind of xenophobic dysphemism found in the languages of all human groups. ‘Why, supposing that universities are organized like businesses, with a clear division between management and labour, whereas in fact they’re collegiate institutions. That’s why the whole business of the cuts has been such a balls-up. Excuse my French, Robyn.’ Robyn waved the apology aside. [Lodge 1989: 344]

37 Among many other examples, English includes Dutch courage, calling someone a Jew ‘stingy’, a Nazi ‘a person who displays amoral, dictatorial characteristics’, and once there was the Spanish pox. But it is the French, long-time enemies of the English, who cop most of the sex-related dysphemism: French pox was an alternative to Spanish pox, French kiss, French letter16 (or as the French call it the capote anglaise ‘English hood’, redingote anglaise ‘English overcoat’ 17), give French, French novels (supposedly pornographic). Borrowings from the French language include the 17th–18th century use of French mot ‘word’ as a euphemism for ‘cunt’; giving rise to mot (also spelled motte) ‘piece of arse, bit of cunt, dysphemistic reference to a woman’, and the more recent masseuse for ‘whore’, lingerie for ‘women’s underclothing’, brassiere (euphemized, perhaps, in the abbreviation bra), po for ‘’ from French pot [po], toilet a euphemism from French toile ‘cloth’, gauche ‘clumsy’ (from the nearly universal

Lexis, 7 | 2012 16

denigration of left-handedness), matériel for ‘armament and ammunition’, sortie for ‘a sallying forth by a military unit’. The motivation for borrowing all of these terms was euphemism, and for most there is a native English alternative. An exception is brassiere where alternatives are usually dysphemistic: tit-covers, breastplates, over-shoulder boulder- holders (compare the Viennese Mirabellenetui ‘plums-case’).

38 In his Dairy (Pepys 1976), kept from January 1, 1660 until May 31, 1669, Samuel Pepys slipped into a mixture of Latin, French, Spanish, Italian and what we might well call pseudo-romance when reliving his sexual exploits. “The garbled foreign phrases he often used for sexual incidents had something to do with concealment perhaps, much more with his pleasure in marking off sexual experiences with special words and so heightening the excitement of reliving them” (Tomalin 2003: 266). Some examples: nulla puella negat ‘the girl refused nothing’18; my mind un peu troublé pour ce que j’ai fait [‘my mind a bit troubled by what I did’] today. But I hope it will be la dernière de toute ma vie [‘the last of my whole life’].19 poner my digito [‘put my finger’] in her thing, which did her much pleasure; but I pray God that ella [‘she’] doth not think that yo [‘I’] did know before – or get the trick of liking it.20 walked (fine weather) to Deptford and there did business and so back again; walked, and pleased with a jolie femme that I saw going and coming in the way, which yo could aver sido contented para aver [‘would have been very contented to have’] stayed with if yo could have ganar acquaintance con ella; but at such times as those I am at a great loss, having not confidence, ni alguno [‘not any’] ready wit.21 Je besa her venter [‘kissed her belly’] and cons [‘vulva’] and saw the poyle [‘pubic hair’] thereof.22 did tocar mi cosa con su mano [‘take my penis in her hand’] through my chemise, but yet so as to hazer me hazer la grande cosa [‘but nonetheless caused me to have an orgasm (literally, great thing)’].23 grand envie envers elle, avec vrai amour et passion [‘strong feelings for her, with true love and passion’] … [but she] would not laisser me faire l’autre [‘let me do the other’] thing, though I did what I pouvais [‘could’] to have got her à me laisser [‘to let me’].24 I did read through L’escholle de Filles [‘The Girls School’]; a lewd book, but what doth me no wrong to read for information sake (but it did hazer my prick para stand all the while, and una vez to decharger [‘come’]); and after I had done it, I burned it, that it might not be among my books to my shame.25 did begin to tocar [‘touch’] the breasts of my maid Jane, which ella did give way to more than usual heretofore, so as I have a desire to try more than I can bring it to.26 I did give her good advice and beso la, ella [‘kissed her, she’] weeping still; and yo did take her, the first time in my life, sobra mi genu and poner mi mano sub her jupes and toca su [‘on my knee and put my hand under her skirt and touched her’] thigh, which did hazer me great pleasure; and so did no more, but besando-la [‘kissing her’], went to my bed.27… [F]irst with my hand tocar la cosa de [‘touched the vagina of’] our Deb in the coach – ella being troubled at it – but yet did give way to it.28 … [Wife Elizabeth found him with Deb] with my main [‘hand’] in her cunny.29

39 Pepys’s wife Elizabeth suffered from Bartholin’s abscess or cyst on her vulva (Tomalin 2003: 399 n.15); though treatable today with antibiotics, it was untreatable in the 17th century and recurred throughout her lifetime. He used a variety of euphemisms. my wife not very well of her old pain in the lip of her chose, which she had when we were first married.30 we fear that it is my matter that I give her that causes it, it never coming but after my having been with her.’31

Lexis, 7 | 2012 17

40 The Diary opens with a reference to the couple’s distress at Elizabeth not being pregnant: My wife, after the absence of her terms for seven weeks, gave me hopes of her being with child, but on the last day of the year she hath them again.32

41 Elizabeth’s often difficult menstrual cycles (“she was in great pain of those”33) are “a sad repeated message tolling through the years of the Diary under many different names, her menses, her months, her being unwell, ses mois, ceux-la, moys, mois – no doubt her own usage was French.”34

42 C.S. Lewis, author and Christian apologist, said that to speak of the organs of sex, micturition and defecation and associated matters “you have to resort to the language of the nursery, the gutter, or the medical textbook.”35 By the Middle Class Politeness Criterion of Allan and Burridge [2006: 33], the language of “the gutter” is dysphemistic. Between different generations the language of “the nursery” is euphemistic (e.g. a Mandarin speaking mother may refer to a child’s penis as xiaoji or jiji ‘little chicken’, an Anglo-Jewish mother will refer to a child’s backside as his or her tushy). The language of “the medical textbook” is deliberately non-titillating; it is primarily based on Latin (expectorate, menstruate, penis, urinate) and less frequently Ancient Greek (diarrhoea, dysmenorrhoea). The history of such words may be chequered: Cicero remarked that Latin penis ‘tail’ was in his day an obscenity though it was once a euphemism for mentula (literally ‘sprig of mint’) – itself presumably a euphemism at an even earlier time.

43 The use of Latin-based synonyms provides Standard English with orthophemisms for bodily effluvia, sex, and the associated acts and bodily organs: examples are the use of perspire instead of sweat, expectorate instead of spit, defecate and faeces instead of shit, copulate instead of fuck, anus instead of arsehole, genitals or genitalia instead of sex organs, vagina instead of cunt, labia instead of lips [of the vulva], and so forth. Until the late 20th century, translations of taboo terms from exotic languages, and descriptions of taboo acts, caused an author to suddenly switch from English to Latin. For instance, Hollis in The Masai: Their Language and Folklore translates the story of the demon Konyek: at one point in the story Konyek sits beneath a tree in which a frightened woman is hiding, causing her to tremble so much that in the Maasai story she neisirisir ngulak, which Hollis 1905: 137 translates as ‘Incipit mingere guttatim.’ It would be more aptly rendered for today’s English readership as ‘it made her piss (or, euphemistically, wet) herself.’ His translation of the very brief Maasai tale ‘L omon le- ‘ngai o en-gop is as follows: The story of the sky and the earth Haec verba dicere volunt. Ut maritus supra feminam in coitione iacet, sic coelum supra terram. Ubi lucet sol et cadit imber, terra calorem recipit et humorem: non aliter femina hominis semine fruitur. [Hollis 1905: 279]

44 The Latin reads: ‘They say that just as a husband lies on top of his wife in coition, so does the sky above the earth. When the sun shines and the rain falls, the earth receives heat and moisture: in the same way a woman is fertilized by a man.’

45 In Lewis and Short’s A Latin Dictionary (1975) the meaning for cunire is given in Latin as “est stercus facere” ‘have a shit’ instead of English defecate. On such occasions Latin was euphemistically used because of the author’s prudery in not wishing to use everyday

Lexis, 7 | 2012 18

English terms, but with the added rationalization that the Latin text would be uninterpretable to the uneducated – and therefore to the young and innocent, and to many women (who were not supposed to hear, and certainly not to speak of, such things). The antithetical strategy is to use colloquial rather than more formal terms, e.g. period for ‘menstrual cycle’.

46 Using words borrowed from other languages to function as euphemisms is characteristic of many languages.

7. Appearance based metaphors for tabooed body parts and functions

[Y]our daughter and the Moor are now making the beast with two backs. [Shakespeare Othello I.i.114]

47 This quote from Othello describes what is also referred to as tupping, covering, mounting, riding, coupling, humping, folk-dancing, doggy-dancing, horizontal dancing, horizontal jogging, jigjogging, uptails all, belly slapping, roll (in the hay) as well as many terms of attack and terms for penetration.

48 The anus (anus is Latin for ‘ring’) is referred to as ring, hole, brown-eye, date, arsehole, shithole, blurter. A rim job or rimming is anilingus. To tell someone get your finger out is close to euphemistic dysphemism with its implication that the finger is in some unmentionable human orifice.

49 What Australians call the bush dunny is more figuratively called the long drop because there is indeed a long drop from seat to – one comparable with the drop from a garderobe in a medieval castle or a Jacobean manor house (in Britain).

50 A woman’s breasts (but not the less salient man’s) are variously called knockers, bouncers, bulbs, balloons, bazoom(b)as (a remodelling of bosoms36), globes, headlights, melons, montezumas (remodelled blend of mound and bosom), mounds, molehills; a pair, a set; lungs. Perhaps the term norts is based on noughts capturing the outline of breasts such as depicted in rough two-dimensional sketches. Australian norks is perhaps partly derived from norts by deliberate remodelling or mishearing, but more likely from the trade name Norco Cooperative Ltd: it was a New South Wales butter company whose advertisements once featured a cow with an exceptionally large udder. Jugs has a similar associations with a milk container. Well, about five nights ago he caught me when I was drunk and horny and I ended up showing him how the cow ate the cabbage [how to have oral sex]. [Burroughs 1985: 34]

51 Both cauliflower and cabbage are euphemisms for genitalia. The flaccid penis is a tail (the term penis is Latin for ‘tail’), a tassel, bauble, putz (this word is much less dysphemistic in English than in Yiddish; it derives from the verb putsn ‘adorn’). It is a dangle, worm, schlong, tummy / hairy banana (cf. Bahasa Malaysia pisang ‘banana’, said to be the prevalent euphemism used among women), noodle, dill, gherkin, wally, wire, wiener and other terms for sausages (little boys sport saveloys). One delightful metaphor is the one eyed trouser snake. Cock – which, in this sense, has multiple sources – comes in part from the ‘tap, faucet’ sense of cock (still present in stopcock and ) (see Allan and Burridge [1991: 105ff]); doodle derives from cock via fore and end-clipped cockadoodledoo but also perhaps from doodle as adornment. The bird metaphor sanctions pecker. It is

Lexis, 7 | 2012 19

found in Catullus (85–54 BCE) Passer, deliciae meae puellae ‘sparrow, my girl’s darling’ (Carmina II, Catullus 1969) and throughout the centuries since. Used literally, cock is the generic term for a ‘male bird’; however, its salient literal meaning is ‘the male of gallus domesticus’; and this cock, by repute, rules the roost – whence rooster. This used to be what a man was expected to do (a view which probably had some effect on the use of Cock as a euphemistic remodelling of God in 15 th–17th century English). Taking this perspective, for a man to be cock of the walk demonstrates the very essence of manhood. From a different point of view, the manifestation of maleness is having a penis. From the Middle Ages until at least the 17th century, the flesh and blood of a cock was believed to be a strong therapeutic and restorative agent and was recommended in medical texts and recipes. Thirdly, there is the folk myth that men often find themselves sexually aroused at cock-crow (hence the wake-up call Wakey, wakey, hands off snakey), whereas their womenfolk are more readily sexually aroused in the evening. Because the penis rises with the cock (rooster), an association is established between the two. Fourthly, the rooster is a randy creature which struts around with a neck that moves not unlike an erect penis on a walking man, whence one source for the idiom keep your pecker up. Pecker is a frequent euphemism for ‘penis’. A pecker was also a narrow hoe used for digging holes when seeding; perhaps it got the name from the birdlike action involved in its use, and the association with seed. Certainly, peckers, seed, and birds form a natural set which intersects with another natural set whose members are peckers, penises, seed, and holes. Beak is one of the many synonyms for ‘penis’ (Farmer and Henley 1890-1904). The similarity of the profiled penis-with- testicles to the outline of a bird gives rise to an image found in many languages, cf. the Bahasa Malaysia and Bahasa Indonesia euphemism burung ‘bird’ (used particularly by women); Italian uccello ‘bird’ and passerotto ‘sparrow’, Latin passer ‘sparrow’; and the German verb vögeln ‘fuck’ is apparently based on Vogel ‘bird’ (Barolsky 1978; Jongh 1968/9). The guy who said he was in prison “not for robbing a wagon but for wagging his robin” was immediately understood.37 One of the appearance-based terms for the female pudendum is bird’s nest. The penis is the bird to enter this nest. Mark Twain wrote the following imaginary conversation in mock Elizabethan English between Queen Elizabeth I, Lady Helen (aged 15), Lady Alice (aged 70) and Francis Beaumont (16):

Please your highness grace, mine old nurse hath told me there are more ways of serving Lady God than by locking the thighs together; yet am I willing to serve him yt way too, sith Helen your highness grace hath set ye ensample.

Ye God’s wowndes, a good answer childe. Queene

Lady Mayhap ‘twill weaken when ye hair sprouts below ye navel. Alice

Lady Nay, it sprouted two yeres syne. I can scarce more than cover it with my hand now. Helen

Lexis, 7 | 2012 20

Hear ye that, my little Beaumont? Have ye not a little birde about ye that stirs at hearing Ye tell of so sweete a neste? Queene [Clemens 1968: 21f]

52 The ambiguity of cock in English is found elsewhere in Indo-European. Latin gallus had a meaning ‘penis’ from classical times, through Vulgar Latin, and this meaning was maintained in Italian and Spanish. However, Latin and its daughters do not generally associate gallus with taps. French coq has many sexual associations: coquille (‘shell, ornament in the shape of a bird’s beak, vagina’), coqueter (‘copulate with a girl’), coquer (Lyon dialect) ‘kiss or embrace as the cock does hens’, coquelier (‘run after young girls’), coquine (‘prostitute, male homosexual’), coquard (‘ridiculous old beau’), coquardeau (‘male flirt’), and coqueluche (‘ladies man’) (Baird 1981). There are also German Hahn which means or has meant all of ‘rooster, penis, spout / tap’; and Swedish kuk and Danish kok meaning both ‘rooster, penis’, but not ‘tap’. And finally there is the early 15th century English poem ‘I haue a gentil cook’ which is contemporaneous with or slightly earlier than 1481, the earliest recorded use of cock in the sense ‘tap’. I haue a gentil cook, crowyt me the day; He doth me rysen erly my matyins for to say. I haue a gentil cook, comyn he is of gret; His comb is of reed corel, his tayil is of get. His leggis ben of asour so gentil and so smale, His sporis arn of syluer qwyt into the wortewale. His eynyn arn of cristal lokyn al in aumbyr, And euery nyht he perchit hym in myn ladyis chaumbyr. [Silverstein 1971]

53 This delightful lyric can, of course, be interpreted quite literally as a poem about a pet rooster; but there is no doubt that it allows for a lewd interpretation, too. A very loose rendition is: ‘[1] I have a fine cock that wakes me early every morning. [2] He comes of good stock. His tip is coral red and his root is buried in black hair. [3] He has fine blue veins running up the side of him, like legs. When erect, he’s milky white underneath where he joins my scrotum. [4] His eye discharges spunk the colour of crystal, but more often amber-coloured piss. And every night he enters my lady’s quim.’

54 This gross rendition destroys the subtlety, wit, and beauty of the original. The interpretation of stanzas [3] and [4] is admittedly far-fetched, but justified as follows. This bawdy poem cloaks its bawdiness behind a source domain: the description of a rooster. The lyric is completely consistent with this description, and like other bawdy puns it relies on one or two salient aspects of the source domain to evoke the target domain, in this case a penis. The process is the construction of two parallel images: the image of a rooster and of a penis with the attributes of the rooster transferred to it when consistent. All understanding is a constructive process on the part of an audience; and with puns and metaphors, it is doubly constructive. Two people hearing the same literal statement may well put different constructions upon it (that phrase is telling!); two people interpreting the same metaphor have far more scope to create different constructions. When interpreting a poem like this one, the two different constructions can both be right.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 21

55 The poem ‘I haue a gentil cook’ offers very strong circumstantial evidence that, in English, cock ‘penis’ is at least as old as cock ‘tap’. Given that cock in the ‘tap’ sense was likely to have been written down soon after it became current, whereas the taboo sense was probably current long, long before it got written down, the taboo sense is very possibly older and part of the Indo-European heritage of English. Ashley Montagu writes: God damn, that favorite expression of the Englishman, though it is known to have been in common use at the beginning of the sixteenth century [for which Montagu has shown conclusive evidence] is not recorded in an English work until the end of that century. This clearly shows how much older are many of the oaths with which we have dealt and shall have to deal than the date of their first written or printed appearance. [Montagu 1968: 124]

56 There can be no doubt that taboo words are regularly much older than their first recorded use.

57 Whatever the historical truth, the reason that Americans and many Australians use rooster for ‘gallus domesticus’ where the British still use cock is exactly because speakers readily correlate cock ‘bird’ and cock ‘penis’ today. Non-taboo homonyms are often abandoned in this way.

58 There are the bell-clapper metaphors for the penis: ding, dink, dong, donger (as in the Australian proverb Dead as a dead dingo’s donger). There are probably two sources for the bell-clapper metaphor. First, the vagina is seen as a bell, activated by the penis-clapper. The clitoris is sometimes called a bell at the entrance to the house of love (it activates the owner); yet this love button looks more like a bell-clapper. Second, the silhouette of a man’s tackle (what Americans might call his basket) is not unlike that of a bell, and the ungirded (flaccid) penis bouncing against the scrotum of a walking or running man is visually similar to the bell-clapper at work (even if it is external rather than internal). The basically onomatopoeic expression tinkle ‘urinate’ may be reinforced by the bell- clapper metaphor.

59 The erect penis is likened to a weapon: weapon, sword, (vagina is Latin for ‘sheath, scabbard’), pistol, gun, rod, lance, bill, pike, dart, chopper, prick.38 The very common prick in the sense ‘penis’ is arguably a ‘literal’ sense rather than a nonliteral one. The verb prick names the effect of a certain kind of event in which a sharp object penetrates a membrane; with little stretching of the imagination that describes the effect of inserting the penis into the vagina: intromission is an act in which the penis is the instrument of pricking, i.e. a prick, which makes this noun deverbal. According to the OED, the noun and verb have co-existed since the earliest records in English. In addition to its current meaning, the verb prick has meant ‘to spur or urge a horse on’ (OED 9–12) which links up with the copulation-as-riding metaphor, with the man as rider; ‘to thrust a stick (or pointed object) into something’ (OED 25) which links up with the metaphor of the man as tailor stitching the woman – the man as tailor turns up in many bawdy folk songs, and in Grose 1811; and prick up still means ‘to rise or stand erect with the point directed upward’ (OED 28). It is hardly surprising, then, that the noun prick was used variously for (a) a thorn, a sting, and figuratively as a vexation or torment (OED 12); this could be partly responsible for some interpretations nonliteral prick; (b) a dagger or pointed sword (OED 15) links with the penis as weapon metaphor; (c) the upright pole of a tent (1497, OED 16); (d) it has long been a term for the penis. Although the earliest record for prick ‘penis’ in the OED is 1592, there is the record of it being

Lexis, 7 | 2012 22

used as a term for a lover in 1540 (OED 17b), which suggests at least a contemporary sense ‘penis’, too. In all probability, prick was used much earlier in this sense.

60 Even if prick ‘penis’ was originally nonliteral, with the passing of time it has established for itself a separate identity. The original motivation for many other words is nonliteral too; yet they are now taken be literal: for example, the noun crane ‘lifting device’ was based on its visible likeness to the bird; the pupil (of the eye) was, before being adopted from Latin, a metaphorical ‘child of the eye’, cf. school pupil; now both senses are taken to be literal. One difference between prick ‘penis’ and the words crane and pupil is that prick seems closer to its nonliteral origin than crane and pupil to theirs.

61 Variants on the prick image are needle, pin, thistle, hook, horn, bugle (originally made from the horn of an ox), pencil, and pen. These give rise to the metaphor of the tailor as the male partner and stitching for ‘copulating’ in numerous folk songs; and the doctor giving his lover a shot with his needle in many blues songs. Other metaphors are machine, instrument, tool, hammer, poker, pipe, knob, pole, shaft, staff, stand, oar, bone(r), hard, stiff and [get] wood. There is also the once very common yard: Is this male fantasy or a variant of hard?

62 Bollocks or ballocks (the term invariably used by John Wilmot, 2 nd Earl of Rochester, 1647–80)39 derives from ‘little balls’, cf. butt ⇒ buttocks, bull ⇒ bullock. A link between bollock and bullock (Clemens 1968: 23) is feasible, given the long European tradition of bull-worship in which a bull’s testicles figured as a symbol of virility – but there is no textual evidence. Metaphors include: balls, billiards, nuts, stones, rocks, marbles, pills, etc. Goolies probably derives from Hindustani goli ‘pebble, ball, bullet’ (McDonald 1988). The old established cods (whence codpiece) is from codd ‘bag’. Time for part of The Trooper watering his Nagg, an early 18th century song which is another example of artistic euphemism, one that exploits appearance based metaphors. Quoth she what is this so stiff and warm, Sing trolly, lolly, lolly, lo; ‘Tis Ball my Nag he will do you no harm, Ho, ho, won’t he so, won’t he so, won’t he so. But what is this hangs under his Chin, Sing trolly, etc. ‘Tis the Bag he puts his Provender in, Ho, ho, it is so, etc. Quoth he what is this? Quoth she ‘tis a Well Sing trolly, etc. Where Ball your Nag may drink his fill, Ho, ho, may he so, etc. But what if my Nag should chance to slip in Sing trolly, etc. Then catch hold of the Grass that grows on the brim Ho, ho, must I so, etc. But what if the Grass should chance to fail, Sing trolly, etc. Shove him in by the , pull him out by the Tail, Ho, ho, must I so, etc. [D’Urfey 1791 Vol. 5: 13f]

63 The vulva is commonly referred to, wrongly, as vagina; the word derives from Latin vulva or volva ‘wrapper, uterus’. The three organs (vulva, vagina, uterus) were often not separately labelled – neither in English nor in many other languages, presumably because of their common generative function. There is a close link between vulva and

Lexis, 7 | 2012 23

valve from Latin valva ‘(leaf of) a folding door’ and cover of the vagina of certain flowers, and hence applicable to human anatomy. But this is folk etymology. It was once supposed that exposing the vulva can defeat evil (see Allan and Burridge 2006: 7). This may be the point of such 5th century BCE Baubo figurines as that in Figure 140 as well as the Sheela-n-Gig images found in medieval castles and churches displaying the vulva (Allan and Burridge 2006: 8). There is probably a link (though in which direction?) with the term 14th–20th century gig ‘loose woman’ and hence ‘cunt’ for much of that period.

Figure 1. Baubo figurine

64 Queen Elizabeth I was probably unaware of these ancient beliefs in the power of the displayed vulva. It is, however, in keeping with her tough-minded instinct for survival that she (perhaps only apocryphally) chided her troublesome male courtiers “If I had been born crested not cloven, your Lordships would not treat me so” (Rycroft 1979: 75). The vulva is seen as a cleft, furrow, valley. It is also described as a boat (the clitoris is the man in the boat), which refers to the configuration, but also has associations with water (and fish). Twat is possibly associated with two – twa because of the silhouette of the labia majora; the origin of the final excrescent -t (it is a long-shot to link it to dyad) is more mysterious than the final –t of cunt by which it was perhaps influenced. 41 The terms triangle, Y, pie probably take in the pubic mound as well. There are several ancient carvings that justify the persistence of this image; Figure 2 is a 15,000 year old Magdalenian sculpture from the Frise Bourdois at Angles-sur-Anglin, France.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 24

Figure 2. A woman’s pubic triangle

EVANS What is the focative case, William?

PAGE O – vocativo, O.

EVANS Remember, William: focative is caret.

QUICKLY And that’s a good root.

‘Oman, forbear. EVANS [Shakespeare Merry Wives IV.i.42–7]

65 “Focative” is intended to evoke firk or fuck; case and O are euphemisms for ‘vagina’ and ‘vulva’ respectively. A caret is wedge-shaped, a shape traditionally associated with a woman’s pubic triangle, and there is also a play here on carrot ‘penis’. It has been said “The great cleft is called […] the cunnus, because it looks like the impress of a wedge (cuneus)” (Graaf 1672 quoted in Blackledge 2003: 87). This is folk-etymology. “[T]hat’s a good root” has almost the same meaning in modern Australian slang that Shakespeare alludes to here. “‘Oman” is simply a play on the vocative “O man” – like Alice’s ‘O mouse’ in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.42 The vulva itself is also a ring, circle, do(ugh)nut, dial, wheel. Shortly after Zsa Zsa Gabor was convicted for slapping a cop who had arrested her for a traffic violation, the following caption appeared under a still photo from a commercial she was filming: ZSA ZSA’S GAME: The flamboyant Hungarian actress re-enacts her cop encounter in her new ‘Wheel of Fortune’ commercial for New York’s WCBS-TV. In one version, Gabor coos, ‘... take away my driver’s license. But darling, don’t touch my wheel.’ [USA Today Monday, October 23, 1989: 2D]

66 The vulva is also known as the slit43, slot, crack (hence cracksman for ‘penis’, and the dysphemistic bit of crackling for ‘woman’), breach, gash, (everlasting) wound (the link with menstrual blood). It is a gate, hole, tunnel, den, box, (genitive44) case, hat (see below p.22).

Lexis, 7 | 2012 25

67 Cunny ‘cunt’, spelled variously and retained in modern cunnilingus, derives from Latin cunnus (probably as a euphemism); there may also have been some input from French con also derived from Latin cunnus and used for the bawdy-part from (at least) the 14th century (cf. Boch and Wartburg 1975; Picoche 1979), and perhaps from Spanish coño, too. Coney /kʌni/ was the word for ‘rabbit’ until the late 19th century, when it dropped out of use because of the taboo homonym. In Latin, ‘rabbit’ is cuniculus, and its burrow cuniculum; end-clip either and you are left with cuni[e] (spelled variously as coney, cony, conny, conye, conie, connie, conni, cuny, cunny, cunnie45). One of the many euphemisms for ‘cunt’ was cunny-burrow, hence the picturesque term for a penis as the cunny-burrow ferret ( Farmer and Henley 1890-1904). There is a long-time link between rabbits, bunnies, and cunts. Rabbit is usually a term of abuse when ascribed to a woman (cf. Mitford 1979: 347). Playboy’s “bunnies” and “Bunny Club” followed a long tradition going back beyond 18th century London’s “Cunny House” (Leach 1964: 50). Though the evidence is unclear, it may well be that bunny (which appeared in the late 17th century) was a euphemistic remodelling of cunny: it was a term for rabbits, rabbit tails, bony lumps on animals (reminiscent of the mons veneris) as well as an affectionate name for a woman. Bunny was also a dialect term for ‘an opening or ravine in a cliff’ – which is suggestive. If the initial ‘b’ was indeed some sort of euphemistic remodelling device in the case of bunny, consider also not the baseball term, but the nautical term bunt ‘a cavity, pouch or bagging part of a sail or net; the funnel of an eel-’: is that also remodelled? Along with talk of women, rabbits were one of the few land animals that used to be tabooed by sea fishermen. Bun is listed by Grose [1811] as “A common name for a rabbit, also for the monosyllable” and it is still in use.46 Bun was also the name for the tail of a hare (associations: hare~hair~pubis; tail~cunt) and for a squirrel: squirrel was one term for a prostitute; bunter was another. There is even a link between rabbits, hares and cats (pussies): Grose notes that ma(u)lkin or mawkin is a ‘cat or awkward woman’ and in Scotland ‘a hare’; Baker47 lists ‘rabbit’ as one meaning for pussy in Australian, though I know of no Australian who has heard this usage; the OED tells us puss meant, inter alia, ‘hare’. There is evidently a set of connexions between cunnies and bunnies and hares and pussies.

68 In Australia at least, a sexually active teenage girl was and is a mole. This is probably a pronunciation-based spelling for the homophonous moll but also partly sourced in the furry animal associated with burrows.

69 Though it may be excrescent, the final –t of cunt is probably inherited from Germanic: Old Norse kunta and Middle Low German kunte. Old Dutch kunte became Middle Dutch cunte, although in Modern Dutch it is kutt. In it was variously kunte, cunte, counte, count, cunt(t). The occasional homonymy with the Romance title Count may explain why the latter was dropped in favour of Saxon Earl.48

70 There may be a pre-historical association between cunny / cunt and cu / ku ‘cow’ from Old to Middle English (plural cy / kyn / kine, among other spellings) – long an unflattering term for a woman. In some English dialects, between the 13th and the late 19th century, this body part term was homophonous with the adjective quaint – which, from the 13th–16th centuries was also spelled queynte (among other ways), for instance by Chaucer in line 3276 of The Miller’s Tale quoted in Chapter 2 and in the Prologue of the Wyves Tale of Bathe. For certeyn, olde dotard, by youre leve, Ye shul have queynte right ynough at eve.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 26

(331f) What eyeleth yow to grucche thus and grone? Is it for ye wolde have my queynte alone? (443f)

71 Later the Wife uses a euphemism when recounting a dalliance with a man half her age: I hadde the prente of seinte Venus seel. As help me God, I was a lusty oon, And faire and riche, and yong, and wel bigon [‘dressed’], And trewely, as myne housbondes [she is on her fifth at this point] tolde me, I hadde the beste quonyam [‘whatsit’] myghte be. (604–8)

72 Florio 1611 in his Italian-English Dictionarie used the spelling we use today: “Fíca, ... Also used for a woman’s quaint.” In those far off days, the adjective quaint / queynte meant much the same as it does today but, if anything, it was more laudatory; Chaucer again: We wommen han, if that I shal nat lye, In this matere a queynte fantasye; Wayte! what thyng we may nat lightly have Ther-after wol we crie al day and crave. [Prologue of the Wyves Tale of Bathe 515–8]

73 If there is a phonological link between cunt and quaint, it may lie with labialized onset to Old English cwiðe ‘womb’, cwene, Middle English que(y)ne, Modern English quean(e) a dysphemistic term for a ‘woman’ that came to mean ‘whore’. Irish cuinte and French coin / cointe (‘cunt’) also have labialized onsets; as does current English quim. This is partly sourced in queme / quim ‘something pleasurable, snug, intimate’; and partly perhaps in Welsh cwm ‘cleft, valley’ although this is pronounced /kuːm/. The Old English counterpart is cumb, which occurs in place names like Eastcomb and Cumbria, and is cognate with Norman French combe.

74 Well, bottle and pond all mix configuration with function and/or effluvia in their imagery. The vulva is seen as a mouth, with lips and tongue (clitoris) – hence, nether-lips. Like the mouth it salivates and drinks, and can flash an upright grin. Such metaphors, like others for tabooed body parts, liken it to a non-taboo part. Terms like bite, snatch, vice / vise, snapper, clam and oyster extend the metaphor by suggesting a mouth ready to snap up a penis; the myth of vagina dentata – the vagina with teeth that may mutilate a man – is found Africa, America, , and India. Vice / vise ‘tool for gripping’ is doubtless immorally inspired, too. Note that snapper, clam and oyster are also fishy – a fishy odour being commonly attributed to this organ; we therefore find terms like fish(tail) and ling for ‘vagina’ (and hook for ‘penis’); mermaid was a euphemism for ‘whore’. The plant Chenopodium vulvaria, also known as stinking goosefoot “readily told by its repulsive smell of decaying fish” (Fitter 1971). The noun and verb fishfinger denote ‘digital stimulation of a woman’; and fishing or angling ‘digital stimulation of the vagina; copulation’, and fishbreath arises from ‘oral sex’ (Allen 1987). Grose [1811] lists the wonderful metaphor the miraculous pitcher, that holds water with the mouth downwards: it seems unlikely that this lengthy example of verbal play was widely used, and its flippancy is reminiscent of euphemisms like kick the bucket for ‘die’ with their real or pretended disdain for a taboo.

MARGARET To have no man come over me! why, shall I always keep below stairs?

Lexis, 7 | 2012 27

BENEDICK Thy wit is as quick as the greyhound’s mouth, – it catches.

MARGARET And yours as blunt as the fencer’s foils, which hit, but hurt not.

A most manly wit, Margaret; it will not hurt a woman: and so, I pray thee, call Beatrice: I BENEDICK give thee the bucklers.

MARGARET Give us the swords; we have bucklers of our own.

If you use them, Margaret, you must put in pikes with a vice; and they are dangerous BENEDICK weapons for maids.

Well, I will call Beatrice to you, who I think hath legs. MARGARET [Shakespeare Much Ado V.ii.9ff]

75 The images here include: (a) A man over a woman; (b) the woman keeping her private parts hidden (“below stairs”); (c) a woman as mouth; (d) a man’s foil which scores a hit but does not hurt; (e) a buckler is a small shield with a boss to ward off thrusts from daggers, swords, and pikes; a maid’s buckler is the boss of her mons veneris (‘mound of Venus’, note the metaphor in this term, described in a dictionary of 1693 as ‘the upper part of a Womans Secrets, something higher than the rest’); (f) a woman’s vagina between her open legs forms a vice (vise) in which to put the pike; (g) if swords and pikes are penises they are indeed dangerous to maidenhead.

76 To have someone by the short and curlies makes implicit reference to pubic hair; it is a euphemistic and colloquial counterpart to the dysphemistic have someone by the balls. Pubic hair on the mons veneris, the grass on fanny’s hill, is both visually and tactually salient, not to mention erotic; not for nothing was pubic hair airbrushed out of soft- porn photographs until the 1960s. Many women remove its periphery (trim the borders) so that it does not violate taboo by poking out of skimpy briefs, but also to look more little-girl-like. Vag is end-clipped from vagina gives rise to vajay-jay whose reduplicated suffix is an affectionate . Actress Jennifer Love Hewitt says49 “Women should vajazzle their vajay-jays” in other words dress up a Brazilian wax (which removes all or virtually all pubic hair) with crystals applied to the pubis. A first century graffito from Pompeii notes the fact: FUTUITUR CUNNUS [PIL]OSSUS MULTO MELIUS [QU]AM GLABER ‘a hairy cunt is much better to fuck than a hairless one’(see Read 1977: 22). One of the appearance-based terms for the female pudendum is bird’s nest. The penis is the bird to enter this nest – as we saw in the earlier quote from Mark Twain’s imaginary conversation between Queen Elizabeth I, Lady Helen, Lady Alice, and Francis Beaumont (Clemens 1968: 21f). In contrast to many men, on most women pubic hair is the only substantial patch of body hair. When you’re standing up, all you see from the front is hair. Between your legs there are two soft, cushiony things, also covered with hair, which press together when you’re standing, so you can’t see what’s inside. [Anne M Frank, aged 15, March 24, 1944; quoted in Blackledge 2003: 55; cf. Frank 1997]

77 Its salience is clearly demonstrated in art, for instance in René Magritte’s abstract painting ‘Trois femmes’ of 1922, his ‘La ruse symmetrique’ of 1928, Stella Bowen’s ‘Reclining nude’ of 1928, or the picture below. It is less picturesquely recognized in the following graffito from a woman’s toilet wall in Melbourne in 1988.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 28

Figure 3. Obviously female

The cunt is a mythical creature All matted and covered with hair It looks like the face of my teacher And smells like the arse of a bear.

78 The earliest uses of merkin seem to refer to the female pudendum as well as a cunt rug or intimate wig that may also sport a false vagina. The significance of pubic hair on the mons veneris accounts for the several furry animal terms cunny, bun[ny], beaver, pussy and, of course, hare (homophonous with hair). The picture Garp looked at in the dream was considered among the highest in the rankings of pornographic pictures. Among pictures of naked women, there were names for how much you could see. If you could see the pubic hair, but not the sex parts, that was called a bush shot – or just a bush. If you could see the sex parts, which were sometimes partially hidden by the hair, that was a beaver; a beaver was better than just a bush; a beaver was the whole thing: the hair and the parts. If the parts were open, that was called a split beaver. And if the whole thing glistened, that was the best of all, in the world of pornography: that was a wet, split beaver. The wetness implied that the woman was not only naked and exposed and open, but she was ready. [Irving 1979: 318. Emphasis in original]

79 In addition, a beaver was a once a kind of hat; so called because it was made from felted beaver fur. A hat is a concave object into which a man puts his head; and the glans penis (note the Latin) is often referred to as its head. Hence Grose’s “HAT. Old hat; a woman’s privities: because frequently felt.” In medieval Europe, beaver oil was regarded as an aphrodisiac.

80 There are also: the hairy chequebook (there are other many figures which treat genitalia – but especially female genitalia – as a source or store of wealth: (family) treasure, treasury, crown jewels – usually reserved for males, jewel, money, moneybox); beard, bearded clam, hair pie, hairyfordshire (play on the English county name Herefordshire), bird’s nest, cuckoo’s nest, cunt curtain, cunt down, mossy mound, park, grass (‘On her belly there is a sign, Keep off the grass, the hole is mine.’), ling (‘heather’ not the fish), furry mound, muff (men wore muffs in times past, as women still do; muffs were usually made from fur and hands were put in them; however, one source for this word may be a

Lexis, 7 | 2012 29

remodelling of mouth – which is part of the food-eating metaphor for sex), velvet, thatch, thicket, bush, brush, fuzz, pelt, pubes, etc. One term for a woman is a furburger (the eating metaphor again). Not surprisingly, one term for penis is hairsplitter and copulation is a poke in the whiskers.

81 The link between woman and cats extends way back. The Egyptian goddess Bastet had a cat’s head on a woman’s body and thousands of cats were mummified, at least partly in her honour. Grose [1811] lists in sequence “TIB. A young lass. TIBBY. A cat.” Japanese brothels are marked by the sign of a cat. French terms for ‘vagina’ are le chat ‘the cat’ and more especially la chatte ‘the female cat’ – a term politely avoided in modern French. In Italy the words for female cat, chatte and gatta also mean ‘vagina’. puss (pʊs), n.1 Also 6–7 pus, pusse. [A word common to several Teutonic langs., usually as a call-name for the cat (rarely becoming as in Eng. a synonym of ‘cat’): cf. Du. poes, LG. puus, puus-katte, puus-man, Sw. dial. pus, katte-pus, Norw. puse, puus; also, Lith. puź puiź, Ir. and Gael. pus. Etymology unknown: perh. originally merely a call to attract a cat.] [OED]

82 English pusse is first recorded referring to ‘vulva and/or vagina’ in the 17 th century (though it may well have been in use earlier). We can be certain that pussy in this sense has become established through a network of interacting associations. (a) The salience of pubic hair on the human body leads to the names of several furry animals (beaver, bunny, pussy, ferret, rat) becoming slang terms for the genitalia of women and men. (b) There is the link between rabbits (coneys), hares, and cats. (c) There is the long tradition of likening women to cats (men to dogs, ferrets, rats, cocks). As an endearment, a woman is likened to a puss and a kitten (sex-kitten perhaps); hence kitty. (d) The OED lists pusse and pus used disparagingly of a woman from the early 17 th century. From the 16th century, Kit was a typical for a prostitute and became a term for female genitalia, giving rise to the euphemism kit has lost her key for ‘ menstruate’. (e) A kitty, like a purse, serves as a source or store of money. (f) Purse, burse was a ‘money bag’ (drawn together at the opening) but extended to a ‘natural receptacle in an animal or plant’. Thus Medieval Latin bursa ‘bag, purse’ was used of both scrotum and womb. The opening of a purse resembles a vulva; consequently Japanese isoginchaku ‘sea purse, actinia malacoterem, a kind of sea anemone’, also has the senses ‘round coin purse (which when squeezed opens the slit)’ and ‘vagina’ (Solt 1982: 78); furthermore, purses hold money, and a number of euphemisms for the vagina recognize it as a source or store of wealth. Purse has long been used as a euphemism for female genitalia, e.g. “The whores factors would faine drawe customers to her burse of bawderies” (1617).50 A more recent example is: Garp nodded. The next day he brought a bottle of wine; the hospital was very relaxed about liquor and visitors; perhaps this was one of the luxuries one paid for. ‘Even if I got out,’ Charlotte [the whore] said, ‘what could I do? They cut my purse out.’ She tried to drink some wine, then fell asleep. Garp asked a nurse’s aide to explain what Charlotte meant by her ‘purse’, though he thought he knew. The nurse’s aide was Garp’s age, nineteen or maybe younger, and she blushed and looked away from him when she translated the slang. A purse was a prostitute’s word for her vagina. ‘Thank you,’ Garp said. [Irving 1979: 158f ]

83 The vagina is a purse partly because it is seen as a source or store of wealth; and partly because of the visual resemblance between a slit-top coin purse and the vulva and also

Lexis, 7 | 2012 30

lips: cf. purse the lips. In this context, there is possible influence from Irish pus ‘lips, mouth’; cf. modern English slang puss for ‘face’. (g) The earliest recorded form of pussy in the sense under discussion was in fact puss, and this is a spelling pronunciation for purse in some English dialects. Compare these more or less synonymous doublets: those on the left are colloquial with a short lax vowel where the standard counterpart on the right has a long tense vowel.51 Ass~arse; bass~barse; bin~been; bubby~baby; buss~burse [‘purse’]; bust~burst; crick~creek; critter~creature; cuss~curse; gal~girl; hoss~horse; hussy~housewife; mot~mort [‘young woman’]; sassy~saucy; tit~teat; whids~words; wud~world. It is certain that puss–purse is one of these doublets.52

84 Figure 4 shows the interacting associations I have described falling together to motivate, inform, and confirm the meaning of puss and its endearment variant, pussy. Three semantic processes are found: (a) Metaphorical extension of puss / purse to the human female sex organ; (b) the kind of lexical confusion found in folk etymology: of puss~purse with puss ‘cat’ on the basis of semantic networks that associate women with cats, and furry animals with genitalia (Figure 4); (c) this has led to the semantic transfer of modern pussy to these networks and a severance of its historical relation to purse.

Figure 4. The puss(y) network of diachronic semantic relations

85 In this section we have seen that (1) the X-phemisms created to talk about taboo topics give rise to language change through figures and metaphors based on physical appearance, function, and association; (2) metaphorical extension and lexical confusion contribute new meanings to old forms; (3) a new vocabulary item may have multiple sources.

8. Colour based metaphors for X-phemisms

86 Allan 2009 investigated the connotations of English colour terms with particular attention to figurative uses of black, white, grey, brown, yellow, red, green, blue and a few miscellaneous colours. The connotations are judged on the basis of whether the phrases in which the colour terms occur are typically orthophemistic, euphemistic, or dysphemistic. All the colours surveyed have some, often many, orthophemistic connotations; euphemistic connotations of colours are rare; but dysphemism is common. Black is used orthophemistically but not euphemistically; it has dysphemistic connotations more often than other colours do. It is often connected to darkness (the night), death, decay, and evil deeds. Black has often been used dysphemistically of

Lexis, 7 | 2012 31

human skin colour though, like all racial dysphemisms and many other insults, it can be reclaimed as a badge of honour, and it can also be orthophemistic. White is in contrast to black and, as such, linked to light and purity; it mostly has positive connotations, though it is rarely used euphemistically. Dysphemistic uses depict cowardice and fear. Located on the achromatic scale between black and white, grey is, of course, used for indeterminability and dullness. It gives rise to few figures. The faecal associations of brown lead to several dysphemisms; brown is found in no euphemisms and few orthophemisms in figurative speech. In figurative expressions, yellow is dysphemistically used of cowards and cheap paper, and sometimes of East Asiatic people; but it is orthophemistic and positively used of light-coloured African Americans. The occurrence of red in both positive and negative figurative expressions, links it with blood – life-blood, the blood of the slain, or menstrual blood. The colour green is linked to living vegetation; negative connotations arise when it is the colour of illness or jealousy (perhaps seen as illness). As the colour of the Madonna’s robe, blue is connected with the virtuousness and chastity of a bride. The negative aspects of figurative uses of blue arise from fear, fighting, despondency, and tabooed language and behaviour. It is arguable that the use of blue to speak about these topics is euphemistic and that uses of blue are rarely dysphemistic. Colour terms such as gold, silver, and platinum derive from the names for valuable metals from which they derive their mostly positive connotations. Other colour X-phemisms include the dysphemistic purple prose for language characterized by hyperbole and an overabundance of adjectives. The euphemism be in the pink means “to be in excellent health”; but seeing pink elephants is a playful if somewhat dysphemistic reference to inebriation. Lavender linguistics (about how lesbians, , bisexuals, transgendered persons and queers use language in everyday life, and how language gets used against them by others) is certainly figurative but seems to me more orthophemistic than euphemistic. Products such as paints and lipsticks, sold principally for their colour, could be identified on colour charts by an alphanumeric code, but this doesn’t satisfy customer needs; instead, they are given names, many of which don’t even suggest a particular colour; instead, they are evocative of life style (e.g. for lipsticks Belle, Berry Sexy, Day Dream, Soft Mocha, Strut, and Venus; for paints Nolita, Thomas Tallis, Lewis, Knowing, Highgate, and Sky Painting.

87 All figurative uses of colour terms surveyed were, perhaps predictably, directly or indirectly based upon the visual attributes of the denotatum. Although individuals may experience synesthesia when encountering colour terms, the language resources demonstrate none. My attempt to classify the connotations of English colour terms reveals networks of associations, but no surprises. Presumably the kinds of process that lead to colour terms being used X-phemistically are universal, and it would be interesting to learn the extent to which the particular kinds of X-phemism recur in different languages.

9. Sound based metaphors

If you sprinkle When you tinkle, Kindly wipe the floor. [Notice in a men’s toilet, MASDAR House, Finchampstead, 1989] If you sprinkle when you tinkle,

Lexis, 7 | 2012 32

Please be neat and wipe the seat. [Graffito in a women’s toilet, New York City, 1990]

88 The use of tinkle as a euphemism for ‘urinate’ refers to the sound as the piss flows into water; it dates from after the invention of the water closet. The usually dysphemistic word piss is itself onomatopoeic and dates from time immemorial. It is possible that piddle is partly motivated by onomatopoeia, partly a remodelling of piss, and partly (for males) in imitation of a bird’s beak piddling, that is pecking for food as in the OED quote “sit at table and see a man pidling at his meat, picking and chusing”. It is probable that [have a] slash is onomatopoeic; though when a male urinates he is holding his weapon and if in the open, the line of piss may create a visual line like a slash through the vegetation. Other lavatorial onomatopoeia include the noun fart ‘break wind’, which is mildly dysphemistic, and the childish plop-plop ‘defecate’. There is sound symbolism of a different kind in referring to a lavatory as a thunderbox: this might have been inspired by the noise of toilet flushing and/or the noises made prior.

10. Smell, taste and touch based X-phemisms

89 It is orthophemistic to speak of the sense of smell but to say of someone You smell is dysphemistic; in contrast You smell nice is a compliment (unless sarcastic). Pleasant smells are fragrant and perfumed. There are perfumes for women but fragrances for men and women. Like smell, the word odour has negative connotations; but whereas nice smell is an acceptable collocation, ??nice odour seems unacceptable. A pong and a stink and a stench have the same dysphemistic connotations of a bad smell. Reek has dysphemistic connotations: to say someone reeks of perfume means that the perfume is unpleasantly strong and You reek means the same as You stink. The fact that shit stinks gives rise to it being referred to as poo(h) which is a euphemism or perhaps euphemistic dysphemism. Poo(h) is related to poof, phew, pho(ugh), blowing through the lips (a very long voiceless bilabial fricative, in phonetic script [ɸɸɸ]) and similar onomatopoeic mimes for blowing something away – here the stench of shit. Related is poo(h) ‘an ejaculation expressing impatience, or contemptuous disdain or disregard’; for instance, when Ophelia speaks of Hamlet to Polonius “He hath, my lord, of late made many tenders Of his affection to me” Polonius responds “Affection, pooh! You speak like a green girl” (Shakespeare Hamlet I.iii.98ff ).

90 Sweetie, sweetness, sugar and honey are all terms of endearment because human beings mostly like sweet tastes. As vocatives they are euphemistic alternatives to a name provided that the context is such that recipient can accept the appellation as sincere and appropriate from the mouth of the speaker. Appropriacy is dependent on acceptance of social closeness between the interlocutors at the time of utterance. Under other circumstances these terms become dysphemistic as sarcasm or unwanted over-familiarity. Sour is treated as the opposite of sweet. Although humans do eat and drink sour tasting things like acidic lemons and limes, foods that turn sour have gone bad and this is a dysphemistic attribution. Sour breath is bad breath (halitosis). To describe a person as sour or a sourpuss is certainly dysphemistic because it implies that they are ‘peevish, disagreeable, ill-tempered, of unpleasant character’ given to experiencing sour grapes. Bitter is very similar to sour. Although certain bitter substances are ingested and English pubs sell bitter (a kind of beer which is not in fact very bitter), by and large bitter is at best orthophemistic in describing the taste of wormwood, quinine and the

Lexis, 7 | 2012 33

like, but usually dysphemistic in bitter pill, the bitter end, a bitter wind, bitter words. To describe a person as bitter implies that they are ‘afflicted by ill-feeling, unquenchable hurt or despair, and perhaps desirous of vengeance’. A saucy person is impertinent; but saucy language is hard to distinguish from salty language and even from fruity language – all of which may be found in a spicy novel (which will probably not have a pithy plot).

91 Hot is rarely used dysphemistically. A hot property is one highly regarded and desirable and therefore valuable (whether or not this is real estate or used of a starlet) of which one might exclaim Hot dog! Most figurative uses of hot derive from its literal use as something which generates heat and/or retains applied heat, as in the implied reference to blacksmithing in strike while the iron is hot – because the hot metal is malleable; hence ‘act when conditions are right’. Vigorous activity generates heat, hence the orthophemistic hot rod and hot licks in hot jazz and the euphemisms for sexual passion aroused in have the hots for that girl, she’s hot stuff. Most likely dysphemistic is I have a hot cock for her hot pants. It is possible that the rhyming Australian idiom hot to trot ‘ready and eager to get underway’ is associated with sexual preparedness or more mundanely with the heat of a revved engine. It is usually at least mildly dysphemistic to describe someone as hot blooded ‘easily angered’, hot under the collar, or just plain hot ‘angry’. Because hot things burn, the hot seat was slang for the electric chair; however, the hyperbole to be in the hot seat often has much less fatal consequences in everyday use. To refer to stolen property as hot presumably derives from the risk of being figuratively burned if one is caught with it and prosecuted.

92 To describe someone as warm-hearted or just plain warm (in reference to their character) is complimentary. To be lukewarm about something is to be unenthusiastic about it. Describing a person as cold or cold-hearted ‘void of emotion’ is dysphemistic. Interestingly, to be cool headed is complimentary, as is the current slang (That’s) cool; to be cool towards someone is usually mildly dysphemistic. Chill (out)! seems mildly dysphemistic when it means ‘Calm down!’ but orthophemistic and positive when it means Stay cool.

93 Soft skin may be desirable in a child or a woman, but to describe someone as soft is a mildly dysphemistic, because it means ‘stupid’. Just as dysphemistic is describing someone as soft on drugs or crime. To describe someone as hard ‘unyielding, inflexible’ tends to the dysphemistic; though to be hard-headed is to be ‘resolute, sagacious’ and is a positive evaluation. To describe something as smooth sailing is to say that things went well and were easily accomplished and there are no negative connotations. And although the description smooth operator can be uttered in envy so that the person so described will not necessarily take offence, it has rather dysphemistic connotations. It is certainly dysphemistic to describe someone as a slippery customer or slippery as an eel which ascribe ‘deceit, shiftiness, unreliability’. To be on the slippery slope is to be approaching disaster.

94 Rough is more or less the opposite of smooth. A rough draft is unfinished, not polished. A rough journey and rough time characterize unpleasant events. Rough words are disturbing to the hearer and so have a dysphemistic effect. To describe someone as rough ‘not refined’ is usually dysphemistic, however this is not really the case with someone described as a rough diamond; although it picks up mild dysphemism from the rough this is coerced by diamond which is something tough and of great value. Consequently to describe someone as a rough diamond is complimentary – or at worst a dysphemistic euphemism. However, to cut up rough is an entirely negative assessment.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 34

If it is said of a woman that she likes a bit of rough it insults her choice of partner as being of a lower socio-economic class than she is. What do you mean the unions won’t like it, Jim? Don’t be so wet. [Margaret Thatcher, quoted in the London Observer July 26, 1981 p.3]

95 Thatcher was using wet dysphemistically to mean ‘soppy, ineffectual, lacking resolve.’ Mostly, wet and dry and are orthophemistic. Dry is more often dysphemistic – or at least has more negative connotations – than wet: to be dry mouthed implies fear or thirst; dry eyed tends to be used when tears are expected, so implies hardness of heart; although dry humour is barely negative, it does suggest a lack of strong emotion and somewhat caustic wit; dry facts are unexciting; dry bread lacks the adornment of tasty butter and jam; a dry cow yields no milk; a dry joint makes a bad (electrical) connection through faulty soldering; a dry fuck is either one where no orgasm is achieved (by either party), or the woman is (physically) sexually unreceptive. As Janet says in the Rocky Horror Picture Show, heavy petting leads to seat wetting (from sexual excitement)53; its antithesis leads to the vile simile dry as a nun’s nasty. The dysphemism dried up old crone has nothing to do with sexual arousal but instead with the desiccated look that accompanies old age. Perhaps the only time that dry normally has a more positive spin than wet is where a dry blow is one that does not draw blood, whereas a wet operation is one aimed at killing. New Zealand slang get (someone) wet ‘gain the upper hand over someone’ presumably comes from this bloody sense of wet. The American dysphemism wetback refers to illegal immigrants, originally those who crossed the Rio Grande from Mexico. Finally there is wet behind the ears ‘immature, naïve’; whether this was inspired by a new born infant as it emerges from the birth canal, I do not know.

11. Verbal play

96 X-phemisms, particularly – but not solely – those for the activities of and effluvia from SMD organs often exhibit verbal play. I begin with a few lines from the world’s greatest master of double-meaning, William Shakespeare. Almost the whole of Act II scene iii of Romeo and Juliet is packed with euphemisms whose ostensible meaning would not trouble the prudish Thomas Bowdlers of this world, but whose innuendo would certainly not have been lost upon the Elizabethan or Jacobean audience. There are

Lexis, 7 | 2012 35

three young men talking smuttily, as young men will; then Juliet’s Nurse arrives on the scene looking for Romeo, whom she doesn’t know, and Mercutio jests at her expense.

Why, is not this better now than groaning for love? Now art thou sociable, now art thou MERCUTIO Romeo; now art thou what thou art, by art as well as by nature: for this drivelling love is like a great natural, that runs lolling up and down to hide his bauble in a hole.

BENVOLIO Stop there, stop there.

MERCUTIO Thou desirest me to stop in my tale against the hair?

BENVOLIO Thou wouldst else have made thy tale large.

O, thou art deceived; I would have made it short; for I was come to the whole depth of my MERCUTIO tale; and meant, indeed, to occupy the argument no longer.

ROMEO Here’s goodly gear!

[ENTER NURSE AND HER MAN PETER]

MERCUTIO A sail! a sail! a sail!

BENVOLIO Two. Two. A shirt and a smock.

NURSE Peter!

PETER Anon?

NURSE My fan, Peter.

MERCUTIO Good Peter, to hide her face; for her fan’s the fairer face.

NURSE God ye good morrow, gentlemen.

MERCUTIO God ye good den, fair gentlewoman.

NURSE Is it good den?

MERCUTIO ‘Tis no less. I tell ye; for the bawdy hand of the dial is now upon the prick of noon.

NURSE Out upon you. What a man are you?

[Shakespeare Romeo and Juliet II.iii.90–117]

97 I draw attention to the following phrases and offer the occasional gloss and commentary but leave the rest to the reader. • groaning for love • this drivelling love is like a great natural [either a whore or a simpleton] • hide his bauble [penis] in a hole • my tale [homophonous tail is slang for ‘penis’] against the hair [female pudendum] • have made thy tale large

Lexis, 7 | 2012 36

• I was come to the whole depth of my tale; and meant, indeed, to occupy [copulate with] the argument no longer • goodly gear [genitalia] • A sail! a sail! a sail! [assail (chat up) this woman] • A shirt and a smock [woman (a smock is something one slipped into)] • Anon [perhaps a gratuitous play on a nun ‘a prostitute’] • her fan’s [fanny, female pudendum] the fairer face • God ye good den [fanny, cf. box] • the bawdy hand of the dial [female pudendum and owner thereof] is now upon the prick of noon [when the pointer is upright]

98 It is worth noting that the Nurse does twig what Mercutio is doing, because she says of him after he is gone: “Scurvy knave! I am none of his flirt-gills; I am none of his skains- mates.” A modern equivalent might be “Bastard! I’m no tart; I’m not shagging him.”

99 There are many more examples in Shakespeare’s plays of such artful euphemism. Allan and Burridge 1991: 214–19 analysed in detail Henry IV Pt2, II.iv.22–125. Almost the whole of Much Ado About Nothing III.iv is a study in risqué girl-talk which suggests that well brought up women in Shakespeare’s day were far less coy about exchanging banter on sexual topics than their sisters of the 18th–20th centuries. Twelfth Night has Olivia’s puritanical yet vain and pretentious steward Malvolio left a letter by her maid Maria to gull him into believing that Olivia fancies him; Sir Andrew is one of the hidden onlookers watching Malvolio make a fool of himself.

By my life this is my Lady’s hand: these be her very C’s, her U’s, and her T’s, and thus MALVOLIO: makes she her great P’s. It is in contempt of question her hand.

SIR Her C’s, her U’s, and her T’s: why that? ANDREW: [Shakespeare Twelfth Night II.v.87ff]

100 Shakespeare relies on at least part of the audience seeing through the artful euphemism to recognize the sequence c + u + ‘n’ + t (repeated in case the audience missed it) links up with a woman making pee – though this is never acknowledged by any of the characters in the play. It is a gratuitous dirty joke by the master of finely- honed wit. Small wonder that Shakespeare’s plays have an even larger audience today than they did when he wrote them.

101 Writers are well aware of the tingles provided by the artful euphemism (see Allan and Burridge 1991: Chapter 10, Euphemism as art). The author protects him or herself when talking about taboo topics by artfully trading on metaphor and figurative interpretations of the locutions used. There is a cline among such euphemisms that stretches from street slang to poetic allegories like the 13th century Le Roman de la Rose in which the lover’s quest to pluck the rose from the enchanted garden is an allegory of the pursuit of the flower of womanhood. The rose is a euphemism and symbol for the blood from a newly split hymen, a precursor to the more mundane account in Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure, where Fanny Hill writes of her “virgin flower” and of another girl’s “richest flower” being “cropped” with graphic descriptions of the bloody result (Cleland 1985: 77, 143). A bawdy interpretation of Le Roman de la Rose must be a construction in the reader’s mind, and that is where the art lies and the lie is artful.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 37

Queen Victoria’s wedding night was variously described in terms of a military advance, an exploratory foray, and an essay on horse-riding (Pearsall 1969). Works such as Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels, Tale of a Tub and Modest Proposal (that ’s overpopulation and poverty would be alleviated if the babies of poor Irish parents were sold as delicacies to be eaten by the rich) and George Orwell’s Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four are political allegories ( Orwell 1946; 1987; Swift 1958). Shakespeare’s sonnets are, mostly, lyrical allegories, but his low comedy is closer (at least in spirit) to today’s street language. Through these artful analogies the writer achieves the heightened perception that an effective double-entendre will give and conceals just enough as to become all the more provocative and alluring.

102 As I said earlier, verbal play is not solely the prerogative of the skilled writer. Much longer lists than the following can be found on the web. Ambulance drivers come quicker. Astronomers do it with Uranus. Bankers do it with interest (penalty for early withdrawal!). Basketball players score more often. Beer drinkers get more head. Bricklayers lay all day. Chiropractors do it by manipulation. Crane operators have swinging balls. Dentists do it in your mouth. Detectives do it under cover. Doctors do it with patience. Fishermen are proud of their rods. Furriers appreciate good beaver. Gas station attendants pump all day. Golfers do it in 18 holes. Hairdressers give the best blow jobs. Handymen like good screws. Librarians do it quietly. Millionaires pay to have it done. Ministers do it on Sundays. Models do it in any position. Modem manufacturers do it with all sorts of characters. Professors do it by the book. Sailors like to be blown. Secretaries do it from 9 to 5. Stewardesses do it in the air. Taxidermists mount anything. Tennis players have fuzzy balls.

103 All these sentences have an orthophemistic literal meaning and a sexually suggestive second meaning. Some people will avoid using a word which even sounds similar to a taboo term but there are others who will deliberately use such words humorously, as a tease; which is what the sentences above achieve. A classic example is in Monty Python’s Life of Brian:54

Well, no, sir. Umm, I think it’s a joke, sir, ... like, uh, ‘Sillius Soddus’ or ... ‘Biggus CENTURION: Dickus’, sir.

GUARD: [chuckling]

PILATE: What’s so ... funny about ‘Biggus Dickus’?

CENTURION: Well, it’s a joke name, sir.

PILATE: I have a vewy gweat fwiend in Wome called ‘Biggus Dickus’.

GUARD: [chuckling]

Silence! What is all this insolence? You will find yourself in gladiator school vewy PILATE: quickly with wotten behaviour like that.

Can I go now, sir? BRIAN: [slap] Aaah! Eh.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 38

PILATE: Wait till Biggus Dickus hears of this.

104 There are the anal jokes found among boy scouts and soldiers, e.g. Shit on a shingle ‘chipped beef on toast’, shit on snow and shit on lice ‘gravy on boiled rice’; scours (a term for diarrhoea in livestock) ‘banana pudding’; scoots (‘brown stains on underwear’, also known as skid marks) ‘chocolate pudding’; scrotum+oatmeal was the source for scroatmeal ‘oatmeal’; the drink Mountain Dew was the source for mountain doo ‘diarrhoea’ also known as Hershey squirts (after Hershey chocolate) (Jay 1992: 27 possibly based on Mechling 1984). I know of a linguistics professor who gently taunts his graduate students by referring to the material gathered for their theses as thecal matter. And there is another who, while lecturing on the relationship of allophones to phonemes, inadvertently said “What the allophones of an abstract phoneme /A/ have in common, is their A-ness /ˈeinəs/.” Having said it, he immediately recognized the ambiguity of the focussed term “A-ness”, so quick as a flash he asked, “And what do allophones of phoneme /P/ have in common?” Cheris Kramerae and Paula Treichler suggested that their Feminist Dictionary should perhaps be called a “Cuntionary”. Cornog 1986 found that pet names used by (longer term) sexual partners for erotic body parts fall into variations on the owner’s name (Little Willy for Bill’s penis, little Joanie for Joan’s vagina); personal names (Myra and Myrtle for breasts, Miss Muff for the vagina, Peter for a penis); descriptive names (Sweat Pea for the clitoris, Hot and Juicy for the vagina); humorous names (Omar the Tentmaker for the erect penis under the sheets; Ping and Pong for testicles).

105 The vocabulary of euphemism reveals tens of thousands of examples of verbal play as even a cursory look through the literature on humour, euphemism, slang, obscenity, or the language of war and conflict quickly demonstrates. The sample I have presented is woefully inadequate; yet the alternative would fill several volumes that would be only slightly more exciting to read than the OED. Euphemism often has a limited life expectancy; so there is a chronological turnover: for instance, today sard and swive have dropped out of use, their places taken by bonk and shag. Dysphemisms can be taken up as a means of empowerment, and so change status: this has happened with gay and, in Australia, with wog (‘non-Anglo-Celtic white Australian’). Today’s PC terms are likely to suffer from the same historical recycling.

Conclusion

106 X-phemism motivates language change by promoting new expressions, or new meanings for old expressions, and causing some existing vocabulary to be abandoned. In this paper we have seen that there are basically two ways in which X-phemisms are created: by a changed form for the word or expression and by figurative language that results from the perceived characteristics of the denotatum. X-phemisms are motivated by a speaker’s want to be seen to take a certain stance and by playfulness.

107 Many X-phemisms are figurative; many have been or are causing semantic change; some show remarkable inventiveness of either figure or form; and some are indubitably playful. Euphemism, for instance, can be achieved antithetically by both hyperbole and understatement, by the use of learned terms or technical jargon instead of common terms, and conversely by the use of colloquial instead of formal terms, by both general-

Lexis, 7 | 2012 39

for-specific substitution and part-for-whole substitution, by both circumlocution and abbreviation, acronym, alphabetism or even complete omission, as well as by one-for- one substitution from the existing resources of the language or by borrowing from another language.

108 Dysphemism employs most of the same strategies as euphemism, but there are two main differences. One is that part-for-whole dysphemisms are far more frequent than general-for-specific ones, which is the converse of the situation with euphemisms: e.g. the use of tits for ‘breasts’55 is part-for-whole, as are figurative epithets like in He’s a prick which contrast with euphemistic counterparts showing whole -for-part substitutions like chest (speaking of a woman’s breasts) and (legal) person (referring to genitalia). Other differences between the strategies for euphemism and those for dysphemism are predictable: circumlocution is most usually dysphemistic when it manifests an unwanted jargon; the use of borrowed terms and technical jargon is only dysphemistic when intended to obfuscate or offend the audience; and so forth.

109 Euphemism as a work of art falls into three categories: there are the artful euphemisms, like many of those used in street language, which make a striking figure, but which are the everyday vocabulary of a particular jargon; there are the artful euphemisms which mask their original taboo denotations to such an extent that the latter are not generally recognized; and finally there are the artful euphemisms which are meant to be as revealing – and in their own way as provoking – as diaphanous lingerie. As bawdy authors like Shakespeare and political satirists like Swift and Orwell well know, titillation of the audience is the best way to draw attention to their message.

110 X-phemisms of all kinds display folk-culture, and arise through similar linguistic stratagems to achieve different effects. An interesting perspective on the human psyche is to be gained from the study of X-phemisms used as a shield against the disapprobation of our or malign fate, and others used as a weapon against those we dislike or as a release valve against the vicissitudes of life. Many euphemisms and dysphemisms demonstrate the poetic inventiveness of ordinary people: they reveal a folk culture that has been paid too little attention by lexicographers, linguists, and literaticians – and, indeed, by the very people who use them: people like us.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ALLAN Keith, Natural Language Semantics, Oxford & Malden MA: Blackwell, 2001.

ALLAN Keith, “The connotations of colour terms: colour based X-phemisms”, Journal of Pragmatics Vol. 41, 2009: 626-637: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.06.004

ALLAN Keith and BURRIDGE Kate, Euphemism and Dysphemism: Language Used as Shield and Weapon, New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.

ALLAN Keith and BURRIDGE Kate, Forbidden Words: Taboo and the Censoring of Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 40

ALLEN Wendy F., Teenage Speech: The Social Dialects of Melbourne Teenagers, B.A. Honours Thesis, Linguistics Department, La Trobe University, 1987.

AMAN Reinhold and SARDO Grace, “Canadian sexual terms”, Vol. 6, 1982, 21‑28.

BAIRD Lorrayne Y., “O.E.D. cock 20: the limits of lexicography of slang”, Maledicta Vol. 5, 1981: 213– 26.

BAKER Sidney J., A Popular Dictionary of Australian Slang, 3rd edn. Melbourne: Robertson & Mullens, 1943.

BAROLSKY Paul, Infinite Jest: Wit and Humor in Italian Renaissance Art, Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1978.

BATAILLE Georges, Death and Sensuality: A Study of Eroticism and the Taboo, New York: Walker, 1992. [Reprint of 1962 edition].

BAUGH Albert C. and CABLE Thomas, A History of the English Language, 3rd edn. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1978.

BLACKLEDGE Catherine, The Story of V: Opening Pandora’s Box, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. 2003.

BOCH Oscar and von WARTBURG Walther, Dictionnaire Etymologique de la Language Française, 6th edn. Paris: Presses Universitaires, 1975.

BURROUGHS William, Queer, New York: Viking Penguin, 1985.

CARROLL Lewis, The Works of Lewis Carroll, Roger L. GREEN (Ed.), Feltham: Hamlyn (Spring Books), 1965.

CATULLUS, The Poems of Catullus, Transl. by James Michie, A bilingual edn, New York: Random House, 1969.

CHAUCER Geoffrey, The Works of Geoffrey Chaucer, (Globe Edn 1898, Alfred W. POLLARD, H. Frank HEATH, Mark H. LIDDELL, and W.S. MCCORMICK, Eds), London: Macmillan & Co, 1396.

CLELAND John, Fanny Hill or Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure, Peter WAGNER (Ed.), Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1985. [First published 1748–9].

CLEMENS Samuel, Mark Twain’s 1601, A Conversation as it was by the Social Fireside in the Time of the Tudors, Hackensack: Privately Printed, 1968.

COOPER Brian, “Euphemism and taboo of language (with particular reference to Russian)”, Australian Slavonic and East European Studies Vol. 7, 1993: 61-84.

CORNOG M., “Naming sexual body parts: preliminary patterns and implications”, Journal of Sex Research Vol. 22, 1986: 393-98.

CRESPO FERNÁNDEZ Eliecer, “The Language of Death. Euphemism and Conceptual Metaphorization in Victorian Obituaries, SKY Journal of Linguistics Vol. 19, 2006a: 101-130.

CRESPO FERNÁNDEZ Eliecer, “Sex-related Euphemism and Dysphemism. An Analysis in Terms of Conceptual Metaphor Theory”, Atlantis Vol. 30:2, 2006b: 95-110.

CRESPO FERNÁNDEZ Eliecer, “Euphemistic Conceptual Metaphors in Epitaphs from Highgate Cemetery”, Review of Cognitive Linguistics Vol. 9, 2011: 198-225.

D’URFEY Thomas, Wit and Mirth: or Pills to Melancholy (6 Volumes), London, 1791.

FARMER John S. and HENLEY William E., Slang and Its Analogues, 7 Vols, London: [Printed for subscribers], 1890-1904.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 41

FIELDING Henry, The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling, London: printed for A. Millar, 1749.

FILLMORE Charles J., “Frame semantics”, in Linguistics in the Morning Calm, Linguistic Society of Korea (Eds), Seoul: Hanshin, 1982: 111–38.

FITTER R.S.R., Finding Wild Flowers, London: Collins, 1971.

FLORIO John, Queen Anna’s New World of Words or Dictionarie of the Italian and English Tongues, London, Scolar Press Facsimile, Menstone, 1968, 1611. [First published 1598].

FRANK Ann M., The Diary of a Young Girl: The definitive edition, Transl. & ed. by Otto Frank and Mirjam Pressler, London: Puffin, 1997.

GRAAF Reinier de, New Treatise Concerning the Generative Organs of Women, Transl. by H.D. Jocelyn and Brian P. Setchell, Journal of Reproduction and Fertility, Supplement 17, Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1972 [1672].

GROSE (Captain) Francis, Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue, London, 1811. [First published 1783].

HERBERT Robert K., “Hlonipha and the ambiguous woman”, Anthropos Vol. 85, 1990: 455-473.

HOLLIS Anthony C., The Masai: Their Language and Folklore, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1905.

HUGHES Robert, Culture of Complaint: The Fraying of America, New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.

IRVING John, The World According to Garp, London: Corgi, 1979.

JAY Timothy, Cursing in America, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1992.

JONGH E. de, “Erotica in Vogelperspektief”, Simiolus Vol. 3, 1968/9: 22–74.

KEROUAC Jack, Selected Letters 1940–1956, Ann Charters (Ed.), New York: Viking, 1995.

KIRSHENBLATT-GIMBLETT Barbara (ed.), Speech Play, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1976.

LEACH Edmund, “Anthropological aspects of language: animal categories and verbal abuse”, in Eric H. LENNEBERG (Ed.), New Directions in the Study of Language, Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1964: 23–63.

LEWIS Charlton T. and SHORT Charles, A Latin Dictionary, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975. [First published 1879].

LODGE David, Nice Work, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1989.

LUTZ William, Doublespeak: From “Revenue Enhancement” to “Terminal Living”. How Government, Business, Advertisers, and Others Use Language to Deceive You, New York: Harper and Row, 1989.

MCDONALD James, A Dictionary of Obscenity, Taboo and Euphemism, London: Sphere Books, 1988.

MECHLING J., “High kybo floater: food and feces in the speech play at boy scout camp”, Journal of Psychoanalytic Anthropology Vol. 7, 1984: 256-268.

MILLWOOD-HARGRAVE Andrea, Delete expletives?, London Advertising Standards Authority, British Broadcasting Corporation, Broadcasting Standards Commission, Independent Television Commission, 2000.

MITFORD Nancy, The Pursuit of Love and Love in a Cold Climate, New York: Modern Library, 1979.

MONTAGU Ashley, The Anatomy of Swearing, New York: Macmillan, 1968.

ORWELL George, Animal Farm, New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1946.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 42

ORWELL George, Nineteen Eighty–Four, London: Secker & Warburg, 1987. [First published 1949].

PANNICK David, “The law”, In D.J. ENRIGHT (Ed.) Fair of Speech: The Uses of Euphemism, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985: 135–150.

PARTRIDGE Eric, Shakespeare’s Bawdy, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1955.

PARTRIDGE Eric, A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, Volume 2, The Supplement, 7th edn., London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1970.

PEARSALL Ronald, The Worm in the Bud: The World of Victorian Sexuality, London: Pimlico, 1969.

PEPYS Samuel, The Diary of Samuel Pepys: A New and Complete Transcription, Robert LATHAM and MATTHEWS William (Eds.), 11 vols., London: G. Bell & Sons, 1976.

PETERSON Alan, Words Words Words: The Use and Misuse of English in Australia Today, Sydney: The Fairfax Library, 1986.

PICOCHE Jacqueline, Dictionnaire Etymologique du Français, Paris: Le Robert, 1979.

PINERO Arthur W., The Gay Lord Quex: a comedy in four acts, London: Heineman, 1900.

RAWSON Hugh, A Dictionary of Euphemisms and Other Doubletalk, New York: Crown, 1981.

READ Allen W., Classic American Graffitti: Lexical Evidence from Folk Epigraphy in Western , Waukesha WI: Maledicta Press, 1977. [First published 1935].

ROCHESTER John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of, The Works of the Earl of Rochester, David M. VIETH (Ed). New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968.

RYCROFT Charles, The Innocence of Dreams, London: Hogarth Press, 1979.

SCHANK Roger, Dynamic Memory: a Theory of Reminding and Learning in Computers and People, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

SCHANK Roger, The Cognitive Computer, Reading MA: Addison-Wesley, 1984.

SCHANK Roger, Explanation Patterns, Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1986.

SCHANK Roger and ABELSON Robert C., Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures, Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1977.

SILVERSTEIN Theodore, Medieval English Lyrics, London: Edward Arnold, 1971.

SIMONS Gary F., “Word taboo and comparative Austronesian linguistics”, in Amran HALIM, Lois CARRINGTON and Stephen A. WURM (Eds), Papers from the Third International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, Vol 3 Accent on Variety, Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, 1982: 157–226.

SOLT John, “Japanese sexual maledicta”, Maledicta Vol. 6, 1982: 75–81.

SWIFT Jonathan, Gulliver’s Travels and Other Writings by Jonathan Swift, Ricardo QUINTANA (Ed.), New York: Random House, 1958. [First published 1735].

TOMALIN Claire, Samuel Pepys: The Unequalled Self, London: Penguin Books, 2003. [First published 2002].

TYNAN Kenneth, The Sound of Two Hands Clapping, London: Jonathan Cape, 1975.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 43

NOTES

1. Both paintings by Francisco de Goyas y Lucientes (1746–1828) are in the Prado Museum in Madrid. For removal of the print see Hughes [1993: 30]. 2. Thanks to Ana Deumert and Millicent Valdiv-Glover; also Cooper [1993: 63]. 3. French Connection United Kingdom. 4. Heaven (originally heavens as a translation of Hebrew shāmayim, Greek ου’ρανοί, Latin coeli) is traditionally the habitat of gods as well as stars and planets. 5. Tarnation also said to be a variant of tarnal an aphetic variant of eternal. As we shall see, many expressions result from the confluence of more than one source. 6. As in Muddy Waters’ “I’m your Hoochie Coochie Man”. 7. Kerouac 1995: 108, letter to William Burroughs July 14, 1947. 8. Kerouac 1995: 238, letter to Neal Cassady December 3, 1950. 9. The term acronym is often used for both what I call acronyms and also alphabetisms. 10. The Age, Melbourne, October 17, 2002; Corinne Grant on ABC TV’s ‘The Glasshouse’ November 1, 2002; Millwood-Hargrave 2000: 26. 11. Pannick [1985: 145] (English law), and Vagrancy Act, State of Victoria (Australia), §7, 1(c)). 12. See Allan [2001], Fillmore [1982], Schank [1982; 1984; 1986]; Schank and Abelson [1977]. 13. Outside of commercial sex – it is said that whores don’t kiss. 14. To see how it happened check http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/us_sport/ photo_galleries/34505 53.stm Jackson’s breast is left bare except for a starburst-shaped nipple shield held in place over her aureole by nipple piercing. It is hard to believe that it was indeed a malfunction, i.e. accidental. CBS sustained a record fine of US$550,000 imposed by the Federal Communications Commission for broadcasting this event. 15. To “Hear how IBM and others are taking up the competitive challenge and improving their structures and processes to enable greater business agility.” (Monash University MBA Alumni event 19 August 2004). 16. Letter originates in a now obsolete verb let as in without let or hinderance and the tennis expression let ball (where the ball catches the net) from the Old English lettan meaning “to hinder”. Thus letter meant “someone or something which hindered”. This verb let came to be homonymous with the more frequent modern English verb let, originally laetan “to permit / allow” after the latter was subject to regular sound change. Obviously a language cannot easily tolerate homonymous antonyms (auto-antonyms), and the verb with the sense of “hinder” largely disappeared. 17. The French euphemism j’ai mon anglais “I’m menstruating” is probably inspired by the redcoats of the English soldiers of yesteryear. 18. Of Diana Crisp September 4, 1660. 19. After an athletic performance with Betty Lane under a tavern chair, January 16, 1664. 20. Of his wife, February 7, 1669. Brought up a Puritan under the Commonwealth, sex was sinful. The view was (and it didn’t change for three hundred years) that virtuous women (and even mistresses) should not take pleasure in sex. 21. April 1, 1667. 22. February 1, 1667. Of Mrs Bagwell, wife of a shipyard carpenter who encouraged his wife’s liaison in order to get business from Pepys. 23. Of Betty Lane in a coach, December 2, 1666. 24. Of Jane Welsh, December 9, 1664 and January 26, 1665. 25. February 9, 1668. 26. Of Jane Turner, September 16, 1668. It is clear from the Diary that maids were commonly abused in this way.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 44

27. Of Deborah Willet, Elizabeth’s maid, March 31, 1668. 28. August 6, 1668. 29. October 25, 1668. 30. August 2, 1660. 31. October 24, 1663. 32. January 1, 1660. 33. December 9, 1663. 34. Tomalin [2003: 89]. French was the first language of Elizabeth’s family. 35. Tynan [1975: 185]. Bataille [1992: 138] says something very similar to Lewis: ‘The sexual organs and the sexual act in particular are referred to by degrading names from the jargon of the dregs of society. Those organs and acts have other names, but some are scientific and others, more rarely used and shorter lived, belong to childhood or the shyness of lovers.’ 36. Bosom used to apply to male and female, but seems to have narrowed to (post-pubescent) women alone. This path parallels that of buxom which has come to be used of (jolly) women with ample bosoms. 37. Mike Harding ‘Strangeways Hotel’ (Rubber Records, 1975). 38. As Crespo Fernández reminds me, sexual taboos can be analysed and shaped in terms of conceptual metaphors. Most of the examples of war metaphors mentioned here can be included in the conceptualization SEX IS WAR. See Crespo Fernández [2006b]. 39. Here are the last five stanzas of Rochester’s Signior Dildo: This signior is sound, safe, ready, and dumb As ever was candle, carrot, or thumb; Then away with these nasty devises, and show How you rate the just merits of Signior Dildo. Count Cazzo [Italian for ‘prick’], who carries his nose very high, In passion he swore his rival should die; Then shut up himself to let the world know Flesh and blood could not bear it from Signior Dildo. A rabble of pricks who were welcome before, Now finding the Porter denied ‘em the door, Maliciously waited his coming below And inhumanly fell on Signior Dildo. Nigh wearied out, the poor stranger did fly, And along Pall Mall they followed full cry; The women, concerned, from every window Cried, “Oh! For heavens’ sake, save Signior Dildo!” The good Lady Sands burst into laughter To see how the ballocks came wobbling after, And had not their weight retarded the foe, Indeed ‘t had gone hard with Signior Dildo. [Rochester 1968] 40. Baubo appears in the story of Demeter, Greek goddess of agriculture, who, distraught at the abduction of her daughter Persephone, would not let anything grow. Baubo, who had pendulous breasts with eyes for nipples, tells Demeter rude jokes speaking through her vulva. Demeter eventually starts laughing and from that moment on, allows living things to grow again. 41. Or perhaps twat or twot meaning ‘idiot’ is sourced in the almost synonymous twit. Kate Burridge (pc) says that excrescent –t is quite common in English; it is found on amidst, whilst, betwixt and oncest (many spellings, see the OED) once meant ‘once’. Excrescent –t following n as in vermin / varmin ⇒ varmint results from plosive release as the articulators open following the

Lexis, 7 | 2012 45

nasal. It is similar to the excrescent b in thimble ⇐ þymel and in humble cf. humility; and the excrescent final /k/ in some substandard pronunciations of something as /|sʌmθɪŋk/. 42. On Shakespeare’s bawdy see Partridge [1955]. For Alice’s adventures, see Carroll [1965]. 43. The Slits was an all-female hard rock group (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Slits). 44. The original root means ‘beget’. 45. In Robert Greene’s 1591 book A Notable Discovery of Coosnage, cited in Baugh and Cable [1978: 208]. 46. Cf. Aman and Sardo [1982: 25]. According to Partridge [1970], ‘crumpet’ as in a bit of crumpet, i.e. what Americans would denote by a piece of ass, is a euphemism which derives from crumpet with the sense “buttered BUN”. 47. Baker [1943]; see also Partridge [1970: 1351] (probably based on Baker). 48. “After the Norman Conquest [the title earl was] [a]pplied to all feudal nobles and princes bearing the Romanic title of Count” (OED). 49. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvzhvKm_15k 50. Samuel Collins Epphata to F.T. or the Defence of the Bishop of Elie Concerning his Answer to Cardinall Bellarmine’s Apologue II.x.441, cited in the OED. 51. Some forms dubbed colloquial, e.g. crick, are standard for certain English dialects; other ‘colloquial’ forms, e.g. cuss, have entered the standard language with a meaning that overlaps the ‘standard’ counterpart but are no longer synonymous with it. 52. On the historical data in the account of pussy, check Grose [1811], OED, Partridge [1970], Shipley [1977], Allan and Burridge [1991]. 53. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2na49WxKmo 54. Script by Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Terry Gilliam, Eric Idle, Terry Jones and Michael Palin; directed by Terry Jones. 1979 Python (Monty) Pictures Ltd. 55. Germanic tit is cognate with Romance-based teat. It is curious that the latter is apparently never used to denote a breast.

ABSTRACTS

X-phemism motivates language change by promoting new expressions, or new meanings for old expressions, and causing some existing vocabulary to be abandoned. There are basically two ways in which X-phemisms are created: by a changed form for the word or expression and by figurative language that results from the perceived characteristics of the denotatum. Change can be achieved by hyperbole or understatement, by the use of learned or technical jargon instead of common terms, and conversely by the use of colloquial instead of formal terms, by both general- for-specific substitution and part-for-whole substitution, by both circumlocution and abbreviation, acronym, alphabetism or even complete omission, as well as by one-for-one substitution from the existing resources of the language or by borrowing from another language. X-phemisms are motivated by a speaker’s want to be seen to take a certain stance and by playfulness. An interesting perspective on the human psyche is to be gained from the study of X‑phemisms used as a shield against the disapprobation of our fellows or malign fate, and others used as a weapon against those we dislike or as a release valve against the vicissitudes of life. Many euphemisms and dysphemisms demonstrate the poetic inventiveness of ordinary people:

Lexis, 7 | 2012 46

they reveal a folk culture that has been paid too little attention by lexicographers, linguists, and literaticians – and, indeed, by the very people who use them: people like us.

INDEX

Keywords: creativity, dysphemism, euphemism, figurative language, neologism, playfulness, stance

AUTHOR

KEITH ALLAN

Linguistics Program, Monash University [email protected]

Lexis, 7 | 2012 47

The Expressive Creativity of Euphemism and Dysphemism

Miguel Casas Gómez

AUTHOR'S NOTE

This article has been included in the lines of research on “Communication linguistics” and “Lexical creation and formation” carried out in the framework of projects by the group belonging to the Andalusian Research Plan Semaínein [ref.: HUM 147], subsidised by the Andalusian Regional Government and belonging to the area of General Linguistics in the Department of Philology of the University of Cádiz. I would like to thank especially Mary Joplin for her translation of this paper.

1. The affective ambivalence of taboo

1 The expressiveness of euphemism is a consubstantial part of its forbidden origin, an inevitable connection between feelings, emotions and antagonistic states which are the base of the Freudian theory [Freud 1967: 29-30, 46-47, 51 and 92-93] of the “affective ambivalence” of the taboo, consisting of an archaic prohibition which lives on in the unconscious, and the unconscious desire to transgress it. From this point of view, the double semantic value of the notion of “taboo”, which also means “sacred fear”, corresponds to an affective-emotional ambivalence at a psychic level, a struggle between fear and desire: the fear of the taboo person or object and the unconscious temptation of its infringement1. This ambivalent attitude or paradoxical situation that is adopted in the face of taboo prohibitions can be seen in the very characterization that certain linguists have made of the intrinsic essence of linguistic taboo: as Benveniste states [1977: 257], “la naturaleza de esta interdicción cae no sobre el “decir alguna cosa”, que sería una opinión, sino sobre el “pronunciar un nombre”, que es pura articulación vocal. Cierta palabra o nombre no debe pasar por la boca. Simplemente se retira del registro de la lengua, se borra del uso, no debe existir más. Sin embargo, y es

Lexis, 7 | 2012 48

condición paradójica del tabú, este nombre debe al mismo tiempo continuar existiendo como prohibido” [the nature of this interdiction refers not only to “saying something”, which would be an opinion, but also to “pronouncing a name”, which is pure vocal articulation. A certain word or name must not leave one’s mouth. It is simply deleted from the register, removed from use, it must no longer exist. However, and this is a paradoxical aspect of taboo, this word must continue to exist as a forbidden element].

2. From euphemism and dysphemism as lexical substitutes to euphemism and dysphemism as cognitive processes

2 As constants that exist in almost all the descriptions of the euphemistic-dysphemistic phenomenon we can appreciate its limitation on a lexical level and a substitution process, as well as a patent confusion between substitute and process, which means the frequent identification of euphemism/dysphemism with euphemistic/dysphemistic substitute2, consisting of using the former to indicate the term that replaces the forbidden word (the lexical substitute) and not the lexical substitution itself or, more precisely, the linguistic manifestation.

3 In my recent papers [Casas Gómez 2009 and 2011] I have expressed my disagreement with the opinions expounded in my doctoral thesis and the publications deriving from it [Casas Gómez 1986, 1993, 1995, and 1996], in which I made the first of these mistakes, that of reducing euphemism/dysphemism to a lexical substitution, although I did in fact distinguish euphemism and dysphemism as processes for different euphemistic or dysphemistic substitutes or uses. Thus, after a first lexical formulation of the euphemism as a linguistic process used to neutralise a forbidden term by means of associative resources of a formal or semantic type, I later incorporated certain pragmatic components deriving from its essential relativity and its social, contextual and discursive characteristics, finally characterizing it as “un acto de habla, como la actualización discursiva por parte del hablante de unos sustitutos léxicos -habituales o lexicalizados u ocasionales o creativos- que, a través de un conjunto de recursos lingüísticos y paralingüísticos, permiten, en un contexto y situación pragmática determinada, neutralizar léxicamente el término interdicto” [a speech act, being the discursive use by the speaker of some lexical substitutes –habitual, lexicalised, occasional or creative– which, through a set of linguistic and paralinguistic resources, and in a certain pragmatically determined context or situation, allow the lexical neutralisation of a forbidden term] [Casas Gómez 1986 : 35-36].

4 Grateful as I am to Crespo Fernández [2007: 82] in one of the most recent monographic works on the subject, for considering this proposal as “la más acertada de las definiciones del eufemismo, al destacar su naturaleza, no ya social o lingüística, sino pragmatica o discursiva” [the most accurate definition of euphemism, since it highlights its pragmatic or discursive nature, rather than its social or linguistic aspect], I wish to carry out a genuine act of self-criticism and express my change of heart regarding the opinions expressed both in my doctoral thesis and in my first publications in the field of linguistic interdiction.

5 I am aware that, for the period in which it was made, this definition of euphemism contained various new aspects, above all of a pragmatic–discursive nature, but it also

Lexis, 7 | 2012 49

suffered from some limitations due both to the linguistic level which is the starting point of the analysis and, essentially, from the perspective adopted in the study. In my opinion, the positive features of this characterization centre on two aspects: 1) the definition of euphemism as belonging to speech, and not to the system, considering it to be a discursive use as a pragmatic aspect integrated in speech linguistics, since the communicative situation not only gives rise to but also truly justifies and is the “raison d’être” of euphemistic and dysphemistic uses and 2) the complete classification of linguistic mechanisms, not only those on a lexical plane, including phonetic, morphological, syntactic and other paralinguistic resources. However, the main negative aspect is that the proposed definition of euphemism still contained the limitation3 of implicitly characterizing the function of euphemism on a purely lexical level, as well as operating through substitution, as is evident, both in my considerations of the phenomenon, in which I refer specifically to substitution and the lexical or euphemistic substitute –as Crespo Fernández still does [2007], taking my position as a base for his own– or to lexical neutralisation of the forbidden term, as can be seen in the conclusions of this paper, in which I distinguish euphemism as a substitution process (and this is also applicable to dysphemism), from the different euphemistic and dysphemistic substitutes and uses. We can now add two further clarifications to these objections (the first, which is less relevant, is of a terminological-conceptual nature, whereas the second is fundamental to the new approach to the problem to which we refer here): 1) the necessity of using inverted commas round the verb “neutralise”, since in the euphemism the principle of semantic neutralisation does not function as such4, but rather it appears as a designative fact that occurs in speech, that is, the so- called “neutralisation” becomes the “suspension” of all the connotative features dependent on the speaker, which leads to the conception of this phenomenon as a “factor de libertad y creación” [factor of liberty and creation] [Rodríguez Adrados 1967: 219]; 2) the starting point of this characterization is still the existence of a forbidden term and not a forbidden reality or one which is conceptually subject to interdiction.

6 The truth is that, in my first approaches to this area of study, I went no further than my predecessors who maintained, as in the majority of current formulations regarding this process, a narrow concept of euphemism or dysphemism, understood semantically as lexical substitutes or substitution processes in the Romanistic tradition5. In fact, just as semantics were first studied at the level of the word and later went on to be studied at other levels of analysis of linguistic content, in the field of euphemism/dysphemism, researchers concentrated exclusively on the lexical point of view although the problem is now approached from other perspectives, and, above all, from the analysis of other linguistic levels6.

7 However, in my more recent studies on interdiction [Casas Gómez 2000 and 2005], I have not only specified linguistically, from a conceptual point of view, a set of terms appropriate to this field (cf. n. 2), but also, above all, have made a distinction between word taboo, based on an internal psychological block suffered by the speaker, and concept taboo, or more exactly, conceptual interdiction in the broadest and most general sense of linguistic interdiction, whose causes are external and of an affective- associative nature, centring more on the hearer, along the same lines as the pragmatic7 characterizations of the phenomenon which aim not to offend but to make the message more pleasant to the hearer. Precisely because of all these difficulties that appear in the descriptive study of interdiction from a linguistic point of view, I propose a broader concept of euphemism and dysphemism, not restricted to the lexical plane, which goes

Lexis, 7 | 2012 50

beyond a simple substitution process, which has led us to re-think and to characterise the euphemistic-dysphemistic phenomenon towards a cognitive dimension, founded, not on the base terms, but rather on conceptual categories or forbidden realities and on pragmatic suppositions more in accordance with the relative nature and the essentially discursive performance of such linguistic processes. Given these considerations, which imply a new theoretical treatment of the facts, let us compare my previously mentioned characterization with this very different definition in which we conceive euphemism or dysphemism as “the cognitive process of conceptualization of a forbidden reality, which, manifested in discourse through the use of linguistic mechanisms including lexical substitution, phonetic alteration, morphological modification, composition or inversion, syntagmatic grouping or combination, verbal or paralinguistic modulation or textual description, enables the speaker, in a certain “context” or in a specific pragmatic situation, to attenuate, or, on the contrary, to reinforce a certain forbidden concept or reality” [Casas Gómez 2009: 738].

3. The expressiveness of euphemism and dysphemism

8 Euphemism and dysphemism are two cognitive processes of conceptualization with contravalent effects (having the same base and resources but different aims and objectives) of a certain forbidden reality.

9 The expressiveness immanent in these phenomena is so consubstantial that it explains not only their forbidden origin: the aforementioned affective ambivalence of taboo or the paradoxical characterization of its intrinsic essence (cf. 1), but also the lack of a base term in the case of euphemistic-dysphemistic uses which, given their connotative content, go beyond the meaning of their corresponding forbidden terms. In relation to the limitation of reducing euphemism or dysphemism to the lexical plane and its substitution processes outlined in the previous section, Uría Varela [1997: 6] has already pointed out that in this area we run up against an additional problem: “Existen realidades interdictas que parecen carecer de término de base, esto es, que sólo tienen expresión eufemística [yo añadiría “o disfemística”] y en las que, por tanto, es impropio hablar, al menos en sincronía, de sustitución” [there are forbidden realities that appear to lack a base term, that is, which have only a euphemistic expression [I would add “or dysphemistic”], in which case, at least synchronically, it is inappropriate to speak of substitution], a difficulty which underlines the fact that in the area of interdiction, lexical substitution is not everything. Conveniently, this gives us the opportunity to approach the process not from a forbidden term, but rather from a forbidden “content” or reality8.

10 It is indeed the expressive creativity of the euphemistic and dysphemistic uses that shows, in the first place, that we do not always dispose of a taboo term, and furthermore, that the dividing line between taboo and dysphemism is sometimes quite blurred and, likewise, the boundary between euphemism and dysphemism is not always clear. These conflicting emotions and antagonistic feelings give rise to the existence of dysphemistic euphemisms and euphemistic dysphemisms, as we shall see in the next section.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 51

11 In fact, within this general field of interdiction it is not always clear exactly which is the taboo term and which is the dysphemistic one (as in the case of devil – demon or fuck – shag), leading to the frequent identification of taboo with dysphemism. This failure to distinguish between the two concepts derives, fundamentally, from the difficulty implied in trying to start, not so much from a forbidden reality, but rather from a base term9. This means the boundary between both phenomena is not well-defined, and neither is it clear which element functions in synchrony as the taboo (sometimes this can only be discovered from a diachronic viewpoint, since it has disappeared from the speakers’ consciousness) and which is dysphemistic. No doubt, it is the expressive capacity, which participates as a fundamental function of the interdictive process, that justifies the fact that, occasionally, we do not have the forbidden term at our disposal, since the respective euphemistic and dysphemistic uses express contents about which the base term gives no information. In fact, sometimes it seems that the forbidden term does not even exist, although, of course, there is a forbidden concept or reality, which leads us to wonder if, instead of a forbidden vocabulary (as a base for substitution), we should be talking of a conceptual interdiction as the starting point for different euphemistic or dysphemistic formulations.

4. Dysphemistic euphemism vs. euphemistic dysphemism

12 Both euphemistic and dysphemistic affective tendencies combine to the point where, sometimes, euphemistic forms occur with a pejorative value, and above all, dysphemistic forms may have a euphemistic function, in all cases depending, once more, on the emphasis or communicative intention on the part of the speaker when producing the verbal or non-verbal (such as in the case of gestures) expression. Of the two forms, the latter, dysphemistic use with a positive effect, is without doubt the most widely used due to the fact that “las emociones desagradables no sólo son más abundantes que las agradables, sino que también su tono emotivo es de mucha mayor intensidad” [unpleasant emotions are not only more common than pleasant ones, but their emotive tone is much stronger]10.

13 The former aspect has been studied by Silva Correia [1927: 778-779], who suggests some fields in which the “fórma lisongeira pode ter alcance agressivo” [the flattering manner can produce an aggressive effect], such as in the case of words expressed with a favourable semantic value, which, however, are interpreted as irritating by the hearer, although the disposition may be quite friendly. Also, between people who are normally on first-name terms the use of a more polite form of address may cause some annoyance and even be considered insulting. An interesting example of these forms of address can be found in the following text “Yes, yes, sir” by Luis Eduardo Aute [Album 1966-67, my italics]: “Sí, sí, señor / y ¿qué le vamos a hacer? / yo le he perdido el respeto / y por eso le trato de usted. / ¿Por qué se empeña, señor, / que le rinda admiración? / no me pondré a sus pezuñas / pues tienen muy mal olor. / No quiero ser un señor / de buena reputación; sólo pretendo ser hombre, / cosa que usted no logró. / Quédese usted con su dios / puesto que usted lo inventó; / me gustan más mis pecados, / ésos que usted condenó. / Le dedico esta canción / con todo mi corazón. / Espero haberle irritado, / pues ésa fue mi intención”. [Yes, yes, sir, and what can we do about it? I’ve lost my respect for you/ that’s why I call you “usted”. Why do you insist, sir, that I

Lexis, 7 | 2012 52

express my admiration for you? I won’t fall at your hooves because they smell terrible. You can keep your god, since you invented him; I prefer my sins, the ones that you condemned. I dedicate this song to you with all my heart. I hope I have annoyed you, as that was my intention].

14 Likewise, Grimes [1978: 17 and esp. 22] talks of pejorative or condemning euphemisms with reference to those which represent “proper” speech only from the point of view of the forbidden terms that they replace, at the same time as they condemn it through a negative value judgment, as occurs, for example, in do the evil act for fuck, and ruin, dishonour or deflower in the sense of “to take a woman’s virginity”.

15 However, the opposite cases, in which rough terms become friendly words, are undoubtedly more common, not only when they are used in the diminutive form, which propitiates an affectionate disposition, but also when they are used with familiarity as terms of endearment11, reversing the meaning. This is something which occurs only in very close personal relationships, in which, as well as these factors of an affective nature, the intonation and gestures of the speaker are of vital importance.

16 This type of construction has been analysed by Kany [1969: 75] in the group of metaphors based on a similar perceptive or emotive effect12: A una palabra injuriosa empleada como término cariñoso se la llama cacofemismo, antítesis del eufemismo. La transferencia es de naturaleza puramente emotiva (...). El oyente pasa por alto el valor intelectual del vocablo. Percibe la intensidad del tono emotivo antes que su calidad particular o su dirección, y se guía además por la entonación y el gesto del interlocutor. [An offensive word used affectionately is called cacophemism, the antithesis of euphemism. The transfer is purely emotional (…). The hearer overlooks the intellectual value of the word and he perceives the intensity of the emotional tone before its specific quality or direction, and is also guided by the speaker’s intonation and gesture].

17 Kany’s use of the term cacophemism –generally an alternative to dysphemism- as the antonym of euphemism is surprising, to refer to an “palabra injuriosa empleada como término cariñoso” [offensive word used affectionately], which would mean a restriction on the meaning, since cacophemism is an offensive expression irrespective of its use, affectionate or otherwise [Contreras 1966-68: 176]. As we already showed in a previous work [Casas Gómez 2005: 279-280], in which we discussed and established the relationships between the denominations used in this field: dysphemism, counter- euphemism, anti-euphemism, cacophemism and cacosemy 13, it is preferable to restrict the use of the concept of dysphemism to indicate any manifestation with an underlying interdictive repression and not to use it in the broad sense of substitution of a forbidden or even positive or neutral term, for another, more vulgar one. In these cases, it is better to use the term cacosemy, suggested by Rabanales [1958: 279], to refer to those “denominaciones del habla familiar claramente peyorativas, que se emplean cuando se quiere menospreciar el valor de un objeto o de una persona” [clearly pejorative familiar expressions which are used in order to disdain a person or an object].

18 Dysphemism is associated with insult in this kind of affective combinations, since such emotive dysphemistic uses constitute insults made in a positive tone which contrast with normal conceptual dysphemistic uses, the former being more usual in familiar relationships14, especially between parents and children, friends, partners and in certain social circles.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 53

19 A singular example of the use of these formulae used to express praise, a phenomenon which also exists in other languages [Kröll 1981: 109], can be observed in the word puta [whore, bitch] and its offensive expressions, which are among the most common swear- words or insults in our daily lives. The expression puta [bitch] or hijo de puta [son of a bitch] appears in two different contexts: a) functioning in its own area of signification, in which it acquires positive or negative semantic content, and b) functioning in a different lexical field, losing almost all its conceptual value and in a derogatory sense. The energetic crudeness of the taunt has led to an infinite number of expressions which work as euphemistic or dysphemistic substitutes, called pseudoeuphemisms by Martín [1979: 140-141], based on semantic or phonetic relationships: hijo de cual, hijo de cualquiera, hijo de la Gran Bretaña, hijo de la gran , hijo de la grandísima, hijo de la grandísima cabra, hijo de la gran cerda, hijo de (la gran) perra, hijo de la grandísima puerca, hijo de madre o de su madre, hijo de mala madre, hijo de pucha, hijo de tal, hijo de una, hijo de zorra, etc.T.N. [Cela 1976-77, III: 716, Martín 1979: 141 y León 1980: 81]. There are several comparative expressions such as “más puta que las gallinas” [a bigger whore than Mata Hari], which has given rise to substitutions like “casi tan zorra como las gallinas” [a bigger than Mata Hari]. As we can see here, with the mediation of paralinguistic and extra- linguistic factors, these expressions can acquire affective value. However, the expression puta sometimes loses its original meaning and functions, depending on the use, in different areas of signification: “esta enfermedad es muy puta” [this illness is a bitch] (used about something bad or harmful); puta calle [fucking street] or puta vida [fucking life] (used with scarcely any conceptual value and in a pejorative sense); ¡la (muy) puta! [bloody hell!] (an exclamation of surprise, amazement or anger), pasarlas putas [to have a fucking hard time], de una puta vez [once and for all], como una puta cabra [mad as a fucking hatter], ni puta idea [no fucking idea], etc. (expressions with varied meanings). It is surprising that, in all these cases, although the word puta is used outside its semantic field and is practically devoid of any significative charge, society still relates it to its original association, thus giving rise to substitutions like perra vida [a dog’s life], cochina vida [a sow’s life], puerca vida [a pig’s life], pasarlas furcias [to have a hard time], ni zorra idea [no bloody idea], ni ramerísima idea [not the foggiest idea], ni meretriz idea [no damned idea], etc. Likewise, in a friendly conversation we can hear expressions of the type “¡Qué hijo puta eres!” [What a son of bitch you are!] or “¡El hijo de puta ha sacado las oposiciones!” [ The son of a bitch has passed all his exams!], with the intention only to praise, just as adolescent girls, among themselves, may call one other affectionately puta [bitch] or, between couples, he may say to her: “Qué puta eres!” [What a bitch you are!] used with no wish to insult, but rather with intense affection and fondness. There is also a large selection of euphemistic dysphemistic uses in the language of prostitution, which is especially characterised by the use of a great many violent terms in an affectionate way. It is not only prostitutes who make continuous use of these constructions, but rather, the diverse relationships (madame – prostitute, client – prostitute, pimp – prostitute, or prostitute – prostitute) existing around their social environment have led to the propagation of these forms. Thus, just as terms like niña, chica, muchacha, compañera, nena, muñeca, paloma, pequeña, maja, etc. [little girl, child, teenager, partner, baby, doll, chick, etc.], sometimes used in the diminutive form15, can become contaminated when used in an erotic sense, losing their original value and, in some cases, functioning as euphemistic or affective substitutes for “prostitute”, so, dysphemistic expressions such as puta, zorra, cerda, guarra, puerca, etc., can take on clearly favourable connotations in these social circumstances.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 54

5. The expressive enhancement of euphemism

20 Many authors have highlighted both the covering and, especially, the attenuating function of euphemism. For this reason, although encyclopaedias and dictionaries of linguistics are full of extra-linguistic characterisations of this phenomenon16, there are a few exceptional linguistic formulations suggested by authors such as Lewandowski [1982: 128]: “Encubrimiento del significado. Forma de la circunlocución cortés; denominación velada de tipo atenuante o encubridor, p. ej., él se ha puesto fuerte, en vez de se ha puesto gordo; un señor mayor, vivir en condiciones modestas, tener una relación, etc.”. [The covering of meaning. Means of polite circumlocution; veiled denomination with the intention of attenuating or covering, e.g. He’s filled out, instead of he’s got fat, an elderly man, to live in straitened circumstances, to have a relationship with, etc.] or Cerdà [1986, s.v. eufemismo): “Palabra o expresión que sustituye a otra con objeto de encubrir, disimular o atenuar su significación considerada molesta o inoportuna; p. ej., invidente en lugar de ciego, tercera edad por vejez”. [Word or expression that substitutes another with the object of covering, dissembling or attenuating a meaning considered unfortunate or inappropriate; e.g. visually impaired instead of blind, senior citizen instead of old age], which, although they are limited, as generally occurs and as we have mentioned before, to a substitution process on a lexical plane, underline the attenuating and covering effect of euphemism, used as a disguise which can mask reality. Likewise, in one of the most recent monographic works on euphemism, Horak [2010: 12], after describing some of the fundamental problems in the definition of this phenomenon, bases his position on that of López Eire [1999: 315], for whom “en un principio y básicamente, el eufemismo es el concepto de un proceso (…)” [in principle and basically, euphemism is the concept of a process (…)], going on to characterise it, not as the attenuated expression of a notion, but as a process of attenuation, “un procédé figuré qui améliore la négativité d’une réalité (subjectivement) taboue” [a figured process that improves the negative aspect of a (subjectively) taboo reality] [Horak 2010: 62]. Nonetheless, it must not be forgotten that, together with these two pragmatic-discursive functions, and sometimes combined with both of them, the function that stands out above all is that of emphasizing or enhancing expressively a certain reality, considered socially unacceptable, with the aim of giving it prestige, as is the case of the euphemistic uses which are traditionally classified as “puffery”, and which are so common in expressions implying a higher social echelon for certain professions, trades and jobs, such as prison warden for jailer, sales and marketing assistant for salesperson, urban property employee for janitor, flight attendant for air hostess, rodent operative for rat catcher, interior/exterior designer for window dresser, shoe repairer for cobbler17 and so on, and in which case the softening or attenuating effect characteristic of the euphemistic process combines with, or rather, is intensified by, the expressive emphasis of these corresponding creative formulae. Indeed, with regard to some of the examples mentioned, Edeso Natalías [2009: 158-159], in order to show that positive politeness serves not only to attenuate but also to emphasise or enhance [Hernández Flores 2004: 95-98], makes the following comment: Nos gusta más empleado de finca urbana que portero porque con el primer término se acentúa el hecho de que se trata de un trabajo realizado en un entorno urbano; auxiliar de vuelo insiste en la idea de que es una profesión que se desempeña en las alturas (posiblemente para evitar la confusión con las azafatas de eventos);

Lexis, 7 | 2012 55

funcionario de prisiones pone el acento en el término funcionario, trabajo deseado por la mayoría de la población y asociado a la idea de que, para conseguirlo, es necesario aprobar una dura oposición; diseñador de interiores/exteriores sugiere la idea de un oficio artístico, asignando a quien lo desempeña capacidad creativa, ingenio, etc., valores todos ellos socialmente apreciables. En suma, con estos eufemismos se atenúan los rasgos asociados a las profesiones que designan (probablemente el rasgo esencial que las caracteriza es que no se necesita una carrera universitaria para desempeñarlas), a la par que se acentúan los positivos, de manera que con el término eufemístico estos empleos se transforman en profesiones de prestigio. [We prefer urban property employee to janitor because with the first term we emphasise the fact that the work goes on in an urban environment; flight attendant because it is a profession whose work is carried out in the air (possibly to avoid confusion with event hostesses), prison public servant (prison warden) to jailer because it emphasises the term public servant, which is a much desired profession and is associated with the idea that workers are required to pass difficult public exams; interior/exterior designer suggests the idea of an artistic profession, requiring creativity and ingenuity, which are admired social skills. To sum up, with these euphemisms, we attenuate the features associated with the designated professions (perhaps the basic feature of all of them is the fact that a university degree is not necessary) at the same time accentuating the positive aspects, so that with the euphemistic terms these jobs become prestigious professions].

21 In one of the classic works on euphemism and within the framework of the substantial differences in this phenomenon according to a number of characteristics (period, place, country, social class, sex, age and circumstances), Silva Correia [1927: 747-752] connected the rather undemocratic tendency of euphemistic language18, that is, the euphemistic features depending on social class, with the professions whose names are normally avoided, being replaced by diverse euphemistic formulae. With the creation of what he calls “eufemismos de megalomanía” [puffery euphemisms], which were very fashionable even at the beginning of the last century, there is a tendency, in this way, to ennoble the names of certain trades and arts. In fact, expressive enhancement has existed for some time, as can be seen in the following text by Antonio Gala, which reflects this trend in his article “Los bajitos” [Short people], included in his collection Charlas con Troylo (Madrid, Espasa Calpe, 1981: 143-144, my italics): Es tremendo vivir en una época de culto a la apariencia (...). El asunto comenzó por los títulos. Los peritos fueron ingenieros técnicos; las criadas, empleadas de hogar; las enfermeras, auxiliares de clínica o de quirófano; los practicantes, asistentes técnicos sanitarios; los porteros, empleados de fincas urbanas. Está bien: que cada cual se llame como quiera: todos hemos ascendido en denominaciones. Pero -no es infrecuente- los nombres consiguen afectar a la esencia de las cosas. Ya nadie se siente a gusto en el sitio que, en realidad, le corresponde, con lo cual derrochamos una bilis generalizada que tiembla el misterio. Porque hemos perdido el orgullo y la seguridad, amplios y hermosos, de la base, y andamos montados en el aire como malos diamantes sin pulir. Los carpinteros se consideran tallistas; los sacadores de puntos, escultores; las putas, artistas (no en lo suyo, sino en sentido estricto), y así las demás honestas profesiones. [Living in times of the cult of appearances is tremendous (…). The whole thing started with job . Experts became technical engineers; maids became domestic employees; nurses, hospital auxiliaries or surgical auxiliaries; registered nurses, technical sanitary assistants; janitors, urban property employees. This is all very well, everybody is free to call themselves as they please: we have all been promoted in name. But –and this is not unusual– these names begin to affect the essence. Now nobody is happy to be in what is really their rightful place, and we brim over with generalised bile which reveals the truth: we have lost the full and beautiful pride and self-

Lexis, 7 | 2012 56

confidence of the base, and we are mounted in the air, like false, unpolished diamonds. Carpenters believe themselves woodcarvers; pencil sharpeners, sculptors; whores, artists (not in their work, but in the strict sense of the word), and so on with other honest professions].

22 In this way, to refer to the “oldest profession”, as well as the example mentioned above (artist), in my doctoral thesis [Casas Gómez 1986: 233-234] we saw that the word whore, so offensive and insulting, especially for those who work as such, is softened with a whole range of hyperbolic designations founded on a metaphorical creation with its base in the profession or in the erotic interpretation of another profession which is socially considered, such as academician, sexual assessor, sexual assistant, social assistant, love (or sex)professor, love goddess, erotic employee, sex worker, French teacher, bar psychologist, love worker or sexologist.

23 For these reasons, in relation with the strategy of politeness of euphemistic uses, and as an element that gives a positive image of both speaker and hearer19, Edeso Natalías [2009: 148, 156-159 and 161-162] discerns two types of euphemism, including, along with those that constitute a mechanism for the attenuation of a conceptual reality, those which imply “un doble mecanismo de atenuación y de realce, ya que suavizan los rasgos más negativos asociados a su referente y, a la vez, enfatizan los más positivos” [a double mechanism of attenuation and enhancement, since they soften the more negative aspects of their reference point, at the same time emphasizing the positive ones] [op. cit.: 161], pointing out that there are few of the latter type, referring to the field of work and the professions, in comparison with the first group. However, it is true that in recent years expressive enhancement of this type euphemistic tendency has increased in intensity, especially in the realm of politically correct language20, as Reutner [2010: in press] correctly puts it in a brief survey of euphemism as a historical- cultural phenomenon: En este sentido podemos también clasificar, dentro de lo políticamente correcto, el cambio de perspectiva que proporcionan las nuevas denominaciones de profesiones que necesitaban una revalorización: azafata se convierte en tripulante de cabina o auxiliar de vuelo, portero en el supuestamente más elegante, afrancesado conserje. Abundan entretanto también los asistentes ( asistenta ‘chacha’) y funcionarios (funcionarios de prisiones ‘carcelero’), y prosperan además creaciones con agente (agente sanitario ‘barrendero’), profesor (profesora en parto ‘comadrona’) y técnico: para el aparcacoches técnico en aparcamientos o para el vendedor técnico comercial. [In this sense, in the area of , we can also classify the change of perspective that brings about the new names for professions that needed to be reevaluated: air hostess becomes cabin crew or flight assistant, janitor becomes the supposedly more elegant French word, concierge. There are also many assistants (assistant “char”) and officers (prison officer “jailer”), as well as creations with agent (sanitary agent “road sweeper”), instructor (birth instructress “midwife”) and technician: for car parker, car park technician or for salesperson, commercial technician].

24 Thus, this intensifying resource has increased its linguistic creativity by means of coining a range of expressive forms that give distinction to the person and prestige to all kinds of professions, trades and jobs, such as those mentioned here and those analysed in various recent studies on the subject, and even through the most absurd, exaggerated and deliberately comical expressive forms that appear on the internet and which, consequently, have been humorously ridiculed there: internal movement and information coordinator (porter), logistics and document distribution specialist (messenger), visual therapy expert (stripper), door admissions supervisor (bouncer), nocturnal activities

Lexis, 7 | 2012 57

supervisor (night watchman), external human resource distributor (taxi driver), petroleum transfer engineer (petrol pump attendant), mortar logistics engineer (bricklayer), advanced logistics engineer (motorcycle messenger), general and unspecified issue consultant (fortune teller, clairvoyant), information distribution officer (leafleter), field nourishment consultant (waiter), perishable goods distribution officer (greengrocer), field distributor of imported goods (street seller), expert in sexology and personal relations therapist (prostitute), highway environmental hygienist (road sweeper), expert in freelance activity (will do anything), landscape and plant engineer (gardener), music and film distribution expert (hawker of pirate CDs), unimportant affairs assistant (Member of Parliament).

25 As is clear in these examples, the widespread current use of this intensification mechanism with discursive value, in combination with other pragmatic functions, has led me to modify partially, or rather, to widen21 the linguistic characterization of these two phenomena formulated in my article “Towards a new approach to the linguistic definition of euphemism” [Casas Gómez 2009; cf. 2], now incorporating, as well as aspects such as covering and expressive enhancement, the important part played by the hearer in euphemistic or dysphemistic communicative interaction, with the result that we finally describe euphemism or dysphemism as el proceso cognitivo de conceptualización de una realidad interdicta, que, manifestado discursivamente a través de la actualización de un conjunto de mecanismos lingüísticos de sustitución léxica, alteración fonética, modificación, composición o inversión morfológica, agrupación o combinatoria sintagmática, modulación verbal o paralingüística o descripción textual, permite al hablante, desde un punto de vista comunicativo en el que tiene presente la posible interpretación del oyente por los efectos perlocutivos que los usos eufemísticos/ disfemísticos pueden provocar en los interlocutores, la creación intencional de todo tipo de expresiones verbales y no verbales o actos de habla, que, en un cierto “contexto” y en una concreta situación pragmática, encubren, atenúan o realzan expresivamente, o, por el contrario, motivan o refuerzan evocativamente un determinado concepto o realidad interdicta [the cognitive process of conceptualization of a forbidden reality, which, manifested in discourse through the use of a set of linguistic mechanisms of lexical substitution, phonetic alteration, morphological modification, composition or inversion, syntagmatic grouping or combination, verbal or paralinguistic modulation or textual description, enables the speaker, from a communicative standpoint in which he takes into account the possible interpretation of the hearer due to the perlocutive effects that euphemistic/dysphemistic uses can cause in the interlocutors, the intentional creation of all kinds of verbal and non-verbal expressions or speech acts, that, in a certain “context” or specific pragmatic situation, cover, attenuate or enhance expressively, or, on the contrary, motivate or reinforce evocatively a determined forbidden concept or reality] [Casas Gómez 2011: in press].

6. Some expressive base mechanisms of euphemism and dysphemism

26 There are many expressive base mechanisms, belonging to different linguistic planes, which can be used by these phenomena in order to modulate, substitute, alter or modify a certain forbidden concept or reality.

27 In this paper, we will concentrate on linguistic description with examples of two specific resources which have not been widely studied because of their singularity, but

Lexis, 7 | 2012 58

which are especially significant due to the expressiveness involved, which permits the appearance of lexical creations, such as expressive designations and blending, on some occasions through a lexical substitution and on others with a modification of form using the phonetic alteration of a forbidden content (in this case, especially the conceptual area of the prostitute).

28 The substitution of one taboo concept for another with an affective semantic aspect is quite common in superstitious practices and, in general, in the magical-religious sphere22. These appellatives, although they appear in some designations of “diablo” (devil), such as compadre (friend, mate), are more often found in names of animals which are tabooed for reasons of tradition or folklore. Remember, for example, the affectionate names used all over Romania an animal as apparently harmless as the weasel, or the many examples referring to the snake, the wolf and the fox in Galicia [Alonso Montero 1977: 47-58]. An uneducated person feels the need to find an inoffensive and flattering substitute in order to flee from pronouncing the animal’s real name, which, in relation to the world of the supernatural, can mean, to his rural way of thinking, an imminent danger. Given that this is characteristic of primitive cultures, it is very possible that epithets like guapilla or guapiña (pretty little one), used to describe the “weasel”, were grouped syntagmatically with the real name, until they later became independent, taking on its semantic value.

29 The affective formations related to the word prostitute are completely different, such as chipichusca [chusca = loose] (expressively accentuating the second element), piculina (possibly an italian word), pilili, pilingui, putiplista, putiflística, or titi (probably a hypercoristic use of tíaT.N.), all of which are conditioned by three constants: 1) they are lexical creations from popular language or slang; 2) they are used mainly by women, 3) they involve a complete change in the expression –what Cela [1975: 170] called ñoñismo, based on the initial phoneme or phonemes. With eloquent interference, these expressive designations connect with the euphemistic phonetic distortions of the word puta that have lost their original sense, normally used as simple exclamations. In this respect, Kany [1960: 170] points out that the vulgar expression hijo de puta “may be replaced by almost any word containing one or more sounds of the original that suffice to suggest its meaning”, citing Hispano-American examples like país, palabra, p’arriba, perra, pinta, pita, puerca23, pulga, punta, puya, república, de la familia Putiérrez, some of which are weak paronyms basing their formal association only on the initial phoneme or syllable of the forbidden word.

30 The second mechanism, blending, seen as a morphological resource of composition or as a motivator of phonetic alteration presents greater possibilities for theoretical discussion. Regarding this point, I intend to follow some aspects of the guidelines established by Montero Cartelle [1981: 52 and 55], who distinguishes, on the one hand, morphologically based adjunction, using affixes which, more than changing the phonetic structure of the word, “modifican su contenido afectivo-evocativo de tal manera que la interdicción, que gravita sobre la forma primitiva, no se actualice en la derivada” [modify their affective-evocative content so that the interdiction that weighs on the primitive form has no bearing on the derivative]. These are what he calls “creadores eufemísticos por derivación” [euphemistic creators through derivation], which, obviously, are studied within the category of morphological resources. On the other hand, we have what he calls “motivadores eufemísticos por composición”

Lexis, 7 | 2012 59

[euphemistic motivators through composition], which seek the phonetic alteration of the word through procedures which connote freedom, spontaneity and imagination.

31 This author does not accept composition as a morphological resource, since he does not understand it in the traditional sense, seeing it from a different perspective, “como una forma más de alcanzar la alteración fonética; concretamente, la que se logra por conjunción o cruce de dos o más vocablos y por la incorporación de elementos extraños a la estructura formal de la palabra” [as another way of reaching phonetic alteration; more exactly that which is achieved by the combination and blending of two or more words and by the incorporation of new elements in the formal structure of the word] [Montero Cartelle 1981: 52]. Thus, he classifies under the single heading of composition what other scholars have considered to be two separate phenomena24. In his opinion, composition “incide casi con exclusividad sobre la estructura externa de la palabra, mientras que los recursos morfológicos lo hacen sobre su contenido s émico; bien entendido que unos y otros repercuten, en último término, en el significado de la palabra, pero, mientras los primeros lo hacen de manera indirecta (por acomodación del término marcado al no marcado), los segundos lo consiguen por adición o supresión de algún rasgo semántico” [has to do only with external word structure, whereas morphological resources have to do with the semic content. It is taken for granted that both influence the meaning of the word, but, whereas the former do so indirectly (adapting the marked term to the unmarked one), the latter do it through the addition or deletion of some semantic aspect] [Montero Cartelle 1981: 55]. His argument is quite convincing; in fact, in my own case, where I indeed mentioned some cases of creation through composition in the traditional sense of the word [Casas Gómez 1986: 142-143] such as zorrotonadillera [fox-singer], putobailarina [whore-dancer] or putañona25 [old whore], I was obliged to decide whether to include this mechanism in the category of morphological resources or lexical ones, finally deciding to follow the linguistic tradition, given its correlation with derivation, and classify it as a morphological resource, since it is a mechanism acting on the formal plane of the forbidden word and not on the framework of its semantic relations. However, I fully agree with Montero Cartelle that, unlike morphological composition, word blending is not a morphological resource, but a phonetic one, as its basic aim is to alter the phonetic structure of the word using extraneous elements born of the speaker’s own imagination.

32 The addition of this type of elements to the formal structure of the word is not very productive in the area of interdiction. We can mention only the case of the Extremaduran dialect word ramajera “woman with rather “free” habits” [Murga Bohigas 1979: 79], in which the adjunction of certain phonemes to the word ramera has displaced its designative value towards a related lexical sphere. It is a very important example, as it shows that this mechanism serves, not only for the euphemistic attenuation of a forbidden word, but also, as we have seen, for its associative displacement. On the other hand, the blending of two words can give rise to determinants that are not only euphemistic but also dysphemistic or humorous. In this respect, Rabanales [1958: 48] emphasised the wit used in creating a blended compound, alluding to the interpretations of the names of some personalities on the national political scene (Orejorio = oreja [ear] + Gregorio), some like Dondini, which is substituted by Tontini (blended with tonto [fool]) or compounds like veterruga = veterano + arruga [wrinkle]. The lexical creations of Coll [1975: 170] follow a similar pattern, such as putetisa, a blend of puta and poetisa: “ramera aficionada a hacer versos” [a whore keen on writing verse]. In his Dictionary we can find a wide variety of examples of this type

Lexis, 7 | 2012 60

of composition and phonetic alteration by modification, adjunction or agglutination, such as those compounds, apart from the above-mentioned, relative to the lexical field of prostitution, and, in particular, to the concept of “puta”: buta, cataputa, cazorra, deputación, désputa, escoputa, exputa, guardaputas, hepútico, hipopútamo, hosputal, imputencia, limpiaputas, meretrid, narizorra, neputismo, palputar, pendonar, perputar, prostitata, putamorfosis, putano, putatús, putefacta, putente, putíbulo, putilado, putinar, putocracia, putrimonio, remera, or reputiar26.

33 In spite of all this, word blending has been analyzed by few authors writing on the subject of interdiction, such as Mansur Guérios [1956: 25], who states that “o vocábulo tabu é substituído por um resultado do cruzamento entre aquêle e outro vocábulo” [the taboo word is substituted by the result of blending that word with another one], although he points out that it may occur that both components are taboo, as in the case of the Russian form ancipar, a euphemistic blend of “ An (tikhrist) - (Lu) cipar (= Lúcifer)”, or Grimes [1978: 30-31], who, although he does not mention this mechanism in the theoretical part of his work on the erotic language of the Mexicans, when he systematises the designations of the “male member”, he devotes a section to humorous dysphemisms using word blending, with examples like la chúperson and la mámerson: “disfemismos humorísticos que imitan la terminación de ciertos apellidos ingleses (“Anderson”, “Johnson”), o que tal vez se inspiran en los nombres de ciertas marcas de armas (“Remington”, “Smith and Wesson”). Las raíces hispanas (“chupar”, “mamar”) simultáneamente expresan el concepto tabú por medio de una referencia al fellatio” [humorous dysphemisms which imitate the ending of some English surnames [Anderson, Johnson] or are perhaps inspired by makes of firearms (Remington, Smith and Wesson). The Spanish roots (“chupar”, “mamar”) express the taboo concept simultaneously by means of a reference to fellation].

34 The humorous dysphemistic aspect of this resource is also present in the slang term camaruta, a cross between camarera + puta which increases the motivation of the word and the real designation: “bar hostess”. On the other hand, its euphemistic capacity, with vague humorous overtones is shown in another term, meregilda, found in Salvadoran popular language and gypsy dialect, with a meaning equivalent to “meretriz” (meretrix), and which is, according to Schneider [1962: 271], a “cruce de menegilda (

Conclusions

35 In this paper, as well as tracing an evolution of the theoretical characterisation of euphemism and dysphemism from their treatment as lexical substitutes in the Romanist tradition to their current dimension as cognitive processes of conceptualization of a certain forbidden reality, I have demonstrated, above all, the relevance acquired by creative expressiveness, exemplified in the text by some specific resources such as expressive designations and word blending, in euphemistic and dysphemistic fields. This fact dates back to the very affective ambivalence of the origin of the taboo.

36 The level of the connotative values expressed symptomatically by euphemistic and dysphemistic uses is such that, not only is a forbidden base term sometimes lacking, but it also explains that the boundaries between taboo and dysphemism are blurred

Lexis, 7 | 2012 61

and it even partially justifies the lack of a clear delimitation between euphemism and dysphemism, since there are all kinds of affective combinations, given the existence of numerous cases of euphemistic dysphemisms and dysphemistic euphemisms.

37 Finally, there has been great insistence on the fact that this expressive capacity of euphemism and dysphemism is manifested, above all, in its communicative function, not so much for covering or for attenuation or politeness, but more for enhancement, that accompanies certain euphemistic creations for “puffery”, shown in the social advancement and greater prestige of jobs, trades and professions, and carefully formulated in the domain of political correct language. This circumstance has led to a change in our definition of euphemism and dysphemism with the incorporation of new aspects of the linguistic description of these phenomena.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ALCALÁ VENCESLADA Antonio, Vocabulario andaluz, Madrid: Gredos, 1980.

ALCARAZ VARÓ Enrique and MARTÍNEZ LINARES María Antonia, Diccionario de lingüística moderna, Barcelona: Ariel, 1997.

ALLAN Keith and BURRIDGE Kate, Euphemism and Dysphemism. Language Used as Shield and Weapon, New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.

ALLAN Keith and BURRIDGE Kate, Forbidden Words. Taboo and the Censoring of Language, Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

ALONSO MONTERO Xesús, “Denominaciones gallegas de la culebra, el zorro y el lobo. (Una incursión en la lingüística del tabú y de la expresividad)”, Lingua, literatura e sociedade en Galicia, Madrid: Akal, 1977: 45-47.

ARMENTA MORENO Luisa María, La interdicción lingüística: estrategias del lenguaje políticamente correcto en textos legales educativos. Selección de leyes educativas (1986-2006), Tesis doctoral, Cáceres: Universidad de Extremadura, 2009a.

ARMENTA MORENO Luisa María, “La interdicción lingüística en textos legales educativos (1986-2006)”, Pragmalingüística, Vol. 17, 2009b: 8-27.

ARMENTA MORENO Luisa María, “Usos eufemísticos y disfemísticos en las denominaciones de la profesión docente”, Sintagma, Vol. 22, 2010: 115-129.

BENVENISTE Émile, “La blasfemia y la eufemia”, Problemas de lingüística general, Vol. II, Madrid: Siglo XXI, 1977: 256-260.

BUENO Silveira, “Tabus, eufemismos e disfemismos”, Tratado de Semântica Brasileira, São Paulo: Ed. Saraiva, 1960, 3ª ed.: 199-246.

CARNOY Albert, La science du mot. Traité de Sémantique, Louvain : Éditions ‘Universitas’, 1927.

CASAS GÓMEZ Miguel, La interdicción lingüística. Mecanismos del eufemismo y disfemismo, Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz, 1986.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 62

CASAS GÓMEZ Miguel, “A propósito del concepto lingüístico de eufemismo como sincretismo léxico: su relación con la sinonimia y la homonimia”, Iberoromania, Vol. 37, 1993: 70-90.

CASAS GÓMEZ Miguel, Contribución al estudio del léxico eufemístico/disfemístico. Las designaciones de la “prostituta” en el español moderno, Barcelona: ETD Micropublicaciones, S.L., 1994.

CASAS GÓMEZ Miguel, “Sinonimia y eufemismo”, Quaderni di Semantica, Vol. 16,1, 1995: 17-46.

CASAS GÓMEZ Miguel, “El poder mágico de la palabra”, Trivium. Anuario de Estudios Humanísticos, 8. In memoriam Prof. José Luis Millán Chivite, 1996: 29-52.

CASAS GÓMEZ Miguel, “Tabú de palabra e interdicción conceptual”, PAMIES BERTRÁN Antonio, LUQUE DURÁN Juan de Dios (Eds.), Trabajos de lexicografía y fraseología contrastivas, Granada: Método Ediciones, 2000: 79-98.

CASAS GÓMEZ Miguel, “Precisiones conceptuales en el ámbito de la interdicción lingüística”, SANTOS RÍO Luis, BORREGO NIETO Julio, GARCÍA SANTOS Juan Felipe, GÓMEZ ASENCIO José J., PRIETO DE LOS MOZOS Emilio (Eds.), Palabras, norma, discurso. En memoria de Fernando Lázaro Carreter, Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca, 2005: 271-290.

CASAS GÓMEZ Miguel, “Towards a new approach to the linguistic definition of euphemism”, Language Sciences, Vol. 31, 2009: 725-739.

CASAS GÓMEZ Miguel, “De una visión léxica y pragmático-discursiva a una dimensión cognitiva en la caracterización extralingüística y lingüística del eufemismo”, HORAK André, TORRE, Mariela de la (Eds.), Estudios pragmático-discursivos sobre el eufemismo. Actes du Colloque International L’euphémisme revisité. Nouvelles perspectives pragmatico-discursives (Université de Berne, 2 et 3 septembre 2010), Frankfurt am Main : Peter Lang, Studien zur romanischen Sprachwissenschaft und interkulturellen Kommunikation, 2011: en prensa.

CELA Camilo José, Diccionario secreto, 3 vols., Madrid, Barcelona, Alfaguara, 1975.

CELA Camilo José, Enciclopedia del erotismo, 4 vols., Madrid: Sedmay Ediciones, 1976-77.

CERDÀ Ramón (Coord.), Diccionario de lingüística, Madrid: Anaya, 1986.

CHAMIZO DOMÍNGUEZ Pedro J., “La función social y cognitiva del eufemismo y del disfemismo”, Panace@, Vol. V/15, 2004: 45-51.

CHAMIZO DOMÍNGUEZ Pedro J., “Some theses on euphemisms and dysphemisms”, Studia Anglica Resoviensia, Vol. 3, 2005: 9-16.

CHAMIZO DOMÍNGUEZ Pedro J., “Tabú y lenguaje: las palabras vitandas y la censura lingüística”, Thémata. Revista de Filosofía, Vol. 40, 2008: 31-46.

CHAMIZO DOMÍNGUEZ Pedro J., “Linguistic interdiction: Its status quaestionis and possible future research lines”, Language Sciences, Vol. 31.4, 2009: 428-446.

CHAMIZO DOMÍNGUEZ Pedro J. and SÁNCHEZ BENEDITO Francisco, “Euphemism and Dysphemism: Ambiguity and supposition”, Language and Discourse, Vol. 2, 1994: 78-92.

CHAMIZO DOMÍNGUEZ Pedro J. and SÁNCHEZ BENEDITO Francisco, Lo que nunca se aprendió en clase. Eufemismos y disfemismos en el lenguaje erótico inglés, Granada, Comares, 2000.

COLL José Luis, El diccionario de Coll, Madrid: Planeta, 1975.

CONTRERAS Lidia, “Semántica del español americano. (Notas al libro de Kany)”, Revista Portuguesa de Filología, Vol. 14, 1966-68: 157-195.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 63

CRESPO FERNÁNDEZ Eliecer, “Euphemistic strategies in politeness and face concerns”, Pragmalingüística, Vol. 13, 2005: 77-86.

CRESPO FERNÁNDEZ Eliecer, El eufemismo y el disfemismo. Procesos de manipulación del tabú en el lenguaje literario inglés, Alicante: Universidad de Alicante, 2007.

CRESPO FERNÁNDEZ Eliecer, “Sex-Related Euphemism and Dysphemism: An Analysis in Terms of Conceptual Metaphor Theory”, ATLANTIS. Journal of the Spanish Association of Anglo-American Studies, Vol. 30.2, 2008: 95-110.

DANIEL Pilar, “Panorámica del argot español”, LEÓN, Víctor, Diccionario de argot español y lenguaje popular, Madrid: Alianza, 1980: 7-27.

EDESO NATALÍAS Verónica, “Revisión del concepto de eufemismo: una propuesta de clasificación”, Revista Internacional de Lingüística Iberoamericana, Vol. VII.2(14), 2009: 147-163.

FREUD Sigmund, Tótem y Tabú, Madrid: Alianza, 1967.

GALLI DE’ PARATESI Nora, Le brutte parole. Semantica dell’eufemismo, Torino: Arnoldo Mondadori Editore, 1973, 3ª ed.

GÓMEZ SÁNCHEZ María Elena, El eufemismo político y económico en la prensa diaria: Análisis de ABC y El País (1998), Tesis doctoral inédita, Madrid: Facultad de Ciencias de la Información, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 2004.

GRIMES Larry M., El tabú lingüístico en México: el lenguaje erótico de los mexicanos, New York: Ed. Bilingual Press, 1978.

GUITART ESCUDERO María Pilar, Lenguaje político y lenguaje políticamente correcto en España (con especial atención al discurso parlamentario), Tesis doctoral, Valencia: Universidad de Valencia, 2003.

GUITART ESCUDERO María Pilar, Discurso parlamentario y lenguaje políticamente correcto, Madrid: Congreso de los Diputados, 2005.

HERNÁNDEZ FLORES Nieves, “La cortesía como la búsqueda del equilibrio de la imagen social”, BRAVO Diana, BRIZ GÓMEZ Antonio (Eds.), Pragmática sociocultural: estudios sobre el discurso de cortesía en español, Barcelona: Ariel, 2004: 95-108.

HORAK André, L’Euphémisme. Entre tradition rhétorique et perspectives nouvelles, München : LINCOM, 2010.

KANY Charles E., American-Spanish Euphemisms, Berkeley-Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1960.

KANY Charles E., Semántica hispanoamericana, Madrid: Aguilar, 1969.

KRÖLL Heinz, “Algunos eufemismos en el portugués coloquial y popular”, Cuadernos de Filología. Studia Linguistica Hispanica, Vol. II,2, 1981: 105-119.

KRÖLL Heinz, O eufemismo e o disfemismo no português moderno, Lisboa: Instituto de Cultura e Língua Portuguesa, 1984.

LECHADO GARCÍA José Manuel, Diccionario de eufemismos y de expresiones eufemísticas del español actual, Madrid: Verbum, 2000.

LEÓN Víctor, Diccionario de argot español y lenguaje popular, Madrid, Alianza, 1980.

LEWANDOWSKI Theodor, Diccionario de lingüística, Madrid: Cátedra, 1982.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 64

LÓPEZ EIRE Antonio, “Sobre el eufemismo en la Oratoria ática y en la Retórica”, MARTINO Francesco de, SOMMERSTEIN Alan H. (Eds.), Studi sull’eufemismo, Bari: Levante, 1999: 313-367.

LUQUE DURÁN Juan de Dios, PAMIES BERTRÁN Antonio, MANJÓN POZAS Francisco José, El arte del insulto. Estudio lexicográfico, Barcelona: Ediciones Península, 1997.

MANSUR GUÉRIOS Rosário Farâni, Tabus lingüísticos, Rio de Janeiro: Organização Simões Editora, 1956.

MARTÍN Jaime, Diccionario de expresiones malsonantes del español, Madrid: Istmo, 1979, 2ª ed.

MONTERO CARTELLE Emilio, El eufemismo en Galicia (su comparación con otras áreas romances), Santiago de Compostela: Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, 1981.

MONTERO CARTELLE Enrique, Aspectos léxicos y literarios del latín erótico (hasta el s. I. d. C.), Santiago de Compostela: Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, 1973.

MURGA BOHIGAS Antonio, Habla popular de Extremadura. Vocabulario, Madrid: Gráficas Alvi, 1979.

NYROP Kristoffer, Grammaire historique de la langue française, IV: La sémantique, Copenhague : Gyldendalske Boghandel Nordisk Forlag, 1913.

RABANALES Ambrosio, “Recursos lingüísticos, en el español de Chile, de expresión de la afectividad”, Boletín de Filología. Universidad de Chile, Vol. 9, 1958: 205‑302.

RADTKE Edgar, Typologie des sexuell-erotischen Vocabulars des heutigen Italienisch: Studien zur Bestimmung der Wortfelder “prostituta” und “membro virile” unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der übrigen romanischen Sprachen, Tübingen: Narr, 1980.

RESTREPO Félix, Diseño de semántica general. El alma de las palabras, Barcelona: Imp. Editorial Barcelonesa, 1917.

REUTNER Ursula, “El eufemismo como fenómeno cultural y lexicográfico”, Lingüística Española Actual, 2010: en prensa.

RODCHENKO Anna, Algunos aspectos de la variabilidad de los eufemismos en el español contemporáneo, Documento de internet: http://hispanismo.cervantes.es/documentos/rodchenko.pdf

RODRÍGUEZ ADRADOS Francisco, “Estructura del vocabulario y estructura de la lengua”, Problemas y principios del estructuralismo lingüístico, Madrid, CSIC, 1967: 193-229.

SCHNEIDER Hans, “Notas sobre el lenguaje popular y caló salvadoreños”, Romanistisches Jahrbuch, Vol. XIII, 1962: 252-272.

SENABRE Ricardo, “El eufemismo como fenómeno lingüístico”, Boletín de la Real Academia Española, Vol. 51, 1971: 175-189.

SILVA CORREIA João da, “O eufemismo e o disfemismo na língua e na literatura portuguesa”, Arquivo da Universidade de Lisboa, Vol. 12, 1927: 445-787.

SUÁREZ SOLÍS Sara, El léxico de Camilo José Cela, Madrid-Barcelona: Alfaguara, 1969.

ULLMANN Stephen, Semántica. Introducción a la ciencia del significado, Madrid: Aguilar, 1976.

URÍA VARELA Javier, Tabú y eufemismo en latín, Amsterdam, A. M. Hakkert-Publisher, 1997.

VENDRYES Joseph, El lenguaje. Introducción lingüística a la historia, México: UTEHA, 1967.

WARREN Beatrice, “What Euphemisms Tell us about the Interpretation of Words”, Studia Linguistica, Vol. 46.2, 1992: 128-172.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 65

WIDŁAK Stanislaw, “Le fonctionnement de l’euphémisme et la théorie du champ linguistique: domaine roman”, Actas del XI Congreso Internacional de Lingüística y Filología Románicas, Madrid, 1965, Vol. 2, Madrid: 1968: 1031-1052.

WIDŁAK Stanislaw, Moyens euphémistiques en italian contemporain, Kraków: Nakładem Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1970.

WIDŁAK Stanislaw, Alcuni aspetti strutturali del funzionamento dell’eufemismo. Antonimia, sinonimia, omonimia e polisemia, Wrocław, Warszawa, Kraków, Gdańsk: Accademia Polacca delle Scienze, 1972.

NOTES

1. As Freud states [1967: 47], “en su inconsciente, no desearían nada mejor que su violación, pero al mismo tiempo, sienten temor a ella. La temen precisamente porque la desean, y el temor es más fuerte que el deseo” [in their unconscious mind, they wish for nothing less than its violation, but, at the same time, they fear it. Their fear is stronger than their desire]. 2. This is one of the most frequent confusions, criticised by several authors on the subject, that can be found in this field of study. For this and other terminological and conceptual clarifications in the area of interdiction, such as euphemism / dysphemism – euphemistic / dysphemistic substitute – euphemistic / dysphemistic use, taboo – euphemism, euphemism – dysphemism, euphemism / dysphemism – base linguistic mechanism, euphemism – synonymy, taboo – dysphemism, dysphemism – cacophemism – cacosemy, taboo – interdiction and word taboo – conceptual interdiction, see my papers [Casas Gómez 1986: 36-40, 1995: 17-46, 2000: 79-94 and, above all, 2005: 271- 290]. 3. As Uría Varela so correctly observes [1997: 5-6]. 4. As I have explained in later works [Casas Gómez 1993, 1995, 2000, 2005 and 2009]. 5. See the research carried out in different Romance languages by, amongst others, Galli de’ Paratesi, [1973], Senabre [1971], Widłak [1968, 1970 and 1972], Montero Cartelle [1981], Kröll [1984] and Radtke [1980]. 6. A Latin philologist, Uría Varela, was the first to adopt a new perspective, observing this circumstance in the revision of the definitions of euphemism made before his monographic work Taboo and Euphemism in Latin. To this end, he made the following clarifications: 1) euphemism cannot always be characterised as a lexical substitute; 2) its functioning should not be restricted exclusively to this linguistic level, and 3) above all, it is not necessary to identify the phenomenon at all times as a substitution process. In defence of this argument, he mentions the existence of “sustitutos eufemísticos que no son léxicos” [euphemistic substitutes which are not lexical] (gestures), “procesos eufemísticos que se plasman en el léxico, pero que no implican una sustitución, como los que se actualizan a través de fórmulas de excusa o de agrupaciones sintagmáticas” [euphemistic processes which have a lexical origin, but which do not imply a substitution, such as those which occur in excuses or syntagmatic groupings], and others which are neither lexical nor substitutive (intonation or tone of voice), concluding that, as well as the possible substitution, this process could include a modulation of the forbidden term, carried out verbally by means of excuses “que disculpen su emisión (anterior o inminente)” [that apologise for what is transmitted (before or after)] (such as if you’ll forgive my saying so, if you’ll pardon the expression, etc.) or through non-verbal devices of a paralinguistic type, such as intonation or tone of voice. 7. In recent years there has been a proliferation of definitions that highlight the pragmatic consideration of the phenomenon and that insist on its discursive characterization and the elements that take part in the euphemistic communicative process, above all regarding the interpretative role of the hearer due to the perlocutive effects that the corresponding

Lexis, 7 | 2012 66

euphemistic uses produce contextually in the receivers. As examples of this point of view, consider, for example, the theories of Allan and Burridge [1991: 11 and 2006: 31-33], Warren [1992: 135], Lechado García [2000: 14], Rodchenko (Algunos aspectos de la variabilidad de los eufemismos en el español contemporáneo [Some aspects of the variability of euphemisms in contemporary Spanish]) or Gómez Sánchez [2004: 45]. The relevance of this pragmatic and communicative perspective in the study of euphemism has been demonstrated by the fact that it has been dealt with in some of the more recent dictionaries of linguistics, such as the Diccionario de lingüistica moderna [Dictionary of Modern Linguistics] by Alcaraz Varó and Martínez Linares [1997: 219-220]. In this frame of analysis we can situate some of the more recent formulations on euphemism, such as those made by Armenta Moreno [2009b: 23], Edeso Natalías [2009: 147 and 150] and, especially, Crespo Fernández [2007: 82-83]. A critical revision of all these characterizations of euphemism can be found in Casas Gómez [2009: 732-733 and 2011: in press]. 8. With these comments, he agrees with me that euphemism must be considered, not as a systemic phenomenon, but as a discursive one, in the frame of a pragmatic definition integrated in speech linguistics, characterizing it as “el conjunto de mecanismos lingüísticos que, basándose en una alteración, modulación o sustitución de formas o contenidos lingüísticos interdictos, proporcionan al hablante la posibilidad de comunicación atenuada de un sector de la experiencia” [a set of linguistic mechanisms, which, coming from alteration, modulation or substitution of forbidden linguistic forms or contents, provide the speaker with the possibility of the attenuated communication of one field of experience] [Uría Varela 1997: 6]. 9. Consider, for example, the base term related to the “other world” or the “afterlife” or, especially, to the forbidden conceptual area around “lavatory” [Casas Gómez 1995: 28-32), which shows a type of instability of the euphemism consisting of a constant change of substitutes which exist both simultaneously and successively alongside the taboo term, but they never actually take its place; all that may happen is the decadence of the term itself, which may be relegated to a diastratic level, or to a certain specific lexicon. The fact that the taboo term outlives its substitutes contrasts with the constant euphemistic regeneration, which, in some cases, is so brief, that it could be said, not that the euphemism is “born to die”, but that it is “born dying”. This is what happens with the lexical instability of the numerous substitutes generated by the forbidden reality of the “lavatory”, in which certain ambiguous substitutes such as restroom, bathroom, toilet, powder room, among others, may refer, metonymically, to the place or the action, as can be seen in contexts like “I’m going to have a sh… I mean to the bathroom” (an expression normally accompanied by a paralinguistic verbal modulation). 10. Grimes [1978: 24], who, on the same page goes on to say: “Así cuando el hablante quiere expresar el cariño en grado intenso, ignora la cualidad de la emoción y selecciona un signo lingüístico más adecuado a su intensidad, o sea una expresión que normalmente expresa la afectividad negative” [Thus, when the speaker wishes to express strong affection, he ignores the emotional quality and chooses the most suitable linguistic sign to reflect its intensity, that is an expression normally used for negative affectivity]. Similarly, Kany [1969: 75] states that “los referentes desagradables son más numerosos que los agradables y su tono emotivo es mucho más intenso. De ahí que en momentos de intensa emoción la consciencia del hablante se vea invadida de palabras injuriosas” [unpleasant references are more frequent than pleasant ones and their emotive tone is much stronger. For this reason, at times of intense emotion the speaker’s conscience is filled with offensive words]. 11. As Vendryes states [1967: 240], “las más violentas palabras que puedan emplear la cólera o el odio admiten un uso suavizado, enternecido; se emplean como expresión amistosa, que excluye todo menosprecio, todo vituperio” [the most violent words that can be used in anger or hatred may have a gentler, tender use, which leaves aside all disdain and vituperation]. See also Daniel [1980: 16]: “el tono o la intencionalidad del hablante pueden modificar por completo el valor de una palabra. Las expresiones más injuriosas adquieren no pocas veces carácter afectuoso. Por

Lexis, 7 | 2012 67

ejemplo, cuando dos amigos se saludan con un <<¡Hola, cabronazo! ¿Qué te cuentas?>> Muchos términos que se consideran vulgares por su significado se hallan tan incorporados al lenguaje corriente, a veces como simples muletillas conversacionales o como exclamaciones (¡joder!, ¡coño!, ¡leche!), que han perdido toda contaminación sexual” [the tone and the intention of the speaker can completely alter the value of a word. The most offensive expressions often acquire an affectionate tone. For example, when two friends greet each other with “Hello, you old bastard! How are things?” Many expressions, such as ¡joder! [fuck] and ¡coño! [cunt] ¡leche! [spunk] T.N. that are considered vulgar because of their meaning, have become so incorporated in everyday language, often as tags or exclamations, that they have lost all their sexual contamination]. T.N. The word coño in Spanish is in everyday use and is relatively inoffensive, unlike its English equivalent. Leche (lit. milk) is used as an expression of surprise and is also considered inoffensive. 12. With regard to these affective metaphors, see Ullmann [1976: 241], who distinguishes two types of similarity: objective and emotive. 13. The most widely-used expression is, no doubt, dysphemism, a term used by Carnoy [1927: 351-356; cf. also Bueno 1960: 240-246; Grimes 1978: 16-19; Cela 1975: 27; Mansur Guérios 1956: 24-25; Montero Cartelle 1981: 86; Montero Cartelle 1973: 22; Casas Gómez 1986: 81-96; Chamizo 2004: 45-51, 2005: 9-16, 2008: 31-46 y 2009: 428-446; Chamizo y Sánchez Benedito 1994: 78-92 y 2000: 23-65; Edeso Natalías 2009: 148-151; Crespo Fernández 2007: esp. 153-210 y 2008: 95-110, or Armenta Moreno 2009a: 236-272 y 539-625, 2009b: 17-24 y 2010: 120-124], to designate with maximum accuracy the inverse phenomenon of euphemism, which does not mitigate, dissipate or attenuate the connotations of the forbidden word, but, on the contrary, motivates and further reinforces its associations. However, some authors have used different denominations, sometimes with certain restrictions on the meaning. Thus, Silva Correia [1927: 757-778], whilst describing this process in general as dysphemism, frequently uses other synonyms such as counter- euphemism, anti-euphemism and, above all, cacophemism. In the case of Grimes [1978: 16], although he distinguishes both dysphemism and insult within the process of the linguistic evocation of the forbidden term, he widens the concept of dysphemism to include under this heading, not only “ aquellos términos que representan la expresión popular recta, aunque dura y malsonante, de los conceptos tabús” [those terms that represent straightforward popular expression, although they may be crude and offensive, of taboo concepts], but also “aquellas expresiones de connotación negativa que, sin ser fórmulas injuriosas estereotipadas, sustituyen a términos positivos o neutrals” [those expressions with negative connotations that, not being typical insults, replace positive or neutral ones]. Closely related to the field of dysphemism from a lexicographical point of view is the work on the insult by Luque, Pamies and Manjón [1979]. 14. Father Restrepo [1917: 40] mentioned the influence of feelings on semantic change: “Los mimos de las madres llegan hasta aplicar a sus hijos nombres afrentosos, que tocados por el cariño maternal se convierten como por encanto en lo más dulce y expresivo de la lengua. Así cambian ocasionalmente de sentido voces como pícaro, granuja, gandul, bribón, pillo, tunante, negro, chato. El mismo monín, que hoy tanto se oye, no es sino el diminutivo de mono”. [A mother’s affection leads her to call her children offensive names, which, touched by maternal affection, are magically turned into the sweetest and most expressive parts of the language. In this way, words like rogue, rascal, scallywag, scamp, naughty, villain, black and snub-nose change their senses. Even little monkey, which is heard so often today, is simply the diminutive of monkey]. Kany [1969: 76 ff] expressed a similar opinion: “El proceso puede ilustrarse con los numerosos ejemplos de cacofemismos empleados con los niños. La madre, al dirigirse a su hijo, a menudo emplea un término injurioso que satisface el elevado grado de su amor y ternura”. [The process can be illustrated with the many examples of cacophemisms used for children. The mother, addressing her children, often uses an insulting term with the maximum level of love and tenderness].

Lexis, 7 | 2012 68

T.N. A variety of expressions used as alternatives to hijo de puta comparable to son of a gun for son of a bitch. 15. These words can be interpreted as terms of endearment in this social environment, as they can in other circumstances. This semantic-expressive resource, which Rabanales [1958: 287-292] called calosemy, is usually accompanied by a special inflection in the voice and an exclamatory tone which further accentuates the intensity of the affection. 16. As I have tried to show, with numerous materials, in recent papers on the different linguistic and non-linguistic visions of the process [Casas Gómez 2009: 727-733 and 2011: in press]. 17. A form seen in on a sign in a shoe-shop, which, besides, was clearly motivated humoristically by the identification of the word zapatero [cobbler, shoemaker] with the of the current Spanish Prime Minister. 18. A popular Spanish verse illustrates this very clearly: “Cuando se emborracha un pobre / Le dicen el borrachón; / Cuando se emborracha un rico: ¡Qué gracioso está el señor!”. [When a poor man gets drunk, they call him a drunkard;/ when a rich man gets drunk:/ what an amusing gentleman!] (Cuentos y poesías populares andaluces, 1916: 343, cit. by Nyrop 1913: 314 and Silva Correia 1927: 732]. 19. “El eufemismo favorece la imagen positiva en la medida en que constituye un mecanismo de cortesía, también positiva, ya que supone el deseo de ser aprobado por los demás o, al menos, de no ser recriminado por nuestras palabras (...). En suma, el eufemismo atenúa los rasgos negativos de su referente, a la vez que como elemento de cortesía positiva refuerza la imagen positiva tanto del locutor como del interlocutor”. [Euphemism favours a positive image insofar as it is a mechanism of politeness, which is also positive, as it expresses the desire to please others, or at least, not to be criticised for what we say (…]. To sum up, euphemism attenuates the negative aspects of its point of reference, at the same time being an element of positive politeness which reinforces the positive image of both speaker and hearer] [Edeso Natalías 2009: 156 y 157-158]. In a previous work, Crespo Fernández [2005: 77-86] analysed euphemistic strategies in relation to the concept of “face”, within the framework of verbal politeness, in an attempt to show that euphemism, politeness and face are interrelated phenomena. Thus, in correlation with the two sides of politeness, the notion of “face” performs a two-fold function, acting as a preserver of the public self-image and autonomy of the participants in communication: “positive face (identified with the individual’s desire to be positively regarded in social context) and negative face (concerned with the participant’s desire to be autonomous and free from imposition). Euphemism acts on each of these two dimensions of face: first, it responds to the speaker’s need to soften potential social conflicts which may alter the interlocutor’s prestige; second, it supposes a way to minimize a threat to the interlocutor’s autonomy” [op.cit.: 83]. 20. See also on this subject the current works by Guitart Escudero [2003 and 2005: esp. 31-59] and Armenta Moreno [2009a: 29-56, 2009b: 9-12 and 2010: 115-129]. 21. As Edeso Natalías [2009: 158] points out, “existen otra serie de eufemismos que no se atienen a esta definición. O, mejor dicho, que nos obligan a ampliarla, ya que no sólo atenúan los posibles rasgos negativos de su referente sino que, además, acentúan o enfatizan sus rasgos positivos” [there is another group of euphemisms which do not belong to this definition. In fact they force us to widen it, as they not only attenuate possible negative features of their point of reference, but they also accentuate and emphasise its positive points]. 22. Silva Correia [1927: 484] already included these “denominações afectuosas” [affectionate denominations] as lexical resources. T.N. Tía means, literally, “aunt”, but is also used colloquially for girl or woman. 23. The following example, in which after the first syllable, the author makes a euphemistic or dysphemistic detour towards a word with a similar sound to the forbidden one, makes clear that the word puerca [sow] functions not only as a dysphemistic animal metaphor for “puta” but can also be used as a paronymic substitute for that word:

Lexis, 7 | 2012 69

“-¡Habráse visto -exclamaba- mayor descoco! ¡Vaya...las mantesonas, las pu...’ercas’!” [Have you ever seen, he exclaimed, such impudence! Look at the brazen hussies, the… sows!] (Juan Valera, Juanita la Larga, Madrid, Salvat RTV, 1970: 63]. 24. Silva Correia (1927: 494 and 497] separates encorpamento [enhancement, enlargement] (“para disfarçar o termo ominoso enriquece-se êste por vezes com fonemas que não lhe pertencem” [to disguise the unpleasant term it is sometimes enriched with phonemes that do not belong to it]) from cruzamentos vocabulares [blends], which may have, in certain cases, euphemistic value, as in the case of dechemo (mentioned by Gil Vicente), a combination of decho + demo, both synonyms of “devil”. 25. The first two, using the ending in –o [masculine] in the first element in analogy with other compound forms, are similar lexical creations which soften, to a certain extent, the crudity of the words zorra and puta, at the same time as they are motivated towards the concept of “tanguista- prostitute” [tango dancer-prostitute]. The case of putañona is quite the contrary; the adjectival form not only suggests the meaning of the compound, but it also increases the pejorative and dysphemistic value of the base term. Furthermore, this term has two possible explanations: it could be an augmentative form of putaña or a compound, as Alcalá Venceslada suggests [1980: 513], of puta + añonaT.N., which gives rise to the acception of “old harlot”. T.N. añona would be derived from año [year]. 26. Among the devotees of these lexical creations are Camilo José Cela: “-No, no crea; estas artistas no convienen; estas artistas, las que más, las que menos, suelen tener “furor puterino”, suelen ser todas unos “pendones””. [No, don’t believe it; these artists aren’t suitable; these artists, some more and some less, usually have “whoritis”, they are usually all ] (El Molino de Viento, 706, cit. by Suárez Solís [1969: 438] and Álvaro de Laiglesia, in whose book Fulanita y sus Menganos (Barcelona, Planeta, 1965: 18 and 146] we find the forms deputante: “...he podido reconstruir con exactitud mis ya algo lejanos tiempos de “debutante”. O dicho sea con más claridad, por si alguien no entiende el gabacho, de “deputante”. Así sabrá todo el mundo lo que quiero decir” […I have been able to reconstruct with precisión my far-off times as a “debutante”. Or to put it clearly in case somebody doesn’t understand frog, as a “deputante”. So everyone will know what I mean] and putocracia: “¡Qué colorados se hubieran puesto si llegan a saber que no éramos damas de la aristocracia, sino fulanas de la “putocracia”! [How they would have blushed if they’d known that we weren’t aristocratic ladies, but tarts from the “putocracy”]. Similar deformations can be found in jokes: “¿Qué es una pauta? / Una mujer maula” T.N. and “¿Cuál es el colmo del químico? / Tener un hijo cabronato y una hija putásica”. [What’s the definition of a chemist? Having a cuckold [cabronato, a pun on carbonato] son and a sluttish [putásica, a pun on potásica] daughter]. T.N. A pun on the vowel sounds: puta/pauta and mala/maula. Pauta means guideline, maula does not exist.

ABSTRACTS

Euphemism and dysphemism are two cognitive processes of conceptualisation, with countervalent effects (having the same base and resources but different aims and purposes), of a certain forbidden reality. The expressiveness immanent in these phenomena is so consubstantial that it explains not only its forbidden origin (the affective ambivalence of the taboo or the paradoxical description of its intrinsic essence), but also that sometimes the forbidden term does

Lexis, 7 | 2012 70

not exist, with the use of euphemistic/dysphemistic expressions that, given their connotative contents, go beyond what the corresponding forbidden terms would designate. It is precisely this expressive capacity of euphemistic and dysphemistic nature that shows that the dividing line between taboo and dysphemism is, on occasions, quite blurred, so that a taboo term is not readily available, and that the boundary between euphemism and dysphemism is not entirely clear. These conflicting emotions and antagonistic feelings facilitate the existence of dysphemistic euphemisms and euphemistic dysphemisms. Likewise, there are several mechanisms with an expressive base, corresponding to different linguistic levels, which make use of these phenomena in order to modulate, substitute, alter or modify a certain forbidden concept or reality. In this paper, we will stick to linguistic description with examples from a set of specific resources, which are especially significative for their expressiveness, and which favour the appearance of linguistic creations, sometimes through a lexical substitute and at other times through a morphological modification of a forbidden content, such as expressive designations, verbal exchanges or composition, as well as those other cases in which the attenuating nature of the euphemism is intensified with expressive enhancement in the creation of certain substitutions for reasons of puffery, which are so common in expressions which give additional social prestige to certain professions, trades and jobs.

INDEX

Keywords: taboo, euphemism, dysphemism, expressive enhancement, politically correct language, expressive creativity

AUTHOR

MIGUEL CASAS GÓMEZ

University of Cádiz [email protected]

Lexis, 7 | 2012 71

Euphemism and Language Change: The Sixth and Seventh Ages

Kate Burridge

Many thanks to Keith Allan for casting his expert eye over this paper. As always I am very grateful for his input.

1. Introduction – the functions of euphemism

1 I need first to explain my use of the labels euphemism, dysphemism and orthophemism. X-phemism (the union set of these ‘phemisms’) is primarily determined from evaluating expressions within the particular context in which they are uttered. Given there is such complexity and variety of opinions and attitudes, we are unlikely to ever find uniformity of judgement between speakers of even very similar social backgrounds. There is never ‘Everyman’s euphemism’ or ‘Everyman’s dysphemism’. However, it would ignore reality to pretend that ordinary people do not perceive expressions to be somehow intrinsically X-phemistic: terms for ‘die’ such as pass away and sleep are euphemistic, whereas croak and peg out are not. Milwood-Hargrave [2000] is a British survey where participants were asked to respond to the perceived ‘strength’ of twenty-eight swearwords. No context was provided; yet, participants were clear about the severity of these words and the researchers were able to put together a broad topography of swearwords across all groups. Modern dictionaries also treat expressions as if they were inherently dysphemistic when they indicate offensive connotations of particular entries. The Encarta World English Dictionary recognizes three degrees of offensiveness: ‘insulting’, ‘offensive’, and ‘taboo’. Similarly, those who compile dictionaries of euphemisms and dysphemisms, such as Ayto (1993) and Green (1996), base their collections on the prejudiced social attitudes to the situation in which they believe a given expression is uttered. This sort of ‘sensitive handling’ employs a type of good etiquette gauge by which is determined the X-phemistic value of an expression without reference to the context of use (cf. the ‘middle class politeness criterion’ in Allan and Burridge [2006: 33]). Like Allan (this volume), this is also the measure I will be assuming here where context is not specified.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 72

2 The literature of euphemism shows that examples can be wide-ranging: medieval Dutch physicians would write of figs in the secret passage to denote “piles”; the 19 th century Victorian moral code created negative words such as inexpressibles, unmentionables and unhintables so that those in polite society could avoid uttering legs, trousers and underclothing; some people (including the current author) still say crumbs instead of Christ; many newspapers still print c*** and f***; politicians speak of community charges, levies or even voluntary contributions rather than of taxes or tolls; prairie oysters, mountain oysters and fry sound more appetizing than calf’s testicles; lemon fish and flake far tastier than shark; companies downsize, rightsize, or implement an RIF (Reduction In Force) through targeted voluntary separation or involuntary resignation; the push for non-sexist usage has rendered words like chairman and actress taboo for some people; and so on.

3 Very broadly, euphemisms are sweet-sounding, or at least inoffensive, alternatives for expressions that speakers or writers prefer not to use in executing a particular communicative intention on a given occasion. Within this all-embracing job description, we can identify at least six different (though frequently overlapping) tasks that euphemisms perform. As will become clear, these have a bearing both on the types of euphemism used (the linguistic strategies drawn on to create expressions) and on their career span (their semantic stability and durability). Euphemisms fulfilling the first two functions maintain a low profile; it is all about obscuring and disguising disagreeable reality. Their life cycle can be very different from the other more attention seeking euphemisms. Here speakers or writers are typically doing something clever or humorous with the language; their creations refuse to take the back seat normally reserved for the regular face-saving euphemisms (to draw on Dwight Bolinger’s image for anaphora; 1980: 96). The life expectancy of these euphemisms is very often short.

1.1. The protective euphemism — to shield and to avoid offense

4 Euphemisms are characterized by avoidance language and evasive expression. We create them when we are faced the tricky problem of how to talk in different contexts about things that for one reason or another we would prefer not to speak of unrestrainedly in the prevailing context. In this primary function, euphemisms are verbal escape hatches created in response to taboos. These include the usual suspects — private parts, bodily functions, sex, anger, dishonesty, drunkenness, madness, disease, death, dangerous animals, fear, God and so on — as Adams and Newell [1994: 12] describe ‘an infinite variety of things that go bump in the night’.

5 Traditionally, much was made of the difference between conditional and unconditional (or absolute) taboo. When the word first entered English in the 18th century from Tonga, it referred to conduct believed to be dangerous to certain individuals or to the society as a whole. In this context, violations of taboos were expected to have dire consequences and euphemism was literally a matter of life or death. Taboo Polynesian- style was said to absolute — a 24-hour a day, round the clock affair. However, the reality is no taboo holds for all people, times and contexts (Allan and Burridge [2006: Ch. 1]). Moreover, Old Polynesia also had evidence of the sorts of selective taboos on bad manners with which readers of this volume experience in their everyday lives; in other words, social sanctions placed on behaviour that is regarded as distasteful or at least impolite within a given social context. The taboos of social convention in the

Lexis, 7 | 2012 73

Western world rest on traditions of etiquette and are therefore set by social parameters such as age, sex, education, social status and the like. They are sometimes observed in private, though they are strongest in the public domain where euphemism becomes the polite thing to do and dysphemism little more than the breaking of a social convention. It is the untimeliness that causes the offense.

6 There will always be significant differences between individual societies and individuals within those societies with respect to the degree of tolerance shown towards any sort of taboo-defying behaviour — much will depend on the values and belief systems at the time. Taboo is also dynamic, and notions about what is forbidden will change, sometimes dramatically, across cultures and across time. The Bowdlerites of the 19th century targeted profanity and sexual explicitness and this triggered the progressive sanitising of a range of works, including the Bible. Their activities seem excessive according to today’s sensitivities. Yet, works of this period also appear remarkably uninhibited at times. The police-court reports of Charles Adam Corbyn from the 1850s, for example, abound descriptions of local residents that make a modern reader’s toes curl: Mr Ninivian Stewart is portrayed as ‘a long-nosed, lank-jawed, hypocritical-looking shoemaker’; Robert Tindal ‘a hen-pecked old man’; Leah Harris ‘a handsome Jewess’; Miss Mary Anne Walsh ‘a middling aged spinster’; Mrs Elizabeth Hilton ‘a tall, powerful woman, whose face outvies in colours those of a round of spiced beef’; Donald M’Kenzie (or Darkey Ken) as ‘an ogre-like Negro, of the dirtiest black colour imaginable’. Since the 1980s, gender, sexuality, and race have become so highly-charged that speakers will shun anything that may be interpreted as discriminatory or pejorative. These new taboos make sexist, racist, ageist, religionist, etc. language not only contextually dysphemistic, but also legally so (cf. Allan and Burridge [2008]). These –IST taboos have surpassed in significance irreligious profanity, blasphemy and sexual obscenity, against which laws have been relaxed1.

1.2. The underhand euphemism — to mystify and to misrepresent

7 There is a sense in which all euphemism is dishonest. No euphemism says it how it is — in a given context, something tabooed can be acceptably spoken of using a euphemism but not using a direct term. However, the euphemistic vocabulary of language varieties such as military, political and medical jargons adds additional dimensions of guile and secrecy to the disguise. Here euphemism is used, not so much to conceal offense but to deliberately disguise a topic and to deceive. This is the sort of doublespeak that turns death into a substantive negative patient care outcome, a diagnostic misadventure of the highest magnitude or a terminal episode; dying into terminal living and killing into the unlawful [or] arbitrary deprivation of life.

8 Examples such as these have lead to deprecation of the term ‘euphemism’ itself. For many, it has become a pejorative label attached to language believed to be value-laden and deliberately obfuscatory; in other words, jargon that is intended to befuddle and to disguise ordinary and inconvenient facts, or as George Orwell once famously described, expressions ‘designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind’ (Politics and the English Language, 1946). It is very much an Orwellian-inspired view of euphemism that has come to dominate public discourse. Impatient with the pretence that sweeter words might produce a sweeter world, many also grow concerned at what appear to be attempts to manipulate their

Lexis, 7 | 2012 74

thoughts and opinions. And though public opinion is not as easily manipulated as Orwell’s Newspeak suggests, studies by researchers such as Elizabeth Loftus show that loaded language can indeed work to influence memory and perception. Expressions such as soft skin target, surgical strikes, collateral damage and friendly fire also help to minimize feelings of responsibility. They play down the slaughter of human beings and also create psychological distance between the perpetrators and their actions.

9 A type of dishonest euphemism also flourishes in domains associated with activities in conflict within the more established sectors of society. Within the antilanguages of ‘underworld’ subcultures (‘the languages of the antisociety’; Halliday [1978: 171]), we see euphemistic synonyms that have a function in concealing the nefarious nature of whatever they designate, with the express purpose of keeping outsiders in the dark. The following is a handful of examples from the over 2, 300 street terms that refer to illicit drug types or drug activity (taken from a glossary compiled by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy): get snotty (“to use heroin”); candy sticks (“marijuana cigarettes laced with powdered cocaine”); gym sticks (“steroids used by athletes”); hugs and kisses (“methamphetamine and methylenedioxymethamphetamine” or “MDMA”); lipton tea / lemonade (“poor quality drugs”); klingons (“crack addicts”). The high turnover rate of this vocabulary means that these terms may soon be passé; the need to maintain secrecy ensures that as soon as a term’s cover is blown, it has to be replaced. The linguistic disguise need not always be to conceal the disreputable, however. The mercantile code of Dutch fishermen reverses syllables and also sometimes words to disguise expressions so that other fishermen won’t uncover their secrets; trade jargons, such as Romani, can also work as a secret code to conceal information from customers or any would-be competitors on the outside (cf. Burridge and Allan [1998]).

1.3. The uplifting euphemism — to talk up and to inflate

10 In their ability to place whatever it is they designate in a favourable light, many euphemisms are simply alternatives for expressions speakers prefer not to use on a given occasion. Clause 28 of the Melbourne Metropolitan Planning Scheme makes several references to the accommodation of stationary vehicles.2 The author presumably believed that this phrase has more favourable connotations than either parking places or car spaces; in fact these are probably dispreferred simply because they do not have the Latinate ring of bureaucratese. Such examples are comparable to the upgrade of potholes to pavement deficiencies, bottlenecks to localised capacity deficiencies and the promotion to Chicken-Ham à la Princesse of a recipe involving canned cream of chicken soup with cubed spam and evaporated milk.

11 Clearly, with euphemisms of the uplifting kind we again collide with jargon, the language peculiar to a trade, profession or some other group. The hamburger industry’s use of the term autocondimentation as opposed to precondimentation is an economical way of distinguishing a client’s right to salt his/her own hamburger. It is certainly not necessary to use these terms in order to get the meaning across, so why use them? The answer is, of course, that they confer on the hamburger industry a certain dignity. The dignity comes from the Greek or Latin roots of the words used (the Graeco-Latinate lexicon), because they are reminiscent of such prestigious jargons as Legalese and Medicalese. When jargons use this kind of highfalutin language it also

Lexis, 7 | 2012 75

achieves a double-whammy by also mystifying and intimidating the clientele. The second motivation therefore is shared with the dishonest euphemism; namely, the exclusion of outsiders. This exclusion is in part designed to intimidate the populace through mystification.

12 Taboo can be involved here. The jargon of the funeral industry is excessively euphemistic precisely because it deals with death. Legalese is euphemistic when it has to handle indecorous matters like indecent exposure of the person [where person = “penis”]. When the subject matter does not obviously concerns taboos, however, we reach the outer bounds of euphemism (cf. Allan and Burridge [1991: Ch. 9]). The following notice to householders from the City of Fitzroy in Melbourne, Australia, contains some quintessential features of ponderous legalese: ‘Refuse and rubbish shall not be collected from the site or receptacles thereon before the hour of 8.00am or after the hour of 6.00pm of any day’3. It would be stretching credulity to say that council rubbish collection is a matter of taboo. This memo contains expressions that presumably have more pleasing connotations than alternative ways of speaking simply by virtue of their being jargon.

1.4. The provocative euphemism — to reveal and to inspire

13 Euphemisms are not always ‘linguistic fig-leaves’. As Allan describes (this volume) many are more like ‘diaphanous lingerie’; they conceal only as little as to be all the more titillating. In the mouth or pen of a political satirist, for example, euphemisms are deliberately provoking. George Orwell’s Animal Farm is at one level a children’s story and, at another, a blistering political satire. Such writers exploit euphemism to publically expound taboo topics. The ‘Camera Song’ by Grit Laskin (to the tune of ‘Three Drunken Maidens’) is a modern bawdy allegory where, as in other examples of euphemism as art, the author makes the pretence of adhering to the middle class politeness criterion, even though the doublespeak text has tabooed denotations. Such artsy euphemisms are designed to excite and arouse; and the best of them succeed (Allan and Burridge [1991: Ch. 10]). As Epstein once remarked, ‘the best pornographer is the mind of the reader’ [1985: 64].

14 PC-inspired euphemism is not so very different; it aims not to disguise or conceal unpleasant reality, but to help remove the stigma of negative social by compelling its audience to go beyond the simple content of the message and challenge embodied in language (cf. Allan and Burridge [2006: Ch. 4]. ‘Generic’ she is intended to jar – by drawing attention to form, it forces us to sit up and take notice. The use of double pronouns s/he and him/her can be deliberately clumsy, the dysphemism of a distracting style an effective way of getting a message across. Politically correct terms also deliberately highlight certain aspects of a group’s identity. When members of the black community campaigned to be called African Americans, it was to emphasize not genetics or colour, but the historical roots of a group that forms part of the USA, thus bringing the name into line with those of other ethnic minorities, such as Japanese Americans and Italian Americans. Many people probably remain oblivious to the political message. For many, the political correctness protocol is the dessicated remnant of old knowledge and opinion; it becomes a matter mouthing the right-sounding words, consistent with the political correctness ethos.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 76

15 Clearly, with provocative euphemisms there is more involved than straightforward politeness and the maintenance of face. However, even the more mainstream euphemisms that function as face-saving devices often do more than cover up abhorrent reality; euphemisms for death invoke different points of view such as death as a journey (pass away), or the consolation of death as the beginning of new life (go to a better place) (cf. Jamet [2010]). The image they offer is one of consolation.

1.5. The cohesive euphemism — to show solidarity and to help define the gang

16 Taboos are among the common values that link the people of a community together; they become a sign of social cohesion. To outsiders, many are perplexing and seem silly. Even those on the inside are often unaware of the reasons that might have led to their establishment. Original meaning gives way to unthinking routine; fear and respect become lost in social convention. And what one group values, another comes to scorn. Shared taboos and the rites and rituals that accompany our euphemistic behaviour increase group identity through feelings of distinctiveness; they strengthen the social fabric.

17 There is another sense in which euphemisms can work as in-group trademarks. Depending on the context, many examples of the euphemistic in the preceding sections are used among people who have a common work-related or recreational interest; they perform the additional function of reinforcing and displaying group identity, especially when directed against outsiders. Where the language identifies shared experiences that are taboo, as in the case of hospital staff who have to manage disease, dying and death on a daily basis, euphemisms make the job easier to bear by disguising unpleasant reality, but also by creating rapport. Where the activities are marginal, unofficial or illegal, there is the added motivation of secrecy. Sometimes it is simply a matter of identifying activities, events and objects that have become routine for those involved, and like slang and jargon more generally, this is preferred language by virtue of it serving as a ‘clique’ or in-group recognition device. In this instance, we are again on the periphery of euphemism proper.

1.6. The ludic euphemism — to have fun and to entertain

18 It is also clear that many euphemisms are created largely to amuse. It is unlikely that the 18th century expression the miraculous pitcher, that holds water with the mouth downwards for “vagina” was ever anything but a bit of fun (cf. Grose [1783]). David Crystal [1998: 183] demonstrates the ubiquity and creativity of language play among ordinary language users, and points out that ‘when children arrive in school, their linguistic life has been one willingly given over to language play’; this continues throughout their lives. In the case of euphemistic substitutions for the ‘-IST-language’ described earlier, it is doubtful whether expressions such as person with hard to meet needs (= “serial killers”) or the differently pleasured (= “sado-masochists”) were ever more than simply humorous inventions. During the 1990s, the PC debate provided an abundance of lampooning fodder for many comedians. Melbourne comic Wendy Harmer confronted her ‘unthinking lookism’ and called for an ‘Appearance Vilification Bill’ and within the modelling industry (The Age Good Weekend April

Lexis, 7 | 2012 77

29, [1995: 16]). Her aim was that by the year 2000 20% of all models were to have big noses and flabby stomachs. Ludic euphemisms form a part of our everyday verbal play and, as Allan (this volume) shows, the manipulation of language that speakers display is remarkably inventive at times — ordinary speakers take ordinary sounds and letters, words and phrases and put them to extraordinary uses in the expressions they construct.

2. Creating euphemisms — ‘old age’

And one man in his time plays many parts, His acts being seven ages. At first the infant, Mewling and puking in the nurse’s arms; Then the whining school-boy, with his satchel And shining morning face, [...]. And then the lover, Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad Made to his mistress’ eyebrow. Then a soldier, full of strange oaths, [...] And then the justice, In fair round belly with good capon lin’d, With eyes severe [...] The sixth age shifts Into the lean and slipper’d pantaloon, With spectacles on nose and pouch on side, [...] Last scene of all, That ends this strange eventful history, Is second childishness and mere oblivion. Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans every thing. Shakespeare, As You Like It [II. vii]

19 Clearly, aging is a matter of taboo, especially in modern times. There are certain things in life speakers and writers would rather not evoke too vividly and growing old is one of them. Digitally altered images of designer bodies make the reality of our own aging bodies hard to bear. In a virtual world of botox, boosted breasts and tummy tucks, post- menopausal women can now give birth and fresh medical breakthroughs rescue people daily from death. Perpetual well-being and ever-lasting youth seem well within our grasp. Big companies who profit from modern health preoccupations are happy to feed the fairy tale. The verbal vanishing creams and linguistic makeovers are all part of the pretence. Ironically, the increased life expectancy that modern medicine now affords us adds to the negative perceptions of old age. These days aging is disparaged also from the point of view of the burden that old people place on society at large — a longer life means more exposure to disease and ill-health and this means greater encumbrances on relatives and on already stretched resources.

20 Euphemisms for ‘old age’ are not simply in response to taboo, however, and the examples given in each section below range across all the six functions outlined earlier. Often these collide to support the formation of expressions and many of the euphemisms are multifunctional. For example, in Australian hospitals, we find reference to crumbles “the frail and elderly at death’s door”; grots “derelicts and alcoholics”; vegetables “unresponsive or comatose patients”; diagnoses like F.L.K. “Funny Looking Kid”; G.O.K. “God Only Knows”; and someone who has passed through the valley of tears is simply cactus or “dead”. This is just a small sample of hospital slang (given the rapid turnover of slang, these examples might well be outdated by now); and, depending on context, it can be described as euphemistic, dysphemistic or simply descriptive, in other words, orthophemistic. Clearly, the language is used to distance

Lexis, 7 | 2012 78

hospital staff from the sickness and death around them, and helps to blot out the awareness of their own vulnerability and that of their co-workers. There is also much playfulness here. I can report from first hand experience that frivolity is extremely common among staff in aged care facilities when talking to each other. For people who have to deal with the dying and with death everyday, this seeming irreverence for human life makes such work much easier to bear. Levity towards what is feared is widely used as means of coming to terms with the fear, by downgrading it. At the same time, these expressions also identify activities, events, and objects that have become routine for those involved and have an important function in creating rapport in the work environment. Gordon [1983] claims that this is the only motive for the existence of such slang, but my experience of hospital expressions does not support him. There is more at stake than simply defining the gang.

2.1. The linguistic strategies

21 The many different linguistic devices used in the formation of euphemisms fall into three overarching mechanisms: analogy (generalization of forms to new situations), distortion (modification of forms) and borrowing (incorporation of forms from elsewhere). The function of a euphemism will have a bearing on which strategy is used. Bold imagery, irony, rhyme and sound association are some of the forces behind the creation of the expressions that seek to grab; these euphemisms motivate lexical novelty. However, if the aim is to put up a smokescreen, then hypernymy and metonymy are among the favourites.

22 The examples provided here are drawn entirely from English, though they illustrate universal processes. All of these devices figure strongly in the formation of X-phemism across the languages of the world to a greater or lesser extent. I should also emphasize that none of these processes are mutually exclusive, and many examples fall at the same time into a number of different categories. For instance, euphemistic expressions such as at the evening of one’s days and the autumn or the winter of one’s life for ‘old’ are metaphorical, long-winded and hyperbolic, as are the expressions mutton dressed up as lamb and long in the tooth. No spring chicken is an example of metaphor and understatement. Past it illustrates a general-for-specific euphemism and also omission (leaving out one’s prime from the end of the phrase).

2.1.1. Analogy

23 There are many strategies that do not lead to the creation of new forms in the language, but fashion novel euphemisms from already existing vocabulary. The process is generally one of analogy; in this case it involves a transfer of meaning from one given context to another. It could also be described as a type of internal borrowing, because speakers are taking expressions from one part of the language and incorporating them elsewhere.

24 Metaphor is the most common of these processes. The taboo topic is paired up with a pleasurable notion, sometimes establishing chains of figurativeness, almost in the manner of an overarching megametaphor (an especially common device for artsy euphemisms; Allan and Burridge [1991: Ch. 10]. Those who find themselves in their riper years or at a ripe old age might also be described as mellow; in other words, “soft and fully flavoured from ripeness”. They are also mature or matured (in some cases ultra-

Lexis, 7 | 2012 79

mature; one dating website describes ‘ultra-mature lovers’ as men and women falling somewhere between 50 years and 115 years4). Maturity is a positive concept; it implies that person is fully developed in body or mind. This is something we would presumably reach in our late teens, but taboo stretches it so that it becomes something much older. A famous feature of the World Fair in New York in the 1964-65 was something called the Dynamic Maturity Pavilion — a garden with benches where those of mature years could rest. Expressions like seasoned and seasoned citizen have something of the same notions of fulfilment and maturity — with perhaps the additional associations of a tasty dish. Still using the same ‘ripeness’ imagery are expressions such as the golden years and those golden agers who inhabit them. These have now well and truly had their day, as have expressions such as sunset years and twilight years. The geriatric hospital I worked in for some time was called Sunset Home. Other homes (another nice euphemism) around that time (the 1980s) had similar names: Twilight Home, Eventide Home and so forth. But the imagery is now tired. These days rest homes sport up-beat names full of promise: Pine View Gardens, Enhance, Le Grand, Nirvana, Perpetua-In-The-Pines, Primelife to name just a few close to where I live.

25 In Allan and Burridge [2006: Ch. 4], we described various kinds of whole-for-part (or general-for-specific) and part-for-whole substitutions. This terminology we felt was more transparent than the traditional ‘synecdoche’ and ‘metonymy’, the interpretations of which are surprisingly various. Many substitutions involve expressions that refer to something that is conceptually linked somehow with the tabooed sense. Vagueness is what speakers seek in a euphemism, especially where face- saving is the main motivation, and often the replacements are involve a high level of abstraction. Synecdochic subterfuges such as past it substitute very general words in place of more explicit terms, in this case one’s prime (compare doing it for “sexual intercourse”). People (usually women) of a certain age are assumed to be in around ‘middle age’ (wherever that might be); yet the word certain renders the message indistinct. (You could compare women in a certain condition “pregnant” or people with a certain disease “venereal disease, usually syphilis”.) Aged care institutions are described simply as homes, hostels, houses, cottages, villages, residences and so forth. Many of these general-for-specific euphemisms involve the sort of linguistic restraint that is usually described as understatement. A special type of understatement is litotes, where the affirmative is expressed in terms of the denial of its opposite, a favourite strategy of bureaucrats (specifically the not in/un— strategy, as in a not insignificant amount and not unnaturally). The confusion arising from the negative of the contrary here mitigates the force of the utterance; it is well established in the psycholinguistic literature that multiple negatives pose difficulties for cognitive processing5. Examples of litotes in the context of old age include not youthful, not in one’s first youth, no spring chicken. Some of us are not as young as we used to be — but then neither are babies.

26 Part-for-whole euphemisms are demonstrated in expressions such as grey hairs, white hairs “old age”, greying “aging”, go grey, turn white “to age” and greybeard “old man”. Such expressions would more usually be used in polite reference to males for whom the distinguished look that comes with the banker’s rinse is a more desirable attribute. The greying of Australia for some time became almost a catch phrase in reference to the rising population of aging or aged Australians who remain active well past retirement. Around the English-speaking world, grey power describes different groups of politically active ‘older persons’ (see below). The US organization Gray Panthers celebrated their 40th Anniversary Year of Activism in 2010. One of their activities was to establish the

Lexis, 7 | 2012 80

Media Watch Observer’s Report Form, which monitored the representation of older people and campaigned again in the media. Part-for-whole euphemisms of this nature are comparatively rare; as outlined below, it is a far more usual strategy for forming dysphemisms.

27 A recent example of general-for-specific wording is third age, as in the ‘Universities of the Third Age’. This expression was enthusiastically taken up during the 1980s and 1990s, especially by those who were in the business of putting positive spin on aging. It comes from Peter Laslett’s influential book, A Fresh Map of Life: The Emergence of the Third Age, which looked at the challenges of an aging population in the world’s developed countries. Laslett’s point was that medical, social and economic changes had created a new ‘third age’ (first age = immaturity and dependence; second age = maturity and independence; third age = personal fulfilment; fourth age = final dependence and death). The expression still connotes activity, vigour, freedom, control and achievement. Given that most people are unfamiliar with Laslett’s work and the four ages, the ‘third age’ has come to stand for “old age”, with “youth” and “middle age” being the two other ages. The problem then is how exactly to determine where middle age falls — is it 35, 40, 50, or older? Age-related terms keep shifting around, much like the labels for those body parts speakers prefer not label (a phenomenon known colloquially in linguistics as ‘genital flip-flop’6). The taboo surrounding old age creates the same sort of instability (something I will return to below).

28 Similarly, many euphemisms involve the straightforward substitution of conceptually related words that happen to have more pleasing connotations, as a way of dressing up reality. Expressions such as venerable and respected carry lofty associations that emphasize some of the positive aspects of the aging process — dignity of appearance, the deference that is commanded and so forth. Compare expressions such as veteran and elder statesman, that carry with them the prestige and seniority of someone who has seen long service in an occupation (in the case of veteran, typically the army). Many aged care facilities (another euphemism) now have lodge or manor in their titles, such as Manchester Lodge and Rosedale Manor. One sense of a lodge is that of temporary (typically holiday) accommodation, such as a ski lodge or hunting lodge. Perhaps the point being made here is that the current reality (the ‘fourth age’) is only short-term — a kind of stopgap along the path to another (better) place. Of course, lodges can also refer to the accommodation in parks or estates, and, like manors (the main houses or mansions on some property of significance), they have elevated associations.

29 When speakers overstep the mark, at some stage this sort of exaggerated usage turns into hyperbole (the antithetical strategy to understatement). The phrase past one’s prime (where prime “best part, heyday” refers to physical beauty, professional ability etc. (compare over the hill) has given us prime-timer. This expression turns the original meaning of prime time on its head with the focus now on the opposite end of the age range — when the word entered English in the late 1400s (from Middle French printemps), it referred to “springtime, spring” and in the 1500s transferred figuratively to “the early part of youth”. Political correctness of the 80s and 90s also has provided an exuberance of such expressions. Examples such as the chronologically gifted or the experientially enhanced might well have started off as satirical inventions (along the lines of follicularly challenged “bald” and specially nontall “short”) but they have now been adopted by some politicians and health-care workers promoting ‘successful aging’, and

Lexis, 7 | 2012 81

also with enthusiasm by the groups of CGs or CGers (the “chronologically gifted”) themselves.

2.1.2. Distortion

30 A common strategy for the creation euphemism is to mask the taboo topic by modifying the offensive expression in some way. One practice involves shortening; for example, the end-clipping of geriatric to produce geri. In professional contexts involving ‘old age’, we typically find that longer phrases have been turned into acronyms or initialisms, such as OAPs (< ‘Old Age Persons or Pensioners’), or from hospital slang COPs (< Crotchedy Old Patients), LOMs (< Little Old Men) and LOLs (< Little Old Ladies). This sort shortening is anyway an earmark of professional ‘-eses’ such as Bureaucratese and Medicalese, but it offers at the same time an effective form of verbal disguise. A speaker might even take simply the initial letter of the forbidden word — on the model of the ‘F’ word and the ‘C’ word we now have the ‘O’ word ‘old’ (and many others, including the ‘R’ word ‘recession’). In writing, these might be fleshed out with non-lexical expressions such as asterisks or a long dash. This practice seems to be a usage reserved for the more severely tabooed expressions — both o** (or o—) and the ‘O’ word tend to be jocular; compare the verbal play of zuppies (< Zestful Upscale Persons in their Prime) and many woopies (< Well Off Older Persons), on the inspiration of trendy neologisms such as yuppies (

31 In the case of ellipsis, offending words are simply left out. The world of print renders something invisible with dashes, asterisks and suspension points (the email subject header ?#*! is clearly dysphemistic). The spoken counterparts to these symbols are noises like mhm, er-mm. In the context of aging, examples of this kind of omission are not common, although there are plenty of contexts where references to age have now become taboo and are therefore excluded. For example, reactions against age in the work place mean that in some countries date of birth is no longer expected in a curriculum vitae — and selection panels who request the age of a job applicant are risking charges of ageism.

32 Where one word (or more) drops out, the result is a semantic shift as the sense of the full expression then transfers to what remains (e.g. fall from fall of leaves). For example, getting on leaves out full mention of the crucial in years or in life; the resulting verb has a range of positive senses including “advance, make progress” and “succeed, prosper” and alludes only very generally to old age. The expression senior citizen (itself a euphemism) is generally now abbreviated to senior. In comparison to senior citizen, which has been around longer, senior retains more positive associations to do with higher rank or standing (though, as discussed below, these too are waning).

33 Other grammatical structures offer further opportunities for omission. Certain construction types enable speakers and writers to leave out pieces of information and this can be used to great effect in creating euphemisms. For example, the year 1999 was ‘The International Year of the Older Person’. The expression older person employs the comparative construction, but in this case with a missing conclusion (compare teenage slang old as “very old”). Generally speaking comparatives express difference along a scale, specifically the notion “more”. However, without a standard of comparison provided, all it does is serve to blur the edges. Paradoxically, older then becomes not as

Lexis, 7 | 2012 82

old as old. The older person sometimes appears as the longer living or the longer lived. The heyday of these euphemisms was 1970s and in the there were several well-known attempts to relabel ‘Departments of the Aging’ as ‘Departments of the Longer Living’. You might compare the fuller figure a euphemism used in the fashion industry. Advertising generally uses the cagey comparative to great effect; the fact that there is no standard of comparison always provides the advertiser with an ‘out’ (e.g. Our oranges are sweeter – sweeter than lemons, perhaps?). Elder is also the comparative of old (and once equivalent to older). It now refers to persons “superior in age and experience whose counsel is therefore sought and valued”. In recent times, this has emerged as the preferred name for this group (elders, elder females, elder males); it has also supplied the backformation eld “old age”.

34 The antithetical strategy to shortening is circumlocution (or long-windedness). This is included here under distortion because it involves the reconfiguration of the original expression, this time in a process akin to componential analysis. The senses of a taboo term are unpacked, each of the meaning components is listed and the resulting periphrasis functions as a euphemism, such as getting on in years. (It is this same process that turns doors into entry systems, toothbrushes into home plaque removal instruments and teachers into learning facilitators.) Under cover of words we can tip toe linguistically around any sensitive topics such as old age, and the more words the better. The motivation is also often to upgrade alternative nomenclature. Examples include: noteworthy for his/her character lines, to have seen better days, to pass three score years and ten, to be past one’s prime, getting on a bit, of advanced years, of indeterminate age, living on borrowed time and full of years. Certain types of aged care facilities in the United States are now known as assisted living residences, assisted living facilities (ALFs) or senior congregate living communities. As various websites explain, this sort of care involves ‘independent living in senior apartments (itself a nice euphemism!), with added custodial and medical care’7.

35 There are various other forms of distortion that renovate an offensive word. Though these don’t figure strongly in the camouflage language for ‘old age’, they are sometimes playfully employed in the creation of jokey slang expressions. Phonological remodelling involves adjusting the pronunciation of words; an example here might be eld “old age”, though it also a backformation of elder (compare heck < hell). Affixation adds of some kind of prefix/suffix/infix; for example, oldie and oldster (modelled on youngster). Blending includes portmanteau words of various kinds; for example, zoomer to describe the aging baby boomer (< boomer + zip, also playing on the verb to zoom “to go fast”). Reduplication repeats syllables or letters of words; for example, prime timer (compare, jeepers creepers for “Jesus Christ”). Alliteration involves sequences of the same sound, such as dentured dandy and rhyming (slang) such as brown bread “dead” (also hovis “dead” from a brand of brown bread), [old] pot and pan “old man” (compare Brahms [and Liszt] “pissed, drunk’”). The secret languages described by Allan (this volume) show regular morpho-phonological changes of these kinds. Upp-Upp language, for example, inserts ‘upp’ between the onset and rhyme of each syllable: ‘Very old’ becomes vupperuppy uppold. Backslang reverses the letters (and inserts the occasional vowel to make the string pronounceable); hence, yrev delo.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 83

2.1.3. Internal and external borrowing

36 There are many ways euphemisms can be created by the substitution of other terms. This can involve a type of internal borrowing from sub-varieties, such as jargon and slang, within the same language. Learned or technical terms provide ready-made euphemisms. Examples here might include: senesce “to age”, senescent ”growing old”, caducity “old age” as well as specific labels such as septuagenarian “seventy-year-old” and octogenarian “eighty-year-old”, which avoid spelling out the actual age of the person. This sort of terminology is overwhelmingly classical in origin, drawing especially on high-bred sources such as Latin and Greek. If not directly borrowed from prestigious jargons such as Medicalese, they at least smack of a specialist language. It is a euphemistic strategy that has been aptly dubbed by lexicographer John Ayto [1993] as the ‘blind-them-with-science’ school of euphemism.

37 The antithetical strategy is to use a colloquial rather than a learned term. As described earlier, slang terms such as grots “derelicts and alcoholics”, crumbles “the frail and elderly at death’s door” and vegetables “unresponsive or comatose patients” seem at first blush to be horribly callous, but are part and parcel of the survival techniques of those who have to deal with death and dying on a daily basis. The levity of slang expressions such as these makes the job easier to bear.

38 Most languages seem to have some euphemisms based on words or morphs that have been borrowed from another language. There is nothing like a lexical exotic to blur unpleasant reality and foreign languages such as French and Latin have been providing English with either fig leaves or dress ups for centuries. French has given us doyen (masculine) and (more usually) doyenne (feminine) to describe the most senior member of a body of people; it nicely sidesteps the fact that the person is usually ‘old’. Another notable example, also from the 18th century, is un certain âge, the inspiration for the English equivalent a certain age just discussed. Again from the same era is passé. Like un certain âge, it has been used particularly of women who could be described as having passed their prime. The use of Latin terms provides Standard English with many euphemisms for bodily effluvia, sex and associated acts and bodily organs, and, as Allan (this volume) describes, until recently translations of taboo terms from exotic languages, and descriptions of taboo acts, caused an author to suddenly switch from English to Latin. In the context of aging, it figures more as the basis for the technical terms just discussed. But there is one clear example of a euphemism borrowed directly from Latin; namely, anno domini. Although usually meaning “the year of our Lord” (and abbreviated AD), the expression was co-opted to refer to “advancing age” or “the passing of years”; for example, ‘My resignation is due to what we call the anno Domini clause, which has come into operation’ ( 31 March 1921; cited in the Oxford English Dictionary).

2.2. Dysphemisms

39 Dysphemism employs most of these same strategies. For example, the same imagery that gives us euphemistic expressions such as a ripe old age and mature can also be used to offend, as in describing someone as overripe or run / gone to seed. Hyperbole can always be used to exaggerate the offense as in old fossil and shrivelled old git. Like insults generally, many of these expressions pick on the person’s physical appearance and mental ability, character and their behaviour in order to degrade. For example, biddy,

Lexis, 7 | 2012 84

crone, granny, grimalkin, hag, harridan and witch all denote the older female with undesirable physical features or objectionable behaviour, as do expressions such as codger, coot, fogy, gaffer and geezer which depict older males in an unflattering way by ascribing aberrant behavior to them, especially the suggestion of antiquated notions (i.e. behind the times). Many of these started life as polite terms; e.g. 16th century gaffer (probably originally a contraction of godfather) was a term of respect applied to elderly men of position; (note, it now also refers generally to men who work on a TV/movie set; hence gaffer tape).

40 There is, however, one significant difference in the two main types of X-phemism. Whereas (vague) general-for-specific euphemisms are commonplace, dysphemism is much more likely to employ a (blunt) part-for-whole strategy. Compare, tits for “breasts” versus euphemistic chest or figurative epithets like he’s a prick versus the legalistic euphemism person for “penis”. In the context of old age, expressions that focus, say, on the physical aspects of showing one’s years are generally offensive; for example, wrinkled, toothless, rickety and so on. Notable exceptions are expressions such as grey and grey haired, which, as discussed earlier, are polite, at least for ‘the older male’. Other differences between euphemism and dysphemism are predictable. The use of borrowed terms, circumlocution or technical jargon is usually dysphemistic when it is perceived by the audience to be befuddling gobbledygook.

3. The Seven Ages of a Euphemism

41 There are internal forces generally at work in language change that ensure the majority of euphemisms are doomed to be short-lived. One is semantic pejoration. Over time, words are much more likely to take on negative overtones than they are favourable ones. Perhaps, we are inherently pessimistic. We are more likely to look for the worst in things. We scold and disapprove far more than we applaud and admire. Bad news is always more interesting than good news. All this is reflected in the way words change (cf. Burridge [2010]). In this instance, euphemistic expressions become sullied by the disagreeable concepts they designate. This sort of chronic contagion relates more specifically to the low-key euphemistic expressions under sections 2.1 and 2.2. The second force is a form of linguistic ‘routinization’. Through constant use, novel and exciting ways of saying things become everyday and mundane. Some areas of the lexicon are particularly prone to this; insults lose their wounding capacity, swearwords their pungency, slang expressions their vigour. With time, face-saving euphemisms lose their protective magic, and the more flamboyant or ostentatious expressions under sections 2.3-2.6 no longer grab our attention.

3.1. Contamination — Gresham’s Law

42 has Gresham’s Law: Bad money drives out good. Sociology now has Knight’s Law: Bad talk drives out good. Linguistics has the Allan-Burridge Law of Semantic Change: Bad connotations drive out good (cf. Allan and Burridge [1991: 22ff]; [2006: 243])8. The effect of this law is that many euphemisms become tainted over time. As the negative associations reassert themselves and undermine the euphemistic quality of the word, the next generation of speakers grows up learning the word as the direct term. Jespersen [1905/1962: 230] describes this as ‘the usual destiny of euphemisms’ —

Lexis, 7 | 2012 85

the ‘innocent word’ becomes ‘just as objectionable as the word it has ousted and now is rejected in its turn’. Hence, taboo areas of the lexicon perpetually generate narrowing and deterioration of meaning; Steven Pinker’s [1997] ‘euphemistic treadmill’.

43 In 1957 Charles Osgood and his colleagues provided psycholinguistic support for this process. Their now famous study outlines a technique, the ‘semantic differential’, for systematically (though subjectively) quantifying connotative meaning. People were asked to evaluate numerous words and phrases on a series of seven-point bipolar rating scales. The aim was to locate a concept in semantic space within three dimensions of attitude: evaluation (is the word good or bad); activity (is the word active or passive); potency (is the word strong or weak). Their research confirmed what we know from the behaviour of words over time: that there is a general tendency for any derogatory or unfavourable denotation or connotation within a language expression to dominate the interpretation of its immediate context.

44 In the case of ‘old age’, the pejoration can be rapid. As society’s prejudiced perceptions foment, the euphemistic value is diluted and the negative connotations quickly reattach themselves, requiring the formation a new euphemism. Consider the deterioration of words such as senile and geriatric. Senile “belonging to old age” dates from the 1600s; Samuel Johnson’s dictionary has entries such as ‘a senile maturity of judgment’, but the word soon started to deteriorate and, with the exception of disease names such as senile dementia, is now dysphemistic. Senility has suffered a similar fate, evident in Charles Lamb’s now striking description ‘he is yet in green and vigorous senility’ (Essays of Eli, first published 1823); here the clash of senses renders the quotation extremely odd. Derived from the specialist term geriatrics (the branch of medicine / social science to do with the health of old people), the adjective geriatric started life in the 1920s also as a neutral description; though both the adjective and noun remain orthophemistic within medical jargon, in everyday usage they had become a contemptuous term by the 1960s. To date, the word senior, as in senior citizen, has perhaps not yet had time to acquire negative overtones (senior citizen first made an appearance in the 1930s), but it is a euphemism ripe for renewal. In Australia, the label seniors is still used in official contexts for the 50+ — but there are not many 50- somethings who would want to be described as senior citizens or even seniors. The demeaning way in which modern society views aging and aged individuals generally guarantees that time will blow the cover of any euphemistic disguise, though it turns out not all degenerate to the extent of senile and geriatric.

3.2. Routinization

45 Despite Gresham’s Law, some euphemisms are simply so fleeting that they never linger long enough to become unfit for use. Many of the expressions given earlier simply shuffled off the lexical coil before they had a chance to deteriorate: ultra-mature, dynamic maturity, seasoned, golden ager etc. were short-lived; few would have them as part of their active vocabulary these days. Speakers / writers constantly strive to enhance expression and supply new and exciting ways of communicating. This sort of emotional extravagance drives change at all linguistic levels, but especially the lexicon. In particular, it is the culturally potent words that fray the fastest. Many euphemisms involve slang, and the mark of slang is that it will quickly date. A study of student slang at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, showed that over a fifteen-year period

Lexis, 7 | 2012 86

fewer than 10% of the expressions had survived (McArthur [1992: 940]). That which is slang for one generation is either no longer in fashion for the next or becomes mainstream. In Grose’s late 18th Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue, the majority of the slang terms appear very outdated; few are still in use. Eventually, slang expressions either stop being slangy by intruding into neutral style and becoming standard usage, or they simply drop by the wayside.

46 In the life of euphemism, wear and tear sees metaphorical links severed, imagery buried and expressions stripped of their force; times pushes these expressions below the level of consciousness. And while this may be good news for the face-saving euphemisms that seek to slip through the discourse unobserved, this is not the case if the function of a euphemism is to provoke, to inflate, to amuse or even to define the gang. These expressions will not want to take a back seat. The euphemistic turnover here is not because time has eroded the euphemistic cover necessarily, but because the imposition of routine and associated semantic-pragmatic loss has rendered the expression inconspicuous and unremarkable – it is the same tug-of-war that exists between routinization or idiomatization, on the one hand, and expressivity or creativity, on the other that drives many linguistic innovations (cf. Hopper and Traugott [1993] on grammaticization).

3.3. The longer-living euphemism

47 In order to get a better understanding of the life span of a euphemism, let us leave ‘old age’ for a moment and consider briefly another area of social taboo; namely ‘smells’. What is immediately striking about the words for those “substances which excite the membrane of the nose” is the asymmetry — English (and many other languages) have plenty of expressions to describe bad smells (such as stink, stench, reek, pong, niff) but few positive expressions (such as fragrance, and perfume) and few, if any, genuinely neutral ones. Even the term smell has a whiff about it — its derived adjective smelly certainly does. The shift from “neutral/good smell” to “disagreeable smell” is a typical path. Consider the following six nouns, ranging from those with the most disagreeable connotations to those with the most pleasing: stench — the oldest of the group, first recorded in 893 stink — appears early as a verb “to emit a smell”; first recorded as a noun 1000 smell — appears first as a verb; later as a noun in 1300 odour — borrowed from French and entered English in the early 1300s scent — borrowed from the French as a verb; first recorded as a noun in 1470 perfume — borrowed from the French; first recorded in 1667 aroma — also from French to refer to the smell of spices; dates from the 1800s

48 The longer the word has been in the language to refer to smelling, the more offensive its connotations; in short, the older the word, the more offensive the smell (stink and stench being the most foul). The most pleasing terms are French — odour, scent, perfume and aroma. French and Latin have long been a source of deodorizing language for English, but how fragrant these words are currently depends on how long they’ve been pressed into euphemistic service. Aroma and perfume as the most recent recruits are those most sweet-scented. Odour, as the oldest of the four, has already started to fester. The qualities of the euphemism diminish as the taboo sense declares itself.

49 However, the word age, and also its derived forms aging and aged, offer a different prospect for the duration of a euphemism. Age refers literally to “length of life, period

Lexis, 7 | 2012 87

of existence”. When it entered English from French some time during the 14th century it had already acquired the meaning “period of human life”, but had soon narrowed to “the end part of life”. As the lexicographer John Ayto neatly put it [1993: 228]: ‘old age commandeers the terminology of an entire life, to try to roll back the years’. From the beginning of the 18th century, the term age could refer quite generally to “old age”, “senility”. The following quotations from the Oxford English Dictionary illustrate: ‘Thus spoke the prudence and the fears of age’ (Pope); ‘the moroseness and peevishness of age’ (Sears); ‘Age is a time of peace, So it be free from pain’ (Tennyson). Since the 1400s, aged has referred to the latter part of life, and since the 1800s so has aging. From birth we are aging and yet the meaning is always “old”. These three terms have narrowed and in most contexts they would now be orthophemistic; in other words, the direct terms, being neither sweet-sounding, evasive, overly polite (euphemistic), nor harsh, blunt, offensive (dysphemistic).

50 There are several other success stories of expressions that have not only resisted contamination, but even retain their euphemistic qualities, sometimes over long periods. Elderly has been in the language since the early 1600s. Though its verbal veneer might now be wearing thin, it is not yet disrespectful. Since the early 1700s, the expression a certain age has been a polite and indirect way of referring to a woman’s age when she is no longer young (the Oxford English Dictionary suggests somewhere between forty and sixty). In other domains, there are also some remarkably durable euphemisms: to sleep with “have sexual intercourse” has been in use since the 10th century; to lose “be deprived (of someone) by death” since the 12th century; pass away / pass since the 14th century, deceased, departed and no longer with us “dead” since the 15th century. Clearly, familiarity doesn’t always breed contempt. So why are these euphemisms still with us, and how did they escape the corrosion of expressions such as geriatric and senile?

51 McGlone, Beck & Pfiester [2006] argue that familiarity and ubiquity confer ‘pragmatic stealth and mindlessness-inducing qualities’ (p. 279) on a euphemism. In contradiction to the contamination argument, they claim that conventionality will in fact enhance, not diminish, the face-saving capacity of a euphemism. Reductions in the cognitive capacity the expression recruits in turn lead to a diminution of its salience in discourse (McGlone, Glucksberg, & Cacciari, 1994; Schwanenflugel, 1991). In contrast, less familiar expressions make greater demands on attentional capacity. By violating the idiomaticity maxim, they prompt addressees to devote a greater share of their cognitive resources to interpreting them and inferring the speaker’s motives for flouting the maxim (Clark, 1979; Grice, 1975; Searle, 1975). Thus less conventional euphemisms call attention to themselves in a way that highly conventional euphemisms avoid. (p. 266)

52 It stands to reason, that conventionality enables expressions to be processed in a mechanical fashion; it is one of the reasons that frequent and highly irregular forms such as go-went escape the powerful regularizing forces of analogy (cf. Bybee [2006], [2008] on the effects of repetition). Words of high frequency are easier to access for speakers and hearers; they require less cognitive effort. And, as earlier described, time will always strip away the novelty and vividness that invite interpretation of an expression. Some familiar euphemisms may well remain polite over long periods precisely because they come to offer routine and unexciting ways of indirectly mentioning taboo topics. Yet familiarity effects cannot provide the whole story here, since these expressions have to survive in the first place in order to become routine.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 88

53 The survey carried out by McGlone, Beck & Pfiester revealed a correlation between familiarity and politeness; participants judged some very familiar face-saving euphemisms such as go to the bathroom/restroom and pass away as more polite than less usual expressions such as spend a penny and jump the last hurdle. While the high politeness ratings of the familiar euphemisms listed in their study seem uncontroversial, few of these expressions form part of the meaningful euphemistic vocabulary of modern-day English speakers; e.g. powder one’s nose, do one’s business, heed nature’s call, in a better place, crossed the river, solid elimination. Evacuate one’s system might be a familiar and polite way to refer to “expelling one’s stomach contents” but it is hardly everyday. Those from the list that remain in use today (such as go to the bathroom/restroom and pass away) show a high level of abstraction. They have in common that they allude to taboo topics in a very remote way; their association lacks any sort of precision, allowing them to remain unobtrusive and to sneak through the discourse unscathed. Similarly, the generality of age, aged and aging enables these to slip under the radar; the comparative origins of elderly continues to throw up smoke by providing the hedge “somewhat aged” (compare older and elder).

54 Nonetheless, it remains a fact of linguistic life that most euphemistic expressions deteriorate over time and often spectacularly. To my mind, the longevity of these euphemisms remains an anomaly, in the manner of those atypical slang expressions that manage somehow to retain their original energy, sometimes over centuries. Grose’s Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue offers a rich copulatory lexicon; a handful of expressions (such as shag and screw) continue to pack a punch. When the composed their memorable lyrics Friggin’ in the Riggin’, they probably didn’t realize just how old this figurative language was; the sexual sense of the verb to frig goes back to the 16th century and rig(ging) has a convoluted sexual history dating back almost as far. The shelf life of some euphemisms remains a mystery.

3.4. Conceptual Change

55 In challenging contamination as an explanation, McGlone, Beck & Pfiester [2006] look to changes in the concept itself to account for the ‘euphemism treadmill’. ‘When technological or scientific advancement alters the way society conceives of such a topic, conceptual innovation is the engine of euphemism turnover, not familiarity’ (p. 278). For example, the trigger behind the shift in expressions for “the facility for disposing body waste” (water closet > > toilet > bathroom) has been transformations to the fixture itself (e.g. increase in the size and composition). While innovations in science and technology have repercussions for the lexicon, my objection here is the fact that changes in a referent typically do not render its expression obsolete. The process is more usually one of subreption (‘old words in a new world’), and it is a significant force behind meaning shift. The advent of motorization has brought with it remarkable changes for words such as car, tyre, lorry and truck; yet the terms remain. The modern- day dashboard is a far cry from the board on coaches to stop the driver getting covered in mud and dung. The visor on a knight’s helmet has transformed into the shield of the modern-day crash helmet (or in North America the peak of a cap). The verb write derives from a Germanic word meaning “to scratch, carve” and goes back to the time where people scratched runes into wood or rock. We continue to write — and with a pen (< “feather”). Clearly, the world changes, but unless taboo is involved, the expressions

Lexis, 7 | 2012 89

will typically adapt by extending or shifting their meaning. Conceptual change in science and technology is not responsible for the displacement of euphemisms.

56 In social, cultural, and political domains, however, it in might well have a place, in particular if the euphemisms are deliberately provocative or attention-seeking – societal shifts always have linguistic repercussions, especially for the lexicon. PC- driven changes, for example, seek to make a point and are a form of natural linguistic evolution in the face of more general sociocultural change. In many places the terms married and de facto spouse only include those relationships that can be sanctioned by legal or quasi-legal marriage. The newer terms such as partner sidestep that issue, and are therefore representative of relationships other than heterosexual. The term queer is now preferred by many because it is seen to include groups such as bisexuals and transsexuals, which the terms gay and lesbian do not. As earlier mentioned, PC euphemism is a form of public action; by drawing attention to itself, it forces us to sit up and take notice. As is always the case with renaming initiatives, however, such labels are controversial. The battle is often as much about who has the power to name as the naming itself; who decides the identity of a group and its desires and interests.

4. Language change and the special case of naming taboo

People always grow up like their names. It took me thirty years to work off the effects of being called Eric. If I wanted a girl to grow up beautiful Id call her Elizabeth. (Letters of George Orwell — originally Eric Blair; cited in Crystal [1995: 148])

57 Throughout history people have attributed supernatural powers to names and naming forms a special case of word taboo (Allan and Burridge [2006: Ch. 9]). There are naming taboos observed by people undertaking hazardous pursuits such as mining, hunting and fishing, and they involve, for example, taboos on the names of dangerous animals. These practices are motivated by fears comparable with those on death and disease and people use similar strategies to avoid calling down malfeasance upon themselves. Consider the Ukrainian proverb Pro vovka pomovka a vovk u khatu “One speaks of the wolf and it runs into the house” [lit. about wolf talk and wolf into house] and the English proverb speak of the devil and he comes running.

58 As an interesting illustration of name magic, take the word for “tongue” in the Indo- European languages. Since all humans have tongues, we assume there must have been a word for this body part in the proto language. Yet, as historical linguist, Hans Heinrich Hock points out [1986: 305], we cannot reconstruct one, or at least we cannot reconstruct the shape of it. Particularly problematic is the initial consonant, which in itself is noteworthy, given that the beginnings of words are typically the most stable and therefore the most reconstructable when it comes to recreating lost Indo-European forms. So why is it not possible to reproduce the word for “tongue” here? Many of the apparent cognate words in the related daughter languages have undergone peculiar and irregular sound changes — sounds swap places or have changed inexplicably (sometimes contaminated by the semantically related verb “to lick”). The reason lies in the irrational forces of taboo. As Hock points out, the tongue is the organ of speech,

Lexis, 7 | 2012 90

therefore it was imbued with magical powers, like speech itself — speech made it possible to name things or people and by naming them to have power over them. The word was therefore subject to the same kind of tabooistic magic as the words for the supernatural and other kinds of dreadful phenomena.

59 Not surprisingly, personal names (that is, true names) have been or still are taboo among peoples in many parts of the world. This is another fear-based taboo. Sorcerers can do harm to a person if they are in possession of that persons true name (cf. Allan and Burridge [1991], [2006]). A name is regarded as a proper part of the name bearer, not just a symbol but the verbal expression of his or her personality. Thus in many languages, a name is an inalienable possession and is assumed to be an inseparable part of the body. Other properties of personal representation such as mind, spirit, soul, shadow and reflection are often treated in the same way and this can have repercussions for the grammar (cf. Chappell and McGregor [1997]). Because true names are so closely associated with their name-bearer as to be a proper part of him/her, in some societies (for example, in traditional Austronesia) there are strict taboos preventing two living persons from going by the same name. Furthermore true names are often secret, rendering euphemistic names necessary for public naming and addressing. In many places, names of the dead are (or were until recently) taboo. Sometimes the ban extends to those personal names that the dead person may have given to others. Violations of such taboos are believed to cause misfortune, sickness and death; they may also cause offense to living descendants.

60 Naming taboos can have major effects on the ordinary vocabulary of some languages, because the personal names are common words or derive from common words. In this way, naming taboos can be extended to become word taboo. Simons [1982], for example, describes how of a sample of 50 Austronesian languages which are known to have some sort of naming taboo, 25 of these have a name taboo that extends into common word taboo. A further 18 have a taboo whereby words even resembling the tabooed names are taboo themselves. On Santa Cruz (part of the Solomon Islands), where there is a taboo against using the name of certain affines, names consist of a common word, normally with a gender-marking prefix. Thus if a man’s mother-in-law is called ikio (i- “prefix to female’s name”, kio “bird”), he cannot use the common word kio to refer to birds. The effect of this is that something like 46% of the everyday vocabulary is potentially taboo for some people on Santa Cruz; on the island of Malaita, this figure is as high as 59%.

61 Euphemisms are thus created via the methods outlined earlier: semantic shifts of existing words, circumlocution and also phonological modification. Sounds turn up in odd places; they mutate unexpectedly. Words are often funny-looking. (Here you might compare the situation where the urge to swear in polite company drives an English speaker to spontaneously change shit to shite or fuck to fudge.) There is also a high rate of borrowing, even among core vocabulary items that that are not generally borrowed. Under normal circumstances why would speakers need to take kinship terms or pronouns from another language? It is precisely these established common-usage words that historical linguists trust when it comes to establishing genetic relationships and reconstructing lost stages of languages (though in the case of pronouns, phonological wear and tear is such that the surviving fragments may not reveal much). Yet, in this context even basic vocabulary of this kind cannot be relied on to remain stable. Extensive borrowing and taboo-induced remodelling make it difficult to

Lexis, 7 | 2012 91

determine the chronology of linguistic changes that have occurred. Irregular sound shifts have the effect of accelerating vocabulary differentiation between genetically related languages and can create a false impression of long divergences, in some cases even hiding genetic connections. Take the following vocabulary correspondences between Kwaio and Lau (also Solomon Islands) provided by Simons [1982: 168].

Kwaio Lau Meaning

gani dani day, daylight

logo rodo night, dark

-ga -da 3rd possessive

aga ada look, see

gamu damu K. chew; L. smack lips

guigui duidui vinegar ant

ugu udu a drop of water

age ade do, happen

nagama madama moon

62 Here Kwaio’s tendency toward changing d > g is an example of recurring irregular sound change that is so common that it appears a regular change. However, there is no conditioning factor for this regular g:d correspondence, and Kwaio has doublets for gani, gamu and guigui which are identical with the Lau forms. The explanation for this kind of common irregular sound change is to be found in the capricious mechanisms of word tabooing, not in regular inheritance from the proto-language.

63 Aboriginal Australia offers another perspective of the effects of naming taboo on vocabulary. In many traditional Australian Aboriginal communities, any kind of vocabulary item, including grammatical words, can be proscribed if it is the same as, or phonetically similar to, the name of a recently deceased person. Replacement vocabulary is created using synonyms from the language’s own repertoire (or from an auxiliary repertoire of respect language), semantic shifts of existing words, compounding, circumlocution, borrowing from a neighbouring language, and in some cases a hand-sign or gesture. Some languages have special vocabulary items to be used in place of proscribed words, sometimes a kind of ‘whatsitsname / whatchamacallut’ word or one that is reserved especially for the purpose of name-avoidance. For example, in some Kimberley languages in the north of Western Australia, those whose personal names have been tabooed are addressed as nyapurr “no name”9.

64 Striking illustration of this involves the changes to the first person pronoun in some dialects of the Western Desert. On the death of a man named Ngayunya, these languages replaced the pronoun ngayu “I/me” with nganku. Subsequently, this term was itself tabooed and replaced by either English mi or by ngayu borrowed back into the language from dialects where it had never been tabooed (cf. Dixon [1980: 29]). This shows that

Lexis, 7 | 2012 92

the taboo on a word may cease after some years have passed, allowing it to come back into use. This recycling is one of the very few ways in which a former tabooed item can itself become a euphemism and is another dent in the notion of absolute taboo. Linguists Alpher and Nash (1999) claim that, where the history is clear, such cases of death-tabooing have always proved to be temporary10. The taboo on a word may cease after some months, or one or two years have passed, allowing the word to come back into use. Moreover, it appears that there is no absolute prohibition on mentioning the name of a dead person. Vocabulary is taboo for only those people who stand in a certain relationship with the dead person. Locals can continue to use the taboo forms out of earshot of the bereaved family.

65 Given the experience of Aboriginal Australia, we have to allow for the fact that the effects of taboo on vocabulary might occasionally be overstated. Understandably, in the fieldwork context it would be natural, the polite thing to do, for an informant to provide the outside field-worker with the avoidance terms. This could well give an exaggerated impression of severity of the taboo and the extent of the vocabulary replacement rate. There might even be a bit of embellishment on the part of the field worker (exotification of the other), and perhaps also on the part of the informant seeking to make a deeper impression on the naïve onlooker. However, even allowing for exaggerated accounts, it is clear from the endeavours of historical linguists that this kind of naming taboo can have a profound effect on the vocabularies of these languages. Many researchers working on languages in Australasia and the Pacific have noted the difficulty of identifying regular sound correspondences between cognate (or related) forms11. But of course, these speech communities are not closed to innovation either, and they are certainly not closed to importing cultural elements from the outside. As earlier described, taboos and attitudes towards taboo violation do change over time and many of these old taboos are now disappearing, having been affected by the spread of Western ideas.

4.1. The current western perspective on naming

66 There are probably few Westerners today who would admit to still believing in magic and the supernatural powers of names. And yet, the practice of onomancy (interpreting names as omens) is still alive and well. Think of the occasional punter at the track who selects a horse simply because its name has some special significance. Perhaps it links with a recent event or significant person. The keywords ‘name’ and ‘magic’ typed into any web search will uncover instructions on how to cast a spell on someone using their true name, how to find the luckiest name for a new-born baby, how to find the perfect sole mate (using names and numerology to compute the love, sex and intellectual compatibility of partners). There are also sites that will assist in finding the meaningful anagrams of names and ways of interpreting these to define one’s destiny.

67 Even those who pooh-pooh this kind of superstitious carrying on manifest forms of behaviour that strongly suggest a belief in some sort of magical relationship between a name and the individual who bears it. Many experience difficulty when they have to say out loud their own name; this is not confined to young children. Is it vestigial superstition at revealing one’s real name, or is it simply that names are so inextricably bound up with our innermost selves that we feel embarrassed to reveal such an intimate detail to strangers. When someone misspells our name, they touch a soft spot.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 93

From a very early age children learn the effectiveness of name-calling, often upsetting their peers by focusing on physical aspects (square eyes, fatty) but also playing with aspects of their names (changing Burridge to Porridge). We are our names and insulting names do hurt.

68 Another aspect to name magic is the way people react to the personal names of strangers. Perhaps its because many English names carry sound symbolic associations. Research by Cutler, McQueen and Robinson [1990], for example, reveals that quintessential male names are short (often single syllable) and end in a stop consonant, while female names are typically longer, involve sonorous consonants and often a strong high front vowel. Of course, there is also the fact that names come and go. Any fashionable name (such as Jason and Kylie) would reveal something of the age of a person. The fact that there are also traditional names (such as Susan and John) and novelty names (such as Sky and River) may also help us assess the attitudes of the name bearer, or perhaps more so those of the name giver. But studies carried out on the reactions of speakers to names also reveal that many of us go beyond this and actually do link names with certain personalities (cf. Dunkling [1977]). It is all part and parcel of our general stereotyping behaviour. Certain names make us recall the personality of individuals that have that name. The name then somehow seems to fit that personality: Marys are quiet, Davids are strong, Kylies are sexy and so on. When we encounter that name in a stranger, it generates a certain expectancy. It becomes one of the clues we use to access information about that persons social background or personality. Such stereotypes can be positive, negative, accurate or completely wrong-headed, but they are all of them selective. If speakers have come to associate certain personality traits with a certain name, when they encounter a person with that name, then they will see what they want to see. The features they take note of will be those that confirm expectations. These will overshadow other features and become the main characteristics of that person. In fact, studies of stereotyping show that people even go beyond the information that they are given. They see features that are not there and fail to see the ones that are.

69 The significance of naming in our society shows up in other ways. Ours is a culture that promotes personal names. Name-dropping is believed to give us social clout. People dispose of their names and adopt new ones to promote a better public image. People can even sell their names, as when someone endorses a commercial product. Those that buy the item expect to pay more to have the name inscribed on the goods. We have numerous phrases such as make a name for oneself; have a good name; bring ones name into disrepute; clearing ones name and so forth. Personal names can also lose their capital letter and enter the general lexicon as household words. There are the usual such as cardigans and sandwiches from the Earls of Cardigan and Sandwich. English has amassed more than 35, 000 of these expressions (Trahair [1990: 9]), but even more telling are the eponymic phrases that arise spontaneously in everyday language. Most are short-lived, it is true, but their pervasiveness speaks to the value of names. One memorable front-page headline of Melbourne’s Age reads: “Freed, Theophanous does a Pauline Hanson” (February 6, 2004)12.

70 All this ostentation appears in striking contrast to the behaviour of those in societies where there are strict taboos on naming and where true names remain secret. How different our media conscious 21st century seems, where everyone is out there striving to be a name. And yet what we see here is simply a different side of the same coin.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 94

Whether they are revealed or concealed, names are highly charged vocabulary items — they have power and mystique.

5. Summing up taboo and language change

71 In a striking example of scholarly squeamishness, it has only been relatively recently that the effects of taboo on language development have really made an appearance in the mainstream linguistics literature. Anyone wanting to know about taboo and language would have been compelled to seek out specialist anthropological accounts or what were assumed to be vaguely disreputable journals such as Maledicta. In the name of decency and decorum, discussions of taboo, even within historical linguistic textbooks, focused on remote examples involving primitive word magic and taboos on dangerous animals. The following account of taboo was fairly typical for the time: Words may cease to be used by a speech community due to the development of a taboo. A taboo word is one which has come under prohibition, usually because of the sacred status of the reference of the word in question or because of fear inspired by the referent. When taboos develop, some other word or phrase, usually a descriptive term, is generally called upon to replace the forbidden word. The Germanic word for ‘bear’ (and the English word bear itself) is related to the word brown and originally meant ‘the brown one’. The Russian word for ‘bear’ is medved’, originally meaning ‘honey-eater’. Neither the Germanic nor the Slavic languages have retained a reflex of the PIE [=Proto-Indo-European] root *rkso- that has survived in the southern IE languages […] In Ancient Greek the word drakôn ‘the seeing one’ replaced the earlier word for ‘snake’, which was completely lost from the Greek vocabulary. (Jeffers & Lehiste [1979: 135])

72 Any student of Linguistics was left with the impression that taboo embraced little more than ancient naming bans on wolves, weasels and brown bears. If modern western obscenities cracked a mention at all it was in coy reference to the indelicate connotations of words such as leg and thigh (Anttila [1989 (1972): 139]).

73 Yet, clearly those who study continuity and change in language have much to discover by delving into the unmentionable. Taboos, whether they be the so-called absolute taboos of Austronesia or the social taste constraints of Western-style taboos, are an enormously important force behind language change through (1) word loss (2) meaning shift of terms already in the language (via metaphor, general-for-specific, internal borrowing and so on), (3) deliberate modification of existing terms, (4) external borrowing. Word tabooing processes act as some kind of linguistic wild card and militate against the operation of regular predictable change. Consequently, they can play havoc with the conventional methods of historical and comparative linguistics, which operate on principles such as the regularity of sound change, the non- borrowability of core vocabulary and the non-existence of true synonyms. Taboo even undermines one of the very cornerstones of linguistics; namely, the arbitrary nature of the word. The fact that there is no necessary and no natural connection between the form of a word such as rose and its meaning “beautiful fragrant flower” is what gives linguists their license to compare languages they suspect are genetically related and (via procedures like the comparative method) to reconstruct lost linguistic stages. Yet, when it comes to taboo, the arbitrariness falls away and language users behave as if there were a very real association between sound and sense.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 95

74 There exists plenty of linguistic evidence for the emotional quality of the literal descriptors of taboo topics. Even across languages, these words are able contaminate others, bringing down innocent bystanders that just happen to sound similar (e.g. the demise of coney “rabbit” and feck “efficiency” in English). Moreover, taboo senses have a saliency that dominates and frequency kills off all other senses of any language expression recruited as euphemism; those that escape this contamination have special properties. Psychological and neurobiological research even supports the fact that we process taboo language differently from other language, with considerable differences with respect to recall and recognition — forbidden words are in-built, hard-wired into the deep limbic systems of our brains (cf. Allan and Burridge [2006: Ch. 10]). It is the sociocultural setting that creates obscenity and gives it meaning. As the mother of a young Touretter once characterized the vocalizations of her daughter: ‘Society shapes the noise that is made’13. Whether it is a matter of naming dangerous animals, uttering four letter words, striking a saucy trope to arouse or modest metonym to conceal, language users are aware of the potency of these expressions. Modern speakers of English share with their ancestors a profound respect for the close relationship between word and meaning and this remains a powerful motive for language change.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ADAMS Phillip and NEWELL Patrice, The Penguin Book of Australian Jokes, Ringwod, Victoria: Penguin, 1994.

ALLAN Keith and BURRIDGE Kate, Euphemism and Dysphemism: Language Used as Shield and Weapon, New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.

ALLAN Keith and BURRIDGE Kate, Forbidden Words: Taboo and the censoring of language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

ALLAN Keith and BURRIDGE Kate, “Swearing and Taboo Language in Australian English”, in PETERS, Pam, COLLINS Peter and SMITH Adam (eds) Comparative Grammatical Studies in Australian and New Zealand English, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2009.

ALPHER Barry and NASH David, “Lexical Teplacement and Cognate Equilibrium in Australia”, Australian Journal of Linguistics Vol. 19 (1), 1999: 5-56, 2009.

ANTTILA Raimo, Historical and Comparative Linguistics, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1989 [1972].

AYTO John, A Dictionary of Euphemism, London: Bloomsbury Press, 1993.

BLACK Paul, “Lexicostatistics and Australian Languages: problems and prospects”, in TRYON Darrell and WALSH Michael (eds), Boundary Rider: Essays in Honour of Geoffrey OGrady (Pacific Linguistics C-136), Canberra: Australian National University, 1997: 51-69.

BÖRJARS Kersti and BURRIDGE Kate, Introducing English Grammar, London: Hodder Headline Group, 2010.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 96

BURRIDGE Kate, Blooming English: Observations on the roots, cultivation and hybrids of the English language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

BURRIDGE Kate, Gift of the Gob: Morsels of English language history, Sydney: HarperCollins [ABC Books], 2010.

BURRIDGE Kate and ALLAN Keith, “The X-phemistic Value of Romani in Non-Standard Speech”, in MATRAS Yaron (ed), The Romani Element in non-standard Speech, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (Reihe: Sondersprachenforschung 4), 1998: 29-50.

BYBEE Joan, “From Usage to Grammar: The mind’s response to repetition”, Language Vol. 82 (4), 2006: 711-733.

BYBEE Joan, “Mechanisms of Change in Grammaticalization: The role of frequency”, in JOSEPH Brian D. and JANDA Richard D. (eds), Handbook for Historical Linguistics, 2008: 602-623.

CHAPPELL Hilary and MCGREGOR William (eds), The Grammar of Body Parts, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1997.

CORBYN Charles Adam, Sydney Revels (the Eighteen-Fifties) of Bacchus, Cupid and Momus; being choice and humorous selections from scenes at the Sydney Police Office and other public places, during the last three years, [Presented by Cyril Pearl] Sydney: Ure Smith, 1970 [1854].

CRYSTAL David, The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

CRYSTAL David, Language Play, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1998.

DANAT Brenda, “Language in the Legal Process”, Law and Society Review, Vol. 14, 1980: 445-564.

DIXON Robert M. W., The Languages of Australia, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980.

DUNKLING Leslie Anne, Whats in a Name?, Sydney: Rigby Ltd, 1977.

DYEN Isidore, “Lexicostatistically determined borrowing and taboo”, Language Vol. 39 (1), 1963: 60-66.

EPSTEIN Joseph, “Sex and Euphemism”, in ENRIGHT D. (ed.), Fair of Speech: The Uses of Euphemism, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985: 56-71.

GORDON David P., “Hospital Slang for Patients: crocks, gomers, gorks, and others, Language in Society, Vol. 12, 1983:173-185.

GREEN Jonathan, Words Apart, London: Kyle Cathie Limited, 1996.

GROSE (Captain) Francis, Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue, London, 1881 [1783].

HALLIDAY Michael A. K., Language as a Social Semiotic, London: Edward Arnold, 1978.

HOCK Hans H., Principles of Historical Linguistics, Berlin: Mouton, 1986.

HOLZKNECHT Susanne, “Word Taboo and its Implications for Language Change in the Markham Family of Languages”, PNG, Language and Linguistics in Melanesia, Vol. 18, 1988: 43-69.

JAMET Denis, “Euphemisms for Death: Reinventing Reality through Words”, in SORLIN Sandrine (Ed.), Inventive Linguistics, Montpellier: Presses Universitaires de la Méditerranée, 2010: 173-187.

JEFFERS Robert J. and LEHISTE Ilse, Principles and Methods for Historical Linguistics, Cambridge: MIT Press, 1979.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 97

JESPERSEN Otto, Growth and Structure of the English Language, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1962 [1905].

KEESING Roger M. and FIFIɁI Jonathon, “Kwaio word tabooing in its cultural context”, Journal of Polynesian Society, Vol. 78, 1969: 154-177.

LASLETT Peter, A Fresh Map of Life: The Emergence of the Third Age, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1989.

LOFTUS Elizabeth F., “Leading Questions and the Eyewitness Report”, Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 7, 1975: 560-572.

LOFTUS Elizabeth F., Eyewitness Testimony, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1979.

MILWOOD-HARGRAVE Andrea, Delete Expletives?, Broadcasting Standards Commission, 2000.

NASH David and SIMPSON Jane, “‘No-name’ in central Australia”, in MASEK Carrie S., HENDRICK Roberta A. and MILLER Mary Frances (eds), Proceedings on Language and Behavior, Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society, 1981: 165-177.

OSGOOD Charles E., George J. SUCI, & Percy H. TANNENBAUM The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1957.

MCARTHUR Tom (ed), Oxford Companion to the English Language, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.

PINKER Stephen, How the Mind Works, New York: W. W. Norton, 1997.

RAY Sidney H., A Comparative Study of the Melanesian Island Languages, London: Cambridge University Press, 1926.

SCUTT Jocelynne A., “Vilifying Women on the Football Field”: http://www.philcleary.com.au/ afl_racism_football_scutt.htm, 2002 [Accessed October 2004].

SIMONS Gary F., “Word taboo and comparative Austronesian linguistics”, in HALIM Amran, CARRINGTON Lois and WURM Stephen A. (eds), Papers from the Third International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, Vol. 3. Accent on Variety, Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, 1982: 157-226.

TRAHAIR Richard, Whats in a Name? An Australian Dictionary of Eponyms, Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1990.

TUITE Kevin and SCHULZE Wolfgang, “A Case of Taboo-motivated Lexical Replacement in the Indigenous Languages of the Caucasus”, Anthropological Linguistics, Vol. 40 (3) 1998: 363-383.

WURM Stephen A., “Austronesian and the vocabulary of languages of the Reef and Santa Cruz Islands — a preliminary approach”, in WURM Stephen A. and LAYCOCK Don C. (eds), Pacific Linguistic Studies in Honour of Arthur Capell, 1970: 467-553.

WYLD Henry C., A History of Modern Colloquial English, Oxford: Blackwell, 1936 [1920].

NOTES

1. In Australia, sports players are never charged for foul language on the field, unless the complaint involves race discrimination or vilification. When a footballer was disciplined for calling Aboriginal player Michael Long ‘black cunt’ during an Australian Rules match, the reports and re-reports of the incident made no reference to the use of cunt. It was the racial abuse that

Lexis, 7 | 2012 98

triggered the uproar, and the incident gave rise to a new code of conduct against racial vilification both on and off the sporting oval (Scutt [2002]). 2. Many thanks to Pia Herbert for supplying us with the relevant passages from the Melbourne Metropolitan Planning Scheme; cf. Börjars and Burridge [2001] for further discussion. 3. Thanks again to Pia Herbert for this gem. 4. http://www.tagged.com/ultramaturelovers; accessed 4th May 2011. 5. Cf. references in Danat [1980: 486]. 6. The loins, for instance, originally described the body part below the ribs and above the hips (the word is related to lumbar and lumbago). Other examples include the ambiguity of slang anatomical terms such as fanny, prat and tail, which all at some stage in their linguistic history have referred to both “buttocks” and “female pudendum” (and in the case of tail the “virile member” as well); cf. Burridge [2004: 226-228]. 7. For example: http://www.helpguide.org/elder/congregate_housing_seniors_residential.htm [accessed 4th May 2011]. 8. The expression ‘Gresham's law’ is named after Sir Thomas Gresham, a 16th century English financier who worked for King Edward VI. The law dates back to the 1850s when it was first used by economist Henry Dunning Macleod to refer to the tendency (when there is more than one form of money in circulation) for bad money to drive out good money. The application of Gresham’s Law to language is not recent and the linguistic law should more properly be labeled Rawson’s Law, or even Bernstein’s Law of Semantic Change. Hugh Rawson referred to Gresham’s Law of Language in the first edition (1981) of Rawson’s Dictionary of Euphemisms & Other Doubletalk. Even earlier, Theodore Menline Bernstein, journalist and former editor of The New York Times, outlined his second law of language (also based on Gresham’s Law): ‘Bad words tend to drive out good ones and when they do the good ones never appreciate in value sometimes maintain their value but most often lose in value whereas the bad words may remain bad or get better’ (The Careful Writer 1965). 9. William McGregor pers. com. Details of these strategies are also provided in Dixon [1980], Nash and Simpson [1981], Alpher and Nash [1999]. 10. Cf. Alpher and Nash [1999: 9]; they also cite Black [1977: 56-58]. 11. Cf. discussions in Holzknecht [1988]; Keesing and FifiɁi [1969]; Ray [1926]; Wurm [1970]; Dyen [1963]. 12. Pauline Hanson is a controversial figure in Australian politics. On 20th August 2003 she was convicted electoral fraud and sentenced to three years imprisonment for falsely claiming that 500 support group members were genuine paid up members of her party One Nation. The expression to ‘do a Pauline Hanson’ alludes to the fact that on November 6th 2003 the appeal court quashed and set aside her conviction — she was then freed from prison. The headline here refers to the release from prison of disgraced former MP, Andrew Theophanous. 13. Taken from a web forum on coprolalia, maintained by the Department of Neurology at Massachusetts General Hospital; http://neuro-www.mgh.harvard.edu/forum_2/ TouretteSyndromeF/5.7.997.16PMCausesforcopr.html [Accessed October 2004, though no longer in available].

Lexis, 7 | 2012 99

ABSTRACTS

No matter which human group we look at, past or present, euphemism and its counterpart dysphemism are powerful forces and they are extremely important for the study of language change. They provide an emotive trigger for word addition, word loss, phonological distortion and semantic shift. Word taboo plays perpetual havoc with the methods of historical comparative linguistics, even undermining one of the cornerstones of the discipline – the arbitrary nature of the word. When it comes to taboo words, speakers behave as if there were a very real connection between the physical shape of words and their taboo sense. This is why these words are so unstable and why they are so powerful. This paper reviews the various communicative functions of euphemisms and the different linguistic strategies that are used in their creation, focusing on the linguistic creativity that surrounds the topic of ‘old age’ in Modern English (Shakespeare’s sixth and seventh ages). And since personal names form such a special case of word taboo, some consideration will also be given to the ancient and modern perspective of naming.

INDEX

Keywords: taboo, euphemism, dysphemism, orthophemism, politically correct language, expressive creativity, names, aging

AUTHOR

KATE BURRIDGE

Monash University, Australia

Lexis, 7 | 2012 100

“Frequent fl- erm traveler” – La reformulation euphémistique dans le discours sur l’événement

Charlotte Danino

Introduction

1 En guise d’introduction, nous souhaiterions expliciter la terminologie employée ici. Par « langage », nous entendons une faculté cognitive non autonome qui se manifeste dans diverses activités de langage qui sont le lieu d’opérations d’organisation, de structuration et de hiérarchisation du monde. Ces opérations reposent sur trois phénomènes de conscience : perception, conception, expression dans la ligne des trois fonctions que Bühler [2009] assigne au langage. Nous le différencions ainsi de la langue en tant que « configuration spécifique » (Culioli [1990]) dont les spécificités se traduisent dans les contraintes qu’elles fait porter sur l’énonciation et les ressources qu’elles lui offrent. En suivant Culioli [1990], on envisage ainsi que l’(in)stabilité langagière relève d’une tension fondatrice entre créativité et contrainte, précision nécessaire à la communication et sous-détermination du langage.

2 L’énonciation quant à elle est ici différenciée du discours. Par « discours », nous entendons la production effective résultant de l’activité langagière, émergeant dans un contexte d’énonciation spécifique. Il est donc dépendant de ses conditions de production dont l’énonciation fait partie. Il peut être contraint par des pratiques socioculturelles précises (genre discursif, mémoire discursive) et présente une cohérence qui lui est propre. Il informe ainsi l’interprétation des termes qui le composent (dimension dynamique ; grammaire instructionnelle (Col [2007], [2010]) pour l’énoncé). Si le discours a une dimension collective, publique et intersubjective (voire dialogique), on n’accorde pas a priori ces caractéristiques à l’énonciation qui relève pour nous d’un acte singulier par un sujet usant de sa faculté de langage en fonction de sa perception et de sa conception de la situation qui peut être promue au

Lexis, 7 | 2012 101

rang d’objet du discours. L’énonciation est ici conçue d’une part comme subjective et d’autre part comme infra-discursive.

3 A la lumière de ces distinctions, le présent travail s’attache à montrer la dimension fondamentalement et premièrement énonciative de l’euphémisme. On définit l’euphémisme en tant qu’« Il relève d’une stratégie linguistico-discursive dont l’objet est de redessiner les contours de l’univers référentiel pour l’embellir, le présenter plus favorablement ou de manière moins ‘menaçante’ pour le co-énonciateur ou le monde extralinguistique » (Jamet & Jobert [2010 : 19]). On suit encore les auteurs en reconnaissant que l’euphémisme n’est pas un procédé particulier mais un ensemble de procédés divers qui prennent leur sens euphémistique en contexte. En d’autres termes, l’euphémisme est avant tout un phénomène sémantico-pragmatique vis-à-vis duquel le rôle du lexique est à considérer.

4 Pour étudier ces questions et la manière dont elles articulent les notions abordées, nous avons choisi d’étudier le discours sur l’événement. L’événement est ce qui, parmi tout ce qui se produit est saillant, revêt une signification particulière. Entretenant un lien consubstantiel au langage dans la mesure où l’événement a besoin d’être dit, raconté pour accéder à ce statut, il existe pour un sujet expérienceur et énonciateur (Romano [2006] ; Dosse [2010]). Il partage donc avec l’énonciation une triade caractéristique : ego, hic et nunc ; avec le langage de s’appuyer sur les trois fonctions citées plus haut : perception, conception, expression. C’est pourquoi notre recherche cadre fait l’hypothèse que le discours sur l’événement met en lumière le rôle du langage en tant que lieu même de l’événement et que la pression d’une situation sur les locuteurs peut nous éclairer sur le fonctionnement même de l’activité langagière par le biais d’une manifestation linguistique spécifique.

5 Dès lors, nous avons pris comme point de départ un cas de reformulation lexicale dans un corpus dialogique de discours sur l’événement, en l’occurrence le 11 septembre 2001.

6 Après une brève présentation de notre corpus et de l’énoncé tutélaire, nous tâcherons de montrer la dimension énonciative de cette reformulation euphémistique que nous aurons préalablement analysée comme telle. Ensuite, nous considérerons le discours à une échelle plus large pour envisager la régularité et / ou la fréquence des phénomènes mis au jour, et leur interaction avec différents marqueurs, lexicaux ou non, typiquement associés à l’euphémisme, la modalisation par exemple.

7 En somme, il nous intéresse d’envisager le locus et l’échelle de l’euphémisme tout en considérant le type de « traces » qu’il laisse dans le discours.

1. Présentation des données

1.1. Présentation du corpus

8 Notre corpus est constitué du direct de CNN le 11 septembre 2001. Les journalistes (M et W dans notre transcription) prennent l’antenne juste après le premier crash et la garderont jusqu’au terme des événements de ce jour, l’effondrement des deux tours. Tous les événements auront donc lieu en direct à l’exception du premier crash.

9 Les journalistes ne sont jamais à l’antenne : on ne voit que les images des tours, ou des intervenants dans la rue, incluant par exemple l’intervention de George W. Bush depuis

Lexis, 7 | 2012 102

la Floride. Le corpus est donc bien audiovisuel mais les images ne permettent pas d’aborder la gestuelle ou l’expression des locuteurs, joints par téléphone ou hors cadre. La multimodalité est donc particulière ici et l’on devra, par exemple, tenir compte du positionnement des caméras ou des changements d’images, certaines demandes de rediffusion occasionnant un changement de topique. Cependant, dans le cas qui nous intéresse, les images font défaut puisqu’il s’agit de rendre compte du seul événement de cette journée qui ne s’est pas produit devant les caméras. Le recours aux témoins est donc nécessaire et particulièrement important à ce stade.

10 De nombreux témoins interviennent en effet, anonymes ou officiels, partageant un point de vue expert ou faisant part de ce qu’ils ont vu. Le premier témoin (G1 dans notre transcription) se présente comme « CNN vice president of finance », il est l’un des producteurs de la chaîne. Il s’agit donc d’un intervenant dont il est raisonnable d’estimer qu’il a une bonne connaissance de l’exercice journalistique sans pour autant être un représentant de la profession. En d’autres termes, si son discours n’est pas aussi formaté que celui des journalistes, il n’a pas moins conscience d’une certaine forme de pertinence par rapport au type d’activité discursive en cours, et compte tenu du genre discursif conséquent. C’est ainsi que l’on explique les propositions de validation spontanées de la part de cet intervenant ainsi que son insistance à donner sa position géographique.

11 Cependant, des marques de trouble sont observables : il se présente deux fois, « bégaie » sur quelques expressions au début de son intervention. Or au stade où nous trouvons l’énoncé tutélaire de cet article, la prosodie et le discours se sont normalisés durant les premières minutes de son explication. Dès lors, la reformulation que contient l’énoncé cible nous intéresse tout particulièrement.

1.2. Présentation de l’énoncé

M: Generally is that a traffic area? in New York for air craft? G1: it is not a normal flight pattern- I’m a frequent fl- traveler between Atlanta and New York for business and it? is not a normal flight pattern to come directly over Manhattan. Usually they come up either over the Hudson river heading north and pass alongside the island of Manhattan, or if they are taking off from La Guardia they usually take off over Shea? Stadium and an’ an’ and take off- gain altitude around the island of Manhattan-it is rare that you have a jet crossing directly over / / the island of Manhattan W: Just for our viewers who have been /? just turning in right now you are looking at a live picture of the world trade center tower where, according to eye witness Sean Murtagh he is a vice president of finance, an eye witness to what he describes as a twin engine plane or? possibly a 737 passenger jet flying into the world trade center-it appears to be still embedded in the side of the building-Sean, are you in position right now to hear whether any sirens are going, whether any ambulances, any sorts of response to this yet?

12 L’énoncé cible intervient à 3:09 après la prise d’antenne. Le locuteur est le premier témoin à être joint par téléphone. Il s’est attaché à décrire ce qu’il a vu. L’extrait reproduit ci-dessus arbore une unité dans le corpus : la question de M ouvre un nouveau sujet sans lien explicite avec la précédente réponse de G1. L’intervention de W après la réponse de G1 offre une conclusion provisoire avant d’ouvrir sur un autre sujet, l’activité qui règne au pied des tours.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 103

13 Notons dès à présent que G1 n’utilise pas le verbe fly pour décrire les mouvements de l’avion. Jusqu’au moment qui nous intéresse, il utilise crash, peter back and forth, cruise mais pas fly, contrairement aux journalistes qui prononcent le verbe à plusieurs reprises. En revanche, et ce juste avant le groupe nominal cible, G1 emploie le nom flight qu’il réutilisera par la suite. L’énoncé est prononcé alors que les images de CNN sont un gros plan sur la tour, qui reste inchangé durant l’extrait considéré. Un changement d’images ne peut donc être responsable d’un trouble causant une hésitation (situation que l’on observe par ailleurs dans le corpus).

14 G1 prononce effectivement le groupe consonantique fl- avant de s’interrompre, d’hésiter et de reprendre le cours de l’énonciation. Compte tenu du contexte (flight pattern, volonté de légitimation d’un discours sur le trafic aérien au dessus de New York) et du cotexte gauche immédiat (frequent), il apparaît que flyer a toutes les chances d’être le mot passé sous silence pour lequel une alternative est proposée. En effet, l’expression frequent flyer est largement lexicalisée en langue. Ainsi, le New Oxford American Dictionary prévoit une entrée spécifique pour frequent flier1 : a person who regularly travels by air on commercial flights, esp. one who is enrolled in a promotional program for such travelers.

15 Le groupe nominal est également enregistré dans le Webster et dans le Oxford English Dictionary. Le groupe nominal euphémisé est donc lexicalisé en langue et quasiment attendu ici. On est donc à la limite d’un cas de défigement lexical d’une expression enregistrée lexicographiquement. Ce qui nous empêche de parler de défigement stricto sensu est l’existence confirmée de frequent traveler en langue américaine, tant orale qu’écrite comme le montre une recherche dans le Corpus Of Contemporary American (COCA). Cependant sa fréquence est moindre et cette séquence ne fait pas l’objet d’un enregistrement lexicographique. Ainsi, on préférera parler en toute rigueur d’une reformulation plutôt que d’un défigement, où traveler est considérée comme la forme marquée en discours par rapport à flyer, forme non marquée.

2. Reformulation et euphémisme

2.1. Les raisons d’une reformulation

16 Une reformulation spontanée de la part de l’énonciateur (aucune intervention des co- énonciateurs ne vient encourager une reprise) peut avoir plusieurs raisons trouvant leur source dans l’interaction en cours. Il peut s’agir d’une incorrection grammaticale ou lexicale, absolue ou d’emploi. Or ici, flyer est un terme absolument acceptable, syntaxiquement et sémantiquement dans le contexte linguistique et interactionnel. Si la dimension pragmatique est bien en jeu ici, il serait cependant abusif de dire que son emploi serait apragmatique : le terme ne gênerait ni la compréhension, ni la suite de l’énoncé (il gêne visiblement l’énonciation), et l’on ne peut pas dire qu’il violerait les maximes gricéennes de la communication (celle d’économie notamment). D’ailleurs, en termes de quantité discursive, flyer et traveler sont équivalents.

17 Enfin, il convient de remarquer que le contexte d’énonciation ne présente pas motivations « techniques » pour une reprise : pas de bruits, de problème de liaison téléphonique par exemple ne viennent interrompre le bon déroulement de l’interaction. Les motivations de la reformulation ne sont donc ni techniques, ni fondamentalement interactionnelles, ni purement linguistiques. La notion même de

Lexis, 7 | 2012 104

pragmatique semble devoir être considérée prudemment dans la mesure où les interlocuteurs ne montrent aucune réaction pendant et autour de notre énoncé cible et que la suite de l’intervention de G1 ne semble pas autrement problématique.

18 On reste donc bien dans un phénomène discursif mais dont la dimension dialogique ou encore intersubjective semble être limitée dans le cadre d’une reformulation apparemment simple, conscrite à un énonciateur, à un court moment au sein d’une unité textuelle plus longue et localisée dans un groupe nominal unique dont la reprise n’entraîne pas d’autres modifications sémantiques et / ou syntaxiques du cotexte droit.

2.2. Flyer vs. Traveler

19 Compte tenu des remarques précédentes, il paraît indiqué de commencer toute étude de cet énoncé par une comparaison des deux termes concernés. La comparaison met au jour en tout premier lieu de nombreux points communs. Tout d’abord tous deux sont des substantifs, singuliers, modifiés ici par un même adjectif. Tous deux comportent le suffixe -er d’agentivité, qui permet de créer des noms déverbaux désignant les personnes ou actants effectuant l’action décrite par le verbe base. En termes argumentaux, les substantifs dérivés désignent génériquement les sujets potentiels des verbes en question. Le parallélisme est renforcé par le fait qu’ils admettent la modification adjectivale, impliquant que les verbes bases admettent la même modification adverbiale : I fly frequently ⇒ I am a frequent flyer I travel frequently ⇒ I am a frequent traveler 20 Sur le plan sémantique, les deux verbes bases sont des verbes de mouvements. C’est là que la première distinction apparaît. Fly insiste sur la manière du déplacement (voler, en avion) quand travel est d’une parfaite neutralité sur le sujet ne laissant entendre aucun moyen particulier du déplacement. Travel constitue donc un hyperonyme de fly, il est un terme générique. La combinaison des traits [- manner], [+ générique] est un premier aspect à prendre en compte dans l’examen des motivations de cette reformulation. Cependant, ce point seul ne suffit pas car la présence de FLIGHT immédiatement avant l’énoncé cible et de nouveau dans le cotexte droit semble indiquer que le trait [+ manner: FLY] n’est pas seul en cause dans l’euphémisation de flyer en traveler. La combinaison avec le trait de généricité semble également insuffisante dans le cadre d’une intervention dont l’enjeu est précisément un discours générique qui en comporte plusieurs marqueurs (usually, normal, pluriel collectif they). En d’autres termes, la totalité de l’intervention étant générique, cela ne suffit pas à motiver une reformulation localisée et par ailleurs, le trait [+ FLY], dont on pourrait aisément comprendre qu’il porte une surcharge sémantique dans ce contexte semble non problématique d’une part dans le terme flight et d’autre part dans la totalité du champ sémantique de l’aviation (take off, La Guardia, gain altitude, over Manhattan, heading directly).

21 C’est donc dans la différence entre flight et flyer que le dernier aspect critique se loge. Ce que flyer contient que flight ne met pas sur la scène verbale, en d’autres termes l’instruction que flyer donne, la notion de personne, et derrière elle, la notion d’agentivité. Le suffixe décrit plus haut est bel et bien commun à flyer et traveler mais sa combinaison avec les autres traits sémantiques diffèrent :

Lexis, 7 | 2012 105

FLYER : [+ manner: FLY], [- générique], [+ personne] TRAVELER : [- manner], [+ générique], [+ personne]

22 On pourrait objecter que flyer pourrait en contexte être considéré comme générique compte tenu de sa modification adjectivale par frequent. Or, deux éléments bloquent cette interprétation. Le premier est le rapport déjà examiné des valeurs relatives de FLY et TRAVEL, où le second est l’hyperonyme du premier. Le second aspect implique de considérer le niveau phrastique.

2.3. L’euphémisme comme phénomène énonciatif

23 Le groupe nominal euphémisé puis effectivement produit en totalité est en position d’attribut du sujet dans la proposition reconstituée I am a frequent flyer. Ainsi, la convergence des traits [+ manner: FLY], [+ personne], [- générique] est un faisceau attribué à l’énonciateur dont l’ancrage situationnel est comme dédoublé. C’est donc in fine l’ancrage énonciatif fortement subjectif qui explique les motivations de la reformulation. Dans le contexte d’énonciation de l’énoncé, la conjonction des traits [+ manner: FLY], [+ personne] à une posture énonciative fortement subjective et éminemment engageante (l’énonciateur légitime sa production langagière et donc sa position de témoin d’un événement qui la justifie en premier lieu) crée une situation d’énonciation problématique qui légitime de passer le terme source de conflits sous silence, et sa substitution par un générique. L’hyperonyme ne se contente pas de faire disparaître le trait [+ manner: FLY] ; en présentant un plus haut degré de généricité, il permet à l’énonciation, et par là-même à l’énonciateur, de s’extraire d’une situation que l’on s’autorisera à qualifier d’insupportable, c’est-à-dire d’en réduire la fonction d’ancrage. On peut invoquer ici la notion d’expressivité telle que définie en diachronie pour expliquer les apparitions lexicales ou resémantisations. Il est possible de considérer que l’expressivité trop grande de flyer dans le contexte et cotexte considérés justifie l’euphémisation comme opération inverse. Cette hypothèse semble corroborée par la technisation du discours dans l’intervention de G1. La terminologisation, ou l’intention terminologique, semble alors participer du même travail d’atténuation de l’expressivité du discours, en maintenant à distance une situation extralinguistique terriblement choquante.

24 Les causes de ce mouvement d’extraction marquent selon nous la fin du travail du linguiste et le début de celui, sinon du psychologue, du moins celui du sociologue, mais il nous semble néanmoins possible d’envisager ici les études sur l’anthropocentrisme et l’égocentrisme de l’énonciation. Le hic et nunc dont il est question est traumatisant ; il devient insupportable si l’on y adjoint trop fortement l’ego.

3. L’euphémisation à l’échelle du discours

25 Nous souhaiterions maintenant aborder les phénomènes mis au jour plus haut pour examiner leur devenir dans le reste du corpus2. Ainsi, nous aborderons successivement la tension qui semble exister entre expressivité et euphémisation, la présence ou l’absence de référents humains dans notre corpus et les relations de l’euphémisme avec la négation et la modalisation. Dans l’exemple tutélaire, l’euphémisation se traduit effectivement par un phénomène de créativité lexicale visant à recréer pour l’occasion une expression figée. Cependant, les motivations de cette recréation concernent des

Lexis, 7 | 2012 106

phénomènes touchant l’ensemble du corpus : le référent humain, la validation du discours « témoin » et le positionnement énonciatif entre générique et spécifique, entre expressif et technique. L’exemple tutélaire rassemblait les trois composantes. L’euphémisation opère-t-elle également alors que seule une composante est à l’œuvre ?

3.1. Expressivité vs. sous-détermination

26 L’une des premières descriptions de la « scène » par les journalistes est le groupe nominal « something relatively devastating ». Sont reproduites ici les premières secondes du direct pendant lesquelles le groupe nominal cible intervient : CNN center right now is just beginning to work on this story / obviously calling our sources and trying to figure out exactly what happened but clearly something / relatively devastating happening this morning there / on the south end of the island of Manhattan3.

27 Cette phrase met en jeu une tension fondatrice qui opère au cœur du discours sur l’événement et qui oppose l’incertitude et le peu d’informations à l’expressivité d’un langage sous le coup de l’émotion. On observe ainsi un jeu entre une sous- détermination des termes employés aux valeurs référentielles soit faibles (something, story) soit indéfinies au moins hors-contexte (this, what happened) et une expressivité langagière accrue (devastating, nombreux adverbes, marquage aspectuel des formes verbales ici en ‑ING). Le jeu des adverbes lui-même reflète cette oscillation : si obviously, exactly et clearly indiquent une énonciation assumée et visent à assoir une forme de précision, relatively a l’effet inverse en nuançant la portée de l’adjectif devastating, seul élément qualifiant explicitement la situation dont il est question. Cette phrase se développe par ajout de propositions ou séquences incrémentales en procédant comme par gonflement si bien que la description de la scène se trouve au milieu des descriptions du travail des journalistes de CNN. Le métadiscursif, aspect technique de la profession journalistique, encadre le moment de construction d’une représentation verbale de la situation discutée. Or cette situation, désignée autrement par des déictiques (this story) ou une forme pronominale (what happened), est ici reprise par something, indéfini s’il en est. On ne sait pas de quoi on parle, d’où le recours à des expressions non référentielles qui permettent de rester silencieux sur une catégorisation qu’une forme lexicale pleine (contentive) rendrait nécessaire. Les déictiques ici contribuent à la sous-détermination du discours sur l’événement.

28 A l’inverse, le langage est expressif, quasi hypertrophié dans la manière avec laquelle la phrase se développe par période. Six adverbes et deux compléments circonstanciels (this morning there) apportent de nombreuses précisions. Les circonstanciels notamment se voient développés par un groupe prépositionnel incrémental procédant également par ajout successif : on the south end of the island of Manhattan. Le lieu est très précisément donné, les modalités d’un travail d’interprétation sont décrites avec précision. Seul le type d’événement reste indéterminé. L’ambivalence se perçoit dans la modification adverbiale quasi contradictoire : clearly something relatively devastating. L’ambivalence d’un langage qui veut à la fois en dire le minimum et en exprimer un maximum s’observe dans le jeu de marqueurs non congruents tant dans leurs fonctions sémantiques que pragmatiques, même à considérer les contraintes qui pèsent sur le genre discursif spécifique qu’est le journalisme d’information.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 107

29 Notre premier exemple avait montré que l’euphémisation passait par un procédé inverse à celui de la saillance, à savoir passer sous silence un lexème particulier dans le cas d’une énonciation spécifique. On voit ici que le maintien de marqueurs non congruents dans le cadre d’une énonciation à visée générale et informative permet le même type d’opérations : taire un aspect problématique tout en exprimant très clairement l’impact qu’il peut avoir sur et pour les co-locuteurs. L’ambivalence dans l’ordre énonciatif semble pouvoir relever de l’euphémisation du discours. Si l’événement est défini très largement par la saillance tant dans son versant extralinguistique que linguistique, les silences de l’événement semblent tout autant caractéristiques4.

3.2. Absences : référents humains

30 Cependant, comment étudier l’absence dans une production langagière ? Comment le linguiste, intéressé par les observables de la langue et du langage, peut-il envisager le silence ?

31 Notre corpus offre des pistes de réponses lorsque l’on regarde le statut des référents humains dans le discours polyphonique qui nous intéresse. Sans rentrer ici dans les débats autour de la définition de l’événement, les différentes disciplines concernées par la notion, ainsi que les différentes théories qui la mettent en œuvre, s’accordent à envisager l’événement comme ce qui arrive à quelqu’un. Un sujet qui en fait l’expérience est quasi consubstantiel à l’émergence de l’événement en tant qu’il se distingue du flot de ce qui se produit continuellement. Sujet et saillance ont donc partie liée pour conférer son statut à l’événement. Par ailleurs, compte tenu du type d’événement de notre corpus, il est légitime d’envisager que les deux aspects soient particulièrement liés lorsqu’ils s’agit d’une catastrophe, même non naturelle, survenant dans un des milieux urbains les plus denses au monde et impliquant un avion (première phrase du direct) dont on peut raisonnablement penser qu’il transportait au moins un pilote.

32 Or les mots victim et casualty sont absents de notre corpus. D’une manière générale, les référents humains, sauf les témoins joints par téléphone que l’on présente ou que l’on cite, sont absents. L’absence peut ainsi se mesurer en termes de fréquence et de probabilité en regard d’attentes construites sur la base du genre discursif et des « prédiscours » (Paveau [2006]) relevant de verbalisation de scènes équivalentes (c’est- à-dire sur une mémoire discursive).

33 Par ailleurs, c’est la présence effective de ces référents qui peut indiquer leur relative absence. En effet, on observe deux phénomènes co-occurrents à la référence à l’humain : d’une part, la primauté d’un autre aspect que l’humain, celui-ci intervenant comme par hasard dans le discours et d’autre part, un bouleversement des structures intonatives et/ou syntaxiques lors de la référence directe et première à l’humain.

34 La prosodie est un indicateur d’une déviation par rapport à une autre. Les répétitions quasi écholaliques de certaines séquences signalent la difficulté éprouvée par le locuteur à les énoncer. Ces difficultés peuvent être de nature variée mais pour peu que l’on écarte les aspects techniques de la communication ou la recherche d’un terme, il est légitime de considérer ces phénomènes comme purement énonciatifs. Les causes semblent échapper au travail du linguiste mais leur manifestation n’en constitue pas moins un phénomène observable qui nous permet d’envisager sinon des problématiques langagières, du moins des problématiques énonciatives. Voici un

Lexis, 7 | 2012 108

exemple de prosodie bouleversée dans le discours d’une journaliste après le second crash, et après qu’un témoin a décrit les gens courir sous une pluie de débris : FI: was there? already people hurt do you know? G2: I just ran and everybody in the past train just ran I don’t know / if anyone was hurt but I assume they were because the windows were all blown out FI/ M?: Alright thank you you would have to assume a terrible situation if that is the case because I am sure there were people there were people up there in that # there were people up there in tha-the world trade center

35 Outre la prosodie, on retrouve les marqueurs abordés plus haut signalant une énonciation ambivalente (incertitude de would, assume vs. certitude de I am sure ; expressivité de l’adjectif contrastant avec la généricité neutre et faiblement descriptive dans le groupe nominal a terrible situation). A l’inverse de ce langage développé, on trouve des exemples où le silence gagne progressivement l’échange. L’exemple suivant est la conclusion d’un échange entre les journalistes et un témoin qui habite près du World Trade Center. Elle y habite depuis longtemps, a une vue directe sur le site et de l’aveu même des journalistes, ces derniers lui demandent alors d’être « un peu une experte sur le sujet ». Cette femme est relativement calme et posée durant tout l’échange, parle tranquillement et est assez prompte à développer ses réponses, toujours en prise directe avec la question des journalistes ; y compris lorsque l’interaction se porte sur le référent humain : M: you were saying it’s not a high traffic area u-usually but can you guestimate how many people may be in an area like that at at this / this hour of the morning? G4: / it would be hard to say. there is a huge courtyard between the two world trade center buildings and the only issue might have been tourists or business people out in this courtyard area and they possibly would have been hit but the people that are immediately around the base of the world trade center I would say any given time you’re talking maybe 20 or 30 people at best.

36 Cependant, il est question ici de personnes non affectées, évacuées ou passants, dont on minimise le nombre. La modalisation intervient ici pour atténuer la possibilité de voir de nombreux blessés. Il s’agit aussi de se représenter la scène : la question suivante portera sur la présence d’ambulances. Entre les procédés métonymiques (ambulances, emergency crews), la numération, la technicisation d’un discours promu au rang de discours expert, l’euphémisation passe aussi par : 1) la construction d’une posture énonciative qui impose de se distancer d’un vécu par la description topologique experte d’une scène, et 2) par une forme de métonymie où le trait humain est presque incidemment présent. De même que flight ne posait pas de problème quand flyer était impossible, ambulances et emergency crews permettent d’apporter sur la scène verbale la notion de victimes sans qu’aucun mot clé explicite ne s’y réfère. Tout se passe normalement tant que « victime » reste une notion virtuelle ou virtualisée. Cette virtualisation semble reconnue dans le discours-même des co-locuteurs puisque le journaliste demandera à cette même femme : Can you see any actual people in that area who may have been- may have been hit by any of this debris or / were not able to get out the way?- Can you see any crowds that may be too close to where they should be, anything like that?

37 L’adjectif actual confirme cette virtualisation qui a cours autrement dans le discours. La suite de la question annule d’ailleurs ce moment de vérité du langage : la production se fait moins linéaire, moins aisée (pause, répétitions), la modalisation se fait présente (may be, should), l’indétermination d’un pluriel d’abord (crowds), d’une formule indéfinie

Lexis, 7 | 2012 109

ensuite (anything like that) achèvent de désancrer le discours. Ces mêmes procédés finiront par assécher l’interaction en rendant impossible la virtualisation de la notion implicite de victime : F: Jeanne, let me ask you, I know I’m asking you to be a bit of an expert on the World Trade center but there is a famous viewing deck for tourist[s / - (...) G4: As a matter of fact it is and the (xxx) as I’m sure you can see there’s a ton of smoke coming out right now / I’m just guessing th(i) a- the fire seems to be worse on -is is it looks like it’s about fifteen floors down from the top of the building. (...) F: the glass-enclosed observatory is the 107th floor, so there is the possibility that people may very well be trapped up there. G4: Yeah.

38 Si les deux dernières lignes montrent assez explicitement une parole qui se tarit devant l’indicible, il nous intéresse particulièrement de remarquer l’adresse initiale de la journaliste au témoin, par son nom, véritable injonction suite à laquelle G4 se retrouve dans la position d’avoir à confirmer indubitablement le fait que des touristes sont bloqués sur le toit, et par conséquent toute personne se trouvant dans les étages supérieurs au lieu de l’impact. G4 répond à côté de la question décrivant la fumée plutôt que l’organisation de l’immeuble. Le token de validation final est tout ce qu’il reste à dire.

39 Ainsi, on trouve bel et bien dans notre corpus des références à l’humain mais jamais de plein droit, ou alors leur mention bouleverse la prosodie, le principe de pertinence ou encore les codes interactionnels eux-mêmes. La présence de l’humain est plutôt secondaire dans un discours visant la construction d’une scène, la topologie générale des lieux ou encore le travail de catégorisation des entités de la scène ainsi représentée. Il s’agit par exemple de déterminer le type d’avion impliqué dans le crash, a commercial passenger jet : il y pourrait bien avoir des passagers à bord mais ce que cela implique est laissé de côté et ce problème ne sera repris que 20 minutes plus tard lors d’un entretien avec un expert en sécurité aérienne : I don’t know how far away we are at this but that looks to me like it could be / certainly a passenger jet and one of those aircrafts that could hold 100 or more people. / I’d question (you?) at this point whether or not that airplane was occupied by more than just a pilot or crew # # we don’t necessarily know that there were any passengers on board that airplane.

3.3. Négation et modalisation : I don’t think that this represents an accident

40 Nous avons déjà abordé le problème de la modalisation dans l’euphémisation du discours. Plus haut dans notre étude elle relevait d’un mécanisme d’atténuation quant à la probabilité ou possibilité de victimes quand elle ne servait pas à contribuer à l’expressivité d’un discours autrement volontairement vague. La constante fonctionnelle du recours à la modalisation est donc de prendre le contre-point des charges sémantico-pragmatiques du discours pour garantir une ambivalence salutaire. Cependant ces analyses méritent d’être reprises en regard d’un discours cette fois réellement expert dont l’auteur est convoqué en cette qualité précise. Il s’agit ici de l’intervention de Ira Furman, « the former NTSB [National Transportation Safety Board] spokesman ».

41 La phrase citée plus haut intervient alors que G8 s’efforce de faire comprendre, sans le dire, qu’il ne peut pas s’agir d’un accident, et qu’il s’agit d’un acte délibéré, repoussant

Lexis, 7 | 2012 110

les contre-arguments que le journaliste essaye de trouver. Il sait cependant que ce n’est pas à lui de dire explicitement qu’il s’agit d’un attentat, mais aux autorités fédérales. Après cette phrase sans appel, la conversation change de topique et s’intéressera aux aspects juridiques et techniques de ce qu’est un espace aérien.

42 La raison pour laquelle cette phrase nous intéresse en ce qu’elle présente un contraste avec les exemples précédents. L’énonciateur est ici officiellement un expert contrairement aux témoins précédents. Or, à ce moment du discours, cet ancien porte- parole de la sécurité aérienne se distancie du discours technique, impersonnel, dont l’origine et la destination serait collective. L’énonciation est fortement individualisée (I), s’ancrant dans une opinion personnelle (think) reste vague et non technique (this). Par ailleurs, l’énoncé dit ce qui n’est pas admis (négation don’t) et présente la situation en ce qu’elle représente (represents), plus précisément telle qu’elle n’est pas (portée de la négation). Le discours expert à même de catégoriser l’événement en question non comme un accident mais comme un attentat (et même deux) a recours à des marqueurs énonciatifs qui circonscrivent les opinions et analyses au seul locuteur qui dit ce que ça n’est pas plutôt que de dire ce que c’est. L’euphémisation gagne ici la totalité d’une énonciation individuelle qui se place presque en porte-à-faux de l’objectif premier du discours et du statut socioprofessionnel du locuteur (porte-parole). L’euphémisme reste alors bel et bien un phénomène énonciativo-discursif usant des ressources de la langue dans une situation de discours spécifique mais il jaillit en l’occurrence d’un conflit entre un genre discursif, celui de l’expert, et une situation d’énonciation.

4. Conclusions : les silences de l’événement

43 En conclusion, l’euphémisme repose bel et bien sur des marqueurs variés tant syntaxiques qui sémantiques, tant énonciatifs que langagiers. Cependant, un même marqueur peut relever de fonctions différentes selon l’origine énonciative, le genre discursif et à plus grande échelle, les marqueurs co-occurrents. On peut dire, de concert avec de nombreux linguistes, que l’euphémisme se situe bien entre langue et discours mais nous espérons avoir montré qu’il se situe très précisément dans l’énonciation en tant qu’elle est le produit d’une interaction, congruente ou conflictuelle, entre les contraintes posées par la langue et la créativité imposée par le discours, a fortiori par le discours sur et concomitant à l’événement. Ainsi, il nous semble que l’euphémisme repose davantage sur la subjectivité d’une énonciation que sur l’aspect intersubjectif ou dialogique que peut revêtir un discours. Selon nous, ce deuxième est précisément secondaire, tandis que l’importance des représentations du sujet énonciateur et du rapport qu’il entretient avec elles nous semble, dans tous les sens du terme, première.

44 La création lexicale est donc l’une des manifestations de l’euphémisme en tant que le lexique ouvre un paradigme au sein duquel des choix s’opèrent tenant compte de critères aussi divers que la volonté du locuteur, consciente et inconsciente, la situation décrite, l’interlocuteur, le type d’interaction, etc. Cependant, ce que l’euphémisme permet dans notre corpus (mise à distance de l’humain, relativisation de la catastrophe, expressivité langagière du choc modérée par la technicisation d’une volonté analytique et informative, stabilisation de l’incertitude dans une langue de l’indéfini), tous ces éléments se traduisent certes dans le lexique mais également dans la modalisation, les marqueurs méta-énonciatifs et la prosodie. L’euphémisme peut dès lors être vu comme

Lexis, 7 | 2012 111

un procédé de création énonciative dont la création (ou recréation) lexicale n’est qu’un pivot possible et une manifestation explicite.

45 En effet, l’implicite au cœur de toute énonciation est le domaine de l’euphémisation plus ou moins généralisée du discours. L’euphémisme permet de dire les silences de l’événement, silences que l’on peut considérer comme la mise en langage, à défaut de la mise en mots de ce qui relève de l’indicible, que la raison soit socioculturelle, psychologique, interactionnelle. Dès lors, l’euphémisme est l’un des éléments qui permet la manifestation de l’événement au cœur même du langage.

BIBLIOGRAPHIE

BÜHLER Karl, Théorie du Langage, Paris : Agone, 2009.

COL Gilles, « Théories cognitives et l’hypothèse de l’émergence du sens », Tropismes, n°12, Nanterre : Université Paris X – Nanterre, 2004 : 115-140.

CULIOLI Antoine, Pour une linguistique de l’énonciation, T. 1, 2, 3, Ophrys, 1990.

DOSSE François, Renaissance de l’événement. Un défi pour l’historien entre sphinx et phénix, PUF, 2010.

HAILLET Pierre Patrick, Pour une linguistique des représentations discursives, De Boeck, Editions Duculot, 2007.

HUART Ruth, Grammaire orale de l’anglais, Paris : Ophrys, 2002.

JAMET Denis et JOBERT Manuel, Tours et détours de l’euphémisme, Paris : L’Harmattan, 2010.

PAVEAU Marie-Anne, Les prédiscours. Sens, mémoire, cognition, Presses Sorbonne Nouvelle, 2006.

PRESTINI-CHRISTOPHE Mireille, « La notion d’événement dans différents champs disciplinaires », Pensée Plurielle, n° 13.3, De Boeck Université, 2006.

ROMANO Claude, L’événement et le monde, Paris : PUF, 1999 [1998].

NOTES

1. La variation orthographique flyer / flier est fonction de la variété d’anglais considérée, respectivement américaine et britannique. Nous choisirons l’orthographe américaine compte tenu de la nature de notre corpus, sauf à citer des sources britanniques (OED par exemple). 2. Compte tenu des limites qui étaient les nôtres, nous avons restreint le corpus de cette étude aux 30 premières minutes du direct qui correspondent aux deux crashs, à l’intervention de Bush suite à laquelle les autorités explicitent officiellement qu’il s’agit d’une attaque terroriste. Après 30:26 minutes, les journalistes offrent une conclusion temporaire qui dégage une unité discursive et situationnelle explicite et cohérente. 3. Le symbole / indique une pause intonative en deçà de 0.2 seconde. Le symbole # indique une pause plus longue avec respiration audible.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 112

4. Nous empruntons l’expression « silences de l’événement » à Thomas Bouchet qui en a fait le titre de sa présentation au colloque « Langages, Discours, Evénement », qui s’est tenu à Florence les 31 mars, 1 et 2 avril derniers (actes à paraître).

RÉSUMÉS

L’étude que l’on propose concerne la première demi-heure de direct sur CNN le 11 septembre 2001. Durant ces trente minutes, on comprend peu à peu ce qui s’est réellement passé et ce que ces événements représentent. Au cours de cette élaboration discursive polyphonique d’un événement surpassant largement les expériences communes accumulées jusqu’alors, on assiste à un véritable travail discursif en réaction à un choc majeur. Cependant, alors qu’on pourrait s’attendre à un discours oscillant entre les euphémismes d’un langage atténué et les hyperboles d’une langue très expressive, le corpus s’avère d’une étonnante neutralité. On étudiera en détail la reformulation de frequent flyer en frequent traveler, dont on montrera la valeur euphémistique. A partir de cet exemple, on s’attachera à envisager les points d’appui de cet euphémisme à l’échelle du corpus : on verra que cette reformulation concentre trois phénomènes autrement constants dans notre corpus. Tout le discours s’articule en fait autour de la même volonté d’euphémisation selon des modalités similaires ce qui nous incitera à considérer l’euphémisme dans une dimension premièrement énonciative. Il deviendra apparent que la neutralité énonciative de notre corpus peut s’interpréter elle-même comme un procédé euphémique, proche de ce que l’anglais qualifie d’understatement. On tentera alors d’envisager l’aspect implicite que peut revêtir l’euphémisme, qui s’exprime parfois en passant certains mots ou expressions sous silence. L’euphémisme dans ce contexte de discours sur l’événement (choquant), et c’est que l’on souhaite soutenir, devient une posture énonciative à part entière qui permet de remanier les ressources linguistiques à disposition, ouvrant la voie à différents processus créatifs. In fine, notre étude envisagera donc la place et le rôle de l’euphémisme dans les relations entre langage, cognition, représentation, que notre corpus nous permet d’aborder dans la presque parfaite simultanéité de la situation perçue et visée et les discours qu’elle génère.

This study deals with the first half hour of CNN’s live broadcast on September 11, 2001. During these 30 minutes, it becomes clear that this is no accident and the events start being considered as we understand them nowadays. This polyphonic stretch of interaction constitutes an online linguistic and discursive construction of a major event, different from, and bigger than, any other before. If we could expect the discourse to alternate between euphemistic and hyperbolic features, the corpus is in fact strikingly neutral. In this context, we propose to study in details a particular case of rephrasing: the set phrase frequent flyer becomes frequent traveler and we hope to show that this is an example of euphemism. We will then try to show how this particular instance finds its roots in phenomena featured in the entire corpus. Indeed, in this rephrasing, three larger means of understatement converge, which we will detail. This will bring us to focus on the particular type of enunciation at stake in our corpus since we will argue that euphemism is an enunciative device applied to the corpus entirely. The apparent neutrality can then be reinterpreted as a general understatement. This will lead us to tackle the implicit aspect of euphemistic discourse: it can mean to not say something or to avoid certain words. Silence, we will argue, is part and parcel of euphemistic discourse. In the context of a stretch of interaction dealing with a (shocking) event, euphemism can be understood as a discursive and enunciative

Lexis, 7 | 2012 113

attitude affecting the entire stretch of talk. In the end, we want to consider the relationships between language, cognition and representation in the light of comprehensive euphemistic devices. The unique corpus we study allows us to tackle just that, taking full advantage of the almost simultaneity between what is perceived, focused on and expressed in language.

INDEX

Keywords : euphemism, rephrasing, discourse analysis, event, context, enunciation Mots-clés : euphémisme, reformulation, analyse de discours, événement, contexte, énonciation

AUTEUR

CHARLOTTE DANINO

ENS-Lyon, France [email protected]

Lexis, 7 | 2012 114

Lexical Creation and Euphemism: Regarding the Distinction Denominative or Referential Neology vs. Stylistic or Expressive Neology

María Tadea Díaz Hormingo

AUTHOR'S NOTE

This article has been included in the lines of research on “Communication linguistics” and “Lexical creation and formation” carried out in the framework of projects by the group belonging to the Andalusian Research Plan Semaínein [ref.: HUM 147], subsidised by the Andalusian Regional Government and belonging to the area of General Linguistics in the Department of Philology of the University of Cádiz. I would like to thank especially Mary Joplin for her translation of this paper.

1. The linguistic study of lexical creation or neology/ Lexical creation from a linguistic viewpoint

1 The study of lexical creation or neology1 from a strictly linguistic point of view must refer to the description of the linguistic processes of creation of new lexical units or neologisms2 and the analysis of the resulting neological products. The theoretical and applied study of lexical innovations is another of its aims. Therefore, it must attend to the criteria of recognition, diffusion and acceptability of neologisms and the consequences of these new lexical units for the system of the language. Of all the aspects mentioned, in this article we will pay special attention to certain questions which have to do with the acceptability of neologisms.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 115

2 In this respect, it must be made clear that the acceptability of new lexical units depends to a great extent, although not exclusively, on the level of social esteem obtained by the neologism. The level of acceptability is closely related to the awareness of the need for the designation of a concept, object or reality. For this reason, the question of the acceptability of a lexical creation is related to the common boundary between lexical units created to designate new concepts, objects or realities –denominative or referential neologisms– and those created to introduce subjective nuances or new or original expressive forms in communication –stylistic or expressive neologisms–. The former generally have a wider diffusion and acceptability than the latter group, but, in fact, we believe that nuances and other subdivisions could be created for both groups. In any case, this distinction is just one of those that are usually taken into account for the classification of new lexical units.

2. A typology of neology

3 In fact, the general typology which is commonly established for neology and/or neologisms includes the boundaries between a) lexical neology in common language vs. lexical neology in specialised language; b) spontaneous neology vs. planned neology; c) denominative or referential neology vs. stylistic or expressive neology, and d) formal and ordinary neology, neology of form or of form and sense vs. semantic or sense neology. These distinctions are based on at least four different criteria.

2.1. Lexical neology of common language vs. lexical neology of specialised language

4 Thus, as Cabré [1993: 446-448] and Cabré et alii [2002: 161-164] point out, Rondeau’s proposed distinction [1984] between lexical neology of common language (general neology or neology itself) and lexical neology of specialised language (specialised neology, terminological neology or neonymy) comes from examining the relevance of neologisms to the system of the language and their area of use. Lexical neologisms of common language are characterized mainly by their spontaneity and not by the necessary motivation of their creation, their frivolity, their sometimes ephemeral nature, their possible synonymy with other lexical units of the same language, and, similarly, their stylistic value. With regard to terminological neologisms or neonyms, these, like the terms themselves, respond above all to a necessity of creation in order to designate a concept, their univocity and monoreferentiality, absence of synonymy, neutrality in the expression of connotations and affective values, unambiguity, stability of duration and relevance to a single area of speciality.

2.2. Spontaneous neology vs. planned neology

5 From the above, we can infer a second boundary in the area of neology. Thus, following the criterion of examining its origin and the nature of the creative process, neology can be spontaneous or planned. For Cabré et alii [2002: 161-162] spontaneous neologisms arise from an individual act that takes place in order to name a new concept or to introduce a stylistic or expressive variation in the system of denomination. Therefore, spontaneous neology can be the result of an unconscious process; the speaker can

Lexis, 7 | 2012 116

create a new lexical unit without realizing that it does not exist, and which, for this reason, does not appear in language dictionaries. However, it may also be the result of a conscious action, as a new lexical unit may be created to attract the receiver’s attention or for the sake of originality. For its part, planned neology may be individual, or, more usually, institutional. In any case, planned neologisms arise from the social and political necessity to designate a new concept, replace a designation considered inappropriate or simplify several variations with a single means of reference.

2.3. Denominative or referential neology vs. stylistic or expressive neology

6 So, according to the criterion of its function or aim, neology can be, as we have already indicated in section 1., either denominative or referential or stylistic or expressive. The neologisms which arise for the denomination of new concepts, objects and realities are called denominative, whereas those which arise to introduce subjective nuances or new expressive and original forms in communication are known as stylistic or expressive.

2.4. Formal and ordinary neology, neology of form or of form and sense vs. semantic or sense neology

7 However, it is always possible to distinguish between those which appear in the form of a signifiant not yet registered in the language and those which do so in the form of an existing signifiant. For this reason, depending on the resource used for the new lexical creation, we can distinguish between formal neology, ordinary neology, neology of form, neology of form and sense, and semantic or sense neology. The former group consists of the creation of new signifiants or new signifiants and signifiés. This explains the proximity of external borrowings to this type3. Semantic or sense neology is based on the appearance of new meanings or new acceptions for existing signifiants.

8 Likewise, with respect to the types of formal neology, ordinary neology, neology of form or of form and sense and semantic or sense neology, a classification of diverse lexical creation procedures existing in the language is generally made. Regarding this, the sum of all the neological creation mechanisms cited by various authors (Matoré [1952]; Deroy [1971]; Sauvageut [1971]; Rey [1976]; Pottier-Navarro [1979]; Fernández- Sevilla [1982]; Guerrero Ramos [1995]) allows us to include in formal neology resources of creation ex-nihilo; by onomatopoeia; by prefixation, suffixation, prefixation and suffixation, subtraction, lexical or orthographical composition, learned composition, syntagmatic composition or syntagmation –sometimes included in semantic neology–; by abbreviation, acronymy or initials, and unadapted borrowings or adapted ones, and calques. In the case of semantic neology, the neological creation mechanisms mentioned are categorical conversion (neology by conversion) or subcategorial (syntactic neology) and by the lexicalisation of a flexive form, metaphorical, antonomasic, metonymic and synecdochic creation, and by ellipsis originating from lexical combination and, as such, the cause of semantic change4.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 117

3. The classification of new euphemistic lexical creations

9 Indeed, it would appear that it is not difficult to classify new lexical creations that are euphemistic substitutes5 within the types of a) neology of common language vs. neology of specialised language, b) spontaneous neology vs. planned neology and c) formal neology vs. semantic neology. As we will discuss later, lexical units that act as euphemistic uses or substitutes are, in general, common language creations, of a spontaneous nature and based on a change or alteration in form and/or semantics of an existing lexical unit.

10 However, the demarcation of denominative or referential neology vs. stylistic or expressive neology is insufficient for the analysis of new lexical units which could be considered as euphemistic. So, for an exact analysis, among other things, we would have to specify the wide range of linguistic motivations which may be underlying in stylistic or expressive neologisms. Euphemistic creations are generally classified in this type of neology. The social esteem acquired and by extension, their diffusion and acceptability will, in our opinion, depend to a great extent on the forbidden area or reality and on the extralinguistic motivation that brings about the substitution of one lexical unit by another used euphemistically.

11 In order to clarify these ideas, and before giving examples, it would seem useful to mention the conclusions drawn from the examination of different concepts and descriptions of the euphemistic phenomenon.

4. Descriptions of the euphemistic phenomenon

12 Indeed, the revision of the definitions of the lexical substitution process known as euphemism that have been formulated up to the present6 enable us to gather information about 1) the real causes or extralinguistic motivations underlying euphemistic substitutions, according to scholars of the euphemistic phenomenon; 2) the peculiarities of a certain designation (word or expression) which bring about its substitution or replacement by a different one; 3) the aims of these euphemistic substitutes; that is, the intention behind them, the reason for which they take place. In relation to the aforementioned distinction between denominative or referential neology vs. stylistic or expressive neology, Armenta Moreno [2009: 23] considers euphemism and dysphemism as “dos variantes estilísticas que el hablante elige en función de su intención comunicativa, esto es, suavizar o intensificar el tabú” [two stylistic variants chosen by the speaker depending on his communicative intention, that is, to attenuate or intensify the taboo]. About this attenuation and intensification of the taboo conceptual traits in relation to euphemism and dysphemism, see Crespo Fernández [2007: 43-44], and 4) the enumeration of linguistic mechanisms and resources on which potential euphemistic substitutes are based, and which can, in turn, respond to a specific type of linguistic motivation7.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 118

4.1. Extra-linguistic causes

13 Few authors, in their respective definitions of euphemism, allude specifically to the extralinguistic causes motivating euphemistic substitutions, and those that do so only mention that euphemistic substitution occurs because there is a word, idiom or expression that is avoided for reasons of religious fear, moral scruples or courtesy [Hatzfeld 1924: 107], or for an underlying psychological motive (dread, courtesy and decency or decorum) [Ullmann 1976: 231], or because it designates something which causes fear [Kany 1960: V], or simply because of social pressure [Alcaraz Varó and Martínez Linares 1997: 219-220]. Therefore, religious fear, moral scruples, courtesy, dread, decency, decorum and social pressure are considered by these authors to be the extralinguistic motivations that give rise to linguistic substitutions8.

14 However, among the consigned definitions of the euphemistic phenomenon, we can also distinguish those in which the causes of the euphemistic substitution are not clear, but it is clear that such causes exist. In this respect, it is said vaguely that the euphemistic use of a lexical unit is chosen “por alguna razón” [for some reason] [Seco 2002: 8], “por algun motivo” [for some cause] [Moliner 1998: 1239-1240], “por alguna que otra razón” [for one reason or another] [Fernández Ulloa 1998: 40], “por razones diversas” [for various reasons] [Lechado García 2000: 14], “pour une raison quelconque” [for whatever reason] [Nyrop 1913: 257], or simply because “nuestra competencia lingüística así nos lo sugiere” [our linguistic competence suggests it] [Edeso Natalías 2009: 147 and 150], without mentioning anything else to justify this assertion about our linguistic competence.

4.2. Characteristics of substituted words and expressions

15 With regard to the peculiarities that a particular designation (word or expression) may present in order to be substituted or replaced, we must highlight the definitions of euphemism in which the reason for the substitution is found in the characteristics of the designation itself. There are others which consider that the designated area, that is, the realities referred to by these words and expressions, determines that these denominations be replaced.

16 Thus, it is necessary to substitute words or expressions considered to be annoying or inappropriate [Cerdà 1986, s.v. eufemismo], those which are considered taboo, non grata, in bad taste, offensive, unpleasant, hard, coarse, violent, rude, forbidden, too frank, badly considered, with excessive negative connotations, inappropriate, less appropriate or which we prefer not to enunciate [Hatzfeld 1924: 107; Howard 1986: 101; Allan and Burridge 1991: 11; Diccionario ideológico de la lengua española [Thesaurus of Spanish] 1995: 1154; Diccionario para la enseñanza de la lengua española [Dictionary for the teaching of Spanish language] 1995: 494; Richards, Platt and Platt 1997: 158; Fernández Ulloa 1998: 40; Seco, Andrés and Ramos 1999: 2043; Lechado García 2000: 14; Battaner Arias 2001: 763; Diccionario de uso del español de América y España [Dictionary of use of Spanish America and Spain] 2002: 814; Maldonado González 2002, s.v. eufemismo; Seco 2002: 8; DRAE 2003, s.v. eufemismo; Gómez Sánchez 2004: 45; Allan and Burridge 2006: 32]. Likewise, we must substitute the word which designates something unpleasant, offensive or frightening [Kany 1960: V] or that is annoying, dirty, inopportune or forbidden by taboo [Moreno Fernández 1998: 202], as well as the expression of certain facts or ideas, whose

Lexis, 7 | 2012 119

crudeness could offend [Lázaro Carreter 1974: 177; Dubois et alii 1979: 262; Cardona 1991: 106].

4.3. Aims

17 In the same way, from the aforementioned euphemistic definitions we can infer that the aim of euphemistic substitutions is: to obtain a word, phrase, expression, manifestation or denotation that is gentler, ambiguous, more pleasant, inoffensive, or less offensive, less unpleasant, decorous, neutral, tactful, veiled, more appropriate [Lázaro Carreter 1974: 177; Richards, Platt and Platt 1997: 158; Howard 1986: 101; Warren 1992: 135; Diccionario SALAMANCA de la lengua española [ Spanish Language Dictionary SALAMANCA] 1996: 685; Battaner Arias 2001: 763; Diccionario de uso del español de América y España [Dictionary of use of Spanish America and Spain] 2002: 814; Maldonado González 2002, s.v. eufemismo; DRAE 2003, s.v. eufemismo; Gómez Sánchez 2004: 45; Álvarez 2005: 20]; express something in an attenuated or softened way, or with decorum [Dubois et alii 1979: 262; Diccionario ideológico de la lengua española [Thesaurus of Spanish] 1995: 494]; mask, dissemble, attenuate the meaning or signification of a word or expression [Lewandowski 1982: 128; Cerdà 1986, s.v. eufemismo]; designate a matter that is unpleasant, offensive or frightening with an indirect and softer term [Kany 1960: V]; break a link between unpleasant, annoying and inappropriate situations and things and their denominations [Cardona 1991: 106; Crespo Fernández 2007: 82-83]; flee from taboo [Crespo Fernández 2007: 82-83]; avoid the name of a certain reality [Seco 2002: 8]; avoid that which is forbidden, annoying, unpleasant, offensive, dirty [Moreno Fernández 1998: 202]; clean up some areas of life to make them more presentable [Wardhaugh 1986: 237]; improve the negativity of a (subjectively) taboo reality [Horak 2010: 62]; avoid the loss of prestige [Allan and Burridge 1991: 11; Allan and Burridge 2006: 32]; respect the right of the hearer not to be offended or annoyed [Alcaraz Varó and Martínez Linares 1997: 219-220] or disguise an unpleasant truth, veil an insult or mitigate an indecency [Kany 1960: V]. But the definitions of euphemism proposed by these scholars are not usually restricted to just one function.

4.4. Linguistic resources

18 Finally, we will refer to the exclusively linguistic resources or mechanisms on which euphemistic substitutes are based. In this respect, there are definitions of euphemism which allude to possible modifications of the form and the semantic content of the substituted units [Montero 1981: 26; Uría Varela 1997: 6; Casas Gómez 2009: 738]9. In other definitions [Martín Fernández 1994: 337; Chamizo Domínguez and Sánchez Benedito 2000: 37] only the semantic change and the figurative use of a lexical unit acting as a euphemistic substitute are mentioned10. And in other cases allusion is made to the substitution of the offensive word or expression by another, periphrastic one [Howard 1986: 101] or by a circumlocution [Lewandowski 1982: 128]. Nonetheless, Allan and Burridge [1991, 2006] indicate other, different linguistic strategies for the formation of euphemisms, which also include different formation processes.

19 In any case, although there are some exceptions [Montero 1981: 26; Casas Gómez 1986a: 35-36], in the definitions examined euphemistic substitutes are not seen as resources of lexical creation, that is, of sources of enrichment of the lexical flow of the language. Nonetheless, it is evident that, in the same way as other lexical creations and

Lexis, 7 | 2012 120

neologisms, the diffusion and acceptability of euphemistic lexical units can lead to their lexicalisation and their forming part of the system of the language.

5. Euphemistic substitutes that are motivated for the speaker but not for the hearer

20 In this respect, it seems to be the mass media that demonstrate the vitality of a language and the changes, innovations and new additions to its vocabulary. Likewise, regarding the subject under discussion, the media serve to show, among many other aspects, that the creation of new lexical units or neologisms is one of the most fertile linguistic resources in order to mask reality. We can observe, for example, the tendency to distort the expression of events that have an immediate negative effect on daily life, in spite of the fact that it is not really ‘forbidden’ to talk about them. This tendency to camouflage events that have a negative impact on public opinion can be observed especially, although not exclusively, in political speech in the media by leaders of local, regional or national government. In preparing their speeches, it is clear that politicians or other public figures with social responsibility have the idea that certain realities are proscribed or forbidden, when in fact this is not so. Their supposed conceptual interdiction of certain domains and topics leads them to avoid using some existing forms and expressions of the language, giving rise to a euphemistic process. Certain words are passed over and replaced by linguistic expressions with underlying linguistic mechanisms. However, those who hear the speech might not consider it justified to treat these domains or subject areas as forbidden, and nor might they understand that the interdiction has a positive motivation.

21 In fact, certain events that have taken place have given rise to a political discourse that is full of new euphemistic lexical units, which have been created and used with the only aim, or political need, of trying to hide or show differently that which they do not wish to be known. With regard to this, the present economic crisis, the first Gulf war (1991), the sinking of the tanker Prestige (2002), the Iraq war (2003) or certain terrorist attacks have given rise to appearances in the media by public figures having social responsibility coining lexical units such as economic deceleration for crisis, negative growth for decreased productivity, recession for long-lasting serious economic situation, redundancy for mass sackings, price adjustment or revision for price rises, creditors meeting for temporary receivership, allied attack for war, collateral damage for civilian casualties, humanitarian aid for logistical support or military support, as well as diseconomy, restructuring process, military intervention, friendly fire, commando, armed struggle, armed wing, ceasefire, etc. These lexical units are examples of vocabulary created and used by politicians, but also by the armed forces, businessmen, economists, etc. with the sole aim of embellishing, deforming, or blurring the reality that they wish to hide. The economic crisis, military intervention in wars, ecological disasters, terrorist attacks, etc. have become interdictive fields for political, civilian and military leaders. However, for the rest of society, there are no motives due to external, psychological or social pressure which justify the prohibition of these areas and topics that are presented as forbidden conceptual categories. All this has an impact on the diffusion and acceptability of these euphemistic substitutes.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 121

5.1. Classification

22 Indeed, the analysis of these euphemistic lexical creations according to the general typology of neology and/or neologisms, described in section 2. of this article reveals that the cited examples are lexical creations of common language, spontaneous, ephemeral and sporadic, as they are related to the immediate context11. They have co- reference or ‘quasi–synonymous’12 concurrence with other lexical units of the same language. Therefore, they do not designate a new concept, but they introduce a stylistic or expressive variant in the system of denomination. Hence, they can be called stylistic or expressive lexical creations. Likewise, these lexical creations arise from a conscious process, as a new unit is created in order to avoid calling things by their name, and so distracts the receiver’s attention. The fact that they contribute to introducing subjective or new expressive forms of communication, and do not designate new concepts, objects or realities, as well as being referentially identified with other sufficiently general terms, leads to their being considered as unnecessary lexical creations or neologisms, although in some cases they can be exceptionally expressive creations.

5.2. Aims

23 Likewise, if we refer to the conclusions expressed in section 4., obtained from the examination of different conceptions and descriptions of the euphemistic phenomenon, it is clear that the abovementioned euphemistic substitutes are used to avoid the name of a certain reality, which is unpleasant. The designation has too many negative connotations and so it is replaced by another, considered by the speaker to be gentle, appropriate, veiled, tactful, etc. However, none of those mentioned (religious fear, moral scruples, courtesy, dread, decency, decorum and social pressure) seem to be the extralinguistic motive that gives rise to this type of euphemistic substitution that avoids calling things by their name. The cited euphemistic substitutes seek to disguise, hide, mask and distort reality as well as manipulating public opinion. Not doing this, or not doing it successfully, would have a negative effect for the spokesperson and would result in the loss of power and prestige, connected to face concerns (see Allan and Burridge [1991, 2006]).

6. Euphemistic substitutes that are motivated for both the speaker and the hearer

24 Let us now compare the characteristics of these euphemistic lexical units given as examples with those of other euphemistic substitutes and uses which respond to a different extralinguistic motivation. These examples are creations of what is now called politically correct language: a long and painful illness for cancer, Maghrebi for Moor, Afro- American for black, visually impaired for blind, mentally disabled for retarded, senior citizen for old age, voluntary death for suicide. Such politically correct manifestations are euphemistic variants which are used in certain forbidden domains in the sociopolitical sphere, such as illnesses, , physical defects, the effects of age, , , sex, etc.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 122

6.1. Classification

25 So, we can see that these, like the other examples cited and analysed in section 5., are lexical creations or neologisms of common language, which have also been propagated by the mass media. And since they are co-referential and ‘quasi-synonymically’ concurrent with other lexical units of the same language, they can be considered as stylistic or expressive neologisms. Indeed, they do not designate a new concept, object or reality but, rather, they are stylistic variants introducing new expressive forms in communication. Therefore, contrary to the designative need that is closer, but not exclusive to, terminological creation, in these creations, as with those in section 5., we can observe stylistic subjectivity. Hence, like the previous ones, these creations can be dubbed unnecessary.

6.2. Aims

26 From the standpoint of extra-linguistic motivation, the authors have mentioned courtesy, decorum and social pressure as causes of euphemistic substitution. An annoying, inopportune or less appropriate word or expression, suggesting something pejorative or unpleasant for the hearer, is replaced by another that is more pleasant, gentler and less offensive.

7. The level of social esteem of euphemistic substitutes

27 But, in spite of the fact that in sections 5. and 6. we have mentioned euphemistic substitutes that are stylistic or expressive neologisms, the level of social esteem given to the two groups is very different. This different consideration can be observed equally in specialised or terminological neologisms or neonyms, given the awareness of the necessity of their creation in order to designate a new concept or replace an unsuitable denomination. It is also clear for so-called denominative or referential neologisms, which are created spontaneously or planned to designate new concepts, objects or realities. However, the level of social esteem of stylistic and expressive neologisms created as euphemistic substitutes is also different, however strong the perception that they are lexical uses arising from the search for connotations.

28 Indeed, unlike those mentioned in section 6., the lexical substitutes in section 5. are the result of distorting the facts and reality. The lexicon has been manipulated, with the object of not calling realities by their name. The euphemistic substitutes in section 6. are received positively because they seek to avoid offending ethnic, cultural or religious groups. On the other hand, the receiver has a negative perception of the euphemistic substitutes in 5. because he is conscious of the extra-linguistic motivations underlying them and of the desired effect of these euphemistic uses and substitutions. In these cases, the euphemistic substitutes are not seen as a way of increasing the lexical flow in a positive sense, but rather as resources for the perversion of the language, a perversion that avoids calling things by their name. This has a negative effect on the social esteem given to the euphemistic substitutes in section 5. as compared to 6., and consequently, on their diffusion and level of acceptability.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 123

8. Conclusions

29 Therefore, we can conclude that the acceptability of lexical creation consisting of a euphemistic substitute depends both on the forbidden field or reality and on the extra- linguistic motivation that gives rise to the said euphemistic substitution. Moreover, neology, since it undertakes to analyse the conditions of creation, diffusion and acceptability of new lexical units, must examine the extra-linguistic motivations that propitiate the use of euphemistic substitutions which have such marked repercussions for their social esteem and diffusion. This is an aspect that will undoubtedly affect the lexicalisation of the neologism and its entry in the system of the language, as well as in the different connotations that it may contribute should it acquire a certain stability in the linguistic norm.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ALCARAZ VARÓ Enrique and MARTÍNEZ LINARES María Antonia, Diccionario de lingüística moderna, Barcelona: Ariel, 1997.

ALLAN Keith and BURRIDGE Kate, Euphemism and Dysphemism. Language Used as Shield and Weapon, New York-Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.

ALLAN Keith and BURRIDGE Kate, Forbidden Words. Taboo and the Censoring of Language, Cambridge- New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

ÁLVAREZ A. I., Hablar en español, Oviedo: Nobel, 2005.

ARMENTA MORENO Luisa María, “La interdicción lingüística en textos legales educativos (1986-2006) ”, Pragmalingüística, Vol. 17, 2009: 8-27.

AUGER Pierre and ROUSSEAU Louis-Jean, Metodología de la investigación terminológica, Málaga: Universidad de Málaga, 2003 [1977].

BATTANER ARIAS M. Paz, Lema. Diccionario de la lengua española. VOX, Barcelona: Spes Editorial, 2001.

CABRÉ María Teresa, La terminología. Teoría, metodología, aplicaciones, Barcelona: Editorial Antártida/ Empúries, 1993.

CABRÉ María Teresa et alii, “Evaluación de la vitalidad de una lengua a través de la neología: a propósito de la neología espontánea y de la neología planificada”, in CABRÉ María Teresa, FREIXA Judit and SOLÉ Elisabet (Eds.), Lèxic i neologia, Barcelona, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Institut Universitari de Lingüística Aplicada, Observatori de Neologia, 2002: 159-201.

CARDONA Giorgio Raimondo, Diccionario de lingüística, Barcelona: Ariel, 1991.

CASAS GÓMEZ Miguel, La interdicción lingüística. Mecanismos del eufemismo y disfemismo, Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz, 1986a.

CASAS GÓMEZ Miguel, “L’euphémisme et la théorie du champ morpho-sémantique”, Cahiers de Lexicologie, Vol. 49.2, 1986b: 35-51.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 124

CASAS GÓMEZ Miguel, “A propósito del concepto lingüístico de eufemismo como sincretismo léxico: su relación con la sinonimia y la homonimia”, Iberoromania, Vol. 37, 1993: 70-90.

CASAS GÓMEZ Miguel, “Sinonimia y eufemismo”, Quaderni di Semantica, Vol. 16.1, 1995: 17-46.

CASAS GÓMEZ Miguel, “El poder mágico de la palabra”, Trivium. Anuario de Estudios Humanísticos, 8. In memoriam Prof. José Luis Millán Chivite, 1996: 29-52.

CASAS GÓMEZ Miguel, “Tabú de palabra e interdicción conceptual”, in PAMIES BERTRÁN Antonio and LUQUE DURÁN Juan de Dios (Eds.), Trabajos de lexicografía y fraseología contrastivas, Granada: Método Ediciones, 2000: 79-98.

CASAS GÓMEZ Miguel, “Precisiones conceptuales en el ámbito de la interdicción lingüística”, in SANTOS RÍO Luis, BORREGO NIETO Julio, GARCÍA SANTOS Juan Felipe, GÓMEZ ASENCIO José Jesús and PRIETO DE LOS MOZOS Emilio (Eds.), Palabras, norma, discurso. En memoria de Fernando Lázaro Carreter, Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca, 2005: 271-290.

CASAS GÓMEZ Miguel, “Towards a new approach to the linguistic definition of euphemism”, Language Sciences, Vol. 31, 2009: 725-739.

CASAS GÓMEZ Miguel, “De una visión léxica y pragmático-discursiva a una dimensión cognitiva en la caracterización extralingüística y lingüística del eufemismo”, in HORAK André and TORRE Mariela de la (Eds.), Estudios pragmático-discursivos sobre el eufemismo. Actes du Colloque International L’euphémisme revisité. Nouvelles perspectives pragmatico-discursives (Université de Berne, 2 et 3 septembre 2010), Frankfurt am Maim : Peter Lang, Studien zur romanischen Sprachwissenschaft und interkulturellen Kommunikation, 2011: en prensa.

CERDÀ Ramón (Coord.), Diccionario de lingüística, Madrid: Anaya, 1986.

CHAMIZO DOMÍNGUEZ Pedro J., Metáfora y conocimiento, Málaga: Anexos de Analecta Malacitana, 16, 1998.

CHAMIZO DOMÍNGUEZ Pedro J., “Some theses on euphemisms and dysphemisms”, Studia Anglica Resoviensia, Vol. 3, 2005: 9-16.

CHAMIZO DOMÍNGUEZ Pedro J. and SÁNCHEZ BENEDITO Francisco, Lo que nunca se aprendió en clase. Eufemismos y disfemismos en el lenguaje erótico inglés, Granada, Comares, 2000.

CRESPO FERNÁNDEZ Eliecer, El eufemismo y el disfemismo. Procesos de manipulación del tabú en el lenguaje literario inglés, Alicante: Universidad de Alicante, 2007.

DEROY Louis, “Néologie et néologismes : essai de typologie générale”, La banque des mots, Vol. 1, 1971: 5-12.

DÍAZ HORMIGO María Tadea, “Aproximación lingüística a la neología léxica”, in MARTÍN CAMACHO José Carlos and RODRÍGUEZ PONCE Mª Isabel (Eds.), Morfología: Investigación, docencia, aplicaciones. Actas del II Encuentro de Morfología: Investigación y Docencia. Cáceres, 5 de mayo de 2006, Cáceres: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Extremadura, 2007: 33-54.

DÍAZ HORMIGO María Tadea, “La investigación lingüística de la neología léxica en España. Estado de la cuestión”, LynX. Panorámica de estudios lingüísticos, Vol. 7, 2008: 5-60.

Diccionario de uso del español de América y España. Vox, Barcelona: Spes Editorial, 2002.

Diccionario ideológico de la lengua española. Vox, Barcelona: Biblograf, 1995.

Diccionario para la enseñanza de la lengua española. Vox, Barcelona-Alcalá de Henares: Biblograf- Universidad de Alcalá de Henares, 1995.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 125

Diccionario SALAMANCA de la lengua española, Madrid, Santillana-Universidad de Salamanca, 1996.

DRAE = REAL ACADEMIA ESPAÑOLA, Diccionario de la lengua española, Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 2003, 22ª ed. Edición electrónica.

DUBOIS Jean et alii (1979): Diccionario de lingüística, Madrid: Alianza, 1979.

EDESO NATALÍAS Verónica, “Revisión del concepto de eufemismo: una propuesta de clasificación”, RILI, Vol. VII. 2 (14), 2009: 147-163.

FERNÁNDEZ ULLOA Teresa, “La pragmática o el habla como forma de acción: eufemismos y disfemismos en el habla juvenil”, in VÁZQUEZ ORTA Ignacio and GUILLÉN GALVE Ignacio (Coords.), Perspectivas pragmáticas en lingüística aplicada, Zaragoza: Anubar, 1998: 39-47.

FERNÁNDEZ-SEVILLA Julio, Neología y neologismo en español contemporáneo, Granada: Don Quijote, 1982.

GÓMEZ SÁNCHEZ María Elena, El eufemismo político y económico en la prensa diaria: Análisis de ABC y El País (1998). Tesis doctoral inédita, Madrid: Facultad de Ciencias de la Información, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 2004.

GUERRERO RAMOS Gloria, Neologismos en el español actual, Madrid: Arco/Libros, 1995.

HATZFELD Helmut (1924): Leitfaden der vergleichende Bedeutungslehre. Versuch einer Zusammenstellung charakteristischen semasiologischen Beispielmaterials aus den bekanntesten Sprachen, München: Hueber.

HORAK André, L’Euphémisme. Entre tradition rhétorique et perspectives nouvelles, München: LINCOM, 2010.

HOWARD P., “Euphemisms”, The State of the Language: English Observed, London: Penguin, 1986: 100-118.

KANY Charles E., American-Spanish Euphemisms, Berkeley-Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1960.

KONRAD Hedwig, Étude sur la métaphore, Paris: J. Vrin, 1958.

LÁZARO CARRETER Fernando, Diccionario de términos filológicos, Madrid: Gredos, 1974, 3ª ed., 3ª reimpr. [1953].

LECHADO GARCÍA José Manuel, Diccionario de eufemismos y de expresiones eufemísticas del español actual, Madrid: Verbum, 2000.

LEWANDOWSKI Theodor, Diccionario de lingüística, Madrid: Cátedra, 1982.

MALDONADO GONZÁLEZ Concepción (Dir.), Clave. Diccionario de uso del español actual, Madrid: Ediciones SM, 2002, 5.ª ed., aumentada y actualizada.

MARTÍN FERNÁNDEZ María Isabel, “Sobre la utilidad de la pragmática en la clasificación de los eufemismos”, Anuario de Estudios Filológicos, Vol. XVII, 1994: 325-337.

MATORÉ Georges, “Le néologisme : naissance et diffusion”, Le français moderne, Vol. 2, 1952: 87-92.

MOLINER María, Diccionario de uso del español, 2 vols., Madrid: Gredos, 1998.

MONTERO Emilio, El eufemismo en Galicia (su comparación con otras áreas romances), Santiago de Compostela: Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, 1981.

MORENO FERNÁNDEZ Francisco, Principios de sociolingüística y sociología del lenguaje, Barcelona: Ariel, 1998.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 126

NYROP Christopher, Grammaire historique de la langue française, IV : La sémantique, Copenhague: Gyldendalske Boghandel Nordisk Forlag, 1913.

PENADÉS MARTÍNEZ Inmaculada and DÍAZ HORMIGO María Tadea, “Hacia la noción lingüística de motivación”, in ÁLVAREZ DE LA GRANJA María (Ed.), Lenguaje figurado y motivación. Una perspectiva desde la fraseología, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2008: 51-68.

POTTIER-NAVARRO Huguette, “La néologie en espagnol contemporain”, Les langues néolatines, Vol. 229-230, 1979:148-172.

REAL ACADEMIA ESPAÑOLA, Diccionario de la lengua española, Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 2003, 22ª ed. Edición electrónica.

REY Alain, “Le néologisme : un pseudoconcept ?”, Cahiers de Lexicologie, Vol. 28, 1976: 3-7.

RICHARDS Jack C., PLATT John and PLATT Heidi, Diccionario de lingüística aplicada y enseñanza de lenguas, Barcelona: Ariel, 1997.

RONDEAU Guy, Introduction à la terminologie, Chicoutimi (Québec): Gaëtan Morin, 1984.

SAUVAGEOT Aurélien, “Valeur des néologismes”, La banque des mots, Vol. 1, 1971: 29-36.

SECO Manuel, “La manipulación de las palabras”, Boletín del Instituto de Estudios Giennenses, Vol. 180, 2002: 7-18.

SECO Manuel, ANDRÉS Olimpia and RAMOS Gabino, Diccionario de español actual, 2 vols., Madrid: Aguilar, 1999.

SENABRE Ricardo, “El eufemismo como fenómeno lingüístico”, Boletín de la Real Academia Española, Vol. 51, 1971: 175-189.

URÍA VARELA Javier, Tabú y eufemismo en latín, Amsterdam: A. M. Hakkert-Publisher, 1997.

ULLMANN Stephen, Semántica. Introducción a la ciencia del significado, Madrid: Aguilar, 1976.

WARDHAUGH Ronald, An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, Oxford: Blackwell, 1986.

WARREN Beatrice, “What Euphemisms Tell us about the Interpretation of Words”, Studia Linguistica, Vol. 46, 2, 1992: 128-172.

NOTES

1. As we pointed out in Díaz Hormigo [2007: 33-35], in general, neology is understood to refer to 1) the process of creation of new lexical units, and 2) the discipline that studies everything related to the creation of new lexical units .Cf. the entry of neology in the DRAE 2003, in which it is advertised as “Artículo nuevo. Avance de la vigésima tercera edición” [New article. Advance of the twenty-third edition], which includes for this term the acceptions ‘1. f. Ling. Proceso de formación de neologismos’ [Ling. The process of formation of neologisms] and ‘2. f. Ling. Estudio de los neologismos’ [Ling. The study of neologisms]. 2. Neologism is the result of the lexical creation process, that is, its product, the new lexical unit. The criteria and parameters used by neologists to establish the neological character or neologicity of a lexical unit [Cabré 1993: 445] are diachrony, lexicography, systematic instability and psychology. A lexical unit is inferred to be a neologism because it has appeared recently; consequently it does not appear in general language dictionaries; presumably it is recognised as new by speakers, and, further, it may show signs of linguistic instability since it is not consolidated in the language. These new lexical units, which are products of neological creation

Lexis, 7 | 2012 127

processes, may be novel both in their signifiant and signifié, or only in their signifiant, or only in their signifié, or have been recently borrowed from another language. However, for a revision of the concepts of neology and neologism, see Díaz Hormigo [2008: 9-13, 2010] Examples of neologisms in French, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian, Catalan and Galician can be found in the neology data base of the Observatory of Neology of the Institute of Applied Linguistics of the University Pompeu Fabra) (http://www.iula.upf.edu, http://obneo.iula.upf.edu/bneorom/ index.php). 3. Nonetheless, authors such as Auger and Rousseau [1977] consider this borrowing neology separately. 4. But, as we pointed out [Díaz Hormigo 2007], researchers on neology do not include among the creation processes of these new lexical units the so-called expressive lexical creations, or those arising from popular etymology or word blending or word play, which are seen in literary or common language creations. Neither do they distinguish calques which are the literal translation of a foreign expression used to designate the same concept –formal neologisms– and those which are based on the addition of a new meaning to a word that is formally analogous to another foreign word with the same meaning –semantic neologisms. 5. The concepts of euphemism and euphemistic substitute have frequently been identified. Here we wish to use the distinction between the two concepts proposed in Casas Gómez [2000: 79], [2005: 272-273] and [2005: 273-275]. Thus, euphemism refers to the linguistic process itself of substitution or the linguistic manifestation of the term to be avoided or of the forbidden reality. The word or expression that replaces the forbidden term is the euphemistic substitute. 6. In this case we took as a reference the complete collection of extra-linguistic and linguistic definitions of the euphemism given by Casas Gómez [2009, 2011]. 7. For an exposition and critical exegesis of the different types and classes of existing linguistic motivations, in relation to the different procedures of creation and lexical formation, see Penadés Martínez and Díaz Hormigo [2008]. 8. Nonetheless, we could mention other motives, also governed by psychological criteria, to which many researchers of the phenomenon allude, such as superstition, religious beliefs, education, respect, puffery, the desire to please, etc, but these are not enumerated in the definitions examined. 9. It is specified [Uría Varela 1997; Casas Gómez 2009: 738] that phonetic alteration, modulation, lexical substitution, composition, morphological inversion, syntagmatic grouping and composition and textual description may all be used. 10. In fact, as in the studies referred to in this section, in most approaches to the linguistic phenomenon of euphemism it is not specified that the euphemistic substitute can consist of a creative resource other than semantic change. In some cases [Konrad 1958: 118; Casas Gómez 1993: 76-77; Chamizo Domínguez 1998, 2000: 101-133, 2005; Crespo Fernández 2007: 95-103] it is even emphasised that the metaphor is the most widespread and most used mechanism in euphemistic formation. In this respect, see the studies on the functional dimensions of the metaphor in the euphemistic process cited in Casas Gómez [1993: 77 n. 12]. However, it is only fair to highlight what is probably the most complete and all-embracing classification of the linguistic mechanisms that generate euphemistic and dysphemistic substitution, which is that of Casas Gómez [1986a: 97-251]. 11. The unstable, ephemeral, temporary and relative character of euphemistic substitutes is commented on by Casas Gómez [1986a: 40-48, 1986b: 40, 1993:78-80, 2005: 274-275]. 12. The analogies and differences between the linguistic phenomenon of euphemism and synonymy have been examined in detail in Casas Gómez [1995, 2000: 81-82, 2005: 277-278], and with regard to Senabre’s [1971] consideration of the euphemism as lexical synchretism in Casas Gómez [1993].

Lexis, 7 | 2012 128

ABSTRACTS

The commonly established general typology of neology and/or neologism includes the distinction between denominative or referential and stylistic or expressive neology, according to the function or aim of the lexical creation in question. The term denominative or referential neology is used to refer to the creation of new lexical units to denominate new concepts, objects or realities, whereas stylistic or expressive neology refers to the use of lexical creation to introduce different subjective nuances or new, expressive or original forms in communication. However, the distinction between denominative or referential neology and stylistic or expressive neology is insufficient, since in no way does it cover the wide range of linguistic and extralinguistic motivations underlying the new lexical units that may be called euphemistic. In this paper, we will endeavour to prove this assertion, at the same time accounting for some of the motivations upon which euphemistic creations are based.

INDEX

Keywords: neology, neologism, euphemism, euphemistic substitute, motivation, acceptability, lexicalisation

AUTHOR

MARÍA TADEA DÍAZ HORMINGO

University of Cádiz [email protected]

Lexis, 7 | 2012 129

Double whammy! The dysphemistic euphemism implied in unVables such as unmentionables, unprintables, undesirables

Chris Smith

Foreword

1 Expressions such as unmentionables (first occurrence in 1823 denoting undergarments) are notoriously euphemistic, as indicated in OED. Allan and Burridge [2006: 238] cite inexpressibles, unmentionables and unhintables as Victorian euphemisms for legs, trousers and underclothing respectively. Unmentionables is one of the most common euphemistic expressions around, and has even been appeared in the title of several books, such as Lawrence [1973] and Keyes [2010]. Nevertheless, to my knowledge, there hasn’t been any extensive study into the relationship between this specific word morphology and euphemism. Much recent research into euphemism has been discourse-oriented, showing that a wide variety of lexical sets exists across a number of languages for taboo topics, as illustrated by, for instance, the many euphemistic synonyms for underclothes, including smalls, scanties, unmentionables, unwhisperables, and so forth. Allan and Burridge [2006: 243] underscore three main prolific taboo areas, all relating to the basic human condition: the vocabulary for bodily effluvia, sex and tabooed body parts manifests significantly more synonymy than one encounters anywhere else in the English lexicon; there are literally thousand of X-phemisms1.

2 Rather than adding to the many interesting onomasiological forays into euphemism in discourse (medicalese, legalese, journalese), this paper takes a semasiological approach to the question of euphemism. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the X- phemistic behaviour of negative deverbal adjective>noun conversions. It is widely accepted that euphemism is not exclusively associated with one specific word

Lexis, 7 | 2012 130

formation process. Yet, it has been shown to be compatible with an impressive array of linguistic strategies, including affixation, metonymy and conversion (Bonhomme [2006: 160], Tournier 2007), negation (Tournier 2007) and hyperonymy or supercategorization (Wierzbicka 1988), as well as truncation and circumlocution (Allan 2006, Tournier 2007).

3 Euphemisms are created by circumlocution, phonological modification, extending the meaning of a near-synonym (thus reintroducing rarely used words into the basic vocabulary), borrowing from another language, or even by coining a new word. Allan [2006: 127-128]

4 Without calling into question the historically euphemistic effect of such expressions as unmentionables, undesirables, unprintables, untouchables, this paper examines the dysphemistic potential of the unVable model in contemporary English. Allan and Burridge [2006] suggest that euphemism is by definition an alternative choice of expression, possibly intentional or conventional, over a neutral orthophemism (or ‘straight talking’ in Allan and Burridge [2006: 1]2), thus placing euphemism at the centre of affective or modalized communication. The aim is to determine how the euphemism-dysphemism poles can become reversed when the intentions behind the use of an expression are at odds with the connotations of the expression.

5 The first part of this paper presents a case study into the structure and semantics of unVable, using a modest corpus of some 150 expressions retrieved from lexical sources. The cross-referencing of these adjectives with the occurrences provided by BYU-BNC produces a short corpus of substantivized unVables, which are then described semantically in context. This line of investigation brings to the fore the unquestionable affinity of the highly modalized double affixed adjective with both substantivization and euphemism. A second part examines the correlation between part-for-whole metonymy and X-phemism, while considering the expressive paradox behind the use of unVables.

1. The structure and semantics of unVable

1.1. Frequency of A>N conversion

6 Conversion is a word formation mechanism allowing for the shift in grammatical category of a word. Crystal’s [1992] definition includes a comment on the productivity of the process, defining conversion as: A term often used in the study of word-formation to refer to the derivational process whereby an item comes to belong to a new word-class without the addition of an affix. [...] other terms for this phenomenon, which is very common in English, include “zero derivation” and “functional shift”.

7 According to Tournier [2007: 170], although N>V is by far the most common conversion subtype, A>N conversion now accounts for around 6% of overall word formation. Furthermore, in recent decades data suggests that A>N conversion, which represents overall the 3rd most productive conversion type, has been gaining ground. Tournier [2007: 198] indicates that A>N conversion has risen from 20% of all converted words in the past to 31% of newly converted words.

8 A previous study by Smith [2005] of lexicalized A>N conversions attested in OED [1996] for adjectives beginning with D, H and N produced the following data in the table

Lexis, 7 | 2012 131

below. The fact that the proportion of -able adjectives susceptible to conversion does not seem very high from these figures (9.7% of total occurrences) can be explained by two factors: • Firstly, -able is such a productive suffix (Bauer 2001) that many derivatives are not lexicalized in dictionaries, including OED. This poses a problem for the identification of non lexicalized converted adjectives in a corpus. For instance, a word like unconceivables is unattested yet is found in a literary corpus. It could of course be considered a hapax, but hapaxes are representations of the evolution of word formation, especially when the meaning is readily retrievable (as is arguably the case of unconceivables in occurrence [3], see 1.3.1). • Secondly, the number of lexicalized A>N conversions is far smaller than the number of actually occurring substantivized adjectives (SA). The BYU-BNC search of unVables has verified this (see 1.2.2).

Figure 1: Rate of substantivization of adjectives according to their derivational suffixes (Smith 2005)

LETTER D LETTER H LETTER N

SUFFIXES % SA NON SA SA NON SA SA NON SA SA TOTAL ADJ.

-AL 17.7 144 32 154 24 82 26 462

-AN 39.3 37 25 59 54 37 45 257

-ABLE 9.7 135 13 38 3 22 5 216

-ATE 3.7 39 12 1 53

-AR 13.3 5 12 1 9 3 30

-IC 18.4 176 38 296 71 129 27 737

-INE 31.4 6 3 18 5 3 35

-ISH 0.8 51 44 34 1 130

-IVE 21.2 78 31 9 3 22 8 151

-OID 47.7 12 9 18 17 4 5 65

-OUS 0 133 168 67 368

-Y 15.4 148 20 76 18 56 13 331

-LATINATE 47.3 19 14 17 26 13 4 93

-ED/EN 3.8 643 26 429 14 186 10 1308

-ENT/ANT 9.1 333 44 160 3 127 15 682

Ø 22.2 171 34 146 39 63 36 489

Lexis, 7 | 2012 132

TOTAL 2156 289 1658 279 869 203

% SA 11.82 14.256 18.936

1.2. Frequency of occurrence of unVables

1.2.1. Why search for inflected forms?

9 Not all A>N conversions are equal in terms of the way they represent meaning. Traditionally, nouns refer whereas adjectives attribute properties (Jespersen [1921], Wierzbicka [1988], Smith [2005]). The realization that there are degrees to which adjectives access nounhood prompted a proposal in Smith [2005] to devise a scale of A>N conversion. The scale of conversion follows the individuation scale used for assessing types of nouns in Wierzbicka [1988]. It also takes into account inflectional evidence of word class conversion, such as the genitive and the plural inflections. The scale ranges from adjectives which continue to behave predicatively on the one hand (the rich, the poor, the unemployed), to adjectives which access ultimate nounhood, i.e. they have the ability to refer individually to a member of a group (an oral, an original, an eccentric, today’s special). The first group are considered partially converted as explained by Poutsma [1929: 365], whereas the second group tend to be analyzed as an ellipsis of the noun. When an adjective is partially converted into a noun, it is still felt to a certain extent as an adnominal word, i.e. we are more or less distinctly sensible of a noun being understood after it, wherefore it lacks most of the [above] characteristics, i.e. that of being inflected in the plural.

10 This leaves the inflected adjectives as the only verifiable A>N conversions. Smith [2005] proposes that this group, illustrated by such expressions as valuables (valuable items), leftovers (leftover food and drink), smalls (underwear), pearly whites (teeth), the blues (music), greens (green plants or vegetables) etc, fall in between partial conversion, to use Poutsma’s [1929] term, and complete nominalization. The unVable A>N conversions under scrutiny here all fall into this group (Poutsma [1929]3, Wierzbicka [1988], Smith [2005]), suggesting the compatibility of the plural with the cognitive representation of the denotatum provided by these expressions. I will develop the semantic conceptualization of the plural in my semantic analysis of unVables in 1.3.

1.2.2. Data from BYU-BNC

11 I have compiled a list of lexicalized unVable adjectives listed in Merriam-Webster online, producing 150 in total. I then searched manually for occurrences in the BYU- BNC corpus for these adjectives, followed by a search for the inflected form unVables. The search for the inflected form is motivated both by the conclusions drawn in Smith [2005] on the role of the plural in total conversion, and on the unequivocal noun status of unVables, which rules out ellipsis as a possible counter-argument. I have discounted denominal unNables (such as unseasonable) and have chosen not to take into account allomorphic inVible derivatives such as inexpressibles, irrepressibles.

12 Out of 150 unVable adjectives listed in the dictionary, 82% (123) are attested in the singular (as adjectives) in BYU-BNC, and only a handful (13, i.e. under 10%) are attested

Lexis, 7 | 2012 133

in the inflected form4. There are however huge differences in frequency of occurrence of adjectives, ranging from 1 occurrence for unadoptable to 983 occurrences for unreasonable. Smith’s [2005] corpus provides a few occurrences of A>N conversions where none were found in BYU-BNC (unspeakables, unconceivables). Google also provides some occurrences of unVables, as unwhisperables, unthinkables, unutterables. The table below provides the frequency of occurrence found in the BNC. The attested A>N conversions appear in bold, and potential unVable candidates appear in italics. I based the potential projected appearance of the unVables expressions on their ability to refer back to themselves metalinguistically, which I will develop further on.

Figure 2: Frequency of occurrence of unVable and unVables in BYU-BNC and Smith (2005)

Singular un-V-able Inflected occurrences occurrences

listed adjectives in MW BYU-BNC BYU-BNC Smith 2005 Google

unadaptable 0 0

unadoptable 1 0

unaffordable 104 0

unamenable 1 0

unamiable 0 0

unanalyzable 0 0

unassimilable 7 0

unattainable 104 0

unattributable 7 0

unavailable 377 1

unavoidable 395 0

unbreachable 4 0

unbreakable 57 0

unbridgeable 39 0

unbuildable 0 0

unburnable 0 0

uncapturable 0 0

uncatchable 4 0

Lexis, 7 | 2012 134

uncategorizable 0 0

unchallengeable 35 0

uncharitable 35 0

uncheckable 1 0

unchewable 1 0

unclassifiable 11 1

uncollectible

unconceivable 0 0 1

uncontainable 9 0

uncontrollable 212 0

uncopyrightable 2 0

uncorrectable 1 0

uncountable 10 0

uncrushable 2 0

undanceable 0 0

undecidable 4 2

undecipherable 3 0

undefinable 13 0 15

undeliverable 1 0

undependable 5 0

undescribable 0 0

undesirable 617 24 1

undetectable 46 0

undeterminable 0 0

undiagnosable 0 0

undigestible 0 0

undiscoverable 1 0

Lexis, 7 | 2012 135

undisputable 1 0

undoable 1 0

undoubtable 0 0

uneatable 10 0

uneducable 0 0

unelectable 16 0

unendurable 0 0

unenforceable 130 0

unenviable 85 0

unescapable 0 0

unexcitable 1 0

unexplainable 10 0

unfeasible 12 0

unfilmable 2 0

unflyable 1 0

unforeseeable 35 0

unforgettable 180 0

unforgivable 89 0

unfulfillable 1 0

ungraspable 5 0

unguessable 1 0

unidentifiable 44 0

unignorable 5 0

uninhabitable 37 0

uninsurable 10 0

uninterpretable 9 0

unjustifiable 91 0

Lexis, 7 | 2012 136

unkillable 4 0

unlearnable 0 0

unlikeable 8 0

unlistenable 4 0

unlovable 19 0

unmanageable 91 0

unmarketable 2 0

unmatchable 7 0

unmeasurable 9 0

unmemorable 25 0

unmentionable 46 8

unmissable 20 0

unmixable 2 0

unmovable 2 0

unnameable 4 0

unnegotiable 0 0

unnoticeable 15 0

unobjectionable 21 0

unobservable 27 5

unobtainable 66 0

unopenable 3 0

unpardonable 18 0

unpassable 0 0

unpatentable 1 0

unperformable 0 0

unplaceable 2 0

unplausible 0 0

Lexis, 7 | 2012 137

unplayable 33 0

unpredictable 674 0

unprogrammable 0 0

unpronounceable 26 0

unprintable 20 0 1

unprovable 13 0

unquantifiable 36 0

unquenchable 23 0

unquestionable 53 0

unreachable 21 0

unreadable 133 0

unrealizable 8 0

unreasonable 983 0

unreclaimable 1 0

unrecognizable 51 0

unreconcilable 2 0

unrecoverable 5 0

unrecyclable 1 0

unredeemable 3 0

unreliable 478 1

unremarkable 132 0

unremovable 2 0

unrepeatable 28 0

unresolvable 13 0

unrespectable 12 0

unreturnable 0 0

unreviewable 5 0

Lexis, 7 | 2012 138

unrideable 3 0

unsal(e)able 33 0

unscalable 1 0

unsellable 4 0

unshakable 15 0

unspeakable 108 1 1

unsurpassable 8 0

unsusceptible 4 0

unsustainable 77 0

untam(e)able 2 0

unteachable 7 0

untestable 14 0

unthinkable 351 0 attested6

untillable 0 0

untraceable 25 0

untranslatable 10 0

untouchable 67 33

ununderstandable 0 0

unusable 90 0

unutterable 17 0 attested7

unverifiable 7 0

unviable 18 0

unwatchable 3 0

unwearable 3 0

unwhisperable 0 0 attested

unwinnable 10 0

unworkable 148 0

Lexis, 7 | 2012 139

1.2.3. How to account for the infrequency of unVables

13 Double affixing (un+V+able) followed by conversion (Adj>N) is bound to exert multiple constraints on the final expression. It has nevertheless been noted (Dalton-Puffer 1996) that the negative affix un- and the modal adjectival suffix -able are both very compatible, and tend to co-occur frequently in languages as noted by Bybee [1985:176]. As for the conversion process, as is apparent from the figures above, it selects only a small number of adjectives for substantivization. However, Smith’s [2005] study of the effect of adjective morphology on the conversion rate tends to suggest a degree of correlation, however modest, between the -able suffix and A>N conversion. One can in fact assume that the relative affinity between substantivization and affixing is probably far more relevant than the data in figure 2 suggest. The difficulty with studying lexicographical sources, as was the case here, is that conversion is such a productive and spontaneous mechanism that most A>N conversions are not yet necessarily lexicalized (unspeakables only has 2 hits, but makes perfect sense and does not have the surprise factor of mere hapaxes). Of course, this is with the exception of some older converted adjectives which have become more or less obsolete such as unwhisperables (first occurrrence 1837 according to OED).

14 The minute number of lexicalized or BNC attested nominalized unVables is all the more remarkable as deverbal adjectival -able derivation is remarkably productive. General agreement favours the word formation rule as given by Lyons [1978]: [Vtr + able= Adj]. However, as argued in Plag [1999: 86], the productivity of [Vtr + able= Adj] may have been overestimated in view of the impossibility of *saddleable8, *doublable, *wriggleable (examples cited in Plag [1999: 86] and taken from Szymanek [1985: 102]). The latter adjectives are not attested in Webster, nor OED, and produce no results in BYU-BNC. It seems that not all transitive verbs are compatible with -able derivation, although it is questionable. Plag [1999: 86] proposes that the restriction is phonological in so far as “- able does not attach to verbs containing a postconsonantal liquid.”

15 This phonological restriction may not entirely solve the problem of the constraints on Vable formation: what accounts for the possibility of a complex compound derivative such as knee-paddle-able? Furthermore, other adjectives such as *unfoolable remain impossible (according to my judgement). Lyons [1978: 528] agrees with Hasan’s [1971] position that “only transitive verbs which can realize the process REACTION in a transitive clause but where the role AFFECTED can only be mapped onto the subject.” Although Plag [2003] does not take sides, indicating morphosyntactic constraints remain unclear, his analysis of the semantics of -able adjectives echoes Lyons’s [1978: 530] position that “adjectives can be interpreted in terms of a modalized passive phrase, the modality being that of ability or possibility”. Plag [2003: 94] argues that - able adjectives are inherently modalized expressions, relating to either epistemic or root modality (possibility or capacity/ability). The semantics of deverbal -able forms seem to involve two different cases, which have been described as ‘capable of being Xed’ (cf. breakable, deterrable, readable), and ‘liable or disposed to X’ (cf. agreeable, perishable, variable; changeable can have both meanings). What unites the two patterns is that in both cases the referent of the noun modified by the -able adjective is described as a potentially non volitional participant in an event. In this respect, -able closely resembles episodic -ee. Plag [2003: 94]

Lexis, 7 | 2012 140

16 Dalton-Puffer [1996: 35-36] also emphasizes the modal meaning behind the -able suffix: but rather than dwelling over the semantic domain of passivity, the focus is on the affinity between the semantic building blocks of possibility and negation: It seems to me that possibility and negation are more strongly linked to each other than passivity is to either of them, and I would take this as a first indicator that the passivity element is less central to the function of ABLE […] than the other two elements. Negation and possibility both encode the speaker’s view of a particular proposition or a particular portion of reality, which puts them both into the circle of modality. Bybee (1985: 176-178) also notes an affinity of negation and other mood meanings, both cross-linguistically and with special reference to affixing. In the case of ABLE […] the most likely scenario is, then, that the “possibility” meaning attracts negative meanings which can be derivational (unVable) or syntactic (NOT Vable).

17 In stressing the affinity between negation and possibility, Dalton-Puffer [1996] makes clear that unVable adjectives are heavily marked with mood meanings, infusing them with heightened expressiveness. Vable adjectives encode possibility or likelihood, but there is another possible interpretation, that of deontic modality, as in the mandative construction this bill is payable immediately. Deontic modality is “associated with the social functions of permission and obligation”, as underlined by Bybee [1995: 4].

18 From the data collected, the semantics of the combined derivative unVable appears particularly compatible with the deontic interpretation. Amongst the 13 unVables listed, the meaning of -able can indeed be perceived as deontic 9, in particular when V refers to the act of utterance. Out of the 13 unVables listed, at least 6 refer to such verbs as mention, utter, whisper, print, think, speak. Indeed, according to OED, unmentionable applies to that which “cannot or should not be mentioned”, and in the plural can refer to “a person or thing not to be mentioned (by name)”. As for unprintable, the OED definition states “not fit to be printed” but the deontic shift to “which should not be printed” is not far off, as is evidenced by the corpus illustration [8] (see further on).

1.3. Semantic underspecification of un-V-ables

1.3.1. Polysemy

19 The corpus data shows that the nature of the denotata referred to by unVables is variable: unmentionables can refer to underwear, genitalia, people, or any group of things or people which are considered unsuitable for mention. The retrieval of meaning for the occurrences compiled in BNC and Smith [2005] is largely contextual. Smith [2005] shows that inflected substantivized adjectives are polysemic, but tend to undergo semantic specification in context. Various means of semantic specification are available, including enumeration of subcategories falling under the expression as in [5b], [6a] or [6d], pre- or post-modification as in [5d], [6e] or [11d], or even categorization as in [11a]. Other clues to reference are the function of unVables as an argument in a predicate as in [10a]. These contextual elements are parts of a frame which serve to pinpoint the meaning of the expression. In contexts where no information specifies the nature of the denotatum, the lexicalized meaning applies by default; the term unmentionables refers to underwear as in [6c], untouchables to a in [11b]. The following table lists the meaning and frames for the occurrences retrieved in BNC, which are reproduced in full in context below the table.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 141

Figure 3: the polysemy of unVables

unVable Denotatum Contextual frames

[1] chosen/ Irish tour to -individuals deemed ‘unavailable’ 1. anavailables New Zealand/ captain = not lexicalized as noun in OED rugby frame

[2] satellite habitats/ 2. -satellite habitats which cannot be classified casinos/crates =satellite unclassifiables frame

3. - couples who cannot conceive [3] frenzied/ relax/ do it unconceivables (not lexicalized as noun in OED) =sex frame

[4a] dialectical/ OED 1965 reasoning/ human 4. undecidables “Something that cannot be decided; that which is thought undecidable.” [4b] semantics/discipline/ scientists

[5a] not belong/ city [5b] motorbikes/ wheelchair/passage/ barrier 5. undesirables -people or items whose presence is not wanted [5c] press/ undesirable/ offering [5d] parents/ woman/ pursuers [5e] police/ jail/

[6a] activist/ Greenpeace/

-underclothes [6b] hit/ member of the opposition/ 6. -genitalia [6c] girls/ gentleman/ unmentionables -thoughts view/ up -things or people which should not be mentioned [6d] nits, ringworm, fleas [6e] not tell

[7a]+ [7b] behaviouralist/ science/realist inductive/ theory/ -concepts/entities/ variables which cannot be [7c] Popper/hypotheses/ 7. unobservables observed [7d] consciousness/ behaviourist tenet [7e] models/ data/ estimators/ policies

Lexis, 7 | 2012 142

-taboo swearwords which cannot/should not be [8] McEnroe/ tennis/ 8. unprintables printed shout (lexicalized in the sense of trousers according to OED)

-unreliable political partisans (not lexicalized as noun [9] Glasgow/ Republicans/ 9. unreliables in OED) shoot

[10a] living next door 10. - people / things who/which should not be spoken of unspeakables [10b] cross-dressing/ taboo

[11a] job/ reservation/ caste -caste of people who should not be touched OED “A [11b] discrimination/ Hindu of a hereditary low caste, contact with whom 11. caste/movement was regarded as defiling members of higher . untouchables Also transf. and fig. Cf. Harijan n.” [11c] Indian/dirty/lower/ caste -more widely social outcasts [11d] Britain/snobbery/ golf/ boots/ ridicule

12. OED. “1837, trousers, slang.” [12] buying a pair/ unwhisperables

[13a] betray/ taboo 13. unutterables OED, “an unutterable thing 1788, or trousers 1843” [13b] short/ clothing

20 The occurrences retrieved in BNC, OED and Smith [2005] are as follows:

[1] And adding to the problems for the Irish tour to New Zealand — an expedition that captain Phil Danaher referred to as ‘a learning experience’— is the list of ‘unavailables’ which has almost rivalled the list of those chosen. [2] Which is why, by the time of our story, there was a tangle of some two hundred satellite habitats, including five dozen tubes; fourteen platforms; seven wheels; sixteen miscellaneous unclassifiables, including casinos on immobilized system ships, crates, and permanent accidents; and three ziggurats of the Eladeldi -- all in Terran orbit, besides the poor old neglected Moon [3] They may’ve capitulated and gone for adoption, but wasn’t it often the case that once this happened the frenzied unconceivables relaxed enough to do it? 10 [4a] Dialectical reason encounters such products as undecidables: aporias -- because they seem to be at once the results of a communal enterprise while at the same time bearing witness to the fact that this enterprise never existed except as the inhuman reverse side of two opposed actions in which each aims to destroy the other. [4b] But this history is easily overlooked, as is the modern computer’s capacity to accommodate “semantic” undecidables, in scientists’ eagerness to construct a myth of the internal consistency and autonomy of their discipline [5a] They weren’t wanted. An instant of depression, of diminishment. They didn’t belong to the city, but they needed to be here. “I think she thinks we’re undesirables”. Milo took care to sound cheerful. 11

Lexis, 7 | 2012 143

[5b] This split barrier is an ideal solution for keeping out undesirables such as motorbikes while giving room for wheelchairs to pass through easily. [5c] By August 1921 he was ‘inundated by the press and all sorts of undesirables have offered things’. [5d] She had tapped into the rich vein of local “undesirables”, as her parents would call them. [5e] Nicholson entered the scheme of things when Captain America and Billy the Kid are put into jail when a police force regards them as mere undesirables. [6a] Jane was amused, however, to see that a whole large room was devoted to ‘activist’(said with a sort of spitting intonation) literature: Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and other unmentionables. [6b] Similarly, the chorus from the terraces whenever a member of the opposition was hit in the unmentionables and was being approached by the trainer with magic sponge and slopping bucket, was: ‘Nay lad, don’t wash ‘em. [6c] The girls declined their gentlemanly offer to allow them over first, realising that once at the top, the boys would have a beautiful view of their unmentionables. [6d] A litany of nits, ringworm, fleas and unmentionables… [6e] And the and the little unmentionables you don’t want to tell me about. [7a] Now right, those parameters that we that we will learn will get this model in the end which contains only observable variables, only those, so it will contain prices, actual prices and actual supply alright. There’s no ex expectations in there, no unobservables. [7b] When Behaviouralists objected to the presence of unobservables in Realist theories, they did so in the name of science and the same basic idea of what science demands. [7c] This is a purely inductive method, tempting both for its simplicity and because it does without unobservables. Popper insists that neither facts nor hypotheses simply obtrude themselves. .... Thus it is fine to think in terms of unobservable entities, provided that such theorizing results in statements capable of being tested [7d] Ryle’s examination of the relation between mind and body should not be confused with the behaviourist tenet that all “unobservables”, such as consciousness, should be eliminated from the programme of psychology. J. B. Watson in 1914 and other behaviourist thinkers (Hull, Skinner) believed that an acquired behaviour element, the conditioned reflex for example, could be made to account for all behaviour, because such an element could be treated as a “building block” in theory much in the same way that nineteenth- century physicists used atoms to build up a theory of matter. [7e] However, although many policy prescriptions are based on models estimated using such data, for example in taxation and labour supply, the properties of estimators for these models rely heavily on strong and usually untested stochastic assumptions. This importance of the stochastic specification plays a critical role in cross-section models in particular wherever the data under study suffer from censoring, truncation or grouping. In such common situations, the properties of the estimators depend crucially, for example, on the whole shape of the assumed distribution of unobservables. [8] McEnroe shouted assorted unprintables. [9] The book has explained that, having been a murderer of unreliables for the Republicans, he was shot at by a rival and went straight back to Glasgow.)

[10a] The Project, as you insist on calling it, has kept me from drinking at lunch-time, from drooling after unattainable women and from quarrelling

Lexis, 7 | 2012 144

with the unspeakables next door12. [10b] He held out his hand to his junior master and composed his face into a solemn expression of trust. “Very well, Wilson,” he said. “And now, I beg you, I beseech you, to reassure me that you are not also one of those unspeakables of which I think we both know the name only too well.” Robert could not think what he meant by this. What else was he supposed to have been up to? Cross-dressing, perhaps? [11a] On top of the existing reservations for “untouchables” castes, this brought the total proportion of reserved jobs to 49.5 per cent of all public- service posts. [11b] The immediate aim was to open the roads to and from the temple to untouchables, but it proved to be a symbol of the movement to eliminate discrimination against untouchables in all spheres of life and a pointer to the need to abolish the caste system. [11c] It is best known for persecuting Indian peasants, especially the lower castes or “Untouchables”, who may have stolen from a neighbour or have demonstrated dirty habits. [11d] On their forays to Britain they employed ridicule against the snobbery of golf clubs which insisted that the golfing untouchables must change their boots in the pro’s shop. [11e] Hindu society in traditional India was divided into five main strata: four varnas or castes, and a fifth group, the outcaste, whose members were known as untouchables. [11f] He accepted the devotion of a prostitute who anointed his feet with costly perfume, and he dined out on a number of occasions with tax collectors and sinners, who represented the social outcasts — the “ untouchables” of the day. [12] OED 1837 Knickerbocker Mag. Mar. 288 How could he see about procuring himself a new pair of unwhisperables from his host, when [etc.]. [13a] OED 1797 A. M. Bennett Beggar Girl II. xii. 226 Rosa did not faint, or betray any of the unutterables some of our young readers may expect. [13b] OED 1843 I. F. Romer Rhone I. 322 His short unutterables, garnished down the seams with silver buttons.

1.3.2. The meaning of the plural: pluralia mostly A>N

21 As described above, the A>N conversions compiled here are inflected. Since the inflected form was deliberately selected, the next step is to verify whether these unVables are attested in the indefinite singular form (discounting the abstract or generic THE+ADJ form). A part-of-speech search in BNC for singular forms provided the following results. Out of the 13 attested unVables listed in figure 3, 2 occur in the indefinite singular- these are untouchable and undesirable, which refer to a single individual of the class. The other A>N conversions, seem to occur primarily in the plural, tending to confirm Wierzbicka’s theory [1988: 476] that “adjectives are much easier to use as nouns (i.e. in referring expressions) in the plural than in the singular.” Reference to a singular individual by saying ?*an unmentionable, ?*an unspeakable, ?*an unavailable, or referring to a swearword as ?*an unprintable seems less likely than the plural, and could be perceived as an ellipsis of the underlying head noun rather than a conversion.

22 I take the view that morphosyntax is not arbitrary and that the absence of singular denotation is meaningful. Instead, as posited in Wierzbicka [1988: 3], changes in morphosyntax reflect changes in meaning, not extensional meaning, but rather

Lexis, 7 | 2012 145

changes in conceptualization of the denotatum13. Accordingly, singularia tantum (nouns with a singular form only) and pluralia tantum (nouns with a plural form only) express categories which reflect cognitive representations of the denotatum, which are largely culture and language specific. The following table uses Wierzbicka’s formal semantic classification of nouns [1988: 555-560] in order to determine the meaning of the plural in A>N conversions. A semantic analysis indicates unVables seem to fall under 3 main pluralia types: • Some unVables refer to groups of heterogenous things which are subsumed under a supercategory such as miscellaneous unclassifiables [2], unmentionables in [6e]: these are “things of different kinds which are in the same place, for the same reason, one doesn’t think of them as things one would count together because they are not of the same kind and because some of them may not be separate things” in the words of Wierzbicka [1988: 559 ]; • A small group of unVables refer to dual objects: unmentionables referring to pants [6a] or male genitalia [6b]; • Finally, seemingly pointing to the anthropocentric nature of language and metonymy, the most common occurrence of unVables (15 occurrences out of 30) denotes a group of human beings which are not considered as separate individuals, but rather as members of a group – unspeakables, untouchables, unreliables, unavailables, undesirables. Alternatively, it seems the denotatum can frequently be a word or an utterance (unprintables). I will return to this issue later in part 2.

Figure 4: Formal classification of plural nouns according to Wierzbicka [1988: 555-560]

NOUNS FORMAL SEMANTIC CLASSIFICATION

Pluralia only occurring in the frame “a pair of”- names of dual objects (scissors goggles, TYPE8 shades)

TYPE9 Pluralia only - names of groups of objects and/or “stuffs” (leftovers groceries)

Pluralia MOSTLY names of collections of small things, possible to count but normally not TYPE10 counted (peas, noodles)

TYPE Pseudo-countables – names of heterogeneous classes of substances and choppable things 14 (vegetables, narcotics, cosmetics)

2. Conversion, metonymy and X-phemism

Polysemy is a common way in which metonymic concepts manifest themselves in language (see Lakoff 1987 and Taylor 1995). Panther & Radden [1999: 27]

2.1. Part-for-whole metonymy in unVables

2.1.1. Metonyms and expressive function

23 Adj>N conversion is the syntactic functional theory explaining the use of a property- denoting adjective as a categorizing label to refer to an entity. In other words

Lexis, 7 | 2012 146

conversion is closely related to part-for-whole metonymy, also called synecdoche, which is defined by Seto [1999: 92] as “a conceptual transfer phenomenon based on the semantic inclusion between a more comprehensive and a less comprehensive category.” As metonymy is a conceptualizing device based on contiguity (Tournier 2007, Blank 1999, Bonhomme 2006), one might propose that metonymy is the conceptual counterpart to the syntactic conversion process. Metonymy as a linguistic device is the transfer of a word to another concept on the basis of conceptual contiguity between a donator and a target concept. Any spontaneous metonymy can be adopted by the speech community and thus become lexicalized. [Blank 1999: 184]

24 Much literature has come about in recent years to pluck metonymy and metaphor out of the shadows of stylistics and poetry, pulling them firmly into the limelight of conventional speech. Cognitive linguistics has provided new tools for the study of metonymy, in particular by using the frame model and the spatial metaphor theory developed in Lakoff [1993]. By recurring to frames, we can easily understand metonymic phenomena because frames — and this is a point I would like to stress — are non-linguistic, conceptual wholes. When acknowledging the latter fact, we do not have to overproliferate linguistic-semantic descriptions only for the sake of metonymies. Contiguity is the relation that exists between elements of a frame or between the frame as a whole and its elements. [Koch 1999: 146]

25 One of the benefits of the frame model as proposed in Bonhomme [2006] is that this conceptual framework provides for both static and dynamic mental representations of events and participants. This suggests the conceptual contiguity relation is established within a given space and time context, giving heightened relevance to the metonymic expression. All conceptual relations relevant to metonymy are either co-present or successive in time. These two very fundamental aspects in human conceptualization constitute meta-frames which contain typical conventionalized contiguity schemas. [Blank 1999: 184]

26 One can argue that the use of unVables draws upon the frame events constructed by the context, and gives the expression added salience and expressive function. Using the term unavailables in [1] to denote the players unavailable for the game, selects and focuses on the situational and informational relevance of the denotatum rather than the conventional categorizing identity. The heightened relevance of the metonymic use of adjectives as nouns is echoed in Wierzbicka’s [1988: 474] statement that “nouns derived from names of other predicates (adjectives or verbs) tend to develop an expressive component”. This expressive component means that the locution is loaded with connotations in the sense given by Allan [2006: 47] The connotations of a word or longer expression are semantic effects that arise from the encyclopedic knowledge about it denotation and also from experiences, beliefs, and prejudices about the contexts in which the expression is typically used. [Allan 2006: 47]

27 Therefore, the locution is likely to be received with heightened emotional response. The inference is that A>N conversions are in fact highly compatible with X-phemism polarity, which seems to be confirmed in the 13 unVables in the corpus. Euphemism is a socialized re-evaluating, mitigating speech act in the face of a risky referent. As observed by Pauwels [1999] metonymy is in perfect keeping with euphemism. » [L’euphémisme est un acte de parole réévaluatif, détensif et socialisé face à

Lexis, 7 | 2012 147

un référent à risque.... comme l’a observé Pauwels (1999), la métonymie convient parfaitement au processus de l’euphémisme.] [Bonhomme 2006: 160]

2.1.2. X-phemism polarity

28 As argued by Pauwels [1999: 272], metonyms have the potential to be either euphemistic or dysphemistic: Metonymy often seems to function as a kind of ‘avoidance strategy’ for reasons of euphemism perhaps. Conversely, it can also function as a ‘focusing strategy,’ which, in extreme cases, can result in dysphemism.

29 This raises the question of the contrast between euphemism, dysphemism and orthophemism (the ‘neutral’ alternative expression). In the words of Allan and Burridge [2006: 31]: “A dysphemism is a word or phrase with connotations that are offensive either about the denotatum and/ or to people addressed or overhearing the utterance.” This definition compared with that of euphemism seems to point to a clearcut distinction between the two. If unmentionables is a definite euphemism for underwear, then Y-fronts or knickers would tend to fall on the dysphemistic side of the neutral expression underwear, being more “graphic” in the conceptualization of the denotatum. Still, without context, lexical expressions can of course fall on either side of the spectrum.

2.2. Ambiguity of censuring in unVables

2.2.1. -able and modalized expression: the role of V semantics

30 The meaning of unVable derivatives rests upon the notion of modality (cannot/should not). As mentioned earlier (see 1.2.3.), -able lends itself to modalized interpretation: unVables occasionally relate to the capacity/ability of the denotatum, but more often than not to censure and proscription. The table under 2.3.1 describing the polysemy of unVables shows the ambiguity inherent to the modal: either - able is indicative of inherent inability, or of a proscription or censuring. This is confirmed by the OED entries for the adjectives: the adjective unspeakable can mean either: a) “Incapable of being expressed in words; inexpressible, indescribable, ineffable”. b) “spec. Indescribably or inexpressibly bad or objectionable”. c) “Incapable of being spoken or uttered; that may not be spoken”. d) “U.S. Unwilling or unable to speak”.

31 Similarly, the meaning of unutterable can be: a) “transcending utterance, inexpressible, ineffable” b) “that may not be uttered or spoken” c) “incapable of being can uttered, unpronounceable”

32 As far as connotations are concerned, the negative or positive polarity of unVable metonyms depends largely upon the FRAME event which is partaken in. In other words, the meaning of the verb at the heart of unVable is central to its expressive effect. This is evidenced by the difference between for instance undesirable (a group of things or people considered unwanted) as opposed as unclassifiables (that which cannot be classified): calling something undesirable amounts to attributing negative properties to the denotatum, whereas designating something as unclassifable does not have the same extralinguistic consequences. To further illustrate, the property unbreakable is good

Lexis, 7 | 2012 148

thing when it pertains to glasswear for instance, whereas it is negatively-infused if describing a spy from whom information must be retrieved.

33 Amongst the 13 attested unVables retrieved from BNC, 3 of them – unclassifiables, unobservables and undecidables - fall under the orthophemism category. In each occurrence, the label represents the most objective way of referring to a collection of heterogeneous entities.

34 On the other hand, a semantic group (unspeakables, unmentionables, unprintables, unwhisperables, unthinkables) stands out, metalinguistically referring to the act of self- censuring one’s speech. Although as Allan and Burridge [2006: 13] point out “People constantly censor the language they use (we differentiate this from the institutionalized imposition of censorship)”, in this case, the censuring is deliberate and explicitly underlined. Interestingly, other unVable adjectives listed in the corpus (figure 2) are not attested as nouns, yet would be compatible such as undescribable, unlistenable, unobjectionable, unpronounceable, unreadable, unrepeatable14. Why do some of these unVables appear in the dictionary whereas others don’t? The answer to this question probably lies in extralinguistic motivation and diachronic change, not to mention the playfulness factor as evidenced by derivational creations such as dontmentionums or untalkaboutables. The coat was sky-blue; the vest white as a milk-strainer; while the oh-don’t- mention-ums, in the fashion of the day, were so amazingly skin-tight, that any sudden accession to the growth of his limbs, would have caused a rending, as of the bark from a hide-bound tree! [Rev. Baynard 1852]

35 As homage to its high productivity, the unVable model does in fact extend to prepositional verbs, as in the currently ubiquitous adjective unputdownable. This 1947 formation receives no less than 6 hits on BYU-BNC. Surprisingly, many similar formations such as unwipeupable (1864), untalkaboutable (1862), unrelyuponable (1840) undowithoutable (1844) actually originate from the 19 th century. As has been noted by Mickael Quinion, there is today a renewed trend for formation of unVable such unwearoutable (1968) and unswitchoffable (1974), although there is little evidence of their use as nouns so far.

2.2.3. Diachronic perspective on unVables

36 As described in Allan and Burridge [2006: 27], the focus of taboo changes over time, and with it the productivity of morphological processes motivated by euphemism: A taboo is a proscription of behaviour for a specifiable community of people, for a specified context, at a given place and time.

37 UnVables first made their appearance in the Victorian period as an answer to the sociocultural landscape of the time, just as compound adjectives like vertically- challenged appeared during the 1990s as an answer to the politically correct era. The original unVables created during that time refer mainly to breeches or trousers, but Over time, the meaning of the unVables metonyms has evolved to denote other kinds of taboo areas, since women wearing trousers quickly became commonplace. Today, vertically-challenged brings to mind connotations that are no longer euphemistic but rather sarcastic, jocular or second degree. It would seem that unVables are now frequently used as dysphemistic euphemisms, i.e. “expressions at odds with the intentions that lurk behind them. More formally, the locution (the form of words) is at

Lexis, 7 | 2012 149

variance with the reference and illocutionary point of utterance (i.e. what the speaker is doing in making the utterance).” Allan and Burridge [2006: 39].

38 The change in connotations of an expression like unmentionables (and its synonyms inexpressibles, unhintables, unspeakables, unwhisperables) can be accounted for by a shift in taboos: today, sexual taboos and reference to underwear is not subject to such censure as it was 30 years ago. Tournier [2007: 291] points out that in recent times social euphemisms have become more prominent than sexual euphemisms. The use of a euphemism for a denotatum that no longer requires mitigation becomes at odds with the expected social practices, making them tongue-in-cheek. Euphemisms used outside a taboo context actually draw attention to themselves. The corpus occurrences of unVables tend to exhibit such paradoxical connotations: calling the next door neighbours unspeakables in [10a] or referring to McEnroe’s unprintables in [8] serves to refer back to the implicit proscription to not mention names or swearwords, hence saying out loud what should not be said.

Conclusion

39 This case study into unVables shows that there is evidence indicating the morphological formation of the expression is directly related to its expressive potential in discourse. To be more specific, unVables are carriers of mood, i.e. the expressions signal “what the speaker is doing with the proposition”, or what the speaker’s intention is (Bybee [1985: 168]). The morphological markers of mood are threefold, indicating that unVables encode 3 levels of modalization: firstly there is the combination of the negative prefix - un with the modal suffix -able. Secondly, there is the substantivization of the deverbal adjective relying on metonymic associations. As noted in recent research, metonymy is not just a rhetorical trope, it is at heart a disourse-oriented phenomenon expressing an attitude on the part of the speaker. This attitude, as explained in Bonhomme [2006: 160] can in fact be “euphemistic, jocular or polemic”. It follows that unVables are likely carriers of Xphemism in discourse, although where they fall on the Xphemism scale depends on the pragmatic context of their occurrence. In any case unVables are inherently marked expressions: they carry modalized content and occur in frames which serve to pin down the otherwise polysemic nature of the expression.

40 Allan [2006: 147] defines both euphemism and dysphemism as “alternative effects of connotation”, thus placing them on a polarized X-phemism scale ranging from positive to negative connotation. Pragmatically, euphemism has the power to “motivate (a) the choice between near synonyms and (b) the development of new expressions, so as to avoid injury, or to indicate in-group solidarity, politeness, deference, “political correctness”, insult or aggression.” Both effects seem largely contrastive, and yet, both values can co-occur in an expression. Unmentionables used today has an extended meaning compared to its original sense of underclothes. Its polysemy can be accounted for by the underlying metonymy and intentional semantic underspecification. This can be interpreted in two opposing ways – either the underspecification is borne out of a euphemistic desire to mitigate, or the unVables expression is to be taken as a deontic modal, referring metalinguistically to the taboo surrounding the denotatum, thus laying focus on the self-censure at the heart of taboos. Wherever they refer metalinguistically to self-censure, one might be tempted to call them dysphemistic euphemisms, although they have little in common with the illustrations provided in

Lexis, 7 | 2012 150

Allan and Burridge [2006] for such expressions (the affectionate use of swearwords). Instead, these expressions call to mind other dysphemistic devices, such as flippant colloquialisms for death like cark it, peg out, kick the bucket15. If one accepts that dysphemism occurs when the intention of the speaker is at odds with the choice of wording, then the use of unVables is a case in point. As the intention of the speaker in using classic Victorian unVables draws attention to the (perceived) taboo rather than concealing or circumventing it, unVables paradoxically allow the “speaker’s dysphemistic intention (to) be achieved euphemistically”, in the words of Allan and Burridge [2006: 39]. Some artful euphemisms (...) are meant to be as revealing – and in their own way as provoking – as diaphanous lingerie. As bawdy authors like Shakespeare and political satirists like Swift and Orwell well know, titillation of the audience is the best way to draw attention to their message. [Allan 2012: 34]

41 This image perfectly underlines the ambivalent nature of unVables: their use simultaneously signals a desire to minimize the taboo topic while emphasizing the proscription, which amounts to placing the taboo under a magnifying glass. Consequently, the pragmatic effect achieved in discourse can often be one of provocation or satire. Such euphemisms which draw attention to themselves, or “provocative euphemisms” according to Burridge [2005: 39], do not intend to camouflage but rather to tease, “concealing just enough to become prurient and appealing.” Still, these somewhat schizophrenic euphemisms have come full circle. They themselves obey the ultimate motivation behind taboos – humankind’s fear of “losing control of their destinies”, as noted by Allan and Burridge [2006: 247].

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ALLAN Keith, Natural Language Semantics, Oxford and Malden MA: Blackwell, 2006 [2001].

ALLAN Keith, “X-phemism and creativity”, in Lexis 7, Euphemism as lexical creation/ Euphemism as a word-formation process, 2012 (to be published). Accessed online via http://users.monash.edu.au/ ~kallan/papers/Xcreativity.pdf

ALLAN Keith and BURRIDGE Kate, Forbidden Words: Taboo and the Censuring of Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

BAUER Laurie, Morphological Productivity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

BLANK Andreas, “Copresence and succession: a cognitive typology of metonymy”, in PANTHER Klaus-Uwe and RADDEN Günter (Eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1999: 169-185.

BONHOMME Marc, Le discours métonymique, Bern/Berlin: Peter Lang, 2006.

BURRIDGE Kate, Weeds in the garden of words: further observations on the tangled history of the English language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 151

BYBEE Joan, Morphology – a study of the relation between meaning and form, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1985.

BYBEE Joan, “Introductory essay”, in BYBEE Joan and FLEISCHMAN Suzanne (Eds), Modality in Grammar and Discourse, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1995: 1-15.

DALTON-PUFFER Christiane, “From unasecendlic to unspeakable: the role of domain structure in morphological change”, in FISIAK Jacek and GRYGIER Marcin (Eds), Advances in English historical linguistics, Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 112, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1996: 33-52.

DAVIES Mark, BYU-BNC: The British National Corpus, (2004-). Accessed online at http:// corpus.byu.edu/bnc.

DIRVEN René, “Conversion as a conceptual metonymy of event schemata”, in PANTHER Klaus-Uwe and RADDEN Günter (Eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1999: 275-287.

HALL Rev Baynard R., Frank Freeman’s Barbershop, 1852. Accessed online http://utc.iath.virginia.edu/saxon/servlet/SaxonServlet?source=utc/xml/responses/proslav/ prfibrha.xml&style=utc/xsl/utcprint.xsl&n1=16&print=yes&clear-stylesheet-cache=yes

KEYES Ralph, Unmentionables: From family Jewels to Friendly Fire – What We Say instead of What We Mean, London: John Murray Publishers, 2010.

KOCH Peter, “Frame and Contiguity: On the Cognitive Bases of Metonymy and Certain Types of Word Formation”, in PANTHER Klaus-Uwe and RADDEN Günter (Eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1999: 139-168.

KÖVECSES Zoltán and RADDEN Günther, “Towards a Theory of Metonymy”, in PANTHER Klaus-Uwe and RADDEN Günter (Eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1999: 17-59.

LAKOFF George, “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor”, in ORTONY A. (Ed), Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993 [1979]: 202-251.

LAWRENCE Jeremy, Unmentionables and other euphemisms, London: G. T. Foulis & Co. Ltd, 1973.

LYONS Christopher, Semantics, Vol 2, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.

OED, The Oxford English Dictionary, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011 [1996]. Accessed via online subscription, http://www.oed.com/

PARTRIDGE Eric, Routledge Dictionary of Historical Slang, Routledge, 1973. Accessed online at http:// www.bookrags.com/tandf/unutterables-unwhisperables-tf/

PAUWELS Paul, “Putting Metonymy in its place”, in PANTHER Klaus-Uwe and RADDEN Günter (Eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1999: 255-272.

PLAG Ingo, Word Formation in English, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

PLAG Ingo, Morphological Productivity: structural constraints in English derivation, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999.

PROBER and Leela, Probert Encyclopaedia, since 1993 online. Accessed via http:// www.probertencyclopaedia.com/

Lexis, 7 | 2012 152

POUTSMA Hendrik, A Grammar of later Modern English, vol III, Groningen: P. Noordhoff, 1929. Accessible via openlibrary.org at http://www.archive.org/stream/grammaroflatemod03poutuoft#page/n7/mode/2up

QUINION Mickael, World Wide Words. http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-unp1.htm

SETO Ken-ichi, “Distinguishing Metonymy from Synecdoche”, PANTHER Klaus-Uwe and RADDEN Günter (Eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1999: 91-120.

SMITH Chris, Unpublished PhD thesis, “The substantivization of adjectives in contemporary English”, Paris 4-Sorbonne, 2005.

TOURNIER Jean, Introduction à la lexicogénétique de l’anglais contemporain, Slatkine: Genève, 2007 [1985].

WARREN Beatrice, “Aspect of referential metonymy”, in PANTHER Klaus-Uwe and RADDEN Günter (Eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1999: 121-135.

WIERZBICKA Anna, The Semantics of Grammar, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1988.

NOTES

1. In Allan and Burridge [2006] ‘X-phemism’ is used to refer to the combined set of alternative expressions which range from euphemism to dysphemism through orthophemism. 2. “Orthophemism (Greek ortho-’proper, straight, normal’, cf. orthodox) is a term we have coined in order to account for direct or neutral expressions that are not sweet-sounding, evasive or overly polite (euphemistic), nor harsh, blunt or offensive (dysphemistic).” [Allan and Burridge 2006: 29]. 3. “Many totally converted adjectives are practically pluralia tantum.” Poutsma [1929: 368]. By this, Poutsma means that most adjectives that are considered to be fully converted carry a plural -s inflection and are not used in the singular with the same meaning. 4. The attested converted adjectives appear in bold characters. 5. In Bybee [1985: 81] “One of the most persistent undefinables in morphology is the distinction between derivational and inflectional morphology.” 6. Lexicalized in OED and referenced in Probert Encyclopeadia; for underwear. 7. Lexicalized in OED as a noun, in the sense of “unmentionables” (slang) and in Routledge Dictionary of Historical Slang: synonym for unmentionables. 8. Many thanks to Kate Burridge for pointing out that saddleable is now attested, and can be found in patent claims (see http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/4794771/claims.html). 9. Interestingly, Tournier [2007: 287] refers to the sometimes deontological function of euphemism, to which I will return after a preliminary description of the semantics of the unVables in the corpus. 10. From Will Self, How the dead live. In Smith [2005] corpus. 11. From Marian Keyes, Last Chance Saloon, 1999. In Smith [2005] corpus. 12. From Stephen Fry, The Hippopotamus 1995. Corpus Smith [2005]. 13. “Every grammatical construction encodes a certain meaning, which can be revealed and rigorously stated, so that the meanings of different constructions can be compared in a precise and illuminating fashion, both within one language and across language boundaries.” Wierzbicka [1988: 3]

Lexis, 7 | 2012 153

14. To these we might add unhintables cited by Allan and Burridge [2006: 239]. 15. Many thanks to Kate Burridge for her helpful suggestions and commentary.

ABSTRACTS

The starting point for this paper is the realization that the classic euphemism unmentionables rests upon three word formation processes, which have each been proven to be individually compatible with euphemistic effect. Consider the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) entry for the plural noun unmentionable (1823): “b) n. pl. Trousers. (Cf. inexpressible n. 2) Also, underpants, and (chiefly joc.) underwear, esp. women’s. (1823); - c) n. A person or thing not to be mentioned (by name). Chiefly pl. (1928)”. The existence of a whole class of euphemistic unVables built on the same model, such as unprintables (OED, first occurrence 1860 in the sense of trousers), untouchables (lexicalized 1909 in the sense of “Indian underclass”), unspeakables (lexicalized, 1823 in the sense of “ineffable being”), has motivated research into the role of A>N conversion, metonymy and the unVable double affixation on the final connotations of the expression. The purpose of the paper is to present a case study of unVables: by producing a list of attested unVables, I investigate the correlation between lexical complexity and lexical creativity and euphemism. The data collected shows that, despite no longer being lexicalized, the unVables metonyms continue to be used in a context of lexical expressiveness. The paper takes the view that the position of unVables on the positive end of the X-phemism pole has shifted over time to metalinguistically produce a dysphemistic effect. This shift can partly be justified by changing perceptions of taboo areas, but also, crucially, to the inherent deontic shift of the unVable derivative. Ultimately, the use of unVables today tends to lay focus on the self-censure at the heart of the expression, thus creating a contrast between the minimizing features of euphemism and the maximizing features of a focusing process.

INDEX

Keywords: A>N conversion, metonymy, X-phemism pole, lexical creativity, metalinguistic dysphemism, deontic modality

AUTHOR

CHRIS SMITH

MCF à l’Université de Caen, membre du CRISCO, EA 4255 [email protected]

Lexis, 7 | 2012 154

The Translatability of Euphemism and Dysphemism in Arabic-English Subtitling

Mohammad Ahmad Thawabteh

Introduction

1 It goes without saying that language and culture are as inseparable as the two sides of a piece of a paper. Nostrand (as cited by Hammerly [1983: 516]) says that “language cannot be understood without reference to the culture of which it is a part and the social relation which it mediates.” By the same token, Nida [1964: 147-163] argues that “translating can never be discussed apart from the cultures of respective languages, since languages are themselves a crucial part of culture.”

2 Suffice to say that translation is a task fraught with many difficulties. Truly, there is a consensus among translation theorists and practitioners that these difficulties are attributed to the linguistic gap existing between the languages of translation, usually referred to as the Source Language (SL), the language from which translation activity takes place, and the Target Language (TL), the language to which translation occurs. Most of translation difficulties, however, are akin to cultural disparities or discrepancies between language pairs. In this vein, Gonzalez [2004: 1] points out that “the difficulty in decoding cultural signs can be more problematic for the translator than semantic or syntactic difficulties.” Arabic and English stand as perfect examples of the languages belonging to two different cultures as Sofer [2002: 65-6] aptly remarks: The conscientious Arabic translator is aware of the generic difficulties in working with two languages as different from each other as English and Arabic. […], there are vast cultural differences between a Western language such as English and a Semitic language like Arabic. One cannot translate these languages without paying attention to these cultural differences.

3 Such differences between the two languages are expected to have a deleterious effect on the flow of communication in given interlingual exchanges. One of the linguistic

Lexis, 7 | 2012 155

phenomena which may pose difficulty in translation from Arabic into English is euphemism and dysphemism. Like other linguistic phenomena, such difficulty may be enormous in Audiovisual Translation (AVT), e.g. subtitling, dubbing, voiceover etc. This is due to the fact that “the difference between the skills required for subtitling and those required for translation […] lies in the very technical aspects of subtitling” (Kruger [2008: 82]; see also Thawabteh [2011: 24] and Neves [2004: 135]). Kruger [ibid] further adds: Subtitling requires all the skills that other modes require in terms of text analysis, subject expertise, language, awareness of context, quality control and so forth, but it also requires that the subtitler to be able to apply these skills within very rigid constraints of time and space, while adhering to specific conventions of quantity and form.

4 Translating euphemism and dysphemism is not only replete with myriads of linguistic and cultural problems, but it is also full of technical ones. The job of audiovisual translator is then viewed as challenging as Karamitroglou [2000: 104] describes: “the number of possible audiovisual translation problems is endless and a list that would account for each one of them can never be finite.” It ensues, therefore, that “no one has ever come away from a foreign film admiring the translation, [inasmuch as] all of us have, at one time or another, left a movie theat[re] wanting to kill the translator” [Nornes 1999: 17].

5 In terms of translation as to audiovisual materials, different channels are pursued to observe maximum communicative import, namely (1) the verbal auditory channel, e.g. dialogue, background voices, and sometimes lyrics; (2) the non-verbal auditory channel, e.g. music, natural sound and sound effects; (3) the verbal visual channel, e.g. superimposed titles and written signs on the screen; and (4) the non-verbal visual channel, e.g. picture composition and flow [Baker 1998: 245]. According to Orero [2004: 86], “the content of the non-verbal channels has to be taken into account” To Orero [ibid.], “[a] screen adaptation of a 100, 000 word novel may keep only 20, 000 words for dialogue, leaving semantic load of the remaining 80,000 words [sic] the non-verbal semiotic channels— or to deletion.”

6 The study falls within the ambit of AVT. Although euphemism and dysphemism have received attention in Arab Translation Studies [e.g. Farghal 1995a and 1995b and Al- Qadi 2009], no study has looked at them in relation to AVT, to the best of the researcher’s knowledge. Therefore, the present study may be considered significant as it sheds new light on an AVT-related topic, namely euphemism and dysphemism, and in so doing, sets a path for further research in Arabic. Hopefully, this paper will increase the Arab subtitlers’ awareness of euphemism and dysphemism as two linguistic phenomena against AVT.

7 In what follows we shall examine one of the most difficult problems in subtitling, namely translating Arabic euphemism and dysphemism into English, as is illustrated in a screen translation taken from Egyptian film Ramadan fawq il-burkān translated by ART Network into “Ramadan atop the Volcano”. Fourteen euphemistic and dysphemistic expressions identified by the researcher as posing potential difficulties for the target audience are studies.

8 In the film, Ramadan, the action hero and an apparatchik, has barely scraped by on his own salary. He embezzled about half a million Egyptian Pounds because he knew very well that the lump sum that would be paid at retirement age in Egypt would be far less

Lexis, 7 | 2012 156

than the mount of money already embezzled. Ramadan was eloquent indeed, that he was able to understand legal language and use it efficiently, with all euphemistic and dysphemistic language use in mind.

1. Euphemism and Dysphemism

9 Various religious denominations, e.g., Christian, Hindu, Muslim or Judaic speak out against taboo language. In a particular exchange, there is a set of assumptions by the interlocutors that strike and guide a given conversation. The Collins Cobuild Advanced Learnerʼs English Dictionary (2003) (henceforth CCALED) defines euphemism as “a polite word or expression that is used to refer to things which people may find upsetting or embarrassing to talk about, for example sex, the human body, or death.” Allan and Burridge [1991: 14] offer this definition: Euphemisms are alternatives to dispreferred expressions, and are used to avoid possible loss of face. The dispreferred expression may be taboo, fearsome, distasteful, or for some other reason have too many negative connotations to felicitously execute speaker’s communicative intention on a given occasion. 10 In these two definitions, ʻloss of faceʼ is the reason beyond option for euphemism by interactants to achieve “understanding the speaker’s intentions and subsequently the lexical correlates in his or her utterances” [Farghal 1995b: 366]. The definitions also raise the notion of felicity, i.e., ʻappropriatenessʼ or, as Farghal further explains, “the language userʼs option for a euphemism often emanates from contextual factors such as the social relationship between speaker and addressee or the level of formality induced by the setting” [ibid.]. Euphemism is then employed as an avoidance strategy with a view to ameliorate a situation (see Leech [2003: 53]). Yet scintillating conversation is observed.

11 Dysphemism, on the other hand, is defined by Concise Oxford English Dictionary [2004] as “a derogatory or unpleasant term used instead of a pleasant or neutral one.” Dysphemism is thus the converse of euphemism. Whilst euphemism is used for amelioration, dysphemism is employed for pejorative expression. Sometimes “the context requires mentioning obscene expressions” [Al-Qadi 2009: 18]. In this case, “the native speakers’ recourse is to use some euphemistic formulas to mitigate that horrible meaning” [ibid.]. Similarly, Al-Tha’albi [1972] claims that Arabic prefers equivocation to express obscene situations.

12 Like many other languages, English and Arabic are rich in euphemism and dysphemism. English employs several devices to euphemise and dysphemise [see Allan and Burridge 1991: 14]. Arabic, however, employs four major devices for euphemising, namely by means of figurative expressions, circumlocutions, remodelling and antonyms [Farghal 1995b: 368].

2. Results and Discussion

13 The theoretical framework established so far requires that we examine particular examples in order to diversify our argument. Let us indulge in a few illustrative examples to see how easy or difficult the subtitler’s task is in pursuit of salient

Lexis, 7 | 2012 157

translation that would cater for SL euphemistic and dysphemistic expressions. For the sake of the study, taxonomy of the problems is presented.

2.1. Figurative expressions

14 A word or expression can be used in a figurative sense, i.e., departing away from its ordinary literal one (CCALED [2003]). This rhetorical device is part and parcel of human use of language. Insofar as euphemism is concerned, “[t]he use of figures of speech is the most common device for euphemi[s]ing in natural language” [Farghal 1995b: 369]. In our data, we could spot the following figures of speech employed as devices for euphemism and dysphemism in Arabic, namely litotes, hyperboles, synecdoche, and metonymy.

2.1.1. Litotes

15 Litotes refer to ironical understatement in which an affirmative is expressed by the negative of its opposite, e.g. ʻnot badʼ can be euphemised as ʻgoodʼ. Consider the following example:

Example 1

SL: inta ʼultili ma tiftaḥshi buʼak

TL: You told me not to open my mouth. (33 characters)1

16 A close look at Example 1 shows that the SL euphemistic expression, i.e., ma tiftaḥshi buʼak (lit. ʻdonʼt you dare open your mouthʼ) is used by Ramadan with a view to concocting an excuse for any potential troubles in the cell. By means of utilising litotes, Ramadan wants to be less gratuitously offensive when speaking to the criminal master in the first encounter. Therefore, a formal strategy is employed bringing about an optimal translation whereby SL euphemism is translated into corresponding euphemism. Arguably, employing litotes may not go in harmony with the technical norms of subtitling as the inherent nature of litotes encourages displaying more words on the screen. For instance, the litotes ʻYou told me not to open my mouthʼ versus free-litotes ‘You told me to shut upʼ is crystal-clear in terms of the number of characters. However, the subtitle in Example 1 above respects subtitling norms as to the number of characters (33 characters in total). For more illustration, consider Example 2 below:

Example 2:

SL: ma ḥadish biyakulha bi is-sahil

TL: How hard life is! (17 characters)

17 In Example 2 above, Ramadan expressed a strong statement by negating its opposite ʻ ma ḥadish biyakulha bi is-sahilʼ (lit. ʻWhat a hard way to earn a living!ʼ). In the cell,

Lexis, 7 | 2012 158

Ramadan is suffering from other inmatesʼ ill-treatment, to the point that he could not stand it anymore, thus opting for Arabic litotes to express that the amount of money he had embezzled and for which he is sentenced seven years imprisonment is worthy of anxiety and anguish. These shades of meaning seem to be lost in translation as Arabic euphemism is rendered into non-euphemistic expression in English.

2.1.2. Hyperboles

18 A rhetorical device employed by language users to say or write things that make something sound much more impressive than it really is, i.e., to exaggerate. Take Example 3 below:

Example 3:

SL: wi ʻirift layh biʼulu in is-sign taʼdīb wa tahdhīb wa islāḥ

TL: Now I know why imprisonment2 reforms people (24 characters)

19 In Example 3 above, Ramadan was cooped up in a cramped cell with other inmates. The fellow inmate was a master criminal who wanted all the inmates, including Ramadan, to be under his thumb. A terrible quarrel occurred in the cell in which the master criminal and Ramadan were in terrible and unbearable pain. Therefore, at the top of his voice, Ramadan employed a humanising metaphor, i.e., imprisonment is taʼdīb wa tahdhīb wa islah (lit. ʻdisciplinaryʼ, ʻrefinementʼ and ʻreformatoryʼ) respectively in which “human qualities are applied to non-human objects” [Zaro 1996: 18]. The prison as a penal institution is usually euphemised as ʻreformatoryʼ or ʻhouse of correctionʼ, the aim of which is to reform rather than to punish. Ramadan employs the figurative use of ʻreformsʼ to ameliorate the situation as he was badly beaten by other inmates. He wants to stop it by hook or by crook so that he could escape the fellow’s behaviour which is brutish and coarse, indeed. Technical-wise, the English subtitle respects subtitling limitations and constraints— the number of characters is 24. The subtitler opted for omission strategy whereby two of the three Arabic lexical items, namely tahdhīb (lit. ʻdisciplineʼ) and tahdhīb (lit. ʻrefinementʼ) are left untranslated. Such a strategy is highly recommended in subtitling for it saves more space on the screen.

20 Very much related to technical constraints is also the notion of segmentation or line- breaks. The point at which the sentence in a subtitle is divided or broken up is known as the segmentation or line-break. “There are units in any sentence which must be kept together to help the flow of the text and the understanding of the content” [Karamitroglou 1998, Line-breaks]. Karamitroglou [ibid.] mentions the following units which must not be divided: (1) subject and verb; (2) verb and object; (3) article and noun; (4) adjective and noun; (5) preposition and the rest of a phrase; and (5) conjunction and the remainder of the sentence. Based on this argument, segmentation problems can be observed in Example 3 with ʻimprisonmentʼ and ʻreformsʼ. Example 4 below is more illustrative:

Example 4:

Lexis, 7 | 2012 159

SL: ana raḍi bi ḥukmi il biayh is-sukara

TL: Iʼll be content, whatever the ruling is. (40 characters)

21 In this example, the sukara metaphor (lit. ʻsugerʼ singular), is used by Ramadan to overstate the attributes of the judge to flatter him to have his verdict delivered as soon as possible. It is worth noting that the metaphor is a dehumanising metaphor which, according to Zaro [1996: 18], “non-human qualities, or objects, or creatures are applied to people and human qualities.” However, the English subtitle lacks in the euphemism already exists in original Arabic, thus giving rise to a loss in subtle nuances of SL meanings. The English word ʻsweetʼ, metaphorically used to describe someone meaning pleasant, kind and gentle [CCALED 2003], can be added to the English subtitle as the spatial parameter allows for that (i.e., the number of characters is 40), something like the following two-line subtitle: Sweet judge, Iʼll be content, whatever the ruling is. (54 characters)

Example 5:

SL: yallah ya bayeh ṭusinī is-sabʻisnīn

TL: You can sentence me to 7 years. (31 characters)

22 In Example 5 above, Ramadan commits contempt of court as he insists that he is adjudged to be guilty, no more. To this end, he uses a dysphemistic item— ṭusinī (lit. ʻthrashingʼ). Such hyperbolic language is contextual-bound [see Al-Qadi 2009]. Nevertheless, the English subtitle is neutral, and it falls short of original Arabic.

2.1.3. Synecdoche

23 Synecdoche is a figure of speech utilised in intercultural communication to euphemise or dysphemise. Definitionally, a part is made to represent a whole or vice versa. Synecdoche is sometimes culture-specific. For example, ʻspend a pennyʼ is a known British urinary euphemism, usually used instead of ʻgo to the lavatoryʼ. To express the same euphemism in Arabic, some Arab countries, e.g., Jordan, Palestine etc. use bidi arūḥ ʻala is-safarah (lit. ʻI want to go to the embassyʼ). To elaborate on this, we should examine the following example:

Example 6:

- ʼalbi maʻmāk ya ʼustādh Ramadan. SL: - khali ʼalbak ʻala rūḥak

- My heart aches for you TL: - Look after yourself. (26 characters)

Lexis, 7 | 2012 160

24 In this example, after guilty verdict was delivered, Bashbishi, Ramdanʼs workmate, sadly uttered ʼalbi maʻmāk ya (lit. ʻmy heart is with youʼ). This is an Arabic euphemism in which the part of the body, that is, ʻthe heartʼ is made to represent the whole, i.e., the speaker per se. This euphemism is used to express how sad or depressed someone is, especially when they suffer but they can do nothing to help others. As Example 6 above shows, the subtitler opts for more or less a bland translation for he/she does not cater for the pragmatic force the SL has shown. Thus the SL euphemism is rendered into TL dysphemism.

2.1.4. Metonymy

25 Metonymy is a figure of speech in which a word or expression is used as a substitute for something or someone with which it is closely associated. Such association may be casual as Example 7 below shows in which ʻoverreactionʼ is associated with Yousif Wahbi, an Egyptian stage and film of the 1930s and 1940s whereas ʻunfailing cheerfulnessʼ is apropos of Ismaʻīl Yasīn, an Egyptian comedian actor.

Example 7:

SL: ih il-kalam dah inti ʻat’amlīlī fiyha Yousif Wahbi ana ʻaiz kalam Ismaʻīl Yasīn bi ṣaraḥah

TL: Stop overreacting and be cheerful for a change! (50 characters)

26 As can be seen in Example 7 above, the subtitler opts for the attributes associated with Yousif Wahbi and Ismaʻīl Yasīn, namely ʻoverreactionʼ and ʻunfailing cheerfulnessʼ respectively. The subtitler entirely omitted the proper names, perhaps because of culture-specificity of the proper names in question and/or the spatial constraints akin to subtitling. In the SL, Ramadan attempts to ease the degree of intensity insofar his fiancée is concerned, thus opted for the proper names euphemisms. Strategy-wise, the Arabic euphemistic expressions are rendered into neutral lexical items which is, technically, seem to be an option, for they save more characters on the screen (e.g. only 50 characters per two-line subtitle), and probably facilitate reading by TL viewers. Nevertheless, segmentation problem is clear in Example 7 above in which break-up is wrongly done between ʻbeʼ and ʻcheerfulʼ.

27 Several subtitling theorists have posited that the translator should make comprehension easier for the audience by “using simple and unambiguous language and syntax with careful punctuation” [Hurt and Widler as cited in Karamitroglou 1998]. As shown from the examples above, the complexities of euphemisms or dysphemisms are numerous, e.g. figurative language, metonymy, circumlocution, long phrases (leaving little space on the screen, among), many others.

3. Remodellings

28 Farghal [1995b: 375] points that remodelings are “another device for euphemi[s]ing in colloquial rather than standard Arabic. They involve the substitution of a semantically unrelated or a nonsensical word for an offensive or a dispreferred one.” This process is phonological and sometimes (but not neccesarliy) gives rise to semantic distortion, e.g.,

Lexis, 7 | 2012 161

jadhaba remodels jabadha and still preserves the same semantic load, i.e., ʻchange the course of actionʼ. Contrary to Farghalʼs argument, standard Arabic uses remodelings as a rhetorical device to euphemise. Al-Tha’albi [1972: 371] argues that al-Qalb (Remodellings) is typical of Arabs use of the language, e.g., bakala (lit ʻto mix flour with date jamʼ) versus labaka (lit. ʻto become confusedʼ). Examples of how standard Arabic employs euphemistic words by means of remodelling the offensive words are ʻasala versus gasla and faḥaja verus faxaja, amonga many others. These are euphemisers for having sexual intercourse with someone. For sake of illustration, consider Example 8 below:

Example 8:

SL: wa ʼaḍabūh!

TL: Fix him. (8 characters)

29 The master criminal gave orders for other prisoners: wa ʼaḍabūh (lit. ʻtake care of himʼ), a euphemism that is used with fixing one’s hair, clothes or make up to look more neat and tidy. This euphemism is employed by the text producer instead of ʼiḍribūh (lit. ʻbeating him upʼ). As can be shown in Example 8 above, a semantically unrelated word, i.e., wa ʼaḍabūh remodels the common offensive word ʼiḍribūh. It is worth noting that this choice of substitute goes beyond the usual remodelling, e.g. ʻWhat the hell is that?ʼ versus ʻWhat the heck is that?. Both are used to emphasise a question, but only the latter is less rude than the former. Remodelling seems to be pragmatically-motivated. This is clear in Example 8 above in which the choice of substitute has more pragmatic load, that gentle manner and honeyed tones employed by the master criminal aim to reassure Ramadan that everything in the cell was fine. The subtitle seems to be a successful rendition. In the final analysis, Ramadan appeared self-assured as Example 9 below shows:

Example 9:

- ma tīji tukil maʻi. SL: - ṭab bas i- ywaḍabūni. yallah ya jamaʻah waḍabūni ʻashan ‘awiz ʼakul luʼma maʻir-ragil

- Have a bite with me. TL: - I’ll get fixed then I’ll come right away (41 characters)

Please, everyone, fix me up. I want to have a bite? (54 characters)

30 In Example 9 above, a prisoner is eating and invites Ramadan to a meal. Because he could not read the master criminal’s mind well, he kindly refused the invitation for the time being uttering ṭab bas iywaḍabūni (lit. ʻuntil I am taken care ofʼ). Ramadan opts out of an offensive word in favor of a remodeling. Technically, it seems that all the subtitles in Example 9 observe the subtitling norms.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 162

4. Omissions

31 This is a strategy used for euphemising in English whereby words thought to be rude are omitted. This can be by means of (1) quasi- omission suspension dots (…), dashes (---), asterisks (***) and inarticulated sounds, e.g., mm, er, etc.; and (2) full-omissions [Zaro 1996]. To elaborate on this, we should examine the following example:

Example 10:

yā sa’āādit il bayh ana law kunti ‘ayiz ‘aqūl ‘an makan il-fūlūs kān lāzmitha il-lamah dī di ʼaʻda SL: mitkalifa

ʻSir, if I wanted to tell where the money was, I would have done so a long time agoʼ (85 TL: characters)

32 For the sake of synchronisation, the SL utterance is rendered into two main subtitles, each of which includes a two-line subtitle, thus going in harmony with subtitling norms. However, the subtitle register a segmentation error, namely with ʻa longʼ and ʻtime agoʼ which translate kān lāzmitha il-lamah dī (lit. ʻwhy then is a court of law forʼ). In the court room, Ramadan did his best that the judgment be made without further ado. He confessed to emezzelment and knew very well that he will be imprisoned for seven years in line with Egyptian criminal law. All what il-lamah (lit. ʻa court of lawʼ) should do is that Ramadan is convicted of the crime in question and that there is no need to call upon witness to appear in a court of law. The euphemistic form il-lamah shows rhetoric in which he does his best to convince and impress the judge, and so does the form mitkalifa (lit. ʻcostlyʼ). However, Example 10 observes full omissions of two euphemistic terms, that is, il-lamah and mitkalifa. Hence, the SL euphemism is translated into free TL euphemism.

33 Subtitle-wise, omission strategy used to euphemise may be insufficient. Punctuation should be meticulously dealt with. Karamitroglou (1998, Punctuation and letter case) argues: Sequence dots or ending triple dots should be used right after the last character of a subtitle (no space character inserted), when the subtitled sentence is not finished on one subtitle and has to continue over the consecutive subtitle. The three “sequence dots” indicate that the subtitled sentence is incomplete, so that the eye and the brain of the viewers can expect the appearance of a new flash to follow.

34 It may be confusing for the target audience, therefore, to recognise whether the sequence dots used in a subtitle tend to euphemise or to indicate subtitled sentence is incomplete. Take Example 11:

SL: ana maʻindish muhafiẓ fi is-sgin

TL: There is no governor in here, you… (35 characters)

Lexis, 7 | 2012 163

35 Ramadan fell victim to the prison bully-boy who started to cuss and shout in the cell. Instead of using explicit ʻ son of a bitchʼ, bully-boy ameliorated the situation by means of omission strategy, e.g., ʻyou…ʼ.

5. Circumlocutions

36 A common device for euphemising in Arabic is circumlocutions (Farghal [1995b]). Circumlocutions “involve the breaking down of neutral or taboo terms to their atomic concepts […,] thus mitigating the force of the unfavourable or bad connotations of the terms in question” (Farghal [1995b: 372]). Circumlocution is then a politeness strategy that is meant to express something in more words than required. Example 12 below illustrates the point:

Example 12:

ya siadit ir-rayis il-qaʻadah il-qanūnyyah bitʼūl ʼana ili ʼatkalim wi hw ail yuskut il-ʼaḍyyah ʼaḍyyiti wi SL: guḥa awla bilaḥmi thurah

TL: Your honor, I should have the Right to speak simply Because this is my case. (31 characters)

37 The Arabic proverb wi guḥa awla bi laḥmi thurah (lit ʻJuha3 is more entitled to eat his bull’s meat than others areʼ) is functionally equivalent to English ʻyou make your bed so you must lie on itʼ. As can be noted in Example 12, Ramadan uses an excessive number of words to state something that can be expressed in a few words. The Arabic euphemism proverb shows indirectness on the part of Ramadan because he meticulously chooses his words no matter how many they are to convince the judge of his stance. The subtitle is condensed and seems to have conveyed the message.

Example 13:

SL: as-saāmu ‘alaykum yā mugrimīn yā ‘awbāš yā zbālit il-mugtama’

TL: ʻHello, you low criminals! You, scum of society!ʼ (47 characters)

38 The prison guard pushed Ramadan in the prison, greeting the prison’s inmates with a low-variety language reflecting the status of scumbags inside the prison. As can be noted in Example 13 above, the original Arabic uses several words to express the idea that the prisoners are too bad, namely mugrimīn (lit. ʻcriminalʼ),’awbāš (lit. ʻriffraffsʼ) and zbālit il-mugtama’ (lit. ʻscumʼ).

Example 14:

-awadū ‘an ‘ūdīfa ‘ana mūwakilī SL: -’ana lā wakīīltak wala šaribtak

Lexis, 7 | 2012 164

- ʻI want to add that my clientʼ TL: - ʻI didnʼt hire you.ʼ (85 characters)

39 The Arabic euphemism ‘ana lā wakīīltak wala šaribtak (lit. ʻneither did I offer you a meal, nor did I provide you with a drinkʼ) in Example 14 above merits close investigation. The onset of the court session witnessed disagreement between Ramadan and his defence lawyer who was hired by a court of law. Ramadan beat the lawyer at his game by means of alliteration of two words, i.e., mūwakilī (lit. ʻmy clientʼ) and wakīīltak (lit. ʻto feed youʼ). With such decorum and respect, Ramadan uses the euphemism in question to persuade the defence lawyer not to take the case as Ramadan insists on carrying out his own defence. Obviously, the Arabic euphemistic phrase is rendered into TL free- euphemistic one.

6. Conclusion

40 The foregoing analysis has shown that subtitling euphemistic or dysphemistic problems can be not only linguistic, cultural, but they can also be technical. Therefore, the task of the subtitler is challenging and demanding. Due attention should be paid to technical dimension so that number of characters, synchronisation, segmentation problems, among others, can be reduced to a minimum.

41 The study shows that three major strategies are opted for (1) SL euphemistic or dysphemistic expressions are rendered into TL free of euphemistic or dysphemistic expressions; (2) SL euphemistic or dysphemistic expressions are translated into TL euphemistic or dysphemistic expressions; and (3) SL free of euphemistic or dysphemistic expressions are transferred into TL euphemistic or dysphemistic expressions. These strategies should be carefully employed in relation to a multisemiotic blend of many different channels usually integrated in audiovisual materials, e.g., verbal auditory channel, the non-verbal auditory channel, etc. In Example 8 above, the film sequence shows that a set of actions, e.g., that Ramadan is in inmates’ clutches and that he spars with them, etc. seems to be irrelevant with the lexical realisation on the screen, namely the use of wa ʼaḍabūh! In the sequence, no one fixes Ramadan’s hair or clothes. It is then non-verbal auditory channel and non-verbal visual channel which contribute to observe very euphemistic use of wa ʼaḍabūh. 42 Technically speaking, the translation of a SL euphemism into a TL counterpart poses technical difficulties because a kind of amplification is observed as is the case with litotes and circumlocutionary euphemisms whereby more words are usually displayed on the screen. Example 1 above is a case in point. As for circumlocution, shown in Example 12 above, the subtitler opted for ideational equivalence, i.e., Arabic circumlocutionary euphemism is rendered ideationally into English and thus falls within the allowable spatial dimension subtitling demands.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 165

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ALLAN Keith & BURRIDGE Kate, Euphemism and Dysphemism: Language Used as Shield and Weapon, New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.

AL-QADI Nasser, “A Sociolinguistic Comparison of Euphemisms in English and Arabic”, Journal of King Saud University, Vol. 21, 2009: 13-22.

AL-TH’ALBI Abu Mansour, Fiqih al-Lughah wa Sir al-’Aarabyiah. Edited and explained by Mustafa Al- Saqa, Ibrahim Al-Abyari and Abd il-Hafeez Shalabi, eds. Cairo, Mustafa il-Babi il-Halabi, 1972.

BAKER Mona, Routledge Encyclopaedia of Translation Studies, London, Routledge, 1998.

Collins Cobuild Advanced Learnerʼs English Dictionary, The University of Birmingham, HarperCollins Publishers, 2003.

Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 11th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

FARGHAL Muhammad, “The Pragmatics of ʼinšāllah in Jordanian Arabic”, Multilingua, Vol. 4, 1995a: 253-270.

FARGHAL Muhammad, “Euphemism in Arabic: A Gricean Interpretation”, Anthropolgical Linguistics Vol. 37, 1995b: 336-378

GONZALEZ Belén, “Translating Cultural Intertextuality in Children’s Literature”, Available from: http://www.velkho.wenk.be/conferenc.clt/gonz%e11ez.htm [Accessed May 2011], 2004.

HAMMERLY Hector, Synthesis in Second Language Teaching: An Introduction to Linguistics, Washington, Second Language Publication, 1983.

KARAMITROGLOU Fotios. “A Proposed Set of Subtitling Standards for Europe”. In Translation Journal, Available from: http://accurapid.com/journal/04stndrd.htm [Accessed April 2011], 1998.

KARAMITROGLOU Fotios, Towards A Methodology for the Investigation of Norms in Audiovisual Translation: The Choice Between Subtitling and Revoicing in Greece, Rodopi, 2000.

KRUGER Jan-Louis, “Subtitling training as part of a general training programme in the language professions”, in DIAZ CINTAS Jorge (Ed.), The didactics of audiovisual translation, Amsterdam, John Benjamins, 2008, 71-87.

LEECHGeoffrey,Semantics,England: Penguin Books Ltd, 1974.

NEVES Josélia, “Languages Awareness through Training in Subtitling”, in OERERO Pilar (Ed.), Topics in audiovisual translation, John Benjamins Publishing Company 2004, 127-141.

NIDA Eugene, Towards the Science of Translation, Leiden, E.J. Brill, 1964.

NORNES Abé Mark, “For an Abusive Subtitling”, Film Quarterly, Vol. 52 1999: 17-34.

ORERO Pilar, Topics in Audiovisual Translation, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2004.

SOFER Morry, The translator’s Handbook, Rockville & Maryland, Schreiber Publishing, 2002.

THAWABTEH Mohammad, “Linguistic, cultural and Technical Problems in English-Arabic subtitling”, SKASE Journal of Translation and Interpretation, Vol. 5, 2011: 24-44.

ZARO Naji, A Pragmaphemistic Aspect in English-Arabic Translation: A Problem in Equivalence, Unpublished MA Thesis, Irbid: Yarmouk University, 1996.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 166

NOTES

1. In the present paper, the number of characters per subtitle is mentioned to show whether the technical aspect of subtitling is respected or not. 2. This subtitle segmentation is in the original. 3. Juha is an old comic around whom countless fair tales were written.

ABSTRACTS

This paper explores the translatability of Arabic amelioration and pejoration in English subtitling, illustrated with a subtitled Egyptian film, Ramadan atop the Volcano by Arab Radio and Television (ART). The paper first examines the nature of euphemism and dysphemism. Both concepts are approached from the perspective of technical and translation paradigms. The study shows that the difficulties arising from translating euphemistic or dysphemistic-loaded utterances are numerous for being culture-specific on the one hand and for the technical dimension usually involved in subtitling on the other. The study shows that the subtitler may opt for one of three major translation strategies: (1) an omission of source language (SL) euphemistic or dysphemistic expressions in the target culture; (2) a retention of SL euphemistic or dysphemistic expressions by means of formal-based translation strategies; and (3) an addition of euphemistic or dysphemistic expressions in the target culture.

INDEX

Keywords: euphemism, dysphemism, audiovisual translation, subtitling, strategies

AUTHOR

MOHAMMAD AHMAD THAWABTEH

Mohammad Ahmad Thawabteh is assistant professor of Translation and Interpreting at Al-Quds University, Occupied Palestinian Territories [email protected]

Lexis, 7 | 2012 167

The tastes and distastes of verbivores – some observations on X-phemisation in Bulgarian and English

Alexandra Bagasheva

“Creative language is not a capacity of special people but a special capacity of all people. It shows speakers as language makers and not simply as language users.” [Carter 2004]

1. Introduction

1 X-phemisms constitute a category of non-literal forms in their own right. Some of them piggyback on other categories of nonliteral forms (such as metaphors, metonymies, irony, idioms, hyperbobles, litotes, etc.), others exploiting different meaning-creating strategies (alliterations, sound dis/associations, etc.) may even be perceived as literal language. Despite the cognitive complexities involved in differentiating between literal and non-literal, X-phemisms of all types are characterized by projecting the speaker as having taken a specific evaluative stance1. X-phemisms always involve attitudinal marking and in their cognitive and pragmatic effects they constitute a uniform category despite the ingenuity in their creation and the diverse types they realize (for an overview of the types of X-phemisms see Allan and Burridge 1988, 1992, 2006, Crespo Fernández 2008; Gomez 2009 among others). X-phemisms are unified by a constant among all their rich pragmatic accomplishments – an implicit, cancelable, yet clearly detectable attitudinal stance (irrespective of the intentions of the speaker and the degree of self-awareness projected in the production of an X-phemism). Even if the speaker has engaged in X-phemistic verbal behavior inadvertently, the X-phemism

Lexis, 7 | 2012 168

functions as an anchor for inferential and interpretative strategies and affects the perception of both the denonantum and the speaker.

2 Reliable generalizability is difficult with X-phemisms as they embody the platitude, to borrow Barr and Keysar’ words [2005: 22] that “meaning is underdetermined in the sense that the same string of words can convey anything from a benign comment to vicious sarcasm”. It is rather challenging to come up with a uniform fruitful heuristic for the study of tinted language. Tinted language can only be studied in view of the numerous socio-cultural variables which anchor its value along the benign-vicious scale. However, as no exhaustive list of socio-cultural variables that might directly correlate with X-phemisms has been compiled and since the interplay between types of non-literal language and determining socio-cultural variables is extremely involved and varied, in this paper the use of X-phemisation is discussed as broadly couched in a multifaceted context which is viewed as a more or less coherent whole, without expressly defining each relevant variable which might have causal effects on any features of the X-phemism. Only when a specific variable is considered of extraordinary importance and is identified as clearly acting as a causal agent for a particular feature of an X-phemism will it be singly named and discussed as and if appropriate. Consequently, unless expressly stated otherwise, throughout the current paper interactants who are able to recognize an X-phemism as such are assumed to be prototypically generally affected in terms of their emotional response; their attitude toward the speaker, another person, the target referent or some issue. At least in the majority of cases of X-phemistic verbal use, the speaker is perceived as having projected a certain attitude and is perceived as having taken a particular appraisal stance. Recruitment X-phemisms form a special part of the appraisal resources of a language. With recruitment X-phemisms the representational dimension of meaning is superceded by the stance-taking appraisal one as the point of entry into a concept, i.e. the mode of signification, is changed. This relates to the distribution of effort between rhetoric and desing2 in achieving the overall communicative effect in interaction. Thus recruitment X-phemisms surface with default engagement value which is difficult to cancel.

3 As any phenomenon involving syntax or semantics and concerning pragmatics are made insurmountably artificial if not studied in situ, the present paper dicusses either fully lexicalized X-phemisms (whose contextual uniqueness has been reduced to more or less predictable variability) or absolutely novel ones with the general public as intended listener, in order for heightened authenticity to be achieved (relying predominantly on observational methodologies).

4 Among the plethora of X-phemistic types (classified in terms of the creative process involved in their coming into being – e.g. figures, flippancies, remodellings, metaphors, substitutions, sound symbolism/phonesthesia, etc.), the X-phemisms defined by Allan and Burridge 1991 as “cross-varietal synonyms” are the focus of the present discussion. Instead of being recognized as synonyms, X-phemisms of this type are interpreted as “recruitment” X-phemisms. The choice is not simply a matter of terminological preference. The term “recruitment” more precisely presents the fact that X-phemisms are not simply cross-varietal synonyms as they always involve the dimension of affect and thus constitute neo-semanticisms with specific socio-cognitive features, not simply contextual synonyms with differential stylistic effect – they encode the affect dimension and it becomes part of their multidimensional semantic constitution.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 169

Besides “recruitment X-phemisms” (to be explained in part 3), idiomatic X-phemisms, X-phemistic verbs for orthophemistic activities, and X-phemistic diminuitives are discussed (in parts 4, and 5 and 6 respectively).

5 The data have been excerpted from three corpus-based dicitionaries (two editions of the series New words in Bulgarian 2001 and 2010 and a Bulgarian-English dictionary of slang 2010), from the newspapers “Trud”, “24 chasa” and “Dnevnik” in Bulgaria, from OED and Holder’s dictionary of euphemisms (2007). As a consequence, the majority of X- phemisms discussed are fully lexicalized or semi-lexicalised. A notable exception is the creative, contextual euphemistic dysphemism discussed in 3.2.

6 The methodology applied is observational (not experimental), and hypothetico- deductive. The analysis makes use of the achievements of Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT - Lakoff and Johnson 1980, 1999), Conceptual Blending Theory (CBT - Fauconnier and Turner 2002), Theory of Lexical Concepts and Cognitive Models (LCCM theory - Evans 2007, 2009), psycholinguistic studies of non-literal language and human categorization (Colston and Katz 2005; McGlone et al. 1994; Glucksberg 2001), socio- cognitive studies of stereotypes (Schneider 2004; Hamilton et al. 1994) and the findings of X-phemisms specialists (Allan and Burridge 2006, Crespo Fernández 2008, Gomez 2009).

7 A terminological and methodological digression is in order. Following Richards (1936) and Glucksberg (2001) in understanding nominal metaphors, in the present paper the following terms will be utilized: “topic” as the referent of the X-phemism and “vehicle” as the predicate noun, which provides the “ground” (of the metaphor, if such is involved in the origin of the X-phemism) or the anchor for the ad hoc conceptualization. The ground is the new information provided by the vehicle, that is, the property or properties of the vehicle that are assumed or at least projected as characterizing the (metaphor) topic. Throughout the paper target and topic will be used interchangeably, as will be vehicle and source. This seeming inconsistency is necessitated by the fact that the latter terms are better suited to X-phemisms which result from conceptual metaphors and which have been lexicalized (conventionalized) to a higher degree, while the former more adequately describe the process in creating novel X-phemisms. Nominal metaphor is assumed to instantiate the cognitive mechanisms underlying recruitment X-phemisation. No matter if nominal metaphor is actually used in the linguistic encoding in the communicative exchange, the mechanism of category (and attribute) reframing driving nominal metaphor underlies and governs the conceptual processes implicated in X-phemisation (at least as far as recruitment and figurative (idiomatic) X-phemisms are concerned). In the theory of nominal (referential) metaphor, topic is considered to be the “given” information (Clark and Haviland 1977). In acknowledging the operationality of nominal metaphor as the conceptual mechanism underlying X-phemisation, it should expressely be noted that the vehicle (source) denotatum presented directly with its lexical concept profiles the conceptualization and provides the trigger for reframing the attributes set of the topic (target) denotatum. X-phemisms are exemplar cases of what Evans [2010: 604] defines as linguistic metaphor - “an utterance-specific metaphoric conception”. For him, linguistic metaphors, which are elements of front-stage processing realizing presentational design and differ from conceptual metaphors as elements of back-stage cognition, reside in and emerge “from a situated (and hence contextualised) instance of language use. Linguistic metaphors may draw upon non-linguistic knowledge

Lexis, 7 | 2012 170

(including conceptual metaphors)” [ibid.]. The specifics of X-phemisation establishes it as a complex process employing the mechanism of metaphtonymy3 which collapses the joint effects of the two conceptual operations of metaphor and metonymy without predicating any sequential or causal ordering between the two and manages to capture their intricate interplay. By their mere coming into being X-phemisms represent “illocutionary metonymies” as defined by Panther and Thornburg (2003, 2007) and invite the perforce creation of a single referentially contiguous domain matrix as frame against which the target denotatum (referent) is to be perceived and conceptualized in an ad hoc conceptual structure.

2. X-phemisms as an appraisal resource

8 This seeming complication only comes to illustrate that the study of X-phemisms as linguistic items and of X-phemisation as a complex phenomenon involving linguistic, socio-cognitive, discursive and social psychological dimensions is extremely challenging. As Ricoeur [1981: 340] has warned us “language could extend itself to its very limits forever discovering new resonances within itself” and X-phemisation plays an important role in amplifying these resonances which are intricately interwoven with various linguistic processes, such as semantic and lexical changes for example, metaphtonomy extension through creating novel modifications of conceptual metaphors and/or metonymys, etc. This rich system of “resonances” belongs to the appraisal resources of a language, even though it cannot be straightjacketed into any of the well-differentiated systems thereof. Appraisal language of affect relates to the expression of the speaker’s opinion along the good/bad parameter. The wide range of interpersonal resources known by the blanket term “appraisal” resources interact intricately with X-phemisation as they specialize in the expression of affect and emotion, which are often difficult to differentiate among. The semantics of evalutaion involves according to Martin [2000: 144] a specification of “how the interlocutors are feeling, the judgements they make, and the value they place on the various phenomena in their experience”. In X-phemisation interactants’ affect and judgement attitudes are implicitly encoded and this makes X-phemisation a central resource of the appraisal system. X-phemisation is closely linked with the “potential of language to express different emotions and degrees of emotional intensity” [Ochs 1989: 1]. In systemic functional accounts X-phemisms (subsumed under technical and specialized lexis, taboo lexis and swearing, slang and naming (Halliday 1994, Martin 2000) are classified under the system of involvment and are considererd non-gradable. However X- phemisation is a gradable phenomeonon as various X-phemisms can have different values in different communicative exchanges and more importantly X-phemisms for the same denotatum can be graded along the attitudinal/judgmental connotations encoded in them (e.g. spineless, weak-kneed, which illustrate the concept of recruitment dysphemisms, express different degrees of disapproval judgements in relation to the orthophemistic indecisive, irresolute).

9 This non-referentially evaluative semantics has led to the establishment of X- phemisation in all cultures as a powerful ecological niche within the appraisal resources of a language. The appraisal system avails of both explicit (descriptive) evaluative expressions and masked (implicit) ones. More significantly, appraisal collapses pure emotion and cognitive evaluation or as Malrieu [1999: 50] has

Lexis, 7 | 2012 171

formulated it, “[e]valuation is precisely one of the ways in which culture gives a shape to our affects and it should therefore be perceived as a point of articulation between affects and cognition”. X-phemisms with their amalgamation of cognition (conceptualization and reconceptualization) and direct tapping into emotional sensitivities provides the verbiage articulating evaluation via their colouring rhetoric and ample design4. “Rhetoric” in relation to X-phemisation identifies the fine nuances of (implicit) evaluation, while “design” relates to the specific presentational mode chosen in the realization of X-phemisms. The presentational mode chosen for an X- phemism has direct influence on the interpretation of the denotatum and has the power to override the essence of the denotatum and impinge on its different properties. The dysphemism for “sinning” backsliding does not only offer an alternative name, presenting “sinning” (which is referentialy judgmental) as “physical movement backwards” only indirectly expresses judgement by capitalizing on the conceptual metaphor LIFE IS A JOURNEY and the implicational complex of lower level metaphors associated with it. In comparison to “sinning”, “backsliding” with its figurative presentational mode invites the listener to reassess sinning and its consequences in more physical terms and this perceptually aggrevates the negative judgement passed on this human activity. It also stripps the activity from its religious implications and broadens the category. Thus X-phemisms challenge standardized referentially judgmental values and overcome the highly schemtazied, conventionalized viewing of the world through languge. This viewing is what Slobin [2005: 13] has termed the “more static way of language use” of adults, which arises out of getting accustomed “to the schematics of language” [ibid.] and accounts for the existence of stereotypical frames associated with specific referents. The more interactive framing of referents characteristic of X-phemisms revives the more interactive, inventive and playful exploitation of the “rules of the game”. X-phemisms are thus tied up with the “heuristic” or “I explore” function which Halliday (1975) identified for language. This heuristic function interacts with the imaginative one, to produce the highly effective impact of reconceptualization as an appraisal resource. X-phemisation plays a pivotal role in value shifts on the basis of the joint attention thesis (Tomasello 2003a; 2003b). Recruitment X-phemisms offer alternative frames and thus window the attention of interactants to previously unnoticed or considered insignificant features of the topic referent, or introduce new ones. When they become fully lexicalized, such X-phemisms lose much of their attentional appeal and shed much of their interactive and conceptual creativity; instead they (or rather their use) acquire a predominantly indexing function positioning interactants in particular sociolinguistic categories. Lexicalization is tightly linked with stored mutual knowledge on the part of interactants and the degree of novelty will depend on the socio-cultural and experiental backgrounds of the interactants in a given communicative exchange. The degree of novelty plays a role in identifying the directedness of dysphemisms towards the referent or towards the interactant. There is a tendency for novel dysphemisms are perceived as offensive towards the referent, while fully lexicalized and widely known dysphemisms are more likely to exercise an offensive effect towards the interactant as they have acquired a degree of stereotypicality which guarantees the predominance of their indexing function. From a purely psychological point of view, if a speaker chooses to present a referent in discourse through a fully lexicalized dysphemism (such as пълно дърво [palno darvo, “absolute tree”, somebody/something dull, useless orincompetent]) this is easily interpreted as expressing a negative or at least slithing

Lexis, 7 | 2012 172

attitude to the interactant(s) as both parties engaged in the communicative exchange are aware of the judgmental value of a fully lexicalized dysphemism. Engaging the listener in such a mode of discourse implies that the listener is not considered as projecting an authority to be reckoned with, so both social and linguistic interdiction are loosened. In parallel to using a marker (if there is such a system in a language), the choice of a lexicalized dysphemism might be recognized as one of these indexes which Silverstein5 (1976) called “maximally creative”. Besides signaling solidarity, the use of a lexicalized dysphemism indicates lowering of the discourses which implicates the listener as belonging to that realm of the order of discourses. If a dysphemism is novel, there is always the possibility for its representational and connotative functions to suppress its indexing function (to both referent and interactant) for lack of associations with other contexts. The novelty of a dysphemism (for lack of other implicated contexts and polyphonous voices) guarantees its indexing ‘innocence’ in relation to the referent6. When I heard for the first time a student in class describe the tape-recorder as тояга [toyaga, cudgel, bludgeon], I didn’t interpret his verbal behavior as intentionally negative towards me. I had never heard this expression and strained my mind to uncover the intended meaning. When I learned that it means the same as the lexicalized пълно дърво I interpreted this use as indicating the poor state of the tape recorder and the low quality it produced in class and the student’s infuriation with these facts. When later I heard a colleague of mine use this as a description of a novel I felt a bit dejected as I perceived this verbal choice as indexing me as incapable of following a more elaborate and argumented opinion of a book.

10 The specific appraisal effect of X-phemisms is the projection of a particular speaker’s persona who takes a distinct evaluative stance (no matter if the reasoning mind has purposefully chosen the respective expression). This attitudinal positioning is achieved at the lexical level but the lexical expressions used have masked attitudinal values, i.e. they have only connotative evaluative values and are not referentially evaluative (they are recruited for the evaluative lexicon on the basis of the X-phemistic effects they produce on the basis of the denotative reframing they engender). For the greater part X-phemistic expressions encode adopted appraisal stances, in which it is difficult to distinguish between the separate evaluative dimensions – judgment, affect and appreciation. Leading among these stances is the affectual one because this is what the listener experiences in perceiving the X-phemism.

11 X-phemisms are not simply cross-varietal synonyms as each X-phemistic expression produces unique cognitive effects. Resulting from communicatively represented social esteem or social sanction X-phemisms, fill in an ecological niche in the evaluative resources of language as X-phemisation naturalises a specific listener’s position as far as evaluation is concerned as it is recognized by Martin (2000: 142-143) as fairly directive in the kinds of attitude it wants the listener’s to share. The concepts of evaluation (as a central interpersonal resource in language), of connotation and X- phemisation are intricately interrelated and sharp boundaries are hard to draw. Appraisal is understood here as defined by Martin [2000: 145] as “the semantic resources used to negotiate emotions, judgements, and valuations, alongside resources for amplifying and engaging with these evaluations”. X-phemisms are special among appraisal resources as they are not referentially evaluative (unlike referentially evaluative adjectives – good, nasty, etc.) and combine cognitive and affective aspects. Admittedly, one is tempted to agree with Voloshinov [1973: 105] that, “[n]o utterance can be put together without value judgement. Every utterance is above all an evaluative

Lexis, 7 | 2012 173

orientation. Therefore, each element in a living utterance not only has a meaning but also has a value” (emphasis in the original). However lexical items have different modes of signification, i.e. provide different routes of access to conceptual content. In some evaluation is direct and is a default feature of the conceptual content and part of the representational function of the lexical item (good, pleasant, captivating, etc.), i.e. evaluation is part of their descriptive dimension. In others evaluation is secondary or derived via some associative mechanism, but their mode of signification triggers first and foremost a seemingly untinted description (e.g. fat, made). In the latter’s lexical concept center-stage is preserved for describing features of objective properties (fat – body size; made – origin). Euphemisms are by definition evaluative, but this is secondary, relational evaluation, arising out of the choice of the particular lexical item which in its primary mode of signification doesn’t have the cognitive motivation to evaluate. The fact that this lexical concept has been chosen in particular creates the marked evaluation by way of contrast with a neutral or negative lexical item. The euphemisms fully-figured and hand-crafted acquire their positive evaluative charge indirectly by exploiting the effect of elevation of indirect speech. As Malrieu [1999: 51] articulates the intertwining of cognition and affect, “evaluation either refers to a cognitive appraisal of a phenomenon or to the cognitive theory of processes of evaluation involving both cognitive and affective aspects.” Referential as opposed to affective evaluation is distinguished for its primary cognitive appraisal. Among the affective aspects a central place is occupied by perceptual behaviours as affect is the perceptually motivated representation in the emotional brain. X-phemistic linguistic behavior targets or achieves control over the perceptual behavior of interlocutors. This underlies the distinction which can be drawn between overtly evaluative language (perfect, gorgeous, disgusting, etc.) and covertly evaluative language (chicken-livered, duck- brained, gutless, etc.). Denotatively (explicitly) evaluative language (language whose primary function is to describe evaluative judgements) and connotatively evaluative language (where evaluation stems from the artful interplay between rhetoric and design and is heavily dependent on the (re)presentational mode of accessing the referent) rely on different cognitive processes for achieving attitudinal response in interactants. As Martin and White [2005: 64] reveal, “ideational meaning can be used not just to invite but to provoke an attitudinal response” which is rightfully considered “one function of lexical metaphor” [ibid.]. In fully lexicalized X-phemisms the two types of evaluation are amalgamated into one. Yet, despite acquiring denotatively evaluative properties, such expressions keep piggybacking on the literal meaning of the lexical item chosen for presentation and thus evaluation is masked behind socially censored linguistic choices.

12 The recognition of the important role played by the presentational mode is harmonious with the acknowledgment of the significance of perceptually motivated affect. As Smith and Semin [2007: 134] remind us, [R]esearchers should acknowledge that adaptive cognition involves perceptual–motor loops that pass through the environment rather than being mostly implemented by autonomous inner processes. Strong support for this principle comes from recent work placing sensory and motor information at the heart of both conceptual representations in general and particular social-cognitive processes like understanding other people. (Emphasis added)

13 The understanding that socio-cognitive processes hinge on perceptual in situ triggers of meaning generation leads to the need to reassess our notions of concepts as stable

Lexis, 7 | 2012 174

structures and aknowledge the plasticity of categorization/conceptualization. This plasticity can fruitfully be operationalized in terms of ad hoc concept creation. X- phemisation like metaphoric (or more generally figurative) language hinges on ad hoc concept creation (for a book-length treatment of the role of ad hoc concepts in non- literal language creation/comprehension see Tendahl 2009). Creativity at this level boils down to the choice of recruiting stereotyped concepts to be refined in the construction of the ad hoc concept. Such an approach to conceptualization reveals the depth of creativity involved in X-phemistic linguistic behavior.

3. Creativity and X-phemisation

3.1. Creativity as reframing

14 The issue of creativity in linguistic interaction has recently attracted enviable attention (Chomsky 1980, De Beaugrande 1985, Kearney 1998, Zawada 2006, Langlotz 2006, Carter 2004, Munat 2007, 2010, etc.). As in all areas of investigating human ingenuity, the issue is wrought in controversies. Definitions of creativity range from rule-goverened recursion to idiosyncratic poetic creations and special ways with words. Hopefully the profusion of research on linguistic creativity will prove Chomsky [1980: 222-223] wrong in his prophecy that “the creative use of language is a mystery that eludes our intellectual grasp.” For the purposes of the present argument, the comprehensive definition of linguistic creativity provided by Zawada [2006: 236-237] is adopted: (Linguistic) Creativity is an essential and pervasive, but multi-dimensional characteristic of all human beings (irrespective of age, education, intelligence, social status or artistic bent). Linguistic creativity is primarily the activity of making new meaning by a speaker (in the broadest sense of the user of language in all forms and in all mediums), and the recreation and re-interpretation of meaning(s) by a receiver. Linguistic creativity is secondarily observable as a feature or product in a language. Linguistic creativity is a graded phenomenon ranging from the more conventional and predictable to the less conventional and unpredictable, and it is manifested in all domains of language (lexis, grammar, text and discourse), the results of which may or may not become conventionalised and therefore entrenched in a particular language. (Emphasis added)

15 In view of this definition, recruitment X-phemisms are doubly creative because besides surfacing as new semanticisms (making new meanings), they orchestrate the attitudinal dimension in the semantic prosodies of linguistic expressions in the interpretative strategies of the interactants. As such X-phemisms become prototypical examples of lexicogenetic mechanisms7 of semantic change. As such they are characterized by creativity, which is understood as a “bisociative process” or the deliberate connecting of two previously unrelated “matrices of thought”. The two unrelated matrices of thought originate from the stereotypically construed nature of the denotatum and how it is framed in a particular communicative exchange. According to Koestler [1964: 119] creativity includes “the displacement of attention to something not previously noted, which was irrelevant in the old and is relevant in the new context; the discovery of hidden analogies as a result.” Thus the process of X- phemisation appears highly creative at the level of conceptualization or framing of denotata8. X-phemisation achieves an attention switch which is realized against the background of linguistic stereotyping. Just as stereotypes are, according to Blumentritt and Heredia [2005: 261-262] “cognitive frameworks that consist of beliefs and

Lexis, 7 | 2012 175

generalizations about perceived typical characteristics for certain social groups”, so lexicalizations9 in relation to any kind of denotata are stereotyping frames which activate particular cognitive schemas with certain properties of the denotatum and an underlying emotive-evaluative associative mark. X-phemistic expressions re-frame denotata and establish alternative frames by imposing a different anchoring in the ad hoc conceptualization process involved in online linguistic interaction. X-phemisms function as cues to semantic priming with heightened emotive-evaluative results. This priming is based on contingent metapthonymic relations. Conceptual metaphors themselves are not X-phemistically specified, even though certain source domains used as maps to the nature/topology of more conceptually demanding domains might show some proclivity towards predominantly dysphemistic or predominantly euphemistic prompting. On the whole, as Crespo Fernández [2008: 97] revealingly argues: certain values are given priority in the metaphorical structuring of a given concept, the filter of metaphorical conceptualization through which reality is presented provides us with a partial understanding of the concept, masking or revealing particular aspects of the topic being dealt with, a process which makes conceptual metaphors readily accessible for euphemistic or dysphemistic reference respectively.

16 To further stretch the applicability of conceptual metaphor in human life, we will use them here to make more palpable the cognitive processes underlying recruitment X- phemisation. Such a move of exploiting conceptual metaphors as theoretical (metalinguistic) vehicles is justifiable in view of their being recognized by Evans [2010: 603] as being “concerned with backstage cognition - the role of the non-linguistic conceptual processes that facilitate meaning construction behind the scenes”, and not as statements from a theory about understanding metaphor in language. The complex processes of X-phemisation instantiate the conceptual metaphor CREATIVITY IS SEEING IN DIFFERENT LIGHT. The basic scenario revealing the nature of reframing in X-phemisation can be captured in another well-established conceptual metaphor CREATING IS MAKING VISIBLE. The essence of reframing in X-phemisation is offering a perspective for viewing the referent from the perspective of its presupposed similarity with the referent named by the lexical concept used as a new semanticism. It also implicates the overriding metaphor IDEAS ARE PERCEPTIONS. And last but not least, the mechanism of nominal metaphor underlying recruitment X-phemisms is accomplished via THE COMPARISON OF PROPERTIES IS THE COMPARISON OF PHYSICAL PROPERTIES. When combined as principles of backstage cognition and as metalinguistic models these conceptual metaphors summarise the backstage cognitive processes driving X-phemisation. In X-phemistic linguistic behavior (as defined by Allan and Burridge 2006) the X-phemistic expressions as instructional prompts invite a different, non-stereotypical conceptualization of the denotatum. This conceptualization may or may not involve conceptual metaphor (X- phemistic verbs only rarely involve and X-phemistic never involve conceptual metaphors). What makes X-phemisms special among the numerous linguistic realizations of conceptual metaphors is the fact that the former are not driven by the economy principle of borrowing the conceptual representations of concrete concepts for the representation of more abstract ones. In X-phemisation it is often the case that the target and the source share the same dgree of concreteness. The motivation behind the creative application of conceptual metaphor in the creation or use of X-phemisms is the realization of an attitudinal switch in keeping with the hypothesis of joint attentional behavior (Tomasello 2003a, 2003b) and the hypothesis

Lexis, 7 | 2012 176

that the mechanism of nominal metaphor underlies conceptual processes in X- phemisation.

17 Actually, the cognitive processes resulting in X-phemisation are consistent with Murphy’s (1996) weak version of the role of conceptual metaphor for representations in the mind and their linguistic encoding. X-phemisms provide pragmatically motivated reconceptualizations responsible for the semantic prosodical marking of a verbal exchange. In X-phemistic categorization the salience and centrality of features are rearranged, i.e. a different set of features is identified as central for categorization and promoted as sufficient for recognizing the referent as a member of the category we are assigning it to. We judge the referent against a situationally relevant prototype and the ad hoc concept we project of it accumulates features which are judgementally (attitudinally) motivated. As social categories are by definition value-laden (Schneider 2004) and folk theories underlie categorization, it is obvious that in situ conceptualization involves social recategorization as a feature X-phemistic categories, which modulate the values associated with a certain referent, reframing it in a way that will evoke certain category ascriptions that are situationally relevant and have specific axiological marking. X-phemisation involves the creation of compound categories which frame the referent in unexpected but revealing ways.

18 This aspect of the conceptual creativity of X-phemisation is best operationalized as the emergent properties of the referent which is conceptualized ad hoc as a compound category. In its turn the notion of the compound ad hoc concept operationalizes Crespo Fernández’s insight about the bidirectionality of lexicalized conceptual metaphor within the framework of Black’s Interactive Theory of metaphor. In Crespo Fernández’s [2008: 101] own words, it can be deduced that using metaphors with a lexicalized sexual meaning in discourse does not only involve a projection from the source domain onto the target domain, since the target domain may also be projected onto the source domain.

19 The phenomenon of bidirectionality is not restricted to lexicalized sexual taboos but has a much wider scope, underlying numerous recruitment X-phemisms as part of the compounding conceptual mechanism actualized in reframing. There frequently arise contexts in which ambiguity is difficult to resolve between the metaphoric (target) reading of an X-phemism and the literal (source) meaning of actualized lexicalization. Pfaff, Gibbs and Johnson [1997: 61-62] provide evidence that the mitigating or offensive value of X-phemisms is easier to comprehend if there is a conceptual match between these and the context, Our contention is that a speaker should consider one X-phemism [euphemism or dysphemism] more appropriate than another in a certain context because he is conceptualizing that context metaphorically... contexts can provide people with metaphorical concepts that influence the appropriateness or ease of interpretation of the X-phemism by cueing them to its metaphorical meaning.

20 Той е голям лапач [Toy e golyam lapach, He is a real gobbler] describes a person who loves eating heartily when used in non-political or criminal contexts. When лапач appeared as the name of a special police operation for financial criminals and occupied the front pages of printed media (e.g. the newspaper Dnevnik 23 March 2010) for a week or so, the lexical item acquired strongly dysphemistic properties, which have now overridden its original, literal meaning. It is now understood as He is one of the real spongers/moochers/criminals and if a speaker has intended it to apply with its literal

Lexis, 7 | 2012 177

meaning, they resort to repeating the lexical item to indicate that it has to be understood in its original meaning relating to food consumption. The dysphemism lexicalizes the GETTING IS EATING conceptual metaphor. When used in the media (to report for example the special police operation for arresting people involved in schemes for stealing VAT from the state), it is understood exclusively in its dysphemistic meaning. When used in everyday contexts in family settings, it remains ambiguous because the target dysphemistic meaning is so salient in terms of the socio- political situation that it has been projected onto the initial source and is likely to be ousted out in its original meaning to be replaced by the more generic noun associated with the consumption of food ядач [yadach, a person who eats a lot and loves to eat]. Such examples (and there a plenty of them) point to the fact that X-phemisation results from playing bottom-up against top-down processing in perception and everyday categorization. Top-down processing is granted pronounced dominance because the reframing is constrained and guided by contextual coherence and value investment sneaks its way into the ad hoc conceptualization. Sharing Zawada’s opinion [2006: 250] that “[t]he conceptual structures and processes that underlie linguistic creativity are the essence of linguistic creativity”, we resort to reviewing X-phemistic creativity as engaging the manipulation of stereotypical frames associated with primary lexicalizations.

3.2. Reframing and modification in recruitment X- phemisms

21 As Halford and Wilson [2002: 153] contend, “[c]reativity may be defined as the production of effective novelty through the operation of our mental processes.” Effective novelty employs the modification of communally shared standrad beliefs and opinion, or stereotypes by designing or recruiting new presentational modes or establishing new lexical concepts10 for familiar lexical items (which is the linguistic mechanism for recruitment metaphors). The principle is operative in metaphor as a type of non-literal language as Crespo Fernández [2008: 102] emphasizes: This constitutes a basic tenet in the Interactive Theory developed by Black (1962 and 1979), which sees metaphor as an intellectual operation with a cognitive import in which the creative response from the receiver allows for a redefinition of the frame, in Black’s terminology (or source domain in CMT), as a result of the system of associated commonplaces (i.e. standard beliefs and opinions shared by the members of a community) spontaneously evoked by the focus (or target domain). [Emphasis in bold added].

22 The creative response from the receiver involves a process of an ad hoc concept creation which taps into standardly held communal beliefs and opinions, i.e. comprehension violates stereotypical conceptualizations (“lexical concepts”) and alters valuations. The spontaneous evocation of such a response points out to the fact that the lexical item might be recruited purely by chance without resorting to back stage conceptual metaphors and result in the creation of a new lexical concept with marked X-phemistic properties. An established “lexical concept” provides a stereotypical framing of conceptual content, which X-phemisms take it upon themselves to shake off the established framing associated with the traditional lexical concept and trigger an alternative framing in which the conceptual content associated with a lexical concept is rearranged so as to fit the contextual requirements for salient coherence of attribute

Lexis, 7 | 2012 178

assemblage associated with a new lexical concept matched to the familiar lexical item. The result of a lexical concept used as a recruitment X-phemisms is a new attitudinally specified semanticism. X-phemisation surfaces as one of the ways in which “lexical concepts interface with non-linguistic knowledge” [Evans 2010: 604]. These interface processes are achieved through lexical metaphors, which might be derived from conceptual metaphors but do not necessarily do so.

23 A case in point is the most recent euphemistic dysphemism coined by the Bulgarian media дантели n., f., pl. [dantela n., f., sg., tracery, lace]. “Euphemistic dysphemisms and dysphemistic euphemisms have locutions which are at odds with their illocutionary point” [Allan and Burridge 2005: 15]. In the novel euphemistic dysphemism the lexical item and its stereotypical lexical context evoke pleasant associations about something beautiful and artful. The illocutionary force of the new lexical concept associated with the ad hoc concept has a strongly negative judgmental value. This new semanticism with euphemistic dysphemistic properties дантела can hardly be associated with a well established conceptual metaphor. The general frame associated with the lexical item’s nominal profiling is embroidery, the delicate, beautiful product of knitting, etc. The innocuous word acquired strong dysphemistic properties in describing a similarly innocent concept – speaking/verbally expressing a position taken on an issue. The word was used by a number of broadsheet and tabloid newspapers in relation to the positions taken by the Bulgarian Prime Minister in relation to the developments in Libya. The Prime Minister publicly announced in a matter of hours two highly opposing views, which was interpreted as a significant gaff on the part of Bulgaria’s Prime Minister. He explained his change of opinion with the “modes (fashions) of talking in Brussels”. First in a TV interview he labeled the military operation in Libya a “euphoric adventure triggered by oil money”, later the same day he defined the operation as “ legitimate, necessary, and right”. Asked about the motives behind this dramatic change, he said that his “evaluation of political events is dependent on fashions of speaking in Bruslles”. The media were quick to accuse the Prime Minister of confusing politics with fashion catwalks and dubbed his behaviour “дантели”. Thus the lexical concept which names a beautiful piece of handiwork became a euphemistic dysphemism for speaking out of tune, without considering the consequences of one’s words. Now the word is used to name a person’s confused behavior (including verbal) based on the wrong assumptions. Lace production is a housewife’s pastime and irresponsible political behavior is framed as a pastime. The dysphemistic properties arise exclusively in the juxtapositioning of the frames of lace production and irresponsible public behavior with political consequences. This novel (novel both in terms of the temporal trajectory of semiosis11 and in terms of conceptual creativity) euphemistic dysphemism quickly became very popular as the participants in the communicative act in which it was created were the media and the general public. Its associative complex involves the veiling of one’s acts by words, where the veil is so thin that it cannot cover the gaff. It might have distant resonance with the implications of the conduit metaphor (Reddy [1979]), but direct mappings between the source domain of embroidery and the target domain of explaining one’s swinging opinions with verbal modes of one’s superiors are hard to draw and it is highly unlikely for the majority of people to engage in such convoluted comprehension strategies. It is more likely for дантели as the focus domain for the ad hoc conceptualization to evoke the salient meaning of something light and ephemeral of not exceptionally high significance.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 179

24 No matter what type of post hoc rationalization process a perceiver of an X-phemism might engage in, in order for a linguistic element to function as an X-phemism it has to have created a tinted emotional reaction or a switch in evaluative judgment in relation to a stereotypically differently valued referent. Through ad hoc dispersal of a stereotyped conceptualization of a referent X-phemisms construe attitudinal rating of social realities in interaction. In being invited to recognize a familiar referent in a new frame, a language user is invited to come up with establishing some kind of analogically motivated structural alignment between the referent and the novel frame it has been associated with. X-phemisation is an instance of category-inclusion assertions (Gibbs [1994]; McGlone [2001]). Novel and semi-lexicalized X-phemisms instantiate attributive-category extension in an analogous manner to the process of novel metaphor understanding in which according to Glucksberg (quoted after McGlone [2001: 99]) “we rely on our knowledge of the vehicle’s stereotypical properties and the attributional dimensions of the topic to construct attributive categories de novo.” In X- phemisation the stereotypical attributes of the source and target referents interact by mutually modifying one another and negotiating a novel salience-driven calibration of a coherent conceptualization. X-phemisms lexicalize or in some cases even trigger the establishment of new referential metonymies and metaphors through reframing the denotatum and thus propagating experience-triggered novel stereotyping contexts.

25 Цедилник n., m., sg. [tsedilnik; “strainer, filter or tightener”] is used to mean “a very hard exam, a make-or-break test”. Hardly anything in the concept of straining directly maps onto the examination script. It is possible for a researcher after detailed analysis of the implicational complex associated with the focus frame (the lexical item performing the presentation) to arrive at primary and/or conceptual metaphors such as MENTAL CONTROL IS PHYSICAL CONTROL; DIFFICULT SUBJECTS ARE ADVERSARIES, etc. (with somewhat causal/motivating relation to the X-phemisms) but this is a hardly plausible scenario for how inetractants marshal the understanding of the X-phemism. The lexical item is used to evoke the stereotypical frame (or lexical concept) of a “strainer” and invite the listener to associate both attributively and emotionally a difficult exam and passing through a strainer in a plausible manner by establishing an ad hoc concept. The process of coherent attribute mixing is based both on conceptual metaphor and metonymy: first, the instrument (which is the meaning associated with the word- formation pattern of the dysphemism) is used to subsume the whole event including the results of the activity of straining. At the same time there is metaphoric mapping between the activity of straining and an examination – the students are mapped onto the entity being strained and their experience of exertion, exhaustion and destruction is encoded through the inference chain associated with the state of being strained. The ingenuity of the new semanticism lies in its ability to evoke a rich associative complex involving both metaphoric and metonymic reconceptualization strategies which are harnessed by the Graded Salience coherence of the ad hoc concept of being examined experienced as being processed by a strainer.

26 In other words, with X-phemisms as a special type of non-literal language “[t]he emphasis is thus neither on the characteristics of the target phrase per se nor, generally speaking, just on the discourse characteristics, but rather on the specific factors that appear in the presentational context and the meaning of those factors to the interpreter” [Katz 2005: 204]. The speaker invites the listener to tap beyond the set beliefs and find a contextually plausible interpretation that will reconcile the activated

Lexis, 7 | 2012 180

frames in a non-contradictory manner. This leads to X-phemisms influencing the perceptual (point of entry) access to the referent with the result of modulated attitudinal associations being evoked. Katz [2005: 185] emphasizes the strength of representational design as “the interpretation of a given statement is inextricably linked to the manner in which it is presented, and when an explicit context is not available, one is constructed from stored knowledge during the act of comprehension.” The socio-cultural ecology of X-phemisms requires that knowledge-based context and on-going discourse-based context interact productively. This is achieved through a salience-driven process of stereotype disintegration and reassemblage of available stored knowledge about the target denotatum and the lexical concept of the source denotatum. The processes of conceptual disintegration (Bache [2005], Hougaard [2005]) and conceptual blending (Fauconnier and Turner [2002]) constitute a single cognitive mechanism. In Bache’s view [2005: 1621] “conception can be said perhaps to facilitate perception by means of blending.” X-phemisms may be, in our opinion, construed as reinforcing, to borrow Bache’s words, “certain types of mental compressions of perception” [ibid.]. X-phemisation collapses first- and third-order blending as defined by Bache. The blending is guided by “optimal innovation” and constrained by salience. The Graded Salience Hypothesis (Giora [1997], [2003]; [2009]) holds it that “meaning is accessed in a hierarchical manner in cognitive processing” [Huang 2009: 108]. The salient features are the stereotypical ones that have been entrenched in the conceptualization of a given category or at least in the lexical concept form the source domain. “[C]onsolidated and encoded lexical meanings of a mental entity are always activated in the initial process of comprehension, regardless of the context” [ibid.]. By creating an ad hoc concept interactants readily blend salient properties from both involved denotata. Stretching the Optimal Innovation Hypothesis (Giora 2002) beyond pleasurability and into X-phemisation in general, it is plausible to claim that optimal coherence arising from the interplay between salient features of the co-evoked referents and primed evaluative associations harness the creation of the ad hoc concept, as novelty that allows for the recover ability of the familiar. Optimal innovation operates by creating “novelty that allows for the recoverability of the familiar” [Giora 2002: 11]. Thus salient meanings from both evoked conceptualizations of referents are conjoined and reordered in an ad hoc coherence frame of graded appropriateness which supersedes the stereotypical frames of both denotata.

27 We hold stereotypes for almost anything around us, because we need to make quick decisions within everyday contexts for standard cognitive tasks. Stereotypes result from abilities to generalize. "The ability to generalize is a central, primitive, hard-wired cognitive activity" [Schneider 2004: 8]. Stereotypes are non-informed but stable judgmental values associated with a given concept/category. Schneider [2004: 8] illustrates that this is implied in the meaning of the term itself - “[t]he word ʻstereotype’ itself comes from the conjunction of two Greek words: stereos, meaning ʻsolid’ and typos, meaning ʻthe mark of a blow’ or more generally ʻa model’. Stereotypes thus ought to refer to solid models.” Stereotypes are packages of conceptual and attitudinal/evaluative frame-models we use in categorization. They are prototypes with replications of judgmental ratings in the emotional brain. Rigidity and duplication or sameness, which Miller [1982] identifies as central for stereotypes, project these conceptual-emotive models as stable structures used in conceptualization. The content of stereotypes is varied and it is difficult to spell out a general template for that, but they tend to capture the most salient features of a category and an overall evaluative

Lexis, 7 | 2012 181

rating for the category as a hole which is inherited in categorizing individual denonata as members of the respective category. In relying on stored concepts and categorizing as quickly as possible for the majority of everyday cognitive tasks, we heavily rely on such conceptual structures as in such contexts we usually categorize hastily and without much reflection. This is a survival cognitive strategy for achieving efficacy of decision-making in everyday situations. Lippmann [1922: 88-89] fathoms that this is so because, [t]here is economy in this. For the attempt to see all things freshly and in detail, rather than as types and generalities, is exhausting, and among busy affairs practically out of the question.... Instead we notice a trait which marks a well known type, and fill in the rest of the picture by means of the stereotypes we carry about in our heads.

28 X-phemisation intervenes in such processes by offering a new focus into the perception and conceptualization of the target denotatum and involves interactants in a process of disintegrating their stereotypical perceptions of denotata and triggering off a reframing by guided attention to context-relevant blended reordering in terms of salience. Stereotyping follows a general cognitive and socio-psychological pattern which is directly mirrored by processes of X-phemisation. Stereotypes are kinds of “universal judgments” and accompany the situated categorization of entities and their uncritical appraisal which instead of being contextually triggered, seem to be stable and almost automatic pieces of background knowledge. X-phemisation recalibrates stereotypes by modifying the hasty attitudinal and judgmental evaluative associations.

29 As in different types of nonliteral forms it is possible for mixtures of mechanisms and processes, some of them contradictory and others complementary or parallel, to underlie the creation and interpretation of X-phemisms. The above claims hold water when the listener has recognized the X-phemism as such, no matter what the intentional motive of the speaker is. In case an X-phemism falls on deaf ears, its attitudinal validity is canceled and whatever comprehension it triggers the uniquely X- phemistic appraisal value is lost. The reframing may be still activated but the linguistic phenomenon will be another type of non-literal language, not an instance of X- phemisation. Recruitment X-phemisms always evoke inflated perception and disturbance in a referential stereotype accompanied by attitudinal value fixation. The active involvement of the listener is crucial in the functioning of X-phemisms because X-phemisation is a paradigm case of what Deborah Tannen [1986:106] identifies as ‘ interactional frames’. She distinguishes between frames as knowledge structures and frames as active sites of negotiating meaning and what is actually going on. In her view knowledge structure schemas are “expectations based on prior experience about objects, events, and settings”, “a superordinate definition of what is being done by talk, what activity is being engaged in, HOW a speaker means what she says” [ibid.]. Under this refined classification of schemas and frames, X-phemisms appear as instances of an interactional frame in which a speaker instructs a listener to discard familiar frames associated with a referent and reconceptualize it by employing a different stereotype. “Interactive frames, but not knowledge structure schemas, are always a matter of two logical types: the concrete, particular way of speaking in the interaction, and the abstract set of associations that identifies the culturally significant interactive goal being served by that way of speaking” [ibid.].

30 Recruitment X-phemisms violate neutral, standard affordances of perceivables and overcome the stereotypical associative complexes that have been captured in a culture

Lexis, 7 | 2012 182

in conceptualizing a certain entity in a particular way and standardly relying on a particular lexical concept to provide easier access to it. They are metonymic in essence, because they realize the principle of highlighting a particular referent by activating a contextually salient or overtly presented entity closely associated with the referent in terms of conceptual contiguity (Lakoff and Johnson 1980; Lakoff and Turner 1989). To pay justice to the facts of X-phemisation, we need to admit that both the principles of resemblance (by implicit comparison), i.e. the principle of metaphor and the principle of referential contiguity are both operative in recruitment X-phemisms. Goossens’ “metaphtonomy” aptly captures the impossibility to separate the engagement of both principles in X-phemisms. In analyzing the fully lexicalized dysphemism in Bulgarian озъбвам се на някого [ozybvam se na nyakogo, “bare one’s teeth at someone”, argue severely with someone, to oppose in a nasty manner] is a case in point which can illustrate the difficulty in tracing the ordered activation of metaphor and metonymy in interpreting complex instances of conceptual integration. The metaphor MENTAL ACTIVITIES ARE PHYSICAL ACTIVITIES provides the metaphoric frame, but the baring of teeth is also metonymic in relation to the literal lexical concept associated with the lexical item. This metonymic reading is induced by the BODILY REACTION FOR EMOTION metonymy, which is a special case of the more general EFFECT FOR CAUSE metonymy. The physical activity is typical of aggressive behaviours in dogs, which is interpreted as intimidating and indicating aggression. The impossibility of establishing an ordered sequence for the operation of the conceptual metaphors and metonymies in interpreting the reframing of “agitated arguing” as teeth-baring only comes to indicate that metonymy and metaphor are inextricably intertwined in X-phemisms as a special type of non- literal language.

31 The construction of ad hoc X-phemistic concepts is driven by constraint satisfaction – the constraints relate to coherent blending of the bifurcated referentially anchored perception. The complex process of frame compounding is not as a simple as creating a master list of the features of both denotata, but involves an ordered sequence of disintegration and reintegration of salient features, driven by the the tacit acknowledgment that “[…] the general outlines of framing are understood not by atomistic structural representation of components of frames but by seeing the relationships among an array of particular dimensions of framing” [Tannen 1986: 107]. The invited reframing is first constrained by the proffered integration frame and second by the drive for coherent conceptualization into a Gestalt, which imposes the constraints of blending and coordination in a heightened and specifically windowed perception. Recruitment X-phemisms window the perceiver’s attention and provide the scaffolding against which the novel conceptualization is accomplished.

32 Ad hoc conceptualization can only be executed after the referent of a piece of discourse has been established. This, as Barr and Keysar [2005: 28] remind us, depends heavily on a speaker’s lexical choices – “[t]he expression that a speaker chooses in referring to some object –from an elaborate, full noun phrase to a simple pronoun – will depend on the degree to which the referent is in the focus of attention in the discourse.” Besides this reliance on mutual knowledge for the disambiguation of reference, the choice of recruitment X-phemisms contains subtle instructions12 for the particular manner in which the interactant has to focus on/perceive the referent. The attitudinal value triggered by recruitment the X-phemism is of a specifiable kind – either positive or negative (both in terms of affect and in terms of judgment). Thus both fully lexicalized

Lexis, 7 | 2012 183

and novel X-phemisms trigger the listener’s fine-tuning of referent comprehension/ perception as a different window of access is prescribed over and above the purely perceptual affordances in a communicative situation which invites situated cognition.

33 Situated cognition suggests that humans use situated versions of concepts that have context-specific functions, and do not automatically activate the same, context- independent conceptual frame in every situation (Yeh and Barsalou [2006]). Reframing will involve at least rearrangement in terms of salience in the complex configuration of the ingredients which constitute the conceptual frame of the non-stereotypical ad hoc concept formation.

34 An example from the implicit attitudinal lexicon in Bulgarian used for the expression of approval is гадже убиец/трепач n., n., sg. [gadzhe trepach, “a killer/beater girlfriend”], which functions as a dysphemistic euphemism with the meaning of “an extremely attractive young girl”. From the instructional perspective of language on hearing a girl described as a killer the listener’s mind-set is invited to focus its attention on particular fetuares marked as salient by the speaker in choosing this particular lexical concept. A plausible, but highly unlikely, interpretative hypothesis might be to conceive of the girl-friend as being a serial killer (in analogy with the “serial/black widow” stereotype) which would hinge on the literal salient meaning of the lexcical concept stereotypically associated with the lexical item убиец. However, the dysphemistic euphemism is unfailingly understood as expressing a highly positive attitudinal stance on the part of an aloof speaker projected as a victim to the power of attractivenss of the situational referent. This interpretation reveals its conceptual relatedness to a whole series of conceptual metaphors PSYCHOLOGICAL FORCES ARE PHYSICAL FORCES; EMOTIONS ARE FORCES; DESIRES ARE FORCES BETWEEN THE DESIRED AND THE DESIRER, SEXUALITY IS AN OFFENSIVE WEAPON, which as ingrained knowledge structures facilitate the contextually coherent construction of the ad hoc concept of a beauty being perceived in a particular way.

4. Metaphtonymy in idiomatic X-phemisms

35 As back stage stable knowledge structures conceptual metaphors and metonymies aide and sometimes even provoke the functioning of X-phemisms as associative primes. They might underlie both monolexemic and idiomatic X-phemism, even though the latter differ in terms of their presentational design. Monolexemic X‑phemisms differ from idiomatic ones in terms of conceptual only vs. conceptual and linguistic collocation. The distinction between collocation at the conceptual level only and at the lexical level can be illustrated through the difference between гъз глава затрива [gaz glava zatriva, “the ass kills the head”, eat someone out of house and home] and насоля v, tr./intr., perf., [nasolya “season with salt”, scold severely]. In the first instance the lexical item is in the form of a phrasal unit with explicit collocational preferences encoded, while the second is in the form of a single word and all semantic orchestration belongs to “backstage cognition” (Fauconnier [1997]). With the first the presentation design is more palpable and “graphically” presented spelling out a whole scenario, while the second one presents only a point of entry in a compounded ad hoc- concept. Both are fully lexicalized and should not display processing differences. However, details in representation matter, so that idiomatic X-phemisms are more likely to be associated with a uniform appraisal value across contexts, while monolexemic ones are more likely to freely fluctuate along the rhetoric dimension

Lexis, 7 | 2012 184

from euphemisms to dysphemisms in the euphemistic treadmill (Chamizo Domínguez 2005; Pinker 2008).

36 The fixed appraisal value is culturally tailored, even if the same metaphtonymic complexes underlie the X-phemistic expressions in two languages. The contrasts between гъз глава затрива and eat someone out of house and home illustrate the cultural specificity in exploiting the same set of conceptual metaphors. The two expressions differ in terms of their dysphemistic strength, i.e. the intensity of the negative associations. They also differ in degree of figurativity or idiomaticity. The English expression is mildly figurative, while the Bulgarian one is more conspicuously non- literal, which results from the differences in their presentational mode. Even if we assume that in both languages the motivating or source domain is that of FOOD/EATING, in English the mapping is significantly more direct, while in Bulgarian a complex metaphtonymic series is involved. Presentationally, eat is evaluatively neutral, and the domain is evoked by an orthophemistic expression, while гъз is strongly dysphemistic (considered in its bodily meaning a taboo) and only metaphtonymically associates with the FOOD (or to be more precise the consumption of it) domain. The dysphemistic rating of the two expressions is correspondingly different – the English one is mildly dysphemistic – the dysphemistic associations relate to the activated scenario of living on the streets, while in Bulgarian the expression is palpably dysphemistic as it utilizes a taboo lexical item – гъз. Recognizing a shared target conceptual content (“being gluttonous has dire consequences”) helps distinguish the role of dysphemistic creativity in the two languages.

37 With conceptual metaphors exploited in X-phemisation it is either the nature of the source domain (in relation to the target denotatum) or the incongruity of the activated stereotypical frames from the source and target domains that creates the X-phemistic effect. Extremely important is the actual wording or the specific lexical concepts involved as each lexical concept provides differential access to the domain. The underlying conceptual metaphoric complex involves holistic mapping between the two domains but lexical concepts can tap different areas and highlight specific portions of the domains. Both to force-feed (as in “being force-fed information is a habit one can break” OED) and savour (as in “We savour at our leisure the delicate satire which we were too excited to appreciate duly” OED) rely on the conceptual metaphor IDEAS ARE FOOD, but only the first has heightened dysphemistic overtones. The lexical concepts chosen to probe into the metaphoric complex, with their specific perceptual associations and the nature of physicality implied in them, predispose towards opposingly marked X-phemistic perceptions.

38 What is more besides specific lexical concepts, certain domains when used as source domains in conceptual metaphor have higher proclivity for producing X-phemistic effects, while others will produce figurative encoding of a target domain, but will not readily yield X-phemisms. The FOOD domain and the SEEING domain are both used as source experiential matrices for conceptualizing “understanding / comprehension” and they have different proclivity to X-phemistic implications when used in this line of metaphoric conceptualization. The former has an intrinsic propensity to be exploited through metonymic shifts with marked dysphemistic effects as it is the processing of food that is experientially associated with potentially tabooed or displeasing human experiences. The detection of the respective conceptual metaphor is not sufficient for evoking a definite affective stance. The stretch from the experiential complex which is

Lexis, 7 | 2012 185

chosen for representation with its contiguous lexical concepts modifies the ad hoc blended conceptualization in a way which moulds the affective stance. The evocation of entrenched conceptual metaphors is not sufficient for engendering specific X- phemistic effects as becomes obvious from contrasting the utilization of the same underlying conceptual metaphor in two cultures. The nature of the literal meaning of eat s.o. out of house and home guarantees its evaluative innocence in comparison to its Bulgarian translation equivalent гъз глава затрива. In the English encoding a rather central and general lexical concept from the FOOD domain is utilized in the metaphoric transfer, while in Bulgarian a peripheral and marginal constituent of the frame is recruited which constitutes part of the “eating domain” only via conceptual metonymy. The presented part of the experiential complex in Bulgarian is associated with the end phase of processing food (digestion) and metonymically with the bodily organ involved in this phase of expelling unnecessary food from the body. The conceptual content (or if terminological stretching is made use of, the referent) of both expressions is roughly the same but their dysphemistic properties and their presentational modes (with the corresponding experiential complexes) differ resulting in different affectual values. In the comprehension process probably the whole domain will be accessed but the taste in the mouth (to analytically piggyback on the conceptual metaphor IDEAS ARE FOOD) is associated with the first anchor into the domain – the lexical items chosen chosen with their stereotypical lexical concepts and all their literal/non-literal ambiguities implied. The connotations associated with the literal meaning of the source domain used to refer to the target concept play a significant role in determining the specific X- phemistic charge of the resultant conceptualization based on the lexical concept from the source domain. Ultimately socio-cognitive and cultural variables in the context will determine the actual X-phemistic effect of the particular utilization of a conceptual metaphor.

5. Dysphemistic verbs

39 The dependency of X-phemistic effects on the presentational mode chosen (i.e. the specific lexical concepts recruited from a source/vehicle domain) is observed not only in idiomatic X-phemisms derivable from established conceptual metaphors but also in dysphemistic verbs. Bolinger [1980: 80] believes that verbs are the least likely lexemes to have X-phemistic effects, “[o]f the three major classes of words, verbs seem least hospitable to . This is probably due to the transitory nature of what they name.” Recognizing the contextually specific, online ad hoc concept construction as the conceptual mechanisms behind X-phemisation frees the classes of words from ranking in terms of conceptual stability that could maintain the attachment of approval or disapproval. The recruited verbal lexeme may have inherent disapproval associations or such may be created in the blending of the frames. The act of choosing to “display” the intended meaning via the stereotyped frame of a given lexical item triggers an attentional switch and attitudinal revaluation. This process of reframing is guided by the “naturalist hypothesis”, which as defined by Allan and Burridge [1988: 7] and [1991: 22] has it that “the form of an expression somehow communicates the essential nature of whatever it denotes.” Form does not relate here to the expression plane (i.e. it is not sound symbolism that is implied). Form is intended to capture the uniqueness of the cognitive effects achieved by the use of a particular lexical item which carries with it an instruction for a particular conceptual access to a referent13. As will be illustrated

Lexis, 7 | 2012 186

below, verbs can be extremely powerful dysphemisms in relation to orthophemisms (be it of taboo activities or of neuter activities), because “[t]he key to understanding the nature of linguistic competence and its acquisition […] lies in the dialectical relationship between bodily dispositions and activities on the one hand, and sociocultural practices on the other” [Zlatev 1997: 1-2], (emphasis added).

40 “Choosing” or “selecting” is not in itself a taboo concept, nor are most of the words we use to name such activities, but заплюя v., tr, perf., заплювам си v., tr, imperf., [zaplyuya, zaplyuvam si “spit on, mark something as one’s possession by spitting on it”, choose, pick out] present the activity of choosing as a nasty, even physically repulsive behavior. The strongly dysphemistic properties of the verbs arise from the bodily dispositions and activities and the sociocultural practices associated with the anchoring/profiling stereotypical frame of the domain associated with the actual lexical item used.

41 Dysphemistic properties may arise out of the salient properties of the stereotypical concept (including the lexical one) associated with the intended (target) denotatum as is the case with the Bulgarian dysphemistic прецаквам v., tr, imperf., [pretsakvam, “cross-trump”, spoil s.o.’s plans]. The lexical item belongs to the domain of playing cards. It relates to the possession and playing of trumps. The creativity of the dysphemism is at sub-lexical, morphemic level. The intricate X-phemistic play results from “interlexicality” (Munat [2010]) and substitution of a prefix. In the context of playing cards the idea of playing a stronger trump than the one of one’s opponent is lexicalized in – надцаквам v., tr, imperf., [nadtsakvam, “overtrump”] and this is an attitudinally neutral or even positively marked lexical item. The playful substitution of the prefix results in an attitudinal switch which leads to the highly dysphemistic properties of прецакам, which is not used in the neutral context of playing cards due to the bidirectional interaction between source and target. The most cognitively effective (or at least most effort-saving) interpretative strategy is to metaphtonymically associate spoiling s.o.’s plans with having more powerful trumps and thus prevent the opponent’s winning, i.e. the realization of someone’s plans. The negative attitudinal result stems form the stereotypical concept of “purposefully spoiling s.o.’s plans”.

42 “Contamination” or the specific evaluative colouring of an X-phemism can arise from the topic denotatum, from the vehicle denotatum or from the blending of the contextually salient features of both (no matter if it is a figurative expression or a monolexemic substitute to the exclusion of phonetically-based innovations). As “expressions are not nasty by themselves” [Allan and Burridge 1988: 7], it is natural to conclude that dysphemistic effects can only stem from culturally informed conceptualizations of one of the denotata or the ad hoc concept, i.e. the dysphemistic effect is derived from choosing a particular framing perspective which achieves an attention switch that leads to modifications in salient features ordering. Put simply, X- phemisms function as instructions for perception, i.e. they invite the listener to perceive the referent as construed in a particular frame within the interpretative practices of a given culture. Singer [1998: 5] defines culture as a pattern of learned, group-related perceptions – including both verbal and non- verbal language, attitudes, ≈values, belief systems, disbelief systems and behaviours that is accepted and expected by an identity group. [Emphasis added].

43 As one of Chamizo Domínguez’s theses on X-phemisms proclaims, X-phemisms have special cognitive and social effects which make them distinct from metaphor (with

Lexis, 7 | 2012 187

which they otherwise share a number of constitutive features) [Chamizo Domínguez 2005: 13]. Central among the special effects of X-phemisms is their “aptness” of presentation function [Kress 2010: 55], in keeping with which the chosen linguistic resource is perceived as the most apt one to realize the intended meaning in the specific context. They acquire their attitudinal power by heavily exploiting the (re)presentational14 dimension of language.

44 Crespo Fernández [2008: 96] defines dysphemism as “the process whereby the most pejorative traits of the taboo are highlighted with an offensive aim to the addressee or to the concept itself.” This restricts the scope of dysphemisms only to cases in which the dysphemistic properties are derived from the traits of the target denotatum or when dysphemisation arises from conceptual interdiction. “Highlighting” is only possible if the properties are already present in the conceptualization of the denotatum. Often dysphemisms relate to innocuous or affect-neutral denotata and the process of dysphemisation is not one of “highlighting” the properties of the referent. Rather new properties are ascribed to the denotatum by its being accessed through a different lexical concept. The lexical concept used to name the vehicle (source) functions as a conceptualizing anchor (or beamer) which actively participates in the ad hoc conceptualization which is salience-driven and triggers property reordering in keeping with a new frame provided by the executed lexical concept. This is typically achieved by associating conceptually the topic referent with the stereotypical frame of another one (the vehicle), thus blending the stereotypical conceptualization of the topic (target) denotatum with the stereotypical conceptualization of the vehicle referent.

45 Dysphemisation (i.e. downgrading or offending the referent/interactant) is not infrequent with orthophemistic, “innocent” or evaluatively uncoloured denotata. The verbal lexicon in Bulgarian in the semantic field of “working” is replete with dysphemistic expressions naming working. The denotata are neutral, hardly anyone (to the exclusion of sleuths) will hold negative associations with the human activity of working. The dysphemistic colloquial verbs used invite an obvious reframing of the activity of working (e.g. all the verbs below have the general meaning to overwork, to work one’s fingers to the bone: бича [bicha, “to saw trees”, work too much], бъхтя (се) [bahtya (se), “to push around, to beat”, work long hours, work strenuously]; блъскам (се) [blaskam (se), “to push against”, work hard, overwork]; счупвам се [schupvam se, “break”, work hard]; изгърбвам се [izgarbvam se, “bend over, stoop, get a hunchback”, work too much]; скъсвам се [skasvam se, “tear oneself”, work too much], скъсвам си гъза [skasvam si gaza, “tear one’s ass”, work too much], сбръчквам се, сбръчкам се [sbrachkvam se, “to wrinkle, to get wrinkled”, overwork], трепя се, претрепвам се [trepya se, pretrepvam se, “kill oneself, do away with oneself”, overwork]). When instead of using an orthophemistic expression a speaker resorts to one of these verbs, working is dysphemistically presented; framed as physical effort, adverse physical effects on the body or suffering to the point of death. The same dysphemistic effect is observed in the use of diminutives for the names of the professions. Instead of conveying dignity to a (menial) profession or job (as is one of the functions of euphemisms according to Domínguez [2005]), diminutives convey unsatisfactory or poor qualities of the person perfoming the job (see part 6). In such instances (creating dysphemisms for orthophemistic denotata), dysphemisation becomes a powerful appraisal resource in language, since the dysphemistic associations directly reveal the speaker’s evaluative

Lexis, 7 | 2012 188

stance as these are not inherent in the stereotypes for the respective denotata. Admittedly, certain experiential domains are predisposed towards providing reframing conceptualizations with the effect of verbal plummeting – “breaking”/“destruction”, “dirt”, etc. and these are the ones most frequently utilized in creating dysphemisms for orthophemistic referents. This understanding is fully in keeping with the definition provided by Allan and Burridge [1991] according to which a dysphemism is “an expression with connotations that are offensive either about the denotatum or to the audience, or both, and it is substituted for a neutral or euphemistic expression for just that reason” [Allan and Burridge 1991: 26]. So offensive connotations arise when a particular expression is used instead of a neutral or euphemistic expression naming the same denotatum – e.g. orthophemism работя много (rabotya mnogo, “work hard”) represented in discourse as стопяват ми се лагерите [stopyavat mi se lagerite, “my bearings/gudgeons melt”, work very hard]. The first expression is neutral and states the situation in which the speaker works too much with no indication as to the attitude of the speaker to this fact, via the second expression the concept of working hard and a lot is framed in а dysphemistic manner where the working person is construed as a machine which has been overused, i.e. as a fragile, easily breakable object. The dysphemistic effect is linked with conceptualizing working as an adverse, destructive force and not as an ordinary fact of life.

46 Of course dysphemisms can be used to reinforce or intensify socially stigmatized concepts/referents, as is the case in the following dysphemism разкоствам v., tr, imperf., разкостя v., tr, perf., [razkostvam, razkostya “take the bones out of, debone”, to strip something of its basic parts, to dismantle or cannibalize]. The strongly dysphemistic verb encodes the vandalization of objects (predominantly used for stolen property: cars, TV sets, PCs, etc. sold in parts) by evoking the conceptual metaphor CHANGE IS LOSING. The literal meaning of the verb relates to the deboning of foods and is evaluatively neutral as common sense and cultural practices of cooking indicate that deboning is a necessary change/procedure for accomplishing a desirable goal (even though the procedure involves the manipulation of dead animal bodies). In its dysphemistc meaning, the verb reframes the dismantling of mechanical entities as depriving an object of its essential parts. The dysphemistc effects arise out of compounding the properties of a socio-culturally desirable activity and of a socio- culturally abhorred activity. The lexicalized local metaphor PARTS ARE BONES frames the compounding of features and capitalizes on the inherent culturally motivated valuation of the referent for achieving the highly dysphemistic effect.

6. Morphopragmatics and X-phemisation

47 It turns out that size matters. Ruiz de Mendoza [1996] defines Spanish diminutives as attitudinal term operators that codify axiological relatedness between speaker and referent. In a like manner, Bulgarian diminutives constitute a flexible resource for the whole attitudinal range: expressing affect, judgment and appreciation, inseparably intertwined in a single suffixal blend. These functions render diminutives in Bulgarian agents of intricate X-phemistic functions without relying on figurativity in reframing. Yet, they do involve elaborate patterns of reframing. The linguistic process of diminution is a central appraisal resource utilizing reframing and heavily relying on metonymic projections. Diminutive suffixes in Bulgarian function as reframing

Lexis, 7 | 2012 189

prompts in which the rich association complex attached to them has to be contextually gauged in understanding the specific socio-cognitive motivation in using a diminutive word. After all, as Wierzbicka [1992: 150] claims, “[w]ords are a society’s most basic cultural artifacts, and they provide the best key to a culture’s values and assumptions - on condition that they are properly understood.”

48 Bulgarian is among the languages with richly developed system of both denotative and connotative diminutives. Even though denotative diminutives also have an evaluative bias, it is connotative diminutives that are mostly deployed as powerful X-phemisms. Within the Bulgarian linguistic tradition Zidarova [2005, 2008] claims that nominal diminution in Bulgarian is generally associated with predominantly denotative semantic contribution on the part of diminutive affixes, while in the derivative diminutives from bases that belong to other lexical classes the emotive-evaluative predominates due to the specific nature of their denotative character [Zidarova 2008: 1]. The distinction between denotative and cannotative diminutives can be summarized in the opposition between using diminutives to designate one of the core denotative components of dimunition – “smallness”, whereas connotative ones are used with a variety of semantic effects. The diminutive suffix -че (che) in itself is usually exploited for denotative diminution associated with actual smallness of denotata or with and is usually associated with positive connotations: краче n., n., sg., [krache, “leg-DIM”], столче n., n., sg., [stolche, “chair-DIM”], палче n., n., sg., [palche, “thumb-DIM”], etc. Connotative diminutives on the other hand do not depend on the denotative feature “smallness”. Their predominant function is the projection of an evaluative stance. X- phemisation within diminution can be detected only when there is a switch in markedness, i.e. when the social sensitivities of interactants predispose them towards the use of diminutives likely to evoke or express positive attitudes to something that need not be positively marked in the emotional brain (Тя е истинска кукличка. [Tya e istinska kuklichka. She is a real doll-DIM]) or the reverse, a denotatum not necessarily negatively marked is framed or named by linguistic resources evoking or expressing negative attitudes – e.g. един животец n., m., sg., [edin zhivotes, “one life-DIM”]. While Тя е истинска кукличка is X-phemistically ambiguous, i.e. it might be used euphemistically or dysphemistically, the noun phrase един животец is dysphemistic as it designates a way of life devoid of the basic features of living, not worthy of the fully- fledged lexical concept life. Even if we assume that the denotative (literal) feature “small” is activated as a default component of the diminutive noun, “lack of” or “insufficiency” are by implication also evoked. Nominal diminutives from positive abstract bases e.g. щастийце n., n., sg., [ shtastiytse, “happiness-DIM”] tend to be dysphemistic as they imply reduction in the positive features associated with the concept (even in cases when the base does not name a potentially gradable concept). Such dysphemisms express negative attitudes and more importantly ascribe negative features to the denotatum. Щастийце implies that the feeling of happiness is so miserable that it cannot be named with the neutral, non-diminutive lexeme щастие, or by ironic implication it is used to name an actual experience of unhappiness. Животец is restricted to the first dysphemistic interpretation only, in which the way of living is of such low quality that it can’t possibly be worthy of being named by the non- diminutive lexeme. In кукличка n., f., sg., [kuklichka, “doll-DIM”] the referential metaphor (“doll” used to describe the behavior of a human), operationally modified by a diminutive, can be read euphemistically to indicate endearment and attachement in

Lexis, 7 | 2012 190

cases in which the speaker describes a little girl but it would be ironically dysphemistic in cases in which the diminutive is used in a context in which the referent cannot genuinely be associated with the denotative feature “small”.

49 When used with nouns denoting professional occupations diminutives also strongly deviate from the positive evaluative stance supposedly15 associated with them and result in dysphemisms. A possible explanation for the dysphemistic function of diminutives with professions stems from the impossibility to associate “smallness” as a default feature with the denotatum. The names of professions themselves can have positive or negative connotations stemming from the nature of the denoted profession, but attitudes associated with the denotatum are not necessarily directly reflected in the linguistic resources (orthophemisms). When using diminutives with names of professions the semantic effect is the predication of inadequate or insufficient professional qualities of the specific referent. When describing someone as докторче n., n., sg., [doktorche, “doctor-DIM”], писателче n., n., sg., [pisatelche, “writer-DIM”], журналистче n., n., sg., [zhurnalistche, “journalist-DIM”], даскалче n., n., sg., [daskalche, “teacher-DIM”], професорче n., n., sg., [profesorche, “professor-DIM”], etc. a speaker does not mean that someone of young age is practicing the profession. Rather the dysphemistic meaning is to express disregard, low esteem or a slighting attitude to the practitioner of the profession. This interpretation is harmonious with Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi’s [1994: 144ff.] formulation of the basic morphopragmatic meaning of diminutives: The general morphopragmatic meaning of diminutives is the feature [non-serious], which relates to the morphosemantic feature [non- important], which is related via metaphor to the morphosemantic denotation [small].

50 In the lexis of professions in Bulgarian, diminutives preserve the feature [non- important] but it is exploited for the expression of lack of or low level of professionalism on the part of the referent, not the prototypical positive emotive- evaluative associations “playfulness, meiosis, love, sympathy and empathy”, which Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi [ibid.] associate with diminutives via metaphoric extension from the central denotative features thereof. Profession diminutives are used to express the speaker’s negative attitude to the professional conduct or achievements of the referent by direct application of the feature [non-serious] to the referent. It bears the implication that the referent is either incapable to practice their profession at the required standards or the performance is exceptionally poor.

51 Adjectival diminutives derived in the area of subjective valuations of taste from negative bases have marked euphemistic effects especially in answering а host’s questions concerning the food served: киселичък adj, n., sg., [kiselichak, “sour-DIM”], горчивичък adj, n., sg., [gorchivichak, “bitter-DIM”], соленичък adj, n., sg., [solenichak, “salty-DIM”]. The guest is experiencing discomfort but politeness requirements invite them to approach the issue in a delicate manner by belittling the unpleasantness of the experience.

52 In non-committal expression of opinion or appreciation of objects diminutives function as indicators of lack of specific interest. These are derived from positive lexical bases – интересничък adj, n., sg., [interesnichak, “interesting-DIM”], хубавичък adj, n., sg., [hubavichak “pretty-DIM”], приятничък adj, n., sg., [priyatnichak, “pleasant-DIM’”]. The communicative function of such diminutives is not to indicate objective lowering of the property possessed by an entity, but to indicate disinterested attitude on the part

Lexis, 7 | 2012 191

of the speaker. Typically they are used in confirming an evaluation offered by the interlocutor. The adjectives which tolerate diminution of this type are neutral or occupy the pivotal region as defined by Cruse [1986: 205] or ones which name the possession of the property to a neutral degree. Adjectives expressing a point of satiation of the property in either the negative or positive poles do not permit diminution. *завладяващичък adj, n., sg., [zavladyavashtichak, “captivating-DIM”]; * опияняващичък adj, n., sg., [opiyanyavashichak, metaphoric extension of intoxicating meaning “extremely pleasant and intriguing-DIM”].

53 Positive adjectives with diminutive affixes usually function as boosters – they reinforce the positive features of the denotatum via the connotations of positive evaluation traditionally associated with diminutive affixes. This results from the prototypical concept ‘small/child’ which many among whom Wierzbicka (1984) and Jurafsky (1996) recognize as central for diminutive affixes. However, in a carnivalesque manner such positive adjectives can acquire ironic negative marking and become dysphemistic, when the speaker purposefully avoids acknowledging their negative attitude to the denotatum. By utilizing diminution the speaker inadvertently achieves the effect of subtle awareness in the interactants of a strong negative attitude which might be perceived as insulting or merely humorously deprecating . Хубавичък adj, n., sg., [hubavichak, “pretty-DIM”] – can mean extremely nice or ugly. Such dysphemistic euphemistic diminutives (which they may become only when not used in communication with children) friends usually imply dismissive deprecation or ironically feigned ‘approval’. As has become obvious, dimunition in Bulgarian has a reserved place in the appraisal system executed via X-phemisation. We are far away from having understood the inticacies of X-phemistic dimunition in terms of its complex rhetoric. As Kryk-Kastovsky [2000: 173] aptly summarizes, [D]iminution is a much more complex and multifarious process than has been believed so far. Languages whose word formation rules allow an almost unlimited derivation of diminutives are characterised by a high degree of semantic and pragmatic complexity.

54 Amidst this complexity Sáenz [1999] elaborates two central metonymic transfers which associate emotional attitudes with conceptualizations of the denotata of diminutives and indicate their rhetoric potential for encoding contradictory stance positions: a) smallness via its conceptually contiguous manageability when ascribed to entities renders them more likeable; b) the possibility to ignore small entities due to their perceived innocuousness renders them unpleasant. Along this cline between adorable and repulsive, dimunition challenges the creativity of humans as rhetors by offering ample resources for carefully grading attitudinal stances in every instance of language- mediated interaction.

7. Concluding remarks

55 X-phemisms function as communication adaptation strategies which stem from the conscious discursive positioning of the speaker in relation to interactants and entities spoken about. They are not simply cross-varietal synonyms – they always add the dimension of affect and thus constitute neo-semanticisms, not simply synonyms with differential sociological or stylistic effect – they encode the affect dimension and it becomes part of their multidimensional semantic constitution in the process of

Lexis, 7 | 2012 192

subsequent lexicalization. They usually involve low transparency as they display morphotactic or morphosemantic complexity and thus require active involvement on the part of both interactants. Most are figurative in the sense defined by Kövecses16 [2008: 380] – they are not direct names, but are rather derived metaphtonymically. As an active, dynamic, contextually modeled multidimensional process X-phemisation can be approached from a variety of perspectives, not all of which would be readily identified as strictly linguistic. In the present paper the focus within the multifaceted X-phemisation process was on the involved re-conceptualization of the denotata with an implied evaluative recalibration which renders the overall result X-phemistic no matter if X-phemisation results from purposeful communicative behavior or is an inadvertent and accompanying side-effect of a linguistic/social gaffe.

56 Three types of language independent factors play significant roles in motivating and guiding creativity in X-phemisation processes – ecological, experiential and cognitive motivation. It is difficult to draw an analytically significant distinction between experiential and cognitive motivation in X-phemisation as the two are closely related, so cognitive was used as a blanket term, with no detailed discrimination being specified between cognitive and experiential motivation for X-phemisms. The ecological motivation behind X-phemisms is captured in their unique socio-cultural functions within the appraisal system of languages and their stance-taking properties. Being inferentially overpotent, X-phemisms invite a complex process of alignment, which involves creativity both on the side of the speaker and on the side of the hearer. From the point of view of the speaker, the choice of the expression provides “predictive control”, as elaborated by Schneider [2004: 64]: [w]e group things into categories because we expect that the things within a given category will be similar in some ways and different in others from things alien to the category. This gives us predictive control over the environment, a leg up in deciding on appropriate behavior.

57 For the hearer, this is an invitation to go beyond the stereotypical framing of the denotatum and engage in situationally tailored reframing. In this respect, as indisputable appraisal effect agents X-phemisms provide a rich area for further research in the complexity of appraisal as permeating the lexical units, not only the systems of the lexicogrammar.

58 X-phemisation is in its greater part recruited for the encoding of implicit attitude, i.e. utterances in which attitudinal assessment cannot be directly and overtly questioned and this is what makes X-phemisms such powerful appraisal resources. X-phemisms are vents for the conceptual creativity and the socio-emotive sensitivities of humans. The significance of findings associated with their study far outweighs the complexities in their research.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 193

BIBLIOGRAPHY

AGHA Asif, “Ideologies and practices of identity. Comment on Bucholz”: http://language- culture.binghamton.edu/reviews/symposium7/agha.html n.d.

ALLAN Keith and Kate, Forbidden Words: Taboo and the Censoring of Language, Cambridge, BURRIDGE Cambridge University Press, 2006.

ALLAN Keith and BURRIDGE Kate, “Raising Gooseflesh: ‘Dirty’ Words and Language Change” in Latrobe Vol. 5, 1992, at http://arrow.latrobe.edu.au:8080/vital/access/manager/Repository/ latrobe:33039?exact=title%3A%22La+Trobe+working+papers+in+linguistics.+Volume+5+ %281992%29%22 (accessed April 2011)

ALLAN Keith and BURRIDGE Kate, “Euphemism, Dysphemism and Cross-varietal synonymy”, 1988, at http://arrow.latrobe.edu.au:8080/vital/access/manager/Repository/latrobe:33025? exact=title%3A%22La+Trobe+working+papers+in+linguistics.+Volume+1+%281988%29%22 (accessed August 2010)

ALLAN Keith and BURRIDGE Kate, Euphemism and Dysphemism: Language Used as Shield and Weapon, USA, Oxford University Press, 1991.

BACHE Carl, “Constraining conceptual integration theory: Levels of blending and disintegration”, Journal of Pragmatics, Vol. 37 (10), Elsevier B.V. 2005: 1615–1635.

BARR Dale and KEYSAR Boaz, “Making Sense of How We Make Sense: Tha Paradox of Egocentrism in Language”, in COLSTON Herbert and KATZ Albert (Eds.), Figurative Language Comprehension: Social and Cultural Influences. Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum, 2005: 21-41.

BEAUGRANDE Robert de, “Poetry and the ordinary reader: A study in literary response”, Empirical Studies in the Arts, Vol. 3, 1985: 1-21.

BLACK Max, Models and metaphors: Studies in language and philosophy, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1962.

BLACK Max, “More about Metaphor”, in ORTONY Andrew (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979.

BLUMENTRITT Tracie and HEREDIA Roberto, “Stereotype processing and non-literal language”, in COLSTON Herbert and KATZ Albert (Eds.), Figurative Language Comprehension: Social and Cultural Influences, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2005: 261-281.

BOLINGER Dwight, Language – The Loaded Weapon: The use and abuse of language today, London and New York: Longman, 1980.

BÜHLER Karl, Theory of Language: The representational function of language, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2011. [1934/1982; this edition translated by Donald Goodwin and Achim Eschbach]

CARTER Ronald, Language and Creativity.The Art of Common Talk, London and New York: Routledge, 2004.

CHAMIZO DOMÍNGUEZ Pedro, “Some Thesis on Euphemisms and Dysphemisms”, in Zeszytynaukowe Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego Seria Filologiczna 25, Studia Anglica Resoviensia, Vol. 3, 2005: 9-16.

CHOMSKY Noam, Rules and Representations, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1980.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 194

CLARK Herbert and HAVILAND Susan, “Comprehension and the given-new contract”, in FREEDLE Roy, (Ed.), Discourse production and comprehensio, Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing, 1977: 1-40.

COLSTON Herbert and KATZ Albert (Eds.), Figurative Language Comprehension: Social and Cultural Influences, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2005.

CRESPO FERNÁNDEZ Eliecer, “Sex-Related Euphemism and Dysphemism: An Analysis in Terms of Conceptual Metaphor Theory”, ATLANTIS. Journal of the Spanish Association of Anglo-American Studies, Vol. 30.2, 2008: 95–110.

CRUSE Alan, Lexical Semantics, Cambridge: ‘Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics’, Cambridge University Press, 1986.

Dnevnik newspaper 23 March 2010 at http://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/ 2010/03/23/877570_zadurjani_sa_shestima_ot_lapachite_nanesli_shteti_za/

DRESSLER Wolfgang and MERLINI-BARBARESI Lavinia, Morphopragmatics: diminutives and intensifiers in Italian, German, and other languages, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1994.

DU BOIS John “Stance and Consequence”, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association, New Orleans, 2002.

DURANTI Alessandro, Linguistic Anthropology, Cambridge: Cambrdige University Press, 1997.

EVANS Vyvyan, “Towards a cognitive compositional semantics: An overview of LCCM Theory”, in MAGNUSSON Ulf, KARDELA Henryk and GLAZ Adam (Eds.), Further Insights into Semantics and Lexicography, Lublin, Poland: Wydawnictwo UMCS, 2007: 11-42.

EVANS Vyvyan, How words mean: Lexical Concepts, Cognitive Models and Meaning Construction, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

EVANS Vyvyan, “Figurative Language Understanding”, Cognitive Linguistics, Vol. 21.4, 2010: 601-662.

FAUCONNIER Gilles and TURNER Mark, The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities, New York: Basic Books, 2002.

FAUCONNIER Gilles, Mappings in thought and language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

GEERAERTS Dirk, Theories of Lexical Semantics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

GIBBS Raymond, Jr., The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding, Cambridge: Cambridge Univeristy Press, 1994.

GIORA Rachel, “Understanding figurative and literal language: the Graded Salience Hypothesis”, Cognitive Linguistics 7.1, 1997: 183-206.

GIORA Rachel, “Optimal innovation and pleasure”, in STOCK Olivero, Carlo STRAPPARVA and Anton NIJHOLT (Eds.), Processing of The April Fools’ Day Workshop on Computational Humour. April 2002, Trento, Italy: ITC-itst, 2002: 11-28.

GIORA Rachel, On Our Mind: Salience Context and Figurative Language, New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.

GLUCKSBERG Sam, Understanding Figurative Language: From Metaphors to Idioms, Oxford: ‘Oxford Psychology Series’, Oxford University Press, 2001.

GÓMEZ Casas, “Towards a new approach to the linguistic definition of euphemism”, Language Sciences 31, 2009: 725–739.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 195

GOOSSENS Louis, “Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action”, in DIRVEN René and Ralf PÖRINGS, (Eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2003: 349-377.

GROZDANOVA Lilyana, Bulgarian-English Slang Dictionary, USA, McNeil Technologies, Dunwoody Press, 2010.

HALFORD Graeme and WILSON William, “Creativity, Relational Knowledge, and Capacity: Why Are Humans So Creative?”, in DARTNALL Terry (Ed.), Creativity, Cognition, and Knowledge: An Interaction, Westport, CT: Praeger, 2002: 153-180.

HALLIDAY Michael, An Introduction to Functional Grammar, London: Edward Arnold, 1994 (second edition).

HALLIDAY Michael, Learning how to mean, London: Edward Arnold, 1975.

HAMILTON David, STROESSNER Steven and DRISCOLL Denise, “Social cognition and the study of stereotyping”, in DEVINE Patricia, HAMILTON David and OSTROM Thomas (Eds.), Social cognition: Impact on social psychology, San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1994: 291-321.

HOLDER R. W., How not to Say What You Mean: A Dictionary of Euphemisms, New York: Oxford University Press, 2007 (4th edition) [1987].

HOUGAARD Anders, “Conceptual disintegration and blending in interactional sequences: A discussion of new phenomena, processes vs. products, and methodology”, Journal of Pragmatics, Vol. 37.10, 2005: 1653-1685.

HUANG Mimi, “Solving the riddle of metaphor: A slience-based model for metaphorical interpretation in a discourse context”, in EVANS Vyvyan and POURCEL Stéphanie (Eds.), New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: ‘Human Cognitive Processing” 24, John Benjamins, 2009: 107-126.

JURAFSKY Daniel, “Universal Tendencies in the Semantics of the Diminutive”, Language, 72 (3): 533-578.

KATZ Albert, “Discourse and Socio-cutural Factors in Understanding Nonliteral Language” in COLSTON Herbert and KATZ Albert (Eds.), Figurative Language Comprehension: Social and Cultural Influences, Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum, 2005: 183-207.

KEARNEY Richard, The Wake of Imagination: Ideas of Creativity in Western Culture, London: HarperCollins, 1998.

KOESTLER Arthur, The Act of Creation, London: Hutchinson, 1964.

KÖVECSES Zoltán, “Metaphor and Emotion”, in GIBBS Raymond W, Jr. (Ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008: 380-396.

KRYK-KASTOVSKY Barbara, “Diminutives: An Interface of word-formation, semantics and pragmatics”, in DALTON-PUFFER Christiane and RITT Nikolaus (Eds.), Words: Structure, meaning, function. A festschrift for Dieter Kastovsk, Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2000: 165-174.

LAKOFF George and TURNER Mark, More than cool reason, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989.

LAKOFF George and JOHNSON Mark, Metaphors we live by, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.

LANGLOTZ Andreas, Idiomatic Creativity: A Cognitive Linguistic Model of Idiom-Representations and Idiom- Variation in English, Amsterdam and Phildelphia: John Benjamins, 2006.

LIPPMANN Walter, Public Opinion, New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1922.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 196

MALRIEU Jean Pierre, Evaluative Semantics: Cognition, Language, and Ideology, London: Routledge, 1999.

MARTIN James, “Beyond Exchange: APPRAISAL Systems in English”, in HUNSTON Susan and THOMPSON Geoffrey (Eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, 142-178.

MARTIN James and WHITE Peter, The Language of Evaluation. Appraisal in English, Hampshire and New York: Pelgrave McMillan, 2005.

MCGLONE Matthew, “Concepts as Metaphors”, in GLUCKSBERG Sam (Ed.), Understanding Figurative Language, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001: 90-107.

MCGLONE Michael, GLUCKSBERG Sam and CACCIARI Cristina, “Semantic productivity and idiom comprehension”, Discourse Processes, Vol. 17, 2, 1994: 169-90.

MILLER Arthur, “Historical and contemporary perspectives on stereotyping”, in MILLER Arthur, (Ed.), In the eye of the beholder: Contemporary issues in stereotyping, New York: Praeger, 1982: 1-40.

MUNAT Judith, “Creation or recreation? Word formation processes and word creation strategies as components of lexical creativity”, in SORLIN Sandrine (Ed.), Inventive Linguistics, Montpellier: Presses Universitaires de la Méditerranée, 2010: 147-157.

MUNAT Judith (Ed.), Lexical Creativity, Texts and Contexts, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2007.

OCHS Elinor (Ed.) Text 9 (1) (special issue on the pragmatics of affect), 1989.

OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY, Second edition on CD-ROM Version 4.0. Oxford University Press, 2009.

PANTHER Klaus-Uwe and THORNBURG Linda, “Metonymy”, in GEERAERTS Dirk and CUYCKENS Hubert (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, New York: Oxford University Press, 2007: 236-263.

PANTHER Klaus-Uwe and THORNBURG Linda, “Introduction: On the nature of conceptual Metonymy”, in PANTHER Klaus-Uwe and THORNBURG Linda (Eds.), Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2003: 1–20.

PFAFF Kerry, GIBBS Raymond and JOHNSON Michael, “Metaphor in using and understanding euphemism and dysphemism”, in Applied Psycholinguistics 18, 1997: 59–83.

PINKER Steven, The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature, London: Penguin Books, 2008 [2007].

REDDY Michael, “The conduit metaphor - a case of frame conflict in our language about language” in ORTONY Andrew, (Ed.), Metaphor and thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979: 284-297.

RICHARDS Ivor, The Philosophy of Rhetoric, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1936.

RICOEUR Paul, “The creativity of language”, in BURKE Lucy, CROWLEY Tony and GIRVIN Alan (Eds.), The Routledge Language and Cultural Theory Reader, London: Routledge, 2000 [1981]: 340-344.

RUIZ DE MENDOZA Ibáñez Franscico “Some notes on the grammatical status of the Spanish –ito/-illo diminutives and their translation in English”, Pragmalingüística 3-4, Universidad de Cádiz, 1995-1996: 155-172.

SÁENZ Francisco, “Conceptual Interaction and Spanish Diminutives” in C. I. F., XXV, 1999: 173-190.

SCHNEIDER David, The Psychology of Stereotyping, New York: Guilford Press, 2004.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 197

SILVERSTEIN Michael, “Shifters, Linguistic Categories, and Cultural Description”, in BASSO Keith and SELBY Henry (Eds.), Meaning in Anthropology, Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. 1976: 11–56.

SINGER Marshal, Perception and Identity in Intercultural Communication, Yarmouth, ME., Intercultural Press, 1998.

SLOBIN Dan, (2005) Thinking for speaking. In QUALIA 2, jaargang 2. at http://ihd.berkeley.edu/ Slobin-Language%20&%20Cognition/%282005%29%20Slobin%20- %20Thinking%20for%20speaking%20%28Qualia%20interview%29.pdf (accessed March 2011)

SMITH Eliot and SEMIN Gün, “Situated social cognition”, Current Directions In Psychological Science, Vol., 16, 2007: 132-135.

TANNEN Deborah, “Frames Revisited”, Qaderni di Semantica, Vol.VII/1, 1986: 106-109.

TENDAHL Markus, A Hybrid Theory of Metaphor: Relevance Theory and Cognitive Linguistics, Palgrave: Macmillan, 2009.

THIBAULT Paul, Brain, Mind, and the Signifying Body: An Ecosocial Semiotic Theory, London and New York: Continuum 2004.

TOMASELLO Michael, Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition, Harvard University Press, 2003a.

TOMASSELO Michael, “The Key Is Social Cognition”, in GENTNER Dedre and GOLDIN-MEDOW Susan (Eds.), Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought, Cambridge, Massachusetts, the MIT Press, 2003b: 47-57.

WIERZBICKA Anna, “Diminutives and depreciatives: Semantic representation for derivational categories”, Quaderni di Semantica, Vol. 5, 1984: 123-130.

WIERZBICKA Anna, Cross-cultural Pragmatics. The Semantics of Human Interaction, Berlin: ‘Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 53’, Mouton de Gruyter, 1991.

WIERZBICKA Anna, “Back to definitions: Cognition, semantics, and lexicography, Lexicographica, Vol. 8, 1992: 146- 174.

YEH Wenchi and BARSALOU Lawrence, “The Situated nature of concepts”, American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 119, 3, 2006: 349-384.

ZAWADA Brita, “Linguistic creativity from a cognitive perspective”, Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, Vol. 24 (2), South Africa, NISC Pty Ltd 2006: 235-254.

ZLATEV Jordan, Situated Embodiment: Studies in the Emergence of Spatial Meaning. Gotab: Stockholm, 1997.

ЗИДАРОВА Ваня, (2008) Деминутиви и лексикална номинация (at http://www.belb.net/ personal/zidarova/deminutiva_lex.htm). [Zidarova, V. (2008) Diminutives and Lexical Nomination) (accessed May 2010).

ЗИДАРОВА Ваня, (2005) Лексикализация на деминутивите в съвременния български книжовен език. In Стоянова, Ю, Дачева, Г., Павлова, Н., Михайлова, Н и Миланов, В. (съст.) Littera Scripta Manet. Сборник в чест на 65-годишнината на проф. дфн Василка Радева. София, Университетско издателство „Св. Климент Охридски“. [Stoyanova, Yu., Dacheva, G., Pavlova, N., Mihayilova, N. and Milanov, V. (eds.) Papers in Honour of Vasilka Radeva. Sofia: Univeristy Publishing House “St. Kliment Ohridski”]: 601-608.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 198

ПЕРНИШКА Емилия, (ред.) Речник на новите думи в българския език, София, Наука и изкуство, 2010 [PERNISHKA Emiliya, (Ed.), Rechnik na novite dumi v balgarskiya ezik, Dictionary of new words in Bulgarian, Sofia, Nauka i izkustvo, 2010].

ПЕРНИШКА Емилия, (ред.) Речник на новите думи и значения в българския език, София, Наука и изкуство, 2010 [PERNISHKA Emiliya, (Ed.), Rechnik na novite dumi I znacheniya v balgarskiya ezik, Dictionary of new words and meanings in Bulgarian, Sofia, Nauka i izkustvo, 2001].

NOTES

1. Stance is used here as defined by Du Bois “a public act by a social actor, achieved through overt means, of evaluation, positioning, and alignment, with respect to any salient dimension of the sociocultural landscape” [Dubois 2002]. This definition is harmonious with Martin’s [Martin 2001] understanding of the interplay between evaluation and appraisal and the taking of stance in relation to these. 2. Kress [2010: 49] distinguishes between representation and communication as two distinct social practices. Both are involved in linguistic interaction. Rhetoric is oriented toward the social or political dimensions of communication, while design is oriented to the semiotic, i.e. representational dimension of interaction. In choosing a specific lexical item a speaker commits his/herself to an “aptness” consideration, how fit a given signifier is to be the expression of a particular meaning. A lexical item is a perceptual prompt offered by the speaker for the way a referent is to be approached. It functions as a blue-print for (re)arranging the properties of the referent in terms of salience. Thus the invitation for rearrangement functions as indicator of stance-taking. 3. Metaphtonymy is used as a cover term to name processes of conceptual (and/or referential) metaphors and metonymies. It was coined by Goossens and defined as “a mere cover term which should help to increase our awareness of the fact that metaphor and metony can be intertwined” [Goossens 2003: 350]. 4. Rhetoric and design here refer to Gunther Kress’ social semiotic approach to contemporary communication [Kress 2010: 26], according to which “the world of meaning … is marked by instability and provisionality, every event of communication is unpredictable in its form, structure and its ‘unfolding’”. “The rhetor as maker of a message now makes an assessment of all aspects of the communicational situation” [ibid.] and resorts to designing the presentation of meaning intentions and knowledge by exploiting all available semiotic resources, where menaing and forms mutually permeate one another. 5. In Silverstein’s indexiality approach to culture “the communicative force of culture works not only in representing aspects of reality, but also in connecting individuals, groups, situations, objects with other individuals, groups, situations, and objects or, more generally, with other contexts” [Duranti 1997: 35]. 6. According to Agha (n.d.) speech is personified in the sense that variations in lexical repertoire are linked to social classifications of interactants. “Once speech is personified in this way the deployment of particular slang repertoires makes possible both the performance of normative identities and the tropic manipulation of speaker persona through various types of displaced usages” [Agha n.d.: 5]. In this way the emergent speaker-addressee alignment projected by a speaker indexes the listener as well. 7. “Onomasiological (or ‘lexicogenetic’) mechanisms, conversely, involve changes through which a concept, regardless of whether or not it has previously been lexicalized, comes to be expressed by a new or alternative lexical item.” [Geeraerts 2010: 26]

Lexis, 7 | 2012 199

8. This conception is fully in keeping with Gómez’s (2009) attenuation and reinforcement developments of alternative conceptualizations of interdicted areas in euphemisation. In addition to the reinforcement of forbidden areas in dysphemisms, in the present paper it is claimed that dysphemistic reconceptualization is possible in cases of conceptual orthophemy (i.e. attitudinally neutral areas). 9. By lexicalization here is meant the packaging of conceptual content via a lexical concept into a conventionalized lexical expression (as opposed to encoding via grammatical means, discourse structuring or other more elaborate expressive strategies). 10. As Evans [2007], [2009] insists lexical concepts are “semantic units conventionally associated with linguistic forms” and are an essential part of a user’s mental grammar [Evans 2007: 11]. They are relativised with respect to conceptual knowledge structures (cognitive models). Besides its “encoded content” each lexical concept evokes the execution of well-entrenched mental routines of accessing external knowledge structures with different degree of entrenchment, which constitutes the lexical concept’s unique profile. In situated use the lexical concept acquires contextually induced informational characterization. 11. “Meaning-making activity is a trajectory-in-time… It [meaning] cannot be reduced to the semiotic forms that are co-deployed in a given meaning-making activity or their physical- material substrate. Nor is it the object text that may result from this activity. Rather, the locus of meaning is the trajectory. It is useful to consider meaning-making activity as a semiogenetic trajectory that reaches back in time as well as forwards into the future. The relevant viewpoint here is that of the selves who jointly engage in such activities and the perspectives that they implicate” [Thibault 2004: 3- 4]. 12. “Instructions” is meant here as shorthand for Harder’s model of meaning as input or the instructioinal perspective on linguistic interaction, according to which “words are designed to prod, or prompt, the addressee to carry out interpretative activities of a specifiable kind” [Harder 2009: 15; emphasis added]. 13. As one of Domínguez’s theses states [2005: 10] an X-phemism “cannot be replaced by any other word and still achieve the same cognitive effects.” 14. “[T]he representational implement of language ranks among the indirect means of representing, it is a medial implement in which certain intermediaries play a part as ordering factor ” [Bühler 2011: 171; emphasis in the original]. By the (re)presentational side of communication is understood the ability of lexical items to invite and evoke different ‘viewings’ of a referent. In the parlance of LCCM theory (Evans [2009]) the representational dimension relates to the possibility of one and the same cognitive model to be accessed by different lexical concepts with different properties and routes of access activated. 15. Reference is made here to the proverbial positive evaluation associated with diminutives, captured in Wierzbicka’s contention that “The central place of warmth, of affection, in Slavic as well as in Mediterranean cultures, is reflected, among other things, in the rich system of expressive derivation, and in particular in the highly developed system of diminutives.” [Wierzbicka 1991: 50] 16. In describing the nature of emotional language Kövecses [2008: 380] defines it as “highly figurative; that is, it is dominated by metaphorical and metonymic expressions.” For him figurativity is measured by the degree of metaphtonymisation.

Lexis, 7 | 2012 200

ABSTRACTS

X-phemisation constitutes a powerful appraisal resource which weaves the ethnopragmatic texture of a culture. X-phemisms constitute a special type of non-literal language which capitalizes on all other possible types of non-literal language and the creative exploitation of phonetic-based word play. The main aim in the present paper is to elaborate on a hypothesis of X-phemisation via lexical extension (recruitment) as involving the mechanism of nominal metaphor at the conceptual level. This mechanism involves reframing of the vehicle (target) denotatum with an accompanying rearrangement in salience rating in the arising ad hoc concept resulting from blending the frames of the topic and vehicle denotata. This stereotype-violating mechanism reveals the power of human ingenuity at the deepest level of linguistic creativity. The ad hoc X-phemistic concept blends in an axiologically motivated manner the contextually relevant features of both denotata in a salience-constrained perceptually and evaluatively ordered set of features, triggered by the initial anchoring via the topic denotatum evoked by the actual lexical expression (the vehicle lexical concept). X‑phemisms (from fully lexicalized ones to highly innovative/artful ones) and X‑phemisation as an epiphenomenal occurrence in online linguistic interaction are seen as constituting a special subsystem in the appraisal resources of a language. This subsystem has special status with its high creativity and figurativity. Figurativity captures simultaneously the emergent, dynamic nature of X-phemisms and their grounding in stable conceptual metaphoric structures (in terms of strategies for their production/ comprehension). Despite the of X-phemism types (both in terms of their overall pragmatic effect) and the nature of their origin (resulting from substitution, lexical creativity, metaphoric transfers, phonetic innovation, word play, etc.), X‑phemisms constitute a complex uniform catgory whose complexity can only be adequately studied in the framework of interactional cognitive studies, where the emotional brain is also subsumed under ‘cognitive’.

INDEX

Keywords: recruitment X-phemisms, reframing, stereotypes, appraisal resources

AUTHOR

ALEXANDRA BAGASHEVA

Sofia University, Department of British and American Studies [email protected]

Lexis, 7 | 2012