LANGUAGE CHANGE: IDENTITY MANAGEMENT AND THE BOUNDARIES OF ACCEPTABLE VERBAL CONDUCT IN SCHOOL SETTINGS
Lynn Downes BA primary education, BA pre-primary education, BTTC, Master of Education, Inclusive Education, QUT, Master of Education, TESOL, QUT. CELTA, UQ
Principal Supervisor: Associate Professor Margaret Kettle
Associate Supervisor: Professor Gordon Tait
Associate Supervisor: Dr Peter O’Brien
Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Office of Education Research Faculty of Education Queensland University of Technology May 2019.
This page has been intentionally left blank
“Fuck is a sacred word?” you ask.
Fucking A right it is. It is a word that one should not utter because it is such a terrible word of epic proportions, a word whose mere utterance is a sin. A fucking sin, can you imagine? That’s how fucking important fuck is. And because it’s a sin, using it is so enticing to the young that when they hear it for the first time they are spellbound. And when they use it for the first time, that F and the U bang so deliciously against the hard K, ripping through the lips, it’s as if a caged animal has been unleashed. They feel that they have taken that first mighty step toward adulthood. Some of them may even repeat it over and over, testing to see if God will strike them down for saying it. It’s a word you don’t use in polite conversation or in front of your parents, which makes it even more glorious when chewed up and spit out in the schoolyard or in the bowels of the basement. (Black, 2009, p. vii)
Language change: Identity management and the boundaries of acceptable verbal conduct in school settings i
Keywords
Behavioural school policy, boundaried language, Critical Discourse Analysis, De Saussure, discourse, dysphemism, euphemism, exclusion, Fairclough, Foucault, -IST language, language change, suspensions, swearing, taboo, taboo language, taboo words, verbal conduct, verbal misconduct.
ii Language change: Identity management and the boundaries of acceptable verbal conduct in school settings
Abstract
Change in the prevalence and acceptability of swearing and taboo language relates to language change but is also relevant to schools and their practices of student suspension on the grounds of verbal misconduct. Queensland Department of Education data show that verbal and non-verbal misconduct was the second highest reason for suspensions and exclusions in Queensland government schools from 2008 to 2017. Limited data is available for similar incidents of verbal misconduct in non-government schools, however, social referencing of these linguistic practices suggest verbal misconduct is prevalent in these contexts.
This study was interested in changing language use and norms in society, especially around taboo language and swearing in secondary school settings. Given the high prevalence of suspensions and exclusions based on verbal misconduct, the study aimed to investigate how key institutional stakeholders, particularly teachers and school leaders, define language transgressions and engage with the policies around these issues. This Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) used snowball sampling to garner accounts of 19 teachers and school leaders from 14 secondary schools in south east Queensland.
Individual interviews generated data which were analysed through a Foucaultian lens of power and governmentality, employing Fairclough’s approach to CDA. The key findings of the study indicate that policy surrounding language infringement is ambiguous; teachers and school leaders use personal parameters in defining acceptability standards and responses to taboo language and swearing, however, they are facilitating the change in swearing and taboo language by disciplining language of difference, such as racist, sexist, ableist or -IST language more.
In addition, the study evidences change in use of certain words by students. This corresponds with the literature on swearing and taboo language change. Findings also reveal that participants are finding that taboo language and swearing use has increased over time, being more frequently used with less effective consequences. Findings also suggest that consistency is lacking with references made to variance and difference amongst specific teacher subjectivities. Difference and division are also apparent in gendered experiences and expectations of participants.
Language change: Identity management and the boundaries of acceptable verbal conduct in school settings iii
These findings reveal that if verbal misconduct continues to be a punishable behaviour then policy around language transgressions need to be more explicit with more dialogue required between teachers, students, and school leaders about language, its changes, and social power.
iv Language change: Identity management and the boundaries of acceptable verbal conduct in school settings
Table of Contents
Keywords ...... ii Abstract ...... iii Table of Contents ...... v List of Figures ...... viii List of Tables ...... ix List of Abbreviations ...... x Statement of Original Authorship ...... xi Acknowledgements ...... xii Chapter 1: Society, Schools, and Language ...... 1 1.1 Preface ...... 1 1.2 Language and the School Environment ...... 6 1.3 The Broader Language Environment ...... 9 1.3.1 A General Acceptance ...... 9 1.3.2 A Certain Divide ...... 11 1.4 Aims, Objectives, and Research Questions ...... 12 1.5 Significance and Scope ...... 13 1.6 Thesis Outline ...... 14 Chapter 2: Literature in the Field ...... 17 2.1 The Language ...... 18 2.1.1 Taboo and the Connection with Language ...... 18 2.1.2 Swearing and Taboo Language Change through the Ages ...... 22 2.1.3 Euphemism, Dysphemism, and Orthophemism ...... 29 2.1.4 Why People Swear? The Pragmatics of Swearing ...... 31 2.1.5 Swearing Now and the Future: Changing Taboos and Changing Words ...... 36 2.2 Schools and Swearing Policies ...... 40 2.2.1 Behaviour Policy in Australia and Queensland – A Short History ...... 42 2.2.2 Behaviour Policies in Schools ...... 43 2.3 Teacher Response ...... 45 2.4 Summary ...... 46 Chapter 3: Theoretical Perspective ...... 49 3.1 The Toolbox ...... 49 3.2 The Order of Discourse, Discursive Formations, and the Institution ...... 52 3.2.1 Discursive Formations ...... 57 3.3 De Saussure and the Sign ...... 58 3.4 Pragmatics – Context and Meaning: Aligning Foucault and De Saussure ...... 62 3.5 Truth and Power ...... 64 3.6 Ethics, Morality, and the Self ...... 68 3.6.1 The Subject ...... 68
Language change: Identity management and the boundaries of acceptable verbal conduct in school settings v
3.6.2 Ethics and the Self ...... 70 3.6.3 Care and Construction of the Self ...... 71 3.7 Foucault and Fairclough ...... 73 3.8 Summary ...... 74 Chapter 4: Research Methodology ...... 75 4.1 Research Aims and Questions ...... 75 4.2 Research Design ...... 76 4.2.1 Research Paradigm ...... 76 4.2.2 Critical Discourse Analysis ...... 78 4.3 Research Methods ...... 84 4.3.1 Snowball Sampling ...... 84 4.3.2 Participants ...... 89 4.3.3 Interviews ...... 92 4.3.4 Policy Documents ...... 98 4.4 Analytic Methods ...... 99 4.4.1 Transcription ...... 99 4.4.2 Analysis Outline ...... 101 4.5 Trustworthiness, Credibility, and Reflexivity ...... 106 4.6 Ethics and Limitations ...... 106 4.7 Summary ...... 108 Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use ...……………………………………………………………….....109 5.1 School Policies ...... 112 5.1.1 Policy Structure and Institutional Language at Government Schools ...... 113 5.1.2 Policy Structure and Institutional Language at Non- Government Schools .... 121 5.2 Policy Engagement and Knowledge of Policy ...... 124 5.2.1 School Leader Engagement and Knowledge of Policy ...... 125 5.2.2 Teacher Engagement and Knowledge of Policy ...... 127 5.3 Institution Edification on School Policy – Setting Boundaries ...... 132 5.4 Policy Engagement and Individual Responses ...... 136 5.4.1 Policy Engagement and Responses - Leader Views ...... 136 5.4.2 Policy Engagement and Responses -Teacher Views ...... 142 5.5 Consistent Boundaries ...... 146 5.5.1 Teacher Practice ...... 147 5.5.2 Administration Practice ...... 151 5.5.3 Teacher and School Leader Language Use ...... 153 5.6 Personal Boundary Parameters ...... 154 5.7 Discussion ...... 158 Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change ..... 163 6.1 Representations of Verbal Misconduct ...... 164 6.1.1 Verbal Misconduct ...... 164 6.1.2 Swearing ...... 171 6.1.3 Taboo Language ...... 174 6.2 Changing Words and Changing Responses ...... 178 6.2.1 Accounts of Changing Student Use ...... 180 vi Language change: Identity management and the boundaries of acceptable verbal conduct in school settings
6.2.2 Personal Trigger Words – Changing Responses ...... 183 6.2.3 Existing and Changing – IST Trigger Words ...... 192 6.2.4 Emerging -IST Trigger Words ...... 205 6.3 Discussion ...... 215 Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use ...... 220 7.1 Offense and Disrespect: Perceptions of Personally Directed Language ...... 221 7.2 Responsibilisation: Teacher at Fault vs ‘Lucky’ Teacher ...... 225 7.3 Changed Responses: Argument is War ...... 227 7.4 Aggression and Fear ...... 231 7.5 Variance and Inconsistency: Dividing Practices ...... 236 7.5.1 PE/MA Teachers and Leaders Swear More ...... 237 7.5.2 Blurred Boundaries ...... 238 7.5.3 Staff Accept more Boundaried Language from Students on the Field ...... 239 7.5.4 Assumed Acceptance in Certain Environs ...... 241 7.5.5 PE Staffrooms ...... 242 7.6 Gender Experiences and Expectation: Dividing Practices ...... 243 7.6.1 Male Legitimation - The Boys’ Club ...... 243 7.6.2 Female Ternary: The Mum, The Bi-polar Bitch or The Incompetent ...... 247 7.6.3 The Staffroom: A Tapestry of Difference and Expectation ...... 251 7.7 Discussion ...... 263 Chapter 8: Implications and Conclusions ...... 267 8.1 Introduction ...... 267 8.2 Discussion ...... 268 8.2.1 Institutional Policy and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use…...... 268 8.2.2 Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change ...... 269 8.2.3 Perceptions and Responses of Institutional Subjects to Boundaried Language use ...... 272 8.3 Limitations ...... 275 8.4 Contributions ...... 276 8.5 Implications and Considerations ...... 281 8.6 Future Directions ...... 283 8.7 Concluding Statement ...... 284 References ...... 285 Appendices ...... 309 Appendix A Table of Terms of Swearing ...... 309 Appendix B Etymology and Change of Swearwords ...... 313 Appendix C Interview Questions ...... 319 Appendix D Participant Demographic Form ...... 322 Appendix E Participant Information Sheet ...... 323 Appendix F Participant Consent Form ...... 326 Appendix G Analysis of Word Usage ...... 328
Language change: Identity management and the boundaries of acceptable verbal conduct in school settings vii
List of Figures
Figure 1.1. Order as a grid system ...... 2 Figure 1.2. Reasons for SDAs in Queensland...... 7 Figure 2.1. Taboo language and swearing – groups and changes ...... 29 Figure 2.2. The decline of zounds and rise of cunt (Bergen, 2016, p. 164)...... 37 Figure 3.1. De Saussure’s semiology...... 61 Figure 3.2. Morality and Ethics...... 71 Figure 4.1. Socio-theoretical approach of CDA...... 80 Figure 4.2. Snowball sampling network connections sociogram...... 86 Figure 4.3. Examples of how the interview questions were designed to align with the thesis questions...... 93 Figure 4.4. Interview script demonstrating options given to participants regarding taboo language...... 97 Figure 4.5. Example of personalising interview questions regarding policy...... 98 Figure.4.6. Transcription symbols (adapted fromWetherell et al., 2001)...... 101 Figure 4.7. Example of tabulation of Department of Education Policies...... 103 Figure 4.8. Initial coding of data...... 104 Figure 4.9. Example of micro coding...... 105 Figure 6.1. Participant responses defining verbal misconduct...... 165 Figure 6.2. Participant response to policy edification by the Department of Education...... 169 Figure 7.1. Participant reflection representations of personally directed boundaried language...... 223 Figure 7.2. Demarcation of the some who use swearing contrasting with the others...... 253 Figure 8.1. The Difference Principle...... 277
viii Language change: Identity management and the boundaries of acceptable verbal conduct in school settings
List of Tables
Table 4.1 Dialectical relations and types of meaning ...... 82 Table 4.2 Participants’ level of experience ...... 90 Table 4.3 Participant diverse teaching and learning environments ...... 91 Table 5.1 Table outlining minor and major problem behaviours from the Responsible Behaviour Plan Example (Queensland Government, 2018d, p. 6) ...... 116 Table 5.2 Behavioural expectations in specific settings as provided in The Example ...... 118 Table 5.3 Institutional language used in The Code, The Guidelines, and The Example ...... 119 Table 5.4 Institutional language used across all government school policies ...... 121 Table 5.5 Institutional language used across all non-government school policies ...... 122 Table 5.6 Discourses present in teacher policy engagement ...... 128 Table 5.7 Teacher classifications regarding policy edification ...... 133 Table 5.8 Seven localised discourses within deficit teacher practice discourse ...... 137 Table 5.9 Contrastive words, phrases and clauses noting difference in teacher responses ...... 148 Table 5.10 Words relating to personal boundaries ...... 154 Table 5.11 Negative words used to describe personal boundaries ...... 155 Table 5.12 Comparatives used to express personal boundaries ...... 156 Table 6.1 Discourses defining verbal misconduct ...... 165 Table 7.1 Examples of expressions directed at participants ...... 222 Table 7.2 Lexicalisations connected to aggression and/or fear ...... 232 Table 7.3 Contrast and difference in Adele’s transcript ...... 233 Table 7.4 Actor representation concerning aggression and aggressive language ...... 235 Table 7.5 Representations of females in school context: The female ternary ...... 248
Language change: Identity management and the boundaries of acceptable verbal conduct in school settings ix
List of Abbreviations
ACMA – Australian Communications and Media Authority
ABC – American Broadcasting Company
ACC – Australian Classification Code
CDA – Critical Discourse Analysis
CTICP – Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice
DoE- Department of Education
FTA – Face Threatening Acts
FCC – Federal Communications Commission
ICSEA – Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage
IPS – Independent Public Schools
MA – Manual Arts
MCEETYA – Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs
MR – Members’ Resources
PE – Physical Education
SDA – School Disciplinary Absence
SMD – Sex, micturition, defecation
x Language change: Identity management and the boundaries of acceptable verbal conduct in school settings Statement of Original Authorship
The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made.
Signature: Lynn Downes QUT Verified Signature
Date: 1 May 2019
Language change: Identity management and the boundaries of acceptable verbal conduct in school settings xi
Acknowledgements
During this very interesting, demanding journey of completing my PhD I often wondered how it would feel to sit and write the acknowledgements. I am at the crossroads now and need to find the words to acknowledge all those who assisted in some way for me to get to this point. If I must be honest, this is the most difficult writing I have had to do to this point.
My first and most significant acknowledgment must go to my three children, Taylor, Graeme, and Sarah. This thesis has been made possible by your support, love, and endless encouragement. In addition, the continuous and useful knowledge of ‘all things technology’ which assisted me in pulling together PowerPoint presentations, sociograms, and many other tables and diagrams that I could draw but you could ‘style with technology’. Thank you also for keeping me ‘in the loop’ with the younger generation and their ways with words, especially all that is taboo. I felt as if I had a key to the secret door by being able to discuss new trends and words with you. I could not have done this without you. I love you and you all inspire me every day.
I acknowledge my supervisors, Associate Professor Margaret Kettle, Professor Gordon Tait, and Dr Peter O’Brien. I thank you for giving me the freedom and independence to learn, explore, and eventually guide this study to completion. Thank you for the debates during meetings about whether or not the workings of the word cunt should be a heading or not – they were very enlightening.
I also acknowledge mentors and colleagues I have connected with over the last three years. To Dr Lisa van Leent, thank you for your professional support and continued guidance. You are an outstanding role model; I have learnt so much from you and aspire to be as professional in my own scholarship. To Deb Brosseuk, thank you for the support, texts, coffees, and friendship - you made a heavy load less stressful. To Grace O’Brien, thank you for understanding my journey and for sharing yours with me -good luck with the last few months. To Kerri Christopher, a friend and ally even if it was from the snow-covered parks of Poland – Thank you.
Lastly, I need to acknowledge my fellow PhD colleagues at QUT, they are too many to mention but thank you all for the rich conversations we shared discussing different
xii Language change: Identity management and the boundaries of acceptable verbal conduct in school settings
theories, methods, future endeavours, different cultures, current affairs, and mostly laughing about our arduous journeys. Thank you and good luck to you all.
Statement of Editorial Acknowledgment
Dr Jo Carr (QUT Accredited Editor) who provided copyediting and proofreading services is acknowledged according to the guidelines laid out in the university- endorsed national Guidelines for editing research theses.
Statement of Scholarship Acknowledgment
The thesis was undertaken with the assistance and support of the Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship.
Language change: Identity management and the boundaries of acceptable verbal conduct in school settings xiii
Chapter 1: Society, Schools, and Language
This sociolinguistic study is about societal change in swearing and taboo language and how institutions, teachers, and school leaders respond to this change, as well as to language-in-use in school contexts. This first chapter begins by structuring the thesis as part of a grid-like structure and explains the separate parts or levels. First key definitions related to swearing and taboo language are presented, followed by description of the current context regarding the use of swearing and taboo language by students and institutional responses including suspensions and exclusions. Section 1.3 then examines taboo language and swearing use in the broader language environment, explaining the occasionally-criticised but frequently-used and -applauded taboo linguistic choices made in society at large. Section 1.4 introduces the aims and research questions of the study, followed in 1.5 by the significance and scope. The chapter concludes with the overall outline of the thesis.
1.1 PREFACE
According to Halliday & Hasan (1989), understanding language includes the study of text, not only that which is written or spoken but that which surrounds the text itself, the environment and non-verbal accompaniments. In addition, of importance is the situation prior to the discourse that relates to it. All these aspects relate to make up the context. The following section of the thesis outlines a description of the context of the study, keeping Halliday and Hasan’s definition in mind.
Additionally, when discussing order, Foucault refers to a grid system, a system of networks and interweaving (Foucault, 1972, 1980). The grid is presented as something which can be viewed through, a representative woven lattice arrangement through which humans can perceive and articulate their world. Language is the system of signs that forms that grid (Alderman, 2016).
Chapter 1: Society, Schools, and Language 1
Figure 1.1. Order as a grid system
Foucault shares:
It’s not a matter of locating everything on one level, that of the event, but of realising that there are actually a whole order of levels of different types of events differing in amplitude, chronological breadth, and capacity to produce effects. (Foucault, 1980, p. 114)
This thesis employs this grid or woven lattice representation to articulate the study in this chapter because several influences and connections combine in achieving an effective outcome, one of those being the context. The study has several different levels, events, amplitudes, and capacities that need to be woven together to structure the thesis and study into a congruent, ordered, end-result. One level or section of the grid is connected to the education system in Queensland, the main institution, as well as to the secondary schools in general but also to the secondary schools that are particular to this study. Another level in the grid system focuses on the policies and how the institutions are structured; an additional level connected to the grid system being the teachers and school leaders that support the institutions, with a further level being the students who integrate these institutions. Again, a different grid level will be society, with its influences, incorporating aspects of different cultural influences, which may structure another part of the grid system. Many other aspects and influences make up the grid of influences on and around this study; but the main point of construction of the grid is language, in this instance taboo language and swearing.
Taboo Language and Swearing As the main point of construction of the grid, the concepts of taboo, taboo language and swearing need to be defined and their relationship with each other
2 Chapter 1: Society, Schools, and Language
established. The literature employs various terms to define language that acquaints itself with the taboo, terms such as swearing, obscenity, blasphemous words, profanity, forbidden words, bad language, cursing, taboo words and many more. A detailed explanation of some of these terms is found in Appendix A. However, following the literature relating to taboo and language presented here and in Chapter 2, the relationship will be defined in this thesis as taboo language being the over-arching term with swearing one of its tools.
First, it is important to define the word taboo. A more thorough discussion will take place on taboo and taboo language in Chapter 2, but for now it is important to note that taboo refers to the type of social custom that prohibits certain behaviour in society (Allan & Burridge, 2006). Each community and society has their own set of taboos and these may change over time. Taboos are linked to normative social behaviour - what is acceptable and what is not in specific settings. To talk about these taboos is usually also unacceptable, therefore in a reactive process the word or language becomes tainted with the taboo and viewed as unacceptable, becoming known as taboo terms, taboo words or taboo language (Bergen, 2016).
The Oxford English dictionary1 (2019) defines the word swearing as the act of taking a formal or solemn oath, as well as uttering a profane oath, usually in anger or with emotion - a swear word. It is a form of linguistic behaviour. The term swearing is used in English, French, and Swedish to define the use of language in the profane2 (See 0) sense as well as that of oath taking, unlike many other languages that have different words for each separate linguistic behaviour (Ljung, 2011). As will be seen in Chapter 2, swearing origins date back to the Middle Ages when religion and oath swearing took an active part in linguistic practices.
Scholars vary in their definitions of swearing, with some suggesting swearing is when a taboo word is used in the literal or non-literal sense (McEnery, 2005; Mohr, 2013; Pinker, 2007). Others suggest swearing is when taboo words are only used in
1 Language, language change, and social language change are positioned as important in this study. Dictionary making conventions with their accompanying additions and omissions throughout history make it possible to document and examine taboo language change and social language change (Burridge, 2016), hence their use in this thesis.
2 To be profane is to treat something religious or sacred with contempt, abuse or irreverence, to behave outside of the religious beliefs and customs and often to be ignorant or intolerant of the specific religious beliefs or order (T. Jay, 1992; Oxford English Dictionary (OED), 2016).
Chapter 1: Society, Schools, and Language 3
the non-literal meaning (Andersson & Trudgill, 1990; Ljung, 2011; Montagu, 1967). According to Ljung (2011), there are four stipulations for an utterance to be considered swearing. First, the utterance needs to contain taboo words. Second, the taboo words need to be used with non-literal meaning. Third, the utterance must qualify as formulaic language in that the utterances are subject to lexical, phrasal and syntactic constraints. Last, swearing is emotive language and therefore the main function should reflect the speaker’s attitude and feelings.
Mohr (2013) utilises the term swearing but covers both positions by suggesting that “swearwords are almost all connotation” (p. 6), being used in the abstract meaning sense, making them emotive and exceeding the taboo. She adds that the strongest most offensive words are almost always used non-literally. The addendum to this however is with the exception to the rule being racial epithets (See Appendix A). An epithet expresses an attribute or quality regarded as characteristic of the person or thing mentioned, however a racial epithet is viewed as a term of abuse (Oxford English Dictionary (OED), 2019). To many, racial epithets will be the most offensive words used (Bergen, 2016), but often many speakers may not view these words as swearing but perhaps as taboo language. The definition of taboo language will be expanded on later. Whether a taboo word is used with its literal or non-literal meaning, it is still viewed as swearing (McEnery, 2005; Pinker, 2007). A word such as fuck, whether used in its connotative (abstract) or denotative (direct meaning) form, will still be dysphemistic3 or offensive to many who hear it.
As illustration, an issue arises regarding taboo words and their ‘aspect of tabooness’ with the debate regarding the taboo word itself or with what it denotes; in other words, the content or form. For example, the word shit and faeces are both words that denote the same thing, namely excrement. To some the word faeces is negative regarding the content, what it denotes, but the form is acceptable, often being used in medical or scientific texts. However, shit also denotes excrement, but the form of the word is viewed by many as a taboo term, or a swearword (Bergen, 2016). This is evident as it has acquired swearword status in many languages (Ljung, 2011).
The debate is exacerbated by the many religious terms that cannot be considered in the same way. Christ may have an acceptable connotation to many and its form may
3 The act of swearing or using a derogatory or unpleasant taboo term (Allan & Burridge, 2006).
4 Chapter 1: Society, Schools, and Language
be seen as acceptable as well; however, the same word may change in form when used in a profane or blasphemous4 manner (See 0), repositioning it into the realm of swearing or ‘tabooness’ (Andersson & Trudgill, 1990). The debate regarding whether a word is a swearword or not, whether it is taboo or not is eloquently resolved by Pinker (2007), who states:
The dividing line between terms that are merely dysphemistic and those that cross over to taboo is mysterious. People treat an unpleasant word as taboo to the extent that everybody else treats it as taboo. (p. 357)
Swearing is a linguistic category in its own right across all languages (Ljung, 2011). The linguistic behaviour involves disrespectful, vulgar and offensive, often four-letter words, and is frequently blasphemous. Swearing is linguistically and grammatically effective in use, imbued with taboo themes and grammatically formulaic. It functions as a clear marker of the speaker’s state of mind and emotive balance, and has many distinct functions (Ljung, 2011).
From the above discussion, it is important to note the differences between swearing and taboo language. The native English speaker will understand the term swearing to mean language used that crosses the taboo divide and which is used to express emotive situations (Ljung, 2011); however, to some, taboo words in and of themselves need not necessarily be recognised as swearing. For example, using the word fuck for most native speakers would be considered swearing, but using the word abbo or fag would not, because the speaker and/or listener may not be linked to the cultural history and emotionally pejorative aspects of the words (Bergen, 2016). However, for some people the terms abbo and fag move into the taboo language realm; these words are more emotive than swearing. Changing taboos and the often- involuntary emotional links to language, as well as the societal taboos that link with language, make these words different to swearing, more emotive, more taboo.
For this reason, the terms taboo language and swearing will be used in this thesis as the terms used to describe linguistic utterances. Taboo language explains the language that represents taboo concepts and judgments and itself is considered socially
4 Blasphemy is the act of swearing or abuse, lack of reverence or showing contempt for God, religious names and symbols. As example, black magic rituals would be categorised as blasphemous (G. Hughes, 2006).
Chapter 1: Society, Schools, and Language 5
and culturally offensive. As culture and social relations change so do taboos and consequently associated language, including swearing terms. Therefore, taboo language is the umbrella term, with swearing being one aspect of taboo language. As mentioned previously, a more thorough review of the literature about taboos and how they are realised in language will be discussed in Chapter 2. In addition, data from this study extend the definitions of the terms (see Chapter 6).
What is said can only be interpreted as what the speaker wants to say — the intent and what the hearer accepts it to be — what is assumed. This need not necessarily be one and the same thing. Ljung (2011) argues that swearing is used to reflect the speaker’s state of mind, but also admits that often the speaker is uncertain as to which feelings have triggered the linguistic behaviour. He adds that the hearer must make his or her own interpretation of the language used with the information available to them at the time. In this regard, many things will determine the outcome of judgment and assumption for the hearer. Adding to this, pragmatic variables such as social-physical setting and speaker-listener relationship, words utilised during the interaction, and tone of voice, all determine the ultimate perceived offensiveness of an interaction (T. Jay, 2009a, 2009b).
1.2 LANGUAGE AND THE SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT
This section outlines the context and the catalyst for the study. By employing the grid system discussed earlier, several levels and layers are evident that make up the woven latticework of the context. The first level focuses on the school environment as part of a larger social language environment.
Disciplinary measures are taken in schools to ensure the safety of staff and students in a safe, supportive and stable learning environment (MCEETYA, 2011; Quin & Hemphill, 2014). A policy-supported means of behaviour management at Australian schools is to withdraw the rights of the student to attend school in the form of suspension and exclusion, also known in Queensland as School Disciplinary Absence (SDA)(Queensland Government, 2018f). The suspension or exclusion is employed as a form of punishment and disciplinary management (Quin & Hemphill, 2014).
6 Chapter 1: Society, Schools, and Language
In Queensland, publicly available data on suspensions and exclusions for government5 schools show a notable number of suspensions and exclusions of students for verbal or non-verbal misconduct6 (Queensland Government, 2018f). From 2008, verbal or non-verbal misconduct has been the second highest reason for short suspensions at schools7. Figure 1.2 shows categories and percentages for 2014-2015 (Queensland Government, 2014).
Figure 1.2. Reasons for SDAs in Queensland.
In 2017 overall incidents for verbal or non-verbal misconduct tallied 15 586 (Queensland Government, 2018e). While data for government schools are available there are limited data available for verbal or non-verbal-related suspensions in the non- government school sector in Queensland. Nonetheless, this study is interested in both government and non-government sectors and the responses of school leaders and teachers to language-related transgressions.
The Department of Education8 requires school principals and staff members of government schools to complete disciplinary reports for any suspensions or
5 In this thesis, all schools under the government banner, including Independent Public Schools (IPS), will be termed government and all other schools will be termed non-government. These non- government schools may include private schools, grammar schools, Catholic schools, and other faith- based or non-denominational schools. 6 No publicly accessible definition is supplied for the terms verbal and non-verbal misconduct. 7 A short suspension can be anything from one to ten days. A long suspension can be anything from eleven to twenty days (Queensland Government, 2018g). 8 The Department of Education has had several name changes since its inception in 1848 (Queensland Government, 2018b). Most relevant to this thesis are changes from 2012. In 2012 the name was changed from The Department of Education and Training to the Department of Education, Training and Employment. In 2015 the name changed again to the Department of Education and Training and in 2017 it changed again to the Department of Education. The documents and references in this thesis will represent the name changes as sourced through different times and name changes.
Chapter 1: Society, Schools, and Language 7
misconduct by students. These reports are completed on the OneSchool website which is only accessible to staff and Department employees. The options provided to teachers and principals are pre-listed, so the staff members need to choose the appropriate terms for the appropriate offence (Queensland Government, 2014). One such term choice is verbal misconduct, which is the focus of this thesis.
The Department of Education (Queensland Government, 2017b) aims to promote a safe environment for both students and teachers so learning can take place, and in so doing have structured a Code of School Behaviour (Queensland Government, 2016d). This policy statement on behaviour does not specifically mention verbal conduct in its arrangement. It does expect students to participate, take responsibility for their own behaviour and learning, demonstrate respect for themselves and others and co-operate with staff and authority figures (Queensland Government, 2016d). The policy states that schools are expected to provide safe and supportive learning environments, provide inclusive and engaging teaching and curriculum, and promote self-management skills amongst other things.
In Queensland, government schools design and uphold their own behavioural plans based on the Code of School Behaviour. These are known as Responsible Behaviour Plans for Students (Queensland Government, 2017b). Schools make decisions about how they structure their plans while ensuring that they comply with the policy’s intent and objectives.
With regard to teachers, The Standard of Practice for Teachers (Queensland Government, 2016e) provides ethical guidance to employees of the Department and clearly states that using disrespectful language which includes swearing that is either directed at or in the presence of students is an inappropriate interaction or behaviour and will breach the professional employee/student relationship. In this document, the Standard of Practice for Teachers, the term swearing is used. The document also provides examples of inappropriate and appropriate interaction (Queensland Government, 2016a). While the term swearing is listed as a breach, no examples are supplied in the guidelines as to what swearing is, what words are considered part of this linguistic behaviour, or what specific linguistic terms are unacceptable. The policy leaves these decisions to the discretion of the teachers and school leaders in the given situation.
8 Chapter 1: Society, Schools, and Language
The decision to suspend a student is dependent on the views of significant persons within the school, usually in leadership or gatekeeping positions such as the principal or deputy principal (Koerin & Miller, 1995). Accordingly, different schools interpret and enact policies in different ways, thus constituting differences in interpretation, practical possibilities, expectations, and constraints, as well as being influenced by values and ethics, not only of the school but of the teachers as well (Ball, Maguire, & Braun, 2012).
1.3 THE BROADER LANGUAGE ENVIRONMENT
The following section outlines another level or layer of the grid that makes up the context of this particular study, that being swearing and taboo language use in the broader language environment. From the above suspension and exclusion data it is clear that students in secondary schools are employing swearing and taboo language in school contexts. It is also clear that the Department and schools view instances of this language use as unacceptable, hence the suspensions and exclusions. Yet, what is occurring in the broader linguascape? Is swearing and taboo language use changing in society? The following review of literature begins with a global perspective, before moving to a more local Australian context. This section describes the way swearing and taboo language use has permeated society, is occasionally criticised, frequently applauded, and often incorporated into speech without reaction. Many swearwords and taboo words are mentioned in this section. Appendix B lists the etymology and change of some of the words which, as will be seen in Chapter 2, demonstrates how the words have changed over time and gives background as to why certain words are deemed taboo and how they situate in the English vernacular today.
1.3.1 A General Acceptance The use of swearing and taboo language is part of the everyday vernacular for people in Australia (Sussex, 2004); swearing and taboo language use are “normative behaviour” in colloquial speech (T. Jay, 2018, p. 108). Society generally is showing a growing tolerance for swearing and taboo language use in some contexts (M. Adams, 2016).
Examples of this tolerance and acceptance of swearing and taboo language use can be seen in some international music and videos released by celebrity musicians. One instance in 2016, Fergie, the internationally renowned music artist, released a
Chapter 1: Society, Schools, and Language 9
single and accompanied music video, ‘M.i.l.f.$’ or milf9 money which incorporated the words ‘fuck’ and ‘motherfucker’, with motherfucker being used not only for its connotative10 meaning, but also the double entendre linking to the ‘milf’ theme, literally ‘fucking a mother’ (Fergie-Vevo, 2016) (See Appendix B).
In this form, namely online videos, music and popular culture, swearing and taboo language use is presented as acceptable and fashionable, with the representatives and their linguistic behaviour being lauded, admired and even celebrated. Adolescents may desire to emulate behaviour and language of socially influential characters (Coyne, Callister, Stockdale, Nelson, & Wells, 2012). Generally, celebrities are not punished or disciplined for using taboo language.
Other examples of swearing and taboo language being used and tolerated in society are seen in television shows, films and online forums. Television shows such as South Park, known for its crude language and irreverent satire, features an episode which embarks on a satirical take on the mirrored image of reality with the use of the word shit and how with overuse it becomes meaningless (See Appendix B). A word counter is present on the screen throughout the entire episode and clocks 162 accounts of the word shit spoken by the characters throughout the episode (E. Adams et al., 2013; K. Williams, 2016). Southpark, the series, inspired a full-length feature film which was awarded a Guinness World Record in 2001 for the most profanity used in an animated film, with a total of 339 swear words and 149 uses of the word fuck (IMDb.com, 2016b). The series has grown and developed since 2001 and includes many other taboo words such as douche, turd and cunt, with fuck, bitch, whore, asshole and dick being favourites of the show (IMDb.com, 2016a) (See Appendix B). The show currently airs internationally and on Australian television channels (Comedy Central, 2019).
The Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice (Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), 2015) regulates the broadcasting content of Australian television and was updated in December 2015. It regulates that Parental Guidance (PG) classification shows can be broadcast at any time while
9 The acronym Milf is defined as ‘Mother/mom I’d like to fuck’ which became popular in the 1990s (Partridge, Dalzell, & Victor, 2013).
10 See Section 1.1 for a detailed explanation of connotation and denotation.
10 Chapter 1: Society, Schools, and Language
Mature (M) classified shows may only be broadcast after 7.30pm or during school days between 12 noon and 3pm. Mature Adult 15 plus (MA15+) shows are only to be broadcast after 8.30pm and not during the daytime slots, but there are exceptions to these rules, for example some live-to-air shows that cannot regulate the linguistic behaviour of television guests.
Another approach to public attitudes to swearing in Australia is evident in the statement from the chief executive of the Australian Advertising Standards Bureau, Fiona Jolly, who explains that the way advertisers decide what language they can use is “to simply throw a bunch of swear words at a group of people every so often to see what offends them”(Ellis & Hogg, 2012). She also reveals that the words tested in 2012 were much stronger than those used in 2007, suggesting the change in social acceptance for certain words. Words tested in 2007 were fat arse and bloody idiot, whereas in 2012 bullshit, a badly bleeped-out fuck and WTF, slang for what the fuck (Ellis & Hogg, 2012), were the words of choice (See Appendix B).
1.3.2 A Certain Divide While there seems to be a change in acceptability standards regarding swearing, a divide is present regarding certain language use. In August 2017, a professional boxing match was staged in the United States (U.S) between the retired boxing world champion, Floyd Mayweather Jr, and the mixed martial arts world champion, Conor McGregor, which demonstrated both the norms and the divide. Prior to the match the two fighters met for staged and video recorded promotional interviews where they verbally duelled. Words such as fuck you up, you hoe, you bitch, fucking, fucked, kick ass, motherfucking, shit, and pussy were used by both fighters directed against the other (See Appendix B). No social comment was made during the promotional tours concerning the swearing, even when Connor McGregor arrived at one of the meetings with a custom-made three-piece suit, which from afar looked like a navy pinstripe. On closer inspection it revealed the white ‘pinstripe’ was a repetition of the words fuck you – a clear message to his rival (Lauletta, 2017). Controversy only erupted in media outlets towards the end of the tours when Mayweather called McGregor a faggot (See Appendix B). In addition, Mayweather accused McGregor of being a racist for his comment “dance for me boy” (Rafferty, 2017; The Guardian, 2017). No disciplinary action was taken against either contestant for the linguistic behaviour and both
Chapter 1: Society, Schools, and Language 11
proceeded with the fight, both being compensated with multi-million-dollar payouts for fighting.
A similar instance of discerning difference of public opinion regarding linguistic choices arose in May 2018 when the American actress Roseanne Barr posted a racist tweet targeting a former U.S White House advisor. The actress received immediate backlash and the ABC (American Broadcasting Company) network cancelled her popular television sitcom Roseanne, removing all reruns of the show. The talent agency promoting the actress also withdrew their support of her. The incident caused international controversy, with many celebrities withdrawing support for the actress and voicing their disgust for the racial tweet (Koblin, 2018).
It is evident from the above examples of swearing and taboo language use in the current environment that there are social and cultural norms related to use, with issues of acceptability and sanctions or disciplinary actions, if any, to be taken for those who infringe on or violate the rules. These social rules of language use change as social conditions change; but equally they remain resolute in some instances (Wardhaugh, 2010).
1.4 AIMS, OBJECTIVES, AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS
This study has its genesis in the experiences and observations of the researcher who as an educator, both in South Africa and Australia, has noticed the change in taboo language use by students at schools. The change is noted as more prevalent, often virulent, and a general acceptance of use by many students and staff members alike. Numerous colleagues have noticed the linguistic changes and the topic of discussion has become a regularly deliberated one in their school staffrooms. Many of those in the teaching profession are frequently confronted with verbally abusive students, especially those active in inclusive education settings (Graham, 2015). Some teachers find this highly offensive and upsetting, a personal affront so to speak, while others brush it off as to be expected from the students in this day and age (I-do.com.au, 2010). Discussions amongst staff members in the researcher’s work environment often lead to questions of how to respond to the linguistic behaviour. Some colleagues say they ignore it unless it is directed at them or another student; others say they cannot do anything about it, while others say they will not accept taboo language in their classrooms.
12 Chapter 1: Society, Schools, and Language
As can be seen from the discussion above, society is permeated with taboo language in various forms, from films, television to social media. Students are being exposed to taboo language in many forms and in many contexts combined with variations of acceptance by society at large. Of interest to this study is how this societal change around swearing taboos is being realised in schools and what the responses are from stakeholders.
Many of the state schools in Queensland show no suspensions, either short term or long term between 2008 and 2017 (Queensland Government, 2015). Similarly, schools in similar areas and communities show differing rates of School Disciplinary Absences (SDA) and some schools have reduced their SDA rate over time (Queensland Government, 2014). This may be due to the individual school’s policy on language use; it may be because the children do not use any taboo language; or it may be because the teachers respond differently to the students and their language use. It is with this in mind that the research study was undertaken to answer the question:
How do teachers and school leaders weave societal language change in relation to taboo language and swearing with institutional boundaries of acceptability, whilst communicating suitable social and moral identities?
In aiming to answer this main question, the following sub-questions were posed:
• How does the institution, including stakeholders, structure, respond to and engage with policy relating to language boundaries, and how do they set consistent boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable language?
• How do teachers and school leaders define verbal misconduct? What language constitutes verbal misconduct, and has this (language and definition) changed over time?
• How do teachers and school leaders constitute themselves in response to taboo language and swearing use and has this changed over time?
1.5 SIGNIFICANCE AND SCOPE
It is important for every research study to ensure that findings will assist in highlighting issues, in further understanding and making meaning of issues, and in making positive change. For this study, the aim was to understand how teachers and school leaders respond to swearing and taboo language use in school contexts and how
Chapter 1: Society, Schools, and Language 13
(or if) they engage with policies surrounding swearing and taboo language. In addition, how teachers and school leaders situate themselves within changing language use in school settings. The study also aimed to explore linguistic change in relation to swearing and taboo language. As will be seen from Chapter 2, limited research exists in this area, therefore findings from the study will extend understandings as follows: in further increasing knowledge in the area of language use and verbal misconduct in school settings; in contributing to current sociolinguistic research in the field of swearing and taboo language change; and in aiding policy makers, teachers and school leaders in managing and responding to changing swearing and taboo language use in schools.
1.6 THESIS OUTLINE
The thesis has eight chapters. Chapter 1 has described the study, the problem, and questions that focus the investigation. Certain terminology used in the thesis was also defined. The chapter presented the context of student suspensions and exclusions due to verbal and non-verbal misconduct and outlined some examples of swearing and taboo language in popular media and the wider social context.
Chapter 2 will cover literature in the field. It will begin by explaining taboos and taboo language. It will include a thorough description of the history of swearing and changes in taboo language over time up to the current linguistic context. In order to follow language change, especially in relation to swearing and taboo language, it is important to take an archaeological approach to the literature, which will also be in keeping with the theoretical perspective of the study. The chapter will continue with discussion on pragmatics of swearing and taboo language use, as well as expectations about change in language. Literature regarding school policy will be explained and the gap in the literature will be highlighted.
Chapter 3 outlines the theoretical framework that underpins the study. It integrates Foucault’s theoretical perspectives on discourse, power, knowledge and truth and the way discourse constructs human beings as objects and/or subjects. It also covers the plurality and duality of signs and meanings in language drawing on Ferdinand De Saussure’s ideas regarding language and language change. In addition, the chapter incorporates Foucault’s insights about institutions and how they regulate or discipline behaviour; how they establish certain regimes about what is acceptable
14 Chapter 1: Society, Schools, and Language
and what is not. Chapter 3 continues with a discussion of Foucault’s philosophies about the subject and how the subject governs itself (1986, 1988c), incorporating work on morality. The Chapter concludes with comment on the synergies and dissonances of Foucault and Fairclough.
Chapter 4 discusses the qualitative research design including researcher reflexivity. A thorough description is provided of using snowball sampling to source participants and data generation via interviews and the assembling of policy statements. In addition, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is presented as the analytical framework through which the data were analysed and interpreted.
Chapters 5 to 7 cover the study’s data and findings, with a final discussion with considerations and future directions in Chapter 8.
Chapter 1: Society, Schools, and Language 15
Chapter 2: Literature in the Field
This chapter will address literature in the fields related to the three research sub- questions. To review, the first sub-question relates to policy; the second sub-question to taboo language and change; and the third to teachers’ connections and responses to taboo language. The following literature review will examine all aspects of these questions addressing the following topics.
Because of the sociolinguistic nature of the study, this first Section, 2.1, focuses on literature around sub-question two regarding taboo language and its change over time. An introduction and outline of taboo and its connection with language will begin the chapter in 2.1.1. Section 2.1.2 presents a history of swearing and taboo language through the ages. Section 2.1.3 outlines a discussion on euphemism11, dysphemism12 and orthophemism13, moving to work on the pragmatics of swearing in Section 2.1.4. The section concludes with an explanation of swearing now and expectations for future changes.
Section 2.2 focuses on the literature for sub-question one regarding policy and language and how these two are structured in school settings. Section 2.2.1 explains a brief history of behaviour policy in Australia and Queensland, moving on to behaviour policy as reflected in schools in Queensland. Section 2.3 then focuses attention on the literature for sub-question three, namely teachers and their connections and responses to the language in school settings. This section identifies the gap that exists in current understandings and thus highlights the significance of this study.
11 Euphemism: to speak well, politely, language that is inoffensive, used as an alternative to a dis- preferred expression (Allan & Burridge, 2006, p. 32). 12 Dysphemism: to speak offensively, to swear. “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 (Allan & Burridge, 2006, p. 31). 13 Orthophemism: “Straight talking”, a more formal and more direct (or literal) way of speaking. Orthophemism is used as an alternative to dysphemisms(Allan & Burridge, 2006, p. 2).
Chapter 2: Literature in the Field 17
2.1 THE LANGUAGE
2.1.1 Taboo and the Connection with Language This section outlines taboo and its influence on language. Taboo is culturally and community based; defined by a community or culture as a protection against harm, injury, or discomfort to the individuals of that community by constraining their behaviour (Allan & Burridge, 2006; Arthur, 2012). Taboos will vary from culture to culture and community to community depending on certain constraints. These restraints and taboos will also change over time in that community, depending on the changing attitudes and social behaviours of its members. Taboos therefore reflect evolving social patterns particularly with regard to influences that are prone to alter, sustain or threaten life (G. Hughes, 1998). Similarly, the understanding and definition of the word taboo shows change over time.
The word taboo, Tabu, originated in Tonga and was first introduced into the English vernacular by Captain James Cook in 1777 after his voyage to Polynesia (1750-1784). He used the word taboo, to describe things the locals could not touch, do, enter or see. Douglas (1979) suggests the Polynesian understanding is that of religious restriction but that the English understanding is now far removed from religious links. For Douglas it implies rules without meanings, something that cannot be explained. Radcliffe-Brown (1939) explains the term as meaning ‘to forbid’ or that which is ‘forbidden’ and can be related to any kind of prohibition. According to Hughes (2006), however, the current understanding of the term is “any social indiscretion that ought to be avoided” (p. 462), with the meaning being ‘grossly impolite’ and ‘offensive’ rather than ‘forbidden’.
Steiner (1956) defines taboo in three categories. First, he suggests taboo is concerned with any social contrivance of obedience with a ritual significance. Second, it has specific restrictions for dangerous situations, that is, it protects individuals who are in danger. Third, it provides protection of a society from danger or dangerous situations. In the preface to her book, Douglas (2002) defines taboo as a mechanism for protecting specific categories of the universe; a protection mechanism of world- ordered certainty; a way of reducing social and intellectual disorder. She elucidates that ambiguity creates disharmony and intimidates, but by utilising taboos, this disharmony and intimidation is categorised into something orderly and less threatening.
18 Chapter 2: Literature in the Field
When defining taboos, Freud and Strachey (2001) differentiate between two contradictory directions, namely the sanctified and sacred and the other being the unclean, forbidden and dangerous. Similarly, Allan and Burridge (2006) describe three risks to the individual, namely metaphysical risk when dealing with objects, places or persons that are sacred; physical risk from dangerous disease, creatures or persons; and moral risk which will impinge on polite social behaviour. The taboos expressed in restrictions and prohibitions are usually of unknown origin and lack justification but are taken as a matter of course by those who are influenced by them in everyday practice (Freud & Strachey, 2001).
In keeping with this philosophy of justification, taboos are taught from birth in any culture to be indisputable and absolute, subtle and ingrained, without explanation or reasoning, and they affect everyday life (Arthur, 2012). There is seldom a critical analysis of the taboo that has been experienced from birth, although there are always some individuals in the community prepared to break taboos in order to prove their individuality, explore social restraints, or to expose certain irrational beliefs (Wardhaugh, 2010).
Many taboos are built and sustained on widespread ignorance, but discussing or even violating taboos elicits reprisals from community members which can vary from subtle laughter, ridicule or even violence (Arthur, 2012). Social ostracism, social disapproval, incarceration, corporal punishment or most severely, illness or death, may result when these taboos are violated (Allan & Burridge, 2006; Burridge, 2010).
Community members who have a vested interest in a sustained way of life, who have not questioned why they believe certain things, tend to become defensive and angry if the behaviour is questioned. The transgressor of the taboo becomes intimidated by the reactions of the community, resulting in the concession and subsequent withdrawal of the challenged taboo, which in turn results in the perpetuation of the existing taboo. “The more ignorant people are about a taboo, the more likely they are to be disturbed by those trying to bring it into the open. It is a self- perpetuating cycle” (Arthur, 2012, p. 6).
A taboo will begin as a point of view, which will be defended by the supporters of that view against any opposing arguments. If the viewpoint originates in a more powerful entity, no opposition or persuasion will be required, and the viewpoint may be instilled by force. Over time, the viewpoint becomes accepted and rational
Chapter 2: Literature in the Field 19
arguments or resistance to the belief cease and are often met with social disapproval or contempt, ultimately imposing the belief system into the spectrum of the taboo (Arthur, 2012). The taboos and their associated rules will be as repressive as the entity that maintains them and requires of them. Moreover, when the entity desires a different course or view, the taboos will lose credibility and change accordingly (Douglas, 2002).
Taboos, therefore, are learned behaviour and do not make sense to outsiders who have no insight into the behaviour or belief system. These behaviours and belief systems are “different spheres of existence” and take place in a process of classification (Douglas, 1979, p. 70). A child will grow and learn the different spheres and interactions between those spheres, simultaneously and organically, in an active and changing classification process. A great investment is made in ensuring the process and the more individuals that support the process, the greater the investment to the social and cultural structure. These classifications and structures support the social culture, and anyone wanting to question those classifications or taboos is threatening not only the taboo itself, but also the entire social structure (Douglas, 2002). The community is complicit in ensuring the longevity of the taboo. Shared taboos ensure shared cohesion (Allan & Burridge, 2006). In saying this it is also evident that taboos can reveal division within a culture or society, for example differing conventions for class, sex, age or status (G. Hughes, 1998), as well as classifications of power and freedom (Steiner, 1956).
Culture in this regard refers to the knowledge that is required in order for a person to function in a socially acceptable way in a particular community (Goodenough, 1957). Members of the same culture will interpret and reflect on the world in similar ways and express themselves, their ideas, thoughts and feelings in a way that will be understood and acknowledged by other members of the same culture. In essence, members define the unspoken understanding and acceptance of the culture (Wardhaugh, 2010).
It is clear to see then that the term taboo applies to behaviour, or the proscription of certain behaviour, for one or more individuals, in a specific community, at a specific time, and in specific contexts (Allan & Burridge, 2006). Taboos can be specific or diverse and include death, deity, madness, sex, excretion and even strangers (G. Hughes, 1998), food and smell (Allan & Burridge, 2006), drugs, racism (Arthur,
20 Chapter 2: Literature in the Field
2012), and politics (Wardhaugh, 2010) as examples. In terms of language they are topics that a culture will prohibit its members from discussing (Arthur, 2012).
Language, society and culture are all inexorably intertwined (Hussein, 2012; Sapir, 1949); needless to say that the taboos encompassed in a culture or community will then be reflected in the language of that community or culture (Burridge, 2014). The taboo is extended “from the world to the word” (Bergen, 2016, p. 26), which seems to be a universal occurrence. People connect a metaphysical belief with words and their power; they believe that using the word associated with a specific taboo or topic will bring bad fortune (Bergen, 2016). Hughes (2006, p. 462) employs the term “word magic” with regard to beliefs and understandings that some words cannot and must not be used for fear of reprisals - a belief generated through the ages. God, death, the Devil, madness, disease, variations of excretion, and anything connected to sexual activities; in some societies, being fat, being dismissed from employment, even the social attitude to an occupation, are all areas of social life that currently fall under the taboo word heading.
The word magic connects to the general understanding that the sound and the meaning of the word are linked, meaning that by just uttering a word is “seen as a way to impinge on its referent” (Pinker, 2007, p. 331). As discussed earlier, language as an abstract entity is shared, possessed, controlled and owned by the community where it exists. Many of the deep-seated abstractions in the linguistic rules of a community are qualified according to the social rules of that community (Wardhaugh, 2010). Similarly, just as with the notion of taboo in general, linguistic taboo is ever-changing and adaptable to differing social constraints in different societies, communities, or social groups (Mohr, 2013). Many linguistic taboos that are unacceptable in some communities are found to be acceptable in others and vice versa. Likewise, many linguistic taboos that were unacceptable in The Middle Ages have changed to become acceptable in modern times as belief systems and societies have changed; conversely, some that were deemed acceptable in those times are now seen as taboo (G. Hughes, 1998). Examples of these will be seen in 2.1.2.
The link between word and taboo is a fickle one and changes over time. Change is often controversial, as language is used as a form of social judgment with taboo language linked to negative opinions of the individual (Bergen, 2016; Simon & Greenberg, 1996) and judgmental links to lower socio-intellectual and lower socio-
Chapter 2: Literature in the Field 21
economic status (Mulac, 1976). However, today youth and young adults use more taboo language than any other age bracket (T. Jay, 1992), and are exposed to more taboo language than previously documented (Chirico, 2014; Wardhaugh, 2010). It has been argued that society is now more open to swearing today and swearwords are becoming more acceptable (Enfield, 2016); this period has been named ‘the Age of Profanity’(M. Adams, 2016). A look back in history reveals how taboo language and swearing have changed over time and how this change relates to the present along with projected future expectations. The following discussion examines some of these changes in taboos, specifically linguistic taboos and swearing through the ages.
2.1.2 Swearing and Taboo Language Change through the Ages English and its influences Britain was invaded by the Romans in 55BC (Before Christ) and conquered it in AD43 (Anno Domini – in the year of the Lord), ruling for approximately four hundred years. Many of the people spoke Latin as a result of the ruling regime, in fact the British elite learned Latin. There is, however, no evidence that the ordinary Britons spoke Latin and when the Romans left Britain around AD400 languages of the Germanic tribes (Angles, Saxons, Jutes), which had also colonised Britain, slowly took hold over time and replaced Latin. With the invasion of the Normans in 1066, Norman French became the language of power; English became the language of the subjugated. Many of these influences affected the language, especially taboo language, with words such as, churl, knave, and villain being viewed as highly offensive (G. Hughes, 1998). By the 13th century this had changed and English became the everyday language of most people - Middle English (Mohr, 2013).
Latin split into two different languages, the language of the literary world used by the educated elite and the ‘vulgar language’, which, over the years evolved into the Romance languages, French, Spanish, and Italian (See Appendix A). In England, heading into the 18th century, only the elite employed literary Latin, which was used mainly by male students. The language was passed down from teacher to student with limited everyday usage, but rather scholarly usage. Latin was used when discussing things not appropriate for ‘all ears’ and in this way many obscene Latin words became used for more taboo concepts. Latin became the language used for sexual body parts and actions only to be read by those erudite scholars who were considered to have control of their bodily urges (G. Hughes, 1998). These words, for example penis and
22 Chapter 2: Literature in the Field
vagina, are still used for medical terms today as euphemisms that limit the taboo value. Euphemisms are used as an alternative to words or expressions that are dis-preferred and will be discussed in 2.1.3.
The Middle Ages (5th – 15th Century) The medieval period was filled with religious oaths - invocations of a religious kind. There was a sacred link between words and deeds in Anglo-Saxon society; the link between words and actions was respected (Mohr, 2013). A verbal offence was sufficient to incur a penalty from the court and oath breakers were contemptible and disrespected in society. Branding the face with a hot iron to eternally mark the perpetrator as a criminal or placing them in the stocks were some of the punishments meted out. Christianity was the most obvious influence on swearing (G. Hughes, 1998). During the Middle Ages a large amount of blasphemy, religious separation, personal and institutional cursing was evident (See Appendices A and B). The word of God was fundamentally employed and abused during this time. The sacred was made blasphemous and religious swearing had great impact with one of the most denounced sins of medieval times being false swearing (Mohr, 2013). False swearing was when a person would use God as a witness to a lie or swore an oath using God’s body parts for power, such as “by God’s bones”(p. 113). It was believed that these oaths/swears would have catastrophic effects on God’s body. There was an increase in the ‘swearing at’ others rather than ‘swearing to’ God (G. Hughes, 2006).
The Reformation (1517-1555) – From the Holy to the Shit Martin Luther and John Calvin among others instigated the Reformation, also called the Protestant reformation, where they separated themselves from the Catholic Church (Mohr, 2013). The strength of oaths began to decline due to the instigation of equivocation. Equivocation is a certain kind of swearing that deceives the listener without lying; a means of using double meanings and mental reservation or words thought but not spoken. Equivocation and the increase in civility added to the rise in obscenity with linguistic taboos changing from the holy to those associated with the human body, as Mohr so eloquently puts it, ‘from the Holy to the Shit’ (2013). There was a shift in the effect or force of words; the holy Mary lost its force, the devil and the antichrist all shifted, becoming less taboo. In England Shakespeare used ‘devil of wit’ in Twelfth Night and a more sexual link became apparent. Words such as
Chapter 2: Literature in the Field 23
fornication, harlotry, sodomy and carnality - words with strong sexual overtones - were used to denounce spiritual corruption (G. Hughes, 1998).
The Renaissance (1500-1660) – Creative restraint A mixture of creativity and restraint was used when swearing in the Renaissance. Flyting14 was on its way out and punishment for swearing also became less. The Quakers and Puritans were repressed in their language but Queen Elizabeth, Guy Fawkes, Shakespeare and Ben Jonson partook of “conflicts of wit” and a “good mouth- filling oath” (G. Hughes, 1998, p. 101). Slowly, privacy became commonplace forcing individuals to feel shame about their bodies and its functions; this had an effect on the language (Mohr, 2013). There were two main developments changing and restraining expression. First, there was a shift from religious to secular swearing and second, the emergence of the first organised censorship.
The Master of the Revels in 1574 was designed as a form of censorship; prior to a public performance, actors had to recite their works to the Master, so he could decide if censorship was required. This censorship was usually to do with doctrine and politics, or calling the Monarch into question (G. Hughes, 1998). Linguistic censorship was instituted in 1606 during King James’ reign with the ‘Act to Restrain Abuses of Players’ restricting the ‘jesting or profane’ use of God’s name on stage (Mohr, 2013).
Following these decrees, there was a marked increase in the use of pagan deities as well as the increase in the use of “minced oaths” - euphemistic expressions to reduce a term’s offensiveness (G. Hughes, 1998, p. 18). By 1623 a more general prohibition on swearing was instated as a result of Puritan pressures. Fines were issued and if an individual refused or could not pay, they would be whipped or set in stocks. The fines served in forcing the swearing to become much more ingenious, with coded evasions and euphemisms (G. Hughes, 1998); euphemisms being words or phrases used that are inoffensive and “used as an alternative to a dis-preferred expression” (Allan & Burridge, 2006, p.32).
14 Flyting: A type of verbal duelling where parties would elicit a genre of poetry in a type of freestyle verbal battle to insult each other, most notably Friar Dunbar and Walter Kennedy. It was used as a form of entertainment for the nobility (Mohr, 2013).
24 Chapter 2: Literature in the Field
The Victorians (1837-1901) –Puritanism The first censorship relating to obscenity occurred in 1727 (Mohr, 2013), heralding the onset of a new puritanism and the deeply tabooed Victorian era. The social and moral worth of the individual was observed in their refinement, good manners, appropriate dress code and polite speech, thus differentiating the ‘lowly’ classes from the bourgeoisie. The biggest taboo of the time, the human body with all its embarrassing functions and desires, had to be hidden from both view and mind. Foucault’s notion of the repressive hypothesis (1978), where outlets of confession such as psychiatry were used for the release of repressed sexual feelings, make euphemisms an important part of the linguistic landscape at this time (Mohr, 2013).
In addition, this period saw the significant change in language use between male and female being described as “power for men versus purity for women” (Byrne, 2017, p. 145). Women were encouraged15 to adopt a clean style of language, resulting in more use of euphemisms, whereas men were encouraged to master power. This mastery meant that swearing became more apparent in their lexicon. Men retained the right to swear, whereas women were denied the right; men were enabled in the power struggle, whereas women were restricted (M. Adams, 2016). However, the campaign to purify women and their language soon extended beyond the use of female language to the language men used in the presence of women – women needed protection from immoral words (Byrne, 2017).
With the exploration and expansion to the ‘new worlds’, often as a result of colonisation and war, language changed, and xenophobia became more apparent in language use. Religious based words were evident such as ‘heathen’, ‘infidel’, with general terms such as ‘alien’ and ‘intruder’ also emerging in use. Further words appeared, such as ‘interloper’, ‘savage’, ‘foreigner’, ‘barbarian’ and ‘native’ (G. Hughes, 1998). Many of these developed into neutral terms, but the use of these terms shows the way terminology was used to label different cultures as contact arose through the spread of English political influence around the world (Mohr, 2013).
15 Richard Allstree, as provost of Eton College and chaplain to King Charles II, insisted in his book The Ladies Calling that women who swear metamorphose and change sex becoming ‘affectedly masculine’ which would be an affront to God. He commented on female swearing; “there is no noise on this side Hell can be more amazingly odious” (1673, p. 14).
Chapter 2: Literature in the Field 25
The Victorian period represents a change in moral acceptance, a move towards Puritanism, a more principled and decorous time. This was the period when Latin became the way to address offensive subjects, ‘micturate’, ‘copulate’, and ‘vagina’. Hughes (1998) suggests that old oaths such as ‘zounds’, ‘odsbodikins’ were dropped, either because they had fallen out of favour or they were too profane, but words such as ‘bloody’, ‘damn’, and ‘hell’ were continued to be used, but not in ‘good society’.
Victorian culture was divided in two with the elite and ‘the underworld’. Language among the elite made prolific use of euphemism with words such as ‘inexpressibles’, ‘indescribables’ and ‘unmentionables’ being used for items of clothing that could not be discussed for fear of demonstrating moral decline. It was not that the clothing was immoral, rather that the clothing sat close to body parts that were immoral and immodest. The disappearance of the use of oaths did not occur suddenly but over time, with this decline linked to the falling numbers of people supporting religion - the secularisation of Western culture (Allan & Burridge, 2006; Pinker, 2007).
Settlers from England spread across the globe with language practices following suit. The Puritans and Pilgrims simplified their language; the Quakers structured theirs on truth and sincerity; others became wild and violent which was reflected in the language. In America, more immigrants from varying areas converged, sharing loan words from their various countries. The lifestyle became more lawless and violent, influencing and infiltrating the vernacular or “tall talk”(G. Hughes, 1998, p. 168) of western pioneers. The convicts transported to Australia employed a distinctive dialect known as flash, a term used in England around 1750 to describe underworld slang (See Appendix A). Vocabulary such as ‘kiddy’- a professional thief, ‘grub’- food, ‘lark’- fun or sport, and ‘to queer’- to spoil, was part of this slang. The word ‘swag’, meaning “stolen wearing apparel” or stolen goods (p. 171), which had been used in the mother country, as well as the term ‘bludger’, originally meaning a prostitute’s pimp or street bully, were terms transferred to the new country (G. Hughes, 1998). Both of these words are still used in the Australian vernacular today but with different meanings and not linked to taboo.
Wars and the word Swearing became more prolific during and after World War I and World War II. Due to the anger, frustration, helplessness and horrors of war people had experienced, the outlet of these emotions was reflected in the language (Mohr, 2013). Swearing was
26 Chapter 2: Literature in the Field
prevalent among soldiers, with the term fucking a favoured one (Brophy & Partridge, 1931).
The author D.H. Lawrence, as a way to “free obscene words from their social stigma” (Mohr, 2013, p. 243), wrote and published Lady Chatterley’s Lover in 1928, including such words as fuck and cunt. The book was initially published uncensored in Italy but all subsequent publications were all censored. In 1960, Penguin Books published an uncensored version, which led to a court case in America but was eventually declared ‘not obscene’, with the book free to be published and distributed. The case heralded the beginning of a new era in open public discourse and acceptance of public taboo language (Chirico, 2014; Mohr, 2013).
Swearing became more a part of speech and more prolific as society moved towards the 20th century. The Vietnam War, with its associated slogan “Fuck the draft”, was just a singular incident in which old Victorian modesty and shame were rejected by society, and language change was highly evident around swearing. The changes in public broadcasting, literature, the decline of religious affiliations, and the acceptance of differing cultural appreciations all added to the attitudinal transformation (Mohr, 2013).
During this time in the U.S., American comic, author, social critic, and actor George Carlin (1972) identified “seven words you can never say on television” and used them as the basis of his comedy routine. The words were, shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits, and in his words, “Those are the heavy seven, ...the ones that’ll infect your soul, curve your spine, and keep the country from winning the war” (Carlin, 1972). In 1972 as part of an American radio program he caused controversy by mentioning the words on air, which led to a major legal case in the United States Supreme Court in 1978. Carlin’s routine was voted as ‘indecent but not obscene’ (Lawrence, 2010).
The 21st Century – Sexual inhibitions The 21st century heralded a new order with a decrease in sexual inhibitions freely evident, nakedness, sexual differences and choice all adding to the milieu, making visible that which previously had been hidden and proscribed (Mohr, 2013). Most cultures consider whatever parts of the human body are required to be concealed by clothing should also be concealed in its language, which is evidenced throughout
Chapter 2: Literature in the Field 27
history (Mohr, 2013). In addition, “the acceptability of taboo words is only loosely tied to the acceptability of what they refer to” (Pinker, 2007, p. 344). Things we can show and do in public, for example spit and cry, are less taboo than for example shit (defecate) or fuck (copulate), which are more taboo.
Most of what is visible today is reflected in language use; changing attitudes to sex, including display and talk about bodies and sexual orientation, including marriage equality, means changes in language and taboos. Increasingly the argument is that the language change is moving from taboos of the obscene and profane to new taboos of ‘–IST language’, for example, racist, sexist, ageist, and ableist (Allan & Burridge, 2006; Burridge, 2010). This change to -IST language is moving from taboos that existed concerning that which was once concealed physically, namely the body and its functions, to that which is concealed in the mind (Pinker, 2007). A more thorough discussion on language change and variation, current taboo language norms as well as future predictions will be presented in Section 2.1.5.
In summary, there are two different groups of taboo language, namely religious or the supernatural, and non-religious (Crystal, 1997; Ljung, 2011), with the religious Christian swearing utilising not only the celestial16 swearing but also the diabolical17. This usage relates to the historical changes to swearing through the ages. The non- religious swearing divides among other things into bodies and bodily effluvia, sex organs, sex acts, micturition and defecation, described as the SMD words - Sex, Micturition and Defecation (Allan & Burridge, 2006). The term that refers to current usage and incorporates more current taboos is ‘the Holy, Fucking, Shit, Nigger18 Principle’ (Bergen, 2016), which explains swearing and taboo language used in most English speaking countries. Taboo language incorporates terms from the religious, sexual, and scatological19 (Holy, Fucking, and Shit) – in this thesis referred to as swearing; in addition, the -IST language (Nigger) – slurs, or derogatory terms used for a person or groups of people (Bergen, 2016), and language of difference (Allan &
16 God, Jesus, Christ and so forth. 17 Devil, Hell and so forth. 18 Nigger is viewed as a highly taboo and pejorative word imposed on blacks and is linked to historical and cultural opprobrium. See Appendix B for etymology and change of the word Nigger. 19 Scatological: Dealing with faecal excrement and excretory functions (OED, 2019)
28 Chapter 2: Literature in the Field
Burridge, 2006). The abovementioned bodies of work have been adapted and graphically represented in Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1. Taboo language and swearing – groups and changes
2.1.3 Euphemism, Dysphemism, and Orthophemism This section defines the boundaries of swearing and taboo language and their influences in society. As has been previously discussed, language, culture, and society are enmeshed and language is utilised as a means of communicating certain ideas but also as a means of avoiding certain topics (Wardhaugh, 2010). By employing linguistic taboos and euphemisms, the speaker can neutralise socially-contentious topics with words and expressions and enable the conversation to continue. Euphemism is “the glorification of the commonplace and the elevation of the trivial” (Wardhaugh, 2010, p. 251); the ability to refer to the entity without the added suggestions of the unwanted emotions which are attached to it (Pinker, 2007), and an appropriation of Victorian prudishness.
Working from concepts presented by Erving Goffman (1955) on ‘face work’, the understanding that we have two faces namely a negative and positive face that we try to save, Brown and Levinson (1987) extended this concept with their politeness
Chapter 2: Literature in the Field 29
theory. Politeness is essential for positive language use, while face threatening acts (FTA) impede social interaction. Therefore, the speaker will use politeness and ‘face saving’ strategies in order to mitigate losing face for the speaker and saving face of the listener. Euphemism is seen as a politeness strategy, a way of respecting and saving face while negotiating social interaction (M. Adams, 2016). Euphemisms prevent the breakdown of the conversation through the use of contentious language forms such as taboo and swear words.
Dysphemisms are a form of offensive speech - swearing. Euphemisms are the opposite of dysphemisms (Allan & Burridge, 2006); they cover up the taboo, misdirect, and erase the feelings associated with the entity (Mohr, 2013). Euphemisms and orthophemisms - words used as a means of straight talking - are employed by a speaker in order to avoid embarrassment or to be thought of poorly by the listener, and respectively, to avoid embarrassing or offending the listener (Allan & Burridge, 2006).
Prevalent in society today, taboo and euphemism form a symbiotic relationship. Many euphemisms such as those related to God, have travelled through history and are still in use today, whereas others are more recent, such as those referencing weight or racial issues (G. Hughes, 2006). As described earlier, Latin was and is still used as a linguistic camouflage, for example, using the word vagina or penis in place of cunt or dick, or perspires in place of sweats.
The stronger the taboo the greater the number of euphemistic referents attached to it. For example in 1991 it was estimated that in English there were over 800 expressions for copulation, 2000 for a woman of ill morals, over 1000 for a penis, and 1200 for vagina (Allan & Burridge).
Modern usage of euphemism has been disguised as the language of political correctness, which is a contentious topic (Wardhaugh, 2010). The term “civil gentility” is used because although euphemisms conceal, they can be used to deliberately provoke and highlight the thoughts and ideas behind the language (Allan & Burridge, 2006, p. 94). Political correctness is euphemism in a different guise, for example, words such as nigger, fat, old are more modern taboo terms that are being euphemised to African American, fuller figured and mature (R. Hughes, 1993). For many, the political agenda with the word change is related to language policy and planning, and efforts towards greater social inclusion of marginalised groups.
30 Chapter 2: Literature in the Field
Currently, the move toward utilising ‘sweary20 abbreviations’, or swearing acronyms, also forms part of the current approach to euphemisms. First originating after World War II, acronyms such as Fubar, ‘Fucked up beyond all recognition’, and snafu, ‘situation normal, all fucked up’ (Sheidlower, 2009), were used as part of military slang. Spilling over from online social media usage, where concision is imperative, these examples and more recent ‘initialisms’, that is, acronyms or abbreviations such as WTF - what the fuck - are being used when people feel uncomfortable using the full terminology, or often to just save time. More will be discussed on this topic in Section 2.1.5.
In the 21st century euphemisms can be both euphemisms and swearing, as demonstrated earlier with acronyms such as WTF, ‘What the’ and expressions such as ‘the F word’ (M. Adams, 2016). This abbreviation makes the euphemism pragmatically powerful. When the listener hears ‘what the?’ or ‘the F word’, the mind immediately concludes the ‘euphemism’ with the swearword fuck (M. Adams, 2016) making it both swearing and a euphemism.
Euphemisms fill space made available for swearing; the swearword is still evident to both speaker and listener. Additionally, the taboo has been broken, but by using euphemism the speaker has employed an intricate semantic tool to escape the social consequences and politeness issues (M. Adams, 2016). Using euphemism, therefore, is a complex situation where swearing is simultaneously concealed and exposed.
2.1.4 Why People Swear? The Pragmatics of Swearing This section outlines literature that explains why people choose to swear. Pragmatics, otherwise explained as meaning in use or meaning in context, integrates speaker meaning and utterance interpretation (Austin, 1962; Morris, 1938). Also defined as meaning in interaction, it is a dynamic process that incorporates negotiation between a hearer and speaker (reader or writer), a context of an utterance, be that physical, social and linguistic, as well as the meaning potential of an utterance, in
20 Updates to the verb to swear in 2016, added sweary used as a noun and adjective. A swear word can be called a sweary, as a noun, and as an adjective, someone or something that is characterised by a lot of swearing can be called sweary (Lukin, 2016; Oxford English Dictionary (OED), 2019).
Chapter 2: Literature in the Field 31
making meaning (Thomas, 2013). Pragmatics is characterised by five important features. They are:
• meaning that is created by interaction between speakers and hearers
• context; this includes both linguistic and non-linguistic features
• choices made by those using the language
• the effects of choices on co-participants
• the significance of constraints in using language in social action that being who can say what to whom (LoCastro, 2012).
Swearwords are used in linguistic practices because they are the most powerful and effective way to express any extremes of emotion, be that positive or negative emotion. They offend and insult, offer release and catharsis; they are a way to affiliate with a group or segregate from others (Mohr, 2013). Swearwords are not only used to vent feelings of frustration, but they are used to show contempt, be provocative or aggressive, to mock authority and, most importantly for some, as a form of attention seeking (Wardhaugh, 2010). Using taboo language can also be employed as a form of seduction or ‘dirty talk’ (Freud & Strachey, 2001).
Hughes (1998) discerns eight categories for use; these are personal, as in ‘you fucker’, personal by reference, ‘the fucker!’, destinational, as in ‘fuck off’, cursing, as in ‘fuck you’, a general expletive of anger, annoyance, frustration, as in ‘FUCK!’, and an explicit expletive of anger, annoyance, frustration, for example ‘fuck it!’. The seventh category is the capacity for adjectival extension, as in ‘fucking’, and lastly verbal usage as in ‘to fuck about’. He does discern here, however, that this list suits most swearing terms, and stresses that not all terms can be employed in all groups. Wajnryb (2005) is more specific, defining three ‘broad areas of achievement’, namely, catharsis, social connection and aggression, but is specific in regards to the importance of connecting context to the swearing instance.
Similarly, Pinker (2007) discusses five uses of swearing, namely descriptive, idiomatic, abusive, emphatic and cathartic. He suggests the taboo words sustain an emotional force, convey atmosphere, cause distress for the listener, and intimidate, denigrate, or punish. Ljung (2011) criticises these categories as being too adaptable. He suggests most of them describe the action taken by the swearer and his main
32 Chapter 2: Literature in the Field
contention is that the five classifications cannot possibly cover the complexities of swearing in full.
Allan and Burridge (2010) identify four functions of swearing, namely the abuse or insult, the expletive, the stylistic choice or marking of attitude, and the expression of social solidarity. They suggest that the abuse or insult is any form of comment that is derogatory or contemptuous, utilised to intentionally insult, wound or offend a person. This includes personal insults, ‘you dirty fucker!’ aimed at a listener, or when discussing a third party, ‘the dipshit stole my pen’, including curses such as, ‘bugger you’ or ‘bugger off’. Accordingly, these abuses or insults can be used for items or things that may irritate or annoy a speaker. The reaction is always more cathartic if using highly taboo or emotional language or when used in anger or frustration directed at someone or something (Allan & Burridge, 2010).
The expletive is used in a highly expressive way, usually when the speaker is angry, in pain, shocked or under pressure, and is an automatic speech response. Catharsis is obtained because of the taboo quality of the word employed, in other words it is the breaking of the taboo which triggers the release (Allan & Burridge, 2010). The expletive is usually not directed at an audience (Burridge, 2014). In keeping with this catharsis, research suggests that swearing can be used as a form of pain relief, or have a hypoalgesic effect; however, frequent use of the language or habituation causes the effects to become dulled and the effectiveness of swearing as a form of pain reduction is therefore reduced (Stephens & Umland, 2011).
The stylistic choice function is used when a speaker wants to display a particular attitude and therefore chooses a taboo word as a more descriptive manner to display that attitude, to make the utterance more noteworthy and to ‘spice up’ the discourse.
Finally, the social solidarity function is used when displaying solidarity within a group especially when directed at those outside of the group (Allan & Burridge, 2010). This is a form of ‘verbal cuddling’, or sometimes as ‘friendly repartee’, and is seen as the most usual type of swearing, with highly offensive language being used the closer the relationship is between speaker and listener. This type of swearing is often used in Australian English as an expression of endearment (Allan & Burridge, 2010; 2014).
Chapter 2: Literature in the Field 33
Aligning with the stylistic and social functions discussed above, some children use swearing and taboo language as a means of forging an identity. The earliest words are learnt from caregivers, but later words, including taboo words, are learnt from peers. For most children, therefore, their identity is bound in their relationships with peers (Bergen, 2016). In addition, studies (Gauthier & Guille, 2017; Thelwall, 2008) suggest that there is no significant difference in teenager male and female volume of use, rather, boys tend to use very strong taboo words, such as cunt and fuck, more often than girls, who prefer words such as bitch and arsehole.
Ljung (2011) makes a distinction between not only functions, but also themes, which are the taboo areas the constructions draw from. The functions fall into two main groups, the stand-alones and the slot fillers. Ljung adds one smaller category of replacive swearing. The stand-alone functions contain several sub-categories, namely expletive interjections, oaths, curses, affirmations and contradictions, unfriendly suggestions, ritual insults, and name-calling. Similarly, the slot-fillers have several categories, namely the adverbial/adjectival intensifier, adjectives of dislike, emphasis, modal adverbials, anaphoric use of epithets21, and noun supports. With replacive swearing, because Ljung’s study is not limited to English, he suggests that Russian makes more use of this category than other languages. The category suggests the replacement of taboo terms with ordinary non-taboo words, which give added and often new literal interpreted meanings to those words, often the listener’s own interpretation. This gives new understanding to Pinker’s (2007) suggestion that swearing is that which is hidden in the mind.
The five major themes are present in most languages (Ljung, 2011). They are the supernatural or religious theme, the scatological theme, the sex organ theme, the sexual activities theme, and the mother (family) theme. The minor themes are prostitution, death and certain illnesses, ancestors, and animals. There are some forms of swearing which do not fall into any clear theme category, an example of which is bloody (See Appendix B).
Sound symbolism is an important factor in swearing effectiveness. Gentle sounds cannot do an effective job of creating animosity and bitterness but short, sharp
21 Swearwords that are nouns used as anaphoric pronouns such as “tell the motherfucker he…”. An anaphoric word refers back to other words or ideas previously mentioned in a text (OED,2019).
34 Chapter 2: Literature in the Field
plosives, vowels and high-pitched fricatives articulate feelings in a much more effective manner (Crystal, 1997). Cunt, fuck and prick are much more effective than mean, damn or silly. Combine these sounds with the correct context, and you have an explosive emotional tool (Crystal, 1997).
Regarding gender use of swearing, public perception indicates that men swear more than women (Byrne, 2017; T. Jay, 1992, 2018; Precht, 2008). Studies suggest women account for 45 per cent of swearing in public (T. Jay, 2000), however women are judged more harshly than men (De Klerk, 1992). Women who rate themselves as highly aggressive tend to swear more (Rassin & Muris, 2005), but more often than not women use swearing instrumentally in order to be heard in mixed conversations or to “subvert gender expectations” because of the stigma still associated with swearing as a gender transgressive act (Byrne, 2017, p. 163). Research suggests males use stronger, more taboo swearwords (T. Jay, 1992, 2018). Females use weaker swear words more than males, in addition, as taboo words lose their power, females use the less powerful words more than males (Bailey & Timm, 1976; Byrne, 2017).
People associate swearing with aggression and the perceived association with verbal violence is one reason swearing is traditionally associated with males (Byrne, 2017). Swearing is a form of replacement therapy, replacing physical violence with words. There is little evidence to support this, however, flyting22 and playing the dozens23 show signs of this replacement therapy (T. Jay, 2009b; 2006).
Whether swearwords are used in semantic categories of taboos, body parts and products, sex acts, name-calling, slurs, religion, slang, or any others, what ultimately binds them is their emotional offensiveness, emotional intensity, and their negative valence (T. Jay, Caldwell- Harris, & King, 2008). The explanations about why people swear, as presented above, are possibly best summarised by Mohr’s (2013, p. 28) view that “people swear about, what they care about”.
22 Flyting is a competition of verbal skill, the demonstration of the art of insult where both parties require a sophisticated linguistic versatility and serve as a form of entertainment for an erudite audience (G. Hughes, 1998). 23 ‘Playing the dozens’, ‘the dozens’, ‘sounding’, and ‘signifying’ are terms describing the activity, usually found in African American Negro communities, or ‘game’ of exchanging ritualised insults between people, sometimes even relatives (Labov, 1972).
Chapter 2: Literature in the Field 35
2.1.5 Swearing Now and the Future: Changing Taboos and Changing Words This section elaborates on current changes and future expectation surrounding swearing and taboo language use. It is evident that taboo language is changing, from the unacceptable oaths during the Middle Ages, to the obscenity of the body and its processes, to a more prohibitive taboo of sexual difference, sexual deviance, ethnic and racial difference (G. Hughes, 1998). The more pejorative and condemned expressions such as dike, faggot, queer, dago, kike, nigger, kaffir, mick, wog, abo, boong all reflect the changing social milieu, the changing social attitudes and taboos towards that which is different. These changing social attitudes link with the modern understanding of equality for all and above all else, the basic human right of respect and understanding (Burridge, 2010). These current changes signal a “transitional period” (M. Adams, 2016, p. 34), a period that is not being acknowledged by certain cultural institutions.
Changes such as these and others throughout history are evident in dictionary publications through the ages. Often lexicographers suffer pressure to alter or often omit entries to satisfy changing sensitivities of the public. Early dictionaries included religious and racial swearwords but were tentative in including sexual words. This is clearly seen with the word cunt which is mentioned in The Universal Etymological English Dictionary in 1721, in Latin, as ‘Pudendum Muliebre’, then appearing in 1785 in Grose’s Dictionary of the vulgar tongue as c***t, “A nasty name for a nasty thing”, after this disappearing from dictionaries until the 1960s (Burridge, 2016; Grose, 1796).
Sexual and obscene terms are now current, more acceptable and less contentious, even in dictionary publications (Bergen, 2016). As example, fuck is labelled as vulgar slang in the Oxford English Dictionary (2019). The 20th century shows shifted sensibilities with racial and political definitions as well as religion and disability forming new linguistic obstacles, with those of race being highest on the list of taboos (G. Hughes, 2006). Issues during the 1970s with inclusions of contemptuous forms of the word Jew in the Oxford English Dictionary (Burchfield, 1989), as well as in 1997 with the word nigger in the tenth edition of Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (R. Lakoff, 2000) are examples. Currently the word nigger is listed in the Oxford English dictionary as an offensive noun that is “one of the most racially offensive words” (OED, 2019).
36 Chapter 2: Literature in the Field
Linguistic change and variation occur, and this is seen through the ages with swearwords and taboo words being used for one thing and then either being euphemised, inverted, or just changed to being used as something else or over-used to a point of desensitisation. This over-use is known as “verbicide or Loss of Intensity” (G. Hughes, 2006, p. 253). An example of this is evident in literature suggesting that in 2007 words such as shit, piss and asshole were ‘unspeakable’ words on network television (Pinker, 2007), but in 2018, as demonstrated in Chapter 1, are prevalent on family rated movies and television shows.
Words, and in the case of this study, taboo words, become fashionable and through over-use eventually move to become ordinary and then obscure. Swive meaning screw from the 15th century or zounds deriving from ‘God’s wounds’ from the 1800s have both fallen from use (G. Hughes, 2006). Today one of the new ‘in vogue’ words is cunt and its rise to infamy is documented in Figure 2.2 compared with the decline of zounds. Cunt will be replaced by another word within the next century as its impact weakens as a function of use (Bergen, 2016).
Figure 2.2. The decline of zounds and rise of cunt (Bergen, 2016, p. 164).
Research conducted in 2013 by the New Zealand Broadcasting Standards Authority (NZBSA) demonstrates this change and variation in potentially objectionable words. Cunt, Jesus Fucking Christ, Motherfucker, Cocksucker and Cock show significantly lower levels of unacceptability since 2009, suggesting that these
Chapter 2: Literature in the Field 37
words are viewed as more acceptable in ranking than previously documented (Bergen, 2016; Broadcasting Standards Authority, 2013).
A similar study was conducted in Great Britain in 2000, however the two studies are difficult to compare as different questions were posed to participants (Millwood- Hargrave, 2000). The common thread between the two, however, is the varied disagreement between participants as to levels of unacceptability of words and the variance in words themselves, showing regional and dialectical differences in offensive words. The only commonality clearly evident is the words cunt, motherfucker and nigger are listed in the top five in both surveys, but in varying positions of offensiveness (Bergen, 2016).
A recent study (Generous, Houser, & Frei, 2015) in the U.S, explored university students’ emotional responses to their instructors swearing and found that some students reported a negative response when hearing the instructor swear; however the majority of students reported feelings varying from surprise, motivation, humour, discomfort, and seeing the instructor as being ‘on the same level’ as themselves and more approachable. The authors of this study also comment that some students do not experience an emotional response because they believe swearwords are a natural part of conversation. Adams (2016) echoes this sentiment with his suggestion that swearing is “the stuff of everyday conversation in mainstream American culture” (p. 131).
In keeping with the current more acceptable sexual and obscene terms, as discussed earlier, online language has had an effect on changes to swearing and taboo language (M. Adams, 2016). This change is an ongoing and constant phenomenon. Sweary abbreviations, acronyms and initialisms such as What the Fuck! – WTF and Shut the Fuck Up! – STFU are utilised frequently, not only in online contexts, and are not considered swearing (Carey, 2015). Many are extended and expanded such as WTAF – what the actual fuck! and WETF – what even the fuck! Pronunciations of these vary from examples for WTF such as “dubs-tee-eff” to “dub-tee-eff” or “double- you-tee-eff”, and can vary from “What the fuck, why the fuck, where the fuck” and many more showing the ambiguity and variation of the expressions (Zimmer, 2013). These abbreviations and acronyms are forever changing and mutating in an impromptu and frequently unsystematic manner, often being ambiguous, usually able to be defined in context, but always a suitable form of “rough-and-tumble recreation of informal language use”(Carey, 2015, para. 10).
38 Chapter 2: Literature in the Field
Accepted as a form of euphemism, these acronyms as well as other forms of swearing and taboo language are changing, becoming both euphemism and swearing, making them pragmatically interesting and powerful (M. Adams, 2016). Additionally, these euphemisms are now also being parodied. Euphemism parodies swearing, and euphemism parodies euphemism, with the accompanying suggestion of intellectual, aesthetic and social status attached to this kind of swearing word play (M. Adams, 2016). An example of this is seen on the Netflix show The Good Place where all swearing is changed, so fuck becomes fork and motherfucker becomes motherforker (Bricker, 2016).
The current acceptance of sexual and obscene terms is due to loosening social and moral constraints, however there is an increase in euphemism use in language, in order to satisfy politeness sensibilities (Wardhaugh, 2010). This euphemism is reflected in the –IST culture, the modern-day tendency to create taboos regarding difference, the modern behaviour of an understanding of equality for all, the basic human right of respect and understanding - herein lies the taboo (Burridge, 2010). Language that reflects the belief that every person is an individual who has the right to respect, the right to be different, the right to not be discriminated against, the rejection of abuse and insult, and the importance of politeness. Modern day language shuns the pejorative or that which discriminates; reflections of this are in the –ISM or –IST language, racist, sexist, ableist, genderist and ageist as examples (Allan & Burridge, 2006).
However, there is still judgment with regard to language use, which goes against this accepting culture professed today, “profanity serves as an instrument of our assumptions” (M. Adams, 2016, p. 192). This judgment is often viewed as a symptom of a more ‘systemic cultural disease’, being associated with a decline of religious authority, a decline in overall standards and a decline in decency; this antithesis in perceptions – “the culture wars” (M. Adams, 2016, p. 4). Burridge (2011, p. 3) labels this behaviour ‘linguistic purism’; adopted by those who seek to constrain individuals in their language use and label their language as ‘bad’.
The preceding section discussed taboos and how they connect with language; explained changes in swearing and taboo language through the ages; as well as the use of euphemisms, pragmatics and future expectations of swearing and taboo language, the -IST language. The following section focuses on schools and language
Chapter 2: Literature in the Field 39
transgressions, and how these two are linked in policy. The section collates literature to link with sub-question one relating to school and institution policy regarding language.
2.2 SCHOOLS AND SWEARING POLICIES
No evidence exists to support the notion that children exposed to indecent or taboo language suffer harm or damage (M. Adams, 2016; Arthur, 2012; Bergen, 2016; T. Jay, 2009a). The potential for harm has been alluded to by authorities and institutions over time, perhaps with echoes of Victorian sentiment being partly responsible (Mohr, 2013; Montagu, 1967).
Authorities and institutions set guidelines with regards to expectations around acceptable language use and exercise their powers by policing and punishing those who employ taboo language. Douglas (1979) posits that the main function of punishing transgressions is to impose a system of order by separating and demarcating, in order to tidy and maintain organisation. “It is only by exaggerating the difference between within and without, about and below, male and female, with and against, that a semblance of order is created” (p. 4). Schools are seen as social settings where order is necessary for collective congruence (Haynes, 2002). These institutions are seen as “strongly demarcated, ‘purified’ sites for the moral work of imbuing socially valued standards and conventions in the future citizen” (Doherty, Berwick, & McGregor, 2018, p. 3), with society indicating conventions, practices, and social codes to protect younger generations from language that is deemed ‘immoral’.
With the onset of the Christian confession and the Victorian ethos of sin, morality, and purity, the authorities gained control over women and children’s sexuality and they became seen as ‘the victims’, denied exposure to any form of sexuality in order to protect their virtue (Arthur, 2012; Foucault, 1978). With taboos and taboo language so closely linked to sex and bodily functions, restrictions and censorship have been controlled to safeguard and protect ‘the victims’ from this language and its associated taboos. Arthur (2012) suggests that censorship in schools and media causes widespread ignorance; in addition, repression gives power and strength to the taboo construction and operation.
Children know swearwords; they also are aware that adults know that they know the swearwords; they may not always know the correct connotation and adult
40 Chapter 2: Literature in the Field
understanding of some words, but they know the words fall into a distinct category that is beyond what is socially acceptable (Chirico, 2014). Swearing can occur before children learn to read or write (Bergen, 2016). Often, learning the word comes first, learning the associated taboo comes later. Using swearwords is a symbol of adulthood, however if the child has learnt these words through assimilation, transmission and diffusion from a parent or others, the child will not necessarily recognise the significance of the words, which will send mixed messages with regard to swearing and its consequences (Aubrey, 2008).
Acknowledging that children know swearwords but not necessarily the associated meaning or taboo linked with them, it is important to look at policy construction in this taboo area, especially regarding the language use. Student-related policies in general at schools are considered to have an effect on overall student achievement (Kyriakides, Creemers, Antoniou, Demetriou, & Charalambous, 2015); and achievement can impact both positively and negatively, with some students facing more limited prospects as a result of policies backfiring, with long-term consequences for their learning (Datnow, 2016). When a policy has the contrary effect to what it was planned to do, it backfires; when a policy does not work, it fails (Gottfried, Conchas, Sublett, & Simon, 2016).
A policy is a principle of action proposed or adopted by an organisation or individual (D. K. Cohen & Hill, 2001). In addition, policies are social contracts that are well thought out, well planned and well-coordinated over long periods of time, involving many different stakeholders, with the intention to ‘do good’ (Gottfried et al., 2016).
Language policies identify areas in schools where problems with regard to language issues can be structured and agreed upon (Corson, 1999). These policies can set out what the school intends to do regarding areas of concern and afford provisions for monitoring, follow-up and revision if circumstances change. Language policies should be solutions to language problems and should address social, linguistic, and cultural problems confronted in schools (Corson, 1999). School language policies need to be approached with a critical appreciation realising the connection between power and social justice. The impact the policies will have on human diversity without marginalising some and granting privilege to others should also be considered (Corson, 1999).
Chapter 2: Literature in the Field 41
Yet explicit language policies in schools mostly pertain to multilingualism and bilingualism issues (Menken & Garcia, 2010; Wright, 2008; Young, 2014). Policy about taboo language usage is usually a behaviour management issue (Queensland Government, 2016b). Behaviour management policies at schools have been criticised as being unfair and non-discretionary, especially toward students of colour or those with special needs (Fries & DeMitchell, 2007). Ensuring a common-sense approach, teacher judgment, and gauging the situations in context, is something that is stressed as a means of overcoming unfairness and inequity in relation to the interpretation and enactment of these policies (Fries & DeMitchell, 2007).
2.2.1 Behaviour Policy in Australia and Queensland – A Short History Once again employing aspects of Foucault’s archaeological approach, a short history of behaviour policy in Australia is now outlined. With Australia being a country settled by many ex-convicts, soldiers, explorers and fortune hunters, it became important for those in control to settle and farm the land and – importantly - to educate children. Schooling was necessary in order to “impose order, control and civilise the ‘rising generation’ of children whose parents were unable and/or unfitted to accomplish this task” (Haynes, 2002, p. 137). Elementary schooling became compulsory in the late 19th century, with Queensland becoming a separate colony and responsible for its own education practices at this time (Queensland Government, 2016c). Education currently remains a responsibility of the States in that it is not included in the constitution as a Commonwealth power; however, the Commonwealth assisted in the funding of school and tertiary systems after 1941 due to its more adequate revenue base, and is still a substantial influence in financial matters (Burke & Spaull, 2001).
After World War II, the Commonwealth Government increased the population by opening its doors to those from other countries seeking a better life. The late 1960s and early 1970s saw ‘the equality of opportunity’ as a vision in educating all, not only the more affluent in society. Commonwealth financial assistance for needy schools was possible through the operations of the Schools Commission and was funded by the growing affluence of the expanding economy with the expectation of reducing the economic and social gap in society (Haynes, 2002).
In 1994/1995 corporal punishment was abolished; 1995 and 1996 saw a new range of behaviour management strategies implemented in Queensland schools; and
42 Chapter 2: Literature in the Field
the new millennium saw a new learning framework and management process known as The Three Frames, put in place to support Queensland State Education (Queensland Government, 2016c). In 2001 the Framework for students at educational risk was launched and implemented in 2002 with the National Professional Standards for Teachers, a guide for exemplary teacher standards completed in 2003 (Queensland Government, 2016c).
The Code of School Behaviour initiative was developed in 2005 and 2006, which was part of the Better Behaviour, Better Learning initiative (Queensland Government, 2016c). At the same time the Youth Participation in Education and Training Act and Regulation was put in place which acted as a support system for youth and required students to complete Year 10 schooling and to complete a further two years of training or work if they chose to leave school at that point. In 2007 and 2008 the One School website was made accessible to teachers. This “comprehensive, flexible and sustainable information management system” (Queensland Government, 2016c, para. 8) provided teachers with easy access to information from a centralised data source about each student in their class.
The Federal Education Minister at the time, Brendan Nelson, instituted a National Values Framework in 2005 which collated the values to be taught in Australian schools after growing concern over social and emotional issues amongst the youth in Australia (Hill, 2004). The Framework was developed following a Values Education study in 2003 which was supported by The Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) acknowledging that education is about building character, strengthening self-esteem, optimism and personal fulfilment as well as assisting students to exercise ethical judgement and social responsibility amongst other things.
No further documents have superseded this Framework with regards to Values Education, and therefore it is still integral to school policy in Queensland schools.
2.2.2 Behaviour Policies in Schools Behaviour issues in the education system are viewed as a problem that governments and education systems take seriously, resulting in it being one of the dominant discourses at schools (Ball et al., 2012). Most schools are concerned with behaviour issues because of their apparent influences on learning and education
Chapter 2: Literature in the Field 43
outcomes (Lund, 2014), although most teachers would also suggest they want to work in safe and secure, emotionally supportive and predictable environments (Ball et al., 2012).
Behaviour as an area of education is infused with many long-standing and contentious opinions, often with diverse interpretations of the best way to handle these issues in the schooling environment (Slee, 2011). Behaviour issues are also highly prominent with regard to media debates around schooling (Carnie, 2015), often perpetuating a sense of social and moral ‘panic’ (Slee, 1995). The underlying feeling of potential for fragmentation within society, the perception that social order and civility are under threat with an increase in lawlessness, violence, and crime (Putnam, 2000) all add to the views that behaviour management in schools is a necessary technology required to maintain order (Ball et al., 2012; Lund, 2014). Behaviour policy is therefore an area where many differing approaches and professional conflicts merge, making it a fertile site for investigative research (Ball et al., 2012). For this study, the key dimension is the role that language, and more specifically socially and culturally taboo language, plays in behaviour management and expectations of student behaviour in schools.
Power dynamics, hierarchies, and pragmatics, as well as practice, all influence how behaviour policy is approached, implemented, and enacted at schools. Additionally, even timing comes into play in this regard, with patterns of enactment differing depending on the time of the academic year, the year level and even differing teaching groups. Behavioural policy is therefore mediated by time and place, as well as by diverse policy actors with differing values, practical tactics, and professional backgrounds (Ball et al., 2012).
Approaches vary, with some teachers managing behaviour as a means of maintaining order and control, often with punishment, while others prefer a more holistic, student-sensitive approach where the child is taught how to control himself - a type of learned ‘care of the self’ - “Behaviour for learning or behaviour for life” (Ball et al., 2012, p. 120). In addition, differences of approach support effective policies with focus on the behaviour rather than the child. For example the ‘good’ or ‘bad’ behaviour, not the ‘good’ or ‘bad’ child (Lund, 2014).
Behaviour management policy becomes a major player in marketing opportunities for schools, with those schools demonstrating impressive records,
44 Chapter 2: Literature in the Field
considerable improvement in certain areas or unique approaches to the management and enactment of behaviour issues being labelled as ‘good schools’ or ‘successful schools’(Ball et al., 2012). In contrast to this, schools that cannot show these data, are labelled as ‘failing’ and moreover, the teachers are labelled as ineffective and incompetent (Ball et al., 2012; Lund, 2014).
The promotion of all learning institutions as being safe and secure learning environments for students by all levels of departments of education means that control, behaviour, and discipline become highly topical issues in institutional rhetoric.
2.3 TEACHER RESPONSE
This final section focuses on literature relevant to the third sub-question, that being how teachers and school leaders constitute themselves in responding to swearing and taboo language use.
Literature regarding treatment and regulation of swearing at schools is limited. Swearing is rarely the focus in studies of classroom talk, but usually surfaces as one aspect of behaviour management or classroom control (Doherty et al., 2018). Studies suggest some students are able to use code switching as a means of maintaining appropriate language choices around teachers (Dalley-Trim, 2006; Maybin, 2013), while other studies reveal etiquette rules about swearing and taboo language are often viewed as unnecessary by students and therefore not observed (Thornberg, 2008). A reason for this may be that the rules are in opposition to broader societal acceptance and the unevenness in social change of such behaviour (Doherty et al., 2018).
One study (McNally, I'Anson, Whewell, & Wilson, 2005) focused on experiences of student teachers in the United Kingdom regarding behaviour management. Among the reflections, student-teachers commented on classroom talk, sharing that children at school “live in a different world, they think that swearing is okay” (p. 173). The authors of the study argue that the classroom behaviour, which includes swearing, impacts the student teachers and leads to feelings of self-doubt, of not coping well, and a sense of being threatened. Additionally, the student teachers shared their sense of shock at the clash of cultures regarding swearing use in classroom situations, meaning a clash of expectations between them and some of their students.
A study undertaken in Australia (Doherty et al., 2018) found that swearing in classrooms is often managed as a moral problem and is often variably construed, with
Chapter 2: Literature in the Field 45
higher standards demanded in classrooms as opposed to in the broader society. The study drew from a larger project which was concerned with the nature of moral order enacted in sites of extended compulsory education. The study found that swearing was a common occurrence amongst the students in the study. In the two teacher/class combinations discussed by the authors, the two teachers adopted different responses to managing swearing with differing rationales of management. One teacher regarded all swearwords as inappropriate and requiring correction, while the other teacher was more tolerant and accommodating of her students’ swearing. The first teacher judged the language where and when it happened, whilst the second teacher judged language according to whom it was directed. Both responses link with the constant work of suppressing moral disorder in schooling contexts. The responses also highlight the disjuncture between permissive societal practice and the acceptance of swearing and taboo language use, with expectations in schooling contexts.
The limited literature regarding teacher responses to swearing and taboo language use in schooling contexts underpins the importance of this study for policy, practice, and sociolinguistic understandings of institutional interpretations of taboo and the associated language.
2.4 SUMMARY
The only constant is that change is inevitable, as can be seen in the discussion of taboo language and swearing through history. A discussion on taboos and what they mean in society was connected to the linguistic landscape, indicating that society and taboos are very closely linked, reflect and influence one another. The fluidity of taboo and language was articulated, showing that most taboos and ignorance go hand in hand, but when social inconsistencies weaken or change, so do the taboos.
It was noted that swearing and taboo language have changed through the ages, moving from the religious to the sexual, and that current use is seeing a move to the more racist, sexist and difference landscape of the –IST culture. This change, either from verbicide or Loss of Intensity of words due to over-use, changes in society, cultural acceptance of previously tabooed arenas, or the secularisation of western cultures, is contributing to changing societal attitudes. This change is making for more socially acceptable use of swearing but less acceptable use of taboo language of difference.
46 Chapter 2: Literature in the Field
The chapter explored the way taboo language is utilised by the speaker and what impact it has. The discussion then related how society regulates taboos, especially concerning children and young adults. Connected to this, the chapter then outlined general policy and language policy in schools. It was noted that school policies that relate to language infringements are relegated to the area of behavioural management.
A brief history connected the Government initiatives through the ages that were utilised to protect and support children in education institutions in Queensland. It described the National Framework for Values Education in Australian Schools, which introduced the Code of School behaviour and OneSchool system. Finally, the discussion continued with reference to the limited literature regarding studies in the area of teacher practice and response to student swearing and taboo language use in school contexts, highlighting the gap in research which supports the importance of this study.
Chapter 2: Literature in the Field 47
Chapter 3: Theoretical Perspective
Broadly speaking, the discourse of power excludes bad language, the discourse of the disempowered includes it. (McEnery, 2005, p. 10)
The thesis to this point has explained the current context of pervasiveness and change regarding taboo language and swearing use in society. In addition, the thesis has discussed changes over time and the accompanying acceptance, occasional outrage, differing perspectives, and ambivalence towards this language use. The situation in schools with regard to suspensions and exclusions as a result of employing taboo language has also been explained. Chapter 2 developed a more thorough understanding of the literature in the field surrounding taboo language and swearing, incorporating a history of the language and its variation and change, terminology used, the reasons people adopt the language, future directions in the linguistic behaviour, as well as information regarding school policy relating to the use of taboo language, specifically, in Queensland Australia. This chapter will explain in detail the conceptual framework underpinning the analysis and methods that acts as anchor to ground the entire study. The conceptual framework incorporates Foucault, De Saussure, and Fairclough.
3.1 THE TOOLBOX
Foucault begins his second volume of the History of Sexuality, the use of pleasures (1990), with an intimate declaration as to why he has undertaken such an extensive study. He reveals it is all due to his curiosity, a curiosity that will enable him to free himself, to be able to think and to see things differently. In his words:
There are times in life when the question of knowing if one can think differently than one thinks, and perceive differently than one sees, is absolutely necessary if one is to go on looking and reflecting at all...to know how and to what extent it might be possible to think differently, instead of legitimating what is already known. (Foucault, 1990, p. 8)
It is with this ability to think and see things differently that the data in this study will be analysed and assimilated. To take a different perspective, to look at something
Chapter 3: Theoretical Perspective 49
from a different angle and with different perceptions, to look at it through a different lens, will aid in allocating and defining the data in a different way - to extend the possibilities of thought. A lens acts to focus more directly on a situation, a way of targeting the view and directing it in a certain and specific way. Different lenses will target different outcomes and different perspectives. The lens for this study will be structured using a combination of Foucault and De Saussure, integrated with aspects of Fairclough’s work as follows.
As a prolific writer, Foucault suggests using his body of work as a toolbox, a starting point where ‘users’ can choose a tool or tools to use in their own area (Foucault, 1974, pp. 523-524). Foucault describes his work in three domains of genealogy as a
historical ontology in relation to truth as subjects of knowledge, secondly, in relation to power through which we constitute ourselves as subjects and thirdly, an historical ontology in relation to ethics through which we create ourselves as moral agents. (Foucault, 1997, p. 262)
This study will use parts of the three domains Foucault describes above. First, discourse, truth and knowledge, especially in regard to the institution; second, the way subjects are constituted in relation to power; and finally, ethics, the way subjects create themselves as moral agents. These three domains and how they were mobilised in relation to the field of inquiry of this study will be discussed in detail further in this chapter.
Foucault explains that we perceive and understand or make meaning of things today by reflecting on and relating to the past - Archaeology. He suggests that this is done in terms of where we originated and what developments have occurred. However, he stresses that people at different times in history, what he called ‘epistemes’, had differing world-views and their understandings may have differed extensively from those of today, thereby challenging our ideas (Foucault, 1970). The ‘episteme’ is a way of organising, classifying and relating, allocating meaning and value to things, which is done unconsciously - the allocation of ‘sameness’ and ‘difference’ we give to things. These are the foundations of our thinking and beliefs, and we take them for granted. The change in taboo language through the ages has been discussed in Chapter 2 and the differing attitudes and beliefs through different times have been evidenced in regulations made at different times. These changes and regulations may challenge
50 Chapter 3: Theoretical Perspective
practice in society and, importantly for this study, in schools today. The current chapter explains this lens as follows.
In Section 3.2 a discussion relates to Foucault’s order of discourse and discourse in institutions. Foucault sees language as one of the most significant forces that shape our thinking and experiences. It is not the system as a whole which interests him; rather it is what he terms the discourses that fuel his thinking, the basic unit of discourse being the statement. The discourse is the ‘parole’ or ‘language in action’, the way the language or discursive explanations frame our understanding. Our actions, thoughts, and behaviour are influenced by discourses. Closely linked is the issue of institutions and how discourse is used to understand how they function, especially with regards to ‘truth effects’ and regulating authority with ‘truth’ as validation (Foucault, 1972). The taboo language discourse is living language in action and the way it is being employed in education institutions has a great influence on behaviour, actions, and thoughts of the subjects at these institutions.
Coupled with these concepts, this thesis draws on De Saussure with his views on language and language change, discussed in Section 3.3. De Saussure’s philosophies regarding the sign, its arbitrary nature, its personal and individual meaning and understanding, contrasting with its collective and community bound significance, are important aspects taken into consideration in this study. A more thorough discussion then follows in Section 3.4 regarding pragmatics and the connection between De Saussure’s thinking and that of Foucault in relation to context and meaning.
Section 3.5 outlines how Foucault moves focus from archaeology to genealogy, which directs attention to power and the workings of power and the body. Regulating ‘the body’ to produce ‘docile subjects’- who can not only monitor each other, but also monitor themselves - is the ultimate aim of the institutional disciplinary forces, using a combination of power and knowledge. In order to be most effective, Foucault believes that power is hidden from view, is contingent, and mobile, and can change allegiances at any time (Foucault, 1975). This hidden power is evident in the blurry, often indistinct discourse used in behaviour plans instituted from the education institutions as well as the taboo language used by students with peers.
The combination of discourse and power demonstrates that although many of the discourses may seem coercive, Foucault (1978) believes that this forces them to also be productive. These discourses demonstrate how to develop the self, to explore our
Chapter 3: Theoretical Perspective 51
individuality and explain the ‘self’ in alternative ways. He suggests that the more the rules and regulatory devices increase, the less the policing can occur, thereby allowing people to explore the prohibited and controlled discourses in society. The enduring significance of this idea is identified in the analysis of the data in Chapter 5 relating to the participants’ responses to institutional policy.
In Section 3.6, discussion elaborates on ethics and morality. Foucault suggests our society and views are formed and regulated not only by the institutions and discourses that regulate our behaviour but also by the way we regulate ourselves (Foucault, 1978). He defines the difference between ‘morality’ – the codes of society or the rules that society sets – and ‘ethics’ – how people situate themselves in relation to these rules and the values they ascribe to the rules. For Foucault, it is all about the regulation of society and, most importantly, the relationship and regulation of constructing oneself; choosing to be an ethical subject in relation to others and to ‘the self’. Section 3.7 outlines the connection between Foucault and Fairclough, including their synergies and dissonances. Finally, Section 3.8 concludes with a summary of the chapter.
Aligning with the overall topic of this study, namely taboos and language, Foucault spent quite a period of his time concentrating on an inordinate taboo, namely that of sexuality. His later work focused on sexuality from the 16th to the 19th, century following issues and beliefs that changed, and those that had been rearticulated. He covered issues of confession and conduct that was forbidden, naming, classifying, belittling of sexuality in all forms, as well as the treatment of sexuality in areas such as psychiatry and medicine. This focus led him to state, “Taboos are not always to be found where we imagine them to be” (1972, p. 232). As was discussed in Chapter 2, taboos, taboo language, and swearing have some link at some point in history to sexually related issues. It is this link between sexuality and language that makes the choice of Foucault’s philosophies important for the lens of this study.
3.2 THE ORDER OF DISCOURSE, DISCURSIVE FORMATIONS, AND THE INSTITUTION
This section expounds Foucault’s architecture of discourse and how it is used in the institution. At the outset it is important to define what Foucault means by discourse. He describes it as “a certain way of speaking, a group of verbal performances; that produced by the groups of signs, formulations, a series of sentences or propositions,
52 Chapter 3: Theoretical Perspective
the group of statements that belong to a single system of formation, incorporating not only what is said, but things unsaid... in a system of prohibitions and values, in a space in history” (Foucault, 1972, pp. 107,110,193). For some, Foucault’s work on discourse, power, and the subject represents the most influential attempt to achieve an understanding about how to study human beings or to diagnose the current situation of a society. It is “a coherent and powerful alternative means of understanding” (Dreyfus & Rabinow, 1982, p. xvii).
Foucault as philosopher combines history as a means to trace paths of ‘systems of thought’; for Foucault these systems of thought are discursive formations and their method of analysis he names archaeology (McHoul & Grace, 2015). Because of his philosophy of historical glance, (Archaeological approach) his scientific thoughts and his structuralist-type ideals, he has been labelled a “non-historical historian, an anti- humanist human scientist, and a counter-structuralist structuralist” (Geertz, 1978, p. 3).
Foucault suggests that each society has its own system of ‘truth’: types of discourses that make something ‘true’, mechanisms and instances put in place to enable members to distinguish what is true and false, techniques and procedures agreed upon in the acquisition of truth, and the instances which assign people status to say what counts as ‘truth’(Foucault, 1980). Problematization occurs when a set of discursive or non-discursive practices that make something fall within the production of ‘true’ and ‘false’ constitute an object for thought. That object of thought could take the form of reflection, analysis, scientific or political knowledge and so on (Foucault, 1988b). Taboo language use at school, linked with consequences of suspensions and exclusions, could be viewed as a problematisation in current society.
In current society Foucault aligns some of the mechanisms that feed these discourses of ‘truth’ with institutions. Foucault describes the relation between institutions, discourse and truth effects. He suggests institutions
Impose ritual forms on discourse; they surround them with a circle of silent attention, a place that honours and disarms discourse, and a place that gives the specific discourse power but most of all, institutions manifest uncertainty. (Foucault, 1972, p. 216)
For the purposes of this study, institution can be defined as a set of relationships, between not only people but between people and objects, that are relatively stable and
Chapter 3: Theoretical Perspective 53
enduring. Institutions may have a physical presence but are essentially comprised of relationships and cover various fields in society. They may be public, such as educational, government, and legal, or they may be private, such as family, cultural, and personal, with public institutions being more regulated than the private (Danaher, Schirato, & Webb, 2000). This study considers institutions as the Department of Education, the individual schools, the classroom, different gendered subjects, as well as the relationships between all the parties in these environments.
Certain discourses of power are controlled, organised, selected and redistributed in society, including in institutions, according to particular procedures, specifically with regard to those that prohibit and warrant exclusion. By way of explanation Foucault suggests three types of prohibition with regard to discourse, namely, discourse covering objects, second, that concerning ritual, with all that it contains, and last, a ‘privilege or exclusive right’ to discuss certain subjects. Martín Rojo et al (2011) consider these as control of discourse power, control of the conditions of circulation of discourses, and control of the conditions of production of discourses. These prohibitions or controls re-enforce, interrelate and complement each other and are constantly being modified (Foucault, 1972).
The two areas Foucault specifies with regard to these prohibitions are politics and sexuality, suggesting the links to these prohibitions are connected with power and desire. These prohibitions and exclusions go further in society to work as a form of division and rejection (Foucault, 1972) or polarization (Rojo & Pujol, 2011, p. 96). Foucault explains the change in discourse through the ages as moving from what discourse was, what it did, ending ultimately in what is said; a will to truth as a result of our will to knowledge, a means of supporting exclusion (Foucault, 1972).
This will to knowledge or truth requires institutions in order to support and reinforce it, for example pedagogy, including amongst other things a system of books, libraries, publishing resources, policies, and laboratories. It is also the manner in which society enables, incorporates and supports the knowledge by ascribing, exploiting, and often dividing that serves to support and distribute this will to knowledge and constrains other forms of discourse.
This control of discourse power is detected at three points of discourse; at the source of discourse, where the authority or legitimacy is questioned, in regard to representation and ideology - questioning truth and objectivity, and finally, at the
54 Chapter 3: Theoretical Perspective
discourse itself, being vulgar, unsuitable or acceptable (Rojo & Pujol, 2011). The institution, in this case the Department of Education and school, supports and reinforces this will to knowledge and truth, continuing and enabling the divide between what is acceptable for adults and what is acceptable for children regarding taboo language and its use. In addition, the will to knowledge may differ between what is acceptable for some adults and what is unacceptable for others. The system the institution uses is that of policy rules and regulations. An important aspect of forces within discourse is that of communication and exchange.
Another form of control and delimitation of discourse for Foucault lies in internal rules, rules concerned with classification, distribution, and ordering. He describes these as ritualised narratives of society that are formulated in society, told, re-told, conserved because of some unknown but suspected hidden secret (Foucault, 1972). This is reflected in the case of taboo language discourse and children, which is controlled, classified, formulated, and restricted not only in society at large but especially in schools. Schools will align their own ‘internal rules’ with regard to taboo language, those rules that ‘classify,’ and if broken will illicit immediate suspension or exclusion, and those rules that do not.
Foucault suggests that ritual is the most obvious and superficial restriction. He explains ritual as being those qualifications required by the speaker, the gestures, behaviour, and range of signs, the rules, the formulations and types of utterances that accompany the discourse. “It lays down the supposed, or imposed significance of the words used, their effect upon those to whom they are addressed, the limitations of their constraining validity” (Foucault, 1972, p. 225). Here he describes discourses such as the judicial, religious, political, and therapeutic as all being linked to this ritual. In the case of this study, the ritual of taboo; what society - or in this case the institution - deems taboo will become ‘ritual’. What the institution deems significant, will have limitations.
Foucault follows with discussion of ‘fellowship of discourse’, which he suggests covers a different function to ritual, that being to preserve or to reproduce discourse in order that it is utilised in closed communities, according to strict regulations and without those in possession of the discourse being deprived by its circulation or use. He does, however, utilise the words ‘secrecy’, ‘exclusivity’ and ‘disclosure’ when describing ‘fellowship of discourse’, mentioning technical, scientific, medical as well
Chapter 3: Theoretical Perspective 55
as economic and political discourse. The closed communities using the taboo language or ‘discourse’ according to strict regulations may be teachers and school leaders in their staffrooms away from students.
Doctrine, another form of control and delimitation of discourse, presents itself as a form of diffusion among many members in aligning a certain allegiance but hinges on the speaker and on that which is spoken - the one affects the other according to Foucault. Here again, doctrine links some and obstructs others, a dual subjection, a sign which originates in prior adherences to things like class, racial or social status, a struggle, resistance, acceptance or revolt (Foucault, 1972, p. 226). Doctrine is clearly evidenced in community acceptability of certain swearing and taboo language use; for example, speech communities who can employ racist slurs because they themselves belong to that group.
Finally, Foucault discusses the social appropriation of discourse, the instrument employed by every individual in society to gain access to certain discourses, usually taking the form of education. Here again Foucault mentions the conflict imbued in the acquisition.
Every educational system is a political means of maintaining or of modifying the appropriation of discourse, with the knowledge and the powers it carries with it... a ritualization of the word; a qualification of some fixing of roles for speakers; the constitution of a (diffuse) doctrinal group; a distribution and appropriation of discourse with all its learning and powers. (Foucault, 1972, p. 227)
Linguistic, sociolinguistic, and rhetorical constraints in different social contexts and the establishment of rules, restrictions, and regulation of access to discourses all aid in controlling the conditions in production of certain discourses. Those who have access to production of discourses, those who establish rules of production and circulation of certain discourses, those who regulate discourses therefore control those discourses (Rojo & Pujol, 2011).
Institutions such as schools, or different genders as institutions, therefore utilise their power to maintain the discourse, the manner of excluding and separating, by ritual, role allegiance, doctrines and select distribution of selective discourses. This is clearly seen in the taboo language discourse at schools.
56 Chapter 3: Theoretical Perspective
3.2.1 Discursive Formations Another significant aspect of Foucault’s philosophies is discursive formation, which emerges from his contemplation on discourse. He describes discursive formation as involving regularity, order, correlation, positions and functioning, as well as transformations for a system or systems of dispersion between a number of statements, objects, types of statements, concepts, or thematic choices (Foucault, 1972, p. 38). Discursive formation is subject to certain rules, the rules of formation, and these rules are required in order for the discursive formation to exist, co-exist, maintain itself, modify itself and also to disappear. Discursive formations “systematically form the objects of which they speak” (Foucault, 1972, p. 49).
Discursive formations are more fully explained in Foucault’s elaborations on madness. He suggests that mental illness was constituted by all that surrounded it, namely the discourse, “by all the statements that named it, divided it up, described it, explained it, traced its developments, indicated its various correlations, judged it and possibly gave it speech by articulating, in its name, discourses that were to be taken as its own” (Foucault, 1972, p. 32). In relation to this study, school and societal discourses make up a discursive formation and school policy becomes part of this discursive formation (Ball et al., 2012). The different discourses “organize themselves into a single figure, converge with institutions and practices, and carry meanings that may be common to a whole period...a uniform text of communal ‘meaning’” (Foucault, 1972, p. 118). This ‘uniform communal meaning’ of text is made up in schools amongst other things as the combined need to promote and manage effective learning and behaviour practices and to raise standards (Ball et al., 2012).
Discursive formations are also characterised by “gaps, voids, absences, limits and divisions” (Foucault, 1972, p. 119). Similarly, Foucault suggests this is also true of discourse, its ‘plurality’ in what it says and what it hides. Discourse embraces a plurality of meanings, an overabundance of ‘signifieds’ in relation to a single ‘signifier’- a multiplicity of understandings for one word. These terms, signified and signifier, will be explained further and in more detail in Section 3.3. Foucault suggests that discourse situates itself so that not everything is said; it serves to divide and offer areas of voids and contradictions; according to Veyne (2010) it is implicit. With regard to repeated, transformed or reproduced discourse, meanings are multiplied and changed due to varied interpretation, commentary, and internal proliferation of
Chapter 3: Theoretical Perspective 57
meaning (Foucault, 1972). School behavioural policy becomes part of the discursive formation that is filled with division, contradiction, voids, ever changing with often implicit limits and divisions. These gaps, voids, absences, limits, and divisions in policy will be seen in Chapter 5, as well as in teacher and school leader response to swearing and taboo language use in school contexts in Chapter 6.
Specifically with regard to taboos in discourse, Foucault suggests that taboos are inconsistent in form and behaviour, and are always changing, which is clearly demonstrated in the first two chapters of this thesis.
Discourse is really only an activity, of writing in the first case, of reading in the second and exchange in the third. This exchange, this writing, this reading never involve anything but signs. Discourse thus nullifies itself, in reality, in placing itself at the disposal of the signifier. (Foucault, 1972, p. 228)
In relation to this, and considering Foucault employed and applied many of his ideas (Alderman, 2016), it is important to look at Ferdinand De Saussure’s work in regard to signs, signifiers and the signified, and language change.
3.3 DE SAUSSURE AND THE SIGN
Often recognised as the father of structuralism and highly noted in the field of structural linguistics, Ferdinand De Saussure provides the foundation of language as being a matter of signs. In his words:
Language is a system of signs that express ideas, and is comparable to a system of writing, the alphabet of deaf-mutes, symbolic rites, polite formulas, military signals, etc. But it is the most important of all these systems. (1959, p. 16)
He asserts that language is social – a contract signed by the members of a community and cannot be modified or created by an individual.
De Saussure differentiates between two aspects of language, langue and parole. Locating them in two different neuropsychological areas, he suggests langue is where auditory images are connected with concepts and is psychological, whereas parole is the speakers’ communicative intentions associated with the product or output, being individual, open to a myriad of combinations and psychophysical. Langue is homogeneous; whereas parole or speech is heterogeneous but both are interdependent (De Saussure, 1959).
58 Chapter 3: Theoretical Perspective
De Saussure uses the term sign to describe the combination of the concept and sound-image - it designates the whole. The term signified labels the concept, that idea or mental image in the brain, while signifier describes the sound-image, the marks written in text or the sound or image. In regard to the signified, therefore, he stresses that language meaning is in the individual’s mind (Joseph, 2012), but, as will be explained later, is also part of the collective. Most importantly, the linguistic sign is arbitrary, meaning it has no natural connection to the signified; De Saussure posits that this principle dominates all the linguistics of language (De Saussure, 1959).
A contradiction occurs in his position that is important to note for the current study. De Saussure suggests that this arbitrary nature of the sign is both immutable and mutable. The linguistic community utilising a sign is bound by history and existing language. The community is made up of inter-fused and interspersed generations, who are usually unconscious of their own language laws and rules and are generally satisfied with the language they receive, making sudden change unlikely. “Because the sign is arbitrary, it follows no law other than that of tradition, and because it is based on tradition, it is arbitrary” (De Saussure, 1959, p. 74). There is ample evidence of this in Chapter 2’s analysis of the history and progression of taboo language.
The contradiction however, is that the sign perpetuates itself, because it is exposed to alteration, and the change results in a ‘shift in the relationship between the signified and the signifier’. De Saussure suggests that language is not limited by anything and the fact that it is a product of both time and social force means its evolution is inevitable. He suggests that a language can be controlled for only as long as it is not introduced into social circulation (De Saussure, 1959). The individual cannot create change and meaning without the collective.
The element of difference is important for De Saussure who explains that the key to meaning in language is difference, not only of sound but also of ideas (1959, p. 120): that which is similar and that which is dissimilar, that which can be exchanged and that which can be compared, most importantly, that “characteristic in being what the others are not”. According to Elliott and Lemert (2014), this difference is grounded in social practice and is context dependent. De Saussure agrees, adding that all units of language depend on what surrounds and succeeds them (1959).
Within discourse, signs acquire relationships compared to other signs in a linear nature because they are linked together in an expression; however, outside discourse
Chapter 3: Theoretical Perspective 59
the relationships differ; they are no longer linear but are associated with what is already stored in the brain, which can have an indefinite number of connections and can be purely arbitrary. Most importantly for this study is the fact that De Saussure asserts “any conceptual difference perceived by the mind seeks to find expression through a distinct signifier, and two ideas that are no longer distinct in the mind tend to merge into the same signifier” (De Saussure, 1959, p. 121). This is important to keep in mind with regard to taboo language and the change in its use over time. A current example of this is the word ‘like’ pre- and post-Facebook. Pre-Facebook, like was only used as a part of a grammatical sentence; post-Facebook, like has different connotations in different conversations and can be used grammatically independently.
De Saussure also highlights the distinction between diachrony and synchrony as important in language; looking at language through a path in history as opposed to looking at it at a specific point in time. Bouissac (2010) employs the words successive and coexistent. Because De Saussure focuses more on the ‘science’ of linguistics and the langue, he differentiates between these two positions and states that when approaching language, the linguist has to choose one option and not fuse the two. De Saussure has been criticised for treating linguistics as static, however he spent his life studying linguistic changes in ancient texts and throughout his lectures mentions change in language (Elliott & Lemert, 2014). He suggests that change occurs through speech initially from the individual, with language being tested, adapted, compared, correlated, agglutinated, interpreted and decomposed, finally evolving to become part of the collective language (De Saussure, 1959). In this discussion, however, he focuses on the ‘grammatical’ side of language, the signifier, and fails to discuss change in concept or psychological change, change in the signified.
Focusing on taboo language and the relation of the signifier and signified, it is evident that change has occurred with many of the signs [words]. As demonstrated in Chapter 2, certain words were taboo in the Middle Ages, but today are not situated in this genre; while words considered taboo today were employed as everyday terms then. This demonstrates the change in signifiers and signifieds in this sense; moreover, certain words today will have differing signifieds and signifiers within the collective, supporting De Saussure’s assertion that the sign is not only arbitrary but based on difference in many senses.
60 Chapter 3: Theoretical Perspective
Figure 3.1. De Saussure’s semiology.
De Saussure’s semiology has transformed and evolved, ensuring that meaning in itself has changed, been reinterpreted and has become more challenging (Alderman, 2016). Foucault and De Saussure have many commonalities in their ideas. As discussed earlier, Foucault spent much of his time studying ancient texts and looking back in history in order to define his philosophies, utilising structuralist methods of systems of classifications and connecting structuralist-inspired social theory to the individual (Elliott & Lemert, 2014). Although Foucault adamantly denied being a structuralist, he had identified with the movement up until the 1960s (O'Farrell, 2005).
Structuralism was a doctrine about language but also applied to other aspects of culture and life (Olssen, 2003). De Saussure’s connection to language and structure, along with his classical text Course of General Linguistics (1959), enabled him to be associated with not only the development of linguistics but also with the intellectual movement of structuralism itself (Radford & Radford, 2005). Language was the functional system to be understood in terms of communication. Structure was seen as
Chapter 3: Theoretical Perspective 61
the way in which parts were dependent upon a whole – where the parts could only be understood in relation to the whole structure. As Saussure explains:
Language is a system of interdependent terms in which the value of each term results solely from the simultaneous presence of the others. (De Saussure, 1959, p. 114)
There are several notions central to structuralism and De Saussure’s thinking that Foucault rejected. First, Foucault rejected the idea that history was explained in terms of surface appearances and underpinned by elementary structure, laws or rules (Olssen, 2003). Second, he was opposed to prioritising the structure as a whole over the parts. A third notion Foucault rejected was structuralism’s failure to “theorise the historicity of structures” (p.193). De Saussure privileged synchrony over diachrony in analysis – the language at a moment in time without taking its history into account, as opposed to the development and evolution of the language through history. Foucault’s archaeological approach, as has been explained in Section 3.2 and as integrated in this thesis, privileges history as a methodological focus. In addition, Foucault’s move from archaeology to genealogy, the move towards power, the constitution of knowledge and history, separated him further from De Saussure and structuralism (Olssen, 2003). For Foucault, meaning becomes effected by power; systems of material and discursive articulation outweigh a system of signification. In Foucault’s words, “one’s point of reference should not be the great model of language (langue) and signs, but to that of war and battle” (1980, p.114).
Foucault and De Saussure do have similarities, amongst them being the fact that both show a commitment to difference or pluralism, and privileging the social and collective experience (Olssen, 2003). The following section elaborates on their connections relating to context and meaning.
3.4 PRAGMATICS – CONTEXT AND MEANING: ALIGNING FOUCAULT AND DE SAUSSURE
This section elaborates on pragmatics and the connection between Foucault and De Saussure’s musings. As has been discussed earlier Foucault develops the understanding of discourse as being historical and reticulated with discursive frameworks that are complex, uncertain, contingent, and precarious. The subject appropriates historically constituted discourses in an individual way in both a passive and active manner. This occurs as a passive bearer or active creator of history, using
62 Chapter 3: Theoretical Perspective
both discursive and non-discursive practices as opposed to systems of language or information (Olssen, 2010). In the instance of this study, the examples provided in Chapter 1 – the online use of swearing and taboo language, the memes, interaction between users, books, music videos, television, films, promotional gear – are just some examples of discursive and non-discursive practices that are constituting subjects. Foucault extends this understanding,
So it is not enough to say that the subject is constituted in a symbolic system. It is not just in the play of the symbolic that the subject is constituted. It is constituted in real practices – historically analyzable practices. There is a technology of the constitution of the self which cuts across symbolic systems while using them. (Foucault, 1983, p. 250)
It is the “everyday use of language” in different types of discourses that is important (Foucault, 1994, p. 541). Language is a historically constituted system, originating socially, socially situated and used socially. Meaning is generated therefore in a frame of reference, archeologically and within discourse.
Discourse is situated in but also exceeds context (Olssen, 2010). Context for Foucault is not just “situational and linguistic elements that formulate or determine meaning” (Foucault, 1972, p. 97); but rather it is situated against the background of a “whole verbal network” (p. 98). Depending on how formulations are positioned in and amongst others, according to the field they associate with or belong to, if it is an isolated remark, part of a narrative or an account, its effect will differ. Additionally, the statements already in the subject’s mind – their level, their form of linguistic experience, their verbal memory or reference of what has previously been articulated – will not be the same (Foucault, 1972).
To understand the particular individual we must understand the patterns of their socialisation, the nature of their concepts, as well as the operative norms and conventions that constitute the context for the activity and the origin of the concepts utilised. (Olssen, 2010, p. 39)
Similarly, because, as De Saussure (1959) points out, the signified relies on individual cognition, because the sign is individual yet part of the collective, and because history and the collective causes change, these aspects all add to making the understanding of meaning in use and meaning in context fluid, ambiguous, and containing a ‘plurality of meanings’(Foucault, 1972, p. 118).
Chapter 3: Theoretical Perspective 63
Foucault and De Saussure both support the notion that language and meaning are both individual and communal, requiring a “community of speakers” (De Saussure, 1959, p. 112). “A community is defined by the practices that constitute it” (May, 1997, p. 52), and in this regard the practices embody both linguistic and cultural rules. This aligns with Wittgenstein’s philosophy that language is a game made up of rules (1978), that it relates to a way of living and is “a practice, not something that happens once, no matter of what kind”(p. 335).
Therefore, in interpreting what is said or written, in directing a pragmatic approach in context-text meaning, the discursive formations in orders of discourse need to be explicated (Fairclough, 1992). This is significant in regards to this study as the pragmatics - ‘meaning in use’ or ‘meaning in context’ (Austin, 1962; Morris, 1938) – reflect the history and all that entails of both the speaker and the hearer, in addition to the context, community, speech community, taboo, and many more constitutions, none of which may be similar. Additionally “practices can be seen to be intelligible only in relation to existence as communal” (Olssen, 2010, p. 39); and – most importantly – context-text meaning needs to be evaluated along with communal understandings of rules of the language game (Wittgenstein, 1968, 1978).
This discussion has followed Foucault’s understandings of discourse and how it is controlled, organised, selected, redistributed, prohibited, excluded, supported, reinforced, enabled and divided, especially in relation to institutions. In addition, the discussion has outlined De Saussure’s influences and how they combined with Foucault’s regarding context.
3.5 TRUTH AND POWER
The following discussion presents Foucault’s philosophies regarding truth and power, not only in relation to discourse, but also that relating to the subject. Here again Foucault reflects that the best way to learn about truth and order is to research events in the past (Danaher et al., 2000). His terminology changes, shifting from utilising the word archaeology, a means of deducing ‘unconscious knowledge’, to genealogy, (a term linked to Nietzsche) which Foucault employs as a means of discerning truth via power mechanisms. O’Farrell (2005) discerns archaeology as being the possibilities of knowledge, whereas genealogy is about the constraints that limit knowledge. Chapters 1 and 2 of this thesis demonstrate the importance of looking back in history at the
64 Chapter 3: Theoretical Perspective
language to make note of change, but then also to focus on the power mechanisms that constrain, limit, but also constitute knowledge.
The power of knowledge shifts between different points according to Foucault. First the power of classifying language or discourse, that is the power of discerning certain discourses as more powerful than others. In the case of the taboo language discourse, there may be power in using it amongst certain members of a speech community or group, for example among youth in the park, but used in the institution at or among teachers, the discourse loses its power and becomes a means of the subject losing power and being regarded as unacceptable. Second, the discourse itself has the power to classify; for example, economic discourse constructs ‘productive individuals’; linguistic discourse governs subjects as structures of signification. In this case, use of the taboo discourse constructs ‘unacceptable behaviour’ of some subjects in the institution, or “historically expected and acceptable” behaviour of some male teachers. Last, this construction of discourse classifies how discourse is produced and is integral in the production of power relations operating within society (Elliott & Lemert, 2014). Using the taboo language discourse in a comedy skit as opposed to using the discourse in the classroom will have two very different outcomes. Discourse is where knowledge and power connect (Foucault, 1978); and this is seen most aptly in the taboo language discourse at schools.
Foucault discusses power relations throughout his work, with the notion changing through time, beginning with the initial view that it is more repressive (O'Farrell, 2005), changing to become more refined in later work. For Foucault, power is a relation between individuals or groups and exists only when exercised or ‘put into action’: “an action upon an action” (Foucault, 1982, p. 220), one that is either existing or still to come in the future. The power relationship is not usually consensual – but in contradiction – is also not a renunciation of freedom. There are two elements which make the relationship possible: first that the person who is being controlled by power recognises, maintains and ‘acts’ in the relationship; and second, that a host of responses, results, reactions and possible interventions are achievable in the relationship of power (Foucault, 1982).
Power is only possible if exercised within freedom; without freedom of the subject, there is no option of resistance or struggle, therefore changing the relationship of power to one of limitation. Violence and slavery are examples given by Foucault of
Chapter 3: Theoretical Perspective 65
this dynamic, but he suggests that wherever there is the ability of the subject to refuse, revolt, or escape, power exists. The option of resistance is always available to students, teachers and school leaders; therefore, power relationships will always exist in the institution.
Foucault delicately connects social structure, the State and institutions in this ‘dance of power relations.’ He suggests that ultimately power is situated outside of the institution, namely in society itself. “Power relations are rooted in the system of social networks (p. 224) – to live in society is to live in such a way that action upon other actions is possible and ongoing” (Foucault, 1982, p. 222). In analysing these power relations in society, first a system of differentiation is necessary. Differentiations may be determined by law or tradition and permit actions in relation to privilege, status, and economic differences established in such areas as cultural capital, linguistic competency, and know-how. The relationships of power are conditional upon and products of these differentiations. These differentiations are evident in judgments especially with regard to taboo language usage, such as differentiations of who can use taboo language without being punished or losing their job, who is celebrated for using the language, but also, those actions in society and by society, such as laws prohibiting swearing in specific contexts.
A second example of analysis in society relates to the types of objectives pursued by individuals wanting to act upon the actions of others. This incorporates maintaining those differences mentioned above, maintaining the privileges, maintaining systems of accumulating profits, exercising functions or trades, and bringing authorities into operation. Regarding the taboo language discourse this is two-fold: first the institution maintains the differences, excluding and prohibiting the discourse being employed at school; and second, some students, teachers, and school leaders maintain the system and resistance in the power relationship by employing the taboo discourse at school.
A third means of establishing power is by bringing about power relations and control by establishing threats in the form of arms or violence, economic difference and inequalities, systems of surveillance, or fixing rules which may be adjustable or fixed, explicit or ambiguous or all the above. Regarding the taboo language discourse, the schools, supported by the Department of Education, utilise the threat of suspensions and exclusions with rules that are often ambiguous in composition as well as performance.
66 Chapter 3: Theoretical Perspective
Forms of institutionalisation are another form of establishing power in society. These may take the shape of legal structures, traditions, customs, institutions that may be separated in a specific location with their own hierarchical structures, regulations, and autonomies such as schools and military complexes. Moreover, they often exist on an even larger scale, such as the state, regulating, distributing power relations to certain social groups, and generally forming an umbrella ‘protection’ with its own form of surveillance and control. In this study, the educational institution, supported by the government, with all their policies, hierarchies and traditional structures, serves as a type of institutionalisation.
Last, Foucault identifies power relations in varying degrees of rationalisation in society – the effectiveness of instruments in relation to the reaction encountered by the resistance. In relation to the taboo language discourse, due to inconsistencies in reactions as well as social acceptance, the students accept this power play as a viable recourse. Power endows itself the ability to adjust to any given situation in society (Foucault, 1982).
Power is not necessarily a negative, oppressive entity. Foucault asserts that power is productive, generating knowledge and cultural order. He ascertains that many find pleasure in exercising power, and – on the other hand – that many find pleasure in resisting power (1978). Foucault’s understanding of power is that it is capillary; it touches the soul of the individual; presents itself in the actions, attitudes, discourses, learning processes, physical body and, in fact, their life (Foucault, 1980). In this way it produces different types of behaviour, discourse – and most importantly – different types of knowledge (Foucault, 2001). Disciplinary power, bio-power, and governmentality are the three historical configurations proposed by Foucault regarding the power/knowledge relationship. The last configuration, governmentality, which looks at the subject and how the individual governs itself, is important in this study.
With the concept of governmentality Foucault alters the intent of power/knowledge and control to the individual. He suggests that governing incorporates techniques to guide people’s conduct from the state to the family and lastly to the individual. McNay (1994, p. 133) describes this process as “the conduct of conduct”. For Foucault, there needs to be a continuity in both an upward and downward direction in achieving this; if a person knows how to govern himself correctly, this will influence how he governs his family and how he governs the state.
Chapter 3: Theoretical Perspective 67
Similarly, if the state is governed well, the family will run smoothly and furthermore the individual will behave accordingly (Foucault, 1991). In sum, “the contact between the technologies of domination of others and those of the self I call governmentality” (Foucault, 1988c, p. 19).
Power is intertwined with governmentality in that accountability and responsibilisation (Rose, 1999) are ways employed to discipline citizens and institutions. The discipline comes in the form of a micro-management arrangement, of governing others and governing the self. Focus is on discipline by managing self- discipline and self-reflection in attempts to make citizens responsible (Rose, 1999). Steering practices are used to discipline citizens in sophisticated ways in order to “technically manage the way that individuals are expected to conduct themselves and their relations to others in order to produce politically desired ends” (p. 193). The strategy of making the individual subject “responsible” shifts responsibility for life in society into the domain where the individual is responsible and transforms the responsibility into a problem of “self-care” (J. L. Lemke, 2000, p. 12).
As can be seen, Foucault’s attitude evolves, directing focus more towards the relationship of the self. This is a significant dynamic for the current study as the connected and networked relationships of the teacher, student, policy, and institution are important. The following section describes the subject and the self in more detail, connecting to Foucault’s understandings of ethics and morality.
3.6 ETHICS, MORALITY, AND THE SELF
Foucault admits that although he spent quite a large part of his time questioning power, the general theme of his research is the subject rather than power (Foucault, 1982; O'Farrell, 2005). At this point it is important to define what Foucault posits as the subject. Although he retracts his intent about power in the earlier statement, the subject and relations of power are clearly linked in Foucault’s world.
3.6.1 The Subject According to Foucault, the subject is a philosophical category describing an entity able to choose its own course of action (O'Farrell, 2005). When discussing the subject, Foucault shows interest in defining what form of power transforms individuals into subjects:
68 Chapter 3: Theoretical Perspective
the form of power that... categorizes the individual, marks him by his own individuality, attaches him to his own identity, imposes a law of truth on him that he must recognize and others have to recognize in him. It is a form of power that makes individuals subjects. (Foucault, 2001, p. 331)
Foucault uses the term individual to describe the human entity, including the mind, prior to becoming a subject (Strozier, 2002). Foucault clearly defines the subject as binary, being controlled by and dependent on others and, second, consciously tied to his own identity as ‘self’. Veyne (2010, p. 104) distinguishes subjectivization or socialisation on the one hand and aestheticization on the other.
This understanding is in contrast to the phenomenological and 19th century notion that the subject was universal and timeless, never to be changed (Danaher et al., 2000). For Foucault, the subject is constituted in a process that is not natural, but is modelled by the discourses of his time, by the “reactions of his individual liberty and by whatever ‘aestheticizations’ he may undergo” (Veyne, 2010, p. 103). For Foucault, the subject does not exist prior to its history because it is constantly recreated and constituted by different configurations. It is a form not a thing, and even when attached to the same individual, it changes; different situations result in different relationships of the subject to the subject. The active subject constitutes itself through practices of the self which are modelled by the surrounding culture, society, and social group of the subject (Foucault, 1997). Dreyfus and Rabinow (1982) suggest that Foucault does not mean that this care of the self is concerned with desires, but rather with social acts.
Foucault suggests that society, our actions, thoughts and behaviours are influenced by certain discourses. This aligns with what has been extrapolated in Chapter 1, with the examples of current context situations such as music videos of Fergie using fuck and motherfucker, television and online shows such as South Park, media publications, and the myriad other examples presented explaining the taboo language used in these instances: this discourse, the taboo language discourse, is shaping current behaviours and ways of thinking. It is shaping how subjects today are being constructed. In these instances, subjects are both adults and students.
Throughout Foucault’s work he describes the different modes applicable in transforming human beings into subjects. First, he identifies the objectivising of the subject through inquiry, be that in linguistics, economics, natural history or any other area. This would involve classifying, analysing, normalising and disciplining, with
Chapter 3: Theoretical Perspective 69
Danaher et al. (2000) suggesting naming and subject positioning as the processes utilised. Second, Foucault highlights objectivising the subject through practices of dividing, either from others or within the subject himself; if you are not mad, then you are sane, criminal or an upstanding member of the community. The third mode of transforming is how the human being – through self-regulation and self-inspection, incorporating morals and ethics – becomes a subject.
3.6.2 Ethics and the Self An ethical focus is apparent throughout Foucault’s work but is emphasised in the latter stage of his work where he focuses on sexuality. The sexuality aspect is not important for this study although the connection between taboos, taboo language, and sexuality is present; it is the underlying understanding of transformation of the self that is important here.
Foucault defines ‘the self’ as having two meanings: that of ‘sameness’, from the word auto, and the notion of identity. He suggests the latter definition then changes to a question of not what the self is, but where can it be found. He extrapolates this further by explaining that the self is the soul, so in caring for your ‘self’, you have to care for your soul (1988c). As in previous works, he employs history to theorise and suggests that this can be helpful in analysing the present. He suggests that the cultural inventions of mankind supply us with tools for analysing what is happening in the present and how to change it (Foucault, 1997). The three main technologies he identifies are ,“self- examination with respect to thoughts in correspondence to reality, self-examination with respect to the way our thoughts relate to rules and third, self-examination with respect to the relation between the hidden thought and inner impurity” (1997, p. 247). All three utilise the form of verbalisation as important in constituting a positive self.
Verbalisation forms part of confession, which is central to Foucault’s understanding of power and its workings. “Western societies have established the confession as one of the main rituals we rely on for the production of truth” (Foucault, 1978, p. 58) in every aspect of everyday life – even in “ordinary affairs” (p.59). The connection between confession and verbalisation as a tool for self-examination played a significant role in choosing interviews as a methodological technique in gathering data for this study. Linked with verbalisation and confession, Foucault shares the concept of parrhesia, a form of speaking freely, or of truth telling, which combines
70 Chapter 3: Theoretical Perspective
the obligation to speak the truth and the constitution of the relationship to self, as well as techniques and procedures of governmentality (Foucault, 2010).
The relation the individual has with himself is what Foucault describes as ethics, a way of behaviour and being - a concrete practice of freedom informed by reflection (Foucault, 1997). Foucault distinguishes between moral codes, as being the rules, prohibitions or laws, and ethics, as being the values the rules ascribe (Danaher et al., 2000), see Figure 3.2. In order to become an ethical subject, self-formation is vital, and morality is seen as either codes of behaviour, behaviour prescribed by groups or society, or subjectivation, a more introspective behaviour. Although both are independent, they will always be connected; however, Foucault is more concerned with the latter form (1990).
Figure 3.2. Morality and Ethics.
3.6.3 Care and Construction of the Self Foucault suggests four ways in which individuals ought to conduct themselves as an ethical subject (Foucault, 1978, 1997). First the determination of the ethical substance, is the way in which the individual constitutes parts of himself, the part or aspect the person needs to work on, “the nature of the domain upon which work is actually to be done” (Tait, 2000, p. 150). For the contemporary subject, Foucault argues, this ethical substance is feelings (Foucault, 1978). Second, the mode of
Chapter 3: Theoretical Perspective 71
subjection is the way in which the individual relates to the rule or obligation, the way they recognise their moral obligation which could take the form of a law, social custom, rationality, or as a means of setting an example to others. Third is the means utilised to construct an ethical being, known as forms of elaboration of ethical work; Foucault also calls this asceticism. This can consist of physical, spiritual and mental methods, such as self-discipline, meditation, writing journals, as well as physically manipulating the body to act in particular ways. Lastly, the telos of the ethical subject is explained as establishing the ideal ultimate moral being, the ultimate control of the ethical being (Foucault, 1990).
Ultimately, Foucault contemplates modern society’s attitude to art. He suggests art is only related to objects and never to life or individuals. He questions why an individual’s life cannot become a work of art, an oeuvre, and suggests that the relation one has to oneself should be viewed as a creative activity. He aligns himself with Nietzsche’s view, that being that one creates one’s life through constant repetition and daily work (Foucault, 1997).
According to Foucault there is a large degree of scepticism with regard to any form of ethics or belief system in current contemporary society, making a more individualised and localised ethics a more applicable and acceptable option (McNay, 1994). Foucault suggests that constituting the self should occur in an active fashion, utilising ‘practices of the self’ (1997). The culture, society and social group are responsible for guiding, imposing and proposing these practices. He supports this notion with the requirement that this care of the self needs to be done within the rules of law, techniques of management, morality as well as ethics, which will allow the power play to take place with the minimum amount of domination. However, as mentioned earlier, an essential part of power is freedom; without freedom there will be no power play, hence practices of the self will be restricted (Foucault, 1997). In an attempt to implement, interpret, make meaning, engage with and respond to policy in the school environment, the teachers and school leaders will construct competing and contradictory subject positions with the use of Foucault’s ethical fourfold (Foucault, 1997, p. xxvii).
It is clear that Foucault connects the construction of the self, the postulation of identity, and the transformation of the self as historically and culturally influenced (Foucault, 1997); however he also advises not to accept this given construction blindly,
72 Chapter 3: Theoretical Perspective
“not to discover what we are, but to refuse what we are”; to reconstitute new forms of subjectivity (Foucault, 1982, p. 216). He clearly integrates the construction of the subject according to a tripartite system, including ‘the sciences, savoirs, that refer to it; power, pouvoir that regulates it, and recognised forms within, in order to achieve the ultimate power/knowledge/truth combination’ (Foucault, 1990, p. 4).
3.7 FOUCAULT AND FAIRCLOUGH
The third aspect of the conceptual framework of this study uses Fairclough’s socio-theoretical approach to Critical Discourse Analysis. An outline of the approach and of how it connects with Foucault is detailed in Chapter 4. This section articulates the connection between Foucault and Fairclough, their similarities and differences, as introduction to the discussion in the next chapter.
As discussed earlier in Section 3.3, Foucault denied being a structuralist like De Saussure; but he also denied being a Marxist: “I have never been a Freudian, I have never been a Marxist, and I have never been a structuralist” (Foucault, 1998a, p. 437). Foucault refused to commit to any particular position; in his view he found political positions limiting and oppressive (Foucault, 1998b). On the other hand, Fairclough subscribes to Marxist ideas (Fairclough, 2004); for example, in his assertion that class relations have more a more fundamental status than other relations such as gender, race, and age (Fairclough, 1989; Fairclough & Graham, 2002). Fairclough draws on the work of Marxist scholars such as Louis Althusser (1971) and Antonio Gramsci (1971) regarding social conflict, domination, and resistance manifested in discourse, as well as the relationship between language, power, and ideology (Fairclough, 1992).
Political orientations are not the only differences between the two. While Fairclough focuses more on textual or linguistic focused analysis, Foucault’s approach is more abstract and socially-oriented (Fairclough, 1992). Fairclough acknowledges that Foucault’s approach to discourse analysis is revered as the model by many social scientists, and uses Foucault’s work to “heavily inform”(Dremel, 2014, p.158) his own approach.
The choice of fusing ideas from Fairclough and his critical theorist, neo-Marxist perspective (Curtis, 2014; Fairclough, 2001c) with Foucault, who abstains from qualifying a set position but demonstrates critical aspects in his work (Kettle, 2007), seems incommensurable. The solution rests with the analysis itself.
Chapter 3: Theoretical Perspective 73
Foucault’s focus is directed more toward discursive practices, the conditions of possibility of discourse and the rules of formation that define possible subjects or objects of knowledge (Foucault, 1972). The emphasis is on the capacity to conceptualise relationships between the discursive and the non-discursive and knowledge and power (Dremel, 2014). However, without the analytical use of real examples, including texts and context, like in Fairclough’s approach, the analyst is restricted in showing “the social practice quality of discourse” (p. 157) or wider social processes (Fairclough, 2001a). For this reason, the conceptual framework of the study incorporates the use of both Foucault and Fairclough. How then does Fairclough connect with De Saussure?
Fairclough does not accept De Saussure’s notion of language without the use – langue being the auditory images, the system or code, whereas parole is the individual yet social use (Fairclough, 1989). The emphasis for Fairclough needs to be on language use that is socially determined; language use characterised by power struggle and diversity. Nevertheless, De Saussure saw the structure as social therefore changing over time, which links with both Foucault and Fairclough’s ideas regarding language change, making them ideal contextual partners.
3.8 SUMMARY
This chapter has discussed Foucault’s philosophies with regard to discourse and discursive formations, how discourse is regulated and controlled by the institution, and how, utilising De Saussure’s understanding of the sign, with its arbitrary nature and difference, allows discourse to be situated as a means of regulating the subject. The chapter elaborated on the connection between Foucault and De Saussure, and on their reasonings about pragmatics, context and meaning. The chapter further extrapolated Foucault’s understandings of power and knowledge through governmentality, through domination or rules over others and those over ourselves. The discussion targeted the direction towards a clearer understanding of the subject, incorporating the concept of the construction of the self. Finally, the chapter highlighted the connection between Foucault and Fairclough and their political slants and approaches to discourse analysis, and served as introduction to Chapter 4, the methodology.
74 Chapter 3: Theoretical Perspective
Chapter 4: Research Methodology
Chapter 4 details the research design of the study, that being a descriptive qualitative Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) study, using snowball sampling (Fairclough, 2003). The current chapter reviews the research aims and research questions for the study in Section 4.1. Section 4.2 outlines the research design, incorporating the researcher paradigm – the qualitative, interpretive approach of the study – as well as an explanation of Fairclough’s CDA in Section 4.2.2. Section 4.3 introduces the research methods. A brief discussion follows in Section 4.3.1 describing snowball sampling and how it was put to effect in this study to source participants. A contextual discussion then follows in Section 4.3.2, detailing specifics about the 19 participants sourced across 14 secondary schools in south East Queensland. The chapter proceeds with details about the interviews, in Section 4.3.3, and policy documents used, in Section 4.3.4. Analytic methods are described in Section 4.4 beginning with an outline of how transcription was used, followed by a discussion about how CDA was used to analyse both policy document data and interview data. Trustworthiness, credibility and researcher reflexivity are discussed in Section 4.5, followed in Section 4.6 by a brief outline of ethics and limitations of the study. The chapter concludes with a short chapter summary. At this point however, it is important to revisit the research aims and questions in order to establish and reinforce the direction of the study.
4.1 RESEARCH AIMS AND QUESTIONS
As has been established in the previous chapters, the swearing and taboo language discourse is changing in society, with many people employing and being surrounded by taboo language as part of daily acceptable discourse. In addition, figures supplied by the Queensland Department of Education (2014) reveal verbal misconduct to be a large initiator in student suspension and exclusion from state schools, demonstrating a dissonance between practice in daily life and practice in schools. It is with this tension in mind that the current study aimed to discover:
Chapter 4: Research Methodology 75
• How teachers and school leaders weave societal language change in relation to taboo language and swearing with institutional boundaries of acceptability, whilst communicating suitable social and moral identities?
In endeavouring to answer this main question, the following sub-questions were posed:
• How does the institution, including stakeholders, structure, respond to, and engage with policy relating to language boundaries, and how do they set consistent boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable language? (Chapter 5)
• How do teachers and school leaders define verbal misconduct, what language constitutes verbal misconduct and has this (language and definition) changed over time? (Chapter 6)
• How do teachers and school leaders constitute themselves in response to taboo language and swearing use and has this response changed over time? (Chapter 7)
4.2 RESEARCH DESIGN
4.2.1 Research Paradigm
Ontology is seen as the study of being or what constitutes reality for the individual - what is; whereas epistemology is how we acquire that knowledge, how we know or what it means to know (Graue & Karabon, 2013; Gray, 2014; Mack, 2010), which is key for the qualitative researcher who is focused on understanding. Important in this current study is the perspective that “Language both reflects and shapes knowing” (Graue & Karabon, 2013, p. 11).
When undertaking research, either an inductive or discovery approach, or a deductive or proof elicited approach is utilised. The deduction approach usually begins with a hypothesis or universal view of a situation, working back to specifics and testing the hypothesis; whereas in an inductive approach, with a more disconnected outset, results in connecting, analysing, and systemising patterns and relationships between variables, making generalisations, or sometimes even constructing theories, in the attempt to make meaning and to understand patterns and consistencies (Dewey, 1933). An initial inductive discovery approach was used to understand the clash of discourses
76 Chapter 4: Research Methodology
in the education institutions, dealing with the actions of the individual, those aspects of the individual that are unique, qualitative and also social (Crotty, 1998).
Each person has their own life experiences, their own knowledge and understanding of the world; and their life experiences will influence and affect their opinions and outlook. With regard to epistemological considerations it is important to differentiate between meaning making in an individual’s mind – termed constructivism – which is a more unique experience, and constructionism, which is the more collective production and transmission of meaning; the more social and cultural experience (Crotty, 1998). Here the individual constructs his or her own meaning but does so in community with support from their known culture, which includes discourses. The more experiences they have, the more their knowledge and understandings change and adapt accordingly. This communal ideal aligns with constructionism and supports the understanding and possibility that multiple valid and often contradictory accounts of the world can exist.
As both Blaikie (1993) and Giddens (1979) explain, one can have a constructivist view of scientific knowledge with regard to the natural world, but a constructionist view of scientific knowledge connected to that of the social world; often the term constructivism is employed interchangeably with constructionism (Crotty, 1998). Linked to this study, language and taboo is a social interaction, as has been noted, which is culturally and socially influenced; therefore this influences the term employed in this study, namely constructionism.
Encapsulating then, the natural sciences look for consistency in data and ‘deduce’ outcomes, whereas social sciences study individuals and their actions. Taking the view that social reality is collective, seen by multiple people interpreting events differently from differing perspectives, understanding, explaining and demystifying these social realities through different subjective viewpoints is vital in an interpretivist ontology (L. Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007). However, the more critical paradigm comes from the standpoint of social behaviour being defined and constructed around power play and repressive factors (L. Cohen et al., 2007); and it invites an approach of challenging the dominant discourse, highlighting social inequalities and power issues, as well as inviting change (Gage, 1989). This study therefore incorporates both an interpretivist and a critical approach.
Chapter 4: Research Methodology 77
Qualitative research can be classified as interpretive in aiming to understand and make meaning, whereas critical inquiry aims at challenging, critiquing, empowering and transforming. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), critical research with Marx, Habermas and Freire as influences highlights the issue of power dynamics as central to critical research, focusing more on context than individuals. Questions such as who maintains the power, the structures of power in society, how power is negotiated, who reinforces and distributes power frame this research approach. For Merriam et al. (2016), critical research aims to focus attention on the nature of truth and the construction of knowledge, as well as on how power relations are utilised by some groups in order to marginalise and oppress other groups.
This background of power struggles is intertwined in both Foucault and Fairclough’s thinking, as seen in Chapter 3, making the critical approach the one to follow with this study. However, in saying this, the issue here is, as Foucault explained, that power is capillary (1980), it is productive, and therefore a more interpretivist approach would be beneficial in studying this manifestation of power differences and resistances, with its unusual nuances. The current research problem combines several aspects, therefore requiring a pastiche approach: understanding, explaining, and interpreting, but also challenging, highlighting and inviting change. Therefore, utilising a more critical interpretivist stance, the current study takes an inductive approach, accumulating and analysing data to make meaning and to understand the issues at the schools, with teachers and school leaders, but also highlighting power inequities found to be present.
4.2.2 Critical Discourse Analysis The following section outlines CDA as the approach of the study as well as the analysis technique employed. As explained in Section 3.7, Fairclough’s approach to CDA combines language analysis, ‘text-and-interaction’, with a social-theoretical aspect of discourse (Fairclough, 1992). He uses the term discourse as language-in-use, as an element of social life as well as language that is interconnected with other elements, for example, the kind used in a specific field such as politics or science. It can also include visual images (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002). In addition to this he uses the term in an abstract way, a way of representing aspects of the world (Fairclough, 2003) and “it is very similar to how Foucault uses discourse” (Fairclough, 2004, p. 11).
78 Chapter 4: Research Methodology
The ‘critical’ aspect aims at demonstrating hidden connections between language, power and ideologies in discourse; the constructive effects of discourse on social relations, beliefs, systems of knowledge as well as social identities (Fairclough, 1989, 1992). “Discourse is the site of power struggles” (Fairclough, 1989, p. 74); discursive practices contribute to these power struggles between social groups and the effects are ideological (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002). Power in this study articulates Foucault’s explanation of power, that being power is “capillary” (Foucault, 1980, p. 39) .
Several reasons presented as to why CDA was suitable for this study. First, Fairclough stresses that “changes in language use are linked to wider social and cultural processes” (1992, p. 1). CDA is practical, theoretically robust and facilitates an approach that allows an analysis of language to investigate not only change in language but also cultural and social change – concepts that are central to this study. Additionally, Fairclough employs elaborations and influences from Foucault, building on his discourse analysis to “increase the value of discourse analysis as a method in social research” (1992, p. 5), which enhances and supports the theoretical approach in this study.
Language is a part of society but also a social process that is socially conditioned by other non-linguistic parts of society (Fairclough, 1989). Fairclough extends this understanding by explaining that people use language that is socially determined and has social effects; that is subject to social conventions that are used to maintain or change relationships. On the other hand, language is part of the social process and practice. In this instance people can use the same word but mean different things, reflecting “struggles in language and over language” (1989, p. 23).
Discourse as social interaction includes a process of production and a process of interpretation. Text as one part of discourse will then become a product in the process of production and a resource in the process of interpretation. Additionally, discourse also involves social conditions of production and social conditions of interpretation that relate to three ‘levels’ of organisation. These three levels are: first, of social situation, meaning the immediate social environment where discourse occurs, for example, a classroom; second, a wider matrix, that being the level of social institution, for example being part of the secondary school; and third, the level of society as a whole. Social conditions shape what a subject contributes to production and
Chapter 4: Research Methodology 79
interpretation, which in turn shapes how specific texts are produced and then interpreted (Fairclough, 1989).
Therefore, this approach of CDA focuses on a more social-theoretical sense of discourse combined with ‘text and interaction’– it is three dimensional (see Figure 4.1). “Any discursive ‘event’ is seen as being simultaneously a piece of text, an instance of discursive practice, and an instance of social practice” (Fairclough, 1992, p. 4). The text dimension focuses on the language analysis area; the discursive practice focuses on text production and interpretation – namely types of discourses (including discourses as understood in the social-theoretical sense); – and third, the social practice area attends to the broader social analytic. The broader social analytic includes institutional and organisational conditions and how they shape discursive practice, including the constructive/constitutive effects they have on discourse.
Social Practice:
Discursive Practice: Macro (production, distribution, consumption)
Text: Micro
Figure 4.1. Socio-theoretical approach of CDA.
Analysis then becomes a three-dimensional approach within a three staged approach. The stages are description, interpretation, and explanation (Fairclough, 1989), and occur as an “oscillating” process between a focus on specificities of texts
80 Chapter 4: Research Methodology
and the ‘order of discourse’ or the social structuring of language in a network of social practices (Fairclough, 2003, p. 3).
First, the description stage focuses on the formal properties of the text, the identification and ‘labelling’ of the linguistic features of the text (Fairclough, 1989, p. 26). This stage employs Fairclough’s framework (Fairclough, 2003) to highlight both linguistic (vocabulary and grammar) and paralinguistic (rising intonation and volume of speech) features. These features are used by people in social settings, therefore are viewed as social; socially determined with suitable social effects.
Interpretation, the second stage, is concerned with the relationship between the text and social interaction. The text is part of the product of a process of production, but is also as a resource in the process of interpretation. The analyst becomes part of the process of interpretation, firstly by producing a text, by choosing and transcribing it, and secondly, by interpreting the participants’ meanings and understandings manifested in their linguistic choices. Interpreting is analysing the “cognitive process of participants” (Fairclough, 1989, p. 27). This interpretation is influenced by the participants’ and researcher’s Members’ Resources (MR). MR are representations stored in long-term memory; language knowledge, assumptions, understandings, historical experiences, “proto-types for a very diverse collection of things” (Fairclough, 1989, p. 11); beliefs about social and natural worlds, values and so forth.
The link between the social and the linguistic is pivotal in Fairclough’s approach (2003) and is mediated by which discourse or discourse type is being drawn upon. Social meanings are realised discursively in different ways, (see Table 4.1): as “part of action”(p. 26), as a way of acting, as a way of representing, and, as a way of being. Social meanings are realised linguistically in texts as genres, discourses and styles. “Focusing analysis on the interplay of action, representation, and identification brings a social perspective into the heart and fine detail of the text”(Fairclough, 2003, pp. 27,28). The three aspects of meaning, (genre, discourses, and styles), share a dialectical relation, or “systematicity”, according to Foucault (1997, p. 317). Control over things is mediated by relations with others (see arrows on Table 4.1); relations with others always involves relations with oneself and vice versa. Relating this then to Fairclough’s approach of genre, discourse, and style, “representations (discourses) may be enacted in particular ways of Acting and Relating (genres), and inculcated in particular ways of Identifying (styles)” (Fairclough, 2003, p. 29).
Chapter 4: Research Methodology 81
Table 4.1 Dialectical relations and types of meaning
The third stage of analysis, explanation, involves the relationship between social context and interaction; of considering “a discourse as part of processes of social struggle, within a matrix of relations of power” (Fairclough, 1989, p. 163). During this stage the analyst explains the linguistic choices made by the participant in relation to a theoretical, ideological or power related orientation (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999). The objective of the explanation stage is for the analyst to expose a discourse as part of a social process, as social practice, demonstrating how it is determined by social structures. In addition, by portraying the discourse, the analyst demonstrates how those social structures are sustaining or changing. Most importantly, the analyst is required to demonstrate how participants’ assumptions about culture, social relationships, and social identities manifest in texts, and work ideologically to challenge, sustain or change existing power relations (Fairclough, 1989).
Most importantly for this study, texts as elements of social events or practice have causal effects in that they bring about change, contribute to shaping and changing peoples’ identities, contribute to changes in areas such as education, can start wars, change industrial relations, and produce many more effects (Fairclough, 2003). In the case of this study, some causal effects can localise as suspensions and exclusions for students.
Discursive Change
Discursive change in relation to social and cultural change is of particular importance in this study. According to Fairclough (1992) the analyst needs to understand processes of change in discursive events as well as how orders of discourse are effected by processes of rearticulation. A binary combination exists in the change
82 Chapter 4: Research Methodology
in discursive events, namely problematisation24 and innovation. Producers and interpreters are faced with “problematisation of conventions” (p. 96) during interactions in various ways, such as using taboo language, sexist language and/or swearing in social interaction, with school contexts being seen as areas for social interaction. The basis of problematisation is contradiction that emanates between subject positions, social relations, and political practices in this changing atmosphere.
Problematisations cause ‘dilemmas’ (Billig et al., 1988) that are often resolved through creativity and innovation. This innovation occurs by adapting existing acceptable conventions in new ways, and in so doing discursive change occurs. Transgressions occur, allowing boundaries to be crossed, such as aligning new combinations with existing conventions or employing new previously un-used conventions. Intertextuality25 and its historicity of text add to the creativity of this discursive change.
The ‘dilemmas’, contradictions, and subjective apprehension exist in both the institutional and societal levels, and these can vary. “What crucially determines how these contradictions are reflected in specific events, however, is the relationship of those events to the struggles which are going on around these contradictions” (Fairclough, 1992, p. 97). Those struggles solved by problematisation or innovation then change from ‘stylistically contradictory texts’ and become naturalised into discourse and become acceptable. This naturalised discourse is noted in data from this study.
The naturalised and acceptable discourse then leads to a change in orders of discourse. Orders of discourse are “a particular combination or configuration of genres, discourses and styles which constitutes the discoursal aspect of a network of social practices” (Fairclough, 2003, p. 220). The combinations and innovation of combining new discursive conventions produce structural changes in the orders of discourse, disarticulating existing orders of discourse and rearticulating new orders of
24 Foucault explains “problematization doesn’t mean the representation of a pre-existing object, nor the creation through discourse of an object that doesn’t exist. It is the set of discursive and non-discursive practices that makes something enter the play of the true and the false and constitutes it an object for thought (whether under the form of moral reflection, scientific knowledge, political analysis, etc.)” (1988a, p. 257).
25 The presence within a text of elements of other texts (Fairclough, 2003). See 4.4.2 for more detail.
Chapter 4: Research Methodology 83
discourse, with new power structures. Here again these structural changes may affect only the order of discourse in a microclimate such as an institution, but may surpass these to have an effect on the societal order of discourse (Fairclough, 1992).
When focusing on discursive change it is important to investigate not only the discursive event but also the structural changes in order to gain an appreciative view of social change. Similarly, attending to social change without considering discursive change and structural change or discourse contributions will not be efficient. There are two related types of change that affect societal order of discourse. The first is the power asymmetry in institutions between people of unequal power balances, such as teachers and pupils or principals and teachers, parents and children, or – in other fields – doctor and patient, which Fairclough terms “democratization”(1992, p. 98). The second is “synthetic personalization” (Fairclough, 1989, p. 62), a simulated personal, individual, face-to-face discourse but produced in an en masse process such as media, radio, and television. Both democratisation of discourse and synthetic personalisation link to democratisation in society, which in turn is linked to marketisation, and shifts the power away from the producers to the consumers of discourse.
4.3 RESEARCH METHODS
The following section outlines the methods used to source participants and to generate qualitative data through interviews and policy analysis.
4.3.1 Snowball Sampling
In order to gather a varied and richly textured understanding of teachers’ experiences and responses to swearing and taboo language use in schools, snowball sampling was used to garner participants for individual interviews. Traditionally snowball sampling has been used to discover participants in hidden or “hard to reach” populations (Handcock & Gile, 2011, p. 2; Heckathorn, 2011), but was chosen in this study purposefully, employed as a type of “convenience sampling” (Heckathorn, 2011, p. 357), in order to achieve a broader reach into the school teacher and school leader community in south east Queensland.
The term snowball sampling has been used for different concepts, has aligned with different meanings, and the meaning has evolved over time (Handcock & Gile, 2011). In alignment with Foucault’s archaeological approach (Foucault, 1972), it is
84 Chapter 4: Research Methodology
useful to return to the source of snowball sampling. The earliest work using this method was in the 1940s researching personal influence via media, but the approach was not labelled as snowball sampling (Handcock & Gile, 2011). The authors of this early study commented, “people can move other people” (Lazarsfeld, Berelson, & Gaudet, 1944, p. 18), which describes snowball sampling in its essence.
Coleman (1958) and Goodman (1961) are now used as the primary references for the definition of snowball sampling, after their earlier studies using this approach. Coleman (1970) defines snowball sampling as one method of interviewing a person’s immediate social environment by using the sociometric questions in the interview for sampling purposes. This type of sampling starts with the researcher interviewing one participant and then asking that participant for a referral of another friend or contact. That referral is then interviewed and, as a participant in the study, is asked for a referral of another friend, colleague, or contact (Trow, 1957). The behaviour continues until the researcher has exhausted all connections or until sufficient data have been obtained (Neuman, 2014). The difference between this type of sampling and ordinary sampling is that these participants have binary connections, one as participants who are individuals and the other as participants who are connected through relations (J. Coleman, 1970).
Snowball sampling, as previously mentioned, has also been taken to refer to a form of convenience sampling mechanism used in more ‘hard to reach’ or hidden populations (Biernacki & Waldorf, 1981); a form employed when a population is impossible or impractical to reach. Often assigned as sampling used for populations suffering stigma and marginalisation, such as drug users, AIDS carriers (Sifanek & Neaigus, 2001), and unemployed men (Atkinson & Flint, 2001) amongst others, this method has also been used for those ‘hiding by choice’, such as social elites, including political, social, economic, and defensive elites (Moyser & Wagstaffe, 1987). As secondary school teachers and school leaders are not ‘hard to reach’ or ‘hidden’, snowball sampling was not used for this reason in this study. The approach was used to achieve a broader contact of participants and to generate a unique social knowledge regarding responses to swearing and taboo language use.
This sampling method, also known as network sampling, reputational sampling, respondent driven sampling (RDS), and chain referral sampling (Neuman, 2014), generates a unique type of social knowledge of an interactional quality (Noy, 2007).
Chapter 4: Research Methodology 85
Snowball sampling uses and activates existing social networks, making it essentially social but with the capacity to incorporate multiple perspectives (Stehlik, 2004). Similar to an “interconnected web” (Neuman, 2014, p. 274), the participants are connected but not necessarily in a direct way. All participants are part of a network, in this case 19 teachers and school leaders from 14 secondary schools in south east Queensland; but not all participants know each other or work together; in fact, only four of the participants in the study knew a fellow participant in the working environment, two from one school and two from another. The participants however, were unaware that ‘the other’ was taking part in the study. The sociogram in Figure 4.2 visualises how the participant network connects.
Network •Participant agent •Participant
Network •Participant agent •Participant
Network •Participant agent •Participant
Figure 4.2. Snowball sampling network connections sociogram.
The researcher has several network contacts, ‘gatekeepers’ (Woodley & Lockard, 2016) or ‘go-betweens’ (N. Cohen & Arieli, 2011), known to her from previous working experience in schools as well as university connections. Once ethics was finalised, the researcher emailed, phoned and met with these network contacts, explained the premise of the study, and outlined the requirements for participants. The network contacts then became network agents (Figure 4.2) moving into their own network circles, be those personal or in school settings, explaining the premise of the study to potential participants. Network agents gave potential participants two options to contact the researcher. First, the participants shared their contact details with the network agent who then, with permission, shared these details with the researcher. The researcher then contacted the participant for the interview. The alternative option
86 Chapter 4: Research Methodology
occurred in some instances where the network agent supplied the potential participant with the researcher’s details, which gave potential participants the control to contact the researcher if they chose to become a part of the study, simultaneously servicing ethical privacy issues.
During the hour-long individual interviews, the researcher asked each participant if they knew of any other secondary school teachers or school leaders who would be interested in taking part in the study and if they did, they could give the potential participant the researcher’s details. In this way the participants became a network agent themselves, the network spread, and additional participants were sourced. On several occasions, an exponential non-discriminative snowball sampling technique (Dudovskiy, 2018) was used where multiple referrals were provided by a network agent, which allowed the researcher to explore options with participants and the primary data. In addition, the participants and their referrals were usually from different schools, allowing for a more diverse group of participants.
There are several drawbacks with snowball sampling. Inferences made with participants usually must be made with the initial participants only because of known connections and possible biases with additional participants. Second, the subjects that volunteer are seen as ‘co-operative’ subjects, or outliers, and their data may be biased. Third, ‘masking’ may occur. This is a circumstance where the participants protect colleagues or friends and do not refer them in relation to privacy concerns, making the sample biased. Last, those participants with larger networks will be over-sampled and participants who are isolates will have fewer referrals (Erickson, 1979).
In order to overcome these drawbacks, the current study chose participants that were unknown to the researcher. The initial network contacts were not interviewed as participants, but they recruited the first participants. The participant volunteers were not automatically chosen because they had volunteered but were specifically targeted or vetted. For example, all participants were chosen based on varying ages and experience levels. The aim of this study was to explore language change and responses over time. The more experienced teachers may have had more insight into language change and boundaries; the less experienced may have shared insights into current language use as well as language change and boundaries. Both insights were important to garner. The participants were also chosen from different schooling cultures,
Chapter 4: Research Methodology 87
different genders, socio-economic levels, gendered schools, and school ICSEA26 ranges. This assisted in obtaining a more varied example of language use and responses in the broader sense.
The differences in choosing participants in this way aimed at overcoming the drawbacks of snowball sampling mentioned above. Additionally, when it became apparent that PE (Physical Education) and MA (Manual Arts) teachers and school leaders were being highlighted as variables in the taboo language and swearing milieu in school contexts, the researcher focused on recruiting participants from these areas. Because the anticipated participants were not from a ‘hidden group’ there was no fear of the last two drawbacks, that being potential participants being ‘masked’ or over or under sampled.
Saturation and Sample Size
Because this was a descriptive qualitative study, the aim was not to generalise, but to highlight the topic of taboo language and swearing in school settings. The most successful result of this kind of qualitative research is to make educators more informed about an issue or topic (Donmoyer, 1990), which is one of the aims of this study. As a result, the participant sample size is generally smaller than if pursuing a quantitative study. Regarding sample size, there seems no available evidence in justifying the correct sample size for qualitative interview studies (Marshall, Cardon, Poddar, & Fontenot, 2013).
Sample size should follow the concept of saturation (B. Glaser & Strauss, 1967), when new or additional data does not elucidate the issue under investigation. Many qualitative researchers use saturation as a guiding principle in their studies, although the point of saturation is elastic and often difficult to identify (Mason, 2010). The issue of saturation is often debated, with some researchers suggesting that saturation is “a matter of degree” (Strauss & Corbin, 2008, p. 136), in that the longer a researcher focuses on an issue, the more potential there is for new data to emerge. The ultimate aim therefore for this study was to gather data until a point was reached that data were
26 Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage: The ICSEA scale created by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) has been designed to provide a numeric scale that enables fair comparisons specifically for the National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) test. It is not a school rating but calculated only on parents’ occupation, geographical location, parents’ education and proportion of Indigenous students.
88 Chapter 4: Research Methodology
meaningful, where the overall story was rich and textured, and where further data would have become unnecessary and “counter-productive” (Strauss & Corbin, 2008, p. 136). “Saturation determines the majority of qualitative sample size” (Mason, 2010, p. 2), and research suggests the most common sample size in PhD studies using structured or semi-structured interviews is 20, with the smallest sample size averaging 15 participants (Mason, 2010). The current study employed 19 participants, balancing the size between what the literature suggests is most common and saturation of data gleaned. More detail regarding participants is outlined in Section 4.3.2.
Procedure and Timeline Participants were sourced and interviews were conducted between November 2017 and February 2018. Policy documents were sourced from February 2016 through to February 2018. Analysis of interview transcripts occurred between November 2017 and September 2018. Analysis of documents occurred simultaneously between January 2017 and September 2018.
4.3.2 Participants The following section contextualises the participants of the study. There were 19 participants taking part in this study and participants volunteered from both government (nine) and non-government (five) school sectors. As was discussed in 4.3.1, snowball sampling was employed to source participants.
The participants ranged in age and experience levels which was important for determining change in time relating to taboo language and swearing use and responses in school contexts. The participants ranged in experience level from nine and a half years of experience to 40 plus years. The level of experience in no way reflected their ages, with some participants being older but having fewer years of experience in the classroom, see Table 4.2.
Chapter 4: Research Methodology 89
Table 4.2 Participants’ level of experience
Participants also ranged in experience in diverse teaching and learning environments, see Table 4.3. Seventeen participants had experience working in government schools, 10 had experience in faith-based environments, eight had experience in rural and/or regional settings, while 16 had experience working in low socio-economic school environments. Eighteen participants had taught in co- educational settings, with 10 working in only co-educational environments. Four participants had experience teaching in other states or territories in Australia, while six participants had experience teaching internationally. Five participants had experience in all male school contexts, while four had experience in all girl school contexts. One participant had experience working in only non-government school settings. The diverse experience of participants was valuable in terms of reflections of temporalities of language use but also insights into variations of language use in diverse geographic, gendered, faith-based, and socio-economic school contexts.
90 Chapter 4: Research Methodology
Table 4.3 Participant diverse teaching and learning environments
The literature suggests that more students are suspended and excluded between years eight to 10 than in other years (Fabelo et al., 2011; Hemphill et al., 2010; Queensland Government, 2014), hence the secondary school focus of the study. The link between language use and suspensions and exclusions was discussed in Chapters 1 and 2.
This study recruited a diversity of participants in terms of age, teaching experience, and types of school sectors – government and non-government. Data suggest differences in taboo language use and swearing between males and females, with males using more swearing and taboo language than females (T. Jay, 1992; Precht, 2008), and males using stronger taboo language and swearing than females (T. Jay, 1992, 2018). Because of this difference, it was important to have both gendered perspectives on school usage and responses. The final count of participants was 12 female participants and seven male participants that took part in the study.
Sourcing participants from different subject areas and school contexts was also important to provide different perspectives. Data suggest overall negative social judgment of individuals swearing and using taboo language (Simon & Greenberg, 1996). In addition, data demonstrate judgment that links lower socio-economic communities and lower intellect to communities that use swearing and taboo language
Chapter 4: Research Methodology 91
(Mulac, 1976). However, other scholars suggest swearing and taboo language use is becoming more acceptable (Enfield, 2016), that it increases the believability of statements (Rassin & Van Der Heijden, 2005); while others suggest that swearing and taboo language use is ‘good for you’ (Byrne, 2017). With these data in mind, the study areas of participants varied, being: mathematics, English, drama, history, business, science, IT, French, Physical Education, engineering, and film and television. The majority of teachers were from English and maths specialities, with some having additional subject responsibilities.
As the interviews progressed it became clear from the data that specific areas of schooling, namely Physical Education (PE) and Manual Arts (MA), were linked as being controversial, with differing standards of acceptability and use. This information led the researcher to target participants in these areas. By using the existing network agents, messages were sent and the network agents supplied details of several volunteer participants in these areas. Both male and female participants were approached, resulting in three participants from these specific areas, two male and one female.
Finally, it was important to invite into the study participants that were both school teachers and school leaders. It is the school leaders who have more autonomy when decisions are required to be made regarding suspensions and exclusions (Koerin & Miller, 1995; Queensland Government, 2018g). Additionally, it is the school leaders who are proactive in integrating, engaging, and enacting policy in their workplace (Ball et al., 2012). The seven school leaders for this study consisted of three Deputy Principals (DP) and four Heads of Department (HOD). Discussions with participants (Penny, Spencer, Claudia, Hallah, Ryan) suggested that principals tend to assign responsibility of suspensions and exclusions – especially regarding language infringements – to deputy principals; therefore principals were not specifically targeted in this study.
4.3.3 Interviews Data were obtained through interviews and policy document analysis. The following section extrapolates information regarding the interviews that were conducted for this study. Interviews as a data collection process in research have been described as a “conversation with a purpose” (Burgess, 1984, p. 84), employed to obtain information which cannot be directly observed, such as behaviour, feelings, and
92 Chapter 4: Research Methodology
individuals’ interpretations of the world, including things that may have happened in the past (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Each of the 19 participants in the study was interviewed once for approximately an hour, using a semi-structured interview technique. Because the qualitative stance assumes that individuals define the world in unique and different ways, the more open- ended and semi-structured interview technique allows for this (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Open-ended questions provided open-ended responses, which assisted in obtaining rich useful data that were unique to the individual participant.
Interview questions centred on the study’s three sub-questions; those relating to policy, which would address sub-question one, those relating to verbal misconduct, definitions and language used, which addressed sub-question two, and last, questions relating to personal reflections and reactions to language use in school settings, which addressed sub-question three. An example of a design of early workings for these questions is seen in Figure 4.3. The arrow demonstrates how questions were designed to answer main thesis sub-questions.
Figure 4.3. Examples of how the interview questions were designed to align with the thesis questions.
Chapter 4: Research Methodology 93
The schedule of questions was prepared prior to interviews (See Appendix C), but was used more as a guide for interviews because open ended questions give the interviewee more available options to answer questions with personal elaborations (Fairclough, 2003). In addition, open ended questions allow participants to “develop an extended account and argument about what is happening” (p. 118). Furthermore, such questioning allowed the researcher to probe, prompt, ask for clarification and to become part of the interview process (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Following Merriam and Tisdell (2016) and Badenhorst’s (2015) recommendation, a pilot interview was arranged with a suitable secondary school teacher volunteer. This pilot interview served to build researcher confidence, practice the process, learn which questions posed problems, which questions were confusing or were incorrectly worded, and finally to open possibilities for suggestions from the pilot participant. It was during this pilot interview that issues were highlighted about certain words, causing questions around words used in school contexts to be added to the forthcoming interviews. Additionally, the pilot interview was an opportunity to polish and finesse the interview questions and researcher productivity.
Drawing on Merriam and Merriam and Tisdell’s (1998, 2009; 2016) guidance, certain types of questions were incorporated into the list. The questions in italics were used in the study.
• Experience and behaviour questions27: Are there instances where you disregard certain language? If so, what language is this?
• Opinion and values questions28: Do you think the boundaries and responses in relation to inappropriate language use and swearing are consistent at the school? Can you elaborate on that?
• Feeling questions29: Has a student ever used this language directed at you? How do you feel when this happens? Can you give me some examples?
27 These questions tell the researcher what a person does or did, his or her activities, behaviour or actions. 28 These tell the researcher what the participant is interested in, their beliefs or opinions about something. 29 Here the interviewer is looking for adjective responses that will tap into the participant’s affective dimensions.
94 Chapter 4: Research Methodology
• Knowledge questions30: Have the language instances or reports increased over your time as school leader/teacher?
• Sensory questions31: And your personal measure?
• Background/demographic questions32: See Appendix D for the demographic form supplied to all participants at interviews which included the example background/demographic questions.
The demographic form was included in order to ascertain backgrounds of participants and included information about working experience as well as historical influences, such as areas of experience, geographic areas of experience, and years of service. The information formed the backdrop for links to language change and changes in responses over time.
Following suggestions from Strauss et al. (1981), other questions were incorporated during the interviews, such as:
• Devil’s advocate questions33: There is suggestion that some staff members in education settings swear in front of students or in class, sometimes at the students? What are your views on this?
• Ideal position questions34: If you could change the structure of the verbal misconduct policy at your school, how would you do this?
• Interpretive questions35: What is your approach to swearing inside and outside school hours, for yourself and other staff members? Can you give me some examples?
Although Patton (2002) suggests avoiding ‘why questions’, the researcher used these sparingly to good effect and uncovered valuable insights (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). For example, the why question, “Why do you think he couldn’t be arsed?”
30 These types of questions elicit factual knowledge from participants. 31 Here the questions try to elicit more specific data about what has been heard, seen, touched, felt and so forth. These are similar to experience and behaviour questions. 32 These questions refer to particular demographics and all interviews should contain these questions, for example the age of the participants, education, income, number of years of experience and so forth. 33 These are good to use to glean respondents’ feelings and opinions when the topic is controversial. 34 These questions attempt to elicit opinion and information from participants and aim to reveal both positives and negatives of a program. 35These are used to provide the opportunity to gain more information, feelings and opinions from participants and are utilised as a checking mechanism to see if the respondent is understanding what is being conveyed.
Chapter 4: Research Methodology 95
asked during Hallah’s interview resulted in her discussing the issue between teachers/school leaders of different ages and how they differ in reporting language infringements.
Finally, the researcher applied Merriam’s (2016) advice and used question starters such as, “tell me about the time when…?” and “what was it like for you when…?” and “can you give me an example of…?” By using these question starters, the researcher was able to build rapport with the participants but also glean more personal accounts which led to deeper personal reflections. The question starters allowed for a type of confession from participants, as discussed in Chapter 3. “Western societies have established the confession as one of the main rituals we rely on for the production of truth”(Foucault, 1978, p. 56), not only occurring in religious arenas but also in everyday life, in “ordinary affairs” such as the interview (p. 59).
Building a rapport with the participants was important, not only for deeper reflection on their part in answering questions, but also to make the interview process more enjoyable for them. The interviews took place at a venue that was suitable for the specific participant. Venues varied from quiet coffee shops to libraries, with one participant choosing to be interviewed in a friend’s lounge room. The interviews were audio recorded using a digital recorder and researcher field notes were made during the interview which accompanied the recording.
During transcription of interviews, which was performed by the researcher on completion of the interview, the field notes were employed to add nuance to the transcriptions, showing, in parts, where participants used specific body language, movements and non-verbal behaviours. Field notes encourage researcher reflection and identification of bias, and provide essential context to inform data analysis (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 2011; Phillippi & Lauderdale, 2018). This context process was employed when analysing participant discussions of the -IST language, such as nigger and abbo. Body language was evident in participants, became a part of the semiotic response, and this was noted in the findings in Chapter 6.
The field notes assisted with researcher bias and reflection from transcription stage through to analysis. Members’ Resources (MR) contribute to co-construction of texts and impact interpretation of texts (Fairclough, 1989). As mentioned previously, MR are representations stored in a person’s long-term memory, containing diverse collections of things such as grammatical forms of sentences, shapes of words,
96 Chapter 4: Research Methodology
structures of narratives, properties and types of person and object, expectations of sequences of events. MR can be linguistic or not, and are often referred to as “background knowledge” (p. 141), although Fairclough deems this term restrictive. Field notes such as those taken during the interviews of this study aided in identifying and disclosing some aspects of the researcher’s MR.
On starting the interview, the researcher ensured the participant was comfortable and then clearly explained the background to the study. The participants all received the essential ethical clearance forms (see Appendix E and F) and were given time to read the forms prior to starting the interview. Most importantly, participants were assured of their anonymity during the study process. Because, as earlier stated in Chapters 1 and 2, the field of taboos, either taboo language or the taboos themselves, are generally emotive areas for many people, it is possible that the participants would feel uncomfortable either discussing language used by students and/or colleagues or discussing taboos that related to the language. Consequently, the researcher began every interview with an introduction of her own learning and understandings, including comfort around taboos and taboo language. Participants were given options which allowed them control over how they would navigate the taboos and language involved. Figure 4.4 is part of an interview script used.
Figure 4.4. Interview script demonstrating options given to participants regarding taboo language.
Prior to each interview, the researcher studied the specific school’s behavioural policy to highlight areas concerning taboo language and swearing, the terms used by the specific school, and how the school had defined, relayed, outlined or discussed any terms or issues around the area of taboo language and swearing. The specifics were
Chapter 4: Research Methodology 97
then transferred to the schedule of questions to be used for the interview. In this way the questions became more personal to the participant and to the school they represented. Each participant’s schedule of questions was therefore unique to them. Due to masking and anonymity issues the example below in Figure 4.5 is generic but serves as example.
Figure 4.5. Example of personalising interview questions regarding policy.
4.3.4 Policy Documents Glaser and Strauss (1967; 2006) not only stress that documents can be of equal value and significance as observation and interview data, but emphasise the importance of having a variety of data sources in order to compare and analyse in support of theory generation. Therefore, in addition to interview transcripts, several policy documents were obtained for analysis in this study. They were: behaviour policies and requirements from each non-government school’s particular over-arching independent body (these were available on their websites but remain masked for anonymity purposes); The Code of School Behaviour (2016d); Guidelines for developing a Responsible Behaviour Plan for Students, and The Example of the Responsible Behaviour Plan for Students (2018d), all supplied by the Queensland Department of Education and freely available on their website; and individual behaviour policies from the 14 schools aligned to the participants. All government36 schools had copies of their school’s Responsible Behaviour Plan for Students on their school websites. Non-government school behaviour policies were sourced from
36 Government schools in this study are all schools under the government banner, including Independent Public Schools (IPS). Non-government schools are all other schools which may include private schools, grammar schools, Catholic and/or faith based or non-denominational schools. See a more detailed discussion regarding this in Section 5.1.
98 Chapter 4: Research Methodology
participants at the school who were known to the researcher or found on the school website, and all were sourced within the ethical guidelines. School policy documents serve as illustrations as to what is viewed as acceptable and desirable conduct and what is to be done in the school community; they serve as micro-technologies of “meaning makers and controls of meaning in the social-material world of the school” (Ball et al., 2012, p. 121).
4.4 ANALYTIC METHODS
The following section outlines details of transcription and what analytic methods were used during analysis of data.
4.4.1 Transcription
Language is value-laden as has been explained throughout this thesis. When using language it is not neutral but reflected by and embedded in many kinds of social relationships, contextual factors, sentiments and history (Wooffitt, 2005). Therefore, not only language but all interactional data are viewed as text that foregrounds a larger historical, political and cultural thread; that, when woven through, gives shape and meaning to human conduct (Coyle, 2000).
The research interview is viewed as a social interaction with an interaction between both researcher and participant. Therefore, consideration needed to be made for ‘turn-taking’ in conversation. Research in conversation analysis suggests that there is significant connection in prior turns and this was therefore taken into account during transcription and analysis (Wooffitt, 2005). A criticism levelled against Foucaultian discourse analysts is that they tend to focus on the respondent’s turn as a discrete speech act, produced in an isolated form, distant from any social interaction. Foucault (1972), however, emphasises considering a focus on all aspects of discourse, namely: on relationships that exist between the ‘field of statements’ of discursive formations; between statements of a single text, their sequence and dependence; and the combination of rhetorical schemata or intertextual relations. In addition, relationships between different discursive formations, or interdiscursive relations, should be considered (Foucault, 1972). Foucault adds, “there can be no statement that in one way or another does not re-actualize others…a statement always belongs to a series or a whole, always plays a role among other statements... it is always part of a network of
Chapter 4: Research Methodology 99
statements, in which it has a role” (Foucault, 1972, pp. 98,99). The transcriptions were therefore structured with both researcher and participant textual interaction visible, including notes on body language or non-verbal signs.
Varying transcription systems are available depending on the degree of detail in speech features such as intonation, pausing, stress, tempo, and loudness; however there is no one specific or correct way to do transcription (Fairclough, 1992; Wetherell, Taylor, & Yates, 2001). The type of transcription depends on the researcher, as well as on the research question and the theory being used for the study. A transcript is a construction of the language the researcher aims to analyse and cannot reflect the interaction or talk naturally. The transcript therefore constructs ‘a version’, meaning it is not neutral. “It selects out the features which the analyst has decided are relevant, that is, what the analyst counts as data” (Wetherell et al., 2001, p. 38).
In using Critical Discourse Analysis as a mode of inquiry, the researcher is looking for what the talk is saying about aspects of the participant’s life, the “ideological dimension” of speech, or the embodied discourses and the manoeuvrings of power (Cameron, 2001, p. 123). These manoeuvrings of power are captured in the content of what is being said rather than in the mechanics of a conversation (Fairclough, 1992). Therefore, for Fairclough, “it is always a matter of judgement, given the nature of the project and the research questions, what sort of features to show, and in how much detail” (p. 229). He suggests a minimal type of transcription that shows overlap between the speakers, pauses and silences and not too much more because transcription imposes an interpretation on speech.
This study employed a selection of transcription symbols suggested by Wetherell et al (2001, p. 62), see Figure 4.6; however these were only used to highlight pauses, breaths of participants that influenced the manner in which they were answering questions, tone, stress, and intonation. The transcription symbols supported the minimal type of transcription Fairclough (1992) advises. The transcription was, however, detailed enough to work as a form of validation and capture “what happened” (S. Taylor, 2001, p. 323).
100 Chapter 4: Research Methodology
Figure.4.6. Transcription symbols (adapted fromWetherell et al., 2001).
4.4.2 Analysis Outline This section outlines how the analysis was undertaken using a CDA framework. It explains the iterative and oscillating process of selecting the data, coding data, delineating specific data and fine-tuning the description, interpretation, and explanation stages of the analysis.
As presented in 4.2.2, Fairclough (2003) differentiates between three dimensions of meaning in text:
• Action or Genres: Ways of interacting or acting within a social event. How a text contributes to and figures within social action and interaction. In this study for example, how teachers and school leaders use policy texts within the social action and interaction with students and other teachers/school leaders.
• Representation or Discourses: Ways of representing aspects of the world and different perspectives on the world through language use.
Chapter 4: Research Methodology 101
• Identification or Style: Ways of being – identities and is linked to how people speak and use language.
Fairclough (2003) suggests a range of textual analysis markers or incidences that highlight aspects of the three dimensions. These markers were used to analyse the text. When analysing Action or Genres, he suggests looking at, amongst other things, semantic and grammatical relations between sentences and clauses, such as conditional, temporal, additive, elaboration, and contrastive or concessive relations that are both ‘local’ in the text and ‘global’ in the text. In addition, he suggests looking at types of exchanges such as activity or knowledge exchanges, as well as grammatical mood, be those declarative, interrogative, imperative and so forth.
In terms of Representation or Discourses, features of vocabulary such as hyponymy (meaning inclusion), synonymy (meaning identity), and antonymy (meaning exclusion) are important in ‘lexicalizing’ the world in particular ways. In addition, collocations, patterns of co-occurrence of words, which words precede and which follow, metaphor use, presuppositions and assumptions present in the text, representation of social actors and representations of time and place, amongst other things, are all used to determine Discourses (Fairclough, 2003).
In analysing Identification or Styles, Fairclough (2003) suggests looking at the use of modality, evaluation, mood, predictions and exchange types, as well as phonological features, such as pronunciation, intonation, stress, rhythm, vocabulary use such as intensifying adverbials, and the interplay between language and body language, amongst others. The following section explains in more detail the specifics of analysis relating to the policy documents and the interview transcripts.
Policy Documents The policy documents were analysed individually, beginning with the individual over-arching policy from each non-government school sector, aligning with the participant and their school. Thereafter, the Department of Education’s Code of School Behaviour (2016d), the Guidelines for developing a Responsible Behaviour Plan for Students (2018d) and the Example of the Responsible Behaviour Plan for Students (2018d) were analysed. Discourse practices at a macro level were targeted, focusing upon intertextuality and interdiscursivity (Fairclough, 1992), incorporating aspects of Fairclough’s analytical framework: genre, discourse and style (2003), as explained in
102 Chapter 4: Research Methodology
4.4.2. Intertextuality is the property that texts have to incorporate, draw upon, re- contextualise, assimilate, contradict or merge with other texts. The presence of texts can either be explicit – ‘manifest intertextuality’ – or a configuration of text types or discourse conventions forming a constitution of a text, known as interdiscursivity (Fairclough, 1992).
The analysis then narrowed focus to micro aspects of the text, namely the specific words in relation to taboo language and swearing present in the text. A table was then constructed aligning all language used in these three policy documents. See Figure 4.7 as an example of a table for the Department of Education Policies.
Figure 4.7. Example of tabulation of Department of Education Policies.
Analysis then proceeded in a similar fashion with the individual government schools’ Responsible Behaviour Plan for Students, and then, likewise, the non-government school behaviour plans. A table was structured that incorporated all particular language
Chapter 4: Research Methodology 103
used for the various policies. These tables were then analysed to find discourses in language used.
Interviews After completing the interviews and transcribing all the data, the researcher used a combination of NVIVO, a qualitative data analysis computer software package, and A3 sheets of paper attached to the researcher’s office wall and door to code the data. See Figure 4.8.
Figure 4.8. Initial coding of data.
The data were initially coded according to questions asked during the interviews. This analysis was later revised through iterative visits to the data and focused on outlining themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006) and categories. This stage was a more macro type analysis (Fairclough, 1992). The process of analysis then began, looking for ‘cruces’ and ‘moments of crisis’(p. 230) in the individual participant text. The researcher read and re-read the data, looking for any misunderstandings, ‘repair’ of communication, repetitions, corrections, disfluencies, hesitations, silences, and shifts
104 Chapter 4: Research Methodology
in style (Fairclough, 1992). Once main discourses were finalised and segmented on NVIVO, data were copied to word documents in discourses. Following on from this, a more micro process took place, looking for lexical chains, recurring nouns, semantic relations between clauses and sentences, and forms of modality - particularly focusing on the minutiae of the linguistic usage of the participants. These particularities were highlighted in different colours in another process of coding. For example, hedging, coded hot pink, stressed words/sentences coded yellow, legitimation coded green, nominalisation coded orange and so forth. (See Figure 4.9, not aligned with example colours or codes, just as example):
Figure 4.9. Example of micro coding.
Once this more micro form of analysis was done, the researcher balanced an interactive approach of employing information from Fairclough’s three books, Language and Power (1989), Discourse and Social Change (1992), and Analysing Discourse (2003), to explore the particularities of the text, discourses, genres, styles and broader social issues relating to the specifics that were being analysed. The process focused on particularities of genres, discourses and styles as manifestations of meanings about the world; that is, as representations of the world; ways of acting and interacting between the speaker (participant) and the listener (or researcher); and ways of self-identifying as the speaker. The link between the social event of the interview and the wider contextual conditions being focused on in the questions was also taken into account because micro- and macro- analysis are mutually essential. “It is the nature of the social practice that determines the macro-processes of discursive practice, and it is the micro-processes that shape the text” (Fairclough, 1992, p. 86).
Chapter 4: Research Methodology 105
4.5 TRUSTWORTHINESS, CREDIBILITY, AND REFLEXIVITY
Issues of trustworthiness and credibility (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) were addressed in the following ways. Multiple sources of data were used, namely interviews from discrete participants in dispersed areas as well as policy documents from several sources. This process of corroborating evidence from different individuals, types of data, and methods of data collection, also known as triangulation (Creswell, 2012), enhances the accuracy of the study. In addition, triangulation aligns with Foucault’s “polyhedron of intelligibility” (2001, p. 227). He explains this as looking at something from different directions, perspectives and using different methods to analyse in order to understand or for intelligibility to occur. An event will have an infinite number of faces or sides, therefore causal multiplication needs to occur – “analysing an event according to the multiple processes that constitute it... requiring progressive, necessarily incomplete saturation”(p. 227).
All qualitative research work is interpretive, requiring the researcher to be self- reflective about their role in the research. Analysts using CDA are not separate from the social practice that they analyse, they are inside of it; a degree of self- consciousness is a priority (Fairclough, 1992). During this study the researcher continuously questioned her own MR, her own assumptions, knowledge of language, assumptions of language and its use against the backdrop of the participants’ MR. This reflection occurred not only during interviews but also during transcription and analysis. Common sense assumptions reveal ideologies particular to specific contexts, are “embedded in particular conventions”, and illustrate “familiar ways of behaving which take relations and power differences for granted” (Fairclough, 1989, p. 2). Several occasions emerged where researcher reflection was important, especially in relation to gender relationships and discourses evidenced in the data, to self-evaluate assumptions and linked ideologies.
4.6 ETHICS AND LIMITATIONS
Low risk ethical clearance was obtained in 2017 through QUT with Ethics approval number 1700000339. Ethics is an important area to consider when contemplating research. According to Gray (2014, p. 58), “the ethics of research concern the appropriateness of the researcher’s behaviour in relation to the subjects of the research or those who are affected by it”; and these concerns are to be considered
106 Chapter 4: Research Methodology
at the planning, implementation, and reporting stages, or as Creswell (2012) suggests, from the origins of a study to its final completion .
According to the National Statement (Australian Government, 2007, updated May 2015) and the code (Australian Government, NHMRC, & ARC, 2007), researchers are required to follow certain ethical practices and individuals who participate in the research possess certain rights. Therefore, prior to any research being conducted, the participants of this study were informed of the aims and objectives of the study, how the research aims to be utilised, and the likely consequences and/or risks, if any, of the study. Similarly, the participants were not put in a position that would result in loss of reputation or employment or any other such damage. All participants had their anonymity guaranteed by the researcher, this included researcher-only access to recordings, researcher transcription of interviews, and transcriptions being typed directly in pseudonyms, so no connection could be made between participants and their pseudonym. All participants signed consent forms at the interviews and no participants withdrew from the study (see Appendix F).
Limitations are expected in any research study and for trustworthiness, they are important to acknowledge (Glesne, 2011). The study centres at a particular time in history and uses reflections of only 19 participants in 14 different schooling contexts. The study therefore represents only a partial snapshot of how some teachers and school leaders respond to taboo language and swearing in school contexts, and considering the social changes around the language at a specific juncture in time. The limitations of time in this instance are “consistent with the always partial state of knowing in social research” (Glesne, 2011, p. 152). In addition, CDA does not attempt to generalise findings; however, findings may be transferable - they may yield insights in other similar areas (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Researcher as analyst also posits limitations in the study. Analysis and interpretation take place as processes in the researcher’s head, processes that are not possible to observe (Fairclough, 1989). The analyst draws on his/her own Members’ Resources (MR) in an interpretative procedure to explain how the participants draw on their MR. In addition, the researcher recognises the participants’ MRs as the source of their views. It is important that the researcher be sensitive about the resources they are relying on to make interpretations, and to develop a ‘self-consciousness’(1989, p. 167) regarding common sense assumptions of MR. The analyst needs to avoid
Chapter 4: Research Methodology 107
importing untheorised assumptions about society, or in fact neglecting theory. As much of the analysis and interpretation in the data findings chapters revolved around gender issues, the researcher had to repeatedly question the rationalisations and understandings of participant reflections when outlining these issues, so as not to bias, make assumptions, or automatically align with a certain discourse or gendered assumption.
4.7 SUMMARY
In Chapter 4, the research design and methods used in the study were explained. A discussion outlined the qualitative critical-interpretivist stance of this Critical Discourse Analysis study which used snowball sampling to garner participants for interviews. Fairclough’s approach of CDA (1989, 1992, 2003) was explained, incorporating aspects of discursive change, social change and language change, including a connection with Foucault’s ideas regarding discourse analysis. An outline of how snowball sampling was used to source participants followed. Contextual information on participants was explained and data sets of policy documents and interview data were discussed. The chapter went on to directly focus on how CDA was used as the analysis tool in this study. Issues of trustworthiness, credibility, and reflexivity were explained, and the limitations of the study were discussed.
108 Chapter 4: Research Methodology
Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use
The aim of this first analysis chapter is to focus on policy and the institution; to discover how schooling institutions and their stakeholders relate school language transgressions in relation to boundaries of policy structure, engagement, and responses. Boundaries can be either symbolic or social (Lamont & Molnár, 2002). Symbolic boundaries are “conceptual distinctions made by social actors to categorise objects, people, practices, and even time and space” (p. 168). Symbolic boundaries, such as behaviour and language policies, are an instrument people use to monopolise, control and separate people (Epstein, 1992); but also to normalise. The move from symbolic boundary to social occurs when the boundaries become accepted by the majority, form a blueprint for social interaction, and take on a constraining character. The social boundary then becomes identifiable as social exclusion or segregation (Lamont & Molnár, 2002), as a means of separating, disciplining, and marginalising, if the boundary is transgressed.
Foucault sees transgressions as
an action which involves the limit… limit and transgression depend on each other… transgression forces the limit to face the fact of its imminent disappearance, to find itself in what it excludes or to be more exact to recognise itself for the first time.(1999, p. 60)
Therefore, transgression exceeds limits or boundaries, so this forces a problematisation of boundaries and their change. The term boundaried language has previously been used to describe connections of language rights and language endangerment (Prinsloo, 2012); however, boundaried language in this thesis will be the term used to describe language that ‘transgresses the limit or boundary’, be that in
Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use 109
the school context socially or culturally. Boundaried language therefore includes swearing and taboo language37.
Linguistic boundaries are topical in accounts of language change and diversity and always involve questions of power (Pietikäinen, 2016). Power is present in symbolic and social boundaries, particularly in an educational setting. “Every educational system is a political means of maintaining or of modifying the appropriation of discourse, with the knowledge and the powers it carries with it” (Foucault, 1972, p. 227). By using discursive strategies, the educational system maintains and distributes the appropriation of discourse, similarly their power. The behaviour policy is a set of discursive strategies, “the set of conditions in accordance with which a practice is exercised, in accordance with which that practice gives rise to partially or totally new statements, and in accordance with which it can be modified” (Foucault, 1970, pp. 208-209). It is these discursive strategies or behaviour policies that will be much of the focus of attention in this chapter.
This chapter38 aims to address research sub-question one: how the institutions in this study structure policy regarding language boundaries; how the stakeholders respond to and engage with the policies; and how the stakeholders set consistent boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable language. The chapter discussion details how the Queensland education system is structured in Section 5.1, followed by a comprehensive analysis of behaviour management policies guiding government (Section 5.1.1) and non-government (Section 5.1.2) schools in Queensland.39 The analysis employs Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) in an iterative process of description, interpretation, and explanation targeting appropriate and inappropriate language boundaries in institutional behavioural policies as discussed in Chapter 4 (Fairclough, 2003). Furthermore, the analysis employs Foucault’s notion of discourse linked with the institution, truth effects and power, specifically relating to control and delimitation of discourse (Foucault, 1972). In addition, Foucault’s philosophy of
37 The term boundaried language will be used hereafter as replacement for ‘swearing and taboo language’. 38 Most analysis for the thesis was conducted “off stage” (S. Taylor, 2001, p. 42) and due to word limit not all language discussed can be revealed, however explanations will align where possible.
39 Language boundaries are assigned to behavioural policy as was discussed in Chapter 2.
110 Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use
governmentality will be employed; the notion of domination and government of others and of the self (Foucault, 1988c).
The chapter progresses (Sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2) to examine how teachers and school leaders understand their school policies, how they engage with, and respond to them. This section includes perspectives of stakeholders regarding education by institutions relating to language policy boundaries (Section 5.3). Useful work in looking at the enactment of policy has been done by Ball, Maguire, & Braun (2012; 2015), and their work has to do with policy trajectories. However, this study is about stakeholders’ accounts of their enactment of behaviour policies. The word that will be used most consistently is responses, but nonetheless Ball et al’s particular framework provides very useful analytical tools for looking at responses such as resistance, consistency, adaptation, interpretations, and adjustments.
The discussion in this chapter further extrapolates the difference between school leader and teacher perspective regarding policy practice, engagement, and responses in relation to language boundaries in Section 5.4. The chapter then examines boundaries of consistency at the institutions (Section 5.5), use of personal parameters by participants (Section 5.6), and finally concludes with a discussion (Section 5.7).
There are several findings in this chapter: first, that institutional behaviour policies in the study are ambiguous and not clearly defined or articulated to teachers and school leaders (Section 5.1). Second, that teachers and school leaders have limited knowledge of their respective behaviour policies relating to language boundaries (Section 5.2), with limited education from institutions (Section 5.3). Third, school leader and teacher perceptions differ in relation to policy engagement, responses, and school practice (Section 5.4). Teacher perspectives articulate a need for more support from leadership (Section 5.4.2), whereas leaders believe teachers need to manage and control language transgressions in the classroom (Section 5.4.1). Fourth, data suggest that a lack of consistency is evident in school settings in three areas, teacher practice (Section 5.5.1), administration practice (Section 5.5.2), and teacher and school leader language use (Section 5.5.3). Finally, the participants in this study are using personal boundary parameters to respond to policy regarding acceptable and unacceptable language use in school contexts (Section 5.6).
Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use 111
5.1 SCHOOL POLICIES
The education system in Queensland Australia is structured in three separate areas: the Queensland state (public) school system, the Independent school system and the Catholic school system. The first area, the state (public) school system, is freely available to all residents of Queensland and is administered and funded by the Department of Education, a State Government Department (Queensland Government, 2018a). Schools in the Independent School system, Independent Schools Queensland (ISQ), the second area, are required to comply with government regulations and standards but operate independently of government. The independent schools can develop their own educational policies, programs, and procedures (Independent Schools Queensland, 2017). The third area, Queensland Catholic Schools, are incorporated non-profit organisations that are accredited by the Non-State Schools Accreditation Board. The schools also implement state curriculum and fulfil government accountability and reporting requirements, but are separate and autonomous from the Department of Education (QCEC, 2018).
In 2013 the Queensland Department of Education began The Independent Public Schools (IPS) initiative which separates approximately 250 public schools as Independent Public Schools, giving them more autonomy with decisions and increased capacity to work. The IPS system is angled at providing a better standard of education, with IPS remaining a part of the state schooling system (Queensland Government, 2018c). The similarity in title between Independent Public schools (IPS), which are part of the Queensland state (public) school system, and Independent Schools Queensland (ISQ) makes the choice of terminology in this thesis significant. It becomes complex but significant to differentiate between Independent schools that are a part of the state (public) school system, faith-based schools that may form part of the Independent school system but not the Independent state (public) school system, and schools that are part of the Independent school system but are not faith based.
Because the schools aligned with the participants in this study arise from all these sectors, it is important to distinguish difference in school systems but still protect the anonymity of the schools and participants. For this reason, the specific terminology used in this thesis will be government and non-government schools. All schools under the government banner, including IPS schools, will be termed government and all other schools will be termed non-government. These non-government schools may include
112 Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use
private schools, grammar schools, Catholic schools, and other faith-based or non- denominational schools.
All schools in Queensland have their own policies, programs, and procedures, with government schools following guidance from the Queensland Department of Education and non-government schools following guidance from their own independent bodies. Examples of these independent bodies may be the Presbyterian and Methodist Schools Association or The Queensland Catholic Education Commission or Lutheran Education Queensland, to name a few. All school policies structure taboo language and swearing boundaries in the behaviour policy, but not all of them are structured the same.
All schools aligned with the participants in this study have their own behaviour policy and all but one of them mention boundaried language restrictions in some respect. The following section analyses the specific language that is used in behaviour policies and the specific boundary requirements stipulated in the policies. The analysis will focus on which words are being used to describe, define, and outline language boundaries in the respective behaviour policies, and how they are used. The discussion begins with government schools.
5.1.1 Policy Structure and Institutional Language at Government Schools The Queensland Department of Education sets out the expected responsibilities and standards in The Code of School Behaviour (Queensland Government, 2016d) that all government schools, parents, staff and students are required to follow40. Every government school in the state of Queensland is required to use the Code of School Behaviour as a guideline for structuring the individual school’s Responsible Behaviour Plan for Students, subsequently referred to as The Plan. Schools are required to structure their own Plan to align with their own unique and individual school communities.
In order to assist schools with the development and construction of their own Responsible Behaviour Plan for Students, the Department has provided easily accessible documents online. These documents are Guidelines for Developing a
40 The Code of School Behaviour is publicly available online through the Department of Education’s website.
Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use 113
Responsible Behaviour Plan for Students, subsequently referred to as The Guidelines, an Example of the Responsible Behaviour Plan for Students, hereafter referred to as The Example, and a template41 (Queensland Government, 2018d).
First a brief synopsis on the analysis of the Code of School behaviour will be considered, followed by a summary of the analysis of The Guidelines and The Example. Thereafter, an inclusive discussion will be presented on the analysis of the Responsible Behaviour Plans for the nine government schools in this study. These analyses will outline a more meticulous exploration of terms, words, and lexical expressions which demarcate language transgressions or boundaries.
The Code of School Behaviour The Code of School Behaviour is an example of a genre of governance, a form of activity directed at regulating, controlling, and managing social practice, or a network of such, within an institution or organisation (Fairclough, 2003). The Code works as mediated “action at a distance” (p. 34), involving all participants who are distant from each other but are connected to the Department of Education in some way. The Code is a hortatory text, a form of text that aims at encouraging the reader to act in certain ways with “covertly prescriptive intent” (Fairclough, 2003, p. 96). Hortatory texts often appear to be promotional and offer the reader only constrained options; options portrayed as the only practicable and unquestionable choice. Parataxis predominates in The Code, short simple sentences using coordinating conjunctions rather than subordinating conjunctions, consistent with a hortatory text.
Students are suspended and excluded for verbal misconduct in school settings as part of behaviour management structured from The Code. These suspensions and exclusions are sanctioned and legitimised by the Department of Education. The Code however does not mention restrictions on language. There are no definite references to language boundaries in the document, only inferences and assumptions. The inferences link with words such as ethical, safe, responsible, and respect. The Code is used as the foundation for every government school’s Responsible Behaviour Plan for Students. Students are disciplined at government schools for language transgressions or verbal misconduct, yet certain language is not highlighted as acceptable or
41 As at 4 April 2019, the template version available is dated 24 January 2014.
114 Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use
unacceptable in The Code, making the boundaries and document ambiguous. Language boundaries however are mentioned in The Guidelines as well as in the Example of a Responsible Behaviour Plan for Students. The following discussion explores the analysis of these two policies, The Guidelines and The Example, and the linguistic terms used to boundary language behaviour.
The Responsible Behaviour Plan - Guidelines Regarding this discussion, only words and phrases synonymous with swearing and taboo language will be highlighted, the terms used that assist in maintaining or modifying the appropriation of discourse in these educational institutions (Foucault, 1972). Words and phrases such as ‘gossiping’, ‘calling out’, ‘disrespectful tone’ and ‘talking back’ are not included as they do not link directly with the topic of the thesis.
Language boundaries are implied in The Guidelines for developing a Plan under the heading of consequences for unacceptable behaviour, but no specific terminology is used. The Guidelines explain that description of consequences must include clear guidelines for staff and students on “school responses to the distribution of inappropriate messages or images” only if school staff, students or the school itself are identified. The implication is that inappropriate messages in this instance are written and/or displayed in public areas or social media sites. There is no clear definition of what “inappropriate messages” are, so the implication for this study is that there may be taboo language or swearing associated with the word inappropriate. This assumption is made because the term inappropriate language is used to describe language in other areas and policies. Fairclough (2014) posits that “appropriateness is an ‘ideological’ category, which is linked to particular partisan positions within a politics of language – within a struggle between social groups in a speech community for control of (or ‘hegemony’ over) its sociolinguistic order”(p. 34). In addition, he suggests that the prescriptive and normative nature of the concept of appropriateness is made apparent when discussing “inappropriateness” (p. 36).
The Responsible Behaviour Plan – The Example A more detailed outline of language boundaries occurs in The Example. The Example supplies a table that outlines instances of minor and major problem behaviours, see Table 5.1.
Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use 115
Table 5.1 Table outlining minor and major problem behaviours from the Responsible Behaviour Plan Example (Queensland Government, 2018d, p. 6)
Area Minor Major Movement around • Running on concrete or around buildings school • Running in stairwells • Not walking bike in school grounds Play • Incorrect use of equipment • Throwing objects • Not playing school approved games • Possession of weapons • Playing in toilets Physical contact • Minor physical contact (for example, pushing and shoving) • Serious physical aggression • Fighting Correct Attire • Not wearing a hat in playground • Not wearing shoes outside Other • Inappropriate use of personal technology devices or social • Possession or selling of drugs networking sites, which impacts on the good order and • Weapons including knives and any other management of the school items which could be considered a
weapon being taken to school • Serious, or continued, inappropriate use Safe
of personal technology devices or social networking sites, which impacts on the good order and management of the Being school Class tasks • Not completing set tasks that are at an appropriate level • Refusing to work Being in the right • Not being punctual (eg: lateness after breaks) • Leaving class without permission (out of place • Not in the right place at the right time sight) • Leaving school without permission Follow instructions • Low intensity failure to respond to adult request • Non compliance • Unco-operative behaviour Accept outcomes for • Minor dishonesty (lying about involvement in a low-level incident) • Major dishonesty that has a negative behaviour impact on others Rubbish • Littering Mobile Phone or • Mobile phone switched on in any part of the school at any time • Use of a mobile phone in any part of the personal technology without authorisation (written permission from an authorised staff school for voicemail, email, text devices member) messaging or filming purposes without authorisation • Inappropriate use of personal technology devices or social networking sites, which impacts on the good order and management of the school
Being Responsible Being Language • Inappropriate language (written/verbal) • Offensive language (including while • Calling out • Aggressive language online) • Poor attitude • Verbal abuse / directed profanity • Disrespectful tone Property • Petty theft • Stealing / major theft • Lack of care for the environment • Wilful property damage • Vandalism Others • Not playing fairly • Major bullying / victimisation /harassment • Minor disruption to class • Major disruption to class • Minor defiance • Blatant disrespect • Minor bullying / victimisation/ harassment • Major defiance • Inappropriate use of personal technology devices or social • Serious, or continued, inappropriate use networking sites, which impacts on the good order and of personal technology devices or social management of the school networking sites, which impacts on the good order and management of the Being Respectful Being school
As can be noted in Table 5.1 behaviours are divided into three areas: Being safe, Being Responsible, Being respectful42. Language boundaries are listed under the section Being respectful and examples are supplied for language use that includes online language. The first minor behaviour infraction is listed as “inappropriate
42 . These three areas are mentioned as standards in The Code. By using these standards, a genre chain connects The Code with The Example keeping the Department of Education connected as authority and ‘Producer’ (Fairclough, 2003).
116 Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use
language (written/verbal)”. No definition or explanation is supplied. The more serious Major behaviours include “offensive language, aggressive language and verbal abuse/directed profanity”. Here again no definitions are supplied.
In an appendix attached to The Example mention is made of the use of personal devices and technology with listed words regarding text communication. The Example reads “text messages that contain obscene language”(p. 11). The bullying policy example lists “name calling, making offensive comments, inappropriate text messaging” (p. 12). An example behaviour referral form suggests “inappropriate language: Low intensity language (e.g. shut up, idiot, etc”) as a minor behaviour problem and “inappropriate/abusive language” as “repeated verbal messages that involve swearing or use of words in an inappropriate way directed at other individual or group” (p. 17). No other examples are provided. It is clear from this differentiation of minor and major behaviour problems regarding language that there is some form of differentiation, but limited outlines are provided.
A set of behavioural expectations in specific settings is provided in The Example, see Table 5.2 which is divided into school areas and associated with three standards that differ from the previously mentioned minor/major behaviour matrix standards. The standards for the behavioural expectations are be respectful, be responsible and be safe. In this table, “Use polite language” is sectioned under all areas as a be safe standard. Additionally, “be courteous and polite” is listed under the online section in the be respectful section of the table. No other mention of language is made in this table. Words used in this section are affirmative words linking with acceptable standards and expectations, unlike negative words used in the major/minor behaviour Table 5.1.
Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use 117
Table 5.2 Behavioural expectations in specific settings as provided in The Example
SCHOOLWIDE EXPECTATIONS TEACHING MATRIX ALL AREAS CLASSROOM ONLINE PLAYGROUND STAIRWELL TOILETS BUS LINES/BIKE RACKS
§ Use § Walk § Participate in § Participate § Rails are § Respect § Use own equipment § Sit still use of approved in school for hands privacy bike/scooter appropriately § Enter and online sites and approved § Walk one of only § Keep hands, exit room educational games step at a others § Wait inside feet and in an games § Wear shoes time the gate objects to orderly § Be courteous and socks § Carry until the bus yourself manner and polite in all at all times items stops online § Be sun § Keep communications safe; wear a passage broad ways brimmed clear at BE RESPECTFUL BE hat all times § Ask § Be § Report any § Be a § Move § Use § Walk permission prepared unacceptable problem peacefully toilets bike/scooter to leave the § Complete behaviour to a solver in single during in school classroom set tasks teacher § Return file breaks grounds § Be on time § Post only equipment § Have your § Take an § Be in the active role appropriate to name right place at in content online appropriate marked on the right time classroom place at the the bus roll § Follow activities sports bell § Leave instructions § Keep school straight work promptly away space tidy BE RESPONSIBLE BE § Be honest § Respect § Raise § Respect others’ § Play fairly – § Walk § Wash § Wait your others’ your hand right to use take turns, quietly hands turn personal to speak online invite others and in an after § Keep your space and § Respect resources free to join in orderly using belongings property others’ from and follow way so the nearby § Care for right to interference or rules that toilet § Have your equipment learn bullying § Care for the others are and bus pass § Clean up § Talk in § Keep any environment not before ready after yourself turns usernames or disturbed eating food § Use polite § Be a good passwords language listener private § Walk § Wait your § Follow all turn teacher instructions about keeping private information off BE SAFE BE online sites (Queensland Government, 2018d, p. 2).
The Example provides a clear exemplar for all government schools to follow in order to structure their own Plan; however no clear definitions are supplied for the institutional language43 used that relates to language boundaries. Terms used in The Code, The Guidelines, and The Example are seen in Table 5.3.
43 “Language that represents an institution in a more formally rhetorical manner” (Mayock, 2016, p. 74).
118 Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use
Table 5.3 Institutional language used in The Code, The Guidelines, and The Example
According to The Guidelines, the focus of the Plan is “on proactive and preventative whole school approaches, of which the consequences system forms a logical part” (Queensland Government, 2018d). The consequences system articulates a process staff are required to follow when students disobey school boundaries. The process differs slightly at all the schools in this study, however, at government schools the teachers are required to make use of the Department supplied software administrative processes, OneSchool44.
The policies can be seen as providing vague guidelines on what constitutes acceptable behaviour. Limited explicit examples of unacceptable words are provided, for example, ‘shut up’. In terms of salience and potency of swear words as outlined in Chapters 1 and 2, ‘shut up’ is not considered socially offensive to the degree that the ‘heavy 7’ (Carlin, 1972) are, for example ‘fuck and motherfucker, or the more taboo - IST terms faggot45, nigger. The policy, then, has refrained from publishing the most contentious words in society. It also refrains from making explicit words that are taboo
44 OneSchool is a software system that aims to manage students, curriculum, and learning, asset and finances, performance, analysis, and reporting (Queensland Government, 2017a). A student’s personal contact details, academic achievements, reports, extra-curricular participation, attendance information, individual student plans and goals as well as career aspirations and both positive and negative behaviour details are available on OneSchool. Data from OneSchool is used, amongst other things, to calculate and publish annual reports such as “Performance Insights into school disciplinary absences”, which includes suspension and exclusion information about verbal and non-verbal misconduct (Queensland Government, 2014).
45 From 1914 has been used to define and label male homosexuals as a pejorative and abusive term. See Appendix B.
Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use 119
in relation to race and sexuality. Inherent in the policy, therefore, is restraint and also ambiguity relating to where the boundaries of acceptability are for a government department in articulating policy. Words such as ‘appropriate’ foreground context and effectively outsource the decision about acceptability and appropriateness to the school leaders and teachers embedded in the situation.
The Government School Policies46 Progressing from Education Department structure, institutional language employed regarding language boundaries, and expectation of policy, the discussion now turns to policies about behaviour at the individual school level. The policies are publicly available from the respective school websites; however, masking has been observed so as to protect school and participant anonymity. The respective school behaviour policies were analysed for common themes and patterns which provided foci for some of the interview questions with the participants.
The template supplied by the Department of Education is used by most schools in the study. Table 5.4 demonstrates institutional language used across all government school policies aligned to the participants taking part in the study in relation to language boundaries. Most school policies have used the same terms supplied by the Department in The Example; these include: “verbal abuse, aggressive language, swearing, obscene language, offensive comments, name-calling, offensive language, inappropriate language, inappropriate messaging, directed profanity and polite language” and are underlined in Table 5.4.
A few of the schools have used the department institutional language and added extra terms, some have only used department terms. The words in Table 5.4 are not bound by school but have been divided into categories according to representations. The representations are aggression, swearing, sexualised terms, -IST related words or slurs, nondescript terms and positive terms.
46 At the time of interviews and thesis write-up only one of the nine schools had a signed, endorsed and updated 2018 behaviour policy on their school website. One other school had a signed policy but was outdated by several years. The remaining schools had unsigned behaviour policies online and all outdated by several years.
120 Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use
Table 5.4 Institutional language used across all government school policies
Some of the policies make distinctions between language directed at students as opposed to language directed at staff members. In most cases, language directed at staff members is viewed as more serious than language directed at students. No further examples, definitions, or explanations are given in relation to the above words used to explain linguistic boundaries, constructing further ambiguity in the individual school policies regarding language infringements. Therefore, both Queensland Department of Education behaviour management policies and the individual school policies from this study are structured with ambiguous institutional language. The following section explores non-government school policies in the study and what terminology is used for their language boundaries.
5.1.2 Policy Structure and Institutional Language at Non- Government Schools The five non-government schools aligned with participants in this study have differing behaviour policies which are not all bound to follow one over-arching policy as with the government schools. Due to anonymity protections for schools and participants a more general description takes place in this section, but as with government school policies, the analysis aimed at highlighting linguistic terms used to boundary language in school settings. The non-government school policies were
Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use 121
analysed in the same way as the government policies; only words and phrases synonymous with boundaried language were highlighted.
The policies of government and non-government schools have a few similarities. Amongst other things, non-government school policies also have their language boundaries in the behaviour management section of the policy. In addition, non- government school policies are also ‘genres of governance’ that mediate ‘action at a distance’ – action, usually taking the form of communication technology, which involves people who are separated by distance, space, and/or time (Fairclough, 2003, p. 34).
Regarding the specifics of language boundaries in the different policies, the differences and similarities continue. The non-government school behaviour policies list terms for boundaried language (see Table 5.5) and many of these show similarities to the government school lists (underlined words and terms). The terms are tabled in this thesis under the same headings as the government schools because the terms and representations are similar.
Table 5.5 Institutional language used across all non-government school policies
Some differences occur between non-government school policies when one school document labels for example abusive language while another school document labels abusive comments, some offensive language and others offensive postings. As a generalisation, many of the terms are similar, only differentiating between where and
122 Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use
how the term will be used47, but these are assumptions, as well-defined boundaries are not clearly supplied in all policies.
One major difference between the government school policies and non- government school policies is that very few government policies focus attention on - IST language48. Most non-government school policies focus attention on -IST language and explain boundaries in more detail with terminology explaining -IST language. For example, terminology from government policy merely lists “offensive comments relating to race, religion, gender, sexuality, or ability”, whereas some non- government policies49 separate and explain each area and possibility. The following examples are taken from several non-government policies: “remarks regarding personal appearance”, in addition, “denigrate ability”, adding, “disparage disability”, with “slurs used to denigrate race” or “… religion”. Explanations from policies are not contracted to a couple of words, as with the government policy, but rather explain in more detail, using short phrases or complete sentences. Explanations also cover all possibilities of proscriptive areas.
In sum, the institutions structure the policies using ambiguous language but with noted differences between government and non-government schools. The fundamental issue with language used in the government and non-government school behaviour policies is the lack of definition of institutional terms; for example, obscene language, offensive language, vulgar language, inappropriate language and swearing, to name a few. There are no definitions supplied for the government schools nor for the non- government schools, resulting in these institutional words being ambiguous and fluid depending on who is interpreting the term. The non-government school policies use similar undefined institutional terms as government school policies to boundary language use, but they have more detail in defining -IST language.
The school behaviour policies in this study are ambiguous regarding language boundaries. These ‘genres of governance’ are aimed at surface appearances rather than underlying realities, much like many other policies (Fairclough, 2003). Additionally,
47 For example, an offensive posting would occur online whereas offensive language could be produced online or orally. 48 -IST language is proscriptive language for difference such as ethnicity, race, sexual preference, gender, appearance, (dis)ability, religion and so forth (Allan & Burridge, 2006).
49 Masked to protect anonymity of schools and participants.
Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use 123
the above data support the notion that policies are rarely exact (Ball et al., 2012) and present “a certain economy of discourses of truth” (Foucault, 1980, p. 93). However, the policies also present “a field of possibilities” (Foucault, 1982, p. 221), especially regarding engagement, enactment and responses. How policies are engaged with and enacted upon, or not, involves processes of interpretation and recontextualisation that permit the translation of text into action (Ball et al., 2012). The following section explores how the teachers and school leaders engage with and respond to (or not) their own school policies.
5.2 POLICY ENGAGEMENT AND KNOWLEDGE OF POLICY
Each school aligned with participants in this study, whether government or non- government, has a structured behaviour management policy. Policy enactment is a process of interpretation and recontextualization, a process of translating and manipulating text into contextual practice or action (Rizvi & Kemmis, 1987). Because, as seen in 5.1, policy is rarely specific, and contexts and policy actors vary, this process involves “interpretations of interpretations” (Ball et al., 2012, p. 3; Rizvi & Kemmis, 1987),“a field of possibilities”(Foucault, 1982, p. 219). Similarly, policy implementation or enactment is structured on a cline of importance based on the interest and maximum convenience for the policy actor; the attention the policy acquires corresponds with the actor’s personal agendas. Additionally, how policy actors make sense of the policy itself adds significantly to whether the policy is implemented, enacted, or not (Spillane, 2004).
Regarding this study, all but one of the school behaviour policies mention some form of language restriction or boundary expectation for students. The policies use various configurations of institutional language, as discussed in 5.1, in identifying boundaried language use in school contexts and are structured in different ways. It is therefore important to discover how the teachers and school leaders in this study understand their own school policy regarding language boundaries, how they engage with their policies and how they implement or respond to the policy.
Prior to each interview the researcher analysed the specific school policy connected to the individual participant, focusing on words or terms used relating to swearing or taboo language and how the boundaries of language use were outlined in the policy. The interview questions about the school policy were then adjusted to
124 Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use
incorporate the institutional words and language employed in that policy. The data show that the participants are unaware of how their school policy is structured regarding taboo language use, what words or terms are used in their respective policies, and what the boundaries are in relation to the institutional terms of boundaried language use.
5.2.1 School Leader Engagement and Knowledge of Policy Of the seven school leaders only one openly admitted to not knowing the school policy for their school with realis statements, statements of fact. “I wouldn’t know what our specific policy is”; additionally, “I don’t know what the boundaries are, and we don’t ... regularly re-visit them”. This participant was clear with response statements during the interview, interacted with the questions and toward the end of the discussion on school policy questioned, “And this is in our policy?” then reflected “Oh, great ((laughs)) I’m learning”.
The remaining six participant school leaders demonstrated their limited knowledge with varying responses, many using masking or evasive techniques. Lakoff (1973) suggests that people use language to demonstrate matters of degree, degrees of truth, dependent on their knowledge or experience. These degrees of truth and knowledge are evidenced in the data. In answering the question relating to the school policy listing inappropriate language, Thomas professes his knowledge with his response, “Yeah, I believe so yeah”. He is using significant expressive modality with the mental process believe so, a commitment to knowledge; however, later in the interaction when asked for more detail he responds with, “I don’t think there’s any hard and fast rule, no no. Not, well, not that I’m aware of, probably I should go and read my policy a bit more”. Thomas continues his commitment to supporting his knowledge of the policy with ‘a bit more’, signposting that he may have read the policy sometime previously, however, his use of discourse markers and hedging I don’t think and no, no. Not, well, not that I’m aware of suggest his uncertainty and a limited knowledge.
Ryan also uses hedging devices and discourse markers with the repeated I don’t think, and something like that suggesting an unknown entity in explaining his policy, indicating his limited knowledge.
Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use 125
Ryan, however, proceeds to validate his limited knowledge regarding the policy with verbal cues, questions and body language. Style involves the connection and interplay between both verbal language and body language because various gestures have many stable meanings (Fairclough, 2003). Ryan shakes his head and laughs while discussing the school policy which is found in the teachers’ and students’ handbook; his body language, which he is using to indicate his unfamiliarity of the policy to the researcher, clearly shows that he has not read the policy. He intensifies this understanding with a confession and then questions the researcher regarding the policy. Ryan uses an ‘other-initiated knowledge exchange’ because he wants to know more about the school policy from the researcher who knows more details about the policy regarding language boundaries and where it is to be found.
Another form of evasion used by two of the school leaders was to refrain from immediately answering the researcher’s question, pausing until the researcher filled the gaps. The policies contain several institutional terms, as discussed earlier, and questions were posed as to how the school defines them. Spencer waited while the list was read and interspersed comments and rhetorical self-questioning such as “Ah.. That’s a good point actually um”, and “Gee that last one’s interesting.... Um .... yeah I’d never thought of it, that way”, “You know like um. .... geez that’s a hard one ta.... yeah”, concluding with “I I I would I would say that we would define what is inappropriate.” Spencer uses hypothetical modality would in the last sentence, which makes the statement more tentative (Fairclough, 2003). Robert also uses this technique of waiting for the researcher to expand on the policy before proceeding with the addition of ‘yep’ during questioning about policy details.
126 Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use
Thomas is clearer with his responses regarding school education around his school policy.
Self-identity is structured by reflexively filtering contact through knowledge of the ‘expert’. This ‘expert system of knowledge’ depends on symbolic forms and procedures that resist explicitness and are often unavailable to all. Power is generated in this ‘expert system’. In order for the system to work effectively, the expert system is dependent on trust (Giddens, 2013). Thomas is referring to the ‘expert’ system with the use of the words formal definition. He is linking the ‘expert’, in this case the school or institution, who would be the power that would and should define what is inappropriate in the policy. He trusts the institution but signals his hesitation in the system and the boundaries with the words fluidity and fluid. In addition, he uses the determiner some and the adverb pretty to describe an amount associated with the vagueness of the boundaries. Thomas uses would and I’d to speculate (Parrott, 2010), sharing his limited knowledge of the policy and language boundaries.
A visible disjuncture in the data between school leaders and teachers exists regarding policy knowledge, agentive expectation, and policy responses or implementation. More detail of this tension between school leader and teacher is explored in 5.4. where a significant contrast is noted with responses from participants in the study regarding education surrounding behaviour policy and language boundary policy.
5.2.2 Teacher Engagement and Knowledge of Policy The previous discussion outlines the school leaders’ limited knowledge about the intricacies of their own school behaviour policies regarding language boundaries, with the majority confident that their school educates and explains the policy to its staff. As with school leaders, the teachers in this study demonstrate that they have limited knowledge of their own school behaviour policy regarding language boundaries. Two discourses are clearly demarcated in these interactions with teachers,
Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use 127
see Table 5.6. First, a discourse of knowledge gain and knowledge deficit, and second, teacher responsibility, expectation and agency. Discourses represent a particular part of the world from a particular perspective (Fairclough, 2003). Vocabulary present in the teacher excerpts, as well as semantic relations between words, demonstrate these perspectives from teachers.
Table 5.6 Discourses present in teacher policy engagement
Semantic relations between words, hyponymy (meaning inclusion), synonymy (meaning identity), and antonymy (meaning exclusion) indicate representation or discourses, and often act as systems of classification that function as “unconscious instruments of construction” (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 241). Table 5.6 classifies these representations more specifically and the following discussion proceeds with explanation.
Regarding knowledge of the policy most of the teachers are candid in their reflections, sharing their limited knowledge about the behaviour policy in general, and the language boundaries in particular.
128 Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use
There is a clear distinction in the data between acquired knowledge and knowledge deficit regarding the policy and language boundaries. Words such as think, school, know, reads, teach, aware, sure, ideas, what, policy, okay, diary, says, things, have, written, find out, classroom, look up, list, and to check all connect to knowledge or the acquisition of knowledge. In contrast to the positive aspect, the marked negative polarity is used with don’t, no, the stressed NO, and not, as well as words that emphasize the negative such as awkward, different, tolerated, sounds bad, won’t change, haven’t read and haven’t engaged. The data illustrate more connection to the negative acquisition of knowledge; however, some contrasts are made to the positive, such as Francis, who contrasts the probability of a policy – positive – with the negative: she does not know what it says and has not read it. Similarly, Jessica, in the excerpt below, contrasts the negative of being at the school for 15 years yet not knowing the policy, to the positive, her school has a policy.
Teacher responsibility, expectation and agency is another discourse represented in these data. Reg, in the excerpt above, is confident in his response that he does not know his policy; after a pause, he questions the researcher with an ‘other-initiated knowledge exchange’ that is rhetorical in action, do people know the policy? He is using this questioning technique as a strategic action (Habermas, 1984), one which results in spreading the responsibility – or lack thereof – to a broader stage of actors, by the impersonal use of people. He follows with a refute and safeguard, asking the researcher not to tell his boss; a means of protection against complaint, protecting
Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use 129
himself because he is not following ‘the rules of the institution’, of the power hierarchy. He adds to this protection by sharing reasoning that policy is awkward; again he shares the load and responsibility with other actors: who reads them? but then follows up with what he believes to be correct teacher expectation and responsibility, that being I just get down and teach. This last comment he uses to vindicate his actions.
Jessica reflects on her teacher responsibility and expectation by using assumptions. The implicitness embedded is ‘triggered’ (Levinson, 1983) by linguistic features such as sounds bad and factive verbs, I’ve been, don’t know. She contrasts the negative it sounds bad with I’ve been here for 15 years, implying that the length of time should suggest she knows the policy. The value assumptions imply what is desirable or good in a constructed ‘respectable and responsible teacher’. Reg and Jessica are both feeling the governing ‘gaze’ of society (Foucault, 1975) in their comments, the judgment of being a ‘good, respectable, responsible teacher’.
Francis begins her excerpt with the adverbial modality probably; in her opinion, the degree of likelihood that a policy exists is neither a definite yes or a definite no (Halliday, 2004). The use of modalisation illustrates her indifference regarding the policy, which supports her later response – that she has not read the policy nor does she know what the policy entails. The concessive semantic relation of but between the sentences expands on her reasoning. The importance for her lies in her own personal perspective. The use of I, my, own, and personal act as ‘focalization’ for this text in terms of relating actions to her point of view and her individuality (Fairclough, 2003). Francis proceeds with the orientational metaphor which provides a concept of spatial orientation: hold that level of expectation. The metaphor associates with physicality and orientation; size correlates with strength; height correlates with the victor. GOOD
130 Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use
IS UP, VIRTUE IS UP, BAD IS DOWN, DEPRAVITY IS DOWN50. Additionally, on a social basis, standards set by society correlate with society’s or the ‘other person’s’ point of view, their physicality. Consequently, being virtuous correlates with social wellbeing (G. Lakoff & Johnsen, 1980). Therefore, using the metaphor, Francis demonstrates the physical standard or level she upholds in addition to the expectation, her own as well as society’s.
Sebastian has a more challenging tone in his communication regarding knowledge of policy. Earlier in the interview he comments that he is not aware of any policy; he uses the word formal policy. Later he adds that he is not sure what the policy is. The implicitness or assumption is triggered with the adjective formal. Intertextuality connects “one text to other texts, to the ‘world of text’” (Fairclough, 2003, p. 40); similarly with assumption. What is ‘said’ in this text is connected to the background of what is unsaid but accepted as given. Sebastian’s use of the word formal policy directs the connection and links to the informal or the unofficial policy. Is this one that he has conjured? The assumption is reinforced in the above excerpt, when he adds that regardless of what the policy says, the behaviour will not change. He uses the discourse marker I dare say, a ‘fossilised expression’(Parrott, 2010, p. 154), in order to introduce the challenging stance. The addition of the prepositional phrase at all cements the challenge with the definite line in the sand; there is no ambiguity with the decision.
The inclusion of two social actors/groups is present in the excerpts. Sebastian begins with the personal pronoun I when discussing knowledge of the policy and location of the policy, but when talking about classroom behaviours that will not change, he uses the possessive pronoun our to include himself among teachers as a group or community. Sebastian is sharing the responsibility of going against formal policy by aligning himself with the group, the community of teachers. By including himself with the community of teachers, Sebastian suggests that members of this
50 The convention for writing metaphors is blocked capital letters, whereas metaphorical expressions are written in regular sentence formatting to denote examples of conceptual metaphors (Elhindi, 2009; SBL Press, 2016).
Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use 131
community also share his views and practice of not changing their behaviours. This community of teachers does not have a voice as to whether they support his stance and practice, or not. The two perspectives of Francis and Sebastian indicate a personal, agentive nature to responses and decision making in some teachers. This agency is significant and becomes more detailed and more apparent in this chapter and Chapter 7.
The abovementioned discussion explores teacher engagement with policy, finding that the teachers in this study, as with the school leaders, have limited knowledge of and limited engagement with their own school behaviour policies, specifically in relation to the language boundaries.
5.3 INSTITUTION EDIFICATION ON SCHOOL POLICY – SETTING BOUNDARIES
When it became obvious to the researcher that the participants had limited knowledge of their policies, the question was framed as to whether the school as institution had undertaken any education regarding the behaviour policy. The responses from this question add further insight into how the institutions structure their policy and how boundaries are set to ensure consistency. Responses to the question show a definite pattern of deficit instruction regarding language boundaries and the behaviour policy. Additionally, responses suggest a level of frustration among teachers and instances of disillusioned expectation which impact consistency.
Most teachers responded with a negative response when asked if the school provides education or tutoring regarding boundaries of acceptable language within the behaviour policy. Mostly, the response was an emphatic no with accompanying negative elaboration. No is used when the speaker “wants to emphasise a negative idea” (Swan, 2005, p. 352).
The teachers expand on the negative notion with other negatively associated words such as wasn’t, no-one, unacceptable, never, nope, nobody, shouldn’t accept,
132 Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use
not once, not even, don’t, any sort, anything, ABSOLUTELY NOT, NO, and not. These negatively associated words represent the teachers’ perspective regarding instruction, connecting words of education and instruction such as defined, tells you, say, heard, speak, went through it, think, explained, PD [professional development], chat, interpretation, conversation, happen to hear, reporting, asked why, tutored, know and unclear.
The teachers are looking to the institution, the principal, the ‘someone’ to explain and define the boundaries. The teachers use the following words, Table 5.7, and thereby separate, classify and impose a social division between the parties.
Table 5.7 Teacher classifications regarding policy edification
There is an implicit division in semantic representations employed by teachers in this discussion. The ‘classification schemes’(Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992) drawn upon expose three separate groups, the ‘them as policy owners’, the ‘me as educator’ and the ‘us as third-party actors or players’. First the teachers separate themselves from the no-one, anyone, nobody, they’ve, their staff, students, and they. The members of this separate group, ‘them as policy owners’, are classified by category: those who work at the school, who have knowledge and understanding of the policy. The members of this group are classified with impersonal classifications, not personalised. Included in this group are the students, because they have the privilege of having the boundaries of policy explained to them by school leaders, even if this is not done clearly.
Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use 133
The ‘backgrounded administration’ are abstractly named. Trevor refers to administration several times during his interview, reflecting on behaviour, incidences, hurtful and unhelpful situations that have occurred during his teaching career, all relating directly to the administration. This intertextuality builds upon previous references to attribute the classification of the school administration to the ‘them as policy owners’ member group. Trevor exhibits an animosity toward the administration group throughout his interview, with examples such as, ‘the administration was not happy’ and ‘..to the administration and they’re like meh!’, ‘the administration was still not happy dealing with it’, ‘but the administration was like euh ((rolls eyes and sighs)), my main beef would be the administration who don’t take it seriously’ among others. Regarding education surrounding the policy, the administration is nuanced with:
In this instance Trevor refers to the administration as they. He uses a form of free indirect reporting (Fairclough, 2003) where he summarises what was said but does not use a reporting clause. Trevor attaches a revealing addition with ‘it was made up’, and then again, a correction or reinforcement of sorts, ‘it seemed to be made up’, suggests that the administration is unclear and inconsistent with their policy dealings. The initial assertion demonstrates commitment, however, Trevor then adds seems to be, which is used when talking about objective facts or “things that seem definitely to be true” (Swan, 2005, p. 494). In this enhancement, Trevor is supporting his statement that the policy rules are made up with an objective statement which augments his viewpoint.
Another inclusion in the ‘them as policy owners’ membership are the students. Both Trevor and Caroline mention the students or kids but are separated from them as
134 Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use
teacher and policy illiterate. Both teachers relay language boundaries being discussed with students, and both employ relations of difference (Laclau & Mouffe, 1985) in their discussion. Trevor segments explained as opposed to just happen to hear. On the one hand some form of detail is offered to the students, in opposition to the incidental and accidental information attained by chance by teachers. Caroline segments difference with the word except; on the one hand she comments regarding lack of discussion with teachers around language boundaries and then promotes difference with the contrast that the teachers are told to monitor language.
The use of we’re in Caroline’s excerpt does not belong in the ‘me as educator’ membership, but in the ‘us as third party’ column because she separates and distances herself from this classification by using intertextuality. Caroline uses a form of direct reporting, with the reporting clause ‘to say’, and continues with the actual words used by the ‘anyone’ she refers to. The re-contextualisation that occurs by using direct reporting distances her from the speaker and places her in a different classification of member, that of me as teacher/educator (Fairclough, 2003).
The ‘me as teacher/educator’ group is positioned with semantic relations of contrast. Francis, in the excerpt above, employs the possessive pronoun my which shows ownership but then contrasts this with the more distant a staff. She uses the uncountable noun with an indefinite article, making the group impersonal and separate from her as an individual. She uses we to include herself in the group of staff, but by using the word staff as an uncountable noun with an indefinite article she suggests a distancing and separation from the group as staff, to become rather a member of the ‘us as third party actors/players’. Similarly, other participants use the personal and possessive pronouns I, my, me and I’ve to group themselves as teacher identity, for example, I started reporting things, I asked, what should I accept, what shouldn’t I accept, I don’t think, I’ve been here, I’ve never seen and my interpretation.
Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use 135
Finally, two participants comment poignantly on knowledge of policy. Both Adeline and Reg explain that they know all about the child protection policy, the policy regarding suspected child abuse, the workplace harassment policies, the fire safety policy, including care and use of equipment, and the school lockdown policy; yet they have limited knowledge regarding the behaviour policy. Affective evaluations contrast the known with the unknown with, “I’ve been tutored in that and what to do” as opposed to “I don’t even really know what it is”.
This study’s data show that the policies are ambiguous and the teachers’ knowledge is tenuous at least. Teachers have the power to report infringements that may result in some form of discipline, suspension and/or exclusion, yet their knowledge of the exact linguistic boundaries is limited. The teachers and school leaders are tutored and educated by the school and institution regarding other school policies. The boundaries are clearer for those policies.
Teachers and school leaders know the policies that are protecting students’ welfare, yet they have limited knowledge and no training in policy that has consequence for student learning, student linguistic social education, student social and cultural ‘boundarying’ in terms of acceptable language use.
5.4 POLICY ENGAGEMENT AND INDIVIDUAL RESPONSES
5.4.1 Policy Engagement and Responses - Leader Views Policy implementation or enactment in institutions is complex and usually follows guidance from lead actors or ‘local officials’ who choose which policies are of most value or are more important (Spillane, 2004). The perspectives of school leaders regarding the behaviour policy engagement, responses and practice are discussed in the following section.
There is a marked judgment evident in school leader reaction regarding teacher engagement of and responses to policy regarding verbal conduct in school contexts. The school leaders position themselves separately from teachers and their responses demonstrate a schism and high level of judgment in relation to teacher practice. Several discourses are present that are represented from the perspective of the seven school leaders in this study. Discourses form part of how people relate to one another, how they separate themselves from others, how they compete, dominate or cooperate with
136 Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use
one another. Discourses can also be seen as combinations of other discourses articulated and combined together in certain ways (Fairclough, 2003).
The main discourse evident in responses from school leaders is deficit teacher practice. Within this discourse there are seven localised discourses, they are: teacher/student relationship, judgment of incompetence, consistency, teacher language, abdication/avoidance of responsibility, punishment, and last, immediate performativity (see Table 5.8). These are discussed in more detail below.
Table 5.8 Seven localised discourses within deficit teacher practice discourse
Teacher/student relationship: Within this discourse there are two separate components evident. First, school leaders express that teachers should have closer
Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use 137
relationships with their students51, and, second, suggest that teacher student relationships are too close, with apparent judgment and low levels of respect. Words such as don’t build rapport, interacting with them, earning respect, building relationships, teachers don’t get this suggest school leader perceptions regarding deficit teacher/student relationships. Judgment regarding contradictory relationships are implied with, you’re the adult, they’re the child, level, barrier, eroded, changed interaction, fluid.
Judgment of incompetence: School leaders use clear evaluative statements when expanding on deficit teacher practice regarding competence. Analysing the use of these words is made by contextualisation; by reading “the actual occurrence- meaning, the use-meaning, the text-meaning” in context (Lemke, 1998, p. 165), and noting intertextuality within and between the texts (Fairclough, 2003). Many textual markers assist with evaluation. The use of adjectives, problematic teachers and special hearing, noun phrases, such as, teacher mindset is a problem, and mentality with some teachers, evaluative verbs, all ego-driven, belittle, and evaluative adverbs, basically, often, among many more, all make up a clear picture as to how the school leaders perceive teacher competence, or rather incompetence. The responses expand upon the divide between school leader and teacher. The school leaders describe teachers who are not confident, who are not flexible in their approach, have a negative or unprofessional attitude toward students and the teaching profession in general, who are vitriolic, incapable, and impatient.
Consistency: The third sub-discourse clearly demarcates difference and inconsistency. School leaders articulate that the teachers are not consistent in their actions or behaviour. They suggest that the teachers are not all the same; some teachers have different standards, and some are reluctant to change. Additionally, allowing certain language to be used on some occasions but wanting punishment when language is used on other occasions contributes to inconsistency. Both Robert and Spencer use separating language when discussing consistency. They use the plural pronoun we to
51One of the obstacles mentioned by Spencer is that often child support services shares information with the school administration that cannot be shared with the teachers due to privacy issues. Consequently, the teacher does not know the full history of home life of the child and cannot understand when administration action contests teacher decision. A dichotomy occurs with the fact that the teacher is not fully informed therefore hampers a close relationship between student and teacher.
138 Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use
include themselves in the school leadership team, the community that is not the teachers; we try to make them consistent, but teachers aren’t, and we have more of a background than what they do. Robert uses metaphor: some teachers are fighting a rear-guard action, the metaphor of “ARGUMENT IS WAR” (G. Lakoff & Johnsen, 1980, p. 4). The metaphorical verbal battle separates Robert, as the school leader, from teachers, who are the opponents. His expression suggests the attacking and defending of positions, the gaining and losing of ground, the winning and losing of the battle. He adds to the ARGUMENT IS WAR metaphor when including the comment new teachers come in and put it back, expanding on the fact that the school’s position has ‘lost ground’ in the battle. An interesting dynamic is visible regarding consistency with school leaders. They criticise inconsistency in teacher behaviour and practice, yet demonstrate inconsistency in their own reflections. Inconsistencies are revealed in discussion regarding disciplining students, feedback to students, timeframes, and inconsistent approaches. A more expanded discussion on consistency follows in Section 5.5.
Teacher Language: Linking somewhat with the issue of consistency is the issue surrounding language use by teachers. Two streams are evident. First, the way the teachers talk to and react around students, and second, the fact that some teachers use swearing and taboo language directed at students and/or around students. Verbal cues such as, how teachers talk to students, own input, how they talk, need to be more careful, not calm and defuse, aggressive and enflames more, some of their language, their approach, and terrible illustrate the first stream of teacher language use. The assumptions present suggest that teachers need to be calm, patient and understanding with students. Additionally, teachers need to examine their own behaviour or input with the subtle implicitness that they are or could be the reason for the student’s upsetting linguistic conduct.
The second stream of teacher language suggests teachers are using swearing and taboo language around and sometimes at students. Phrases such as, double standard, makes our job more complicated, the staff use the language, demeans everything, they use it as well, their response is to use it back, and the co-curricular environment where they see teachers in a different light indicate teacher language use. The judgment from school leaders regarding teachers using swearing and taboo language around or at the students is not personal. The school leaders are not disapproving because teachers have
Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use 139
used the language, but rather reacting to what they see as inappropriate use because they are disrupting the rules. By using the language teachers are making things complicated, making more work for leaders, and suggesting a double standard for students. According to school leaders, by swearing, teachers are demoting the value of the rules.
Abdication/Avoidance of Responsibility: Two perspectives concerning abdication or avoidance of responsibility apropos language infringements are evident. The first noted is with two participants who speak positively about sending language infringements to a higher authority for resolution. There’s a pretty good handball situation, an idiom used by Thomas, a sporting reference which associates with his teaching field. Speakers often use idioms to conclude a story as a way to evaluate events in terms of moral or emotive impact and as a judgement of their comments (Heritage & Watson, 1972; O’Keefe, McCarthy, & Carter, 2007). The second participant shares that’s not for me I guess to decide, I will send it up to the house deans. In the latter example, Ryan will send some language infringements to a higher authority for resolution, even though he works in a position of leadership. He employs the tentative I guess which supports his imprecision regarding some school rules and boundaries.
The second perspective as regards abdication or avoidance of responsibility is frustration. As a result of teachers abdicating responsibility and avoiding decision- making in resolving language infringements with students, frustration occurs for leaders. School leaders share these sentiments with comments such as…they just want me to fix it for them; the teachers don’t have to deal with it. So, it’s easier to flick it to somebody else. You deal with it., “get to the office, get to the office”, …it’s basically, they don’t want to deal with it, they’ll just straight away handball … the teachers quite like to um handball it on up the chain. First, there is evidence of distancing and movement in language used by school leaders, such as flick it, get to, handball, somebody else, up the chain; second, fix, deal with, easier, suggests something defective, damaged, or malfunctioning. The language implies a separation and movement away from the problem; according to the leaders, the teachers are wanting to distance themselves from the responsibility of resolution and of dealing with the defective or damaged language infringement.
140 Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use
Punishment: Comment is made regarding teacher views on discipline and punishment. The school leaders share that many teachers want students to be disciplined if they cross the linguistic boundary. Words and phrases such as they want action, they want blood, disciplining, punishment, punished, they’ve done something wrong, backed up with punishment, a ruled approach, more punishment, suspend, string them up, institutionalising, and detention all indicate teacher expectation. Two school leaders commented that the older teachers wanted strong punishment as opposed to younger teachers who were not so worried about it. Robert adds that the older teachers want to be backed up with punishment, which presupposes that they have previously taken steps to resolve the linguistic violation and only require support from administration. Spencer comments that older teachers tend to support punishment but adds that they are inclined to have more experience in managing students. He balances a negative appraisal with a positive.
Immediate performativity: Somewhat aligned with the punishment discourse is that of immediate performativity, which is present in words and phrases such as, the teacher wants immediate action, everything now, now, it’s too late, it’s not always instantaneous, today, straight away, expect something to be done. These words are actions in themselves, express actions and are linguistic performances (Austin, 1962; Loxley, 2006). Time-space difference is evidenced not only in the words used such as immediate, now, instantaneous, but also with the use of always. The use of always suggests a habitual-action time-expression (Parrott, 2010). Other time-space words used are the next day, couple of days, three days later, too late, as well as shifting tense – present tense give them, past tense wanted them. The predominate use of simple present tense suggests the immediacy of the reflections, with the one instance of simple past tense in the chained texts implying a belated result in the chaining of events. These chained texts and events contribute to becoming incorporated into a genre chain (Fairclough, 2003). According to the school leaders, the teachers want immediate action from administration in support of their decisions to respond to inappropriate student language.
The ‘deficit teacher practice’ discourse evident in the textual analysis of school leaders in this study demonstrates an evaluation, judgment, and mistrust of teachers and their practice. The evaluation is part of a social practice of surveillance, of regulating and normalising. Sometimes, by naming and labelling the anomalous or
Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use 141
heterogenous cases, these cases become normalised. For Foucault (1975), this will to truth is often connected with the will to power, “the deployment of force and the establishment of truth” (p. 184); guards (leaders) become evaluators and prisoners (non-leaders) become evaluated.
5.4.2 Policy Engagement and Responses -Teacher Views Moving from leader perspectives, the following section discusses teacher perspectives regarding policy engagement and responses. Teacher reflections regarding expectation of policy engagement and responses for language infringements differ from leader perspectives. Teacher perspectives highlight leadership as important in consistency of responses to language transgression reports, age and administration as playing a role in reporting of infringements, and tacit understanding that serious infringements are directed to higher authorities. Some teachers speak favourably of their current school’s support, but overall teachers share negative reflections or use third person referencing when discussing school management of language infringements, policy engagement, and responses.
A uniform representation from teachers is the impact of leadership at schools. Most teacher participants name the principal and/or administration as a significant factor in decision making and support regarding consistent policy engagement. Depends on who the principals and deputies are, depends completely on administration, absolutely, admin top down, our school culture has changed - we had a principal with good direction and then he left. Participants reflect that the leadership determines the culture and atmosphere of the school in all respects, not only in terms of policy responses or engagement.
The main discourse noted in teacher perspectives is advocate deficit; they believe that the leadership and administration does not support them if they report language transgressions. “Nobody cares, nothing would happen, it wouldn’t be taken seriously, quite often, nothing’s done, it happens often to teachers, twice it was reported to the deputy, nothing will happen, and ...don’t feel supported, absolutely not, not”. Teachers are expressive in their perspectives when sharing personal or third-party incidences where language transgressions are reported and the reports have either been ignored or the transgression is not addressed with the student. Reports therefore become a waste of time, with teachers failing to report language incidents. Comments such as “I couldn’t be arsed”, “there’s a lot of disillusioned people”, and “I’ve put it on
142 Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use
OneSchool - I’ve wasted my time, nothing will happen” demonstrate the negative teacher perspective regarding reporting language transgressions. Leadership support is therefore paramount for teachers, as Kathleen suggests:
Another variance in the reporting of language incidences is teacher age. A consensus that younger teachers do not report language transgressions as much as older teachers is evident in both school leader comments and teacher reflections. According to some teachers the younger teachers ignore it, are more accepting, and they don’t report a lot of language that probably should be reported. According to participants, younger teachers are more accepting of the language and do not report infringements because it makes for extra work. The contrast shared by participants is that older teachers report language infringements more often because they are prepared to work longer hours, and because they are totally offended, they take it personally that students are using the swearwords. However, one teacher reflected that some older teachers do not report infringements because they are close to retirement and they will just let that go.
Linking with and contrasting school leader reflections regarding abdicating or avoidance of responsibility with language transgressions, teachers show a tacit understanding and acknowledgment that handing the serious language infringements to a higher authority is the accepted and expected procedure. Kathleen shares that many teachers deal with language transgressions in their classrooms unless the language is directed aggressively at a fellow student or teacher. In cases where the language is aggressively directed, the incident gets passed on.
In Trevor’s excerpt the tacit understanding that language transgressions are handed to a superior is evident. The adverb completely acts as an intensifier which expresses absoluteness (Parrott, 2010). Trevor interrupts himself prior to adding what
Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use 143
the head of house would do, but by using the intensifier he shares that the reaction would be absolute. The addition of the focusing adverb just which modifies the verb handball, expresses the undertone of ‘nothing more than’ what is expected (Swan, 2005). Trevor then separates himself from the language transgression and its response with they deal with it, using the anaphoric personal pronoun to describe the heads of house in an indifferent manner. Finally, Trevor uses a very telling phrase, it’s taken out of your hands, which removes teacher agency. The teacher is not actively giving the transgression to the head of house, it is being taken from them. Representation entails choice, either congruent or metaphorical; in this instance representation is metaphorical (Fairclough, 2003). The metaphorical representation supports the tacit understanding that language transgressions are handed to superiors. Adele supports the tacit understanding with
Adele shows that her school undertakes the language transgression reports in the same way. She separates herself from the action taken for language transgressions, the report and the administration by using somebody and the nominalisation incident report. Nominalisation is the process of using nouns or noun like entities in place of verbs; a way of abstracting or generalising (Fairclough, 2003). The tacit agreement is noted when she refers to her school. Cos that’s just. XXX, implies that the prior explanation of how language transgressions are managed are the accepted rules of her school. As a way of consolidating the accepted rules, she repeats the steps of transgression management and finishes the excerpt with a final which is good. Her final comment not only adds her approval but also consolidates what the school is doing as the correct approach. Teachers are confident in the system of ‘handing it up the line’. They believe the system of approach is expected.
There is a divide between leader perspectives and teacher perspectives regarding engaging with and responding to the behaviour policies at the respective schools. The data suggest that both parties’ expectations regarding responses rest with the other. School leaders share judgment regarding deficit teacher practice while teachers
144 Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use
express a general lack of support from leadership when it comes to language transgressions, causing many to go unreported. Teachers have a tacit understanding that if the language transgression is serious, it should be reported to more senior staff; however in some instances these reports are going unanswered. Leader responses suggest they believe teachers are incompetent, underqualified, inconsistent, and abdicate responsibility regarding language infringements. In addition, leaders believe teachers want immediate punitive measures or retribution. The power differences at work between these two ‘subject positions’ is aiding the inconsistency in policy engagement and responses in the school settings. Power in discourse is to do with “controlling and constraining the contributions of the non-powerful participants”. The constraints are on contents, what is said or done, on relations, the social relations people enter into in discourse, and subjects, or the ‘subject positions’ people can occupy (Fairclough, 1989, p. 46).
Many school leaders believe they understand what requirements and expectations are for teachers because they have ‘been there’. Research suggests (Beaudoin & Taylor, 2015) this is not always the case as many principals or school leaders spend most of their time satisfying administrative requirements rather than being in the classroom. Additionally, the reference point for many school leaders is bounded by time; many have limited experience ‘in front of the classroom’ or have time deficits between classroom experience and years in administration. Teachers and school leaders are becoming adversaries because of the power imbalance and ineffective levels of trust (Sweeney, 1980). The data from this study support this and demonstrate an underlying tone of mistrust between school leader and teacher.
There is a tendency to devalue teachers and teaching and hold teachers responsible and assuaging for all the ills of society (Freire, 2009). Negative portrayal of teachers, school leaders and schools contribute to the discourse locating teachers as the ‘problem’ in education systems (Baroutsis, 2016). Additionally, media reports ‘naturalise’ these negative and defective understandings of teachers and schooling. In naturalising the understandings, the reports project the negative ideas as “taken for granted” or “common-sensical” perceptions surrounding teaching that consequently build and perpetuate the ideology (Baroutsis, 2015, p. 614). In a bygone era, teachers were seen as substitute parents, in loco parentis, and had the support of parents when necessary (Keeling & Young, 2016). Nowadays, however, the teachers are becoming
Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use 145
targets for society as the reason for poor student performance and student behaviour. Additionally, whereas before parents would support and back the teacher as decision- maker and professional, parents are now questioning their behaviour, professionalism and teaching outcomes (Keeling & Young, 2016).
Therefore, not only does society devalue and mistrust teachers, but school leaders are demonstrating an extension of this discourse in their own reflections of how teachers engage, implement, and respond to the language infringements in this study. The effective school leader needs to calculate a balance between negotiating conflict, organisational expectations and teacher needs (Sweeney, 1980).
5.5 CONSISTENT BOUNDARIES
When investigating how the schools in this study structure policy regarding taboo language and swearing, several aspects are evident. First, all the schools taking part in this study have behavioural policies which use institutional language to boundary language use in school contexts. Additionally, the policies are all ambiguous in their outlines and the teachers and school leaders have limited knowledge of their own school policy boundaries. Furthermore, school leaders believe teachers should manage more of the responses to language infringements in their classrooms and teachers believe school leaders and administration should be more supportive in their management of language infringements in the school contexts. The following discussion explores how, in these before mentioned contexts, the institutions set boundaries and manage consistency between acceptable and unacceptable language.
Teacher and school leader responses show variations in consistency in relation to three areas: consistency in teacher practice, consistency at administration level, and consistency in language used by educators. Most respondents agree that there is a lack of consistency in administration practice, teacher practice and teacher language use around students regarding parameters of acceptable language use. Three of the respondents, however, comment positively about consistency in their school environments. Two of the participants, Adeline and Reg, are from the same school. Reg shares:
146 Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use
Kathleen, on the other hand, discloses a dichotomy of consistency in her comments. She suggests there is consistency in responses from the administration at her school, however consistency is lacking with teacher responses and teacher practice.
5.5.1 Teacher Practice The commentary from participants demonstrates a clear sense of demarcation and difference. When discussing lack of consistency, the respondents separate themselves from ‘the others’. Respondents use distancing and separating classifications, such as the teachers, teachers, staff, them, their, some teachers, no- one, other teachers, others, someone, someone else, they, the people, some of them, teachers here, over there, new staff, experienced staff, individual teachers, the older generation, older teachers and newer teachers to separate themselves from others. The discussions always refer to ‘the other’ who is being inconsistent in their management and teacher practice regarding language transgression responses. The social process of classification aids in representations of equivalence and difference (Laclau & Mouffe, 1985). The tendency to create and proliferate differences between groups of people, in this case teachers, to classify and categorise them, shapes how people act and think as social agents (Fairclough, 2003). The respondents share the understanding that teacher and administration responses to student language transgressions are inconsistent in their school settings but that it is the ‘other’ teachers, staff and administration who are inconsistent.
Respondents use texturing of difference with contrastive relations between clauses and sentences. Many respondents use the contrastive but to contrast differences in teacher responses to language transgressions. Other conjunctive relations and adverbials are used, such as and then, so, whereas, however, or, obviously, because, then, as opposed to, whereas, as a result. The use of conjunctive relations makes direct contrasts between what the speaker perceives as acceptable as opposed to unacceptable. In addition to contrastive relations between clauses and sentences, the
Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use 147
respondents use words that illuminate difference. Table 5.9 outlines the use of contrastive words and contrastive phrases and clauses.
Table 5.9 Contrastive words, phrases and clauses noting difference in teacher responses
Most respondents refer to their own practice in opposition to the ‘others’. They either talk in a third person perspective or they directly link lack of consistency and differing boundaries to their own practice. For example, Francis discusses some teachers’ boundaries in a more distant reflection:
Jessica relates practice to herself and her own boundaries of acceptability as opposed to the ‘other’, the ‘other teacher’:
148 Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use
Difference in consistency regarding responses to language transgressions is also articulated in relation to mitigating factors such as special needs, rurality, Indigeneity and familial influences. Additionally, respondents comment regarding consistency with teaching practices in and around Physical Education and Manual Arts contexts. The first mitigating factor affecting consistency is special needs. A dichotomy exists between responses and levels of acceptability of students with special needs in school contexts.
The approach relayed by Claudia and other respondents is causing a contradiction in consistency in school contexts because students see the inconsistency in responses from teachers and school leaders. The outcome is either that some students incite further outbursts from special needs students or they argue the inconsistency with statements such as:
Another mitigating factor influencing consistency is rurality. Many respondents comment on difference in responding to students from rural areas or ‘the country kids’. Interview perspectives suggest that students who are ‘country kids’ are surrounded by people who swear and use taboo language in their rural home environments. Therefore, when the students come to the city schools it is difficult to change their behaviour and language habits. Some respondents share that it is expected and accepted that ‘country kids’ will swear more. Ryan shares:
Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use 149
Many respondents make comment on Indigeneity playing a part in consistency of approach in school settings. An aspect of Indigeneity as a mitigating factor to consistency occurs with students who are Indigenous or the racial ‘other’ from the teacher or school leader. Participants share that students will use terms such as nigger and abbo, but because of the racial difference between school leader/teacher and student, the participant cannot interject. Additionally, Caucasian students may use “a particular cultural slang” from a cultural group. Participants are hesitant to respond because they are unsure whether this use is acceptable to the cultural group or viewed as offensive. The mixed responses add to the inconsistency of approach from different participants.
The above discussion is a good example of what Halliday (1976, 1978) calls, ‘anti-language’ – the language or forms of language generated by some kind of anti- society. Halliday suggests that this anti-language is a vehicle of resocialisation; a process not of construction but of re-construction. In the case of the use of nigger, the users are reappropriating the word as part of their in-group language; they are re- constructing its use. The insiders, people from a culture or social group, have speaking rights to the words used in the anti-language, but others – the outsiders, like the teachers/school leaders – cannot use the word without violating sociolinguistic norms.
The link between family influence and language is another mitigating factor influencing consistency in responses to language transgressions. Most respondents make connections between language use and family influence. Participants share that in some families students are learning how to use language effectively in moving from one group to another, or from one discourse to another. The parents of these students use swearing and taboo language, but tutor their children by example how to move between discourses and groups and use the language effectively. These students barely
150 Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use
have incidents of language transgressions in school contexts. The other example given by respondents is that of students who are enveloped in families who use swearing and taboo language as common parlance in any situation, and they –similarly – are tutoring their children by example. Spencer relates how parents often venture into his reception area and confront reception staff with, “I wanna fuckin see Mr Spencer”; or when phoning parents to inform them their child is to be suspended because of inappropriate language, parental response is, for example, “Oh what the fuck do you mean by that?”. He suggests that in such incidences management of language transgressions becomes problematic. Claudia supports the notion that familial influence is affecting students by relaying an incident when phoning a father to fetch his child from school. The child had been suspended for a behavioural issue and the parent’s response was:
The final mitigating factor mentioned by participants is the accepted use of swearing and taboo language in physical education (PE), coaching and manual arts contexts. Most participants commented that these areas are notorious areas for swearing and taboo language use by both students and teachers/school leaders. It is expected and accepted that these areas have different language boundaries and expectations to other areas of school activity. Participants reflect that if they respond to a student’s language use, the student retorts: “well Mr. X lets me”, or “Mr X said X”, causing inconsistency in responses from different teachers and school leaders. A further examination of swearing and taboo language in these contexts will be explored in Chapter 7.
5.5.2 Administration Practice Another factor in consistency at schools is administration practice. Trevor shares perspectives on differences regarding administration and school leaders. He relates that consistency is difficult to maintain at certain schools where he has worked because the administration and their policy positions are inconsistent. He gives a few examples
Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use 151
of the inconsistency. First, he differentiates between the ‘older teachers’ and the ‘newer teachers’52.
The dichotomy arises with the administration in that they will defend the older teacher reports before defending the newer teacher reports. Trevor suggests the older teachers tend not to report many language transgressions which causes a division between staff.
Second, the school and data are linked; the data are recorded and sent to head office, so the school wants to “reduce their interactions with (head) office”. The administration therefore changes the boundaries in relation to language infringements to adjust the data. An example given is at the beginning of the year the boundary is ‘any swearing near a teacher’, which changes during the year to, ‘any swearing directed at a teacher’. The assumption is that the ‘older teachers’ know about the adjustment of rules and abide by them, hence fewer reports. The newer teachers are seen as problematic if they report language transgressions and “are unlikely to be offered a contract for the next year”.
The power imbalance and concern over job security is echoed by a fellow respondent who shares an incident where she reported a student for language transgressions but was vetoed by administration.
A different power dichotomy occurs between Spencer and his staff. He suggests the teachers detail language transgressions on OneSchool but only do so late in the afternoon or evening. He suggests dealing with language transgressions takes up a large proportion of his daily work and oftentimes he does not see the OneSchool report53 for a few days. In cases such as this he refuses to punish the student, “I’m not
52 By older teachers Trevor means the teachers who have worked at the school for a longer period of time and are established at the school and newer teachers, those who have recently arrived. The labels have nothing to do with the age of the teacher. 53 See Section 5.1.1 on discussion of OneSchool, the software system that aims to manage students, curriculum, and learning, asset and finances, performance, analysis, and reporting (Queensland Government, 2017a).
152 Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use
going to punish him two or three days later. It doesn’t make sense”, which causes discord with the teachers and aids inconsistency.
5.5.3 Teacher and School Leader Language Use The third representation of inconsistency mentioned by participants is taboo language and swearing use by teachers at or around students. Here again reflections are shared using the ‘other’ teacher/leader as comparison.
Thomas reflects on language used by school leaders at his school. His articulation uses positive words and negative words in a conflict-ridden explanation of difference regarding language boundaries at the school. Words such as acceptance, little bit, varying degrees, loose are positioned against not, different, isn’t appropriate and unleashed the fury, in explaining the different approaches of school leaders. He reflects yet again about no clear-cut rules and an outline connecting to the ‘expert’ system (Giddens, 1979, 2013) referenced earlier which assists in structuring self- identity through knowledge of and from the ‘expert’. Thomas uses the adverb obviously as an attitude marker to demonstrate his frustration of the difference in approach and difference in boundaries.
Thomas includes other ‘voices’ in his discussion; the intertextuality is specific to particular groups and people but he uses a narrative report of the speech acts (Fairclough, 2003). He refers to a tripartite situation, with Heads of House, Department, individual teachers, the faculty, others, on one front, then, second, he uses the student, a kid, the boys, while third, he refers to himself with I, my, my area. These voices are dialectically opposed in his discussion, making a clear demarcation between the different communities and accentuating the difference between behaviour and language boundaries. Finally, he concludes with:
Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use 153
Thomas’ reflection clearly outlines the inconsistencies of language use around students in school contexts. Many other participants discuss inappropriate language use by teachers and school leaders at or around students and this will be explored in Chapter 7. The abovementioned data demonstrate inconsistencies on many levels regarding policy engagement and responses in school settings concerning swearing and taboo language.
5.6 PERSONAL BOUNDARY PARAMETERS
A consistent theme apparent in the data is the use of teacher and school leader personal boundary parameters in policy engagement and response regarding swearing and taboo language use in school contexts. Reflections suggest personal parameters take precedence over policy specifications.
Participants use personal boundaries when explaining words that they respond to in school contexts. If participants use the words themselves or believe that the words are less offensive, or deem them not to be swearwords, then their response when students use the words correlates accordingly. (See Table 5.10).
Table 5.10 Words relating to personal boundaries
Personal boundaries I say that, I would say that, I’ve said it, I use it, I might let it slip, for me, that’s just me, I do say, I would say, I swear, I check myself, my personal, my opinion, I’m uncomfortable, I’ll say, I run my show, I’ve said it myself, to me, my tolerance
Examples of words participants use to reflect personal parameters are personal pronouns I, me, my, and myself. Personal pronouns are important in language use because they have relational values (Fairclough, 1989) and relate to potential agency (Halliday, 2004). Participants use personal pronouns in aligning which words or contexts are acceptable or unacceptable to use in the school context. If participants
154 Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use
say, use, have said, would say, do say, use, swear, certain words or linguistic expressions, then they relate the same level of acceptability for students.
Table 5.11 Negative words used to describe personal boundaries
Negative Never, don’t, won’t, wouldn’t use, would never say that and wouldn’t go into.
Textual indicators such as negative words or negation demonstrate participant insight and emotive considerations regarding personal boundaries, Table 5.11. Participants use negation to express personal reflections regarding swearing and taboo language use. Their reflections demonstrate where their personal boundaries are regarding certain lexical use around students. Negation is the linguistic entity employed to express truth values on a cline between affirmation and negation (Dahl, 1979; Swart, 2010) and is often used to express speaker position (Martin & White, 2003). The use of negation can be ideological, sincere or manipulative in texts (Fairclough, 1989). Negation used by participants in this study varies on the cline of truth expressions, but many participants use the word never, the strongest negation on the cline, to express their stance regarding the use of certain words around students. The use of the strongest negative word demonstrates personal language boundaries of the participants.
Another indicator of personal boundary use in engaging, implementing, and responding to policy in school settings is textual comparisons in participant speech. Participants use comparisons to express their boundaries in relation to specific taboo language and swearing in school settings, see Table 5.12.
Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use 155
Table 5.12 Comparatives used to express personal boundaries
Participants use causal reasoning, elaboration, but more often contrastive and concessive grammatical relations in their interactions. Semantic relations are local in the text not only between sentences and clauses but also noticeable in cohesive markers used. Participants share their personal boundaries and how they engage with and respond to language transgressions using explanatory logic (Fairclough, 2003), mostly using problem-solution relations (Hoey, 2013). The participants texture equivalence and difference (Laclau & Mouffe, 1985) in articulating reasoning behind their actions. For example, they divide acceptable from unacceptable language use and boundaries with “I use rooted, but it’s not a swearword”, and “I say crap, but not bullshit”. Additional boundaries are divided with Thomas describing levels and areas of acceptable swearing or taboo language use “not in the classroom environment but in the coaching environment”. Lola also explains difference of boundaries with using taboo language or swearing around students, then adds it would only be done one-on- one or with older students.
The boundaries and levels of acceptance show variance between participants. Some participants are very relaxed in their language use, engagement with policy, and acceptance of students’ language use, and some participants are more rigorous and
156 Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use
restrictive in their engagement, acceptance, and use. A couple of the participants share very strict boundaries regarding language use by and around students as well as responses to and engagement with policy. Reg shares his perspectives:
Francis, a PE teacher, explains her boundaries:
In contrast to these participants’ strict boundaries of acceptance are other less constraining perspectives:
Similar to society’s variance in levels of acceptability regarding taboo language and swearing, a microcosm is mirrored in this study’s participants and their variance in linguistic boundaries and linguistic use. There are participants who have very tight boundaries regarding taboo language and swearing use in school contexts and some whose boundaries regarding language acceptability are low. Most participants engage and respond to behaviour policy regarding taboo language and swearing according to
Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use 157
personal boundaries rather than policy directives, aiding inconsistency in the school setting.
5.7 DISCUSSION
This chapter articulated how institutions, including government and non- government schools, structure their language management policies within behaviour management policies. The chapter also explored how stakeholders engage and respond to those policies in school settings and how they endeavour to set consistent boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable language. The data revealed that policies are set as ‘genres of governance’ but are ambiguous, making them difficult to engage with and understand.
“Policies rarely tell you exactly what to do, they rarely dictate or determine practice” (Ball et al., 2012, p. 3). As Foucault explains, educational systems maintain and modify the appropriation of discourse with their own knowledge and power. The education institution in this case is “qualifying and fixing roles for speakers”(1972, p. 227) with institutional terminology. The institution is also practising “limitation and exclusion” by suspending and excluding students if they breach the boundaries of language use. The educational institution “proposes the ideal truth as law of discourse” accompanied with an “ethic of knowledge promising truth”; but then the institution “denies the specific reality of discourse in general” (Foucault, 1972, p. 227) by making the institutional terms, as well as the policy directives themselves, ambiguous.
The data in this chapter also revealed that the teachers and school leaders have limited knowledge regarding their own school policy intricacies about language boundaries. Additionally, the school administration or leadership teams are not articulating language boundaries regarding respective behaviour policies to teachers. Responses from the school leaders regarding education around school behavioural policy demonstrate what Foucault refers to as the control and delimitation of discourse which lies in internal rules of classification, ordering and distribution (Foucault, 1972). The behaviour policies have their own classification, ordering and distribution regarding language boundary rules. The power which surrounds these rules becomes a ritualised narrative, not only for the institution itself but also for the staff and students. The fact that the institution maintains the importance of classification and rules employs a ‘fellowship of discourse’ to preserve and reproduce the behaviour
158 Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use
policy discourse. The policy becomes ritualised as a qualification of fixed roles for speakers and groups. However, many of the actors in the institution, as seen from the data, are not privy to the fellowship; yet the institutional power – as well as the policy power – is still maintained.
Binary perspectives regarding school policy practice in relation to engagement and responses of policy in school contexts are evident. School leaders suggest that teachers are ‘handballing’ language transgressions to leadership or administration for responses and not dealing with transgressions in their working spaces, while teachers reflect their desire for increased school and administration support when dealing with language transgressions. Teachers in this study who felt they had administration support were few. Emotions and psychosocial tensions are pervasive around policy. Conflicts in both philosophy and pedagogy lead to differences in implementation and enactment of behaviour policies in schools (Ball et al., 2012).
There are “prescriptive regimes of doing behaviour policy and this is contrasted with different interpretations, translations and practice of policy” (Ball et al., 2012, p. 99) which leads to the next finding in the chapter, that consistency in engagement and responses is lacking. Consistency is lacking in three areas: teacher practice, administration practice, and teacher and school leader language use. First, teachers are not consistent in their practice of engaging with or responding to policy. When reflecting on inconsistencies, teachers in this study refer to ‘the other’ teacher/teachers/school leaders who ‘do it differently’ to them, usually with the assumption that ‘the other’ teacher is not doing it correctly. These participants are objectivising through practices of dividing from others who are incorrect (Foucault, 1982).
There are several mitigating factors discussed surrounding consistency and practice. These mitigating factors are: special needs, rurality, Indigeneity, familial influence, and areas of school such as PE and Manual Arts subject areas, where language use and policy responses are different. Consistency is a persistent and problematic issue when dealing with behavioural policy enactments (Ball et al., 2012). Behaviour policy is always unstable, being contested and about to be changed, with a complex interaction of discourses and practices at play. The interaction of conflicting pressures and choices arise between behaviour as an issue and the technicalities of working and practising in the classroom (Ball et al., 2012; Lendvai & Stubbs, 2006, p.
Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use 159
17). The conflicting pressures and choices regarding special needs students, rurality, Indigeneity, familial influence and language use in PE and Manual Arts areas cause inconsistency in policy engagement and responses. “Practice is sophisticated, contingent, complex and unstable so that policy will be open to erosion and undercutting by action, the embodied agency of those people who are its object” (Ball, 1994, pp. 10,11).
Policy discourses and policies themselves are a heteroglossia of “tangled plurality” (Foucault, 1972, p. 48), and contain a “plurality of meanings” (Foucault, 1972, p. 118). They are discursive formations that influence one another intertextually but are also influenced by subject actors or players who bring their own accumulation of professional and personal experiences in a form of “policy borrowing” (Ball et al., 2012, p. 105) and additions of “the field of memory” (Foucault, 1972, p. 58). The field of memory and borrowings may include behaviour, statements, definitions that are no longer accepted or discussed as truth. The ‘subject actors’– or teachers and school leaders – who bring their own experiences to the classroom also bring their personal parameters as measurement for linguistic boundaries in the school context. It is evident that the participants in this study use personal parameters to determine acceptable and unacceptable boundaries for student as well as school staff language use, rather than being guided by policy. The participants’ ethics, how they situate themselves within the rules that society sets (Foucault, 1997), are being used to benchmark these parameters. These subjects are being “constituted in real practices” (Foucault, 1983, p. 250), in the “everyday use of language” (Foucault, 1994, p. 541). The use of personal parameters assists in continuing the inconsistency in school contexts regarding acceptable language boundaries, thereby fuelling power inequalities and demonstrating Foucault’s notion of capillary power (1980).
Power is everywhere - it is disparate and diffuse because it appears everywhere (Foucault, 1975). Power circulates through the social body by a multiplicity of mechanisms of localised power relations, each exercising its own relational forms of power (Foucault, 1975). Because of this relational flow of power, and because it circulates within discourse, it is viewed as networked or capillary, with the individual being a host or carrier of power (Foucault, 1980). The power is productive and positive. The ‘self’ is possessed by power and can exercise power over the self and over others (Foucault, 1975). Furthermore, Foucault (1978) adds that not only can discourse be an
160 Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use
effect or instrument of power, but also “a point of resistance or starting point for an opposing strategy. Discourse transmits and produces power; it reinforces it, but also undermines it, renders it fragile and makes it possible to thwart it” (pp. 100,101).
This discursive resistance, like power discourses, appears everywhere, flows through its networks and assumes a multiplicity of distributed and localised forms which allows for the possibility of multiple subject positions (Foucault, 1978), as is seen with the personal parameter use by participants in this study.
Chapter 5: Institutional Policies and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use 161
Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change
The previous chapter explored how the institution, teachers, and school leaders structured, engaged with, and responded to behaviour policies in secondary school settings, specifically regarding boundaried language. The discussion in Chapter 5 highlighted ambiguity concerning definitions and outlines regarding institutional terms relating to language boundaries in the policies. Chapter 5 also included insights regarding consistency issues surrounding teacher practice, policy engagement and responses. The key aim in this chapter is to develop and expand from the previous chapter by further extending issues of policy with definitions and deeper understandings of critical terms connected to behaviour policy in Queensland. In addition, the chapter explores a sociolinguistic perspective on changes in the language used by students. This second data chapter aims to answer research sub-question two: how teachers and school leaders define verbal misconduct in school settings, what language constitutes verbal misconduct for them, and if and how this has changed over time? Foucault’s (1972) theory of discourse as linked with the institution and power is employed as lens, together with De Saussure’s (1959) aspect of langue and parole, as well as change over time.
Verbal misconduct is the term that is familiar to most teachers through school and departmental policy. The chapter explores what the term means for the different participants and also focuses on their views about language change. Section 6.1.1 explores different participant viewpoints on verbal misconduct and explains how the term is not defined, articulated or clarified by the respective institutions. Lack of definition and clarification causes ambiguity in responses about the term and its associated boundaries with student verbal conduct. Sections 6.1.2 and 6.1.3 examine participant definitions and explanations regarding two terms swearing, and taboo language. The data suggest that the definition of swearing is inconsistent between participants, but most participants share consistent responses in defining taboo language.
Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change 163
The chapter continues in Section 6.2 outlining different changes in word use and in responses by participants. It is important to remember that these data are gleaned from teacher and school leader perspectives and not directly from students54.
Of interest, and following the literature presented in Chapter 2, are changes in swearing and taboo language, notably the characteristics of the -IST culture55 (Allan & Burridge, 2006). Additionally, responses from school leaders and teachers are assisting in facilitating and reinforcing changes in boundaried language in school settings, where consequences for using the -IST language are more severe than for using other language. The chapter concludes with a discussion in Section 6.3.
6.1 REPRESENTATIONS OF VERBAL MISCONDUCT
6.1.1 Verbal Misconduct The participants in this study all define the term verbal misconduct differently. Despite the use of the term in behaviour policy, all indicated that it is not defined explicitly. None of the school leader responses correspond or show similarity of definition; in fact, they vary in range from “swearing” to “anything the recipient finds offensive or even someone listening to them who hears them” to “inappropriate language in front of a teacher”. One school leader chose to explain their understanding as “language... what’s appropriate in the playground I suppose isn’t really appropriate in the classroom”. Figure 6.1 shows some of the varied responses to the definition of the term verbal misconduct.
54 When discussing government schools and non-government schools in the following discussions it is understood to mean the government and non-government schools taking part in this particular study and not all government and non-government schools. Where applicable differentiation has been made with government, non-government, boys, girls, co-educational and faith-based schools.
55 -IST language is the proscriptive and prescriptive linguistic focus on different groups such as ethnicity, gender, race, sexual preferences, religion, appearance, (dis)ability and so forth (Allan & Burridge, 2006).
164 Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change
Figure 6.1. Participant responses defining verbal misconduct.
Analyses demonstrate variation in understanding of the term verbal misconduct and variation in defining and explaining the term. Not all responses align in definition; however, there are similarities in discourses present in the data. These discourses are those of swearing, aggression, respect, and behaviour or conduct. See Table 6.1.
Table 6.1 Discourses defining verbal misconduct
Discourses are a way of representing aspects of the world, the ‘mental world’ of thoughts, feelings and beliefs as well as the relations, structures and processes of the material world (Fairclough, 2003). Amongst other things, the semantic relations
Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change 165
between words, patterns, occurrence of words and vocabulary used, collocations as well as recontextualisation and representations are examined in seeking discourses in- text (Fairclough, 2003).
The first discourse of swearing is evident in examples of semantic relations in the words and vocabulary used, such as: “Swearing, swearwords, inappropriate words, verbal conduct, that language, the words, verbally abused, offensive language, inappropriate language, spoken, voice, naughty words, inappropriate names, and language that isn’t polite”. Several words present in the interview excerpts are words used in educational and institutional policy documents that were discussed in Chapter 5 - the ‘institutional terms’ for language conduct.
The respondents in this study, as social agents, are socially constrained but have some flexibility in social actions. As social agents, their relationship between structure and agency is tenuous, especially in the institutional setting (Fairclough, 2003). Social agents use linguistic relations and texture texts which permit prominence of the institutional influence and ‘governance’ through their language use. Governance describes any activity within an organisation or institution such as the Education Department which regulates, administers or directs some other social practice or network of practices (Fairclough, 2003). The respondents’ use of the ‘institutional terms’ demonstrates the influences and level of governance in regard to these social agents.
The second discourse evident in participant responses regarding their understanding and explanation of verbal misconduct is that of verbal abuse and aggression.
Words evidencing the aggression discourse are, “aggression, abuse, verbal abuse, confrontation, confronting, attitude, behaviour, threatened, abusive, challenging, diminishes, demoralises, directed towards, at, fighting words”, and
166 Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change
“arguing back”. Youth use varying forms of aggression and aggressive behaviour to meet their social needs and to control and protect their social positions (Cairns & Cairns, 1994). Many youth use aggression as a tool to manipulate social situations and to protect their hierarchal power positions (Hawley, 2003; Vaughn, Vollenweider, Bost, Azria-Evans, & Snider, 2003). Generally, youth in dominant hierarchical positions may not be liked by the social group but nevertheless often hold dominant roles in the social structure in schools (Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998). The fact that the dominant roles are held by the aggressive students suggests they might exercise power over the group, which in turn suggests that if the teacher loses control of the leader, the rest of the social group will follow suit and then the teacher will have lost control of the entire social group. This gives rise to vulnerability of staff. A more in- depth discussion regarding aggression and vulnerability of staff is found in Chapter 7.
The third representation present in defining verbal misconduct is that of respect. Words apparent are, “disrespect, inappropriate behaviour, offensive, teacher, name- calling, guilty, inappropriate with you, arguing back with you, polite, shouting at somebody”.
“The interpersonal respect between a teacher and pupil appears to have a symbiotic connection with the respect associated with the role of a teacher” (O’Grady, Hinchion, & McNamara, 2011, p. 54). Responses from participants suggest that there is a certain expectation that their position of authority, either as a teacher or school leader, deserves them respect. Additionally, there should be respect between students. However, respondents believe this respect is lacking.
The issue of respect and lack thereof leads to the next representation evident in the data, that being behaviour/conduct. Words in the data that demonstrate the discourse of behaviour and/or conduct are, “Arguing back, being inappropriate, using the language and confronting me, attitude, at you or around you, swearing at a teacher, swearing around you, being abusive about a teacher, misconduct, disrespectful, inappropriate, appropriate, naughty, and shouting”. Here again, teacher and school leader vulnerability is highlighted in responses. The subtle link between
Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change 167
these discourses - swearing, aggression, respect and, behaviour or conduct - suggest a deeper connection between language use and control in school settings.
Meaning relations between sentences and clauses demonstrate actional meanings and forms of a text, also known as genre (Fairclough, 2003). By using additive semantic relations, elaboration, and concessive conjunctions in the text, the respondents demonstrate that they are not comfortable in their knowledge of the definition of verbal misconduct as aligned with that of the Department of Education. In their discussions regarding verbal misconduct, the respondents use or to add ideas and information and keep their options open about making a mistake.
The teacher/school leader is seen as the vessel of knowledge, the person who knows all and who has all the answers for students; however, these same leaders do not know what the standards are, as set or defined by the Department. Some teachers/leaders believe verbal misconduct is swearing and others believe it is aggressive behaviour, still others believe it is language that is not “playground appropriate” or “naughty words”. The respondents’ language demonstrates this lack of knowledge and confidence; the participants are giving several options in order that one of the answers may be correct or may ‘hit the mark’.
Styles are linked to identity and are realised in linguistic features such as modality and evaluation (Fairclough, 2003). Mental process clauses such as, “I think, I suppose”, and “I feel”, and markers of modalisation such as, “could be, can be, would be”, and “probably”, all show uncertainty. The participants are not willing to commit to the truth and are more tentative about sharing their thoughts on the exact definition of verbal misconduct. Because the Department of Education has set the boundary for ‘verbal misconduct’, the participants share their uncertainty through textual markers such as modalisation and hedging. Hedging devices are used when the speaker is not confident in their opinion or response (R. Lakoff, 1975).
This uncertainty is reinforced when participants were asked if the Department of Education had explained definitions of verbal misconduct. The respondents either used hedging devices, “I think, I don’t think, probably”, or were explicit and emphatic with negation in their responses. Hedging as a linguistic device is a sign of powerless language (Blankenship & Holtgraves, 2005) used as a measure of uncertainty (Liu & Fox Tree, 2012) and vagueness (Jucker, Smith, & Lüdge, 2003). However, in contrast, employing explicit emphatic responses is seen as powerful language used by those
168 Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change
who are confident, certain, and sure of themselves (Blankenship & Holtgraves, 2005). The participants are unsure about how to define verbal misconduct and most are hesitant to clearly state that the Department has not given them clear definition or direction; however, a few express insistent certainty that the Department has failed to define and explain verbal misconduct, as evidenced in Figure 6.2.
Figure 6.2. Participant response to policy edification by the Department of Education.
Discourses present in reflections on Education Department support regarding definition of the term verbal misconduct are represented in areas of information and knowledge. Words used are, “explained, haven’t been trained, intensive induction program, news to me, know, clear, ask someone, never looked, problematic”. Respondents explain their limited knowledge regarding terminology and expectation in terms of definition surrounding verbal misconduct, and in so doing share their vulnerability and insecurity. Institutional power is evident in this representation by respondents because the institution is “manifesting uncertainty” in its subjects, “imposing ritual forms on discourse”, but also “a transitory existence of discourse”, surrounding the subjects and the discourse itself with “a circle of silent attention” and giving “the specific discourse power” (Foucault, 1972, pp. 215, 216).
Local actions in text are apparent with respondents using causal semantic relations of consequence such as so, and addition and elaboration, and, as well as, re- wording explanations. Additionally, use of the concessive but demonstrates how the respondents are trying to solve their own problem in answering the question. The problem/solution pattern is the most frequently used pattern in organisational text structures (Hoey, 2013). Respondent answers vary greatly in text, some being short and concise, a total of one to three words, whereas others are expansive in attempting
Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change 169
to solve the problem – over sixty words – which is a common occurrence in the problem/solution pattern (Hoey, 2013).
A few of the respondents (Figure 6.2) use the tonic no and the salient no as mood adjuncts. The not is acting as a distinct modal adjunct in mood (Halliday, 2004). Mood is important in texturing identity (Fairclough, 2003). The use of the negative is definite, such as “No, No-one ever”, and “NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT”. Some participants are hedging this definite no with “I don’t think or not that I know of”, while others are definite in their answers, some even stressing in volume and with adverbs of intensity. The respondents who are definite in their response regarding assistance in defining verbal misconduct from the Department use statements of fact, also known as realis statements, while others use Irrealis statements, which are predictions or evaluations.
Evaluative elements are present in the verb processes: “I don’t think, I think, try to make, I believe, I’m not sure”. These evaluative elements suggest implication to not knowing about the verbal misconduct definition being explained and articulated by the Department. The evaluations suggest the participants are unsure or uncertain. Participants share their assumptions through these values that are embedded in the text. “Might be, could get, quite honest, probably does”, suggest that the participants are protecting themselves against judgment in this regard; their use of modality and hedging indicates either a lack of knowledge or an unwillingness to commit to the statement of fact.
It is evident that institutional power structures are in place, keeping staff insecure in their knowledge regarding verbal conduct and its specific boundaries of misconduct. The taboo language discourse, the discursive formation of policy concerning verbal misconduct and verbal conduct, as well as boundaries of acceptability are vague and inconsistent which aids the form of control that the institution has over the subjects, or teachers/school leaders. The ‘internal rules’ concerned with classification, ordering and distribution are a ‘hidden secret’ which aids in the control and delimitation of this
170 Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change
specific discourse, the verbal misconduct discourse (Foucault, 1972). The boundaries are vague which enable interpretation at the individual school and person level. The statement is depending on shared knowledge and norms of acceptability, without having to state swearwords and other taboo words explicitly.
6.1.2 Swearing Because the term swearing links closely with verbal misconduct in responses from participants, and because some of the behaviour policies use the term swearing as institutional language to explain the boundary of linguistic acceptability, it is important to determine how the participants understand the term. The participants can discipline student transgressions in this linguistic area so the boundaries of acceptability regarding swearing or verbal conduct need to be clearly outlined.
As with the definition or understanding for the term verbal misconduct, the respondents are not in agreement with regard to the definition of the term swearing, nor in their understanding and explanation of the term. Many respondents seem unable to articulate a coherent explanation or definition. The responses demonstrate the varying understandings of what swearing is and what words would be considered swearing. Here again, various responses from participants represent varying responses to acceptable student linguistic conduct, especially in light of the findings in Chapter 5 relating to personal boundary use in responding to language infringements.
The data reveal that the majority of the respondents list “those four-letter words, those... groups of words, from shit through to fuck and cunt, maybe shit, the c-word, the f-word, fuck and cunt, shit-that type of thing, some of the words we’ve mentioned before” as in the words discussed during the interview, “parts of the body, sexual activity words”, and “dicks and vaginas, that kind of thing”.
Only four participants shared short explanations of how they defined swearing; the majority used longer explanations and justifications using legitimation (Van Leeuwen, 2007). Legitimation is the practice of justifying and explaining the prominent elements in a certain tradition or institution by accrediting some form of
Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change 171
intellectual rationality to the actual meanings. Legitimation justifies the behaviour or tradition by supplying practical boundaries. “Legitimation is always the legitimation of the practices of specific institutional orders” (p. 92). Clearly demonstrated legitimation by the respondents is effected with additional terms and words used to define swearing, such as “obscene language, derogatory language, offend or insult, general cussing, offensive words, very descriptive, crude words, crude offspring, generational, inappropriate language, vulgar obscene street language, inappropriate words”, and “socially unacceptable”. Many of these terms are used in the school and institutional behaviour plans discussed previously in Chapter 5. The respondents are using those terms they feel more comfortable with to define swearing, those terms supplied to them by the educational institution; however, they cannot seem to explain those terms in more detail.
Here again, as in definitions of verbal misconduct, aggression and anger are discourse representations present in the descriptions of swearing, with “used in anger, hostility, very negative emotion, the intention, hate”, and “to hurt somebody”.
The ultimate responsibility with regard to aggression56 and aggressive or violent behaviour is perceived to rest with contributions between school social dynamics, including the behaviour and influences of school staff, as well as the developmental history of youth at risk of anti-social behaviours (Farmer, Farmer, Estell, & Hutchins, 2007). If aggression or violence occurs in schools, it is perceived that schools are failing and “teachers are violators of children’s rights” (Bester & du Plessis, 2010, p. 226).
Respondents share assumptions in connection to what they understand as common knowledge with regard to swearing - everyone knows what swearing is; it cannot be defined because everyone knows. Words such as “most people understand, that have always been known, they’re just an adjective, that we know of as
56 A more thorough discussion on aggression and aggressive behaviour follows in Section 7.4.
172 Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change
swearwords, that meaning for everybody, everyone knows a swearword, I wouldn’t know like if you gave me some words I could say, most people would say... would know, I still know what swearwords are”, and “those words that I was bought up to be socially unacceptable”. Caroline expresses the assumptions with:
Several respondents demonstrate their uncertainty regarding the definition of swearing with the words, “I don’t know what, I don’t know what it actually means, I never thought of that before, interesting, I don’t know, I don’t think I have... and I’ve never really thought about it”. In addition to their direct confessions regarding uncertainty in defining swearing, they add the use of hedging to their responses. “I guess, you know, sort of, I think, I would just say, I suppose, maybe, I feel as though, usually, I could say, I guess would be, probably, that kind of thing, I feel as though, could be say”, and “might describe”. The majority of respondents use the hedged assertion I think in addition to other hedging devices, demonstrating their uncertainty with regard to expressing a direct response. These discourse markers are situated within the sentences, however they reflect on the entire sentence, paragraph or excerpt of speech provided by the respondent (Parrott, 2010). The example below demonstrates Jessica using both direct declarative statements of limited knowledge and hedging devices.
Kathleen responds to the question of how you define swearing with questioning grammatical mood, using interrogative sentences that require a positive or negative reply:
Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change 173
This response is an ‘other-initiated knowledge exchange’, where the ‘other’, in this case Kathleen, wants knowledge from the ‘knower’, in this case the researcher (Fairclough, 2003). In answering the question, she is using the researcher as a sounding board to gauge her response and anticipating agreement, suggesting that she is unsure about the definition she is supplying.
6.1.3 Taboo Language As with defining terminology associated with verbal misconduct in 6.1.1, taboo language is a term that links with the term swearing in sociolinguistic literature (Wardhaugh & Fuller, 2015), as discussed in Chapters 1 and 2, and therefore needs to be explored. Additionally, because of the close link to linguistic boundaries of acceptability within school contexts, as well as the close link to verbal misconduct, it is important to determine participant knowledge and boundaries in relation to the term taboo language.
The respondents illustrate more confidence in their explanation and definition of the term taboo language than for the term swearing. Overall the participants seem to suggest mostly analogous replies in the following two areas. First, taboo language is a cultural and social construct that is defined by the culture or society; second, taboo language relates to those areas that are highly taboo, such as racism, genderism, bestiality, paedophilia, and sadism. The respondents were more unrestricted with listing words when defining or exploring taboo language than when discussing swearing. They named words such as nigger, trannie, abbo, kaffir, wog, lezzo, lesbo, and slope.
Some respondents mention that they do not think anything is taboo for youth in Australia today, embedding their responses with representations of social, cultural, and
174 Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change
language change. Some mention is made of students knowing that this language is more hurtful than swearing and that taboo language is used judiciously by students when wanting to really insult and do harm.
The participants use direct realis statements with limited hedging, which suggests they are more confident in their responses and more confident in the content exchange. The respondents defend their answers with personal support as a means to state a stronger case or evade judgment if the definition is in fact incorrect.
Suggestions of personal speaker voice are supported with words such as, “for me, how I understand, I would have to say, well to me, to me, I would regard it as, I would say, I’d say, I look at taboo language, I would argue, so my interpretation would be, I would call that”, and “I suppose that’s probably in my world”. Additionally, the respondents use personal pronouns to assign themselves to certain communities. Most respondents use the all-inclusive ‘we’ when discussing taboo language, demonstrating that they belong to the community, the societal community that would not use taboo language. “We agree to the values, language that we’re not allowed to use”, and “we know these things.” Some of the respondents use the words ‘you’ and ‘people’, but these are also used in an inclusive community manner to include the researcher and ‘other people who are upstanding community members’ as part of the social group community - people or others who would not use taboo language.
Lucy uses the personal pronoun I but adds ‘the other’ community being ‘the boys’ and ‘they’, clearly differentiating the difference between herself, who does not use taboo language, and ‘the others’ who utilise taboo language. Lucy uses the mental process type with ‘I feel’, connecting her more closely to the experiential response.
Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change 175
The social actors are represented in this excerpt in both a personal and impersonal manner. Lucy represents herself in the personal sense, whereas she represents ‘the others’ as a category, using ‘the boys’ and ‘they’.
Community, society, and cultural impact are stressed by most of the respondents. “Whatever the culture says is taboo, the media and social opinion, society constructs as taboo, so taboo language is society’s construction, that a society deems, flourishing of the group, in the environment, social situations, polite society, not socially the norm, cultural, it has cultural significance” and “that sociable, social norm”. These responses and confirmations of societal and cultural influence corroborate the discussion of taboo in Chapter 2, that different cultures and societies structure what is taboo.
When listing words and types of language that fall under the taboo language definition and explanation, the confidence of respondents is evident with adverbial intensifiers used such as definitely, and very limited hedging. In addition, direct language is used with statements of fact such as, “language that is, calling someone a faggot or a slut57, language which offends minorities, language that is politically incorrect, racist language, nigger, kaffir, calling a gay58 person a lesbo or a lezzo, calling someone who is … trans gendering, a trannie, racial ...gender-based sexist, body shape” and “anything that’s different”.
The responses collated demonstrate movement between different temporalities which illustrate not only social change in regard to taboo language but also language change and change in language practices.
57 Commonly used as a derogatory noun for a woman with low standards of cleanliness and/or a woman who has many casual sexual partners (OED, 2019). 58 First used dating back to the Middle Ages meaning bright, full of fun, also Old High German, good, beautiful, impetuous, swift. Originally used for female prostitutes, however, has come to mean homosexual from the 1960s (Allan & Burridge, 2006). (See Appendix B).
176 Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change
There are three different space-times evident in respondent data, the past, the present and the future, demonstrating different temporalities and change in language use over time. These different space-times are:
• Past: ‘Once upon a time’, ‘ten years ago’, ‘what my grandmother would use’, ‘what my grandfather would use’.
• Present: ‘yet now’, ‘media and social opinion has moved so far’, ‘is still’, ‘still taboo’, ‘they have exploded’, ‘may not be today’,
• Future: ‘that’s not yet’, ‘but coming’, ‘will get’.
The temporalities are textured using shifting tense, ‘would use’ and aspect of verbs, ‘has moved’, as well as adverbials such as ‘today’. In addition to using verb aspect, the addition of the stressed so far accentuates the distance or space that movement – and thus change – has occurred. A conceptual reference point is always oriented from the properties of the individual person (Cooper & Ross, 1975) and “Time is metaphorically conceptualized in terms of space” (G. Lakoff & Johnsen, 1980, p. 136); therefore using distance or space in this way demonstrates the metaphorical distance the respondent is indicating in terms of language change.
Similar to the definitions and explanations of the term swearing and verbal misconduct, several respondents mention the staple ‘institutional terms’ for language conduct in their discussions. The terms used include: “obscene language, offensive language, derogatory terms”, and “inappropriate words”. The use of these ‘institutional terms’, as discussed in 5.1, yet again demonstrates institutional constraints on respondents. A discussion regarding these terms and how they were used in the various institutional policy documents was also included in Chapter 5.
Participants are more confident in their explanation and understanding of the term taboo language than they are of the terms swearing and verbal misconduct. All of these terms are connected in some way under the behavioural policy expectations, as
Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change 177
explained in Chapter 5, whether this is with ‘institutional terms’ such as inappropriate language or with teacher understanding of what the terms mean, as analysed in this chapter. Secondary school students are being disciplined for verbal misconduct which may or may not include swearing and taboo language. The boundaries for linguistic conduct have been set by the institutions in behaviour policies yet the definitions and boundaries are unclear, according to the participants in this study. Ambiguity in terminology is influenced by language change, changing language practice and changing words (Hickey, 2003). Change is explored in the following section.
6.2 CHANGING WORDS AND CHANGING RESPONSES
The following discussion focuses on changing swearing and taboo language use over time. The 19 participants in this study vary in teaching experience,59 an important factor in ascertaining language change over time.
Participants were questioned in relation to language changes in their personal career experiences. Eighteen of the 19 respondents said that student swearing had increased during their teaching career, and all school leaders commented that language transgression reports had increased in their time of working in a leadership role. Lola, a teacher, responded that language use was the same with, “no, it’s always been there (swearing), it’s the same”; but later she adds, “Motherfucker, they use that. When I first started teaching, you never used to hear that”. This reflection reveals that language use has changed in her instance as well.
The responses in regard to changes in swearing and swearing-use show a consistent pattern. The vast majority of participants commented that cunt and fuck are used by students more today than earlier in their teaching careers. Respondents noted that earlier in their careers, swearing held more shock value and was used less often. Students might have used shit, bloody, and/or bitch which were considered to be ‘bad’ words with definite shock value. However, now the more intense fuck and cunt are being used, but with less shock value. According to respondents, swearing for students presently is their ‘normal vernacular’, with no barriers, boundaries or respect either for fellow students or staff members.
59 The teaching experience of participants in this study range from 11 years in the teaching profession to 40 plus years teaching experience.
178 Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change
Shock value with regard to swearing has been lost for students, and whereas previously students would ‘be discreet’ or hide their language from teachers and staff, they now use it in a normalised manner. The students do not have an indication of when it is appropriate to use certain language and do not regret using the language, whereas previously there would be a certain embarrassment in being caught swearing. These comments evidence the arbitrary nature of the sign60 and the shift in the relationship between the signified and signifier over time (De Saussure, 1959).
Responses suggest that students are swearing at a younger age. “They’re starting very early, grade sevens, before they would never swear, maybe bum, now it is free- flowing, and they use any adjective, and they’re swearing younger”. This demonstrates the product of both time and social force influencing the change in language (De Saussure, 1959). Additionally, comments suggest that students are now swearing with each other whereas previously they would swear at each other; the students are using some words such as fuck and cunt in a bonding way, as a term of endearment.
On the other hand, some respondents explained that insult swearing is now more prevalent than in years gone by. Students are targeting language to individuals. Words such as pedo, abbo, trannie and Islamic were all accepted and part of normal language earlier on in the respondents’ careers, but now they are viewed as highly inappropriate, used by students when they need to target or insult. Adeline articulates this:
The data suggest that students are differentiating in their use between swearing and the more highly differentiated taboo language. They will use what the literature suggests is swearing, namely religious words and the SMD (sex-micturition-
60 The sign is the combination of the concept and sound image; the signified labels the concept or mental image whereas the signifier describes the sound-image, marks written or sound or image. See Chapter 3 for more in-depth discussion.
Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change 179
defecation) words (Allan & Burridge, 2006), or the ‘Holy, Fucking, Shit’ in the ‘Holy, Fucking, Shit, Nigger Principle (Bergen, 2016) words without viewing these words as ‘bad’. However, they will use the -IST language, the ‘Nigger’ words in the ‘Holy, Fucking, Shit, Nigger Principle, with care when they want to offend or insult. This aligns with Byrne who suggests the younger generation finds racial epithets and sexually-based slurs more disconcerting than “all of the shits and the fucks in the world” (2017, p. 15).
6.2.1 Accounts of Changing Student Use The following discussion recognises the fact that the data have been sourced by respondents who work in an environment with students. The data discussed below have not been sourced from students but from school leaders/ teachers. Therefore, it is participant reflection, and their perception of words and how the words are used in their environments, that constitute the data discussed below. The discussion reflects perceptions and reflections of school leaders/teachers with regard to their views on changing language in their work environment.
The list of words for this study was adapted from lists compiled from three studies in Britain, New Zealand, and America in regard to offensiveness in words. First, the New Zealand Broadcasting Standards Authority (NZBSA) (Broadcasting Standards Authority, 2013) conducts a survey which takes place every five years. The study is in regard to offensiveness of certain words. Second, a similar study was conducted in Great Britain in 2000 by the Broadcasting Standards Commission of Great Britain and others (Millwood-Hargrave, 2000); and, third, a small study conducted in America is also drawn upon (Janschewitz, 2008). Not all of these studies focused on the same outcome and many of the words, such as twat, bollocks and slag, were location-based, so did not make the list for the current study. Additionally, root and abbo were added to the list for this study because these are commonly viewed as Australian words (B. Taylor, 2012).
The final list of words, in no particular order, was bloody, shit, slut, fag/faggot, nigger/abbo, hoe/whore, homo, bitch, cunt, prick, piss, screw, arse/arsehole/ass, damn, FFS, oh my god and acronyms omg, fuck, motherfucker, pussy, bullshit,
180 Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change
retard61, dick, douche, turd, root and gay (See Appendix B). The respondents were asked if the students use the word/s and how they use it/them. Additionally, the participants were asked about their own responses to the word and how, in their view, the school would respond. Many respondents only answered parts of these questions. During interviews, participants were also asked if students use any other words, which words those were and how were they used. These were added to the list to ask successive participants. Words added to the list were pedo/paedophile, rape, trannie, terrorist or Islamic, incest, shim and Asian.
According to respondents, schools, and staff show little to no response to the following words: Arse, screw, root, bloody, oh my god, prick, piss, shit, bullshit, motherfucker and hoe. There is limited response to the word bitch, in that only the non- government girls’ school respondents mentioned they would address the word. Additionally, with the word damn, most schools would not respond, but one of the faith-based school participants responded that she would have to respond because of the ethos of the school. A fellow respondent from the same school had a conflicting response, suggesting he would ignore the word damn.
The word fuck has varying responses from participants and schools. If a student directs the word at a staff member then responses are expected, but some say it is only if directed at a leader then responses are expected. There seems to be inconsistency in responses and consequences with school leaders/teachers62. Bullshit is addressed at non-government schools but is either acceptable or ignored at government schools. According to all respondents, the most favoured words used by the students are fuck and its derivatives, and cunt.63
The above discussion regarding words the students use and responses of the participants is important for several reasons. First, language change is evident in how some of these words are being used by students and participants. Second, the responses from participants is important in demonstrating how language change is being adapted,
61 Originally applied to a retarded or mentally challenged person 1970, (Ayto, 1999), but has become a disability slur invoking derangement and mental sub-normality which reflects the stigma attached to mental illness (Allan & Burridge, 2006). 62 More regarding consistency and school leader influence will be discussed in Chapter 7. 63 An example of more detailed tabulation of this section can be found in Appendix G. The author retains the right to the complete analysis and can be viewed on request.
Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change 181
modified and transformed in school settings. Finally, analysing responses from participants demonstrates how these responses are directing certain words from acceptable parameters or appropriate use to unacceptable parameters or inappropriate use. Responses by participants align with how the language is changing. Schoolteachers/leaders are responding to those words that are falling out of use and deemed less offensive, with minimum consequences, whereas those words that are becoming more publicly taboo are being disciplined and policed more by school staff and the consequences are becoming more stringent.
The abovementioned data suggest that the words that are becoming more controversial, the words that participants are responding to more, and those words in school settings that are resulting in heavier consequences are those linked with the – IST culture, a finding which is compatible with the literature (Allan & Burridge, 2006; Burridge, 2010). These words are nigger/abbo, gay, fag/faggot, and retard. Words that belong to the –IST group, fag or faggot and gay, show interesting responses that suggest these words are also moving in levels of appropriateness. As discussed in Chapter 2, the new dysphemisms64 with regard to taboo language is the -IST language, that language which proscribes difference. Public language that targets ethnicity, gender, race, sexual preference, religion, appearance, ability or disability, in short - difference, is the language that is least tolerated by society (Allan & Burridge, 2006). The -IST language negatively targets and disrespects personal characteristics of an individual which identify them not only privately as a self-image, but also their public image (Allan & Burridge, 2006).
Additionally, data from this study show words such as cunt, pussy and slut, which have been high on the inappropriate list for several decades, are still in use, are still deemed taboo, but appear to be losing their taboo sting with younger users; which highlights the importance of both diachrony and synchrony65 in language (De Saussure, 1959). Furthermore, from this study’s data, new words are seen to be entering the taboo realm in these school settings, those being pedo, trannie, terrorist and rape.
64 Words that are opposite of euphemisms such as swearing (Allan & Burridge, 2006). 65 Focusing on language through a path in history rather than at a specific point in time.
182 Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change
6.2.2 Personal Trigger Words – Changing Responses The following discussion explores the -IST language that is being highlighted in this study as well as trigger words being used by students in secondary school settings66. Where possible the discussion of each word/words covers student use and student perception of appropriateness as well as school, teacher/school leader responses. First, elements of language used by students that have personal triggers for some members of the community are explored. These words are: fag and faggot, cunt, and pussies/bunch of pussies.
Fag/Faggot67 The responses by participants in regard to this word show an imbalance. The imbalance in this instance is linked to a personal connection to beliefs regarding and surrounding homosexuality and its acceptance in society. Two of the respondents openly shared with the researcher that they were homosexual, and several others mentioned family members who were homosexual or belonged to the LGBTIAQ+68 community. The following discussion demonstrates personal identity and perspectives of the participants.
Always, an adverb of frequency, shows the level of commitment Adele has for this response. Using a knowledge exchange in a statement of assertion demonstrates the author’s commitment to truth (Fairclough, 2003). The fact that she repeats these two words validates and reinforces her belief or resolve and her commitment. Halliday (2004) distinguishes this as a separate modality of ‘usuality’ which, as a proposition, acts as a statement of assertion that expresses judgment or opinion of the speaker. For
66 Data gleaned from participants in the study and not directly from students. 67 Participants interchange these two words as one. In this discussion they are referred to as being one word. When asking participants during interviews about the words, both words were mentioned. The responses from participants usually combined the two words as one, or participants chose one word to explain. 68 Used within this thesis to encompass gender and sexual identities that may include lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender/sexual (referred to hereafter as trans), intersex, asexual, queer or otherwise determined (LGBTIAQ+).
Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change 183
Adele, homophobia is not appropriate, so her response suggests a firm, final, conclusive response. This is further reinforced with shut up, as well as and we move on in the concluding words of the sentence. Adele has responded to the dialogue, stated her case and is concluding the interaction.
Adele’s response suggests that she feels guilty about teaching the students about homosexual bias. Her reflection is one of, ‘If we don’t teach them then who will?’, using the words, ‘it sounds really weird”, and repeating, “it sounds so weird”, “you try to guide the correct” and “isn’t that terrible?”. Participant responses in regard to how their schools respond to students using the words fag/faggot demonstrate participant displeasure in some of the responses. The data suggest that some schools discipline students more for using the word nigger than for using fag/faggot.
The respondent comments regarding the school’s response to the use of the words fag/faggot and shows her displeasure with the word cut. She uses the word to describe the separation of school response – a division and separation. Adele’s school will respond more quickly and effectively if students use the word nigger than if they use fag/faggot. She is displeased by this sentiment because she feels both words are worthy of response.
184 Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change
Hallah makes particular mention of stepping in “particularly if it was a very effeminate boy or a very soft boy”. She has a close family member who is gay. This is reflected in her statements. She is more direct with her language using powerful language (Blankenship & Holtgraves, 2005) and including a physical response with “rip them a second arsehole”. When she makes a point, she does not use hedging devices suggesting she is more confident and secure with her assertion. Hallah uses the intensifier very to make her point. Intensifiers are used to strengthen adjectives such as in this case, very soft or very effeminate and adverbs as in very seriously.
Hallah also uses a focusing adverb of information by using particularly to single out the specific student who is being labelled. Discourse markers such as these intensifiers and focusing adverbs illustrate the attitude of the speaker (Parrott, 2010); in this case Hallah is stressing her sentiments that using the word fag/faggot is not appropriate. She supports this stance with a definite “we need to act” – a forceful statement. For Hallah, supporting effeminate and soft boys who may be homosexual from bullying and harassment is personal. She expresses that these students need the most support because they are constantly bullied, are at risk, and need protection. In most of the excerpt, she uses the personal pronoun I to support her views - they are personal. However, Hallah then changes to ‘we’ when discussing teachers who need to protect and support the students from bullying. She is incorporating herself in the group of teachers and calling on the collective for support.
Penny begins this exchange with the exclamation “OOOOO”, which is louder and more stressed than the rest of her dialogue. Fairclough (2003) purports that
Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change 185
exclamations are an alternative to using evaluative statements and clearly signpost the speaker’s views and evaluations. It is clear that she does not like the use of the word/s and she quantifies this dislike or ‘undesirability’ to the word by using an intensified quantity, a whole lot. Penny repeats the statement, “carries a whole lot of baggage” with “carries a whole lot of discriminatory baggage”, which expands and re-iterates her explanation as to why she does not like the word fag/faggot. Penny uses the causal semantic relations of reason because and the causal semantic relations of consequence so to explain and define why she does not like the word. The addition of the adjective discriminatory clearly defines the reasoning behind her stance.
The above excerpt from Robert shows what Laclau and Mouffe (1985) identify as ‘a logic of equivalence’ and ‘a logic of difference’. By highlighting some differences and subverting other differences, social classification and categorisation occurs, which shapes how people act or think as social agents. Using the contrastive semantic relation but shows difference. Robert is trying to explain insults and terms of endearment while trying to make an insult look like a positive occurrence. He begins by explaining that faggot is used as an insult to a particular group or ‘category’ or ‘classification’ of student, some gay kids. Then he contrasts ‘an insult’ with but then a term of endearment. An insult has a negative connotation; this is then contrasted with a positive and subversion technique, the term of endearment. Robert then continues to categorise and minimise by using the words off hand minor insult. He is suggesting that the students use this term without giving it too much thought, without much consideration; additionally, that the term is not an important or major insult. He is trying to downplay the use of the word as an insult and furthers this with a throwaway line. This clause adds to the minimisation of importance of the pejorative insult.
Hedging expressions used by Robert, such as kind of and not exactly, clearly define links to points of equivalence and difference (Fairclough, 2003). Some in some gay kids – a quantifier – is seen in the noun phrase and tells us about the quantity. Some
186 Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change
is used here to suggest an indefinite quantity and to stress that the precise identity is irrelevant (Parrott, 2010). Robert is describing the ‘gay kids’; who they are is irrelevant and to him the quantity is also irrelevant. The ‘gay kids’ are an abstraction, represented as impersonal and classified as a group, a ‘category’ or ‘classification’(Fairclough, 2003). Robert is using quantitative words, kind of, not often and just, all of which are minimising words. They are used to reduce importance (Parrott, 2010). Robert uses these to minimise the importance of the word fag/faggot as well as minimising an insult.
The latter part of the excerpt uses the conditionals If and would, a means of expressing a form of speculating, of the hypothetical. If the students were to use fag/faggot suggests that the students do not, and it would be a hypothetical situation. Robert is not clear toward the end of the excerpt when discussing the ‘we’ community whether this is the community of teachers, staff and leaders, or the ‘we’ community of students and teacher. He uses the probability modals would and could. “We would have a conversation” is hypothetical moving on to we could, showing level of possibility. Finally, Robert completes the sentence with “if we felt it was appropriate”. Here the condition is set and the importance of who belongs to this ‘we’ community is vital. Who decides what is appropriate? The power structure comes into play here of school leader/teacher versus the lack of power of student or ‘gay kid’.
Fag/Faggot is a word that participants respond to differently. Here the connection is not based on gender, as will be seen with cunt and pussy, but based on personal beliefs and personal choice. Those participants with close ties to the LGBTQAI+ or homosexual community are more attached to the word and will respond accordingly. Those participants who believe this word is not pejorative, those who do not have a personal connection to the community or the word, respond with less severe consequences.
Cunt The word cunt provides an interesting dynamic in the data. The responses vary between participants; however, there seems to be an overall differentiation between the responses from male and female participants. The female respondents are more emotional and personally affected by the use of the word, whereas the male respondents do not seem as connected to the word.
Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change 187
Affective evaluations are present in many of the female responses, with words such as, “don’t like” and “won’t say it, so demeaning, particularly demeaning for women, very targeted at women, I don’t think they understand the meaning, that one do not use it, I do not want to hear it”, and “really strong word”. The negative imperative form of don’t like and won’t say it add to the affective emphasis. Adverbs of degree or intensifiers are used for emphasis, such as so demeaning, particularly demeaning and really aggressive, as well as very targeted at women. Using these intensifiers increases the degree of intensity and emotional impact (Parrott, 2010). “Modality is an expression of a speaker’s opinion” (Halliday, 2004, p. 147), clearly demonstrating that female respondents are displeased with its use.
The statements about the word cunt emanate from a personal, reflective, subjective perspective, with the frequent use of the personal pronoun I. Fairclough (2003) advises attending to the use of personal pronouns in texts and in this instance it demonstrates the affective connection of the word cunt to the female respondents. The personal pronoun I in these instances is used in the subject position, making a statement that the main social actor is important; use of the word cunt is personal. Other social actors include you, referring to the researcher who is female and, by way of gender, is incorporated in the gendered ‘we’ or ‘us’ community.
Fairclough (2003) mentions that constructed ‘we’ communities are often “elusive, shifting and vague” (p. 150); however in this instance, the word cunt connects
188 Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change
the we community by default sexual anatomy; hence the emotive response from the female participants. Consequently, this specific we community becomes permanent, obvious and consolidated, connected as a result of biological anatomy and historical linguistic taboos.
The other actors, who are classified as their, they, your, boys, they’re, them, you, men and males, become the ‘them’ group. This group segregates the ‘us and them’ division; the female participants including the researcher by default are the ‘us’ and the students, men, boys and males are ‘them’ in this segregated community. The key to meaning in language is difference (De Saussure, 1959), which is highlighted in this separation of community. The difference and separation give more emotive meaning to the use of the word. The them community are delineated as a result of either using the word cunt or because some of the users – the boys, males, men – show differentiation in their sexual anatomy and therefore form part of the biased historical use of the word in demeaning women over time.
Lola accedes to the historical misappropriation with her use of the words our genitalia and a right to, own that word and powerful, adding also the metaphorical representation, hijacked by men. The use of the personal pronoun our shows ownership, possession and belonging to the female community, but then she follows with rights, defining the struggle connected to the use of the word cunt. Lola then supports with own that word, which further strengthens the sense of a history of stolen rights, appropriated freedoms and a need to symbolically and linguistically repatriate what was once taken without authorisation or permission - hijacked. Finally, Lola ends with powerful, a word that suggests how women will feel when they have re- appropriated those stolen rights and freedoms. By choosing the particular metaphor of hijacking, Lola is constructing a specific reality for herself and her listeners, a construction that structures her thinking and actions, her beliefs, and knowledge in regards to the word cunt, its stolen history, and personal nuances (Fairclough, 1992).
Female respondents use that as a demonstrative reference to the word cunt or use of the word cunt. That, that one and that word are all used to reference a specific, namely the word cunt or its use. That is used as a means of specifying or demonstrating and distancing. Halliday (2004) suggests that using the words this and that is a matter of proximity and distance, ‘nearness’ and ‘remoteness’ of the speaker. By using the
Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change 189
word that as a demonstrative adjective, the respondents demonstrate their distance and dislike for the use of the word cunt.
Robert expands on the use of the word cunt from a male perspective:
Robert does not use the first-person pronoun when discussing the word cunt, unlike the female respondents. In this way he distances himself from the word and its use; his comments become less personal; they lack personal investment. This makes sense because, biologically, Robert is not connected to the word. Robert uses it to refer to the word cunt. Halliday (2004) labels it a non-personal pronoun and explains that the word it is a reduced form of that. Fairclough (2003) suggests that there are always motivations for exclusion of social actors in texts such as irrelevance or redundancy, but the exclusion or omission could have possible political or social significance if omitted. In this instance Robert, being male, does not have the negative historical connections associated with the word, so is less emotional in discussing the word cunt.
Robert uses the word just as in “just one of the others” and “just like fuck” and “just another word”. Additionally, he uses the word only to describe the word cunt before settling on just. In this instance these two words are used as adverbs. Where the female respondents use adverbs for emphasis and for intensity, Robert uses these adverbs to reduce importance, to express some kind of restriction or limitation, to suggest unimportance or lack of significance (Parrott, 2010).
According to Robert the word cunt is on par with the word fuck and other swearwords or taboo words. This view contradicts the surveys of unacceptability rankings of words prepared by the New Zealand Broadcasting Standards Authority (NZBSA)(Broadcasting Standards Authority, 2013) in 2010 and 2013, and the Broadcasting Standards commission of Great Britain in 2000 (Millwood-Hargrave, 2000), as well as a study done in 2008 on American offensive words (Janschewitz, 2008) and others (Carnaghi & Maass, 2007). These studies concluded that the word
190 Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change
cunt sits on the highest or second highest ranking or level of intensity of unacceptable words.
Robert’s addition of “at face value”, an idiom meaning to accept something or someone as it appears and not to question it, adds to the re-enforcement of the understanding that Robert does not believe the word cunt to be as offensive as other female participants. Additionally, by using the conditional if and would he suggests that the students do not use the word cunt at school, which disputes the data from this study that show cunt to be one of the top two most favoured words used by students.
These data show an emotional response from female teachers/leaders concerning cunt, suggesting again, a disparity with responses. These data suggest that female teachers/leaders will deliver more severe consequences than male. Male teachers may just let it slide, as Caroline and Jessica suggest, have a conversation around its use (Thomas), or talk to the boys about it (Ryan). Within discourse, signs [words] acquire relationships compared to other signs because they are linked together (De Saussure, 1959); in addition, they are situated against a backdrop of a “whole verbal network” (Foucault, 1972, p. 98).The use of the word cunt is connected to the larger social #metoo Movement, the Time’s Up movement, and women’s rights movements or discourses that are gaining traction in society. Women are voicing their values and philosophies with regard to sexual harassment, equal pay and many other gender- biased issues. Among these issues will be the associated language that accompanies power imbalances, such as using the word cunt. These responses will have an impact on the way the word is used as well as on the way it will permit the word and its use to change.
Pussy and Bunch of Pussies69 Here again there seems to be a difference in response between male and female participants. Additionally, the word pussy is being used as a derogatory term to suggest someone is soft and weak, as used in both co-educational and boys’ non-government schools. No comments are made regarding use at girls’ non-government schools. Some respondents suggest it occurs more often in Physical Education or coaching situations, but also when targeting a student for complaining or for not participating in activities.
69 Used to refer to: women collectively 1959, intercourse 1978, an effeminate man/boy 1942 (Ayto, 1999). See Appendix B.
Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change 191
Responses suggest it is used as, “you’re/he’s a pussy” as well as “bunch of pussies” and “don’t be such a pussy”. According to the data, these terms are used by students but also by staff towards students.
Female respondents are more personally connected to the word, using emotive language such as, “absolutely infuriates me, like a girl, what is a pussy? A walking vagina?” and “inappropriate”. One female participant compares the word pussy to fag or faggot and uses the words “up there with”, demonstrating the level of intensity and comparing it with two words which are high on her scale of inappropriateness. Metaphorical use of space in linguistic form demonstrates structure relationships between content and form (G. Lakoff & Johnsen, 1980).
Thomas compares his response to the same response he would give if the students used the words shit and fuck, however forwards this with the modality of probability, “probably”. Thomas adds that he “would have a conversation about it”. He uses the hypothetical or speculative modal verb would to include the conversation aspect of the response when addressing the use of pussy with students.
Female respondents are direct with their response to pussy’s use in “I pull them up on that”, whereas the male respondent uses, “probably something I would pick them up on” and “I’d sort of pull them up on it”. Thomas uses modality as an indicator of uncertainty, using the word probably. The proposition functions as a modal adjunct of probability, and is used as an expression of speaker opinion, in this case neither a definite ‘no’ nor a definite ‘yes’ but a middle-ground (Halliday, 2004). Thomas also uses hedging, with “I’d sort of”, and, as discussed previously, hedging is used as a form of vagueness or ‘fuzziness’. Sort of is a predicate modifier that presupposes a degree of truth but also takes into account a degree of nonsense (G. Lakoff, 1973).
Here again as with the word cunt, there is a difference in responses from genders. Females are more personally attached and emotive concerning the word. The male respondents articulate that they will use conversation as response to student use, whereas the female respondents suggest more stringent responses to students using the word.
6.2.3 Existing and Changing – IST Trigger Words The chapter proceeds with a discussion regarding words that are existing trigger words but are changing in use. These words are: nigger, retard, gay, and slut. All of
192 Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change
these words fall within the -IST categorisation of difference and are changing in use and responses. The word nigger is used as a racist slur, retard prescribes and proscribes (dis)ability, gay acts as a dysphemistic term marking sexual preference, and slut, is similarly dysphemistic regarding gendered character and sexuality choices.
Nigger The majority of participants showed a visual physical dislike to the word nigger. They shifted in their seat, showed changed body language and or facial expressions, often with accompanying intake of breath. The participants’ body language ‘internalised’ their beliefs that the word nigger was taboo and not to be used - body language ‘semioticises’ gestures. Stylistic characteristics present in physical and linguistic features interact together, forming a dialectical relationship70 between the non-discursive and the discursive (Harvey, 1996).
The passion and intensity of emotion regarding the word nigger can be seen with the use of linguistic features such as stress employed by participants with certain words. Many participants increased the volume of certain words in their responses when discussing the word nigger. Examples are “Really upset, NO, VERY harshly, reprimanded more, far more serious, AH THAT, HAAAGH, oh NO HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE, ABSOLUTELY- NEVER, absolutely disgusted, really offends, real big response, VERY QUICKLY, BAAAD”, and “ABSOLUTELY TABOO”71.
The respondents not only showed their discomfort with the word nigger with their body language but also with the volume of expression. Intonation or prosodic features of stress as a communication tool sometimes contribute greater meaning than
70 Dialectical in this instance suggests different elements that are not separate or discrete, but rather each element “internalises the other without being reducible to them”(Fairclough, 2001b, p. 1). 71 Stress has been shown with capitalising and underlined words from transcription. Underlined fragments indicate speaker emphasis, whereas capitals show noticeably louder and more stressed words than those surrounding it. See Chapter 4. Adapted from Wetherell, Taylor, & Yates, 2001.
Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change 193
semantic content. Pitch level and contour type are significant factors in communicating emotion (Rodero, 2011). Response cries or ‘blurtings’ (Goffman, 1978, p. 814), such as HAAAGH, BAAAD and AH THAT, make a claim about what the speaker wants the audience – in this case the researcher – to understand about their beliefs. The respondents share their inner concerns regarding the word nigger by using these responses. “Response cries, then, do not mark a flooding of emotion outward, but a flooding of relevance in” (Goffman, 1978, p. 814).
The additional use of adverbs of intensity add to demonstrating the respondents’ subjective evaluations of the word nigger and its use in school settings. “really is off- limits, completely off limits, far more serious, absolutely disgusted, really offends, definitely, pretty quickly, highly inappropriate. severe, intolerable, nigger is top, up- scaled, not acceptable”. These adverbs of intensity provide measurable degrees to suggest the word and its use are absolute. The irrevocability is made clear with words such as completely, highly, absolutely, definitely, and really. The mood adjuncts serve as degree of totality and finality (Halliday, 2004).
The participants never use the personal pronoun I when discussing nigger. The lack of the personal pronoun use demonstrates that there is no personal connection to the word and the responses show distance and distancing with words such as them, they, and someone, referring to students – and it or it is, another one or that word. The respondents are setting a boundary and not only distancing themselves from the word itself, but also from use of the word. There is a separation of ‘them’ as ‘the others’ as separate and distanced from the speaker. Here again, using the demonstrative pronoun ‘that’ is demonstrating distance or remoteness of the speaker (Halliday, 2004).
A few respondents go on to discuss the ‘others’ by explaining that some of the students will use the word in a friendly, bonding way, as a form of ‘brotherhood’. These ‘others’ will be the “Polynesians or indigenous, those students, those kids “their friends, the African students, amongst themselves, their”, and “they”. The respondents describe this use as a friendly, connecting, linguistic activity that is acceptable to most parties, including the school. One differentiation is made however; Penny suggests the ‘others’ would never use the word nigger in front of their parents or elders.
194 Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change
Ryan uses contrastive semantic relations in his sentence, using the word but, which is an example of ‘the problem-solution’ relation (Hoey, 2013). He begins by sharing the problem - namely that “a lot of” students use the word nigger. However, he immediately offers the solution of “but then they’re Polynesian or Indigenous”. In other words, it is acceptable for them to use the word. Penny also uses contrastive semantic relations when discussing the students who use the word at school but “absolutely never” in front of their elders or parents. The use of this contrastive but suggests that the word use is taboo in both settings, at school and at home. For Ryan, the contrastive element differentiates between the students that can use the word and the students that cannot, whereas Penny’s contrast goes further with where the students use the word and in whose company.
Foucault highlights the “fellowship of discourse” which preserves or reproduces discourse in closed communities. He links this fellowship of discourse to the medical, technical, political or scientific areas, but, in this instance, it can clearly be seen as being utilised in this school context (Foucault, 1972). Those who are not in possession of the discourse or have access to the fellowship are deprived and excluded, as in the case above.
The emotive reactions from participants suggest that responses to the use of this word are reactive. The respondents and the schools will address the use of the word immediately, unless students who ‘belong to the ‘them’ group’ are using the word in a bonding way. This aligns with the literature in regard to taboo language change in that nigger, being one of the –IST words (Allan & Burridge, 2006), is registered as
Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change 195
one of the top most offensive words (Broadcasting Standards Authority, 2013; Millwood-Hargrave, 2000). The schools and respondents are facilitating the –IST culture with their responses.
Nigger used as a slur has had more linguistic analysis than any other English slur. The history of the word nigger, as seen in Chapter 2 and Appendix B, shows that was used or conceived as an insult to oppress a large group of people over time (Fidler, 2018). The word nigger has different spellings, nigger and nigga. When used as a slur, nigger is usually the spelling used, whereas nigga is used by an ‘in-group’ that has re- appropriated the negative slur. The first word is used to suppress, defame and humiliate, whereas the second is used as a positive term of self-identification (Bergen, 2016). The re-appropriated word nigga has morphed into something linguistically unrecognisable from its origin word. Studies show (Jones & Hall, 2015) that nigga is being used as a generic noun, similar to the terms dude or guy, usually referring to males. Additionally, nigga is used as a pronoun. These two linguistic uses, however, are only in certain varieties of English.
Racism becomes institutionalised through practices and policies that privilege some and disadvantage others. Racism therefore becomes a structural problem of social control and power that operates tacitly (Lazar & Offenberg, 2011). Schooling is aimed at producing critically literate citizens who can develop into upstanding citizens of democratic nations (Giroux, 1998); therefore, deliberate and informed conversations around structural racism need to be shared in order to combat the previously mentioned point.
Response from one of the participants demonstrates his reflections - those of his students and his attempt at educating his students about racism.
Racism can be made visible in classrooms by having critical discussions around history, power and control and other areas by using literature as a base for
196 Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change
knowledgeable discussion (Greene & Abt-Perkins, 2003). Pre-service teachers tend to resist controversial subjects such as racism in their lesson planning (Apol, Sakuma, Reynolds, & Rop, 2002); this then flows into their teaching careers with teachers avoiding discussions around racism in lessons (Copenhaver, 2000). In avoiding the topic, students are left with sometimes biased but often incomplete and superficial understandings of racial issues (Polite & Saenger, 2003): “The most pernicious and pervasive silence in primary school classrooms is the silence surrounding the subject of race” (p. 275).
Retard During the initial practice interview prior to any formal interviews, the interviewee mentioned students’ use of the word retard, but also the occurrence of teachers calling students “a bunch of retards” or “you retard”. The word retard was then incorporated into questions for participants. Therefore, there are varying perspectives on using retard in school settings; retard as used by students and retard as used by staff members.
a) Retard Used by Students Comments from respondents vary with regard to students using the word retard. Some suggest that students “leave the special students alone”, but others say, “it is used all the time”. However, reflections from several respondents show that the use of retard has changed. Comparative words such as “used to be okay, would happen, was very common, years ago, now, anymore and these days” demonstrate contrast and change.
Reflections suggest that the word retard is not used by students as much today as in previous years with reasons being that students are more accepting of those students who need assistance or have personal issues of their own to manage. What does remain consistent is that it is used as an insult and is more offensive and more
Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change 197
powerful in its use than previously. Hallah recounts that a female student will be more offended today if they are called a fucking retard than if they are called a fucking hoe.72
Kathleen recounts how students in the special education arena use the word as an insult to other students sharing this space. She explains that oftentimes the student will use the word toward another student but not understand the meaning of the word in its entirety, due to their own disability. Because she works in the area of disability, Kathleen explains she hears the word and “it always rings a bell for us”. Using the adverbial intensifier always and stressing the word demonstrates her affiliation to the word and her emotive reaction to others using the word in a derogatory manner.
b) Retard Used by staff Respondents separated their comments to an ‘I’, ‘we’ and ‘other’ community in regard to the question regarding use of retard by staff members. Only one respondent commented on personal use but reflected in hindsight that it was something she should not use. The remaining respondents all reflected on ‘others’’ use of the word. Words such as “a teacher, other, my boss, she, the population, school staff and staff member” suggest the ‘other’ community of users. Kathleen and Claudia, who work closely with enrichment needs in schools, use the term ‘we’ as a close-knit community of teachers who are responsible for enrichment needs at the school.
Kathleen describes how some staff at a previous school used retard and other disability words when talking about students from the special education department. Kathleen compares school staff at her previous school, saying, “that was very, very common within the school staff” and it was something addressed with them. Lucy adds that her current boss (the principal) uses the word when talking about students, and then clarifies, “but never in front of students”, as a concessive relation in an attempt to defend the use.
Many respondents comment on the fact that they have heard complaints from students that staff have used the word directed towards them and have themselves heard staff using retard towards students. As discussed earlier, one respondent admits to using retard directed at the student group.
72 In this instance the word fucking is not offensive, nor is the word hoe, which demonstrates the acceptance of these words by students.
198 Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change
Adele uses contrastive and concessive semantic relations between sentences and clauses with but and so. She also uses hypothetical meaning with would and logical deduction with should, which usually expresses greater uncertainty (Parrott, 2010). The addition of “like a joke” supports her discomfort and uncertainty with using the word to her students. By using hypothetical meaning, logical deduction and adding the preposition like to compare her statement to a joke, Adele demonstrates her discomfort and apologises on reflection for its use: “I know I should never have said that”.
Responses in regard to using retard show a binary present. Most respondents demonstrate dislike of the use of retard, with words such as “worse than anything, never say that, derogatory term, labelling him a lesser person, AWFUL ABSOLUTELY, you just can’t say that, NEVER, it carries all these implications” and “insult”. However, in contrast, comments about other staff who do use retard suggest a different discourse being represented. Words representing unacceptability and accusation, as well as escaping blame, escaping punishment or avoiding undesirable consequences, are evident. One respondent suggests she would never call students retards because “It’s begging for a complaint… a MASSIVE complaint”. This comment highlights representation about what is ‘unsaid’. Foucault explains that “one thing is often said in place of another; that one sentence may have two meanings at once, an obvious meaning and a second esoteric or prophetic meaning” (1972, p. 109). Would the respondent use this insulting slur if no ‘MASSIVE complaint’ was forthcoming?
Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change 199
Similarly, a link is made with using the term successfully, in that the speaker has ‘escaped blame’; you need to have a different and good rapport with the students to “get away with it”; and if you do not have a good rapport, then “others wouldn’t get away with it”. Adele, who admits to using retard with students, suggests, “they didn’t blink...but obviously it wasn’t seen as bad”. Additionally, the respondent who relays the story of a teacher calling a student “you fucking retard” suggests the student was from ‘the country’ and “his mum would have said you know he is”. In other words, the teacher escaped blame because the mother would have agreed with her that her son is a retard.
Respondents demonstrate that students and staff should not use this word because it is taboo; however, they seem to be torn in relation to acceptability with regard to context. When discussing the complaint, will staff use the word if they are assured of no complaint or undesirable consequences? According to these data, the word has changed in use, being used much more as an insult now than previously. Students see the use of retard as a stronger insult aligning with the –IST language change, but it seems that not all staff responses concur with this understanding. For students and for some respondents, the word retard seems to be more offensive than in years past. According to some, the use of the word retard, as an abusive word, is declining in use (Fidler, 2018), perhaps due to its pejorative nature.
Gay According to respondents, the word gay is used more often in government school environments than in non-government school environments. Additionally, the non- government schools show more corrective responses to students using the word. Respondents from non-government school settings that had recently worked at
200 Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change
government schools commented on use in both environments, usually by way of comparison.
Participants from non-government schools use words such as “rarely, less, much less, no, you wouldn’t hear it at our school, they wouldn’t say it, I hear it less”. The adverbs rarely and less are intrinsically restrictive, placing emphasis on frequency, supporting the speaker’s understanding that the use of the word is on the lowest end of the scale. Trevor uses a direct expression of polarity with No as a tonic mood adjunct (Halliday, 2004). He then supports and reinforces the negative with two elaborations that include negatives, namely, “you wouldn’t hear it” and “they wouldn’t say it”.
Some respondents who have previously worked at government schools offered contrastive reflections on the linguistic use of gay in their previous schools. Trevor contrasts the definite negative No at his present non-government school with “at state it would be used on the daily” and “gay, it was the norm word”. Reg supports his contrast with but, demonstrating the difference (Laclau & Mouffe, 1985) between the schools. At his present non-government school, the word is not used; he heard the word used years ago, then contrasts with “but it was an independent [state] school, co-ed”. Francis uses the words “more so, then, state school”, and “here, now”. The contrast and comparison is clear. More so is used as a term to explain amount or a greater degree, in order to compare (Parrott, 2010).
As opposed to comments regarding the use of gay in non-government school settings, respondents use the following words to describe the use of gay in government school settings. These words reflect quantity and frequency - a substantial amount. “All the time”, and re-iterated again, “all the time, everything’s gay, it means nothing, everything is gay, that’s for anything you know anything negative, often” and “become a normal part of their language”.
Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change 201
Regarding responding to the use of the word gay in these school settings, there is another difference evident. Respondents at the government schools suggest that responses would be minimal, if any: “I would probably let gay pass these days, no one would really worry about that, other stuff we just let go and gay seems to be one of them, once again even less of a big deal than faggot, gay is not a swearword”.
Responses from non-government school participants reflecting on addressing the word gay used at school differ: “At my school now… that would be taboo to say that, I would pull the kid up for saying that and I still would, I pull it up quite regularly, so, for me that’s almost as bad as dropping an f bomb... using gay is not an appropriate thing”. There is a difference in use and response in the school settings in the study. Further analysis suggests participant reasoning that this is because there is more education around social nuances in non-government settings, in the schools as well as the homes. The difference in use at the schools demonstrates a shift and indicates social and language change.
Adeline reflects that the students at her school engage in activities that increase their cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1973). These activities, like drama, music and theatre, make the students aware of and accepting of different sexualities and cultures. The students learn about different sexualities and mix with students who express their sexualities at an early age; therefore, they do not have an issue with difference, especially with regard to sexuality. Francis reflects on her comments in a similar fashion, adding, “there’s been a bit of a wider cultural shift about the use of that word”.
Thomas, from the same school, reflects with references regarding Australian sportsmen who are supporting gay rights and using their position to be vocal about social change and language use. These Australian sporting icons and their views are personal to him, he uses the words, “my education, personally, understanding the word, the way I use it, in reflection”. However, he does not mention if he incorporates
202 Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change
these perspectives into his teaching, nor his response to the use of the word gay with his students. What is of import though, is that “the beliefs teachers hold influence their perceptions and judgments, which in turn affect their behaviour in the classroom” (Pajares, 1992, p. 307). This suggests he may incorporate these ideologies in his teaching.
Exposure to slurs can cause psychological as well as social harm in addition to offending some people. It can bias people against sharing resources with members of a defamed group; can cause de-humanising attributes to be assigned to defamed groups; can cause physical distance from defamed group members; and can discriminate against members of a defamed group (Carnaghi & Maass, 2007; Fasoli, Maass, & Carnaghi, 2014; Fasoli et al., 2015).
The word gay is ‘an in-group label’(Allan & Burridge, 2006, p. 99); however, there are many members of society who avoid its use because they cannot identify with people who belong to the ‘group’. Additionally, some people avoid its use because they do not want to advertise their political affinity (Cameron, 1995). Gay is being used positively in society by the ‘in-group’ but also by media and the public at large, moving it from a pejorative slur to a re-appropriated ‘neutral’ word (Bergen, 2016, p. 205).
Slut The word slut is used in different ways in different environments according to respondents. Comments from participants suggest that the older the student the more taboo they find the word to be if used inappropriately. At the government schools, boys use the word directed at both girls and boys. It is a common term used often, especially if the student wants to be malicious; as Kathleen suggests, “that’s nasty it is REAL nasty, absolutely”. Responses from non-government boys’ schools suggest students from only one of the schools use the word slut in a derogatory manner. Other non- government boys’ school participants suggest the boys seldom use the word slut.
Participants from non-government girls’ schools and co-educational government schools suggest that girls use slut as a negative demeaning word for shock value when talking about someone else - as a caustic insult. However, the girls also use slut as a friendly term of endearment, in a bonding manner. Adeline addresses this with a suggestion that there “is a type of reverse feminism or reverse sexism” occurring with
Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change 203
this practice, in that the girls are taking ownership of the word and re-appropriating its usage. Studies (S. Hughes, 1992) suggest that women perceive words such as slut to be the most offensive words to use directed towards a woman as an insult; the reasoning being that the derogatory nature of these words casts doubt around a woman’s sexual morality and promiscuity. However, these perceptions were supported by the fact that offence would only be taken if the word was used as a form of abuse.
Response from the boys’ non-government schools where the word is not commonplace, suggest that the ethos of the schools support positive perspectives on female rights, feminine respect and female agency.
Additionally, Ryan, from another non-government boys’ school comments on an incident at the school where a boy was found to have written graffiti on school property. He had written a short slogan associating a girl’s name – a fellow student’s girlfriend – with the word slut. The result of these actions was that the boy was excluded because he showed disrespect, not only to the girl, but also to those “parents, prospective parents and outside support” who visit the school regularly and might see the graffiti. The word and connotation visible to ‘outsiders’ would demonstrate lack of respect and contrast with the promotion of female rights and feminine respect promoted by the school.
Respondents suggest they would address the use of the word slut, some mentioning the word is “absolutely unacceptable”, and “the worst thing you could call someone” and others “you’re not to use that” or “there would be a discussion about sexism, empathy and insult”. Both male and female respondents showed varying perceptions of the word slut in use, with no gender differentiation as seen with other words. Trevor uses emotive words, “it’s horrific, it’s derogatory... horrendous”; Spencer suggests, “it evokes a response”; Hallah says, “It’s a demeaning moral
204 Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change
judgment. It’s an insulting moral judgment”; and Lucy, “that’s probably the worst thing that you can say”.
Words such as slut are effective when used as a form of abuse or insult because they question a woman’s reputation and her honour (C. Berger, 2002). Terms like slut, employed to insult women, are based on female sexual promiscuity; they are used to maintain and promote power and purity (Byrne, 2017). The analysis of the word and how it is used in school settings suggests that social and cultural activity surrounding this word is well at play amongst the respondents. Both male and female participants are responding to the word and its use in school settings. Some have closer emotional connection to the word, but all reflect the negative nuances of its use. In contrast, however, the data evidence that students use the word in two ways; as an insult, but also as a bonding word. Change regarding this word is being instilled in youth, with girls reclaiming the word.
Associated and dovetailing with the word slut is the larger social action at play: that being the positive and assertive use of the word in feminist circles. This uses is aligned with feminist activism and anti-rape campaigns, such as the ‘SlutWalk’ (Mendes, 2015a, 2015b). The campaign began as a protestation to Toronto Police Constable Michael Sanguinetti, who in January 2011 advised a small group of York University students to “avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized” (Mendes, 2015b, p. 1). The interaction went viral which created an international feminist movement that supports a stance of anti-violence against women, supports freedom of the feminist agenda and supports an anti-victim blaming attitude.
6.2.4 Emerging -IST Trigger Words The following discussion focuses on words that have been highlighted by participants as trigger words emerging in use by students. The data suggest associated highly emotive responses by both students and participants.
Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change 205
Rape73
Aligned with the use of the word slut is the word rape, which respondents suggest is becoming more of a taboo word when used in school settings. Participants relayed several uses of the word. First, the word rape is used as a ‘joke word’, as in “oh Miss help I’m being raped”, “he’s raping me” – if two students are wrestling or being physical in a game situation. Comments regarding rape being used as a joke suggest it is taken in the context it is used, with “I’m like okay well, whatever. I just laugh” and “it’s not funny but to each other (the students) it’s funny”.
The second way the word is being used is in a taboo sense. Respondents suggest oftentimes the students, mainly boys, become uncomfortable with the word, especially if it relates to literature, for example a character in a novel or “something real”; and in such a situation they will try to avoid using the word. Aligned with this use, according to respondents, a student who uses the word rape in the school setting or online in connection to a person, as in “I will rape X” or “I’m going to rape X”, will face severe consequences, with exclusion reported on a few occasions. The third way the word rape is used in the school context is explained as being used in the sporting context. If the sporting team is beaten or lost in a sporting event the students will say “we got raped”. No comment is made in regard to addressing the last use and it is seen as quite acceptable in this context.
The current climate associated with the #metoo movement, the Time’s Up Movement, the abovementioned ‘SlutWalks’, and the associated women’s rights
73 The crime committed typically by a man forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with said man, against their will (OED, 2019).
206 Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change
movements has foregrounded sexual assault, rape and sexual power imbalances in society. The many powerful Hollywood elites, executives like Harvey Weinstein, celebrities like Bill Cosby, Michael Douglas, James Franco and many others, have been exposed as participating in unwanted sexual assault or encounters. The Movement has initiated a cultural narrative regarding sexual assault, rape and power transgressions against those in less powerful positions, highlighting and emphasising sexual inequities in society. The linguistic power of the word rape is demonstrated among women who have been sexually violated who have an aversion to using the word rape when describing their experiences (Molotkow, 2015; Wilson & Miller, 2015). The word rape has significant effect and affect when used, being able to silence many if used inappropriately and increasing the taboo surrounding the practice as well as the word itself.
Pedo/ Paedophile74 Respondent comments suggest many students in school settings are using the word pedo or paedophile. Adverbs of frequency such as “always”, time expressions such as “all the time, pops up every once in a while, I’ve noticed escalating, kids love to say”, and “used a lot”, all demonstrate that the word is being used more often in school settings. Additionally, “YES. Definitely, Pedo, pedo, that pedo is massive” demonstrate stressed emphasis in answering the question about the word pedo being used at school.
Comments suggest that students use the terms pedo, pedlar and paedophile as a ‘joke’ but also in an aggressive manner. The term is sometimes directed at fellow students, but the majority of respondents commented that the word is being directed at or about teachers and staff. “Teachers are paedophiles, will even say it to teachers, toward another boy and about a teacher, about teachers ...sir’s such a pedo”, and “used for teachers very much so”. Respondents also mention online social platforms such as ‘rate my teachers’, Instagram and Facebook as places they treat with trepidation because they have no control over what is posted by students, yet these postings can have significant impact on their careers.
74 Burridge et al. (2006) term paedophilia, pederasty and incest as orthophemisms, yet the practice of paedophilia is characterised as abhorrent, abusive and seldom ignored.
Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change 207
Responses in regard to students using the term pedo in school settings suggest this is regarded by respondents as of significant importance and is addressed immediately. “The teachers report it and really do something about it, I think that that would be seriously offensive, they would address that straight away, you know that it’s quite serious, WHOOOOA, you can’t be throwing that word out even if it is in fun” and “it’s still inappropriate”.
Respondents also discuss the taboo associated with linking the word paedophile to a staff member. Participants use emotive words, stressed words and emphasis in regard to certain words, all of which demonstrate their emotive connection to the taboo as well as to the word. The respondents also connect with their identity as ‘teacher’ or ‘educator’ in responses, with words such as “a career killer, no-one is safe, teachers, power, seriously offensive if a kid called you that, teachers report it, about teachers, to teachers, lose your job, never work again, this particular school, …sir’s such a pedo”, and “in the environment”.
Paedophilia and pederasty as social constructions are one of contemporary society’s ultimate taboos, abhorred by the general public, reinforced and sustained by law. Australian law deems the act of paedophilia so abhorrent that it considers the person a danger to society (McDonald, 2012). Any connection to the act removes the person from ‘normally accepted behaviour’ in society and relegates them to actions connected with the taboo and ‘deviant behaviour’(Allan & Burridge, 2006). The person is presumed to be at a level of danger to society and subjected to legal action, permitting the state physical and legal possession over the person (Butler, 2004).
History has demonstrated that any connection to paedophilia has the possibility to be personally, emotionally and professionally damaging to a person whether found guilty or not (Burnett, Hoyle, & Speechley, 2017; Rumney & McCartan, 2017). The ramifications of being socially constructed as a paedophile or child sex offender in
208 Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change
society, particularly in the education sector, are immeasurably damaging; hence the participant responses.
The constant sensitisation surrounding the issue which the community is subjected to by media coverage causes moral panic or “paedophilia panic and the contagion effect” (Neuilly & Zgoba, 2006, p. 247). However, media coverage, outrage, and the moral panic in regard to child sex abuse and paedophilia have positive results in that students are being made more aware of this social behaviour. Whether the students understand the concept of paedophilia or not, whether they understand the connection of the word to the behaviour or not, they are aware of the word and are using it in school settings.
Responses from participants suggest that the students may not understand the connection between using the word and labelling a staff member, linking the word to a staff member; or the consequences of that word association to the person, their career, and their name. However, as Lucy comments, “And it’s all jokey, that’s how they get away with a lot of it, and that’s where you’re sort of stuck between a rock and a hard place”. Perhaps some of the students do know the ramifications of using the word and associating it with a staff member? Is this a form of power play? Is this a subtle form of aggression or capillary power in action (Foucault, 1980)?
Terrorist Respondents suggest that the word terrorist and/or jokes about terrorism is something that is occurring in school settings. The word terrorist is used to label someone of Islamic background, often used in a joking manner. One of the teachers commented that it has been used at their school but is not commonplace; however other respondents commented that it was used often and is increasing in use.
Use of quantifiers such as lots of, the informal adverb heaps, the adjective all day are used by respondents to describe continual quantity or amount of use of the
Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change 209
word terrorist. Additionally, using the present perfect tense of has been used demonstrates that the use has started in the past and is continuing or continues to have some relevance to the present (Parrott, 2010).
When discussing responses to use of the word terrorist the respondents were unanimous in their reactions. “...so, I come down pretty hard on that personally..., ah no. no way in hell is that appropriate and so in front of the whole class I sort of stopped the situation ... we had another conversation a little later, if I hear it I will definitely do something about it cos I think that’s like the enn word before, like it’s bad, It’s really bad and you can’t just let it go” and “that’s treated VERY seriously”.
The respondents explain that the use of the word terrorist and its related themed words are unacceptable in school settings. The participants use adverbs of intensification, with pretty hard, definitely do something, really bad and VERY seriously to illustrate their underlying associations and responses to rejecting and addressing the word usage. Adele explains that it is not acceptable in her environment because, “It’s not in the spirit of camaraderie or fun, it’s in the spirit of isolationism”.
Trevor adds that the students advocate boundaries in regard to the linguistic terms. He suggests that the students demonstrate heightened negative responses if the word Islamic is used combined with the word terrorist. He stresses the negative acceptance of this collocation with a strong emphatic “NOOOO” as the response he expects from students if these words are combined. He explains that the word Islamic is taboo for the students.
As evidenced by respondents the word terrorist and its associated labels belong to the –IST words becoming more popular in use at schools. Additionally, it is an element of one area of words being disciplined with more rigor and resolve by school staff according to the data. Here again, the responses by the schools are facilitating language change in respect to taboo language, in that stronger responses and consequences are being meted out for the –IST terms than for words that do not target difference, for example ‘the fucks and shits’.
210 Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change
Terrorism, both as practiced and justified by terrorist themselves, is a tool used to achieve a specific outcome by using force or violence on one segment of society with the primary goal of causing fear in the larger society to make change in that society. (Garrison, 2007, p. 259)
International terrorism has been part of the world since after World War II, and terrorist and terrorism classifications hinge on several things namely that the organisation targets aviation, the organisation has a track record of violence against a government’s citizens, and that the organisation has an Islamic ideological basis. However, in addition to these, newer classifications have to be updated as a result of the ever-changing climate (C. Beck & Milner, 2013).
It is the Islamic ideological basis that perhaps lends assistance with use of the word in school settings, as seen with Trevor’s contribution to the discussion around the word Islamic. It is doubtful whether students know of or understand the classifications of terrorists and terrorist organisations. However, after the attacks of September 11, 2001 and continued global violent interactions, media attention brought terrorism and its associated violence and fear into the living room of the majority of Australians. The emotional, violent, and often horrific scenes shared by media outlets and online sources, and the addition of Hollywood cinema genres dramatising terrorism and Islamic extremism, all expose students to terrorism. This exposure builds the emotional connection linking fear with terrorism and, unfortunately, a connection linking Muslims who practise Islam with terrorism.
As with many other taboos, the words associated with the taboo become tainted; and the word terrorist has aligned with the discourses of government policy, Islamic ideology, moral censure, condemnation and repudiation (Finlay, 2009). The word terrorist has illocutionary force and is viewed by many as a pejorative term (Hoffman, 2017, p. 24), especially when linked to followers of Islam. By policing, censoring and disciplining the use of the word in school settings, the respondents are aiding and intensifying the pejorative discourse surrounding the term terrorist.
Banning slurs, as with any other linguistic expression, ensures they become entrenched in taboo and become more taboo: it can be a counter-productive exercise (Bergen, 2016). Perhaps the answer here is education; education around difference, history, cultures, acceptance, tolerance, mindfulness, linguistic choices and reactions.
Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change 211
“Knowledge is power. Information is liberating. Education is the premise of progress, in every society, in every family” – Kofi Annan. (1997)
Trannie/Tranny75 According to the respondents another word that students use in school settings is trannie/tranny. It is used in a derogatory way and often used “behind the student’s back”. The use of trannie is becoming more prevalent although one of the respondents has not heard it used. Comments suggest that the students themselves have stricter boundaries around the use of the word trannie than he does - the word has moved into taboo territory. Responses suggest that participants address the use of the word.
The use of minimising “just a trannie” suggests the derogatory nature of the slur. Using the focusing adverb just expresses restriction and acts as a textual attitude discourse marker exposing the derogatory nature. In addition, the fact that the slur is expressed without the person’s knowledge, “not done in front of their face”, adds to the pejorative nature of the insult.
‘Space-time’ (Harvey, 1996) is constructed in these texts. Harvey suggests that both space and time are social constructs that are fashioned differently in different societies. In addition, the change in their construction or the challenging of those constructions relates to social change. Words used that relate to ‘space-time’ in
75 Used to denote a transgender or transvestite individual. Shortened from transvestite around 1983 (Ayto, 1999). The hate term has been banned from many stylebooks and media platforms, including Facebook (Lux & Hot Mess, 2017) and is labelled pejorative (GLAAD, 2018).
212 Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change
participants’ speech around trannie/tranny are: “Only now, coming into prevalence” and “I’m really sorry that’s new for me, that’s always been” and “again”. Use of these words demonstrates the social change and accompanying language change in regard to the use of the word trannie. Constructions of both space and time are interconnected and how these connections display reflects relationships between ‘local’ and ‘global’, as well as establishing evidence of social change (Fairclough, 2003). Movement between different temporalities in regard to participant responses is evident, from past, present and projecting to the future.
The linguistic features contributing to the representation of time are adverbials such as only now – defining the present – connecting with the use of the present continuous/progressive, the use of coming into suggests the change is happening in the present and the speaker shows the change is continuing. The space-time is reflected on a personal level for Trevor with his use of “that’s new for me”. The use of new defines a comparison between a previous social space and time when using the word trannie was not taboo or offensive to his audience. The past temporality is also represented in his words, “That’s always been”. He uses present perfect with has been and enhances this with the adverb of frequency always. Present perfect is used when a person talks about an event that started in the past and still has some influence in the present (Swan, 2005).
The space-time element continues with the feedback from his audience, with “DON’T SAY IT AGAIN”. Using the adverb again refers to the present use of the word, Trevor’s use of the word in the class situation he describes, and then suggests the future time. Emphasis of the words demonstrates the insistence and definite boundaries the students have in regard to the word trannie. Trevor adds to the space-time linguistic management by using ‘for me’, attesting his personal connection and separating himself from ‘the students’ or ‘they’. He makes mention of the separate communities with ‘I’, ‘I’m’ ‘me’, ‘we’, ‘the students’, and ‘they’. Social identities and social relations are interlinked with this particular spatio-temporality (Fairclough, 2003).
Respondents address the word trannie if they hear it being used. Words such as “not ignored”, and “knocked on the head” demonstrate that participants challenge the use of the word. The finite negative not makes it clear that use of the word will be noticed, observed and addressed rather than ignored, whereas the idiomatic expression “knocked on the head” clearly conceptualises the action of hitting a nail on the head
Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change 213
to put it back in its place, to force it down; in this instance to prevent the student from repeating the word. “The essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another” (p. 5). Metaphors are not just using words and language, metaphors express a person’s conceptual system, they are metaphorical concepts (G. Lakoff & Johnsen, 1980).
“Stricter boundaries” and “corrected” demonstrate the difference in pejorative attitudes between the students and the respondent in this interaction. The respondent shares that the students react emotively when the word trannie is used, demonstrating that the word has now moved into the taboo realm for them. Additionally, Trevor shares the emotive reaction by the students with louder, more stressed emphasis, with words such as, “AAAAH AAAAH” and “DON’T SAY IT AGAIN”.
Transgender individuals and transgenderism has become media popular in recent years, with influential celebrities such as Caitlyn Jenner, Laverne Cox and supermodel Andreja Pejić publicly promoting and celebrating their transgenderism (Miller & Behm-Morawitz, 2017). The term transgender describes various individuals who surpass traditionally defined categories of gender (E. Coleman et al., 2012; Miller & Behm-Morawitz, 2017). Transgender individuals experience greater levels of ‘trans- phobia’ (Dispenza, Watson, Chung, & Brack, 2012) and trans students who express the gender they align with rather than their birth gender experience harassment, exclusion and even violence in educational settings (Wernick, Kulick, & Chin, 2017). The word trannie, a shortened version of transvestite, is used as a derogatory word to de-humanize a person (Fidler, 2018).
However, with all the negative aspects of this social issue, the public figures that openly discuss their transgenderism, and those who support transgender individuals, have highlighted the topic and brought society together in certain ways to open public discussion in regard to transgenderism (Miller & Behm-Morawitz, 2017). It is suggested that a lack of exposure to the transgender community and its associated issues supports discrimination and violence directed at the transgender individual; therefore more educational and non-exploitative contributions are required in order to facilitate open acceptance and communication in this regard (Miller & Behm- Morawitz, 2017).
Media coverage and public debate of transgendered student issues in schools has led to policy changes. These policy changes allow transgendered students legal rights
214 Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change
to attend school as their chosen gender, and associated rights to an inclusive curriculum, making them more visible for fellow students (Jones et al., 2016; Snapp, Burdge, Licona, Moody, & Russell, 2015). Additionally, the younger demographic who support and follow current celebrities such as Caitlyn Jenner, the Kardashians, and Laverne Cox, are participating in the social narrative of the transgender issues and are more aware of the pejorative aspects of this issue and the associated meta- language; therefore they will have more connection to the problem and perhaps less bias (Miller & Behm-Morawitz, 2017).
6.3 DISCUSSION
In concluding this second data chapter several issues are apparent. The teachers and school leaders are not confident in their understanding and explanation of the term verbal misconduct, nor how the term fits within Education Department expectation. There is a varying range of understandings of the term, from anything verbal that contains swearing, to fluctuating levels of aggressive behaviour, to disrespect. Expectation is established from the Education Department that students need to perform within a structured boundary of behaviour, which includes verbal behaviour; however, these expectations and boundaries are unclear for all respondents in the study. This is significant because students are being suspended and excluded for linguistic transgressions and teachers and school leaders are enforcing discipline in this regard, but the boundaries are fluid, personally disciplined, and unclear.
Similarly, the school leaders and teachers are divided in their explanation and definition of swearing, with some suggesting swearing is the use of commonly accepted words such as shit, fuck and cunt, whereas others outright do not know or prefer not to give a definition. Two things are apparent with the definition and explanation supplied by respondents: first, that institutional terms are used, such as offensive, inappropriate and others; and second, the underlying discourse of aggression and anger or violence is present. This discourse is prevalent throughout discussions with respondents during the study and will be discussed further in Chapter 7.
A much clearer and more confident definition and explanation is apparent with the term taboo language. Respondents agree that taboo language is a social and cultural construct and is closely connected and related to issues of difference such as racism, genderism, sexualities, and other social taboo constructs. The participants are much
Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change 215
more personal in their reflections and connect change in social language practice, social change, and language change with regard to taboo language in their discussions. Overall, there is a clearer and more confident explanation and understanding of which words fall within taboo language as compared to swearing. Respondents also demonstrate their stance with regard to taboo language use in school settings, that being highly prohibitive.
Respondents relay words students use in their school settings and how these words are being used as well as responses from staff. Words that suggest limited response from staff are: arse, screw, root, bloody, oh my god, prick, piss, shit, bullshit, motherfucker and hoe. Differences in responses to the word bitch, damn, fuck and bullshit are seen in different school settings. Heightened responses from participants suggest that the -IST language tends to be more seriously disciplined in school settings, whereas the words that are used more frequently by students – that were previously considered ‘swearwords’ – are less restricted. Data shows most heightened responses are to the use of the word nigger. The school as institution has ritualised these words (Foucault, 1972).
An interesting result appears with the -IST word retard, with the majority of respondents suggesting retard is a word that should not be used in school settings but is used in settings by students and staff. Data suggest a temporality in use and meaning is apparent, and some students use the word retard as a strong insult, and when used, reactions are amplified. In regard to staff using the word retard, the respondents discuss ‘others’ who use the word toward or about students. The respondent reflection demonstrates representations of unacceptability, accusation, as well as avoiding blame, punishment or undesirable consequences when the word retard is used.
Sexuality slur words such as fag and faggot show varying responses, but the majority of participants evaluate these as terms that should not be used by students in school settings. The manner in which the respondents address the use of the words aligns with their personal beliefs. The second sexuality slur word, gay, shows a dichotomy in use at schools and in responses from participants. Gay is used more in government schools and disciplined less, whereas the word gay is used less in non- government schools and disciplined or responded to more. The analysis suggests that non-government school students have more cultural education around the social issues of homosexuality.
216 Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change
Female-linked gendered words, namely cunt, pussy and slut, show interesting dynamics in the data. These words seem to be moving in taboo ranking and in use among students in school settings. Data demonstrate that female respondents are more closely connected and emotive with the word cunt, explaining more significant consequences for its use. The male respondents are separated from the use of the word, are less emotive and suggest fewer exacting consequences for its use at school. This suggests a difference in approach and response to the use of the word in school settings. Similarly, analogous results are apparent for the words pussy or bunch of pussies. Female respondents are more emotive with discussions surrounding the use of this word or phrase and suggest harsher consequences for its use, whereas male respondents seem less emotive or connected to the word and its use with less severe consequences for its use.
Analysis demonstrates interesting outcomes for the use and response of the word slut, another female-linked, gendered-character word. Respondents suggest at government schools that it is used by students to insult; non-government boys’ school respondents suggest it has limited use in their settings, but girls use the word slut in different ways. Both non-government school and government school girls use slut as an insult word but also as a bonding term. Emotive reactions also differ among respondents with gender not playing a part in reactions or responses but suggesting that slut is unacceptable in its use. The consequences vary from severe in some schools to less severe in others, but the majority of responses suggest the use of the word will be addressed by respondents.
The words that are more emotive for participants, the more personal words or signs (De Saussure, 1959), demonstrate the arbitrary nature of the sign/word. Some participants are more closely and emotively linked to these words than other participants. Because of this close link, the meaning they attach to the word plays a role in the change of the sign [word]. In addition, because the word is being used by the collective and used over time, it will change. “Regardless of what the forces of change are, whether in isolation or in combination, they always result in a shift in the relationship between the signified and the signifier”(p. 75) .
Contemporary and emerging trigger words that are taboo laden, such as rape, pedo/paedophile, trannie, and terrorist, are all discussed with differing influences, use and consequence. The word rape is noted to be used in both a jocular and flippant
Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change 217
manner by students, and also in an aggressive, violent manner. Respondents suggest less intense response, often ignoring the use, if rape is used in a light-hearted way, but react with a severe response and consequence if rape is used directed toward an individual, whether they be in school surrounds or not.
The word/s pedo or paedophile are being used in school settings in both a jocular manner and in an aggressive way, sometimes directed at fellow students but mostly being connected with staff. Respondents meet this use with an immediate response, and analysis demonstrates that respondents are highly emotively connected to the words pedo/paedophile and to their teacher identity. Classifying this language, associating it with broader social taboos of pederasty, gives the words and users power (Foucault, 1978). The power of this pederasty discourse constructs the ‘abominable subject’, especially if connected to a teacher or school leader. This subject is associated with moral deficiency and social abasement, hence the trepidation of participants to be aligned with the word.
The word terrorist, and associated words terrorism, Islam and others, are highlighted in this study as emerging in use in school settings. They are emotively charged and respondents, similarly to the use of the word nigger, respond immediately to their use. Student use of the words is either in a good-humoured, jocular manner or as an insulting slur. According to respondents some students are aware of the ‘taboo- ness’ of the terms. The discourse surrounding terrorism classifies and separates, in turn contributing to the production of power relations within society (Elliott & Lemert, 2014). In addition, by classifying terms and words such as terrorist, Islam and others as negative within the discourse, the classification gives the discourse more power (Foucault, 1980).
Finally, the last -IST trigger word discussed that is being used in school settings is trannie. The students use the word as an insult and regard the word as taboo. Analysis demonstrates temporality in use and taboo-ness levels. Respondents suggest emotive and controversial responses from students in regard to use of the word trannie, but also advocate immediate response in relation to students using the word.
It is clear from the analysis of the data that school leaders and teachers are responding to and disciplining the -IST words more stringently than - according to the current study’s data - the older, more outdated, often more frequently used words, such as bloody, shit, hoe/whore, homo, bitch, prick, piss, screw, arse/arsehole/ass, damn,
218 Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change
FFS, oh my god, and acronyms omg, fuck, motherfucker, bullshit, bitch, and root. As a caveat, data do not show that respondents never respond to and discipline these more frequently used words, only that responses are not as consistent as with the -IST words and terms. This response and reaction of disciplining the -IST words is assisting and facilitating the change in language. The more society creates taboo subjects, the more taboo the words associated with those subjects become. The more the associated words are disciplined, restricted, punished, and outlawed, the more taboo the words become (Bergen, 2016). In sum, the more tabooed the words and associated discourses of the -IST culture become, the more powerful the words and associated discourses become.
Chapter 6: Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change 219
Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use
The previous chapter explored teacher and school leader definitions of terms relating to boundaried language, showing inconsistency in understandings and definitions. Chapter 6 also included insights into changing words and responses, finding that responses are in line with changing taboos. The aim of this third data chapter is to explore a more intimate perspective of the teachers and school leaders in this study in connection with boundaried language use in school contexts. Additionally, the chapter aims to explore how the teachers and school leaders’ responses have changed over time, and to address the third sub-question: how do teachers and school leaders constitute themselves in response to taboo language and swearing use, and has the response changed over time?
The chapter highlights more personal reflections from teachers and school leaders and will employ aspects of Foucault’s objectifying and subjectifying of the subject (Foucault, 1982) to examine how the staff are constituting themselves in response to the taboo language and swearing discourse, and the influences of the language use in school contexts over time. Objectification, which transfers human beings into subjects, occurs in three ways: first through inquiry and discursive practices (Foucault, 1982), for example by classifying, analysing, normalising, and disciplining (Danaher et al., 2000). This first mode employs forms of knowledge and ways of speaking about humans in certain domains (Dahlager, 2010); for example, the school leader is classified and normalised differently to the teacher or student. The second mode is objectivising the subject through dividing practices; in this instance, such as the teacher who uses taboo language and swearing with or at students as opposed to the teacher who abstains. The third mode relates to how the subject through self- inspection or self-regulation, becomes a subject (Foucault, 1982); the way the teachers and school leaders objectify themselves through modes of action such as analysing or self- reflecting. A more in-depth discussion is found in Chapter 3, Section 3.6. This chapter elaborates in Section 7.1 on teacher and school leaders’ perceptions of personally directed taboo language and swearing - or boundaried language76 - from students, with reflections in
76 The term boundaried language will be used in this chapter for ease of reading to denote the terms swearing and taboo language. See Chapter 5 for definition.
220 Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use
Section 7.2 of responsibilitisation (Rose, 1999) connected to the language use. It then proceeds in Section 7.3 with a discussion relating changes in teacher and school leader responses to boundaried language use in school contexts. Analysis outlines and explains issues of aggression in student linguistic behaviour and associated fear from teachers and school leaders in Section 7.4. The chapter then examines inconsistency and variance in boundaried language use by Physical Education (PE) and Manual Arts (MA) teachers and school leaders, as well as issues relating to use of boundaried language in these contexts in Section 7.5. Section 7.6 continues with an in-depth discussion around school teachers and leaders’ gendered experiences and expectations. The chapter concludes with a discussion connecting all aspects of data concerning how school leaders and teachers are constituting themselves in response to boundaried language use.
Findings indicate participants’ responses have changed over time, with data showing boundaries and tolerance levels have changed in school contexts. Moreover, school boundaries are not adapting to wider linguistic boundaries.
7.1 OFFENSE AND DISRESPECT: PERCEPTIONS OF PERSONALLY DIRECTED LANGUAGE
This section outlines perceptions of personally directed language, one of the issues teachers and school leaders negotiate in responding to boundaried language use in school contexts. The interview data show that all but two of the 19 participants have been verbally abused77 by students during their teaching careers. The majority of teachers and school leaders who have been verbally abused share feelings of offense, shock, intimidation, discomfort, outrage and being disrespected. They problematise this behaviour and link the boundaried linguistic behaviour to lack of respect, teacher responsibility, and more personal insult.
Only two participants share they have not been the victim of personally directed boundaried language use. Caroline stipulates that students have said, for example, “this is shit” and not “you are shit”, which, for Caroline, makes a difference – her “will to truth” (Foucault, 1997, p. xxix) in reflecting on the behaviour is that she does not regard this as swearing directed at her. Reg shares, “it’s never happened, I create expectations – I don’t
77 This includes both swearing and taboo language.
Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use 221
accept it”. Reg clearly articulates his mode of subjection (Foucault, 1990) in the way he accepts and recognises his moral obligation of setting the correct example to his students.
The remaining participants however, share numerous instances where students have used boundaried language directed at them. Additionally, participants share instances of online linguistic abuse as well as personally directed boundaried language use by parents. Table 7.1 shows some of the expressions directed at the participants by students78.
Table 7.1 Examples of expressions directed at participants
Participants use emotive words, difference, mitigating factors, and personal reflection in their communication regarding personally directed boundaried language (See Figure 7.1). In the first representation, most participants use emotively descriptive words in sharing their perspective regarding how they feel when students direct boundaried language at them: “really upset, offended, disrespected, shocked, very attacked, confronting, rude, really uncomfortable, affronted, intimidated, appalled, disgusted, and outrage”. Many of the expressive words used to describe how they feel are accompanied with adverbial intensifiers such as really and very, aimed to strengthen the intent (Parrott, 2010). These data demonstrate that teachers and school leaders dislike being sworn at in their workplace and feel affronted, offended, and disrespected when it occurs. For them, the behaviour contrasts
78 Many of the participants shared similar wording choices, for example, many participants share ‘fuck off’ and ‘fuck you’- these have been listed only once.
222 Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use
with society’s expected codes of behaviour (Foucault, 1990) relating to ‘the teacher as professional’.
The second representation demonstrates contrast and difference where participants add supplementary comments that show contrast in their responses. One of the participants shares emotive language but then adds that she feels “hypocritical” because she also “swears”. However, she adds, her boundaried language is never directed at anyone and never occurs in a school setting. Caroline recognises her moral obligation as ‘responsible teacher’- her mode of subjection, and refraining from using boundaried language in the workplace is her means by which she changes herself to become an ethical subject. It is her form of elaboration of ethical work (Foucault, 1990). A second participant suggests he treats an incident where a student directs boundaried language at him like “water off a duck’s back”, but later responds that “it is difficult”. His self-reflection is evident in this comment: he is attempting to highlight his professionalism as teacher with the first comment but later reflects on his vulnerability. Last, Claudia is upset, affronted and the language use is “rude”; yet with special needs students, “I take it with a grain of salt”, showing a change in attitude dependent on context. Claudia sets contextual boundaries within the ethical substance (Foucault, 1990). These contrasting reactions from participants demonstrate the difference and contrast evident in their responses. Additionally, the responses evidence a level of self- inspection and self-regulation in responding to boundaried language use in school contexts.
Figure 7.1. Participant reflection representations of personally directed boundaried language.
Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use 223
Continuing with the issue of self-inspection and contemplation (Foucault, 1997), a few participants use more personal reflections in their discussion. “I feel like I’m sacrificing myself”, using a mental process type with I feel and “I try to be a role model”, using personal reflection to note teacher responsibility and comparative behaviours. Similarly, Reg aligns his comments with teacher responsibility, suggesting he feels disappointed that the students “have been let down” by their families and society, which includes the education institution. Trevor notes he would prefer to be punched in the face than experience students swearing directly at him. His comment clearly shares his personal offense at being part of the linguistic interaction. Some participants supplement their discussions about students swearing at them with comments such as, “I try not to take it personally”; however these are always supplementary comments, usually after sharing personal, more emotive perceptions regarding the insults. The participants are sharing the division in their reflections; as professionals they still feel responsible for the linguistic behaviour but try not to take it personally.
Some participants demonstrate their dissatisfaction about transgressed linguistic boundaries and behaviour by using intertextuality. They share more assertive comments contrasting teacher behaviour with student behaviour: “…there’s no need to swear in front of me ya know I’m not swearing with you”; and “…because I’m not paid to listen to that. I’m not allowed to swear at you, you’re not allowed to swear at me”. The respondents demonstrate intertextuality by implicitly linking to the Standard of Practice for Teachers79 (Queensland Government, 2016e) to reinforce their message about acceptable language practice. Trevor also demonstrates intertextuality by referencing government standards and contracts by referring to workplace health and safety guidelines:
The use of intertextuality and the reference to standards of teacher practice indicate teacher connection with genres of governance - policy documents - but also reflects the
79 As discussed in Chapter 1 (Section 1.2), the Standard of Practice outlines and specifically mentions no swearing for teachers in the vicinity of students.
224 Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use
classification of teacher as respected and respectable professional. These participants show a conflict between what is expected of them as ‘responsible teacher or school leader’ from society, from the institution, and what they feel as a person.
7.2 RESPONSIBILISATION: TEACHER AT FAULT VS ‘LUCKY’ TEACHER
In constituting themselves in response to the boundaried language discourse, the teachers and school leaders demonstrate another conflict - between fault and luck. Responsibilisation is a way of disciplining institutions and people using a “moral form” (Rose, 1999, p. 26), invoking images of what is considered to be the ‘good citizen’. It is a form of micro-managing; making citizens responsible for the maintenance of a society’s need for security, order, health and productivity (p. 174). The strategy of responsibilisation entails social responsibility becoming personal, the onus falling on the subject alone (T. Lemke, 2000; Rose & Miller, 1992). Responsibilisation becomes integrated through, amongst other things, genres of governance - the policy documents provided by the educational institutions; and they become part of the expectations of ‘the responsible teacher’.
Aspects of responsibilisation are evident in participant responses regarding student linguistic confrontations with boundaried language. Some teachers feel responsible for the confrontation and believe it is their fault – they are not practising efficiently and effectively as a ‘responsible teacher/school leader’.
A few of the participants use the words “my fault”, while others imply culpability, such as Ryan with the use of the modal verb may which expresses possibility, taking responsibility for the student’s outburst. He adds an idiomatic expression, “egged the student on”, which creates the idea that the school leader was inciting the student to do something irresponsible. The addition of “too much” solidifies the idea that the expectation was excessive.
Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use 225
A few of the respondents imply personal fault with explanations that student responses occur because of teacher expectations around school work: Adele’s comment about the student not handing in certain work resulting in a verbal assault after she confronts him; Ryan connecting unacceptable linguistic comments with having to give students work, causing the student frustration. Some participants justify student linguistic behaviour; for example, Ryan shares, “they just get frustrated”; and Robert, “they had a reason”. Here again the participants identify a division between what is expected of them as ‘responsible teacher/school leader’ and the results from their efforts - the student’s use of directed boundaried language.
Additionally, a response from Nahlah, an acting deputy principal, suggests teacher fault. Her response using the words, “some teachers get into situations”, suggests the teachers have control of the situation and that they have a choice in the verbal interaction. Nahlah’s response positions fault with teachers. This type of ‘dividing practice’ (Foucault, 1982) establishes difference between school leader and teacher; the ‘teacher at fault’ as opposed to the more ‘capable deputy principal’.
Not only do participants communicate fault but also share a sense of good fortune regarding personally directed boundaried language use. Some feel they are lucky because they have limited language confrontations. The language they use supports their feeling of good fortune: “yeah, I was quite lucky, I’m very lucky my classes are very good, I was lucky enough, been fairly lucky” and “I’ve been very lucky”. Adele shares that she is lucky because she has been given advice by an older colleague to avoid being physically and verbally intimidated by students; Lola is lucky that she has “good classes with regard to behaviour management”; Reg shares his luck with “obviously taught at the right places”; while Ryan believes he is fairly lucky “that I haven’t been told where to go a fair few more times”.
226 Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use
The participants combine a tension between being ‘at fault’ when a student swears at them and ‘being very lucky’ that it either happens less than other people because they are in the right class/school/area, or lucky that they have been taught skills to keep them from being intimidated when the confrontation does occur. Responses hint at the dividing practices mentioned by Foucault regarding objectivising of the subject (1982). The subject/teacher is being divided inside himself or being divided by others; colleagues, other staff members, and students. The participants are labelling, classifying themselves ‘at fault’, or being labelled, classified ‘at fault’ by others.
7.3 CHANGED RESPONSES: ARGUMENT IS WAR
In sharing how they constitute themselves in response to boundaried language use, participants demonstrate ambivalence, apathy, and frustration. Additionally, they document change in language use and elaborate on teacher/school leader response over time80. For participants the boundaried language used by students has increased in use over their schooling careers and they share a frustration and annoyance at having to respond to the linguistic use in school contexts. The boundaried language is being used more now than previously 81, making teachers and school leaders frustrated - leading to ambivalence and apathy.
Metaphor use is pervasive in language, action, and thought, and governs everyday functioning. Concepts structure what we perceive and how we relate to the environment;
80 Chapter 6 discussed changing language and changing responses to specific words, whereas this section of Chapter 7 elaborates in more detail personal perspectives of teacher responses to the language change in school contexts.
81 Differing perceptions are noted from teachers and school leaders in some non-government schools. Participants from the two all-girl non-government schools in this study reflect that the girls do not use much swearing or taboo language openly in school contexts. If it does occur, the student apologises and “shows remorse”. Additionally, at the all-girl non- government schools in this study, the language is never directed at anyone as far as participants are aware. The boys’ non- government schools are different however, with boys using taboo language and swearing with fellow students, and around staff, on occasion. Participants who have taught at both government and non-government schools usually make differentiation between schools and students when being interviewed and these differences have been documented in the discussion.
Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use 227
therefore assist in defining the everyday reality for people (G. Lakoff & Johnsen, 1980). Metaphoric use is present in participants’ transcriptions, which aids in analysis. The conceptual metaphor of “ARGUMENT IS WAR” (G. Lakoff & Johnsen, 1980, p. 4) is reflected by participants. The ‘argument’ is performed, understood and alluded to in terms of war. For example, when an argument is won or lost, the people taking part in the argument are opponents, one may lose or gain ground, strategies are planned, and positions can be defended, abandoned, or a new line of attack can be outlined. Participants in this study perceive responses to boundaried language use by students as similar to going into battle; responding to boundaried language use in school contexts is war. The ARGUMENT IS WAR metaphor is clear in participant transcripts when elaborating on responses in school contexts. Vocabulary and clauses such as, “battle, freedom, which hill do you want to die on today, the fight, escalated, sympathy, empathy, bashed out, deteriorated, pick your battles, so many rights” all demonstrate the “everyday reality” (p. 3) for participants82. Dealing and responding to unacceptable language in the form of boundaried language is compared to war.
The main representation evident is temporality, which clearly defines change over time. The participants compare the extent students used the language when they began their teaching careers to what extent the language is used currently and how their responses have changed.
Participant discussion moves from the past, “was a time, 15 years ago, told, knew, over the years, had a belief, was a suspend-able offence” to the present, “I don’t notice it, it feels like, I think, I feel, which they do”. However, the most noticeable representation of time occurs in the aspect of verbs, with more perfect and progressive present tense use such as, “you’ve been teaching, have been relaxed, are taking, has adapted, has done, are seeing”. The perfect aspect in the tense system creates links between two time periods, in this instance
82 Referring to participants at government schools and non-government boys’ schools.
228 Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use
the current time and the past time in the participants’ careers. The progressive tense suggests a continuous aspect, where the activity is still in action or taking place but viewed from a specific point in time (Parrott, 2010). The participants are reflecting on current trends and responses connecting change in use by using progressive tense. These relations between past and present represent change, not only linguistic change but also as part of social change (Fairclough, 2003).
Linguistic features contributing to the representation of time in these excerpts are the use of adverbs of time: “now, when, nowadays, still, probably, more now, back, whenever, and ever again”, but also adjectives and nouns: “longer, day and night, every time, any time, over the years, constant, older, transition, hours in the day, and for hours”. The linguistic features in these texts link with representation of time but also represent quantity, with words such as, “less, increase, greatly, quite often, only one, more, constant, every single student, enough, more common, more, biggest issue, everybody, half my population, generous, escalated, number one thing, everything and decreased”. The textual elements from participant responses show the change in use over time but also demonstrate an escalation or increase in the use of boundaried language in school contexts.
Participants share that boundaried language use at school has changed in use over time; more importantly, they share that it has escalated in use83. Their frustration lies in several areas: First, participants express that boundaries have changed in school contexts. Personal teacher and school leader boundaries have changed as well as personal tolerance levels. These personal changes lead to the consequences for using unacceptable language being changed. Previously, swearing at or near a teacher would have received more severe
83 Not including non-government girls’ schools in this study.
Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use 229
outcomes than currently. Ryan explains it is “restorative justice or something like that” where the child is asked “what did you do, what were you thinking? and that sort of stuff”. Additionally, participants suggest school boundaries have not adapted to changed societal boundaries.
Second, parents and society accept the change in language use. Hallah shares that a teacher cannot confront a student on their linguistic choices because “you’d be the only one. You’d be the voice crying in the wilderness if you said stop it”. The language use by students has become “normalised” and those in leadership positions, such as teachers and school leaders who are attempting to boundary the language, are finding it difficult to monitor.
Third, the language use at schools84 is constant - the common discourse amongst students. Participants express frustration that students are using the language to such an extent. Students have “more freedom in swearing”; even though they know the words are taboo, they still choose to use the language. Students are not learning where and when it is appropriate to use boundaried language, so they use it constantly. The constant use makes it difficult for teachers and school leaders to monitor and address, resulting in ambivalence and apathy.
Finally, school leaders share that because students85 are using the language frequently, they cannot suspend or punish all who offend.
84 Other than the non-government girls’ schools in this study. 85 Not including students from non-government girls’ schools in this study.
230 Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use
In summary, participants suggest that boundaried language use by students at schools is becoming much more prevalent. The language use has become normalised, accepted more by parents and society - including personal tolerance levels of teachers; and, finally, the consequences of using boundaried language at school are not strong enough. The prevalence and acceptability of the boundaried language in the broader language environment is making the task of responding to the language use difficult for the participants. Teachers and school leaders are at war and share feelings of frustration, ambivalence, and apathy.
7.4 AGGRESSION AND FEAR
Another aspect of how teachers and school leaders constitute themselves in response to the boundaried language is with fear and intimidation. The participant interview data reveal a subtle but ever-present undercurrent of fear and aggression; fear on the part of participants and aggression regarding targeted behaviour and boundaried language use by students. The following discussion focuses on this aggression from students and underlying fear experienced by participants regarding the boundaried language use. Both government and non-government school participants are mentioned in this section; those participants teaching at non-government girls’ schools in the study are relating to previous interactions at other schools, usually government schools. Although the participants do not directly specify aggression in some of these texts, their linguistic choices, the use of hyponymy – meaning inclusion, synonymy – meaning identity, and antonymy – meaning exclusion, all lexicalise the discourse of aggression (Fairclough, 2003).
Participant reflections offer significant insight into considerations around aggression and fear. Vocabulary used, such as “aggression, aggressive language, cool off, calm down, walk away, leave alone, try to diffuse, threatened and intimidated” demonstrate the tension evident. Participants use mental process types in their discussions, for example, I feel, when discussing personal confrontations with students; personal reflections of feeling, “threatened, uncomfortable, intimidated, terrified, unsettled, offended, attacked, nervous”, and “scared”. In addition, participants use intensifiers to grade meaning and emotional
Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use 231
content, such as really aggressive and very, very attacked. Repetition of the intensifier increases the effect of the intensifier as well as the emotional meaning (Straker, 2010). Table 7.2 consolidates lexicalisations from the data connected to aggression and/or fear.
Table 7.2 Lexicalisations connected to aggression and/or fear
Adele’s transcript reveals a comparative separation and difference - a way of categorising and establishing difference (Foucault, 1982) - regarding aggression and underlying fear as she regales an incident during her teaching career when a male student physically and verbally confronted her. She discusses how after asking the male student where his homework was, he physically pushed her on the chest and called her “a fucking bitch”. Adele is a petite woman, which is clear in the transcript of her interview. She uses the words “short, female, younger, not very confident, smaller than him, shorter than him” when describing herself in the interaction. The words associated with the student are “really big and tall, really big, much taller than me, tall, big”. The intensifier really is used when describing the student which increases or strengthens the adjective big. No intensifiers are used when she describes her personal appearance, although she uses comparatives such as
232 Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use
smaller and shorter. Comparatives such as these are used to compare two things in terms of quantity or degree, in this case comparing how small and short she is (Parrott, 2010).
Contrast continues and is evident in Adele’s response, Table 7.3, as she juxtaposes the male student as being physically intimidating to female staff with her own lack of confidence and her youth. She further contrasts his actions – the fact that he physically pushed her – with the fact that he could have hurt her if he chose to. The interaction continues with differences; however, the text focuses more on her perspective, with “I didn’t do anything”, contrasted with the way she felt, “I did feel intimidated, this really intimidating thing”, and again, “I did feel intimidated”. Continuing her focus on self, she shares that she told the student to step away which she contrasts with “and he did”. A telling clause continues with, “when I calmed down”, explaining her emotional state, she contrasts with, “I reported it” – taking charge of her actions. Evidence of her fear and unease is noted in her comment, “Sometimes I get a bit you know, I think it’s happened many times behind my back”. Adele concludes the contrasts and differences in this excerpt by re-framing her attention back to the present school where she works. She again notes the size of the boys she teaches but adds the contrast that they are much better behaved. Analysis demonstrates clear intimidation and fear in Adele’s communication, but also includes self- reflection on her current situation; she is “turning [her] gaze upon itself… to recall the truths that issue…. to contemplate” (Foucault, 1997, p. 285).
Table 7.3 Contrast and difference in Adele’s transcript
Aggression and fear or intimidation are not only problematised by the female participants in this study. NVIVO, the qualitative data analysis computer software, identified that Robert uses 32 counts of the words aggression or aggressive during his interview. In
Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use 233
addition, Spencer and Trevor also use the terms. Other words such as “threatening, anger, intimidating, nervous” and “frustration” are also used by male participants. Robert shares that when he was younger, he felt “nervous” and “yes it was scary stuff to be sworn at”; but now that he is older, he does not feel uncomfortable, “unless there’s an aggressive side to it”. Robert later contrasts this with, “swearing is often associated with some other aggressive behaviour”, which demonstrates a tension in the two comments. On the one hand Robert is ‘not uncomfortable’ with personally directed swearing, but implies that he is uncomfortable if there is an aggressive side to the linguistic confrontation. On the other hand, he later confirms that swearing is often associated with aggressive behaviour – a form of self- reflection is occurring, discovering the boundaries of his own “game of truth” (Foucault, 1997, p. 297). Robert is using a set of rules, his own rules, to produce his truth.
A different male perspective, that of Ryan, adds that most occasions of aggressive language are due to anger issues and shares that usually if the anger or aggression is directed at a teacher it is highlighted as concerning, but if it happens amongst students then “unfortunately we put it down as banter”. The comment alludes to an underlying approach that if aggression is directed toward fellow students it is not as concerning as if directed to a staff member. Ryan’s comment highlights Foucault’s first mode of objectification, that being discursive practices. Here the power boundaries are clear and a differentiation evident with the ‘privilege or exclusive right’ of the language use (Foucault, 1972) between student and teacher ‘right’.
In their discussions connected to aggression or aggressive interactions, most participants connect aggression and aggressive linguistic behaviour with boys and males. All incidences of participants discussing aggressive interactions were analysed focusing on representation of social actors. Table 7.4 demonstrates the balance in actor representation in participant reflections concerning aggression and aggressive language.
234 Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use
Table 7.4 Actor representation concerning aggression and aggressive language
Social actors are represented here in various ways: first, included either directly, or excluded by suppression, or by being backgrounded. The boy/males are usually included directly with girls/females excluded, suppressed or backgrounded as not relevant to the discussion. Second, pronouns are used, he, him, his, he’d, when representing males/boys. Females/girls are not realised with pronouns. Third, actors are named and classified. The actors are named as individuals, “the boy, the kid, the child”; represented as a group, “boys, mates, little boys, those boys, kids, the students, all girls, a group of girls”; while others are referred to by category, “the son, the father, a male teacher, old school male, his friends, indigenous boys, the student, kids, the child, all girls”, and so forth. Lastly, actor representation is effected by means of impersonal classification, with “an unsettling guy, old school male”. Impersonal classification removes the person’s focus, and dehumanises them (Fairclough, 2003). All actor representations suggest aggressive linguistic behaviour occurs predominantly with male students.
The participants’ lexical choices also allude to student language choices being part of a bigger problem: “and that’s the bigger issue, not necessarily the language issue, that’s because there’s been a bigger issue”, “so... but like I said most of that’s around a bigger issue”, and “the whole language thing is caught up in actually a broader picture”. The participants do not elaborate on what the ‘broader issue’ or ‘bigger issue’ is in these excerpts86.
86 This ‘bigger problem’ is highlighted in Chapter 8 as an area for future research.
Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use 235
Participants share how they diffuse classroom situations when incidents of aggression are recorded by using linguistic choices such as, “get rid of the student, send him away, try and diffuse the situation, the anger… I don’t want to exacerbate that, take a minute to calm down, we’re trying to diffuse things, a cool down period for that student, student taken out, calm down, ask them to leave, go settle down”. According to these data participants respond to linguistic aggression by separating the student from the context for two reasons: to allow the student to “calm down” and to prevent further aggravation – “I don’t want to exacerbate that”. Participants as ‘responsible teachers/school leaders’ are using separation techniques and dividing practices (Foucault, 1975) to respond to aggressive linguistic behaviour. Separating and dividing the ‘body’ from other students; “the body becomes a useful force… the body is directly involved in a political field; power relations have an immediate hold upon it” (Foucault, 1975, pp. 25,26). The separation techniques, however, are being used as a mode of subjectivation for the teachers/school leaders, who are required to protect both the verbally aggressive student as well as the other students in their care, so they relate to ‘the rule’ of the responsible teacher/school leader, recognise their obligation to put that rule into practice, and therefore separate the students (Foucault, 1997).
7.5 VARIANCE AND INCONSISTENCY: DIVIDING PRACTICES
Teachers constitute themselves in responding to boundaried language use differently depending on school context and teacher subjectivity. The following section discusses these differences. Many of the participants mention variance in school contexts regarding language boundaries for students, teachers and/or school leaders. These variances relate to the Physical Education (PE), coaching environments, and Manual Arts (MA) departments in schools. Intertextual analysis highlights five areas of difference: First, Physical Education/Manual Arts teachers and school leaders, as well as coaches, tend to swear more around and at students in these contexts. Second, the boundaries are blurred because the teachers and coaches use boundaried language on the field or on weekends at extracurricular activities, with some allowing the same language in their classrooms, while others demand different boundaries. Alternatively, third, teachers, coaches and school leaders accept more boundaried language by students in these contexts than they do in the classroom context. Fourth, participant comments suggest the language use is ‘acceptable’ in the PE/MA/coaching contexts. Finally, participants discuss boundaried language use in the PE teacher staffroom as being excessive.
236 Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use
7.5.1 PE/MA Teachers and Leaders Swear More During interviews it became apparent that the PE, sports coaching, and MA teaching areas have different boundaries regarding teacher and school leader boundaried language use around students.
When describing boundaried language use in PE and MA areas the participants make use of textual discourse markers by using adverbs of degree or focusing adverbs, “mainly, certainly, especially, definitely, absolutely”. The adverbs of degree in this case work as intensifiers which express absoluteness that certain teachers, PE and MA teachers, use certain boundaried language – absolutely. The adverbs certainly and definitely - adverbs of certainty, demonstrate that participants using the adverbs are sure of their comments regarding PE and MA teachers/leaders. The focusing adverb mainly points the listener to one aspect of the clause the PE teachers, male PE teachers. Finally, especially is used to mean ‘above all’ as a focusing adverb to focus on the PE teachers. The use of all these adverbs directs the listener to the use of boundaried language by PE and MA teachers/school leaders.
Mention is made of predominantly male PE teachers/school leaders using taboo language or swearing in front of or at students, “I’m going to pin it mainly on the PE teachers, male PE teachers with male PE students”, and “um not necessarily talking about female PE teachers, but male PE teachers, how many times we’ve heard male teachers, especially sports teachers, HPE teachers say…, Alpha male types” and “these youngish sorts of guys”.
Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use 237
Participant reflection on PE and MA teachers/school leaders using boundaried language around and at students is not viewed as ‘acceptable’ by most of the participants. Disapproval by participants is noted with vocabulary such as, “the liberties are taken, the gift of the gab, they’re a law unto themselves, the kind of cynical conversation seems to be fine for them, well I have strong views on that, well there is no place for it because number one we’re educators”, and “I don’t agree with that at all”. A number of participants who are in the coaching/PE/MA area are not as reproachful, suggesting, “very acceptable now, but in only a particular context, like, we’re on the field, except maybe amongst the footballers, uh the football team they would do that, that’s a different situation, I don’t have a problem with that myself” and “you kinda just roll with it”. There is a clear divide between subject positions in the school, the ‘PE/MA teacher/coach’ as opposed to the ‘responsible teacher’, and who has the accepted and expected ‘privilege or exclusive right’ to use boundaried language according to the ‘internal rules’ of the institution (Foucault, 1972).
7.5.2 Blurred Boundaries The second point highlighted in variance is the fact that PE and MA teachers and school leaders are using boundaried language at and around students and/or do not discipline language transgressions in their workspaces. The use of boundaried language in both circumstances blurs the boundaries for students, making them unsure as to what language they can and cannot use in school contexts.
Spencer mentions the fact that the younger students hear the older students swearing when they leave the MA workshops and the language is accepted by the teacher, yet in other areas of the school, “we’re telling them not to swear”. Spencer contrasts the problem of the MA teachers with another problem – that it is difficult to hire MA teachers. In addition, he adds a further problem: that people from “those trade backgrounds” use boundaried language. Intertextual interaction in Spencer’s text analysis reveals his frustration; his textual interaction is littered with problems such as those mentioned previously, but he fails to add solutions (Hoey, 2013).
Thomas, also a school leader, adds his frustration with accounts of PE teachers using boundaried language at and around students during “co-curricular activities, on the field, on
238 Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use
the sporting field and on the weekend”, and “on the courts”. He recounts instances where he hears swearing through his office window which overlooks the sporting areas, only to note that it is the teacher or coach using the language - in his words, “so it’s pretty prevalent”. In addition, Thomas adds teachers and coaches behave linguistically in a certain way on weekends or during cocurricular activities which results in a binary effect. First, “what they allow on the sporting field after school and on the weekend tends to flow into their classroom as well… they allow a lot more of that to occur in their class”, and second, the dual action of teachers/coaches/school leaders using boundaried language in the sporting context is conflicting with linguistic expectations in the classroom.
The fact that mostly male PE and MA teachers/coaches/school leaders are using boundaried language at and around students is causing blurring of appropriate linguistic boundaries in school contexts for students. In addition, fellow teaching staff demonstrate disapproval and judgment of PE, MA staff and coaches’ use of boundaried language at or around students. Participants’ reflections also suggest linguistic boundaries have more flexible responses in the PE/MA/ coaching contexts, as seen in the following section.
7.5.3 Staff Accept more Boundaried Language from Students on the Field Five of the participants were either in the PE, MA, or coaching arena in their respective schools. These participants’ responses regarding language boundaries in the PE/MA/coaching areas reflect that language boundaries change in these contexts, as well as some participants’ acceptance of transgressions. Participants suggest that students “get a bit carried away” when playing sport or doing physical activity; “swearing definitely increases in a practical environment as opposed to four walls”. Students are using more unacceptable boundaried language in the sporting and workshop environments.
Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use 239
Responses to student linguistic transgression in these areas differ with PE participants. Francis shows high expectation regarding linguistic boundaries for herself and for her students, she is confident in her mode of subjection as ‘responsible teacher’. She reminds students the PE area is her working space and a learning space, additionally, that she has to control what she says around the students therefore so should they. Other participants do not have as strict boundaries as Francis. Thomas and Lucy suggest more linguistic flexibility with the students, as well as personally.
Francis shares her conflict because other teachers/coaches use boundaried language with or at students, for example, “what the eff are you doing?” or “pick up your effing game” and these ‘other’ teachers think “that’s perfectly acceptable”. Her reflection evidences her conflict.
Participant textual analysis displays differentiation between school areas. The PE/MA/coaches use differentiation between area and use of language. The social process of classification and categorisation, in this case of area and language use, shapes how the participants think and act; what they accept and where (Fairclough, 2003). Textual indications regarding differentiation of area are: “rugby field, football field, sporting field,
240 Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use
workshop, this side, courts, outside, PE environment, co-curricular environment, practical environment, classroom, four walls, class, school, jobsite, school camp setting”. Differentiation in language is indicated with, “depends how it’s used, how I normally talk on the weekend at a game, have that conversation, I’m not allowed to swear, whereas a weekend coach might swear, coaches saying, I have heard them, I wouldn’t say it in class, I’d have to be on the rugby field, the occasional swearword here and there”. Diverse areas align with different language expectations and different boundaries. Hidden rules are evident in the data but not evident to students and the ‘other’ staff in school contexts.
7.5.4 Assumed Acceptance in Certain Environs The fourth area of note regarding the use of boundaried language in PE, MA, and coaching arenas is the assumed acceptance of the use of the language in these areas. Assumptions are marked or ‘triggered’ by certain linguistic features of texts (Levinson, 1983). The triggers – such as definite articles, those kinds; verbs such as tolerated, accepted, thought to be – are all triggers in the text marking assumptions. Fairclough describes propositional assumptions as those assumptions about what is, can be or will be the case; existential assumptions about what exists triggered by definite articles; and value assumptions as those concerning what is good or desirable, usually triggered by certain verbs (2003, pp. 55, 56).
Adeline shares the propositional assumption that boundaried language use in PE and coaching arenas is accepted because “in those kinds of sporting or cocurricular environments …there’s a pre-established understanding”; and Lucy comments, “no holds barred, everything’s accepted there”. Lucy, a rugby coach, shares: “it’s a little bit different being on the field, a little bit more is tolerated”, and “bullshit... coaches would use it… it is thought to be quite acceptable”. Thomas adds with his assumptions that there is “more allowance in there [PE environment] than I suppose in the confines of four walls”.
Robert makes comparisons about where boundaried language use is appropriate and where not. He describes PE staff and environments as “a mini-culture and it’s more or less expected”, and continues with the propositional assumption, “the kids understand that that’s how it is in that situation… you know, football or a sporting situation”. Thomas also uses the culture as support for the use of boundaried language in PE environments, with “I suppose yeah it’s just that cultural thing”, as does Nahlah, “It’s a culture, sport. And that
Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use 241
culture of sport and probably trade and the military, those cultures embrace ways of speaking”.
These assumptions are “maintaining and modifying the appropriation of discourse, fixing and qualifying roles for the speakers” (Foucault, 1972, p. 227) - in this case PE and MA teachers, school leaders, and coaches; and normalising the boundaried language use by these subject actors in these contexts. The assumptions that boundaried language use is expected, accepted, and part of the culture in PE, MA and coaching arenas blends into the next area of note, being language use in PE staffrooms.
7.5.5 PE Staffrooms Participants reflect on the use of boundaried language in PE staffrooms as being prolific and highly offensive.
Participants use contrastive semantic relations when discussing boundaried language use in PE staffrooms to explain the linguistic levels of use. Penny compares the language use to that of the students in the playgrounds, and Adele compares what the language would be like in a PE staffroom to what she might hear if she were a fly on the wall. Penny uses determiners that specify extent, every word and all used, with the addition of specifying who is using the language - that staff. Adele uses descriptive words, very amazing things, in describing the language used by specific staff in certain areas; the PE staffroom and these people. Like Penny, she is specific in labelling who is using the language but also uses an intensifying adverb with a non-gradable adjective to describe the language, very amazing.
A more thorough discussion ensues in 7.6.3 regarding boundaried language use in school staffrooms. However, in summary, participant reflections share the accepted but not always acceptable use of boundaried language in and around PE and MA areas by mostly male staff and by students. The use of boundaried language by staff and permitted use by students lends to blurred understandings of boundaries of where and when boundaried language can be used. Additionally, the language use in certain contexts and certain areas
242 Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use
qualifies certain speaking roles for certain subjects, that being the male PE/MA teacher/school leader or coach.
7.6 GENDER EXPERIENCES AND EXPECTATION: DIVIDING PRACTICES
Teachers and school leaders constitute themselves differently in responding to boundaried language depending on their gender. Participants reveal several representations within the area of gender experiences and gender expectation: First, male legitimation, second, female ternary, and third, the tapestry of language use in the staffroom.
7.6.1 Male Legitimation - The Boys’ Club One of the main representations evident in data is the practice of male boundaried language use at schools, titled Male Legitimation. Textual analysis produces several key aspects within the representation of Male legitimation. First, boundaried language use at or around students is practised by male teachers and school leaders87. Most of the participants comment on the practice of male boundaried language use during their interviews.
Often reasoning for the boundaried language use by male staff is supplied with comments legitimising the behaviour. Legitimation is employed by systems of authority in an attempt to establish and cultivate a stronger belief in their legitimacy (Weber, 1964); and language is the vehicle for those attempts (Van Leeuwen, 2007). “Incipient legitimation is present as soon as a system of linguistic objectification of human experience is transmitted” (P. Berger & Luckmann, 1966, p. 112), and mainly takes the form of “authorization
87 Hereafter referred to as male staff members, but where relevant specific term male school leader or male teacher will be used.
Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use 243
legitimation” (Van Leeuwen, 2007, p. 92). Authorisation legitimation references tradition, law, customs, and people who are vested in some way in institutional authority.
The authority of tradition is evident textually in the data, and highlights instances both implicitly and explicitly (Van Leeuwen, 2007). Adele refers to the past, “there’s been cases in the past” of boundaried language use by male staff members that have gone un-noticed or undisciplined. Thomas compares language used by male staff between his current school and past schools, “I haven’t experienced that before”. This reference to history, time and the concept of change, plays a role in evaluation legitimation, a type of “naturalization legitimation” where practice becomes normal or naturalised in order to legitimise (p. 99) . Additionally, words such as almost expected, it’s normal, a lot more accepted, perfectly acceptable, that’s a pretty old sexist schoolboy thing, all evidence the authority of tradition and naturalisation. Legitimation answers the unspoken question ‘why’ (Van Leeuwen, 2007), and in this case, why do males use boundaried language at or around school students without repercussions? The answer evidenced in the text is ‘because this is how it has always been’, ‘what has always occurred’ – it is expected and normal. In the case of the authority of tradition, the ‘why’ is often not questioned but the rules tend to be enforced by everyone (Van Leeuwen, 2007). The behaviour becomes normalised, which is a form of social control (Foucault, 2001).
The second concern regarding the representation Male legitimation raised by participants relating to male staff members using boundaried language at or around students is that the male staff get away with it. According to participants there is no reprisal for these male staff members for crossing the linguistic boundary. The text is detailed with difference between the ‘I’ and the ‘them’.
244 Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use
Legitimation can be used to legitimise but also to de-legitimise or to critique (Van Leeuwen, 2007), which is what the participants are doing in their interactions. The participants’ textual responses suggest the majority are not in favour of male staff boundaried language use around or at students. The detailed differences between the ‘I’ and ‘them’ are implicitly comparing good (I) and bad (them); comparing and evaluating based on moral values – “moral evaluation” (p. 97). Examples of this moral evaluation in the text are, “male teachers say things to students” – morally evaluated as bad compared to “I could never say that… I would never say that” – implicitly morally evaluated as good. “Some staff members will swear heaps”, evaluated as bad, as opposed to, “If I swear heaps” implicitly suggesting I do not swear which is morally evaluated as good. Hallah’s comparison of male staff, “especially HPE teachers”, demonstrates an elevated level of moral evaluation. Hallah compares male PE teachers’ language to herself, as included in the subject position of “middle-aged woman”. One evaluation is insufficient though, so she adds an extra level to the moral evaluation in comparing amount, “how many times”, and degree, “say worse than that”.
The third issue evident regarding the representation Male legitimation concerning male staff using boundaried language at or around students is that they all belong to a certain subject type. The participants align the male staff member with a certain type of character, the young, Aussie, blokey character.
Many of the participants mention the male staff member as being “young”, from the “PE department, Australian, guys returning from Afghanistan, from the military and trades”, and “blokey”. One word that is used several times by different participants is blokey88. The use of blokey further supports the authority of tradition legitimation (Van
88 The word bloke originates as a term for a male person or a fellow, however as an adjective describes behaviour typical of a man; behaviour that is viewed as positive, and associated with attributes such as bluffness, straight forwardness and lack of affection (Ayto, 1999).
Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use 245
Leeuwen, 2007) mentioned earlier, that being, the bloke uses boundaried language, has done so for a while, and the behaviour is assumed to be acceptable - that is how it has always been. The use of the language not only bolsters his character as bloke, but simultaneously further promotes and perpetuates the assumption that it is acceptable for male staff to employ this type of discourse in school contexts, making it more, as participants suggest, “acceptable, expected”, and “normal”.
The final representation present regarding Male legitimation in the issue of male staff using boundaried language around or at students is evidenced by female participants as The Boys’ Club. Many female participants share perceptions of the gender difference in school settings; no male participants comment directly on The Boys’ Club.
The female participants use gender difference and old school patriarchy (Gangoli, 2017) as de-legitimation for male staff using boundaried language to and around students. A common method of expressing moral evaluation is in the form of analogy (Van Leeuwen, 2007). With analogies, the implicit legitimation question why, specifically in this case, ‘why do male staff use boundaried language with no repercussions?’, is answered with, ‘because it is like another activity that is morally comparative’. In analogy,
an activity that belongs to one social practice is described by a term which, literally, refers to an activity belonging to another social practice, and the positive or negative values which, in the given socio-cultural context, are attached to that other activity, are then transferred to the original activity. (p. 99)
The social practice activity that the female participants are referring to is the historically dated activity of male hierarchy, male privilege and patriarchy. Patriarchy, the outdated activity, is a social system that promotes males to hold primary power in society, predominate in leadership positions, predominate in issues of moral authority and social control, and an actuality of privilege (Gangoli, 2017).
246 Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use
The male staff member, and especially ‘the young, blokey male PE/MA staff member’, is established through history, naturalisation, and tradition to use boundaried language at or around students. The subject position has become normalised as the position where the boundaried language use is expected and accepted.
7.6.2 Female Ternary: The Mum, The Bi-polar Bitch or The Incompetent The Boys’ Club comparison progresses and advances into much of the conversation data presented by participants, both implicitly - male participants, and explicitly - female participants, regarding how they constitute themselves in response to boundaried language use. According to female participants, The Boys’ Club infiltrates female gender expectations and gender experiences in school settings. Some male participants implicitly corroborate The Boys’ Club behaviour and attitudes and some explicitly enact and reinforce the social activity. This corroboration is highlighted in the different areas of forthcoming discussion where it aligns.
The participants share three representations for female teachers when discussing boundaried language use in secondary school settings, see Table 7.5. The three representations crystallise with other aspects of school life, not only relating to boundaried language use but also to aspects such as student attitude to teachers, and teacher control in the classroom. The three representations interconnect and integrate as: gender expectation: the mum; gender duality: the bi-polar bitch; and gender deficit: the incompetent.
Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use 247
Table 7.5 Representations of females in school context: The female ternary
Gender Expectation: The Mum Participant reflections suggest that expectation for female staff is different to that for male staff. Female teachers and school leaders are expected to be feminine, maternal, nurturing and empathetic, whereas male staff can be cynical, uncompromising, and accepting of flexible language boundaries. The gender expectation of female staff is noted by participants from all school sectors in the study89.
89 These include co-educational as well as single-sexed schools, government and non-government schools.
248 Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use
The female teacher is expected to act in a way befitting a mother - a direct contrast to what is expected of a male staff member. A male sport’s coach or PE teacher can call his students “a bunch of pussies” if the students are out on the sports field; additionally, if any of the students complain of illness or injury, it is acceptable for him to make fun of them or tell them to “suck it up”. However, the female teacher is expected to mother her students, be empathetic and understanding; female participants suggest a double standard exists.
Reflections from an all boys’ school share that for the most part the students come from affluent homes where the mothers do not work outside the home: “I don’t want to say are like a trophy wife but, they play that role for their sons”. By implication, the students have an expectation of what a female should be, how they should behave and how they should interact. If the female teacher confronts the students in a brusque manner regarding the student’s behaviour, the students react negatively because the teacher is contravening their idea of that woman – “They think it’s really distasteful”.90 However, in contrast, if the female teachers are more punctilious regarding language infringements, they are labelled as “moralisers” or “fuddy duddy”, which is a negative label attached to female teachers who are then viewed as ‘over-mothering’.
Gender Duality: The Bi-polar Bitch Female participants comment that to keep control of student behaviour they are required to have a thick skin and dual personality, a “double personality”. On the one hand,
90 The female teacher is required to employ the brusque behaviour as seen in the second representation, The Bi-polar Bitch.
Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use 249
they are the “nice” teacher, and on the other hand, the “hard-assed” teacher. Additionally, the female teacher is required to have a thick skin, because when the “hard-assed” or the “alpha dog” teacher is at work, students will label this teacher “a bitch or something like that”. A common theme apparent in all forms of behaviour management by female teachers is to “show no weakness”. Female participants show a binary in reflections regarding language infringements. Some suggest they “let language infringements go” in order to keep control of the group, while others suggest they “put their foot down” to keep control. Many female respondents share that they try to “make friends” with the students using the “nice teacher” persona. Lola sums up her language behaviour control as, “it’s like defensive driving really”. Thomas suggests that he finds more female staff “pulling the boys in line” regarding language infringements than their male counterparts, implying – as part of The Boys’ Club narrative – that it sometimes reflects on their competence. His implication comes with a comparison with the male teachers who “don’t have the same issues”.
Gender Deficit: The Incompetent A comparative effect takes place when respondents comment on female staff’s linguistic behaviour management and male linguistic behaviour management. The discussions usually begin with linguistic boundaries and how they are monitored by females, but ultimately result in a summation of overall behaviour management competence of females.
According to Thomas, female teachers “are more cautious” about what they say and how they interact around male students. The female teachers “have more of a tough time” than males, “they spend more time pulling the boys into line” than male staff, and “it tends to be the ladies who put their foot down harder than the males”. From the female perspective, participants suggest that they will try everything in their power to diffuse situations or “deal with them on my own” before requesting assistance. They also suggest “it would have to be pretty bad” before they asked for assistance from anyone at school
250 Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use
because there is an understood undercurrent of female incompetence and weakness. By asking for assistance or sharing any situations that are worthy of judgment, the male hierarchy or The Boys’ Club will perpetuate the understanding that female staff are incompetent. Incompetence is understood both in regard to linguistic infringements and more broadly, in overall behaviour management areas.
7.6.3 The Staffroom: A Tapestry of Difference and Expectation The final representation connected to gender experience and expectation in response to boundaried language is impacted by differences and expectation in the context of staffroom environments. A common theme is evident throughout participant reflections regarding swearing by school staff in staffrooms. Apart from the girls’ non-government staffrooms, respondents share that boundaried language use occurs in secondary school staffrooms. The amount of boundaried language use by staff members varies according to the staffroom and the staff frequenting the space. A binary exists, with some staff using boundaried language with the assumption that fellow staff members are accepting of the practice, especially if it is done in jest, or if the user apologises for the behaviour. The divergent observation is that some staff members refrain from boundaried language use in the staffroom and find the linguistic practice of other staff members “surprising, offensive, appalling” and “annoying”, with the suggestion and identification of the practice being labelled as unprofessional behaviour. Gender issues are highlighted with strong disparate reflections evident, many reinforcing the Boys’ Club theme mentioned in 7.6.1. The analysis signals the use of difference and contrast by participants, which, as a textual feature, serves as important evidence of social difference. This use of difference in texts operates as a valuable resource for realising social difference, because difference accentuates, suppresses, brackets or negotiates specific social aspects (Fairclough, 2003).
Teachers and school leaders from the non-government girls’ schools reflect a higher level of professionalism in their responses regarding boundaried language use in school staffrooms. Boundaried language is not used in these spaces because, as participants suggest, they share an enhanced linguistic range and are culturally and socially aware of the broader picture in society - that being, social differences of acceptability regarding linguistic practices. Reg shares causal reasoning – that he is representing his school rather than himself in his projection of self, therefore, because the school ethos projects a professional and conservative standard, so does he.
Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use 251
Participants from the other schools share perspectives with the common theme being that boundaried language use occurs in staffrooms. Some differentiation regarding quantity and levels of offensiveness is made in relation to specific staffrooms. As was discussed in 7.5.5, PE staffrooms appear to be the areas where the most boundaried language occurs and where the most offensive language occurs. Comparisons are made between different areas, different staff and different language practices.
Participants employ intertextuality by incorporating other ‘voices’, as Jessica has done, including “this young fellow” in another staffroom, which emphasises difference and division. The co-presence of other voices in the texts of specific individuals demonstrates the way people differ and “orientation to difference is fundamental to social interaction” (Fairclough, 2003, p. 41). The main emphasis is placed on the issue that some staff members choose to swear and use taboo language and others avoid the use; classification takes place regarding people and their practices (Foucault, 1982).
Discussions around the topic of boundaried language use in staffrooms include texturing of contrast and difference (Laclau & Mouffe, 1985). Contrast and difference are achieved through classification that emphasises division and difference. Four main
252 Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use
classifications are evident in all data relating to boundaried language use in staffrooms: classifications of users, classification of rationalisation, gender classification and classification of implied right and wrong. The common weave of the four classifications is detailed below.
The Users The first classification, that of the users, clearly demarcates those staff members who use boundaried language in staffrooms and those who refrain from the practice. Participants relate anecdotes of themselves using boundaried language, if they are classified as the some who use the language in the staffroom, and anecdotes of those classified as the others who do not use the language in the staffroom, see Figure 7.2.
I would swear like a trooper… I AH MY GOSH there’s a real will swear more than they’ll foulmouthed one in our swear- Jessica staffroom- Trevor Right, I swear like a trooper… I’m very conscious of what I say some people just don’t swear, and who I can and can’t say it in some people do- Kathleen front of- Francis
Figure 7.2. Demarcation of the some who use swearing contrasting with the others.
Participants use vocabulary of difference to separate users, for example: “staff, especially men, they use it, they don’t understand, we, my language, I’ve said things, some people, the Head, members of the executive, someone, women, older male teachers, woman, some male staff, another female staff member, this young fellow, they all swear, my friends, there’s a lady at our work” and “her being the worst swearer”. The participants align themselves to the ‘some’ who employ similar language to them, “we talk like that, among close colleagues that you feel comfortable with… it’s fine”, or align themselves with the ‘other’ who do not swear or use taboo language, “I would never swear in front of…, I
Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use 253
moderate my language more with…”. Some contrast and difference occur when participants suggest difference by comparing their behaviour – not using boundaried language – to the impact of others, “some older males would be really shocked” – I do not use the language because it will affect others.
Some participants who use the boundaried language use self-reflection in mentioning change in language practices. In addition, many of the respondents mention how boundaried language use by staff members has changed in their teaching careers and has increased in use, which ultimately has changed their own linguistic practices.
Representations of time and space are apparent in participant reflections on linguistic practices. In Adele’s excerpt, the tenses of verbs – started, changed – change, using the aspect of verbs such as perfect, I’ve been, I have started, and continuous or progressive, been teaching, first teaching; adverbials, now, when, never, ever, more, longer, first, and representations of space, in the staffroom, classroom, all demonstrate representations of change in time and space. Using the perfect aspect creates a link between a period of time in the past, whereas the continuous/progressive aspect suggests movement where an activity is still taking place (Parrott, 2010). Adele uses “an examination of conscience” (Foucault, 1988c, p. 234) in order to actualise the change and difference in linguistic use.
Rationalisation Somewhat aligned with the classification of the users, or the some who use boundaried language in staffrooms, is the second classification, that of justification, rationalisation and defence of use. Those who use boundaried language justify the use with, “I apologise, I check myself with others, I’m so sorry, I check in, ah sorry I said that”, validating the use with the assumption that by apologising to people around them, using the language is somehow acceptable and accepted.
254 Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use
Another form of justification by users is that boundaried language use is done in a jocular manner, therefore the assumption is that the language use is acceptable. “I swear quite a bit um in a sort of contextually funny way, over something really, really, really funny, it’s really funny, in a really funny conversation where you’re swearing and laughing, ya need those funny moments where ya swear, ya swearing and cursing”; these are comments made by participants who use boundaried language in the staffroom. Claudia, who considers the use of boundaried language by staff in school areas taboo, shares regarding a colleague of hers saying, “joking, joking thing… Yeah, so she uses it for effect and usually it’s for a laugh kind of thing”.
A third form of justification by users of boundaried language in the confines of the staffroom is that the area is considered to be a safe place where staff can relax and release tension. Expressions include, “… a safe place, … perhaps it was a sense of release, … that’s kind of where we let our hair down and we do, …the staffroom is a place for venting… It’s [swearing] an emotional and physical release and it [the staffroom] is it should be a sacred place, …we have a right to privacy …confidential, it’s our safe place to swear”. The participants who use boundaried language and share the justification of the staffroom being the safe place or the place of emotional and physical release do not reference the others who use the space for the same reasons but do not use boundaried language. Additionally, the participants do not share that the others may find the use of the boundaried language to overshadow the “safe place, the sacred place”, the place “to let their hair down”.
Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use 255
Rationalisation by the others who do not use boundaried language in the staffroom is more concealed, but judgment is clear: “people have different attitudes, so in the staffroom, NO!, gentlemen don’t swear, unacceptable in front of females, depending on who you’re with, a more professional conversation, we would never, you would never swear in the staffroom- she does, she’s rank” and “it’s appalling”. The majority of participants suggest that they use boundaried language in their personal lives, with “people I trust, trusted friends, my friends, use it but not in a public context, between each other, close colleagues”, but they have a boundary and a professional expectation, “I swear myself- I don’t swear at school, as a linguist, I can use swearing... but not as a professional in a professional context”. These participants clearly share their mode of subjection; the way they recognise their moral obligation of being ‘a respected and respectful teacher/school leader’. The participants who do not swear or use taboo language in school settings set the example as teacher/school leader; and the forms of elaboration of ethical work (Foucault, 1990) they choose are to employ self- discipline, and manipulate their body to act in a certain way, a way of not using boundaried language in school staffroom environments.
Gender91 The third classification of boundaried language use in the staffroom is gender. Contrast and contradiction are evidenced in the representation of gender and the staffroom language tapestry. The different voices of participants texture identity and some enhance the Boys’ Club notion mentioned earlier in 7.6.1. Participants separate male and female as difference in their discussions; they separate themselves as part of one community, and reference their own community, us, we, we’re, women, men, gentlemen, ,I as different and distinct from the other community, they, they’re, men, women, girls, boys, them, ladies, some older male teachers, you. The participants situate themselves in their socially structured chosen group.
A large percentage of the male participants in this study share the historic attitude that the correct practice regarding boundaried language use is that males monitor their language near females: “gentlemen don’t swear in front of women, old school if you’re around ladies,
91 The area of gender in this section is representational of Foucault’s three axes (1997); representation is concerned with knowledge but also control over things; action - relations with and on others as well as power; and last, identification- relations with oneself. These three aspects of meaning are integrated, interrelated and discrete. The aspects of gender are dialectically related, each interacting and relating to the others. Insights are considered from different perspectives to demonstrate the connections. The areas cannot be separated without interrupting the whole, therefore the following discussion incorporates representations, actions and identification.
256 Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use
you wouldn’t swear, got a filter - unacceptable in front of females, girls, I have a switch that was taught to me when I was a tradesman, I’m aware of the female, I tend not to use colourful language around women, boys are taught to behave themselves or to use a certain type of language around ladies”. Male participants, however, did share instances where they heard ‘other men’ using boundaried language in staffrooms around female staff. Some of the female participants commented on the social practice reflected by the male participants – that males should not use boundaried language amongst females – and support the behaviour: “I think the women do play a part when there’s men around”, “I think they do moderate”, and “some older male teachers would never…would be really shocked if someone swore in front of a woman”.
However, the contrast arises with some female staff who believe the male practice is anachronistic, “I get it, but I don’t really support it”. Additionally, the females who choose to use boundaried language in the staffroom around men suggest that they also moderate their language, especially when they know the male is an older male who “would be so shocked to hear a woman swear”. Furthermore, comments suggest that female users moderate in specific contexts, for example, “I moderate my language much more [around men] than among women”.
Similarly, contrast is evident with male participants commenting on female boundaried language use in school contexts. One participant relates how his male students are being disciplined and chastised for using boundaried language, yet the girls they socialise with “swear more than the boys”, and, “understandably”, the male students cannot appreciate the contradictions and congruencies. Likewise, reflections from male participants also reveal boundaried language use among female staff members with similar apparent confusion regarding boundaries.
Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use 257
The contradictions and contrasts continue with female teachers sharing anecdotes of instances in school staffrooms where male staff use boundaried language which they find offensive. Female participants reveal how they feel with, “utterly offended, pretty crass and it’s pretty full on, perplexed as to why that was okay, I got sick of it, fuck is just all over, it’s just interesting, pretty surprised, unfortunately it’s become more acceptable, really, really appalling, not totally accepted”, and “annoys me”. The undesirable evaluation is evident in female participant textual data, many sharing intimate reflections during their interviews.
Participants share their approaches in dealing with the language boundary contravention. Some female participants ignore the language usage while others use humour to bring the language use to light – “in a humorous context, if you make a bit of light of it” – but, overall, participant responses suggest that male staff only reduce the language “if male teachers come in and do it [complain], they definitely stop swearing yes, they’ll listen to a male before they listen to a female”. Some participants make connections to The Boy’s Club mentioned earlier when discussing instances where male staff disregard female requests for monitoring boundaried language yet pay attention to fellow male colleagues.
The Boys’ Club is mentioned again when female participants discuss male swearing and taboo language use in the staffroom, specifically in relation to the word cunt.
No male participants mention the use of the word cunt in staffrooms, however female participants highlight the fact that even though some women do use boundaried language in
258 Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use
staffrooms, they do not use the word cunt. This aligns with data discussed in Chapter 6, Section 6.2.2, regarding personal reactions to the word cunt, where female participants are more emotionally and personally affected by the use of the word, and males are more distanced from the word, with less emotional connection. Adele relates to the men in her staffroom using the word cunt but relates with a sensitive, “they don’t understand ... all the uses of that word, - I just don’t think they would know”.
The outline of this section of the thesis, gender and language use in the staffroom, has been difficult to structure because of the contrasting reactions and reflections. However, to conclude the section two very separate anecdotes need to be relayed to demonstrate the confusing social boundaries regarding gender and language infringements evident in secondary school staffrooms in this study. Perspectives of different gendered participants may shed some insight into why the social linguistic dynamic in staffroom areas is so tenuous and ambiguous.
Francis relays anecdotes of when she first started teaching at her current school as a member of a male-oriented staffroom. She suggests that the language was very respectful at first, “for about the first two months”. After this time, the male staff members of that staffroom began using boundaried language that was “utterly offensive, pretty crass, pretty full-on” within the confines of the staffroom. Francis shares that fellow female staff colleagues would visit the staffroom and immediately leave due to the language being used by the male staff. Additionally, Francis questions the reasoning behind the language use in a professional environment because the staffroom was accessed by students at times. She shares:
Furthermore, Francis adds that she has subsequently moved to another staffroom on request and the language used in her current staffroom is now “totally respectful conversation and very little sort of swearing goes on”, but “there is - male and female is balanced out”.
Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use 259
Thomas, a male participant, shares his perspective. The following discussion is in no way a reflection of Francis and her linguistic behaviour, but is mentioned here to demonstrate the diverse gender perspectives and constructions in social spaces such as staff rooms. Thomas shares that he heads a PE staffroom and has worked in the PE arena and therefore used these staffrooms for many years. He suggests the areas are “quite blokey environments”, but if female staff enter these areas, “the language is curbed dramatically, there’s no swearing, the tone of conversation obviously comes back to a more professional area”. Thomas adds that there have been occasions when the female teacher has sworn and then “it’s like the floodgates open and then AAAAAY, well she can swear, we can too, let’s go”. Thomas is intrigued with the behaviour and finds it “quite interesting”.
As is noted in the above discussion regarding gender and linguistic boundaries in the staffroom, it is evident the boundaries are contradictory and conflicting. Some female staff members use boundaried language and are not offended when others, including males, use similar language, while other female staff feel offended if males use boundaried language near them. Some male staff use boundaried language in male company, but the majority of the male participants from this study show awareness that boundaried language should not be used around female staff. The male staff share perspectives of confusion and contradiction that female staff use boundaried language near them but are offended if the male staff use similar boundaried language around females. The internal rules (Foucault, 1972) of classification, distribution, and ordering of the taboo discourse in these contexts are ambiguous, making it difficult for all subjects to define their mode of subjection in this instance.
Implied or Perceived Right and Wrong The fourth and final classification evident in boundaried language use in staffrooms is the implied or perceived reaction of right and wrong, examples in Figure 7.3.
260 Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use
Figure 7.3. Participant examples of perceived right and wrong.
Participant reactions suggest a varied array of responses to staff using boundaried language in staffrooms. The majority mention that boundaried language does occur in staffrooms with some accepting and participating in the behaviour. However, there are some reactions suggesting the boundaried language is not acceptable. An implied judgment is noticeable with some participants aligning boundaried linguistic behaviour with either being right or wrong.
Participants use evaluation, either implicitly or explicitly, to commit to certain values (Fairclough, 2003). “Evaluations are statements of desirability or undesirability” (p. 172) and many are embedded within phrases. An example of a desirable statement is, “professional… there’s an expectation”, the participant aligning correct use of language as a desirable professional attribute. An example of an undesirable statement is, “compromise your standards”, explaining that by using boundaried language, the professional standards of the teacher will be compromised.
Participants use evaluative adverbs such as ever, ever, unfortunately, and definitely, to add to the scale of intensity (White, 2001). Overall, the number of statements, vocabulary
Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use 261
and phrases that evaluate the undesirable outweigh the desirable. By using evaluation in their dialogue, the participants are implying right and wrong linguistic behaviour; they are aligning ‘right’ with acceptable, appropriate, professional language use in the staffroom, and ‘wrong’ with inappropriate, unacceptable, low grade language use in the staffroom.
Some participant reactions suggest they do not necessarily agree with the linguistic action of boundaried language use in the staffroom; however many of them comment “but I don’t do anything about it”92.
Once again participants use legitimation in their discussions. To recap, legitimation is linguistic nuances used to cultivate belief in legitimating a system of authority and is answering the unspoken question of why (Van Leeuwen, 2007). In discussions regarding boundaried language being used in staffrooms participants use “the authority of conformity” (p. 96) in answering the why question. In Claudia’s example above, the answer to the why question – why do those who do not accept the use of the language in staffrooms not challenge the users? in her words, “nobody pulled her up” – is ‘because that is what everybody else does’ – “everybody accepts it”. Conformity legitimation can take the form of explicit comparison, as in Claudia’s case, and with Adele, “no-one’s ever going to say you’re swearing too much”, or it can be realised through the use of frequency modality, as in Hallah’s case, “but for the most part, I’ve never heard anyone protest”. In both instances, the language use becomes normalised (Foucault, 1972). This failure to question the language use evidences a tension in the participants’ mode of subjection, the way they relate to a personal rule, an obligation. It is a questioning by the participant of the social boundaries (Foucault, 1978).
The above discussion elaborated on the diverse use of taboo language and swearing in staffroom locales. Contrast, difference and division are evident in this discussion, and this is achieved through classification, namely classification of users, classification of rationalisation of use, classification of gender and classification of implied right or wrong.
92 Some participants when discussing male boundaried language use in the staffroom commented on challenging users but were ignored unless a fellow male colleague confronted the user. See Gender 7.6.3.
262 Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use
Teachers and school leaders constitute themselves as the responsible teacher/school leader by contrasting themselves against ‘the other’, who use or do not use boundaried language; by rationalising the use of boundaried language; by separating and segregating themselves according to gender; and finally, by perceiving the language use as right or wrong.
7.7 DISCUSSION
Participants share their offense at being the target of boundaried linguistic behaviour in school settings. All but two of the participants have experienced direct linguistic abuse from students in their teaching careers; and all share feelings of disrespect, dissatisfaction and displeasure at the experience. Some of the participants use departmental policies or government rules, laws, and regulations as a point of reference and mode of subjection. The participant reflections and connections to rules demonstrate that the participants are recognising their moral obligation as teacher and educator. However, the power imbalance is present, in that the students’ use of boundaried language, especially as it is directed at them as ‘teacher’ and ‘educator’, is contravening the social contract of respect – that students and the community should respect teachers and educators. Through modes of inquiry, ‘the teacher’ and ‘the educator’ are simultaneously becoming the objects of the productive subject (Foucault, 1982).
Teachers share how the act of being linguistically affronted, sworn at or insulted situates them in object positions; in less powerful positions in their work spaces. The ‘dividing practices’ establish difference between the individuals. The teacher or school leader being verbally abused becomes categorised and divided or separated from the ‘other’ teacher and school leader. The teacher’s personal identity becomes not one that is the ‘good teacher’, ‘the competent school leader’, ‘the responsible teacher/school leader”, ‘the teacher/school leader who can control and manage students’ but rather the ‘incompetent teacher’, ‘the disrespected teacher’, ‘the teacher/school leader who cannot ‘cut it’’. Most of the participants use the third mode of transforming themselves into a subject, that being self- inspection (Foucault, 1982), where they reflect and use forms of responsibilitisation in an act of blaming themselves for the student linguistic behaviour.
The discussion further examined changed responses regarding boundaried language from participants over their careers. An underlying impression of frustration, annoyance and ambivalence is evident. Participants from non-government boys’ schools and government schools share the ‘ARGUMENT IS WAR’ metaphor, thus consolidating the message that
Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use 263
swearing and taboo language use is frequent. The boundaried language use has become normalised, is accepted more by parents and society, and personal tolerance levels of staff have changed, resulting in responses from teachers and school leaders being inconsistent. Additionally, consequences for language transgressions in school contexts are not strong enough.
Participants share subjectivities of ‘the fearful teacher/school leader’, with students using more aggressive language and behaviour. Disparate comparisons are used referencing student size and staff size. The comparisons focus mainly on male students who behave in a linguistically aggressive manner. According to participants, there are bigger issues at play surrounding linguistic aggression, where teachers and school leaders suggest – as a means of protection for both students and staff and in order not to enflame the aggression – that the offending students are separated and divided (Foucault, 1975) from teachers and other students. The responsible teacher/school leader follows the obligation or ‘rule’ to protect, therefore separates and divides (Foucault, 1997).
Most participants discuss PE, coaching, and MA arenas as the areas of the school where mostly male teachers and school leaders use boundaried language at or among the students. These areas allow more linguistic freedom with students on the field and in the workshops; they cause a blurring of boundaries, with sporadic and inconsistent boundaried language use and responses; and assume acceptance of different areas of the school with different associated rules. There is a division between ‘PE and MA teachers and coaches’ and ‘us as other teachers.’ The ‘us as other teachers’ classification assumes acceptance that in PE/MA/coaching areas of the school linguistic boundaries are different for both students and staff. However, this acceptance is not accompanied with approval; in fact, disapproval and dissatisfaction are evident. The participants who belong to the ‘us as other teachers’ category divide themselves from the PE/MA teachers and coaches, however, some PE/MA teachers and coaches support the taboo linguistic behaviour with acceptance because the culture and outdoor locales encourage the boundaried language use. The use of ‘linguistic othering’(Nilsen, Fylkesnes, Akershus, & Mausethagen, 2017) minoritises and groups others through discursive practices, categorising them as different. Othering reproduces inequalities in society (Van Dijk, 1993) by excluding, dividing, and separating.
Gender expectations and experiences share further examples of othering with three main representations in boundaried language use in school contexts. First, evidence suggests The Boys’ Club structures a divide between male and female staff. Male staff, especially the
264 Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use
blokey young male, can swear at and around students without reprisal. The male patriarchy is evident, with different rules and consequences for male boundaried language use in school contexts based on a historical acceptance and understanding.
The second representation regarding female difference is evident with a tripartite approach to female linguistic and behaviour management in school contexts. The female staff member is subjected as The Mum, The Bi-polar Bitch, or as The Incompetent. Expectations are that the female staff member should be ‘motherly’ in behaviour management incidences, consider how they speak and approach students, but, in contrast, not be too over-moralistic in responses to linguistic and other behaviour - a divided and contrasted means of objectivising the ‘female teacher’ (Foucault, 1982). Participants share their bi-polar subjectivation, having to be hard assed but also nice to manage behaviour, but when students are confronted are referred to as bitches and other female derogatory terms. The female staff member uses these means, the nice teacher and the hard assed teacher, as forms of elaboration of ethical work in order to construct an ethical being (Foucault, 1990) within the taboo language discourse in school contexts. Finally, the female teacher is objectivised as ‘the incompetent female teacher’ if she cannot manage the linguistic and overall behaviour control of her students. In order to work on herself to become an ethical subject, ‘the good teacher/school leader’ is required to do all that she can in class so as not to require male assistance or male judgment regarding her management skills, be these linguistic or otherwise.
The third representation occurs with boundaried language use in the school staffroom. The data reveal a tapestry of difference; difference in users, difference in gender use and expectation, difference in rationalisation, and difference in implied right and wrong. Participants reveal changes and increase in use of boundaried language during their careers. Data suggest some staff members use boundaried language in the staffroom and some choose to abstain. PE and MA staffrooms are viewed as areas with the most boundaried language use and the most offensive language use. Participants who use boundaried language tend to believe it is acceptable and accepted by staff if they apologise for the use or if it is used in a light-hearted, jokey manner. The participants who do not use swearing and taboo language in the staffroom communicate negative reactions to the use, sharing ethical boundaries and reflections regarding moral obligations and setting examples as educators.
A gender binary exists with females suggesting males use boundaried language in the staffroom as part of The Boy’s Club, especially with the use of the word cunt. Although
Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use 265
throughout the study, participants reference the use and acceptance of male teachers and school leaders using boundaried language in school contexts, most male participants communicate a gender differentiation; that being, male participants should not swear around females in the staffroom.
However, data suggest that boundaried language does occur in staffrooms; male staff members use boundaried language around female staff members, and if asked to change their behaviour, will only do so if a male colleague so requests. Male participants suggest females are swearing more than before, and anecdotes relate ambiguity in responses. Most female participants disapprove of males using boundaried language in the staffroom. Male participants seem unsure of the boundaries of acceptable language use in staffrooms, especially because female staff may also use boundaried language. The tension is present in relation to the gender differences but also in the implied or perceived right and/or wrong use of taboo language. Those who negate the language use by others share thoughts relating to rules of society, the institution, and an inner struggle, a self-examination in relation to hidden thought and inner impurity (Foucault, 1997).
266 Chapter 7: Perceptions and Responses to Boundaried Language Use
Chapter 8: Implications and Conclusions
8.1 INTRODUCTION
This study has explored how teachers and school leaders weave societal language change in relation to taboo language and swearing with institutional boundaries of acceptability, whilst communicating suitable social and moral identities. In so doing, it has provided analysis and explanation of social, linguistic, and education institutional life largely unexplored in the existing research literature. The sub-research questions guiding this study focused on:
• institutional policy in Queensland around acceptable and unacceptable language use in school contexts;
• verbal misconduct definitions connected to educational institutions in Queensland;
• teacher and school leader understanding of definitions and boundaries in relation to Queensland institutions;
• teacher and school leaders’ perceptions of swearing and taboo language use in school contexts and the change in use over time; and
• subject positionings and changing responses of teachers and school leaders in responding to taboo language and swearing in school contexts.
The study explored articulations from 19 school leaders and teachers in south east Queensland, from nine government and five non-government schools, in both teaching and leadership positions. The aim of the study was to focus attention on the change in taboo language and swearing use in society within the context of secondary schools, and to shine a light on how school teachers and leaders are responding to the language use within institutional and personal boundaries. The study combined snowball sampling with Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis, De Saussure’s aspects of the sign, and Foucault’s theory to provide a multi-layered account of language change, specifically boundaried language change, institutional policy practices, engagement with and responses to policy, and the subject positionings of
Chapter 8: Implications and Conclusions 267
teachers and school leaders. This final chapter synthesises the findings of the three data chapters, together with the implications for theory and practice. It also acknowledges the limits characterising the study and provides recommendations for future research.
8.2 DISCUSSION
The discussion will be explored in three sections that correspond with the three sub research questions of the study. The first relates to institutional policy and consistent boundaries, the second to verbal conduct and its change over time, the third outlines teachers and school leaders as constructed subjects.
8.2.1 Institutional Policy and Personal Boundaries of Acceptable Language Use Sub question: How does the institution, including stakeholders, structure, respond to and engage with policy relating to language boundaries, and how do they set consistent boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable language?
The analysis revealed that the institutional behaviour policies analysed are ambiguous, with terms not clearly defined or articulated to teachers and school leaders. The policy documents act as genres of governance, governing from a distance (Fairclough, 2003). The primary policy document which prescribes behaviour for government schools, The Code of School Behaviour, does not specifically mention restrictions or boundaries for language use. Similarly, other publicly available documents, such as The Guidelines of a Responsible Behaviour Plan for Students and The Example of a Responsible Behaviour Plan for Students, use institutional language to explain language boundaries, with no clear definitions of that institutional language. There is consistent use of policy language across all policy statements.
The school policies from the non-government schools also act as genres of governance and are ‘obviously aestheticised’ and similarly ambiguous with ill-defined terms. Institutional language is also featured in non-government school policies for boundaried language, similar to government school policies. The non-government school policies expound -IST boundaried language and appear to prioritise this in their behaviour statements.
Participants in this study have limited knowledge regarding: their own school behaviour policies concerning boundaried language; the intricacies of definitions of
268 Chapter 8: Implications and Conclusions
the institutional language in their school policies; and the boundaries regarding acceptable language in school contexts. Differences are evident in teacher and school leader perceptions of policy knowledge, agentive expectation, policy engagement, responses and implementation. School leaders suggest they make the language boundary policy clear to teachers. The teachers disagree, sharing their frustration and disillusionment –which impact consistency. School leaders suggest a strong message of deficit teacher practice regarding language boundaries, citing teacher/student relationships, incompetence, inconsistency, teacher language use, abdication and avoidance of responsibility, punishment and immediate performativity as reasons supporting deficit practice.
Teachers share a general expression of negativity and lack of support from leadership around policy engagement and responses of language boundaries in school contexts. The teachers suggest consistent policy responses and engagement influences are: leadership teams, age, administration, and tacit understanding that serious language infringements are directed to higher authorities.
In setting consistent boundaries regarding responses to and engagement with behaviour policies, three areas are noted: consistency in teacher practice, consistency in administration level, and consistency in language used by educators. Inconsistencies in these areas lead to inconsistencies in engagement and responses of language behaviour policy. The study reveals inconsistency in teacher practice related to mitigating factors such as special needs, rurality, Indigeneity, familial influence and accepted use of boundaried language in PE and MA contexts.
The final finding regarding structuring, engagement, and responses of language behaviour policies in school contexts and consistent boundaries relates to personal boundary parameter use by participants in their response. Respondents employ personal boundaries rather than policy directives in their responses to linguistic infringements. The importance of personal boundaries in shaping teachers’ and school leaders’ responses to student taboo language use is an important insight from the study.
8.2.2 Boundaried Language, Definitions, and Linguistic Change Sub question: How do teachers and school leaders define verbal misconduct; what language constitutes verbal misconduct and has this language changed over time?
Chapter 8: Implications and Conclusions 269
In answering the second sub-question the data reveal that the participants are unclear about the term verbal misconduct; they are unable to properly define the exact meaning in relation to institutional expectation. The participants agree the education institutions have not clearly defined or outlined the term for them as staff. Participants also share varied definitions of the term swearing, but use the term swearing during conversations to explain all forms of boundaried language. This aligns with the literature that suggests native English speakers understand the term swearing to encompass those words that cross the taboo divide and are used to express emotion (Ljung, 2011). The participants use mostly institutional terms to explain swearing, with an undercurrent of aggression and fear present in their definitions. They are clearer in their definition of taboo language, which they understand as a cultural and societal construct relating to areas that are highly taboo, such as racism, genderism, bestiality, paedophilia – the -IST language. Participants make comment that students use swearing as normal vernacular with no shock value, but this more highly taboo language is used by students judiciously, when the aim is to insult or to harm.
Regarding change, participants are unanimous in their reactions to change in language use by students, not only in relation to certain words used, but in terms of quantity of use. Participants suggest the most commonly used words by students today are cunt and fuck93, but with little to no shock value. Shock value and offense are found in the taboo language, the -IST language use by students, according to participant reflections. It is noted that swearing is starting at a younger age than previously and that students are swearing more with each other rather than at each other, with insult swearing more prevalent today. Additionally, regarding change, schools are responding less to words such as arse, screw, root, bloody, oh my god, prick, piss, shit, bullshit, motherfucker and hoe; there is limited response from government schools and non-government boys’ schools to bitch; damn differs, with respondents in one faith- based school but government schools showing no response; the word fuck (and its derivatives) has varying responses depending on participants and schools – if the word is directed at a school leader the consequences seem to be different, than if directed at a teacher; and bullshit is addressed at non-government schools but is ignored or accepted at government schools.
93 Fuck and its derivatives, for example, I don’t give a fuck, fuck-face, no more fucks given, fuck off.
270 Chapter 8: Implications and Conclusions
Data evidence minimum consequences and responses by staff to those words that have become viewed as less offensive, are falling out of use, or are used often but not deemed inappropriate. More stringent responses are tabled for those words that are becoming more controversial in society – that are linked with the -IST culture. Some words are showing change in levels of appropriateness in how responses are meted out; for example, some words and responses are linked to personal affect and effect, such as fag/faggot, cunt, pussy/bunch of pussies, either becoming personal trigger words because of either gender or affiliation.
The use of the existing -IST word nigger shows the most reaction and response; retard shows a variance in response, as does gay. Gay is used more often in government schools, with little to no response from teachers and school leaders, whereas the word is seldom used – but with more responses if used – in non- government schools due to cultural awareness of social and cultural issues. The word slut is used differently by boys and girls, with girls using the word as a form of insult but also in a sense of camaraderie. The majority of participants respond to students using the word slut.
Emerging -IST trigger words are rape, pedo/paedophile, terrorist and trannie. The word rape is used as a joke, in an aggressive taboo sense and in a sporting context. Responses to the word are ignored when used in a jocular or sporting sense but are highly reactive when used in an aggressive taboo manner. Students use the word pedo/paedophile in a jocular sense and also in an aggressive manner to label staff members. Responses to the word when used as an aggressive insult, are regarded in a significant light, with staff addressing its use immediately. Reactions and responses to the word pedo/paedophile in connection with staff members is linked to career reputation damage. The word terrorist and the associated word Islamic are used by students in a jocular manner but deemed unacceptable in school settings and participants respond accordingly. Finally, the word trannie is changing in use in school contexts according to participants. Respondents address the use of the word, but data suggest that students view trannie as more of a taboo word than previously.
The data suggest that schools and participants are facilitating the swearing and taboo language change in relation to the -IST culture by ignoring or imposing minimum discipline on more outdated words but more stringent discipline on -IST language.
Chapter 8: Implications and Conclusions 271
8.2.3 Perceptions and Responses of Institutional Subjects to Boundaried Language use Sub-question: How do teachers and school leaders constitute themselves in response to taboo language and swearing use and has this response changed over time?
The study found that the majority of teachers and school leaders have been verbally accosted or sworn at by students during their teaching career. Additionally, participants share the use of swearing and taboo language use by parents directed at them, especially if they are required to suspend or exclude the parent’s child; and by students whose ultimate goal is to secure suspension or exclusion from school. Teachers and school leaders share frustration, offense, emotional distress, and feel a lack of respect at being sworn at. Teachers and school leaders feel responsible for student linguistic behaviour targeted at them, citing school work and teacher expectation as primary causes. One school leader suggests teachers are often at fault when linguistic boundaries are breached. Respondents share a tension between fault and luck concerning directed linguistic contempt- being at fault when abused and lucky if it does not occur.
Teachers and school leaders share frustration and annoyance at having to respond to linguistic boundaries in school settings because the language use by students is constant and has escalated in use. This is not the case in non-government girls’ schools in this study. Data suggest the boundaries have changed in school contexts, these include personal teacher and school leader boundaries and tolerance levels; however, school boundaries have not adapted to the wider linguistic environment’s changing boundaries. Parents and society have accepted the change in language use; boundaried language use is constant; and the consequences of using the language at school are not strong enough.
The undercurrent of fear from teachers and school leaders, as well as aggression from students, is evident in the data. The majority of aggression and aggressive linguistic behaviour is connected with males and boys, which is part of a larger social issue. Participants attempt to manage the aggression by separating the students and diffusing situations so as not to exacerbate behaviour.
One area of inconsistency and discrepancy noted in relation to boundaried language use in school contexts is the use of the language in and around areas of
272 Chapter 8: Implications and Conclusions
Physical Education, sports coaching, and Manual Arts. Male PE, MA teachers, school leaders and coaches swear more around and at students in these contexts. The boundaries are blurred for students because the teachers and coaches use boundaried language in these arenas, around and at the students, and this language then moves back into the classroom. However, in some cases, the language that is accepted on the playing field is then not accepted in the classroom, causing confusion. Teachers and school leaders in PE and MA contexts accept more boundaried language from students in these contexts as opposed to the classroom context. Finally, PE and MA staffrooms are well known for the excessive and offensive use of boundaried language.
Gendered experiences and expectations in school contexts are contentious issues evident in the data. A considered Boys’ Club exists in school settings where boundaried language is used by male teachers and school leaders. The most commonly identified teacher or school leader responsible for the use of boundaried language at or around students is seen as young, Australian, male, and ‘blokey’. The language use is seen as expected and normal and these male teachers and school leaders tend to escape consequence or blame for their linguistic behaviour. The majority of participants are not in favour of the practised behaviour.
The female teacher or school leader is subjectivised in three ways: as gender expectation being that of the mum, as gender duality being that of the bi-polar bitch, and as gender deficit being that of the incompetent. There is a different expectation for male and female staff. Females are subjectified as caring, nurturing, feminine, and empathetic, whereas male teachers and school leaders are expected and accepted as being uncompromising, cynical and accepting of flexible language boundaries. Female teachers and school leaders are required to have a dual personality to control linguistic and other student behaviour, some letting language infringements pass while others address language; some being the hard-assed, or alpha dog, while others are the nice teacher or school leader. The third representation and subjectivation builds on The Boys’ Club thematic, where female teachers and school leaders spend more of their time responding to linguistic transgressions and more time diffusing situations in order to not lose control of the students. The perception results in female teachers and school leaders being viewed as incompetent by staff if assistance is required in managing student behaviour. The discussions commence with communication around linguistic boundary responses and usually culminate in interpretations of female teacher and
Chapter 8: Implications and Conclusions 273
school leader competence regarding behaviour management in general, objectivising them as incompetent.
Gender expectation and experience in school staffrooms indicate a varied tapestry of expectation and difference. Apart from the non-government girls’ school staffrooms, boundaried language use occurs by teachers and school leaders in staffrooms. Staff from non-government girls’ schools share a professionalism, are culturally and socially aware of social etiquette, and demonstrate linguistic strategies so as not to use boundaried language. In the government school and non-government boys’ school staffrooms the divide between those who use boundaried language and those who do not is clear. Those who do not use boundaried language view the linguistic practice as offensive, surprising, appalling, and annoying, as well as labelling the use as unprofessional behaviour.
Four areas of classification are evidenced regarding boundaried language use in the staffroom, those being: user, rationalisation of use or non-use, gender classification, and classification of implied right and wrong. Users of boundaried language in staffrooms share how their language use has changed over time, increasing in use. Users employ justification and rationalisation in defence of boundaried language use. They assume that if the boundaried language is adopted in a jocular manner then it is viewed as acceptable; similarly, if they apologise for the use, the practice is also acceptable. Additionally, users share the belief that the staffroom is a safe place where they can relax and release tension, therefore boundaried language use is acceptable.
Non-users share the rationalisation of not using boundaried language as connected to a respected and responsible teacher/school leader subjectivity, connecting with moral and ethical reflections. The non-users question the moral subjectivities of the users, their social boundaries, but also their own reactions in not verbalising disapproval.
The area of gender and boundaried language use in the staffroom is contentious. Data from this study suggest males swear more in school contexts than females; however, a large percentage of the male participants suggest they do not use boundaried language in front of females. Female participants suggest male staff do swear in staffrooms, some using offensive boundaried language, in some cases the words fuck (and derivatives) and cunt. Female staff suggest they use humour to
274 Chapter 8: Implications and Conclusions
highlight the use or ignore the use, but suggest male staff will only discontinue the use if another male comments negatively on the language use, ‘normalising’ and ‘naturalising’ the Boys’ Club narrative. Some female staff confess to using boundaried language in the staffrooms, a few using the language with male staff, others monitoring their use more with males than females. Similarly, some female staff accept that a few men monitor their language in front of females but do not agree with the behaviour. There is a disjunct in participants’ gendered expectations and experiences, with males monitoring their language until they hear females using boundaried language, which then leads them to believe that the restrictions are lifted.
8.3 LIMITATIONS
The study has certain limitations which need to be acknowledged (Glesne, 2011). First, only 19 participants from 14 schools took part in the study and only participants in south east Queensland area were included – therefore only a representative of teacher and school leader views. The study collected important data from a cross section of schools, teaching experiences, ages, and locations, but nonetheless it is not generalisable to all schools and personnel. Generalisability is a problematic term and not useful in qualitative research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) – but warrants discussion.
This study was intent on focusing on ‘the particular’ aspect of changing language and responses from institutions, teachers, and school leaders and employed snowball sampling as method to generate participants. Due to the lack of randomisation, therefore, data collected cannot be recognised as generalisable to the population as a whole (Crouse & Lowe, 2018). However, the most successful result in any educational study is to make educators and policy makers more aware and informed about a certain issue (Donmoyer, 1990). Only the reader or user of the study will decide on generalisability; if the findings apply to their situation, then the findings will be employed and be generalisable to them (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Another limitation is that the participant sample is composed of volunteers who knew the topic of the study prior to the interview and wanted to ‘have their say’. This may mean that some of the data could include biased perceptions from participants. However, the strong theoretical and methodological structure of the study aimed to reduce such bias, and explored the rich, comprehensive, and textured data available from the volunteer participants. The social interaction and structure of snowball
Chapter 8: Implications and Conclusions 275
sampling allowed for a deeper, more shared experience between researcher and participant as a living dynamic process of participant involvement in shared experiences (Stehlik, 2004).
A further limitation is that of researcher positionality and influences on interpretation of data. Members’ Resources (MR) (Fairclough, 1989, 1992), the internalised social structures, conventions, norms, and representations stored in the researcher’s long term memory, which can be linguistic or not, will influence interpretation. MR are “understandings of the interrelations of power, language, and ideology, socially determined and ideologically shaped” (Fairclough, 1989, p. 11). As a means of reducing assumptions and the impact of MR, a combination of ‘micro- analysis’ and ‘macro-analysis’(Fairclough, 1992, p. 85) has been performed - from the word to the larger social practice.
8.4 CONTRIBUTIONS
Despite the limitations, the study makes many contributions. This study is a vanguard in contributing to literature and education research as it documents not only taboo language and swearing use in school contexts but also aspects of language change. The study also documents how institutions, school leaders and teachers are governing the change in use in school contexts. There is limited literature into swearing and taboo language use in school contexts, as was mentioned in 2.3; studies conducted in classrooms rarely focus on boundaried language use, it rather emerges as an aspect of ‘classroom trouble’.
Amid broader social debates around swearing and taboo language use in society, reactions, and judgments of use, especially in relation to use by youth, this thesis provides fresh insights into how teachers and school leaders position themselves within the boundaried language use in school contexts; how – despite ambiguous institutional policy guidelines and implementation – teachers and school leaders manoeuvre evaluations with personal boundaries; and how school leaders and teachers are facilitating the change in swearing and taboo language by disciplining the -IST language.
Extending the work of Crystal (1997), Ljung (2011), Allan and Burridge, (2006) and Bergen (2016), this study highlights more current swearing and taboo language practices, termed here as The Difference Principle. These practices presented in Figure
276 Chapter 8: Implications and Conclusions
8.1. (where the figure is a reproduction of Figure 2.1, in Chapter 2) is furnished with the findings of this study. Figure 8.1 therefore represents changes to swearing and taboo language as they operate in the school contexts of teachers and school leaders.
The graphical representation uses foundational concepts and extends them to identify contemporary language taboos, notable as they apply in schools as institutions of socialisation. In terms of their institutional experiences in schools, school leaders and teachers across schooling sectors in Queensland Australia respond most consistently to the trigger words - the words of DIFFERENCE. In addition, responses met in contemporary society show similar reactions, positioning this language in a higher taboo ranking.
Figure 8.1. The Difference Principle.
The contributions from this study show the emergence of more highly ranked taboo language, what this study terms “IST-ING” (adapted from the -IST term of Allan and Burridge (2006)). The older – more common – swearwords are seldom serious trigger words in schools or the broader society; however, the language of discrimination and difference has become more highly taboo. This IST-ing is language that associates and targets race, ethnicity, sexual preference, gender, religion, appearance, (dis)ability, sexuality, age, terrorism, and sexual predation. Whereas swearing generally relies on single words, as seen in Chapter 2, IST-ing can use single words, clauses, phrases, and more implicit vilification. Examples of this were demonstrated in Chapter 1 with Conor McGregor asking Floyd Mayweather to “Dance
Chapter 8: Implications and Conclusions 277
for me boy” and Rosanne Barr comparing her target to ‘an ape’. The taboo ranking in The Difference Principle is linked with a much broader cultural shift in society that is positioned behind the word/s.
This study is primarily focused on language change, which is significant in Foucault’s work, De Saussure’s writings, as well as Fairclough’s CDA. For Foucault, “my object is not language but the archive, that is to say, the accumulated existence of discourses” (1989, p. 25); De Saussure adds, “the sign is exposed to alteration because it perpetuates itself” (1959, p.74); and Fairclough, “my main objective … is to develop an approach to language analysis which …. will be particularly useful for investigating change in language”(Fairclough, 1992, p. 1). CDA, as an approach, made it possible to investigate language change in boundaried language or swearing and taboo language not only in school contexts but also how this change is connecting to the literature relating to language change as well as to a broader social change. De Saussure’s notions of the sign – its arbitrary nature and modification over time – allowed for an insight into the specifics of how individual words were used and have changed. Additionally, Foucault’s theory provided a benchmark to monitor boundaried language change from an archaeological discoursal perspective.
The theoretical framework allowed insight into teacher and school leader subject positions and the tensions that inhabit school contexts. The teachers and school leaders are constrained by their subject positionings; however they are also enabled by certain subject positionings, because of the social structure and dialectical nature of discourse. Male [and other] teachers and school leaders can use boundaried language at or around students without severe repercussion; however students are often suspended, excluded or disciplined when they use boundaried language. Female teachers and school leaders are situated in subject positions as mothers, bi-polar bitches or incompetents, judged by students, female colleagues, and fellow male colleagues if they demonstrate difference in linguistic management practices.
Teachers and school leaders become objects of the boundaried language use when it is directed at them by students, but it also places them in subject positions as ‘governors’ of boundaried language. Power is enacted - “the exercise of power is a total structure of action brought to bear upon possible actions; … a set of actions upon other actions” (Foucault, 1982, p. 220). The enablement of subject positions means teachers and school leaders can modify, transform, reproduce, and maintain the
278 Chapter 8: Implications and Conclusions
discourses and power structures they inhabit. The discourse becomes both an “instrument of power and an effect of power”, as a “point of resistance and a starting point for an opposing strategy” (Foucault, 1978, p. 101). This study demonstrates the capillary nature of power, of actions upon actions from and with institutions, teachers, school leaders, broader society – including families, and students when connecting taboo language and swearing with a school context.
The findings confirm that the swearing and taboo language discourse is interwoven with power and knowledge as a way to constitute segregation, marginalisation and oppression of “others”, not only in schools but in the broader language environment. Various subject positions in schools, be they those of teachers, school leaders or students, are denied access by the demands of the dominant group within society, which structures “the others” as wrong, judged, devalued, marginalised, classified, evaluated, and controlled by the fixing of roles of speakers. In the case of this study, teachers and school leaders divide themselves as the “us” and the “others”; a division amongst other staff members, other genders, and especially between school leaders and teachers; as a division amongst teacher and leader position as opposed to student; lastly, a division is noted with “the other” being the institution or Education Department.
The teachers and school leaders in the study reported a lack of meaningful professional development around taboo language and swearing boundaries - a way the teacher and school leader become positioned as part of the “tangled plurality” (Foucault, 1972, p. 118). Institutions surround policies with a “circle of silent attention and impose ritual forms upon them” (Foucault, 1972, p. 215); yet the institution denies “the specific reality of discourse in general” (p. 227), facilitating the tangled plurality. The use of institutional language in policy documents aids in constituting the ‘materiality’ of statements (p. 115), the non-discursive constraints between institutions and statements that mean that those particular statements only have particular status within particular institutional practices (Foucault, 1972).
The study demonstrates that only certain groups have access to the swearing and taboo language discourse in school contexts, but this access is also always changing depending on context. Context regarding gender, subject positioning within the institution, as well as context of physical positioning all play a part. Context is an important factor and highlights significant aspects which support the methodological
Chapter 8: Implications and Conclusions 279
contribution of this study, not only regarding the institution, subjectivities and positioning, but also relating to textual positionings.
Criticisms directed at CDA have pointed out that CDA is context stripped (Blommaert, 2005; Rogers, Malancharuvil-Berkes, Mosley, Hui, & Joseph, 2005), involving the analysis of isolated pieces of text without focusing on broader influences such as body language, physical gestures, and larger social issues. CDA is an iterative process of micro and macro analysis, as well as a combined three-dimensional conception of discourse between the text, the discursive practice and the larger picture – being social practice (Fairclough, 1992). The effective analyst uses these techniques in a “constant alternation of focus” (p. 231), moving from the larger dimension to the smaller dimension and back in an iterative process, thereby mitigating any isolated analysis.
This study combats this issue of context by combining Foucault’s archaeology – “there can be no statement that in one way or another does not re-actualise others” (Foucault, 1972, p. 98), and, “we must understand by it the totality of things said, the relations, the regularities, and the transformations that may be observed in them” (p. 122), with Fairclough’s structured three dimensional framework of analysis and his articulation of “visuals”: the gesture, facial expression, movement, posture, the ‘extras’ of verbal texts (Fairclough, 1989, p. 27). In addition, aspects of De Saussure’s work regarding linguistic value – “its content is really fixed only by the concurrence of everything that exists outside it” (1959, p.115) – add to strengthening issues of context. The strong methodological and theoretical underpinnings provide support for analysing text in all its forms, relations, and transformations, including tone, body language, physical gestures, and history.
Additionally, by combining Foucault’s theory with Fairclough’s perspective, the analysis took a broader approach and included a dialectical interplay of practices across a number of texts (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002) in order to combat contextual prejudice. The study linked linguistic aspects of participants’ contributions and perceptions of linguistic practices shared by them, to the social and institutional structures within which they interact. Included in the various texts were policy documents from several sources (Chapter 6) which added depth of contextual information. The study provided movement between micro, meso and macro levels of analysis (Fairclough, 1992, p. 72); the micro level of language analysis to the macro
280 Chapter 8: Implications and Conclusions
level of policy and social analysis, from the word to the social or cultural edifice; for example, analysis of the use of the word slut and the connection to the social slut marches (Chapter 6).
8.5 IMPLICATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS
Based on the findings of this study the following implications and considerations are noted that can assist institutions, policy makers, teachers, students, and school leaders in choreographing a more aligned practice that can facilitate both social and language change regarding boundaried language use in school contexts. If education institutions require some form of boundary on language-use resulting in disciplining when transgressions occur, then the following points should be kept in mind.
The Policy:
• Policies regarding boundaried language should be designed as language policies, not behaviour policies.
• The policies concerning boundaried language use need to be clear, concise and unambiguous.
• Transparency and clarity are required in policy regarding areas of mitigating circumstances such as special needs, rurality, Indigeneity, familial influence and boundaries within PE and MA contexts.
• Definitions of institutional language (if any is used) need to be supplied, clearly articulated, and unambiguous.
• Policies, their definitions, and boundaries need to be clearly articulated by the institution to those who will be implementing the policies, be those teachers, administration, or school leaders.
• Clear delineation of acceptable and unacceptable language needs to be made apparent to all staff in school contexts to avoid personal boundary parameters being used as boundaries of acceptability by teachers and school leaders. Each school and institution may have differing boundaries of acceptability and these should be clearly delineated.
• Administrative and school leadership teams need to support teachers and school leaders in policy engagement of language boundaries in school contexts.
Chapter 8: Implications and Conclusions 281
The Language:
• Clarity relating to boundaries and definitions of sexual and gender diversity, cultural, ethnic, and racial issues need to be addressed with teachers and school leaders.
• Education should be accessible in school contexts with and for students to teach the history and change in use of certain words, why they are deemed offensive, and what cultural or social issues surround the words and their use. Well defined boundaries and definitions of sexual diversity, cultural, ethnic, and racial issues as well as boundaried language expectation should be articulated.
• Institutions should give thought to removing suspension and exclusion penalties for students who are using boundaried language, and rather incentivise and educate students about social and cultural language etiquette. If disciplining language is required, then using a more positive form of discipline such as social and cultural community support volunteer programs, as one option.
The Teachers/School Leaders:
• Implement a more inclusive social program to improve respect and esteem for educators, rather than a negative media attitude surrounding the profession.
• Support and guidance are required for teachers and school leaders who are confronted with verbal abuse in the school context.
• Align PE and MA and coaching contexts in school settings to the overall school ethos of language acceptability standards.
• Educate teachers and school leaders about acceptability standards in professional staffrooms. An inclusive, transparent and respectful dialogue is required in all school contexts to decide on acceptability standards within all professional school areas. These acceptability standards may vary in different schools, but all staff members should be included in defining acceptability standards and these standards need to be re-visited on a regular basis.
282 Chapter 8: Implications and Conclusions
• A more professional gendered language equality is required in professional teaching and learning areas in schools, which may be structured during abovementioned dialogue.
8.6 FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Based on this study future research possibilities into the following key areas are outlined:
• Boundaried language use in primary school contexts: What language is used and how do teachers and school leaders respond? An ethnographic study into the living language and how the language is managed by teachers and school leaders in primary school contexts.
• Boundaried language used by students in secondary schools: an ethnographic study of actual language used in actual school contexts. As an alternative to asking teachers and school leaders what language is being used in school contexts - go straight to the source and document the active language in use.
• Perceptions of students concerning swearing and taboo language use: What do secondary school students perceive as swearing and taboo language, boundaried language, acceptable, and unacceptable language?
• Perceptions of students regarding disciplining swearing and taboo language use in school contexts. Reflections from students who have been disciplined because of using taboo language and swearing in school contexts.
• Differentiation in language use between government and non-government schools, as well as gender differences in school contexts.
• In relation to the aspect of aggression and linguistic choices in school settings, Chapter 7, what are the larger issues at play that teachers and school leaders mention?
• Gendered language use in staffrooms: Swearing and taboo language use in professional education spaces.
• Boundaried language use in school contexts relating to female teachers and school leaders.
Chapter 8: Implications and Conclusions 283
8.7 CONCLUDING STATEMENT
Through Foucault’s toolbox of theoretical perspectives, De Saussure’s views on language change and the sign, and Fairclough’s approach to CDA, this study has identified how teachers and school leaders weave societal language change in relation to taboo language and swearing with institutional boundaries of acceptability, whilst communicating suitable social and moral identities. Hopefully this research can assist policy makers, teachers, and school leaders in having a clearer understanding of how their practices take shape in the real world. The goal is not to disempower or belittle those in powerful positions, those who design policy, and those who engage with, enact or implement policy regarding swearing and taboo language use. The goal is rather to provide insight to practitioners, to allow space for reflection, to shine a light on the issue of language transgressions in school contexts, to recognise the role of personal boundaries of acceptability in the implementation of policies related to student taboo language use, and to open a dialogue in this regard.
284 Chapter 8: Implications and Conclusions
References
Adams, E., Bowman, D., Dyess-Nugent, P., Koski, G., McGee, R., Sims, D., & VanDerWerff, T. (2013). A South Park episode that's a real "shit" show. Retrieved from http://www.avclub.com/article/a-isouth-park-iepisode-thats-a- real-shit-show-100969 Adams, M. (2016). In praise of profanity. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Alderman, B. (2016). Symptom, symbol, and the other of language: A Jungian interpretation of the linguistic turn. doi: 10.4324/9781315683348 Allan, K., & Burridge, K. (1991). Euphemism and dysphemism: Language used as shield and weapon. New York: Oxford University Press. Allan, K., & Burridge, K. (2006). Forbidden words: Taboo and the censoring of language. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Allan, K., & Burridge, K. (2010). Swearing. In P. Peters, P. Collins, & A. Smith (Eds.), Comparative studies in Australian and New Zealand english: Grammar and beyond (pp. 362-386). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Allestree, R. (1673). The ladies calling. Oxford: The Theater. Althusser, L. (1971). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses. In L. Althusser (Ed.), Lenin and philosophy and other essays (pp. 127-186). London: New Left Books. Andersson, L. G., & Trudgill, P. (1990). Bad language. Oxford ,England: Basil Blackwell. Annan, K. (1997). If information and knowledge are central to democracy, they are conditions for development. Paper presented at the World Bank Conference 'Global Knowledge '97 Toronto, Canada. Apol, L., Sakuma, A., Reynolds, T., & Rop, S. (2002). "When can we make paper cranes?": Examining pre-service teachers' resistance to critical readings of historical fiction. Journal of Literacy Research, 34, 429-464. doi:https://doi.org/10.1207/s15548430jlr3404_3 Arthur, R. (2012). You will die: The burden of modern taboos. Washington, USA: Feral House. Atkinson, R., & Flint, J. (2001). Accessing hidden and hard-to-reach populations: Snowball research strategies. Social Research Update, 33(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857020024.n94 Aubrey, A. (2008). Why kids curse. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89127830 Austin, J. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). (2015). Commercial television industry code of practice. Retrieved from http://www.acma.gov.au/Industry/Broadcast/Television/TV-content- regulation/commercial-television-code-of-practice-tv-content-regulation-i- acma
References 285
Australian Government. (2007, updated May 2015). National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. Canberra Retrieved from https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/e72 Australian Government, NHMRC, & ARC. (2007). Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research. Canberra, ACT Ayto, J. (1999). The Oxford dictionary of slang. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Badenhorst, C. (Producer). (2015). Writing the methodology chapter in a dissertation. [online video] Retrieved from https://youtu.be/l6ZoCuzixao Bailey, L., & Timm, L. (1976). More on women’s - and men’s- expletives. Anthropological Linguistics, 18, 438-449. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/stable/30027592 Ball, S. (1994). Education reform: A critical and post-structured approach. Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press. Ball, S., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy: Policy enactments in secondary schools. London; New York: Routledge. Baroutsis, A. (2015). Symbolic power, politics and teachers. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 36(4), 610-618. doi:10.1080/01596306.2015.1011866 Baroutsis, A. (2016). Media accounts of school performance: Reinforcing dominant practices of accountability. Journal of Education Policy, 31(5), 567-582. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2016.1145253 Beaudoin, M., & Taylor, M. (2015). Creating a positive school culture: How principals and teachers can solve problems together. New York: Skyhorse Publishing. Beck, C., & Milner, E. (2013). Who gets designated a terrorist and why? Social Forces, 91(3), 837-872. doi:10.1093/sf/sos2 Beck, L. (Producer). (2017). Blasphemy is still a crime in Australia - and it shouldn't be. [online news article] Retrieved from http://theconversation.com/blasphemy-is-still-a-crime-in-australia-and-it- shouldnt-be-78990 Bergen, B., K. (2016). What the F: What swearing reveals about our language, our brains, and ourselves. New York, NY: Basic Books. Berger, C. (2002). The myth of gender-specific swearing: A semantic and pragmatic analysis. Berlin: Verlag für Wissenschaft und Forschung. Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Bester, S., & du Plessis, A. (2010). Exploring a secondary school educator's experiences of school violence: A case study. South African Journal of Education, 30, 203-229. doi:https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v30n2a340 Biernacki, P., & Waldorf, D. (1981). Snowball sampling: Problem and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociological Methods and Research, 10, 141-163. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/004912418101000205
286 References
Billig, M., Condor, S., Edwards, D., Gane, M., Middleton, D., & Ridley, A. (1988). Ideological dilemmas: A social psychology of everyday thinking. London: Sage Publications. Black, L. (2009). Fuck. In J. Sheidlower (Ed.), The F-word (3rd ed.). Oxford, London: Oxford University Press. Blaikie, N. (1993). Approaches to social enquiry. Cambridge, UK: Polity. Blankenship, K., & Holtgraves, T. (2005). The role of different markers of linguistic powerlessness in persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24(1), 3-24. doi:10.1177/0261927X04273034 Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Bouissac, P. (2010). Saussure: a guide for the perplexed. New York; London: Continuum. Bourdieu, P. (1973). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In R. Brown (Ed.), Knowledge, education and cultural change: Papers in the sociology of education (pp. 71-112). London: Tavistock. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101. doi:https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Bricker, T. (2016). The good place’s Kristen Bell and Ted Danson reveal their forkin’ favorite alternative curse words. Retrieved from https://www.eonline.com/au/news/796069/the-good-place-s-kristen-bell-and- ted-danson-reveal-their-forkin-favorite-alternative-curse-words Broadcasting Standards Authority. (2013). What not to swear: The acceptability of words in broadcasting 2013. Retrieved from https://bsa.govt.nz/publications/research/123-2013/6367-what-not-to-swear- the-acceptability-of-words-in-broadcasting-2013 Brophy, J., & Partridge, E. (1931). Songs and slang of the British soldier: 1914- 1918. London: Scholartis Press. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. New York: Cambridge University Press. Burchfield, R. (1989). Unlocking the English language. London: Faber & Faber. Burgess, R. (1984). In the field: An introduction to field research. London: Routledge. Burke, G., & Spaull, A. (2001). Australian schools: Participation and funding 1901 to 2000. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/[email protected]/0/A75909A2108CECAACA2569D E002539FB?Open Burnett, R., Hoyle, C., & Speechley, N. (2017). The context and impact of being wrongly accused of abuse in occupations of trust. Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 56(2), 176–197. doi:10.1111/hojo.12199
References 287
Burridge, K. (2010). Linguistic cleanliness is next to godliness: Taboo and purism. English Today, 26(2), 3-13. doi:10.1017/S0266078410000027 Burridge, K. (2011). Taboo, verbal hygiene - and gardens. Idiom, 47(1), 17-26. Burridge, K. (2014). Wrestling with Words and Meanings : Essays in Honour of Keith Allan (K. Burridge & R. Benczes Eds.). Victoria, Australia: Monash University Publishing. Burridge, K. (2016). The ‘c-word’ may be the last swearing taboo, but doesn’t shock like it used to. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/the-c-word-may- be-the-last-swearing-taboo-but-doesnt-shock-like-it-used-to-54813 Butler, J. (2004). Precious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence. London: Verso. Byrne, E. (2017). Swearing is good for you: The amazing science of bad language. Great Britain: Profile Books Ltd. Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B. D. (1994). Lifelines and risks: Pathways of youth in our time. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Cameron, D. (1995). Verbal hygiene. London: Routledge. Cameron, D. (2001). Working with spoken discourse. Thousand Oaks; London: Sage. Carey, S. (2015). OMFG! Sweary abbreviations FTFW! [A sweary blog about swearing]. Online blog Retrieved from https://stronglang.wordpress.com/2015/04/16/omfg-sweary-abbreviations- ftfw/ Carlin, G. (Producer). (1972). Class clown. [recording] Retrieved from https://youtu.be/j7YDCXS5gc4 Carnaghi, A., & Maass, A. (2007). In-group and out-group perspectives in the use of derogatory group lables: Gay versus fag. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 26(2), 142-156. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X07300077 Carnie, F. (2015). Lessons on bad behaviour in the classroom, [News article]. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/jun/17/lessons-bad-behaviour- classroom-tsar Chirico, R. (2014). Damn! : A cultural history of swearing in modern America. Chicago: Pitchstone Publishing. Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2001). Learning policy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). London: Routledge. Cohen, N., & Arieli, T. (2011). Field research in conflict environments: Methodolgical challenges and snowball sampling. Journal of Peace Research, 48, 423-435. doi:10.1177/0022343311405698
288 References
Coleman, E., Bockting, M., Botzer, P., Cohen-Kettenis, G., DeCuypere, G., Feldman, J., & Zucker, K. (2012). Standards of care for the health of transexual, transgender, and gender-nonconforming people, Version 7. International Journal of Transgenderism, 13(4), 165-232. doi:10.1080/15532739.2011.700873 Coleman, J. (1958). Relational analysis: The study of social organizations with survey methods. Human Organization, 17, 28-36. Coleman, J. (1970). Relational analysis: The study of social organisations with survey methods. In N. K. Denzin (Ed.), Sociological methods: A sourcebook. London: Butterworths. Comedy Central. (2019). South Park. Retrieved from http://www.comedycentral.com.au/south-park Cook, J., & King, J. (1750-1784). A voyage to the Pacific Ocean : undertaken by command of His Majesty, for making discoveries in the northern hemisphere. Retrieved from http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/6812328?selectedversion=NBD9806028 Cooper, W., & Ross, J. (1975). World order. In R. Grossman, L. James San, & T. Vance (Eds.), Functionalism. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Copenhaver, J. (2000). Silence in the classroom: Learning to talk about issues of race. Dragon Lode, 18(2), 8-16. Retrieved from http://friendsschoolofportland.org/sites/default/files/Silence_in_the_Classroo m.pdf. Corson, D. (1999). Language policy in schools: A resource for teachers and administrators. Mahwah, New Jersey; London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Coyle, A. (2000). Discourse anlaysis. In G. M. Breakwell, S. Hammond, & C. Fife- Schaw (Eds.), Research methods in psychology (2nd ed.). London: Sage. Coyne, S. M., Callister, M., Stockdale, L. A., Nelson, D. A., & Wells, B. M. (2012). "A Helluva Read": Profanity in adolescent literature. Mass Communication and Society, 15(3). doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2011.638431 Creswell, J. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc. Crotty, M. (1998). The foundation of social research: Meaning and perspectives in the research process. London: Sage Publications. Crouse, T., & Lowe, P. (2018). Snowball sampling. In B. Frey (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of educational research, measurement and evaluation (pp. 1532-1535). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd. Crystal, D. (1997). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language (2nd ed.). Cambridge;New York;: Cambridge University Press. Curtis, R. (2014). Foucault beyond Fairclough: From transcendental to immanent critique in organization studies. Organization Studies, 35(12). doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840614546150
References 289
Dahl, O. (1979). Typology of sentence negation. Linguistics, 17(79-106). doi:https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1979.17.1-2.79 Dahlager, L. (2010). Power and the social dimension of existence. Existential Analysis, 21(2), 223-237. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/ps/i.do?ty=as&v=2.1&u=qu t&it=DIourl&s=RELEVANCE&p=HRCA&qt=SN~1752- 5616~~VO~21~~SP~223~~IU~2&lm=DA~120100000&sw=w. Dalley-Trim, L. (2006). 'Just boys being boys'? Youth Studies Australia, 25(3), 26- 33. Retrieved from https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/3701/. Danaher, G., Schirato, T., & Webb, J. (2000). Understanding Foucault. Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Datnow, A. (2016). When school policies backfire: How well-intended measures can harm our most vulnerable students. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Education Press. De Klerk, V. (1992). How taboo are taboo words for girls? Language in Society, 21, 277-289. doi:10.1017/S0047404500015293 De Saussure, F. (1959). Course in general linguistics (W. Baskin, Trans.). New York: Philosophical Library. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Boston: D C Heath & Co Publishers. Dispenza, F., Watson, L., Chung, Y., & Brack, G. (2012). Experience of career- related discrimination of female-to-male transgender persons: A qualitative study. Career Development Quarterly, 60, 65-81. doi:10.1002/j.2161- 0045.2012.00006.x Doherty, C., Berwick, A., & McGregor, R. (2018). Swearing in class: Institutional morality in dispute. Linguistics and Education, 48, 1-9. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2018.09.003 Donmoyer, R. (1990). Generalizability and the single case study. In E. W. Eisner & A. Peshkin (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in education: The continuing debate (pp. 175-200). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Douglas, M. (1979). Taboo. Man, Myth, and Magic, 20, 2767-2771. Retrieved from http://anth198.pbworks.com/f/Douglas+-+Taboo.pdf. Douglas, M. (2002). Purity and danger: An analysis of concept of pollution and taboo. London, New York: Routledge. Dremel, A. (2014). Discourse and/as social practice - The analysis of the problem of resistance and hegemony. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(22), 155-166. doi:10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n22p155 Dreyfus, H., L, & Rabinow, P. (1982). Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Dudovskiy, J. (2018). Snowball Sampling. Research Methodology. Retrieved from https://research-methodology.net/sampling-in-primary-data- collection/snowball-sampling/ Easton, H. (1837). A treatise on the intellectual character and civil and political condition of the colored people of the United States, and the prejudice
290 References
excercised towards them: with a sermon on the duty of the church to them. Boston, Massachusetts: Isaac Knapp. Elhindi, Y. (2009). Metaphor. In S. Chapman & C. Routledge (Eds.), Key ideas in linguistics and the philosophy of language (pp. 131-134). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Elliott, A., & Lemert, C. C. (2014). Introduction to contemporary social theory (1st ed.). New York: Routledge. Ellis, S., & Hogg, A. (2012). F-bomb beaten by B.S: Australians more worried by "BS” than the F-bomb as sensitivity to swearing on TV gets tested. Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv- and-radio/fbomb-beaten-by-bs-20120706-21l0p.html Emerson, R., Fretz, R., & Shaw, L. (2011). Writing ethnographic field notes (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Enfield, N. (2016) Swearing demographics. The Project, Channel 10, Melbourne, Australia. Epstein, C. (1992). Tinker-bells and pinups: The construction and re-construction of gender boundaries at work. In M. Lamont & M. Fournier (Eds.), Cultivating differences: Symbolic boundaries and the making of inequality (pp. 232-256). Chicago: University Chicago Press. Erickson, B. (1979). Some problems of inference from chain data. Sociological Methodology, 10, 276-302. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/270774 Fabelo, T., Thompson, M. D., Plotkin, M., Carmichael, D., Marchbanks, M. P., & Booth, E. A. (2011). 'Breaking Schools' Rules: A statewide study of how school discipline relates to students' success and juvenile justice involvement'. Retrieved from https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp- content/uploads/2012/08/Breaking_Schools_Rules_Report_Final.pdf Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Fairclough, N. (2001a). Critical discourse analysis as a method in social scientific research. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (pp. 121-138). London: Thousand Oaks. Fairclough, N. (2001b). The dialectics of discourse. Textus, XIV(2), 231-242. Retrieved from http://www.sfu.ca/cmns/courses/2012/801/1- Readings/Fairclough%20Dialectics%20of%20Discourse%20Analysis.pdf. Fairclough, N. (2001c). The discourse of new labour: critical discourse analysis. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor, & S. Yates (Eds.), Discourse as Data: A guide for analysis (pp. 229-266). Milton Keynes & London: The Open University & Sage Publications. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analyzing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge. Fairclough, N. (2004). Interview with Norman Fairclough. An introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education [companion website]. 2nd Edition. Retrieved from http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/9780415874298/interview.asp
References 291
Fairclough, N. (2014). Language awareness: Critical and non-critical approaches. In Critical language awareness. London: Routledge. Fairclough, N., & Graham, P. (2002). Marx as a Critical Discourse Analyst: The genesis of a critical method and its relevance to the critique of global capital. Sociolinguistic Studies, 3(1), 1-56. doi:10.1558/sols.v3i1.185 Farmer, T., Farmer, E., Estell, D., & Hutchins, B. (2007). The developmental dynamics of aggression and the prevention of school violence. Journal of Emotional and Behavioural Disorders, 15(4), 197-208. doi:https://doi- org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/10.1177/10634266070150040201 Fasoli, F., Maass, A., & Carnaghi, A. (2014). Labelling and discrimination: Do homophobic epithets undermine fair distribution of resources? British Journal of Social Psychology, 54(2), 383-393. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12090 Fasoli, F., Paladina, M., Carnaghi, A., Jetten, J., Bastian, B., & Bain, P. (2015). Not "just words": Exposure to homophobic epithets leads to de-humanizing and physical distancing from gay men. European Journal of Social Psychology, 46(2), 237-248. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2148 Fergie-Vevo (Producer). (2016). Fergie - M.I.L.F. $. [video] Retrieved from https://youtu.be/bsUWK-fixiA Fidler, M. (Producer). (2018). Terms of abuse. Very Bad Words. [podcast] Retrieved from http://www.verybadwords.com/ Findlaw Australia. (2016). What is blasphemy? And is it an offence in Australia? Retrieved from http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/4766/what-is-blasphemy- and-is-it-an-offence-in-australi.aspx Finlay, C. (2009). How to do things with the word 'terrorist'. Review of International Studies, 35(4), 751-774. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210509990167 Foucault, M. (1970). Order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences. United Kingdom: Tavistock Publications. Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language (A. M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.). New York: Pantheon Books. Foucault, M. (1974). 'Prisons et aisles dans le mécanisme du pouvoir'. In Dits et Ecrits vol II (pp. 523-524). Paris: Gallimard. Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.). New York: Vintage. Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality. Volume 1: An introduction (R. Hurley, Trans.). New York: Random House. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings: 1972-1977 (C. Gordon, L. Marshall, & K. Soper, Trans.). New York: Pantheon Books. Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. In P. Rabinow & H. Dreyfus, L (Eds.), Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (2nd ed.). Chicago, USA: The University of Chicago Press.
292 References
Foucault, M. (1983). On genealogy of ethics. In H. Dreyfus, L & P. Rabinow (Eds.), Michel Foucault: Beyond structualism and hermeneutics (2nd ed.). Chicago, USA: The University of Chacago Press. Foucault, M. (1986). The care of the self: Volume 3 of the history of sexuality (R. Hurley, Trans.). New York: Pantheon Books. Foucault, M. (1988a). The concern for truth (A. Sheridan Smith, Trans.). In L. Kritzman (Ed.), Michel Foucault: Politics, philosophy, culture: Interviews and other writings 1977-1984. New York: Routledge. Foucault, M. (1988b). Politics, philosophy, culture: Interviews and other writings, 1977-1984. New York: Routledge. Foucault, M. (1988c). Technologies of the self: A seminar with Michel Foucault (L. H. Martin, H. Gutman, & P. H. Hutton Eds.). Great Britain: Tavistock Publications. Foucault, M. (1989). The discourse of history. In S. Lotringer (Ed.), Foucault live: Interviews, 1966-1984. New York, NY: Semiotex(e). Foucault, M. (1990). The use of pleasure: Volume 2 of the history of sexuality (R. Hurley, Trans.). New York: Vintage Books. Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality with two lectures by and an interview with Michel Foucault. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Foucault, M. (1994). La philosophie analytique de la politique. In D. Defert, F. Ewald, & J. Lagrange (Eds.), Dits et écrits, 1954-1988 (Vol. 3, pp. 534-551). Paris: Éditions Gallimard. Foucault, M. (1997). Ethics subjectivity and truth: The essential works of Michel Foucault 1954 - 1984. New York: The New Press. Foucault, M. (1998a). Michel Foucault: Aesthetics, method, and epistemology (R. Hurley, Trans.). In J. D. Faubion (Ed.), The Essential Works of Foucault: 1954-1984 (Vol. 2, pp. 343-368). New York: The New Press. Foucault, M. (1998b). Polemics, politics and problematizations: An interview conducted by Paul Rabinow in May 1984. In P. Rabinow (Ed.), Ethics subjectivity and truth: The essential works of Michel Foucault 1954 - 1984 (Vol. 1). New York: The New Press. Foucault, M. (1999). Religion and culture (J. Carrette Ed.). New York: Routledge. Foucault, M. (2001). Power: Essential works of Foucault: 1954-1984 (R. Hurley, Trans. P. Rabinow Ed. Vol. 3). New York: New York Press. Foucault, M. (2010). The government of self and others: Lectures at the Collège de France 1982–1983 (G. Burchell, Trans. F. Grose, F. Ewald, & A. Fontana Eds.). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. Freire, P. (2009). Teachers as cultural workers: Letters to those who dare teach, with new commentary by Peter McLaren, Joe L. Kincheloe, and Shirley. New York: Westview Press.
References 293
Freud, S., & Strachey, J. (2001). Totem and taboo: Some points of agreement between the mental lives of savages and neurotics. New York; London: Routledge. Fries, K., & DeMitchell, T. A. (2007). Zero tolerance and the paradox of fairness: Viewpoints from the classroom. The Journal of Law and Education, 36(2), 211. Retrieved from https://search-proquest- com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/docview/200947487?pq-origsite=summon. Gage, N. L. (1989). The paradigm wars and their aftermath: A "historical" sketch of research on teaching since 1989. Educational Researcher, 18(7), 4-10. doi:https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018007004 Gangoli, G. (2017). Understanding patriarchy, past and present: Critical reflections on gerda lerner (1987), the creation of patriarchy. Journal of Gender-Based Violence, 1, 127-134. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/10.1332/239868017X14907152 523430 Garrison, A. H. (2007). Defining terrorism: Philosophy of the bomb, propaganda by deed and change through fear and violence. Criminal Justice Studies, 17(3). doi:10.1080/1478601042000281105 Gauthier, M., & Guille, A. (2017). Gender and age differences in swearing: A corpus study of Twitter. In K. Beers Fägersten & K. Stapleton (Eds.), Advances in swearing research: New languages and new contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Geertz, C. (1978). “Stir crazy”. In New York Review of Books (pp. 3-6). Geller, R. (2008). Goodbye to blasphemy in Britain. Humanist Network News. Retrieved from http://web.archive.org/web/20080607204857/http://humaniststudies.org/enew s/?id=348&article=0. Generous, M., Houser, M., & Frei, S. (2015). Exploring college students' emotional responses to instructor swearing. Communication Research Reports, 32(3), 216-224. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2015.1052901 Giddens, A. (1979). Studies in social and political theory. London: Hutchinson. Giddens, A. (2013). Modernity and self identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Hoboken: Wiley. Giroux, H. (1998). Teachers as intellectuals. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. GLAAD. (2018). GLAAD media reference guide - AP, Reuters & New York Times style. Retrieved from https://www.glaad.org/reference/style Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2006). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. New Brunswick, N.J: Aldine Transaction. Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitatve researchers - An introduction (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
294 References
Goffman, E. (1955). On Face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. psychiatry, 18(3), 213-231. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1955.11023008 Goffman, E. (1978). Response cries. Language, 54, 787-815. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/413235 Goodenough, W. H. (1957). Cultural anthropology and linguistics. In P. L. Garvin (Ed.), Report of the seventh round table meeting on linguisitcs and language study. Washington D.C: Georgetown University Press. Goodman, L. (1961). "Snowball sampling". Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 32(148-170). doi:https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177705148 Gottfried, M. A., Conchas, G. Q., Sublett, C., & Simon, O. (2016). When good policies go bad. In M. A. Gottfried & G. Q. Conchas (Eds.), When school policies backfire: How well-intended measures can harm our most vulnerable students. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Education Press. Graham, L. (2015). The hit and miss of dealing with disruptive behaviour in schools. Paper presented at the AARE National Summit on Student Engagement, Learning & Behaviour. http://www.aare.edu.au/blog/?p=1085 Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from prison notebooks. London: Lawrence and Wishart. Graue, E., & Karabon, A. (2013). Standing at the corner of epistemology ave, theoretical trail, methodology blvd, and methods street: The intersections of qualitative research. In A. Trainor & E. Graue (Eds.), Reviewing qualitative research in the social sciences. New York, NY: Routledge. Gray, D. E. (2014). Doing research in the real world (3rd ed.). London: Sage. Green, J. (2006). Cassell's dictionary of slang: A major new edition of the market- leading dictionary of slang (2nd ed.). London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Greene, S., & Abt-Perkins, D. (2003). Making race visible: Literacy research for cultural understanding (S. Greene & D. Abt-Perkins Eds.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Grose, F. (1796). A classical dictionary of the vulgar tongue (3rd ed.). London: Hooper and Wigstead. Habermas, J. (1984). Theory of communicative action (T. McCarthy, Trans. Vol. 1). London: Heinemann. Halliday, M. A. K. (1976). Anti-Languages. American Anthroplogist, 78(3), 570- 584. doi:https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1976.78.3.02a00050 Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as a social semiotic. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). United Kingdom: Hodder Headline Group. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press.
References 295
Handcock, M., & Gile, K. (2011). On the concept of snowball sampling. Sociological Methodology, 41(1), 367-371. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 9531.2011.01243.x Harvey, D. (1996). Justice, nature and the geography of difference. Oxford: Blackwell. Hawley, P. (2003). Prosocial and coercive configurations of resource control in early adolescence: A case for the well-adapted Machiavellian. Merril-Palmer Quarterly, 49, 279-309. doi:10.1353/mpq.2003.0013 Haynes, B. (2002). Australian education policy: An introduction to critical thinking for teachers and parents (second ed.). Katoomba New South Wales: Social Science Press. Heckathorn, D. (2011). Comment: Snowball versus respondent-driven sampling. Socialogical Methodology, 41(1), 355-266. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9531.2011.01244.x Hemphill, S., Toumbourou, J., W, Smith, R., Kendall, G., E, Rowland, B., Freiberg, K., & Williams, J., W. (2010). Are rates of school suspension higher in socially disadvantaged neighbourhoods? An Australian study. Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 21(1), 12-18. doi:https://doi.org/10.1071/he10012 Heritage, J., & Watson, D. (1972). Formulations as conversational objects. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language (pp. 123-162). New York: Irvington Press. Hickey, R. (2003). Motives for language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hill, B. V. (2004). Values Education in Schools: Issues and challenges. Paper presented at the National Values Education Forum, Melbourne. http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/ve_acsa_paper.pdf Hoey, M. (2013). Textual Interaction: An introduction to written discourse analysis. Abingdon, Oxon: Taylor and Francis. Hoffman, B. (2017). Inside terrorism (3rd ed.). New York: Columbia University Press. Hughes, G. (1998). Swearing: A social history of foul language, oaths, and profanity in English. Cambridge, Mass., USA;Oxford, UK;: Blackwell. Hughes, G. (2006). An encyclopedia of swearing: The social history of oaths, profanity, foul language, and ethnic slurs in the English-speaking world (1st ed.). Armonk, N.Y Routledge. Hughes, R. (1993). Culture of complaint: The fraying of America. New York: Oxford University Press. Hughes, S. (1992). Expletives of lower working-class women. Language in Society, 21, 291-303. doi:10.1017/S004740450001530X Hussein, B. A. (2012). The sapir-whorf hypothesis today. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(3), 642-646. doi:doi:10.4304/tpls.2.3.642-646
296 References
I-do.com.au. (2010). The socially acceptable side of swearing. Retrieved from http://community.i-do.com.au/topic/143844-the-socially-acceptable-side-of- swearing/ IMDb.com. (2016a). Parents guide for Southpark. Retrieved from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0121955/parentalguide IMDb.com. (2016b). South Park: Bigger longer & uncut (1999),. Retrieved from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0158983/ Independent Schools Queensland. (2017). About Independent schools. Retrieved from https://www.isq.qld.edu.au/about-independent-schools/find-an- independent-school Janschewitz, K. (2008). Taboo, emotionally valenced, and emotionally neutral word norms. Behavior Research Methods, 40(4), 1065-1074. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.4.1065 Jay, K., & Jay, T. (2015). Taboo word fluency and knowledge of slurs and general pejoratives: Deconstructing the poverty-of-vocabulary myth. Language Science, 52, 251-259. Retrieved from https://www-sciencedirect- com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/science/article/pii/S038800011400151X?via%3 Dihub. doi:10.1016/j.langsci.2014.12.003 Jay, T. (1992). Cursing in America: A psycholinguistic study of dirty language in the courts, in the movies, in the schoolyards and on the streets. Philadelphia, USA: John Benjamins Publishing Co. Jay, T. (2000). Why we curse: A neuro-psycho-social theory of speech. Philadelphia, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Jay, T. (2009a). Do offensive words harm people? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 15(2), 81-101. doi:10.1037/a0015646 Jay, T. (2009b). The utility and ubiquity of taboo words. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(2), 153-161. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01115.x Jay, T. (2018). Swearing, moral order, and online communication. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 6(1), 107-126. doi:https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00005.jay Jay, T., Caldwell- Harris, C., & King, K. (2008). Recalling taboo and nontaboo words. American Journal of Psychology, 121(1), 83-103. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/20445445 Jay, T., King, K., & Duncan, T. (2006). Memories of Punishment for Cursing. Sex Roles, 55(1), 123-133. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9064-5 Jones, T., & Hall, C. (2015). Semantic bleaching and the emergence of new pronouns in AAVE. LSA Annual Meeting Extended Abstracts, 6(10), 1-5. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/exabs.v0i0.2994 Jones, T., Smith, E., Ward, R., Dixon, J., Hillier, L., & Mitchell, A. (2016). School expereinces of transgender and gender diverse students in Australia. Sex Education, 16(2), 156-171. doi:10.1080/14681811.2015.1080678 Jørgensen, M., & Phillips, L. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
References 297
Joseph, J. E. (2012). Saussure. GB: Oxford University Press. Jucker, A., Smith, S., & Lüdge, T. (2003). Interactive aspects of vagueness in conversation. journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1737-1769. doi:10.1016/S0378- 2166(02)00188-1 Keeling, J., & Young, M. (2016). Viewpoint: Stop blaming teachers for societal failures. Principal Leadership, 16(7), 20-22. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1792363134/. Kennedy, R. (2000). Who can say “Nigger”?… And other considerations. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 26(86). doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/2999172 Kettle, M. (2007). Agency, discourse and academic practice: Reconceptualising international students in an Australian university. (Doctor of Philosophy), University of Queensland, Koblin, J. (2018). After racist tweet, Roseanne Barr’s show is cancelled by ABC. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/29/business/media/roseanne-barr- offensive-tweets.html Koerin, B., & Miller, J. (1995). Gatekeeping policies: Terminating students for nonacademic reasons. Journal of Social Work Education, 31(2), 247-260. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23043000. Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B., P. M, Antoniou, P., Demetriou, D., & Charalambous, C., Y. (2015). The impact of school policy and stakeholders' actions on student learning: A longitudinal study. Learning and Instruction, 36, 113- 124. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.01.004 Labov, W. (1972). Rules for ritual insults. In T. Kochman (Ed.), Rappin’ and stylin’ out: communication in urban black America (pp. 265-314). Champaign: University of Illinois Press. Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and socialist strategy. London: Verso. Lakoff, G. (1973). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts*. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2(4), 458-508. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00262952 Lakoff, G., & Johnsen, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. London: The University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman's place. New York: Harper & Row. Lakoff, R. (1995) The N-word: Still there, still ugly. Newsday, September 28. Lakoff, R. (2000). The language of war. Berkeley: University of California Press. Lamont, M., & Molnár, V. (2002). The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 167-195. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.141107 Lauletta, T. (2017). Conor McGregor wore a custom suit with pinstripes made out of the words 'F--- You'. Business Insider Australia. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.com.au/conor-mcgregor-suit-mayweather-press- conference-2017-7?r=US&IR=T
298 References
Lawrence, B. (2010). To Infinity and beyond: FCC enforcement limiting broadcast indecency from George Carlin to Cher and into the digital age. UCLA Entertainment Law Review, 18(1), 148. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8sn5s0n0. Lazar, A., & Offenberg, R. (2011). Activists, allies, and racists. Journal of Literacy Research, 43(3), 275-313. doi:10.1177/1086296X11413720 Lazarsfeld, P., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1944). The people's choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce. Lemke, J. L. (1998). Text structure and text semantics. In R. Veltman & E. Steiner (Eds.), Pragmatics, discourse and text: Systemic approaches. London: Pinter. Lemke, J. L. (2000). Foucault, governmentality, and critique. Paper presented at the Rethinking Marxism Conference, University of Amherst (MA). Lemke, T. (2000). The birth of bio-politics: Michel Foucault’s lecture at the Collège de France on neo-liberal governmentality. Economy and Society, 30(2), 190– 207. doi:10.1080/03085140120042271 Lendvai, N., & Stubbs, P. (2006). Translation, intermediaries and welfare reform in central and south eastern Europe. Paper presented at the 4th Annual ESPAnet Conference ‘Transformation of the welfare state: political regulation and social inequality’, University of Bremen, Germany. Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications. Liu, K., & Fox Tree, J. (2012). Hedges enhance memory but inhibit retelling. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(5), 892–898. doi: doi:10.3758/s13423- 012-0275-1 Ljung, M. (2011). Swearing: A cross-cultural linguistic study. Great Britain: Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. LoCastro, V. (2012). Pragmatics for language educators: A sociolinguistic perspective. New York: Routledge. Loxley, J. (2006). Introduction. In Performativity. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com Lukin, A. (2016). The Oxford dictionary’s new words are a testament to the fluid beauty of English. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/the-oxford- dictionarys-new-words-are-a-testament-to-the-fluid-beauty-of-english-62356 Lund, R. (2014). A Whole-school Behaviour Policy: A Practical Guide. Florence: Routledge Ltd. Lux, D., & Hot Mess, L. (Producer). (2017). Facebook’s hate speech policies censor marginilized users [News article] Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/story/facebooks-hate-speech-policies-censor- marginalized-users/ Mack, L. (2010). The philosophical underpinnings of educational research. Polyglossia, 19, 5-11. Retrieved from
References 299
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Philosophical-Underpinnings-of- Educational-Mack/a98a3f11879f9d2a91f087c0b9191239add287c4. Maguire, M., Braun, A., & Ball, S. (2015). “Where you stand depends on where you sit”: The social construction of policy enactments in the (English) secondary school. Discourse-Studies In The Cultural Politics Of Education, 36(4), 485- 499. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2014.977022 Manchel, F. (1990). Film study: An analytical bibliography. London: Associated University Presses. Marjoribanks, A. (1847). Travels in New South Wales. London: Smith, Elder & Company. Marsh, G. P. (1860). Lectures on the English language. New York: Scribner. Marshall, B., Cardon, P., Poddar, A., & Fontenot, R. (2013). Does sample size matter in qualitative research?: A review of qualitative interviews in research. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 54(1), 11.22. doi:10.1080/08874417.2013.11645667 Martin, J., & White, P. (2003). Appraisal: The language of attitude and intersubjective stance. London: Palgrave. Mason, M. (2010). Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 11(3). Retrieved from https://doaj.org/article/2657f6fdbc8d4873b9f03b81307524ad. May, T. (1997). Reconsidering difference: Nancy, Derrida, Levinas, and Deleuze. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania University Press. Maybin, J. (2013). Towards a sociocultural understanding of children's voice. Language and Education, 27(5), 383-397. doi:10.1080/09500782.2012.704048 Mayock, E. (2016). Institutional language(s) and the enactment of language. In Gender shrapnel in the academic workplace. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, US. McDonald, D. (2012). Ungovernable monsters: Law, paedophilia, crisis. Griffith Law Review, 21(3), 585-608. Retrieved from https://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=https://search-proquest- com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/docview/1441671232?accountid=13380. MCEETYA. (2010). The Melbourne Declaration on educational goals for young Australians. (1444-1284). Melbourne: Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs Retrieved from http://search.informit.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/documentSummary;dn =761724106774565;res=IELHSS MCEETYA. (2011). National safe schools framework. Melbourne, Australia McEnery, T. (2005). Swearing in English. Bad language, purity and power from 1586 to the present. Abingdon: Routledge. McHoul, A. W., & Grace, W. (2015). A Foucault primer: Discourse, power, and the subject. Routledge.
300 References
McNally, J., I'Anson, J., Whewell, C., & Wilson, G. (2005). 'They think that swearing is okay': first lessons in behaviour management. Journal of Education for Teaching, 31(3), 169-185. doi:10.1080/02607470500169006 McNay, L. (1994). Foucault: a critical introduction (Vol. 1). Cambridge, Oxford: Polity Press. Mendes, K. (2015a). Changing the message about rape, one SlutWalk at a time, [Online Media]. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/changing-the- message-about-rape-one-slutwalk-at-a-time-43982 Mendes, K. (2015b). SlutWalk: Feminism, activism & media. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Menken, K., & Garcia, O. (2010). Negotiating language policies in schools: Educators as policymakers. New York, London: Routledge. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education: Revised and expanded from case study research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (Vol. 3rd). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative Research: A guide to design and implementation (Vol. 4th). US: Jossey Bass Ltd. Miller, B., & Behm-Morawitz, E. (2017). Exploring social television, opinion leaders, and Twitter audience reactions to Diane Sawyer's coming out interview with Caitlyn Jenner. International Journal of Transgenderism, 18(2), 140-153. doi:10.1080/15532739.2016.1260513 Millwood-Hargrave, A. (2000). Delete expletives? Retrieved from http://ligali.org/pdf/ASA_Delete_Expletives_Dec_2000.pdf Mohr, M. (2013). Holy shit. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Molotkow, A. (2015). Why are women reluctant to use the word rape?, Online Media. Flare. Retrieved from http://www.flare.com/health/why-are-women- reluctant-to-use-the-word-rape-definition/ Montagu, A. (1967). The anatomy of swearing. London; New York: Mcmillan and Collier. Morris, C. (1938). Foundations of the theory of signs. In O. Neurath, R. Carnap, & C. Morris (Eds.), International encycolpedia of unified science (pp. 77-138). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Moyser, G., & Wagstaffe, M. (1987). Research methods for elite studies. London: Allen & Unwin. Mulac, A. (1976). Effects of obscene language upon three dimensions of listener attitude. Communication Monographs, 43, 300-307. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/03637757609375941 Neuilly, M., & Zgoba, K. (2006). Assessing the possibility of a pedophillia panic and contagion effect between France and the United States. Victims & Offenders, 1(3), 225–254. doi:10.1080/15564880600626122
References 301
Neuman, W. (2014). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (7th ed.). Essex, England: Pearson. Nilsen, A., Fylkesnes, S., Akershus, O., & Mausethagen, S. (2017). The linguistics in othering: Teacher educators’ talk about cultural diversity. Reconceptualizing Educational Research Methodology, 8(1). Retrieved from http://journals.hioa.no/index.php/rerm. Noy, C. (2007). Sampling knowledge: The hermeneutics of snowball sampling in qualitative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(4), 327-344. doi:10.1080/13645570701401305 NSW Law Reform Commission. (1994). Report 74 - Blasphemy. Retrieved from http://www.lawreform.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/report_74.pdf O'Farrell, C. (2005). Michel Foucault. London: SAGE Publications. O’Grady, E., Hinchion, C., & McNamara, P. (2011). The importance of teaching and learning: Perspectives of final year pre-service teachers in a regional university in Ireland. European Journal of Teacher Education, 34(4), 501- 518. doi:10.1080/02619768.2011.592978 O’Keefe, A., McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (2007). From corpus to classroom: Language use and language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Olssen, M. (2003). Structuralism, post structuralism, neo-liberalism: Assessing Foucault’s legacy. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 189-202. doi:10.1080/0268093022000043047 Olssen, M. (2010). Discourse, complexity, life: Elaborating the possibilites of Foucault's materialist concept of discourse. In C. Grant (Ed.), Beyond universal pragmatics: Studies in the philosophy of communication (Vol. 4). Oxford: Peter Lang. Oxford Dictionaries. (2019). English Oxford living dictionaries (online dictionary). from Oxford University Press https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/ Oxford English Dictionary (OED). (2016). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Oxford English Dictionary (OED). (2019). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332. doi:10.2307/1170741 Parkhurst, J., & Hopmeyer, A. (1998). Sociometric popularity and peer-perceived popularity: Two distinct measures of peer status. Journal of Early Adolescence, 18, 125-144. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431698018002001 Parliament of Australia. (2016). The Australian constitution. Retrieved from http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_proced ures/Constitution Parrott, M. (2010). Grammar for English language teachers (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
302 References
Partridge, E., Dalzell, T., & Victor, T. (2013). The new Partridge dictionary of slang and unconventional English (Vol. 2nd). New York;London;: Routledge. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (Vol. 3rd). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Phillippi, J., & Lauderdale, J. (2018). A guide to field notes for qualitative research: Context and conversation. Qualitative Health Research, 28(3), 381-388. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732317697102 Pietikäinen, S. (2016). Critical debates: Discourse, boundaries and social change. In N. Coupland (Ed.), Sociolinguistics: Theoretical Debates (pp. 263-281). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pinker, S. (2007). The stuff of thought: Language as a window into human nature. New York, NY: Viking. Polite, L., & Saenger, E. (2003). A pernicious silence: Confronting race in the elementary classroom. Phi Delta Kappan Magazine, 85, 274-278. doi:10.1177/003172170308500406 Precht, K. (2008). Sex similarities and differences in stance in informal American conversation. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(1), 89-111. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2008.00354.x Prinsloo, M. (2012). What counts as English? In C. Leung & B. Street (Eds.), English - A changing medium for education. Bristol Multilingual Matters. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of the American community. New York: Simon and Schuster. QCEC. (2018). Supporting and advancing Catholic Education in Queensland. Retrieved from https://qcec.catholic.edu.au/ Queensland Government. (2014). Performance insights: School disciplinary absences. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Employment Retrieved from http://education.qld.gov.au/schools/strengthening- discipline/pdf/sda-full-report.pdf Queensland Government. (2015). School disciplinary absences. Department of Education, Retrieved from https://data.qld.gov.au/dataset/school-disciplinary- absences Queensland Government. (2016a). Allegations against employees in the area of student protection. Department of Education, Retrieved from http://ppr.det.qld.gov.au/corp/hr/management/Pages/Allegations-Against- Employees-in-the-Area-of-Student-Protection.aspx Queensland Government. (2016b). Behavioural management. Department of Education, Retrieved from http://education.qld.gov.au/schools/about/behaviour.html Queensland Government. (2016c). A chronology of education in Queensland. Department of Education, Retrieved from http://education.qld.gov.au/library/edhistory/state/chronology/1876.html Queensland Government. (2016d). The code of school behaviour. Department of Education, Retrieved from http://education.qld.gov.au/schools/about/behaviour.html#code
References 303
Queensland Government. (2016e). Standard of Practice. Department of Education, Retrieved from http://education.qld.gov.au/corporate/codeofconduct/pdfs/det- code-of-conduct-standard-of-practice.pdf Queensland Government. (2017a). OneSchool. Canberra: Department of Education, Retrieved from http://www.education.qld.gov.au/smartclassrooms/working- digitally/oneschool.html Queensland Government. (2017b). Safe, supportive and disciplined school environment. Department of Education, Retrieved from http://ppr.det.qld.gov.au/education/learning/Pages/Safe,-Supportive-and- Disciplined-School-Environment.aspx Queensland Government. (2018a). About us. Retrieved from http://education.qld.gov.au/corporate/ Queensland Government. (2018b). A chronology of name changes for Education Queensland. Retrieved from http://education.qld.gov.au/library/edhistory/state/chronology-name.html Queensland Government. (2018c). Independent Public Schools. Brisbane, Queensland: Department of Education, Retrieved from http://education.qld.gov.au/schools/independent-public-schools/index.html Queensland Government. (2018d). Responsible behaviour plan for students. Department of Education, Retrieved from http://behaviour.education.qld.gov.au/disciplinary-decisions/responsible- behaviour-plan/Pages/default.aspx Queensland Government. (2018e). School disciplinary absences. Department of Education, Retrieved from https://qed.qld.gov.au/publications/reports/statistics/schooling/students Queensland Government. (2018f). Statistics. Queensland: Department of Education, Retrieved from https://qed.qld.gov.au/publications/reports/statistics/schooling/students Queensland Government. (2018g). Suspensions. Department of Education, Retrieved from http://behaviour.education.qld.gov.au/disciplinary- decisions/disciplinary-consequences/Pages/suspensions.aspx Quin, D., & Hemphill, S. (2014). Students' experiences of school suspension. Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 25(1), 52-58. doi:10.1071/HE13097 Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. (1939). Taboo. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Radford, G., & Radford, M. (2005). Structualism, post-structuralism, and the library: De Saussure and Foucault. Journal of Documentation, 61, 60-78. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410510578014 Rafferty, S. (Producer). (2017). Mayweather hurls homophobic F-word slur at McGregor. Rolling Stone Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.rollingstone.com/sports/news/mayweather-mcgregory- homophobic-f-word-slur-at-news-conference-w492676 Rassin, E., & Muris, P. (2005). Why do women swear? An exploration of reasons for and perceived efficacy of swearing in Dutch female students. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1669-1674. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.09.022
304 References
Rassin, E., & Van Der Heijden, S. (2005). Appearing credible? Swearing helps! Psychology, Crime & Law, 11(2), 177-182. doi:10.1080/106831605160512331329952 Rizvi, F., & Kemmis, S. (1987). Dilemmas of reform: An overview of issues and achievements of the participation and equity program in Victorian schools 1984-1986. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press. Rodero, E. (2011). Intonation and emotion: Influence of pitch levels and contour type on creating emotions. Journal of Voice, 25(1), 25-34. doi:10.1016/j.jvoice.2010.02.002 Rogers, R., Malancharuvil-Berkes, E., Mosley, M., Hui, D., & Joseph, G. (2005). Critical discourse analysis in education: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 365-416. doi:https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075003365 Rojo, L. M., & Pujol, A. G. (2011). Michel Foucault. In M. Sbisà, J.-O. Östman, & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Philosophical Perspectives for Pragmatics (Vol. 10). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Rose, N. (1999). Powers of Freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rose, N., & Miller, P. (1992). Political power beyond the state: Problematics of government. British Journal of Sociology, 43(2), 173-205. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2009.01247.x Rumney, P., & McCartan, K. (2017). Purpoted false allegations of rape, child abuse and non-sexual violence. The Journal of Criminal Law, 81(6). doi:10.1177/0022018317746789 Sapir, E. (1949). Symbolism. In D. Mandelbaum (Ed.), Selected writings in language, culture and personality. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. SBL Press. (2016). Conceptual metaphor theory. SBL handbook of style: Explanations, clarifications, and expansions. Retrieved from https://sblhs2.com/2016/11/24/conceptual-metaphor-theory/ Sheidlower, J. (2009). The F word (J. Sheidlower Ed. 3rd ed.). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Sifanek, S., & Neaigus, A. (2001). The ethnographic accessing, sampling and screening of hidden populations: Heroin sniffers in New York City. Addiction Research & Theory, 9(6), 519-543. doi:https://doi.org/10.3109/16066350109141130 Simon, L., & Greenberg, J. (1996). Further progress in understanding the effects of derogatory ethnic labels: The role of pre-existing attitudes towards the targeted group. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1195-1204. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672962212001 Slee, R. (1995). Changing theories and practices of discipline. Washington, London: Falmer. Slee, R. (2011). The irregular school: Exclusion, schooling and inclusive education. London, New York: Routledge.
References 305
Snapp, S., Burdge, H., Licona, A., Moody, R., & Russell, S. (2015). Students' perspectives on LGBTQ- Inclusive curriculum. Equity & Excellence in Education, 48(2), 249-265. doi:10.1080/10665684.2015.1025614 Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2006). Concise Oxford English dictionary (Vol. 11th, revis). Oxford;New York;: Oxford University Press. Spillane, J. (2004). Standards deviation: How schools misunderstand education policy. Campridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Stehlik, D. (2004). From 'snowball' to 'rhizome': A rethinking of method. Rural Society, 14(1), 36-45. doi:10.5172/rsj.351.14.1.36 Steiner, F. (1956). Taboo (L. Bohannan Ed.). New York: Philosophical Library. Stephens, R., & Umland, C. (2011). Swearing as a response to pain - Effect of daily swearing frequency. Journal of Pain, 12(12), 1274-1281. doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2011.09.004 Straker, D. (2010). Changing minds. Retrieved from http://changingminds.org/techniques/language/persuasive/intensifiers.htm Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Strauss, A., Schatzman, L., Bucher, R., Ehrlich, D., & Sabshin, M. (1981). Psychiatric ideologies and institutions. New York: Wiley. Strozier, R., M. (2002). Foucault, subjectivity and identity. Detroit, Michigan: Wayne State University Press. Sussex, R. D. (2004). Uncle sam and Britannia: The character of Australian English. The Brisbane Line. Retrieved from http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3109. Swan, M. (2005). Practical English usage (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Swart, H. (2010). Expression and interpretation of negation: An OT typology. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Sweeney, J. (1980). Principals versus teachers: Where will we bury the victims? The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 53(7), 309-312. doi:10.1080/00098655.1980.9959240 Tait, G. (2000). Youth, sex, and government (E. McWilliam Ed. Vol. 3). New York: Peter Lang. Taylor, B. (2012). Unseemly language and the law in New South Wales. Arts: The Journal of the Sydney University Arts Association, 17. Retrieved from https://openjournals.library.sydney.edu.au/index.php/ART/article/view/5552. Taylor, S. (2001). Locating and conducting discourse analytic research. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor, & S. Yates (Eds.), Discourse as data : a guide for analysis London: Sage. The Guardian (Producer). (2017). Floyd Mayweather accuses Conor McGregor of racism and uses homophobic slur. [Newspaper] Retrieved from
306 References
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/jul/15/mayweather-accuses- mcgregor-of-racism-and-uses-homophobic-slur Thelwall, M. (2008). Fk yea I swear: cursing and gender in MySpace. Corpora, 3(1), 83-107. doi:https://doi.org/10.3366/E1749503208000087 Thomas, J. (2013). Meaning in interaction: an introduction to pragmatics (1 ed.). New York;London;: Routledge. Thornberg, R. (2008). A categorisation of school rules. Educational Studies, 34(1), 25-33. doi:10.1080/03055690701785244 Trow, M. (1957). Right-wing radicalism and political intolerance. New York: Arno Press. Reprinted 1980. Van Dijk, T. (1993). Elite discourse and racism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Van Leeuwen, T. (2007). Legitimation in discourse and communication. Discourse & Communication, 1(1), 91-112. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481307071986 Vaughn, G., Vollenweider, M., Bost, K., Azria-Evans, M., & Snider, J. (2003). Negative interactions and social competence for pre-school children in two samples: Reconsidering the interpretation of aggressive behaviour of young children. Merril-Palmer Quarterly, 49, 245-278. doi: https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2003.0017 Veyne, P. (2010). Foucault: His thought, his character (J. Lloyd, Trans.). Cambridge, UK: Polity. Wajnryb, R. (2005). Expletive deleted $&#@*!: A good look at bad language. New York: Free Press. Wardhaugh, R. (2010). An introduction to sociolinguistics (6th ed.). West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Wardhaugh, R., & Fuller, J. M. (2015). An Introduction to sociolinguistics (Vol. 7). US: Wiley-Blackwell. Weber, M. (1964). The theory of social and economic organization. New York: The Free Press. Wernick, L., Kulick, A., & Chin, M. (2017). Gender identity disparities in bathroom safety and wellbeing among high school students. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 46, 917-930. doi:10.1007/s10964-017-0652-1 Wetherell, M., Taylor, S., & Yates, S. (2001). Discourse as data: A guide for analysis. London, UK: Sage Publications. White, P. (2001). An introductory tour through appraisal theory. Retrieved from www.grammatics.com/appraisal Williams, B. (Producer). (2004). The N- word. [Online news commentary, accessed on 18 December 2018,] Retrieved from http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2004/06/28_williamsb_nword/ Williams, K. (Producer). (2016). South Park - Language and censorship. [video] Retrieved from https://youtu.be/2oI_iXU_yY8
References 307
Wilson, L., & Miller, K. (2015). Meta-analysis of the prevalence of unacknowledged rape. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 17(2), 149 - 159. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838015576391 Wittgenstein, L. (1968). Philosophical investigations (G. E. M. Anscombe Ed. 3rd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell. Wittgenstein, L. (1978). Remarks on the foundations of mathematics (G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans.). Oxford: Blackwell. Woodley, X., & Lockard, M. (2016). Womanism and snowball sampling: Engaging marginalized populations in holistic research. The Qualitative Report, 21(2), 321-329. doi: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol21/iss2/9 Wooffitt, R. (2005). Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: a comparative and critical introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA; London: SAGE. Wright, N. (2008). School language policies. In N. Hornberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education (Vol. 1, pp. 252-252). Boston, MA: Springer. Young, A. S. (2014). Unpacking teachers' language ideologies: attitudes, beliefs, and practiced language policies in schools in Alsace, France. Language Aware, 23(1-2), 157-171. Retrieved from http://qut.summon.serialssolutions.com/. doi:10.1080/09658416.2013.863902 Zimmer, B. (2013). WTF is older and more flexible than you think. Retrieved from http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2013/09/18/wtf_the_acronym_has _multiple_meanings_and_has_been_around_since_at_least.html
308 References
Appendices
APPENDIX A
Table of Terms of Swearing
Term Explanation
Blasphemy Blasphemy and profanity are frequently viewed as comparable and often used interchangeably, however there is a difference. Both are linked to the religious, but whereas profanity is irreverence, often due to ignorance and usually unintentional and habitual, blasphemy is supported by intent (T. Jay, 1992). Blasphemy is the act of swearing or abuse, lack of reverence or showing contempt for God, religious names and symbols. As example, black magic rituals would be categorised as blasphemous (G. Hughes, 2006). Examples would be language directed at the church, cursing the deities or taking the Lord’s name in vain, Screw the Pope, shit on what it says in the Bible, also the common Oh my God! Some would view these comments as humorous, but they may offend others (T. Jay, 1992; Mohr, 2013). Due to the decline in religious devotion by many in Western society, blasphemy has lost much of its offensiveness as an emotive language (Allan & Burridge, 2006).
Linguistically, the Greek blashemia means evil slander or profane speech and was first recorded around 1230 (Oxford English Dictionary (OED), 2016). With religion being such a major part of life in earlier times, blasphemy was considered to be one of the most sinful crimes and punished severely. Those found guilty were burnt at the stake until 1677, with the last burning taking place in 1612; in Scotland, it was punishable by death until 1825 (G. Hughes, 2006). More recently the consequences for blasphemy have become all but negligible, however, there have been some incidences where blasphemy has emerged as focal. The infamous Salman Rushdie novel, The Satanic Verses caused controversy due to its content, which according to some, was blasphemous and injurious towards Muslims and the Qur’an. In 1989 an attempt to invoke the law failed due to the fact that blasphemy law only covered “Christianity, its personages, and articles of belief” (G. Hughes, 1998). Two opposing initiatives, one to extend the law including other religions, and one to abolish the law totally, were rallied. On grounds of blasphemy, the novel was banned in South Africa and India soon after (G. Hughes, 2006). The Blasphemy Law in Britain was abolished in May 2008 (Geller, 2008), however Australian laws are varied in regard to blasphemy (Findlaw Australia, 2016). The Australian colonies were established under the common law of England, but Australia now does not have an official religion according to the Australian constitution (Parliament of Australia, 2016). Being a federation, not all the states and territories have the same laws with regard to blasphemy and in 1991 a report was submitted recommending the criminal law be amended removing all federal legislation referencing blasphemy (NSW Law Reform Commission, 1994), however, there is still variance with regard to the separate state and territory laws (L. Beck, 2017). Recent surveys in Britain and America, suggest oaths are rated as the mildest and most common swearwords used. They rated the five most frequently used swearwords in America as Hell, Godamn, Jesus Christ, damn and oh my God with oh my God accounting for twenty-four per cent of all women’s swearing.
Appendices 309
In Britain, God and Hell were the two most frequently used among all social classes (T. Jay, 2009b; McEnery, 2005; Mohr, 2013). Cursing Jay (1992) uses different words when discussing the subject. ‘Dirty words’ is the term he employs in the first chapter of his book which is entitled Cursing in America. He does not specifically define why he utilises the term dirty words but reveals that Americans prefer the word cursing, which covers all dirty word usage and is used to fulfil specific needs and intentions of the speaker. A vulgar pronunciation or attenuation of the term cursing is ‘cussing’ and here again, mainly used as an American colloquialism (Oxford English Dictionary (OED), 2016), with the term cuss word and swearword used synonymously (Allan & Burridge, 2006). Mohr (2013) suggests that the term cursing is used today to describe obscene language and Hughes (2006) adds that it is now viewed as an obscene or profane expression of anger, disgust or surprise. Cursing is using words in order to invoke harm by calling upon a deity or supernatural power. It is a way of wishing ill on someone by employing a higher power and in history was used in its more direct definition (Mohr, 2013). Montagu (1967) suggests it is the ‘calling down of evil on its subject’. The power utilised in the words usually comes from a religious or social separation, for example in the religious form, God damn you or go to Hell and social, eat shit and die or fuck you! Hughes (1998, 2006) suggests this ‘word magic’ of cursing has become less potent and effective as society has developed and modern English now utilises taboo words for body parts and actions rather than religious insinuations (Mohr, 2013). In Roman times, curses were more ritualistic, elaborate and more binding. They were actually called binding spells or ‘defixiones’, and the curse itself was scratched onto tin or lead, folded tightly and pierced with a nail before being thrown into a well or tomb. This was done in order to be closer to the underworld gods whose aid they summoned. The curse was believed to bind or restrain the person mentioned in the curse rendering them powerless (Mohr, 2013). Epithet/ An epithet expresses an attribute or quality regarded as characteristic of the Racial Epithet person or thing mentioned, however a racial epithet is viewed as a term of abuse (Mohr, 2013; Oxford English Dictionary (OED), 2019). Expletive A swearword or oath. Used in Late Middle English as an adjective from the Latin expletivus, from the word explere or ‘fill out’; ex = out + plere =fill. Used in the noun sense early in the 17th century was for a word used merely ‘to fill out a sentence’. The word was used in the early 19th century as reference to a swear word (OED, 2019), because like swearwords they contribute very little ‘literal’ meaning to a sentence (Mohr, 2013). Obscenity The etymology of the words obscene and obscenity shows borrowing from the French obscénité and Latin obscēnitāt-, obscēnitās. Meanings and explanations differ as can be seen in the change in meanings from 1511, ‘obscene words or actions’; in 1663, it ‘shows character of being indecent’; in later times, words such as ‘being horrible, offensive or morally repugnant’, ‘offensively indecent’, and ‘lewdness in obscene expression’ are also used. Speculation exists as to the connection to the classic Latin obscēnus, inauspicious, ill omened, and filthy, but also mud (Oxford English Dictionary (OED), 2016). Some speculation exists surrounding derivation from caenum, dirt or filth (Mohr, 2013) and also scaena, the stage or scene (Oxford English Dictionary (OED), 2016), accordingly, the meaning differs depending on the group utilising it (G. Hughes, 2006). For example Jay (1992) uses it in legal terms, discussing the obscenity laws in America to protect listeners from harmful language. Hughes (2006) suggests the terms have changed over time, being used in earlier times to associate with religious violations but more recently, since the 17th century, extreme vulgarity or sexual depravity, especially when referring to body parts as ‘obscene’. This change coincides with the change in
310 Appendices
taboo belief from the religious to the more sexual and racial taboos. Accordingly, the terms are still vague in their definitions and can be used to define the atrocities of war as being obscene, pornographic content, offensive words and also the behaviour of racial xenophobia. Profane/ Profanity is closely linked to the religious in that it is the opposite of anything profanity sacred (Mohr, 2013). To be profane is to treat something religious or sacred with contempt, abuse or irreverence, to behave outside of the religious beliefs and customs and often to be ignorant or intolerant of the specific religious beliefs or order (T. Jay, 1992; Oxford English Dictionary (OED), 2016). A specific example of this would be to say Jesus Christ I’m thirsty or for the love of Christ, shut the door! Hughes (2006) suggests that the root of the words profanity and profane find their origin in the Latin fanum meaning ‘a temple’, and the words show this in the Middle English etymology ‘to desecrate or violate a temple’. In modern English this religious connection has all but disappeared, moving toward a more extended meaning referring mostly to obscenities (Mohr, 2013), or according to Hughes (2006), irreverent or vulgar action or speech. Adams (2016) explains profanity to mean ‘impulsive speech’. Profanity in English is diminishing in use with the focus shifting to genital, copulatory and excretory themes rather than religious, making profanity less offensive to most than in previous times. However in saying this, responses vary according to the culture, age and religious beliefs of the listeners involved (G. Hughes, 2006; Mohr, 2013). In legal spheres, profanity is viewed as less offensive and heinous than –IST language with examples being sexist, racist, ageist (Allan & Burridge, 2006). Slang “Language peculiar to a particular group: an informal nonstandard vocabulary composed of coinages, arbitrary changed words, and extravagant, forced, or facetious figures of speech” is how Jay (1992, p. 6) describes slang with Ayto (1999, p. v) describing it as “the undignified bits of our language and the unguarded vocabulary of conversation”. According to Hughes (2006) the definition of slang amongst linguists is still up for debate but concedes that the definition given by the OED is generally accepted that being ‘Language of a highly colloquial type, considered as below the level of standard speech either consisting of new words or of current words employed in some special sense’ (Oxford English Dictionary (OED), 2016). The debate stems from terms such as ‘jargon’, ‘cant’, and ‘colloquial’ which all add fuel with their close proximity and often synonymy to the definition. Although jargon is also used to promote in-group solidarity it is a more technical specialist language for professional communication that cannot be tabooed (Allan & Burridge, 2006). Slang is contemporary and slightly inferior to polite informal speech with metaphor as well as ellipsis being used in a type of verbal play (Allan & Burridge, 2006). Hughes (2006) highlights this with the link to flyting or verbal duelling with the term slanging match recorded from 1896. As a vocabulary developed by certain groups for ease of communication, slang serves to identify its members, while misuse, ignorance and inaccuracies identifies non-members (T. Jay, 1992). This type of language is described as the language of the anti-society otherwise known as anti-language (Halliday, 1976, 1978). The examples of the anti-societies using slang are drug societies using shit as a term for cannabis resin, grass for marijuana, the sex industry using pimp for a prostitute’s boss, John for the client and a trick for the act of prostitution (Allan & Burridge, 2006). Accordingly, these groups need to update the slang constantly in order to keep the in-group privilege because out- groupers employ the slang as the contemporary vernacular and it then becomes standard. Hughes (2006) gives examples of some slang that has survived for centuries such as leak for urinate, tool for penis, twat for vagina and frig for masturbate but most often, slang has a fast turnover (Allan & Burridge, 2006).
Appendices 311
Slur From Middle English used originally as a noun in the sense of ‘thin, fluid mud’. It was later used as a verb meaning to ‘smear or smirch, to disparage a person’, or to ‘gloss over a fault’. Defined as an allegation or insinuation about a person that will likely insult them or do harm to their reputation. In addition, used toward a particular group of people as a derogatory and insulting term as in ‘a racial slur’ (OED, 2019; Mohr, 2013). Vulgar/ Deriving from the Latin, vulgāritas meaning the mass or multitude or vulgāris, Vulgarity common or ordinary (Oxford English Dictionary (OED), 2016), this term is used in making class distinctions linguistically (Mohr, 2013), or as a value judgment (T. Jay, 1992) . Words associated with this term in the OED are ‘common, ordinary, vulgar, unrefined, coarse’, or in 1763 ‘a person not belonging to ‘good society’; in 1532, ‘a common expression or vernacular’ and between 1525 and 1650, when defining language or speech, ‘the common or customary language utilised by the people of a country, the ordinary vernacular’ (Oxford English Dictionary (OED), 2016). From this use, the term became associated with swearing as many of the common folk utilised swearing in their everyday vernacular, the old phrase “to swear like a tinker” is testament to this (Mohr, 2013). A person who violated linguistic decency was viewed as being morally indecent as seen in George Perkins Marsh’s declaration in 1859, “Purity of speech, like personal cleanliness, is allied with purity of thought and rectitude of action” (1860, p. 551). Vulgarity is thus a social construct determined by opinions and beliefs of specific individuals in society who decide what is linguistically respectable and polite. Linked to social class and social judgment, the view determines that language verifies class status (Ljung, 2011) and inadequate vocabulary skills of the speaker making use of crude words in order to communicate (Montagu, 1967). Research suggests that utilising taboo language is not an indication of an inadequate vocabulary (K. Jay & Jay, 2015), however McEnery (2005) supports the link to social class judgment with his research that suggests the working class swears the most utilising the strongest words. As discussed in Chapter 2, the Normans invaded England in 1066 establishing and identifying French as the prestige language of the time. The Anglo-Saxon language was then looked upon as common and vulgar. The upper classes took control of the prestige of their own language through education, which in turn promoted and advanced the linguistic divide (Mohr, 2013; G. Hughes, 2006). Jay (1992) lists a number of common words considered to be vulgar today namely; bloody, snot, slut, piss, kiss my ass, puke, crap and up yours.
312 Appendices
APPENDIX B
Etymology and Change of Swearwords
Word Etymology and Change
Arse/Ass First recorded around 1400 denoting the anus, arse/ass was a descriptive term used without any derogatory effect, however, this changed during the 18th century due to its close phonetic proximity to that which was seen as indelicate. Up until this time, the word for donkey was ass but the English word was replaced by the more appropriate sounding synonym in 1785 (G. Hughes, 1998; Ljung, 2011). Asshole meaning a contemptible person or a fool was introduced around 1930 (Green, 2006). Bitch The word bitch is first noted circa 1000 from Old English bicce, also Old Norse bikkja but unknown whether there is a relation between the two. There is also German betze and French biche but the relations of these two to the English is also unknown. This earliest definition is the female of the dog or female fox, wolf or other animal usually used with the name of the animal such as wolf bitch (Oxford Dictionaries, 2019). The word was commonly used in literature such as the Chester Plays, c1400, and Hobbes’ Odyssey in 1675, but fell out of use in polite society when the meaning was associated with the term used to describe a lewd woman, as a derogatory term. In 1785, Francis Grose described the word as “the most offensive appellation that can be given to an English woman, even more provoking than that of whore” in his Classical Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue (Grose, 1796; G. Hughes, 1998). Bloody One of the earliest references to bloody is in 1847 when Alexander Marjoribanks described the language of a Sydney bullock driver who used the term bloody twenty-five times in a fifteen-minute timeframe, in addition extrapolating that the individual would say “this disgusting word” 18 200,000 times in his lifetime (1847, pp. 57-58). Other contemporary authors of the time referred to it as “this odious word”, “a horrid word”, “constantly in the mouths of the lowest classes” and “on par with obscene and profane language” (G. Hughes, 1998) , with Grose (1796) defining it as “a favourite word used by thieves in swearing”. The origin of bloody, both the adverbial and adjectival use is unknown and often disputed. It is speculated that it is a corruption of the old oaths God’s blood, ‘sblood, or Christ’s blood, but these terms as interjections have never been recorded as intensifiers and this explanation is often labelled as an urban legend. Used as an intensifier, the earliest referent is during the late seventeenth and early 18th century in the form of bloody drunk, either in relation to the ‘bloods’ or aristocratic troublemakers of the 17th century or in relation to the alcoholic consumption of the catholic priests during the reformation. As an adjective it is found earlier than this, bloody whore in 1540 but as with similar uses around that time, it is unknown whether it is referring to literal bloodshed or used as a derogatory intensifier. The word either meaning ‘of blood’ or connected to blood, or used as a derogatory intensifier with a negative sense, meaning something awful and more recently used to imply dislike or frustration, or just as a filler (Oxford English Dictionary (OED), 2019). Bullshit Listed as vulgar slang - meaning to talk nonsense to someone or to deceive them, stupid or untrue talk or writing (OED, 2019). Used in1914 in US as the word for nonsense, in 1930, in British vernacular applied to an unnecessary or routine task or ceremonial situation. Also used in opposition to excessive discipline (Ayto, 1999). In 1937 US used as exaggeration or flattery – “Let’s not bullshit one another” (Ayto, 1999. p279). Cunt Cunt’s history is an interesting one being related with forms in Middle Low German kunte, Middle Dutch, conte, Old Norse kunte but etymologists differ in the link to Old
Appendices 313
English and classical Latin because of the ‘t’ (Burridge, 2016; Oxford Dictionaries, 2019; Soanes & Stevenson, 2006). Its earliest use dates to around 1230 when used as surnames, place names and by-names, for example ‘Gropecuntelane’ in London and Oxford, which was an area frequented by prostitutes, and surnames such as Godewin Clawecuncte, Simon Sitbithecunte, Gunoka Cunteles and Bele Wydecunthe amongst others. The word is used in Middle English in medical texts as the correct medical term for the vulva (Mohr, 2013). It is first printed in full in ‘The Universal Etymological English Dictionary’, written by Nathan Bailey in 1721 and is defined in Latin as ‘Pudendum Muliebre’; this may have been to disguise the meaning but is later printed as **** in Grose’s Classical Dictionary of Vulgar Tongue in 1785 and as c**t in 1796, with the explanation of ‘a nasty word for a nasty thing’ (Grose, 1796). The word disappears from dictionaries until 1961’s Webster’s Dictionary in the United States and in 1965 in Garmonsway’s Penguin English Dictionary in the United Kingdom after obscenity laws had been relaxed (Burridge, 2016; Oxford English Dictionary (OED), 2019; Soanes & Stevenson, 2006). It is currently labelled as ‘coarse slang’ in the OED. Today, its association sits closely with the sex organ theme and is seldom used as an interjection but rather as an epithet in describing people (Ljung, 2011). Jay (1992) explains this metaphorical representation of the individual as nothing more than genitals, that is , no heart and no brains to be a scathing label. It has been used in a derogatory sense to describe a contemptible person since 1820 and when used in this way, is seen to be more offensive than using the male counterpart ‘dick’ or ‘prick’ (Green, 2006; Partridge et al., 2013). Damn Middle English from Old French dam(p)ner, from Latin dam(p)nare meaning to ‘inflict loss on’ from damnum – loss or damage (OED,2019). In old Christian belief to be condemned by God to suffer eternal punishment, to be excommunicated or anathematize – Go to the Devil. A form of cursing to wish harm on someone like ‘God damn you’. This was a most serious form of offense, was taken quite literally at the time, and the punishment for using damn in this way was serious. Darn became the euphemism for damn (Chirico, 2014). Public outcry in 1930s with the word being used in the Hollywood film Gone with the Wind – with Rhett Butler saying “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn”. The Hollywood Motion Picture Production Code (MPPC) dictated that the word could not be used on screen. It is believed the producer David O’ Selznick was fined $5000 for using the word damn on screen (Chirico, 2014). The Motion Picture Association Board passed an amendment to the Code in 1939 stating that the words hell and damn could be used only if their use “shall be essential and required for portrayal, in proper historical context, of any scene or dialogue based upon historical fact or folklore… or a quotation from a literary work, provided that no such use shall be permitted which is intrinsically objectionable or offends good taste” (Manchel, 1990, p. 2262). Cursing such as this has waned in use and softened in effect over the years probably through over-use (Chirico, 2014). Dick Linked to the sex organ theme, the term dick was first used in the mid 19th century as a term for a penis but soon became associated with a fool, around 1960 (Green, 2006; Ljung, 2011; Partridge et al., 2013) and used mostly as an epithet in American English. It was favoured as a term around the 1920s associated with a policeman or detective (Ayto, 1999). The term dickhead is more commonly used for an incompetent person (Ljung, 2011). Douche Douche derives from the French word meaning stream of water or water spout in the 16th century usually associated with medical cleansing and was used in the 1800s as a medical term for vaginal flushing or cleansing. The term and its associate, douchebag, the apparatus used for the cleansing, has been utilised as a disparaging term associated with a lazy, unattractive or boring person since 1945 (Oxford English Dictionary (OED), 2019; Partridge et al., 2013).
314 Appendices
Faggot The etymology of faggot is unknown but could be French, fagot or Italian fangotto and dates around 1398 to describe a bundle of sticks or wood to be used for fuel or for use in fascines. From around 1560 the term was associated with the burning of heretics and for those who had renounced heresy a ‘faggot’, an embroidered emblem of the cache of sticks, had to be worn on their clothing. The term has also been used to describe a bundle of herbs, iron or steel rods and even a collection of things. Between 1591 and 1969 it has also been used as a term of abuse or contempt for a woman. From 1914 however, it has been used to define and label male homosexuals as a pejorative and abusive term (Oxford Dictionaries, 2019). Considered American slang, the term is often shortened to fag and has become one of the most controversially taboo terms in use (Chirico, 2014). Fuck The word fuck’s etymology dates back to around the 15th century with Germanic origin, related to similar words in Dutch, German and Swedish with sexual meanings, as well as meaning ‘to strike’ or ‘to move back and forth’(Sheidlower, 2009). The literal meaning found in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary (COED) is ‘engages or engaged in sexual intercourse’ and is labelled as course slang (Soanes & Stevenson, 2006). Fuck is the most important, powerful, most descriptive and most moving word in the English language (Black, 2009), it can be used as a noun, verb, adjective and adverb and for many English speakers, it “isn’t even a word, it’s a comma” (p. vii). It can be used in the middle of a word or phrase, commonly known as in-fixation or infixing, for example ‘absofuckinglutely’ and ‘fan-fucking-tastic’ as a form of emphasis. This was first recorded in 1921 in language used by soldiers in the First World War (Ljung, 2011; Sheidlower, 2009). It is currently an accepted fact that many uses of the word fuck, in terms of traditional English word classes can no longer be accounted for due to its versatility (Ljung, 2011). In addition, shortened forms such as FFS – For Fuck’s Sake as in ‘for heaven’s sake’, WTF? ‘what the fuck? And many more (Sheidlower, 2009). Gay First used dating back to the Middle Ages meaning bright, full of fun, also Old High German, good, beautiful, impetuous, swift. Originally used for female prostitutes, however, has come to mean homosexual from the 1960s (Allan & Burridge, 2006). Similarly, gay-cat since 1897 in US applied to an inexperienced or young tramp, especially one who was in a homosexual relationship with an older tramp (Ayto, 1999). Homo Referring to male homosexuals and a derogatory term. The term homosexual was coined by Karl Maria Benkert, a Hungarian physician, in 1869 but given currency with Krafft- Ebing’s classic studies of sexual disorders. Krafft-Ebing’s work was documented in Psychopathia Sexualis in 1886 and translated into English in 1892. It is believed the term was misinterpreted as deriving from Latin homo for ‘a man’ as opposed to the Greek word ‘homos’ meaning ‘the same’. The shortened version homo was first used in 1929 in reference to male homosexual. The word is “short and laden with hostility” (G. Hughes, 1998, p. 231). Motherfucker Many feel the word motherfucker is one of the most taboo-laden words in the English language (Ljung, 2011), used as a noun is described as ‘a despicable or contemptible person’(Sheidlower, 2009). The taboo themes arise here with the sexual activities theme as well as the mother theme with the word motherfucker (Ljung, 2011). It is important to note that the mother theme is used as a form of judgment on sexual misconduct, loose morals and incestuous activities of the targeted individual and their family (Ljung, 2011). Nigger The etymology of the word nigger is uncertain. Some believe the word derives from “neger” which itself derives from “Negro”, a Spanish word (Kennedy, 2000), or others, the Latin root nigr -meaning black (Bergen, 2016). The word’s pejorative status is also unknown; Lakoff speculates that it may have been from the mispronunciation of Negro as a signal of contempt (R. Lakoff, 1995; B. Williams, 2004). Regardless, by the 19th century the word had gained strong negative connotation. “Nigger is an opprobrious term, employed to impose contempt upon [blacks] as an inferior race... it flows from the
Appendices 315
fountain of purpose to injure”(Easton, 1837, p. 40). The word has connotations of subjugation and enslavement and is tainted by its negative history (Bergen, 2016). Oh My God/ Originating from Religious oaths and oaths to God in the Middle Ages (G. Hughes, 2006; OMG Mohr, 2013). Recent surveys in Britain and America, suggest oaths are rated as the mildest and most common swearwords used. They rated the five most frequently used swearwords in America as Hell, Godamn, Jesus Christ, damn and oh my God with oh my God accounting for twenty-four per cent of all women’s swearing. In Britain, God and Hell were the two most frequently used among all social classes (T. Jay, 2009b; McEnery, 2005; Mohr, 2013). Pedo/ Origin in the 1940s from Paedo+ Phile – a person who is sexually attracted to children Paedophile (OED, 2019). Burridge et al. (2006) term paedophilia, pederasty and incest as orthophemisms, yet the practice of paedophilia is characterised as abhorrent, abusive and seldom ignored. Piss Of Anglo-Saxon pisser, Old French, pissier originating around 1300, meaning to urinate and was used without vulgarity but rather as descriptive language. As with many other words, the Victorian era changed the attitude toward the word considering it as vulgar coarse slang and is still currently defined as such (Oxford English Dictionary (OED), 2016). Used as a verbal phrase piss off means to depart and sometimes used in an imperative or exclamatory sense. The word piss can also refer to alcohol, mostly beer or pissed to being inebriated. Being pissed off can mean being disgruntled or annoyed. Telling someone to piss off can mean telling someone to depart, or to get rid of someone (Partridge et al., 2013). Pussy Used as early as 1880 to denote female genitals, probably connected to the resemblance between cat fur and pubic hair, but also Old Norse púss for pocket, pouch; low German pūse vulva. Used to refer to: women collectively 1959, intercourse 1978, an effeminate man/boy 1942 (Ayto, 1999). Prick Prick is another word that belongs to the sex organ theme and used in this instance as an epithet to describe a contemptible, stupid or annoying person, usually a man, as a term of abuse. In this form it first originated in 1598 but was rarely used in this way until after 1920. Other earlier meanings included the term for a small hole or puncture mark but also known as the tip of a weapon, a small stick, small roll of tobacco and the penis amongst other things. In 1540 to late 1600 it was used as a term of endearment for a man much like ‘sweetheart’ or ‘darling’. From 1555 the term became used as a slang form of the penis and is still used in this form today (Oxford English Dictionary (OED), 2016). According to New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and unconventional English (Partridge et al., 2013), if qualified by a ‘silly’ as in silly prick, it becomes less offensive and not derogatory, however, if unaccompanied then the term is considered very offensive. Rape Late Middle English originally denoting the violent seizure of property then later of forcefully carrying of a woman; Also, from Anglo-Norman French rap (noun), raper (verb), from Latin rapere to seize. Late Middle English originally denoting a turnip plant – from Latin, rapum, rapa – ‘turnip’. Early 17th century known for rape wine – from the French rape, Medieval Latin, raspa, - bunch of grapes. Old English – a type of rope with reference to fencing off of property or land. Most commonly the abduction of a woman, especially for the purpose of have sexual intercourse with her. Also, the destruction or spoiling of space. Current: The crime committed typically by a man forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with said man against their will (OED, 2019). Retard Listed in the Oxford English Dictionary (2019) as informal and offensive. Retard is first noted in the late 15th century from French retarder, from Latin retardare, from re- ‘back’ plus tardus ‘slow’. Used for a person who has a mental disability and often used as a general term of abuse (OED, 2019). Used in 1970 origin US - applied to mentally retarded persons (Ayto, 1999), but has become a disability slur invoking derangement
316 Appendices
and mental sub-normality which reflects the stigma attached to mental illness (Allan & Burridge, 2006). Root Used as vulgar slang by Australian and New Zealand speakers meaning ‘to have intercourse with’ and also as a noun describing a sexual partner (OED, 2019). Earliest use 1846 used for a penis (Ayto, 1999). Perhaps as a connection to the sexual link, the word root has also been used when denoting exasperation and/or frustration used in the phrase ‘wouldn’t it root you!”. The word root was also used from 1890 on as schoolyard slang to denote kicking someone in the buttocks (Ayton, 1999). ‘Australian talk’ - the expression get rooted is used as an expression of contempt or annoyance - 1951; also, rooted as exhaustion, 1944, from the past participle of the verb root, to ruin (Ayto, 1999). Screw Applied to the act of casual or hasty sexual intercourse – from 1725 and used both transitively and intransitively. In addition, meaning sight or vision 1917; (Ayto, 1999). Used in 1812 to denote a prison guard or warder; also applied to an unsound or inferior horse 1821. In 1858 referred to wages for a job done; in 1900 used to describe being cheated or deceived. In 1949 used as an equivalent to fuck as an imprecation, oath or exclamation. To screw up used in 1942 onwards originating in US as making a mistake and 1943 for spoiling or ruining something, possibly as a substitute for fuck up (Ayto, 1999). Shit The Oxford English Dictionary lists the word shit as ‘vulgar slang’ with its descriptions being varied. Examples as a noun range in meaning from ‘faeces’ or ‘the act of defecating or diarrhoea’ to a ‘worthless person or thing, experience or treatment’ as well as ‘personal belongings, events or circumstances’ and even ‘an intoxicating drug especially cannabis’. Used as a verb, the meanings include ‘expelling faeces from the body either consciously or accidentally, causing soilage of clothing’, ‘being frightened’ and ‘trying to deceive or tease someone’. Shit is also listed as being an ‘exclamation of disgust, annoyance or anger’ (Oxford Dictionaries, 2019; Soanes & Stevenson, 2006) with the commonly accepted literal meaning today as ‘something’ or ‘anything’ (Green, 2006). The etymology of the word shit dates to the early medieval or Anglo-Saxon era and was used as a common word with neutral connotation and without any vulgar connection (Mohr, 2013). ‘Scitte’ Old English, meaning diarrhea, related to the Dutch ‘schijten’ and German ‘scheissen’ was used inoffensively and often descriptively during the 13th century as street names such as Shitteborrowlane (G. Hughes, 1998) and Schetewellwey [Shitwell Way] (Mohr, 2013) in London and Oxford. The tradition of flyting sees a change in the use of the word shit with the popular Scottish piece ‘The Flyting of Dunbar and Kennedy’ in 1503 and is the earliest recorded use of shit being used as a personal insult in ‘A shit without wit’ (G. Hughes, 1998; Ljung, 2011). Used as an exclamation, shit! is noted much later than this, around 1920 (Ayto, 1999; Green, 2006). Slut Middle English of unknown origin. Commonly used as a derogatory noun for a woman with low standards of cleanliness and/or a woman who has many casual sexual partners (OED,2019). A slur addressed at women (Bergen, 2016). Trannie/ Used to denote a transgender or transvestite individual. Shortened from transvestite Tranny around 1983 (Ayto, 1999). The hate term has been banned from many stylebooks and media platforms, including Facebook (Lux & Hot Mess, 2017) and is labelled pejorative (GLAAD, 2018). Turd Turd, used as a noun, was first recorded in linguistic history as excrement as early as the 11th century (Ayto, 1999; Green, 2006; Partridge et al., 2013) and in the 13th century poem ‘The Owl and the Nightingale’ is used metaphorically for the first time denoting worthlessness (Ljung, 2011). The word is of Anglo-Saxon origin linked distantly to the legal tort, the act of twisting (G. Hughes, 1998) and is currently listed in the Oxford English Dictionary as vulgar slang (2019). By the 17th century turd was used in a negative connotation and served as an antagonistic speech act (Ljung, 2011). The scatological
Appendices 317
taboo language theme is utilised in nearly all languages, these are words relating to or of excrement or scatology referring to human waste products, processes and procedures (T. Jay, 1992). Whore The OED defines the word whore as a prostitute, a man or woman who prostitutes himself or herself, an adulteress, and unchaste or lewd woman, also a promiscuous or unprincipled person (2019). The word was first used in 1100 from the Anglo Saxon hóre and today is labelled as abusive or coarse speech. The spelling whore came into being during the 16th century (Soanes & Stevenson, 2006). The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang (2013) cites the earliest use of whore as a verb in this sense, in the United Kingdom as being 1583 but the Oxford Dictionary of Slang (Ayto, 1999) as being 1906 when referring to someone as unpleasant or despicable. The use of the term is linked to the prostitution theme and would be pejorative and insulting if used in name-calling (Ljung, 2011).
318 Appendices
APPENDIX C
Interview Questions
Questions:
As a prequel to the interview I am very comfortable with taboo language and swearing. No types of language offend me, so please feel free and comfortable to use whatever language you prefer. I do understand if you feel uncomfortable, you are more than welcome to use euphemisms, acronyms or letter words for example ‘the f word’. I will ask you if I do not follow your examples. If you feel you want to stop at any time, please let me know.
Some of the questions may seem repetitive, but they are trying to ascertain differences from different approaches. Also, because this is an interview type setting, I will not be adding any opinions of my own, so you may feel the conversation is one-sided. This is just to allow for recording purposes.
• When reporting a language incident on the OneSchool database, you are required to choose from an item listed verbal and non-verbal misconduct. What is your understanding of the term ‘verbal misconduct’? Has this term been defined by the Department? • When do you report a language instance on OneSchool? • In your career in schools, have you heard changes in the types of swearing and inappropriate language that students use? • Can you give some examples? • What about the prevalence? Are students swearing more, or less, or the same amount today? • If students use swearing and inappropriate language, what type of language/words do they favour? • In your career do you think the boundaries of acceptability have changed in regard to certain words? Can you give me some examples? What language was unacceptable at the beginning of your career and what is acceptable now? • Do you think there are certain words that you believe should be ignored as swearing or inappropriate language? (For example damn, omg or af?) • What about bloody, shit, slut, faggot, nigger, hoe, whale, homo, bitch, cunt, prick, piss, screw, arse, damn, FFS, fuck, motherfucker, root, bullshit, gay (Which ones are more serious than others?) Do you think the students feel some of these are more serious than others?
Appendices 319
• Are there any other words the students use? What about tranny, pedo, Islamic, Chinese? What is their level of acceptability? Are there some words they know will offend or be more powerful than others? • Are some words/behaviour/language more serious than others to the school/Principal? In other words, these are deemed totally inappropriate and warrant immediate warning or reporting? Exclusion, suspension? What are they? Examples? • And your personal measure? • Do you think external influences have an impact on inappropriate language use and swearing at school? (This may include social media, movies, family etc.) Can you give me an example? • In your position as school leader/teacher at school, how do you respond to swearing? What are some of the issues at play for you? • Have the language instances or reports increased over your time as school leader/teacher?
School Policy. • Your school policy lists the following terms, what do you understand by them and can you give me some examples? These are examples and need to be adjusted according to specific school:
a) Can you discuss minor and major behaviours? b) Inappropriate language listed as written/verbal under minor and c) Offensive language, d) Aggressive language, e) Verbal abuse/directed profanity – c,d and e under major behaviours.
• Are there instances where you disregard certain language? If so, what language is this? • If students use this language at school, how do you feel when students use this language near you? Can you give me some examples? • Has a student ever used this language directed at you? How do you feel when this happens? Can you give me some examples?
Taboo language and swearing: • What do you understand by the term taboo language? Examples? • What do you understand by the term swearing? Examples? Explain what the differences are and include –ism culture.
320 Appendices
• Do you have instances of one more than the other at school? Have you seen an increase in racism, sexism, terms of difference such as homo, faggot, retard, and batman, tranny? • Are students more aware of avoiding the racial, sexual, ‘difference’ slurs? Do they show awareness for the –ism culture in society? • Do you think the students have stricter boundaries with this –ism language? In other words do you think that children feel this language is more taboo than saying the f-word, mf- word and c word? So perhaps the slurs are now more powerful than ‘swearing’? • What would your reaction be to the following: Overhearing the students using the word nigger or homo as opposed to using fuck or cunt? • What is your approach to swearing inside and outside school hours, for yourself and other staff members? Can you give me some examples? • There is suggestion that some staff members in education settings swear in front of students or in class, sometimes at the students? Perhaps at a sort of teacher being ‘collegial’ with students or a ‘boys will be boys’ attitude or ‘boys respond better to this’ attitude. What are your views on this? • Would you suggest there is a level of acceptability/unacceptability for some words rather than others in this situation, teachers’ language to students in class? Which words would these be? For example, OMG is fine, but Fuck is not. What about something such as ‘oh you’re a bunch of retards’, or ‘suck it up’? or bunch of pussies? Or Bitch? Or Shit? Bullshit? • Do you think the boundaries and responses in relation to inappropriate language use and swearing are consistent at the school? • Do you think the language policies need to be more specific in relation to language use as acceptable/unacceptable? Do you think the policy needs to specify which words are acceptable and not? • If you could change the structure of the verbal misconduct policy at your school, how would you do this? • What about non-verbal signs? Hand signs? • What about swearing in their school writing?
Appendices 321
APPENDIX D
Participant Demographic Form
1. Where do you teach at present? 2. What is your role? 3. What year level do you teach/lead currently? 4. Level and experience: a) How long have you been a teacher? b) How long have you been in this (leadership) role? c) Which of these schools have you taught at? i. State ii. Independent iii. Religious based iv. Private v. Low socio-economic vi. Home schooling vii. Rural viii. Special d) Have you taught overseas? i. Where? ii. For how long? e) Have you taught in different areas of Australia? iii. Which states and/or territories? iv. For how long? f) Have you taught at single sex schools? i. Male ii. Female
5. Gender: a) Male b) Female c) Other
322 Appendices
APPENDIX E
Participant Information Sheet
PARTICIPANT INFORMATION FOR QUT RESEARCH PROJECT –Teacher Interview –
Language Change: Identity management and the boundaries of acceptable verbal conduct in school settings QUT Ethics Approval Number 1700000339
RESEARCH TEAM Principal Researcher: Ms Lynn Downes PhD student Associate Dr Margaret Kettle Principal Supervisor Researchers: Professor Gordon Tait Associate Supervisor Faculty of Education, Queensland University of Technology (QUT)
DESCRIPTION This research project is being undertaken as part of a PhD study for Lynn Downes.
The purpose of this research project is to investigate language change, in particular swearing and taboo language and how school leaders and teachers are responding to these forms of language in schools. Of interest is changing views on the boundaries of acceptability at a time when swearing is prevalent in the popular media. For schools the boundaries tie in with policies and practices related to verbal misconduct.
You are invited to participate in this research project because you are a teacher who is required to deal with this issue in your workplace.
PARTICIPATION Your participation will involve an audio-recorded interview at your school or other agreed location that will take approximately 60 minutes of your time. The timing of this interview can be selected so as to best suit your workload and school requirements.
Questions will include:
• In your career in schools, have you heard changes in the types of swearing and taboo language that students use? Can you give some examples? • What about the prevalence? Are students swearing more, or less, or the same amount today? • Do you think external influences have an impact on taboo language use and swearing at school? Can you give me an example? • What is the school’s policy regarding swearing and taboo language use by students?
Your participation in this research project is entirely voluntary. If you do agree to
Appendices 323
participate you can withdraw from the research project without comment or penalty. You can withdraw anytime during the interview. If you withdraw within 4 weeks of your interview, on request any identifiable information already obtained from you will be destroyed. Your decision to participate or not participate will in no way impact upon your current or future relationship with QUT or Education Queensland.
EXPECTED BENEFITS It is expected that this research project will not benefit you directly. However, it may benefit policy makers, stakeholders and leaders in aligning language policy in regard to verbal conduct at schools and it may also benefit teachers in general, in dealing with this issue. Information obtained from this research will be used to add to the larger body of knowledge around swearing and taboo language use at schools as well as add to the field of knowledge regarding language change.
Risks The risks beyond normal day-to-day living associated with your participation in this research project may be time management inconvenience as well as discomfort during the interview process. This discomfort may be in regard to using or discussing swearing or swearwords, disclosing approaches used, or concerns regarding being interviewed.
If during the interview you become uncomfortable using swearwords, suitable euphemisms may be used. The interview process will aim to be a relaxed one however you will have the option of passing on answering certain questions you may feel to be uncomfortable, taking a break at any time or stopping the interview process completely.
PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY All comments and responses will be treated confidentially unless required by law. The results of this research may be presented in journal publications and/or conference presentations. The participants and the school will not be identified in publications resulting from the study. All anonymity will be preserved.
As the research project involves an audio recording: • The audio recording will be destroyed after transcription. • The audio recording will not be used for any other purpose. • Only the named researcher will have access to the audio recording. • It is not possible to participate in the research project without being audio recorded.
Any data collected as part of this research project will be stored securely as per QUT’s Management of research data policy.
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE I would like to ask you to sign a written consent form (enclosed) to confirm your agreement to participate.
QUESTIONS / FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE RESEARCH PROJECT If you have any questions or require further information, please contact one of the listed researchers:
Lynn Downes [email protected] Margaret Kettle [email protected] 07 3138 3259 Gordon Tait [email protected] 07 3138 3499
324 Appendices
CONCERNS / COMPLAINTS REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF THE RESEARCH PROJECT QUT is committed to research integrity and the ethical conduct of research projects. However, if you do have any concerns or complaints about the ethical conduct of the research project you may contact the QUT Research Ethics Advisory Team on 07 3138 5123 or email [email protected]. The QUT Research Ethics Advisory Team is not connected with the research project and can facilitate a resolution to your concern in an impartial manner.
THANK YOU FOR HELPING WITH THIS RESEARCH PROJECT. PLEASE KEEP THIS SHEET FOR YOUR INFORMATION.
Appendices 325
APPENDIX F
Participant Consent Form
CONSENT FORM FOR QUT RESEARCH PROJECT – Interview –
Language Change: Identity management and the boundaries of acceptable verbal conduct in school settings
QUT Ethics Approval Number 1700000339
RESEARCH TEAM Ms Lynn Downes [email protected] Dr Margaret Kettle [email protected] 07 3138 3259 Professor Gordon Tait [email protected] 07 3138 3499 Faculty of Education, Queensland University of Technology (QUT)
STATEMENT OF CONSENT By signing below, you are indicating that you: • Have read and understood the information document regarding this project. • Have had any questions answered to your satisfaction. • Understand that if you have any additional questions you can contact the research team. • Understand that participation in the project is entirely voluntary. • Understand that the results of this research may be presented in journal publications and/or conference presentations and that the participants and the school will not be identified in publications resulting from the study. • Understand that you are free to withdraw without comment or penalty. • Understand that if you have concerns about the ethical conduct of the project you can contact the Research Ethics Advisory Team on 07 3138 5123 or email [email protected]. • Understand that the project will include an audio recording. • Agree to participate in the project.
Name
Signature
Date
MEDIA RELEASE PROMOTIONS
326 Appendices
From time to time, we may like to promote our research to the general public through, for example, newspaper articles. Would you be willing to be contacted by QUT Media and Communications for possible inclusion in such stories? By ticking this box, it only means you are choosing to be contacted – you can still decide at the time not to be involved in any promotions. Yes, you may contact me about inclusion in promotions. No, I do not wish to be contacted about inclusion in promotions.
PLEASE RETURN THE SIGNED CONSENT FORM TO THE RESEARCHER.
Appendices 327
APPENDIX G
Analysis of Word Usage
328 Appendices
Appendices 329