A3 7 A SEMANTIC ANALYSIS OF THE SYMBOLIC AND NON-SYMBOLIC FUNCTIONING OF CERTAIN TABOO TERMS USED IN THREE CONTEMPORARY FILMS THESIS Presented to the Graduate Council of the North Texas State University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS By Marilyn Anne Hurlbut Denton, Texas August, 1976 Hurlbut, Marilyn Anne. A Semantic Analysis of_ the Symbolic and Non-Symbolic Functioning of Certain Taboo Terms in Three Contemporary Films. Masters of Arts (Speech Communication and Drama), August 1976, 225 pp., bibliography, 120 titles. This thesis examines four taboo words (Jesus, God, fuck, ass) used in the films Jaws, Shampoo, and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. The dominant method of research is semantic, drawing on language theories of I.A. Richards and Alfred Korzybski. Investigation led to these conclusions: (1) Symbolic use of taboo terms is accompanied by positive attitudes, while non-symbolic use, which is more frequent, is accompanied by negative or neutral attitudes. (2) Casual non-symbolic pronunciation is leading to separation of the symbol from its referent. (3) Through this methodology, it is possible to ascertain the speaker's intent and his attitude toward the audience, but not his attitude toward the referent. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION......1 Limitations of the Study Statement of Purpose Foundational Premises Procedure Survey of the Literature Methods of Study Summary of Design II. METHODS OF PROCEDURES - . - - - - . 26 The Importance of Language I.A. Richards Alfred Korzybski Background in Verbal Taboo III. SEMANTIC ANALYSIS OF FILMS . - - . 78 Film--Jaws Film-am0po Film-One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest IV. SEMANTIC ANALYSIS OF PROFANE WORDS . 91 Profanity--Jesus Profanity--God Conclusions~ V. SEMANTIC ANALYSIS OF OBSCENE WORDS . - . 145 Obscenity--Fuck Obscenity- -Ass Conclusions~ VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS-...-............... 203 BIBLIOGRAPHY. -................................... 217 iii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION "Our sanity is connected with correct symbolism. The abuse of symbolism is like the abuse of food and drink; it makes people ill, and so their reactions become deranged." Alfred Korzybskil American speech has been the subject of much professional examination by linguists, dialectologists, rhetoricians, and more recently by semanticists. These analysts have gradually broadened their horizons to include the study of urban speech as well as rural,2 social dialects as well as regional,3 black grammar 4 as well as white. Yet one area still lacking descrip- tion is that of clandestine vernacular, a very real part of American speech but ignored in many academic studies. "Veiled language," was Otto Jespersen's fanciful term in 1929.5 Edward Sagarin said simply "dirty words" in 1962.6 Whatever the label, clandestine vernacular refers to taboo words in American English, words not pronounced in "polite society," not allowed in print (not even in dictionaries until recently), and considered "bad" or "dirty" by parents instructing their children. In short, these are the words known to everyone and acknowledged by few. There are several justifications for the scholarly study of this subject: (1) the universality of taboo words among 1 2 American speakers, (2) the persistence of taboo terms over the years despite continued opposition, (3) the current problem of changing usage, and (4) the mysterious power with which these terms have been endowed. Common taboo words are almost universally known. Of the estimated 600,000 words in American English, only between 10,000 to 20,000 are familiar to the average American,7 but invariably in this known vocabulary are the "forbidden words," for they are learned early and retained throughout life by nearly all speakers of the language.8 To exempt from examin- ation only these certain words marks them as having par- ticular import rather than no import. Taboo words exist in all regions of the country, are known and used at all economic levels, at all educational levels, and all social levels. The frequency of their usage may vary from group to group, and they may not be vocalized by all persons, but anyone doubting their pervasiveness in American speech has only to listen to Richard Nixon's Watergate tapes to realize these words are part of the vocabulary of the top political leaders of our country. Recent research by Paul Cameron9 suggests that damn is one of the fifteen most frequent words in spoken English and that hell, fuck, shit, and God and Jesus (when either is used profanely), are among the seventy-five most often spoken words. Any behavior as widespread as this is an appropriate research domain. Taboo words are worthy of study by virtue of their per- sistence in our language as well as by virtue of their universality. 3 In spite of continual attempts to eradicate them by either disregard or by denouncement, these words remain part of the 1 0 linguistic competence of nearly all persons in our speech community. Many of these terms have historically not appeared in dictionaries nor in respectable publications. The educa- tional system has ignored their existence.1 1 For instance, two separate studies of verbal taboos among college students were conducted in the late 19301s,12 and although both claim to present authentic data, neither study mentions fuck or shit. Fuck, shit, and other clandestine terms have been passed from one generation to the other mainly by verbal speech and "underground" publications. To remain extant with only minor support from print and with no support from established scholars, these words must indeed have force. A pragmatic reason for studying clandestine vernacular is the present problem of semantic range in the connotative meaning of some taboo words. Though the main taboos of English are part of the lexicon of all speakers, usage changes. Some speakers now refuse to accept traditional bans and instead use taboo words openly. Because of this, those whose goal is com- munication may need to expand their awareness in the area of clandestine vernacular. The objective in communication is the accurate relay of message from sender to listener. Sup- pose the sender says, "I didn't want to go outside in this shitty weather," or "We were just fucking around." Theo- retically, the listener should receive the same message with 4 the same emotional impact that the sender intended. This is hardly possible if the listener accepts shit and fuck as taboo, and the sender has rejected those taboos. The listener hears something filled with emotional impact for him; the sender merely intended a casual comment. Taboo words are no ordinary words. They are the words to which we attach the greatest stigma in American speech. When a Harvard lyricist wanted to ridicule the arch enemy of his beloved institution, he wrote, "Yale is a four-letter word," whereupon 1 3 his song was censored. The forbidden term exerts influence even in its absence and can be conjured up in American minds by the most ambiguous of references. In analyzing the strategy of Yippies at the 1968 Democratic con- vention, Bowers and Ochs in their book, The Rhetoric of Agitation and Control, said, "The tactic that probably prompted the 'police riot', the violent suppression witnessed by millions on television, 1 4 was the use of obscenity." The Yippies not only yelled "Fuck you!," "Hell no, we won't go!," "Pigs, pigs, pigs!," but they announced their belief that "people should fuck all the time, anytime, whomever they wish." 1 5 Confronted with such tactics, the police force simply "blew its cool," as the Yippies had shrewdly calculated. That the obscenity was instrumental in producing violent confrontation is clear from post-confrontation statements by city officials. Typical explanations of police behavior pointed to the obscenity of the agitators usually with a modest refusal to quote the language explicitly. After such a recital, Mayor Daley asked Walter Cronkite the rhetorical question, "What would you do, Walter?" Such a question implies that any normal American would react to obscenity with violence.j6 5 When words can move people to force, their potency becomes justification for their examination. Needs of the hour, then, as well as academic objectivity and scholarly comprehensiveness demand that more attention be paid to the subject of clandestine vernacular and the way in which it functions in American speech. Dwight Bolinger in As- pects of 'Lag , contended that a task of education is to lead to an awareness of the limitations of one's own language and to a large amount of practice with elaborated codes wherein one is forced to become conscious of his language and to orient towards the 1 7 verbal channel. To fulfill Bolinger's goal is one of the express purposes of this thesis which takes certain taboo words out of their usual restricted code of usage and submits them to scholarly examination. Limitations of the Study To allow for focus and manageability, this thesis is speci- fically limited to the subject of clandestine vernacular and does not discuss slang, cant, argot, jargon, lingo, nor colloquial speech, all of which may include taboo words but only incidentally. Furthermore, to avoid superficiality, this thesis does not attempt to cover all aspects of verbal taboo nor all taboo words. Published research on this subject1 8 has usually been done in broad brush strokes, outlining such topics as origin, history, nature and function of taboo or else providing ex- amples of the usage of specific terms. What remains to be done are in-depth studies which as "why" as well as describe "what." Therefore, this thesis is narrowed in approach to a 6 language study of selected terms as they are currently used. It presents historical data only incidentally. It includes, but does not focus on, the origin or etymology of the terms discussed.