I have a friend who can’t say “fuck.” She never has been able to and shakes her head helplessly when teased and dared to give it a go. She is not a prude, but she has such a strong reaction to the word that she cannot bring herself to utter it.
Using the f-word in the first sentence of this article was not done for gratuitous effect, but how did you react to reading it? Would it have been more agreeable to see the euphemism “the f-word” instead? Do some “bad” words make you more uncomfortable than others?
It has been known for a while that people fluent in two languages respond far less strongly to swear words in their mother tongue than in their second language.
However, a new study of people’s reactions to a “bad” swear word — “fuck,” for example — compared to their reactions to a euphemism that they understood to mean the same thing now suggests our strong emotional reactions to swear words happen as a result of early verbal conditioning, rather than the meaning that is conveyed. This raises the possibility that young children may note their parents’ reactions to taboo words before they understand what the words mean.
All sorts of emotions are associated with the sound of swear words as we are growing up, said Jeff Bowers at the University of Bristol in England, who carried out the research.
The results of his study, Bowers said, throw some light on a question often debated by linguists and psychologists: Do the words you say affect the way you think and perceive the world?
Bowers wired volunteers up to a machine that would assess their stress levels by measuring their sweat. He then asked them to say swear words and their euphemisms aloud.
Even though everyone involved had volunteered for the study and was fully briefed as to what was involved, and therefore presumably not likely to be offended, participants showed higher stress levels when they were asked to swear than when asked to state the common euphemism.
Bowers said the difference in stress levels between swear words and euphemisms shows that we don’t only respond to the meaning of a swear word. The furor in December when the BBC radio journalist James Naughtie made an unfortunate slip of the tongue while introducing the British Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport Jeremy Hunt on air demonstrates his point.
After the slip-up went out live on air at breakfast-time, the BBC was inundated with complaints. Presumably nobody imagined the presenter had intended to use the c-word, but many were still so shocked that they called, wrote and e-mailed to tell the broadcaster of their dismay. The BBC felt bound to apologize.
“In our view, euphemisms are effective because they replace the trigger — the offending word form — with another word that is similar conceptually,” Bowers said.
A conversation reported in one of John Pilger’s books, Bowers said, gives a good example of how word forms, rather than their meanings, affect how we think and act.
At an arms fair, Pilger describes asking a salesman to describe how a cluster grenade works: “Bending over a glass case, as one does when inspecting something precious, he said, ‘This is wonderful. It is state of the art, unique. What it does is discharge copper dust, very, very fine dust, so that the particles saturate the objective ...’”
What was that “objective”? asked Pilger.
“Whatever it may be,” the salesman said.
“People?” asked Pilger.
“Well, er ... If you like,” was the salesman’s response.
Pilger observes that salesmen at these events “have the greatest difficulty saying ‘people’ and ‘kill’ and ‘maim.’”
It is doubtful there is any confusion in the minds of buyers or sellers about the function of weapons, Bowers said.
“Nevertheless, the argument we’d make as a result of our research is that the euphemisms allowed business to be conducted with minimal discomfort,” he said.
If people feel uncomfortable with certain words — it doesn’t have to be swear words; it might be bodily functions or the names for genitalia, or saying “kill” and “people” at an arms fair — they may go to great lengths to avoid using them, Bowers explains, including not entering into discussion of a particular subject at all.
This, he said, is a perfect example of how what you say — or what you find too excruciating to say — affects the way you think and act.
In demonstrating that taboo words can create a physiological effect, Bowers’ study highlights how two words that mean the same thing can provoke different responses from us, and, he said, in terms of human relationships, how “subtle differences can make all the difference in the world.”
Bowers’ study, Swearing, Euphemisms, and Linguistic Relativity, is freely accessible at www.plosone.org
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long been expansionist and contemptuous of international law. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the CCP regime has become more despotic, coercive and punitive. As part of its strategy to annex Taiwan, Beijing has sought to erase the island democracy’s international identity by bribing countries to sever diplomatic ties with Taipei. One by one, China has peeled away Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners, leaving just 12 countries (mostly small developing states) and the Vatican recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Taiwan’s formal international space has shrunk dramatically. Yet even as Beijing has scored diplomatic successes, its overreach
In her article in Foreign Affairs, “A Perfect Storm for Taiwan in 2026?,” Yun Sun (孫韻), director of the China program at the Stimson Center in Washington, said that the US has grown indifferent to Taiwan, contending that, since it has long been the fear of US intervention — and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) inability to prevail against US forces — that has deterred China from using force against Taiwan, this perceived indifference from the US could lead China to conclude that a window of opportunity for a Taiwan invasion has opened this year. Most notably, she observes that
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
Since being re-elected, US President Donald Trump has consistently taken concrete action to counter China and to safeguard the interests of the US and other democratic nations. The attacks on Iran, the earlier capture of deposed of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and efforts to remove Chinese influence from the Panama Canal all demonstrate that, as tensions with Beijing intensify, Washington has adopted a hardline stance aimed at weakening its power. Iran and Venezuela are important allies and major oil suppliers of China, and the US has effectively decapitated both. The US has continuously strengthened its military presence in the Philippines. Japanese Prime
RSS