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
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
Former Taipei mayor and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) founding chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) was sentenced to 17 years in prison on Thursday, making headlines across major media. However, another case linked to the TPP — the indictment of Chinese immigrant Xu Chunying (徐春鶯) for alleged violations of the Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法) on Tuesday — has also stirred up heated discussions. Born in Shanghai, Xu became a resident of Taiwan through marriage in 1993. Currently the director of the Taiwan New Immigrant Development Association, she was elected to serve as legislator-at-large for the TPP in 2023, but was later charged with involvement
Out of 64 participating universities in this year’s Stars Program — through which schools directly recommend their top students to universities for admission — only 19 filled their admissions quotas. There were 922 vacancies, down more than 200 from last year; top universities had 37 unfilled places, 40 fewer than last year. The original purpose of the Stars Program was to expand admissions to a wider range of students. However, certain departments at elite universities that failed to meet their admissions quotas are not improving. Vacancies at top universities are linked to students’ program preferences on their applications, but inappropriate admission
RSS