Functions of Vulgarism

and not just an English-specific one. We suggest that swearing can be defined as a type of language use in which the expression

(a) refers to something that is taboo and/or stigmatized in the culture;

(b) should not be interpreted literally;

(c) can be used to express strong emotions and attitudes

A swearword is not any dirty word, but a word referring to a subject of taboo in a certain circumstance: the primary function of a work like shit, for instance, is to refer to human or animal excrement. It has, however, through frequent usage as ‘a concept our culture sees as taboo […] gained a widened meaning and become a dirty word, a swearword’ (Karjalaninen 2002:13).

Since taboo words are not socially acceptable, it is common to see people, as much as they feel like swearing, try to avoid the usage, because these words are offensive, rude, vulgar, derogatory, and in many case, unnecessary (Andersson and Trudgilll 1990: 53). This can be one of the reasons to explain the under-translation of some of the swearwords.

3.2 Functions of Vulgarism

Swearwords are taboo words, something that shouldn’t be said but in fact used quite a lot in daily conversation, believed to be offensive or illicit negative feelings or used as expressions of anger, surprise, etc. Swearing is to provide a shock value, to offend, to be aggressive or provocative, and to draw attention to speakers themselves.

(Andersson and Trudgill 1990: 14)

In her analysis of taboo words in The Bergen Corpus of London Teenager Language, Stenstrom (1995) ‘confirmed the generational difference (teenagers swearing more than adults, possibly as a way to establish group identity.)’(qtd. in Dewaele: 206). Stenstrom’s observation is a precise description of the brotherly bond between the movie’s characters.

Drescher (2000) also mentions that sexual and taboo words (S-T words) are multifunctional, pragmatic units which assume, in addition to the expression of emotional attitudes, various discourse functions. ‘They contribute, for instance, to the coordination of the interlocutors, the organisation of the interaction and the

structuring of verbal exchange; in that they are similar to discourse markers’(qtd. in Dewaele: 205). And the use of swearwords or taboo words is a linguistic device used to affirm in-group membership and establish boundaries and social norms for language use. Drescher’s argument also echoes to a research (Ginsburg, Ogletree, et al 2003), that from a Darwinian perspective, vulgar language production is a human species-specific display serving a communication function to other humans. This could further be proven by the spoken dialogues in the movie ‘Superbad’, as potty-mouthed, sex-fuelled young protagonists utter almost every sentence with swearwords. Andersson and Trudgill (1994:57) also recognize that ‘there is great variation in what is taboo or significant in different cultures.’ What is considered a taboo is not necessarily in another culture. Take Christianity for an example. The literal translation of religion-derived swearwords could evoke little or none emotional response in a foreign culture that favors Buddhism for example. It can be inferred that swearwords are partly or largely culture-specific. Also, because of the widening acceptance of swearing, new meanings derive from swearwords, making the language more colorful and creative, though often in a derogatory way. I would like to

summarize the scholars’ views on the functions and features of swearwords:

1. as a means of expressive behavior derived from male combat originally used to shock and awe opponents.

2. having psychodynamic origins and function in every human culture as a source of emotional stimulation.

3. displacing aggression and compulsive cursing as an involuntary energy discharge.

4. confirming the generational difference, i.e. in-group membership and social norms.

5. as a human species-specific display serving a communication function to other humans.

Harvard psychology professor Steven Pinker, a highly respected cognitive scientist, pulls together the fragments and provides his account on the range of

circumstances of swearing in his 2007 publication ‘The Stuff of Thought’, in which he breaks profanity down into five categories (323-372) :

Figure 3.1 Steven Pinker’s Five Categories on Profanity

Categories Explanation and Examples Dysphemistic

swearing

Exact opposite of euphemism forces listener to think about negative or provocative matter. Using the wrong

euphemism has a dysphemistic effect.

(Example: He fucks her!)

Abusive swearing for abuse or intimidation or insulting of others (Example:

You motherfucking son of a bitch! Fuck you, asshole.) Idiomatic swearing swearing without really referring to the matter, just using

the words to arouse interest, to show off, and express to peers that the setting is informal. (Example: Fuck, man) Emphatic swearing to emphasize something with swearing.

(Example: It was so fucking big!)

Cathartic swearing when something bad happens like coffee spilling, people curse. One evolutionary theory asserts it is meant to tell the audience that you're undergoing a negative emotion.

(Example: Aww, fucker! Damn this coffee.)

Pinker’s explanation clearly illustrates the different functions of swearing that exist in the English language and is valuable in helping to dissect the linguistic nuances of swearing. However, Pinker has yet to acknowledge in his elucidation the newly derived usages of swearwords, such as the empowering effect from

appropriating otherwise offensive words. For example, the word ‘bitch’, a negative, sexist term against women, is now gaining a positive connotation of women

empowerment too, if used in a positive way to the interlocutor. It can be interesting, humorous, funny and even complimentary. And another example is the word ‘nigger’, it’s an unacceptable racial slur, highly offensive in almost every setting but the use of such term among black people confirms ‘in-group’ membership, if used in a proper occasion.

While most of the subjects in swearwords may be similar in different languages and cultures, the degrees of strong emotions referring to the same thing differ. The context in which the words are uttered also determines the level of emotion and rudeness. Ideally, the emotional weight should be carefully matched with the specific situational context in a foreign language. But in the nature of subtitling translation, that requires translators to condense oral message into written form, the emotional power of words may be stripped with the use of a compete sentence.