People try to avoid using words and expressions that are unpleasant,
inappropriate or embarrassing to themselves or to the people to whom
they are speaking. Such consciously-avoided words and expressions can be
considered taboos. Taboos were originally concerned with sacred matters
that could not be discussed, but nowadays they usually concern things
that people are ashamed of. The existence of taboos throughout history
has created a need to find words and expressions that enable people to
talk about the subjects concerned without feeling uncomfortable or being
afraid of hurting another person's feelings. Such words and expressions
are referred to as "euphemisms."
This paper will review what euphemisms are and why they are used. It
will also discuss the phenomenon of political correctness and how that
affects the use of euphemisms in different areas of society. Related to
this is the term “doublespeak”, which will be discussed in relation to
death and killing. This will shed some light on the great number of
euphemisms associated with militaries and war and illustrate the
contemporary use of different euphemisms related to American English.
Defining Euphemisms
According to Geoffrey Leech (45), euphemism is “the practice of
referring to something offensive or delicate in terms that make it sound
more pleasant or becoming than it really is”. Thus, people use
euphemisms to get rid of the negative meaning or connotation the word or
topic in question has. Euphemistic expressions occur at all levels of
society, but throughout history people have found certain areas to be
more uncomfortable and unpleasant to discuss than others. These include
sex, death, killing, crime, disease and different functions of the human
body.
The Categorization of Different Taboos
Euphemisms are motivated by different taboos in society. Every culture
has its own topics that are forbidden and should not be talked about
directly. Stephen Ullman (205) states that taboos are divided into three
categories “according to the psychological motivation behind them”. The
first of these categories is fear, which has motivated different taboos on
speaking the names of certain supernatural beings. These include
God, the Devil and names of certain animals. Ullman (206)
mentions the weasel as an example. For example in French the weasel
is referred to as 'a beautiful little woman', in Italian and Portuguese as
'a little lady' and in Swedish as 'a pretty little girl' or 'a young
lady'. Other examples include bear, tiger and lion,
since dangerous animals are often referred to by using euphemistic
references. This has been the case in Finland as well with the bear.
People have believed that the bear was originally human or half-human.
People have also thought that the bear is much more intelligent than
humans are, and possesses supernatural powers. All these factors have
contributed to the fact that Finnish language has a large variety of
euphemisms for the bear, such as Otso, Kontio and
Metsän kuningas (Karhuseura).
The motivation behind the taboo of God might have something to do
with respect as well, as Francis Katamba (86) suggests. He states that
God could not be referred to by name, which has resulted in
expressions such as the Lord, the King of Kings and
the All-Mighty. The clearest taboo motivated by fear must be
that of the Devil. The euphemistic expressions associated with the Devil
are somewhat humoristic and friendly, perhaps to make the Devil seem
less frightening and unfamiliar, as for example in: “What in the Sam
Hill are you doing?” (Western). Hughes (44) lists some British
English examples such as Old Nick and Lord of the Flies
.
People also try to avoid direct reference to topics they find
unpleasant. Under the category of delicacy fall such topics as death,
disease, physical and mental defects and criminal actions. Probably the
most natural euphemism related to death would be “to pass away”, which
seems to be appropriate and politically correct in a large number of
situations. According to Geoffrey Hughes in A History of English
Words, death is often referred to as a “metaphorical journey in
comforting variants and traditional forms such as… passing on,
going to one's Maker [and] joining the majority” (45).
Other less-dignified ways of referring to death include to resign
one's being, moving into upper management and [being] no
longer eligible for the census (Death).
The third category in Ullman's discussion on taboos has to do with
propriety. The three most common areas in this category are sex, certain
body parts and functions and swearing. People find it difficult to talk
about going to the toilet, and have invented numerous ways of avoiding
direct reference to the topic. Among good friends and acquaintances it may
be acceptable to directly ask the location of the toilet or mention the
bodily function(s) for which one needs to use it, but in other situations
people might instead ask: “Where could I wash my hands?” In movies and in
television, for example, women often say in a restaurant that they need to
go and powder their noses or that they need to freshen up
when they need to use the toilet.
There are also a number of different ways to refer to having sex,
including to sleep with, go to bed with and to make
love, as mentioned by Hughes (45) in a discussion of metaphorical
means of avoiding direct reference. When talking about swearing people
often use “minced oaths”. These are expressions based on profanities, but
the profanities have been changed to remove the inappropriate
characteristics of the original utterance. Among the most common
expressions are freaking for fucking, gosh for
God, heck for hell and darn for damn
(Phrase).
The Strategies Behind Different Euphemisms
In his book titled Euphemisms, John Ayto discusses a variety
of different euphemisms and the strategies behind them. One of these
strategies is understatement, which “takes the heat out of a strong and
perhaps upsetting statement” (3). An example of an understated euphemism
is the word awkward. In some situations something that is
awkward can even be dangerous. As Ayto mentions, ‘an awkward step' might
result in laying flat on your back at the foot of a stairs or ‘an awkward
customer' might give you a black eye (3).
Vagueness is also one of the euphemistic strategies. Vagueness
involves people using a superordinate term when referring to a sensitive
topic. These include, for example institution when referring
to a mental hospital, time when referring to a period spent in
prison and adjust when talking about changes that are “likely
to prove embarrassing or unpopular” (4).
Ayto also mentions euphemisms which hide frightening and unwelcome
issues behind long words or highly technical terms. This strategy is used
for example in medical language when doctors talk about a neoplasm
instead of a tumor. Other interesting expressions mentioned by Leo
(Euphemisms) include disposable mucus recovery system for a
Kleenex and thermal therapy for a bag of ice. ‘Making the best
of a bad job'-type euphemisms are very popular in the use of language.
These include words such as interesting, different and
mixed. Interesting is used for anything strange or boring as
in ‘the outfit you are wearing is interesting'. Different might be
used to refer to something so odd that it is almost impossible to think of
anything else to say about it. Mixed is usually used when people do not
want to say directly that something is bad, as in ‘mixed reviews' (Ayto,
6).
A further purpose of using euphemistic expressions has to do with the
names of certain occupations that have a rather humble status in our
society. Ralph Slovenko (543) lists examples such as
agriculturalists used for farmers, sanitation
engineers used for garbage collectors and custodians
used for janitors. One of the funniest names resulting from the
elevation of certain occupations was mentioned in an article by Leo
(Double), in which a receptionist became a director of first
impressions.
Political Correctness
Katamba (185) mentions that the issue of political correctness was a
matter of public debate in the late 1980s and the early 1990s.
“Political correctness” is a term used to describe language, ideas and
policies that minimize offence to racial, cultural or any other identity
group. Under discussion were, for example, the attempts to use the terms
"physically challenged" or "differentially abled" when referring to
"disabled people."
Political correctness also comes into question when people talk about
death and killing. These in turn relate to the term “doublespeak”, and
also to the extensive use of different military and governmental
euphemisms.
Doublespeak
Doublespeak is a deliberately constructed language that is used to
disguise thought (Katamba 186). It is often associated with
governmental, corporate and military institutions. The difference
between doublespeak and other euphemisms is that doublespeak is usually
deliberately misleading or deceiving; it is used to create more
favorable and flattering expressions. According to Slovenko (533), these
are “words of mass deception, [i.e] WMD”. With other euphemisms there
rarely is an intention to deliberately mislead people.
Euphemisms Related to War
Greg Troppo states in War Having Its Way With Words that “[w]ar
has always contributed its share of military terms that find their way
into everyday language”. Some disappear over time but others survive and
even become terms that define the wars in question.
As horrible as wars are, they nevertheless seem to be fruitful times
when it comes to language and the creation of new terms. It seems that
even the word war itself is unpleasant; people have come up
with different expressions to avoid actually saying the word. These
include words such as struggle, conflict and
dispute. Linda Fieldman cites in Euphemisms on the Euphrates:
the War of Words some quite inventive expressions for different
kinds of acts of war, like tearing down the apparatus of terror,
decapitation operation and confronting dictators. These
are not the same as actually referring to the word war itself,
but are operations that are specific acts of war and targeted to remove
foreign leaders from power, as the two latter examples show.
One of the reasons for using different military and war-related
euphemisms is to keep the public from thinking too much about the
horrible things happening in places where wars are being fought. It is
in the best interest of the government or the military not to talk about
the true nature of war and their plans and actions directly, especially
if something has not gone according to plan or there is a risk that a
plan might fail. Failure might result in the loss of public support and
criticism towards the actions of the government or the military.
Friendly fire and collateral damage are examples
of euphemisms that most people are familiar with. The term friendly
fire is used when referring to casualties resulting from the fire of
allied or friendly forces as opposed to that by enemy forces.
This is probably one of the most unfortunate things that can happen in
the military, but somehow the euphemism softens it and makes it sound
less unfortunate, even though people recognize what the meaning behind
the expression is. These incidents are of course usually accidental, but
nevertheless very serious matters. Friendly fire is one kind of
collateral damage, which was originally a U.S. military term for
unintended or incidental damage during a military operation.
Collateral damage started as a euphemism during the Vietnam
War, but has been in use for such a long time that it is now an accepted
term within military forces when referring to unintentional damage. When
used to refer to the (accidental) killings of innocent civilians, the
expression seems cruel and dismissive. Every war inflicts collateral
damage, but using the euphemism makes the military seem less responsible
for the events and creates the image that these are issues that have to
be accepted while fighting wars. As Slovenko (547) states, euphemisms
“provide clean words which are used to cover atrocious deeds; [they]
conceal crime or deflect guilt”.
One of the euphemisms used by the U.S. government in Iraq is
military casualties, which fails to mention the thousands of
innocent civilian lives lost and affected during the war. The soldiers
from a number of different countries fighting in Iraq are often referred
to as coalition forces, which is also a euphemism since it has
become evident that it is the U.S. military that commands and controls
the situation and the troops in the country. Related to this, Cynthia
Cotts mentions in her article Moral Clarity the term coalition
of the willing, which is President George W. Bush's term for the
countries that support the war in Iraq but have little to offer to the
war. The U.S. wants to maintain the image that the war is a co-operation
between many westerns countries even though the U.S. itself is running
the show.
Troppo mentions the term shock and awe, which is a
“military strategy by which an enemy is persuaded to surrender by a
display of awesome firepower”. Before the invasion of Iraq in 2003 the
officials in the U.S. army declared that shock and awe would
be the plan to be used there.
One interesting aspect relating to the use of the word terrorist
was mentioned by Leo in his article Double Trouble Speak.
Ordinary people have no trouble using the word terrorist, but in
the media those who perform terrorist actions are rarely called
"terrorists" but rather insurgents, activists,
rebels, militants, fighters, assailants or
attackers. There is talk of “acts of terrorism”, but according to
Leo (Double) the word terrorist seems to be avoided. Leo does not
mention why, though.
The use of euphemisms when referring to war and everything that takes
place while fighting makes the action seem distant. People do not
want to hear that the troops of their own country have committed actions
that have resulted in the death of innocent civilians. It is easier to
accept terms such as collateral damage than to read in a newspaper
that children playing in the street of a city were killed in a bombing.
The government also needs the support of the people; euphemisms are a way
of reinforcing this support. It might also be easier for military
personnel to talk about war when they do not directly refer to the
horrible events that are going on. Katamba (187) states that killing
people is shocking even to the “hardened professional soldier or the
executioner”, so instead of directly mentioning the word kill, they
might use terms such as neutralize or take out.
There might also be euphemisms used for events taking place during
wartime so that the public will [intentionally] not really understand
those events. If something is not easily understandable, people might
rather put their faith in government officials and military officers who
presumably know what they are doing. One would expect that most people
want to believe that their country is in good hands, and that the soldiers
fighting the wars and protecting them know what they are doing and would
not undertake actions that may be legally or morally questionable.
The Future of Euphemisms?
Political correctness is currently important in society; people have to be
careful not to insult anyone or hurt other people's feelings with their
words. To some extent this phenomenon has been taken too far; at times it
seems impossible to come up with expressions that do not hurt anyone's
feelings. On the other hand, it is important that people do not feel
discriminated through language; politically correct terms provide for
equality in their own way.
Euphemisms enable people to talk about embarrassing, painful or
inappropriate issues that are considered to be social taboos. However,
in time the euphemistic expressions might receive the same negative
connotations that the original term had; new expressions will be needed
once again. As long as there continue to be unpleasant topics that people
prefer not to refer to directly, people will continue to use euphemisms to
talk about these topics. In fact, at present people would not be able to
use language effectively without euphemisms; talking to other people would
often be uncomfortable without them. It remains to be seen whether one
future day people will be comfortable talking about anything with anyone
in any given situation. Perhaps then the need for euphemisms will have
disappeared.
Works Cited
-
Antroponallet. Karhuseura. Viewed 11 December 2007.
- Ayto, John. Euphemisms . London: Bloomsbury , 1993.
- Cotts, Cynthia. Moral
Clarity. The Village Voice 2-8 April 2003.
- Death Euphemisms. Viewed 11
December 2007.
- Fieldman, Linda. Euphemisms on the Euphrates: the War of
Words. Christian Science Monitor 1 April 2003.
- Hughes, Geoffrey. A History of English Words . Oxford:
Blackwell, 2000.
- Katamba, Francis. English Words . London: Routledge, 1994.
- Leech, Geoffrey. Semantics. Second Edition. Harmondsorth:
Penguin Books, 1981.
- Leo, John. Double Trouble Speak. U.S. News & World
Report. 4 July 2005, Vol. 139, Issue 1.
- - - -.
Euphemisms. 23 February 2004.
- Martin, Gary.
The Phrase Finder. Viewed 11 December 2007.
- Slovenko, Ralph. Commentary Euphemisms. The Journal of
Psychiatry and Law Winter 2005, Vol. 33, Issue 4
- Troppo, Greg. War Having Its Way With Words. USA
Today. 26 March 2003.
- Ullman, Stephen. Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell, 1962.
-
Western Slang and Phrases. Legends of America. Viewed 11 December 2007