"lalochlezia" and swearing: does it reflect taboo, or "boohoooo"

8/11/2019 "Lalochlezia" and swearing: does it reflect taboo, or "Boohoooo"

1/26

Language and Society 500631760 Annemarie van der Woude

Module leader: Vincent Hernot IDEE Year 4 June 20141

Swearing: Does it express Taboo or Boohoo?

Swearing is the use of provocative or offensive language, and this ubiquitously

present linguistic element is mentioned to have touched every human at a certain

point in live (Van Lancker and Cummings, 1999:83). Due to its social implications, it is

unique within the field of sociolinguistics, which comes from to the fact that the

denotation of a swearword may be insignificant: its connotations can invoke a

derogatory epithet. Society empowers swearwords as social factors assert whether

one is to take offence to ideas or feelings its connotations invoke. This basic analysis

of the social effect of swearing portrays its relationship to emotion. I became

personally impelled to read into swearing and emotions after I had come across a

photo on Facebook, posted by online community Word Porn. Known for sharing

literary content of various genres concerning writing, this picture contained a lexical

entry that read the following: lalochezia, (n.) the emotional relief gained from using

abusive or profane language (appendix 1).

According to Jay (2000:82), humans readily associate swearing with all

emotional states in early childhood. Linguists and psychologists developed language

theories over a century, yet these excluded swearing (10). Jay moreover states that

excluding swearing, also excluded emotions in the language theories discussions

while emotions are as innate in language as they are in humans (11). Moreover, in

most research concerning swearing, emotions are rarely discussed as these studies

have been written from linguistic and historical-social points of view (16). Jay

mentions swearing is an emotional element of language that alters the way we view

ourselves and others (81). In a way, this implies that the powerful and provocative


2/26



act of swearing is actually a tool to express emotions, disguised as tabooed language.

It will be interesting to compare whether women, whom are stereotypically deemed

to be more emotional than men (Jay, 2000:92), gain more or stronger lalochezia-

emotional relief from swearing than male counterparts. To research this, I

designed a small-scaled online survey, which collected data from 26 female and 22

male participants (appendix 2). This essay aims to show, by conducting literary

research, comparing data and reflecting on findings, the majority of participants

experienced emotional relief. However, degrees of gained relief differed on

individual levels, showing a surprising outcome from the gender viewpoint.

Before commencing on the analysis and interpretation of data, it is important

to briefly discuss swearing in general and review academic research that correlates

with this essays focus on emotion. Thereafter, gender and language use will be

discussed, before focusing on research regarding gender and swearing. There are

abundant descriptors for using provocative language, but for the sake of continuity,

this essay adopts the term and derivations of swearing. While swearing occurs in

many forms, this essay generalizes swearing into three common major categories.

These categories of swearing are adopted in this paper, as I believe its connotations

transcend languages sworn in. The first category regards swearwords alluding to

sexuality and excretion (fuck, shit, cunt, etc.), the second category includes

blasphemous swearwords or otherwise related to religion (damn, Jesus, God)

(Gauthier, 2012:9). The third category of refers to categorizing epithets to e.g. race,

(dis)abilities, sexuality, et cetera (retard, fag, trailer trash) .

In an article by O'Callaghan (2013), several theories and inducements for

human swearing are discussed. She mentions swearwords to be processed


3/26



differently from more polite words inside our brains. The ability to swear lies in a

different area of the brain, which apparently has been long known. Interestingly she

mentions aphasic persons, impaired by losing aspects of higher cognition because of

injury or neurodegenerative disease, havent lost their ability to swear (2013:72).

Apparently humans, as well as other species evolutionally developed areas housing

automatic reactions to stress in their brain. OCallaghan exemplifies a study in which

triggering the stress-circuit of a cat electronically caused the creature to let out an

ear-splitting howl. In people, whom were stimulated similarly, the trigger elicited an

outburst of rage accompanied by swearing. It seems humans primitive cries of

emotion have assimilated to swearing as basic reflex. According to JaysNPS Theory

(Neuro-Psycho-Social) emotional responses occur at different levels of awareness

and controllability (2000:20). There are two central brain systems that regulate

emotional swearing. In the area controlling emotions: the limbic (subcortical) area

(2000:48), swearing can become an automatic (short) reflex and difficult to control,

while in the cortical area swearing becomes a more complex and strategically aware

response (e.g. jokes or sarcastic responses) (2000:53).

Experiencing (or rather, hearing) his wifescoping with the pain of childbirth,

inspired psychologist Richard Stephens to conduct an experiment to investigate

whether participants experienced relief responding to pain by swearing consistently,

like his wife during labour, and measured the effect of swearing on pain levels. Two

years after successful conductance, Stephens collaborated with Umland and

reconstructed the experiment (2011:1274). Again, the research was able to

demonstrate pain amelioration had been experienced by participating

undergraduates whom swore while trying to hold their hands in ice-cold water as


4/26



long as possible. Apart from pain relief, participants allowed to swear were

measured to be able to hold their hands an average of thirty-one seconds longer in

the ice water, than non-swearing participants (1278). This effect on pain endurance

has been ascribed: the hypoalgesic effect of swearing (2011:1280). Stephens and

Umland suggest in their paper, that swearing may induce an emotional response in

the speaker, by which pain is relieved. Their academic proposition makes the

actualization of gaining emotional relief from swearing, as suggested by this essays

focus lalochlezia, a more plausible possibility.

Before briefly discussing gender and language and research done into

swearing and gender, it has to be mentioned that in reconstructing Stephens study

a variable was added to the experiment of 2011 related to gender. Participants daily

swearing frequencies were assessed to determine the affect ones swearing

frequency has on the degree of pain relief when swearing. Results showed

participants with higher swearing frequencies, experience a lesser emotional

response () because of habituation to the stimulus of swearing (,) [and]

experience a lesser pain tolerance effect from swearing(2011:1278). Findings from

several psychologists regarding multilingualism and swearing, mentioned by

Abrahams (2013), showed swearing in onesnative languages dredges up deeper,

more hellacious emotion than swearing in a "foreign" language. As children

associate swearwords to emotional states at an early age, and value its pragmatics

when they can recast them to acquire attention from parents and they discover

swearwords convey emotional states more accurately than primitive cries and

shrieks(Jay, 2000:53&82). From this perspective, swearing in the language one has


5/26



first associated and expressed emotions with, rather than languages acquired

thereafter, is likely to induce stronger emotions.

Genetic differences between men and women are hardly matters of dispute

(Wardhaugh, 2010:335). Yet even at physiological level, society affects gender

identity as it set norms to conform physiological representation of language to.

Wardhaugh mentions vocal sounds may be emphasized to match societys

assumptions of how we should sound like when they talk (335), exemplifying this

with Margaret Thatcher being advised to lower her pitch and adjust her speaking

style in correspondence with her position as British Prime Minister (i.e. she had to

sound more masculine) (337). According to Jay (2000:166), cultures aims to mould

children into masculine and feminine adults. He portrays gender identity as set of

cultural prescriptions and expectations (ibid) to which males and females are to

conform. Current Western societies seem to allow women and men freedom to

transcend (and mix) their masculine and feminine characteristics. Yet, despite social

progress, displaying traits different from social norms may still cause stigmatization

and name-calling as gay, tomboy, queer, butch. Wardhaugh (2010:343) states

females are reported to be more polite than men in speech, and makes the

important observation that in studies into language and gender, male speech overall

provided the norm for comparison (335).

Differences regarding use of swearwords between genders appear as soon as

children go to school (Jay, 2000:92). Apparently, boys swear more often and use

more offensive kinds of words than girls. Yet, this could be ascribed to childrens

parents, whom swear more with their male children, whereas they monitor their

speech with their female ones according current research into gender and swearing


6/26



by Gauthier (2012:128). He reports findings from three main objectives relevant to

this essay (126-8). Analyzing the way women and men perceive swearing, was his

studys first and foremost aim. While he states the outcome may have been

influenced by the traditional stereotypical views representing women as prudish

persona to avoid swearing behaviour around and men being big swearers, it

demonstrates a perceivable difference. Male participants used substantially more

swear words when they were with other men while avoiding avoiding such

behaviour around women (2012:127). This showed men related gender much more

to swearing than females, whom portrayed consistency in swearing disregarding

audience, but rather tended to consider what swear words conveyed and referred

to (ibid). Gauthier his second aim linked to these findings, was investigate how

swearing is used by both genders as well as its differences. As his first aim showed

men swore significantly more in male-only settings, the probability of an unaffected

gender division was excluded. He mentions that among men, swearing has a specific

function, stating this led him to believe that swearing was a bonding factor for men

(2012:127).

Gauthier uses these observations to question his last aim regarding the

stereotypes of language and gender, as these show the relativity of females

assumed prudishness, and that in turn as males being a lot more likely to refrain

from swearing than females, this questions the accuracy of applying prudishness in

discussing gender and differences in swearing. Gauthier proposes an explanation

might lay in the general use of womens swearing compared to mens, as the latter

tend to see swearing as a tool more likely to prove useful in everyday situations

(ibid), i.e., men see swearing having a socializing and bonding function transcending


7/26



its conveyed connotations. However, Gauthier does states that stereotypical views

may begin to change, as traditional gender expectations may be starting to lose of

their impact, at least among certain speakers (128). He concludes that, despite the

current presence of stereotypes, younger generations are proposed to become more

egalitarian despite current parenting differentiation gender-wise, as young females

(18-25) are mentioned to report swearing sufficiently more than men. As analysis

didnt show potential for women to bond socially over swearing, Gauthier mentions

finalizes his report by the implication that women do notswear more than men to

be accepted by them, but simply to equal, or even surpass them and create a

balance through an equivalent use of strong language(ibid.).

With regards to my own research, I collected data from 48 responders via an

anonymous online survey with ten questions (appendix 2). Although it is common to

devote a section to discussing results, having appended my data summary, the word-

limit of this paper and my non-existing skill to analyse statistics: I will commence

justifying my design and provide interpretation/analysis of findings. I dispersed the

link for the survey among Facebook friends. In making its topic and purpose

apparent in its description, I made clear the language used was English to gather

responses from individuals proficient in English and interested in my study. The first

two questions establish participantsgender and age groups, the latter I preferred

over specific age as it caters to anonymity more (Gauthier, 2012:55) which

particularly when dealing with a tabooed subject might hold respondents back, and

also categorizes generations. Gender dyad was quite balanced: 26 females and 22

males, the majority aged between 20-30. The third question assessed frequency of

swearing in everyday discourse, to provide insight in gender difference in use of


8/26



swearing. Also due to Stephen & Umland (2011) having asserted frequency of

swearing an important variable, due the affect of habituation on gaining relief. All

participants (minus one female) reported to swear yet gender difference found

correlates with discussed research. Women represent 75% of the occasional

swearers and merely 25% of those whom swear everyday.

Questions 4-6 examine how context influenced the frequency of swearing

behaviour. The context in which swearing occurs is an important variable to assess,

as swearwords can merely be perceived provocative or foul when the speakers

social setting and listener, along with other variables, are considered. Given the size

of this study, settings only variable questioned was swearing frequency. The first

context proposed swearing around friends. The first categories of frequency were in

balance among genders. Occasionallyreported 42.31% by females versus 9.09% by

males. Swearing everyday showed 31.82% by males and 11.54% by females. In

general this corresponds with Gauthiers (2012:127) findings on male swearing and

can be ascribed to its role in male-socialization. Question 5 regarding swearing

around family members is asserted to show little difference among genders. For the

sake on continuing one can interpret genders overall feel the same about sharing

emotions with family. Question six, enquiring the frequency of swearing around

superiors shows a dyad. 73.08% females reported never to swear in such contexts

while 59.09% males reported occasionally; and 9.09% to often do so. Although these

questions are limited and free to interpret by its few variables, findings portray high-

frequency swearing in men making women appear stereotypically polite in

comparison.


9/26



Question 7 established frequency of use in the three major categories of

swearing. Although 10 women reported to never epithets, the first category seems

most balanced in use among gender. The four frequencies of religious swearwords

reported to increase consistently in males: 0%; 18.18%; 36.36% and 45.45%. Again,

women reported lower frequenting is use: 11.54%; 38.46%; 38.46% and 11.54%.

Women admittedly report using words alluding to sexuality and excretion, most

even doing so often: 0%; 38.46%; 42.31%; 19.23%. Still, they cant beat the male

figures: 0%; 9.09%; 31.82%; 59.09%. Males reported swearing much more frequent

than women: it even seemed to increase as the survey evolved. Participants could

provide options and examples to these generalized categories, which 7 males and 2

females did. Apart from one -seemingly British- response, generally suggestion

referred to (explicit!) examples of illnesses, particularly cancer (appendix 3). From an

international viewpoint the custom of Dutch language relating swearwords to

diseases appears to be rather unique (Van Sterkenburg, 2001; in Rassin and Muris,

2005:1673).

The last three questions cover the focus of this study: Lalochlezia. Question 8

asserts whether emotional relief has even been gained from swearing by the

participants, and if so, its frequency. Merely 6 respondents reported never to have

gained emotional relief: 2 male and 4 female. Of the other 42, 25 stated to

sometimesexperience emotional relief from swearing (11 male and 14 female); 15

reported gaining lalochlezia from swearing most of the times (7 male and 8 female).

Two participants reported to Alwaysgain relief, both male. To question 9, asserting

whether lalochlezia ever induced one to swear, and if so- its frequency, most

reported not being aware of it, which corresponds to the discussion on the


10/26



(sub)cortical areas controlling swearing. 3 men stated to never been induced, 8

hadnt experiences emotional relief from swearing to their knowing;5 men replied

lalochlezia induced swearing a few times and merely 1 reported it was why he swore

so much. That even 9 polite occasionally swearing, females admittedly reported

being induced to swear a few times by its emotional merits shows men are

becoming numbed due to swearing habituation. Entering the 10th

and last question

of this studys survey: ahypothesis proposed to induce outrage from women, and

misconceptions or no opinions from men. Shockingly, only 13 participants

disregarded the stereotypically composed hypothesis: 7 males and a mere 6 females.

16 (8/8) responded to have no opinion on this personal matter; 7 females and 2

males agreed a little, 2 women and 1 man did so predominantly and an equal

number full-heartily agreed. Luckily, of the four participants whom dared to provide

to the other option (appendix 4) the only (egalitarian) female stated what I was

looking for: I am not a man, so I dont know how they feel.

To conclude, the effect of lalochlezia appeared to correspondence to

assumptions proposed by studies examining pain relief from swearing which

demonstrated the hypoalgesic effect of swearing. Researching the relationship of

swearing and emotions has shown swearing and language theories have long been

kept apart, and connecting these might give more insight into the processing of

emotions. Having investigated swearing and gender in relation to lalochlezia, based

on stereotypical traditions assuming females are the emotional gender, provided the

following interpretations. Firstly it seems that traditional gender-identities in

language and swearing are omnipresent and are seemingly accepted as normal by

society, which hinders society and language evolve into a more egalitarian society.


11/26



Therefore, women may in fact gain more emotional relief from swearing than men;

as they are too polite to allow habituation numbing lalochlezia, and it may very well

be that keeping these emotions in by refraining from swearing, -unlike men- is what

makes women more emotional. Yet, to end on a pending note: if women are the

more emotional gender, why do men swear so much?

Annemarie van der Woude.


12/26



REFERENCES

Abrahams, M. (2013, March 18). Does swearing make you feel better? The

Guardian.Retrieved from:

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/mar/18/improbable-research-

art-pain-education [last accessed 19-06-2014]

Gauthier, M. (2012). Profanity and gender: a diachronic analysis of mens and

womens use and perception of swear words.(PDF) Retrieved from:

https://www.academia.edu/2962962/Profanity_and_Gender_a_diachronic_a

nalysis_of_mens_and_womens_use_and_perception_of_swear_words[Last

accessed 12-05-2014]

Jay, T. (2000). Why We Curse: A Neuro-Psycho-Socio Theory of Speech.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins B.V. (print).

OCallaghan, T. (2013). Rude Awakenings: How swearing made us human.

New Scientis, Vol. 2948. No.220: 72-4.

Rassin, E. and Muris, P. : Personality and Individual Differences Vol. 38. 2005:

166974. Retrieved from:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886904003174[lastaccessed 09-06-2014]

Stephens, R. and Umland, C. : Swearing as a Response to PainEffect of Daily

Swearing Frequency. TheJournal of Pain, Vol. 12, No. 12 (December), 2011:

1274-81. Retrieved from:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1526590011007620[last


Van Lancker, D. and Cummings, J.L.: Expletives: Neurolinguis- tics and

neurobehavioral perspectives on swearing. Brain Res. Rev. 31:83-104, 1999.

Retrieved from:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165017399000600[last


Wardhaugh, R. (2010).An Introduction to Sociolingistics, 6th

edition, Sussex:

Willey-Blackwell Ltd.
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/mar/18/improbable-research-art-pain-educationhttp://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/mar/18/improbable-research-art-pain-educationhttp://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/mar/18/improbable-research-art-pain-educationhttps://www.academia.edu/2962962/Profanity_and_Gender_a_diachronic_analysis_of_mens_and_womens_use_and_perception_of_swear_wordshttps://www.academia.edu/2962962/Profanity_and_Gender_a_diachronic_analysis_of_mens_and_womens_use_and_perception_of_swear_wordshttps://www.academia.edu/2962962/Profanity_and_Gender_a_diachronic_analysis_of_mens_and_womens_use_and_perception_of_swear_wordshttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886904003174http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886904003174http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1526590011007620http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1526590011007620http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165017399000600http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165017399000600http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165017399000600http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1526590011007620http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886904003174https://www.academia.edu/2962962/Profanity_and_Gender_a_diachronic_analysis_of_mens_and_womens_use_and_perception_of_swear_wordshttps://www.academia.edu/2962962/Profanity_and_Gender_a_diachronic_analysis_of_mens_and_womens_use_and_perception_of_swear_wordshttp://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/mar/18/improbable-research-art-pain-educationhttp://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/mar/18/improbable-research-art-pain-education


13/26



Appendix 1: Picture from Word Pornas posted on Facebook wall


14/26



Appendix 2: Data online survey comparing male and female responses


15/26




16/26




17/26


18/26




19/26




20/26




21/26




22/26




23/26




24/26




25/26



Appendix 3: Examples provided to swearing categories (Question 7)


26/26


Appendix 4: Other optional responses to hypothesis (Question 10)

"lalochlezia" and swearing: does it reflect taboo, or "boohoooo"

Documents