Search This Blog

Friday, April 4, 2014

Warning: No Explicit Language

I have a very strong love for language, its study, and its use. That may sound strange since my grammar (particularly spelling) can be sub par at times. I don't think you have to be good at something to enjoy studying it. Just look at sports. I first realized this interest in language when I took a course by Dr. Mark Damen (a professor I've mentioned before) My first year of college I took his CLAS 1100 - Latin and Greek Elements in English class. It introduced me to basic linguistics, etymology, metaphor, and the basic skills of breaking words apart to see how they work.

One of my favorite examples is the word "conspiracy." Break it apart and you get "con-" with, "spir" > breath, "-acy" > quality of being or having -> the state of breathing with someone. How does that lead to "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful?" This is where metaphor comes into play. The Romans were paranoid. If they saw two people speaking so quietly that their words couldn't be heard - two people who appeared to be breathing together - they immediately thought it was a plot. Interestingly enough in the book Dinotopia the word they use for marriage has the same prefix and base so in Dinotopia a conspiracy would be the same "the state of being married." Culture can change everything.

With that in mind I want to examine that part of language commonly referred to as swearing. Also known as profanity, cursing, explicit language, or simply as being rude, crude, and uncouth. It is the part of language that is considered impolite, improper, uncivilized, low brow, and, of course, rude crude and uncouth. Dr. Damen did give an (optional) lecture on the history of swearing as part of the CLAS 1100. Some words have always been considered inappropriate for general usage. Many gained their unacceptable status through (literal) profanity. In a religious society it is inappropriate to misuse the divine, such as in a casual or disrespectful manner - i.e. to profane. It's no wonder that much the language that is considered offensive are religious references. Those that aren't tend to be references to things considered private, intimate, or distasteful. Discussing or referencing such things overtly and in crude terms is against our natural propriety. This leads us to Dr. Damen's rule of mean - once a word takes on a sexual connotation or meaning previous meanings are no longer valid.

Moving past the origins of English/American swearing, the question as to "why" swearing is a compelling one. That society has a higher tolerance for swearing is blatantly clear by examining our consumed media. Some argue that full language is a beautiful thing, or that we do a disservice by censoring profane, inappropriate or explicit language. Doesn't the first amendment grand the freedom of speech? Doesn't that mean that we can use whatever language we desire to express ourselves? Those are valid questions, but I think the question that is more important is "should you use such language?"

Yes. People have the right to talk in whatever way they choose and reap the consequences there of. Many people don't understand, or underestimate the power of language. Language conveys something about the speaker. A prime example is Iago in Shakespeare's Othello. His first work on stage was considered one of the worst words to be spoken in public. It immediately told the audience what type of character he was. What kind of language you use demonstrates how you think. Ben Jonson is attributed with saying, "Language most shows a man, speak that I may see thee." Spencer W. Kimball expressed that profanity specifically was "the effort of a feeble brain to express itself forcibly." There are far better ways to express yourself then using language (or any action) that is offensive to others - unless you are trying to be offensive. In which case you shouldn't be offended if people choose not to associate with you. 

No comments:

Post a Comment