Vaughn Capstone Final

V a u g h n | 1

Swearing & Society:

A Socio-Linguistic Look at Foul Language

Matthew Vaughn

North Dakota State University

Department of English

English 467 Capstone

Mentor: Dr. Bruce Maylath

May 10, 2014

V a u g h n | 2

Abstract

Swear words, which are often hurtful or offensive, only obtain their status through the social

circles we associate with and generally people have little choice over which words have the most

influence over them. Throughout the history of English, vulgar words and social circles have

been closely intertwined. Growing social class divisions in the 15th and 16th centuries resulted

in the “vulgarization” of the words used by the lower class thus creating taboo words for those

wishing to project professionalism. This rift between classes and word choice is felt today in a

much more complex matter. With the rapid influence of globalization, taboo words phase in and

out of power faster than ever before. This project was designed to chart what words now hold the

power for young college students (age 18-24) as well as investigating what outside factors play a

role in their perception of taboo words. 54 participants were handed a questionnaire asking

various background questions about themselves, then it asked for them to rank eight different

swear words on a scale of 1-5 (1 being non-offensive, 5 being extreme shock and offensiveness)

for both private and public contexts. The results found that nearly all students, despite different

economic, religious, and geographical backgrounds, answered typically the same. This implies

an underlying shared value between all social circles as well as implying that the various social

circles you choose to be a part of have much less power than the dominant ideology of society as

whole. This project will discuss these implications alongside the contemporary academic

conversation surrounding taboo in society.

V a u g h n | 3

I. Introduction

Society constructs the way we talk and the words we use and, more importantly, the

words we cannot use. The purpose of this study was to determine which social factors influence

the perception of eight swear words according to young college students (ages 18-24).

Furthermore, this study set out to answer the question of why students answered differently

compared to others and what social factors influenced the disparity. In order to successfully

fulfill this objective, I conducted primary research on 50 young college students asking them to

rank (in terms of severity) eight different swear words. Along with the rankings, I asked the

participants to answer various background questions regarding age, gender, and more (see

attached questionnaire).

The general outline of this study begins with a literature review of the topic of swearing

and taboo words. This review section will highlight the history of swearing, the various

applications of swear words, and will also explore the relationship between spoken words and

psychological responses.

II. Literature Review

II(a)- A History of Swearing

Just as English has evolved dramatically within the last millennia, swear words have

changed rapidly as well. Even today many swear words take on different meanings than they

originally were prescribed, in fact it is not unusual for swear words to change meanings multiple

times. For examining this rich and turbulent history I will begin by charting the major changes

during the 10th-15th century. For this section I will mostly draw upon David Crystal’s book

entitled The Stories of English as well as a few other historical resources. From the 15th century

V a u g h n | 4

onwards I will shift the focus of the literature onto the eight swear words that I conducted

primary research on.

As any language historian will tell you the origins of modern English, as well as the most

single influential event concerning English’s evolution, was when the French successfully

invaded England in 1066 AD. This invasion, and subsequent overthrow of the Anglo-Saxon

government and nobility, founded French as the official government language for nearly the next

300 years. As a consequence of this fact, spoken English at the time (known as old English)

became vulgarized by the French nobility. English was deemed the commoners language and

thus their words were deemed as the ‘lesser’ forms of French words. One example of this can be

seen when looking at the old English word for chair, “stool”, (which is still the word for chair in

Dutch); the French nobility replaced “stool” and changed it’s meaning to an imperfect chair.

Another example of changed meanings, especially with swear words, can be seen with the

Norwegian word for “dirt” – “shite”. “Shite” can be used in public without any stigmatization in

Norway because it literally means dirt. No doubt this word had a similar meaning in Old English

(which was heavily influenced by Old Norse) until the language slowly became vulgarized

(Crystal 130).

After 1066 however it was not the French who caused the overall stigmatization of swear

words, the divide was created by the top of the social class structure in an attempt to distance

themselves from the commoners. During the 14th & 15th century, when England was virtually

independent again, there was a push from the nobility to speak in “pleasant speech” to

distinguish themselves from the lewd speak of the commoners (Crystal 285). This act was the

catalyst that stigmatized swear words or lewd of the commoners much faster and to much greater

effects than the French’s attempt. As the classes grew further apart, so did the dialects of the two

V a u g h n | 5

classes. The upper class continued to distance themselves by creating “gentlemens speak” by

using words like “bowel movements” and “intercourse” as euphemisms to the vulgar words of

the commoners. From the 15th century onwards the words shifted meanings, especially in recent

times while covert prestige has begun to take over (Jay, 154).

With those thoughts in mind, I shift over to the eight swear words that I have chosen to

conduct research on. In the table below (Fig. 1) I outline the history of all eight words.

According to the enteties from the Oxford English Dictionary, most of the swear words have

their first recorded usage from the 10th – 15th century. It is important to note that I am

highlighting the first written record of the word and it is likely that the word had been spoken at

least 200 years before its first appearance in writing. Furthermore, written English only first

developed during the 10th-15th centuries. Before that time the language was a mostly oral

language, meaning these words could have existed nearly a millennia before they were written

down. The limitations I found was that many swear words have now taken on multiple vulgar

meanings. “Cunt”, for instance, took on the deragotry term for woman around 1663 AD, yet the

meaning for an undesirable place or person (either gender) only appeared during the 20th century.

Another important note is the fact using God and Jesus’ names in vain occurred much earlier

than using “damn” or “hell” as vulgar words. As we approach the 20th century the words, as we

will see, take on completely different shapes (OED.com).

V a u g h n | 6

Figure 1. This table shows the origins of all eight swear words tested in this study. The table shows the first recorded usage as well all the first recorded vulgar usage.

II(b) – Why Use Swear Words?

A contemporary question regarding swear words could be ‘if the words are heavily

stigmatized, what benefit would one get by speaking them?’ The fact of the matter is that swear

words, while stigmatized, are extremely versatile and effective in expressing yourself. Dr.

Timothy Jay writes in his article “The Utility and Ubiquity of Taboo Words” that “Swearing is

positively correlated with extraversion and Type A hostility but negatively correlated with

agreeableness, conscientiousness, religiosity, and sexual anxiety. The uniquely human facility for

swearing evolved and persists because taboo words can communicate emotion information

(anger, frustration) more readily than nontaboo words, allowing speakers to achieve a variety of

personal and social goals with them” (Jay 154). According to Jay, swearing has been able to

survive and thrive because nothing expresses your feelings better whether they are positive or

negative feelings. This finding is also supported by Dr. Danette Johnson in her article “Swearing

by Peers in the Work Setting: Expectancy Violation Valence, Perceptions of Message, and

Perceptions of Speaker.” In the article she explains that swearing can be used for four different

yet effective functions: Hostility, humor, intimacy, and intensity. In her view, all four of these

functions can be used flawlessly as long as the speaker is able to decipher which context is

Religious Carnal

Damn – First recorded use c1320 AD-First recorded vulgar use 1625 AD

Shit – First recorded use Old English-First recorded vulgar use 1864 AD

Hell – First recorded use in Old English Pre-1066 AD-First recorded vulgar use 1886 AD

Fuck – First recorded use 1513 AD-First recorded vulgar use 1776 AD

God – First recorded use OE c825 AD-First recorded vulgar use c1200 AD

Dick – First recorded use 1553 AD-First recorded vulgar use 1891 AD

Jesus – First recorded use c1175 AD-First recorded vulgar use 1377 AD

Cunt – First recorded use c1230 AD-First recorded vulgar use 1663 AD

V a u g h n | 7

appropriate to use them. From this research it becomes clear that swearing can be advantageous

to a speaker if he/she can properly utilize them (Johnson 137).

II(c) – What’s In a Word?

The conclusion of the last section has left many contemporary scholars asking a more

hotly debated follow up question ‘so if swearing is advantageous to some speakers, what is the

problem with swearing?’ In my research to answer this question, two sides quickly emerged

around this debate. One side claimed that swear words remained stigmatized because of the

meanings they portray, while the other side claimed it was really only the word itself which has

now become stigmatized through social norms.

In Tiffany O’Callaghan’s article entitled “Rude Awakenings” she draws upon a plethora

of research to show how swear words will never escape their vulgar meanings. In her article she

writes, “Charles Darwin once speculated that our earliest vocalizations expressed hostility and

lust -- two of the things that we tend to use profanities for today” (O’Callaghan, 74). From there

she draws upon the research of linguists Ljiljana Progovac and John Locke who speculate that

crude language fuelled the beginnings of modern grammar by forcing people to creatively

express themselves. As she continued she showed how the more upper classes grew, the more

there was a push for censorship of unsavory words. One example of this during the Middle Ages

was that many scribes would write the “naughty bits” of stories in Latin instead of the spoken

vernacular. This was an early form of censorship but people could still infer the vulgar meaning

without any hint of the word (O’Callaghan, 74).

On the other side of the coin, recent scientific research has shown that many speakers

react simply to the word being spoken without any implication of the meanings. Dr. Tina M

Eilola and Jelena Havelka conducted one such study, where they tested participants Skin

V a u g h n | 8

Conductance levels (SCLs) when exposed to four different word types: taboo, negative (such as

no), positive (such as yes), and neutral (such as glue). The words were displayed as text and not

spoken. The table below (Fig. 2) outlines the results of their test, which showed that taboo words

had a much higher neurological reaction than any other word type. Another aspect of this study

Figure 2. Shows the SCLs of participant’s reactions to various words. Taboo words generated the highest response.

was to see the difference between native English speakers reactions compared to non-native

English speakers reactions. The table below (Fig. 3) shows the differences between the two types

of speakers. The results show that native speakers are much more sensitive to taboo words than

non-native speakers (Eilola, 362). The fact that non-native speakers were less sensitive is the real

groundbreaking information of this study. It implies that there is a shared value to these words

among those who grew up with them. A value that cannot be picked up by those who grew up

outside of that culture. The shock level isn’t there for someone who is less intimate with the

words (Eilola, 360).

V a u g h n | 9

Figure 3. Table showing the reactions of native English speakers compared to non-native English speakers. The results found native English speakers being much more sensitive to taboo words

While the Eliloa research has heavy implications, it really lays the groundwork for a

research that has even heavier implications. Dr. Jeffery Bowers and Dr. Christopher Pleydell

expanded on Eliloa’s tests by again charting participants SCLs while being exposed to swear

words. In their test however they studied swear words as well as euphemisms for swear words

(like saying “crap” instead of “shit”). The study found that participants still had much higher

reactions to swear words than they did to swear word euphemisms (see Fig. 4) (Bowers, 4). This

fact is extremely important in the debate of meaning vs. word because it shows the power of just

a word. If the vulgar stigmatization stems from the meaning of swear words, then euphemisms

for swear words which mean the exact same thing should equally be stigmatized. This study

proves that the two are not equal and implies that swear words may have more weight than the

meanings that they represent. While for much of history it may have been the actions that were

vulgar, the words have now almost cemented themselves as larger than their meanings (Bowers,

7). This hypotheses plays a crucial part in the primary research that I conducted.

V a u g h n | 10

Figure 4. Chart shows the SCL reactions of participant’s reaction to swear words, euphemisms for swear words, as well as neutral words

III. Methods

The methods I used to conduct my primary research began with a questionnaire (see

appendix) that I handed out to my participants. I handed out 56 questionnaires and used 50 as my

final sample size (6 were out of the age range I had set). The target age range of my participants

was 18-24. I recruited participants either by them being in my class or by me knowing them

through some other connection. All 50 participants were students in the tri-college area, 43

coming from NDSU, 6 coming from Concordia, and 1 coming from MSUM. I attempted to

recruit in such a way that I would have participants from various backgrounds and ethnicities, in

order to find a contrast in my results.

Once the participant was recruited I explained briefly what the study was about and what

would be expected of them before I gave them the questionnaire. Once they began to fill out the

V a u g h n | 11

questionnaire they would fill out the background information section first. The background

information section asked various questions about their upbringing as well as their current status.

I would use their answers to sort their results later on. The background questions asked included:

• Age

• Gender

• Marital Status

• Ethnicity

• Major/Minor

• Religion

• Childhood Geographic Region

• Socio-Economic Class

• # of Siblings

After the participant filled out the background section, they were asked to rank the eight

swear words I provided on a scale of 1-5. A ranking of 1 indicates that the word could be said

with no social consequences while a ranking of 5 indicated that the word could not be said

without severe social consequences. In the questionnaire, the participant had to make these

rankings twice for each word, once for if it was said in a public context (at school or with

strangers) and once for if it was said in a private context (with family or close friends). The

words themselves were split into two categories. Four religious based swear words: damn, hell,

God, and Jesus, and four carnal based swear words: shit, fuck, dick, and cunt.

IV. Results

V a u g h n | 12

The results of my research were divided up into various tables and graphs according to

the background questions the participants answered in the questionnaire. In this section of the

paper I will only be going over the data that showed the most diversity in results. Many

background areas showed the same answers and in order to preserve space, I will be omitting

them in this section. I have attached the detailed results for all background categories in the

appendices so that they are available for review. The results I will be covering include total

averages, averages by age, averages by gender, averages by religion, and average by childhood

location.

To begin, the total averages by all 50 participants are listed below (Fig. 5). “Cunt” was

rated the highest followed by “fuck.” The margin between those two words and the other 6 is

quite large in comparison. All other words in the public context were between 2.02 – 2.72. The

private rankings followed the same trend but usually were lower by about .30 of a point.

Important notes from this result was that all four carnal words out-ranked or tied all four

religious words in public contexts. In private, some religious words were ranked higher than

private ones.

Figure 5. Total Averages by all 50 participants. The numbers directly to the right of the words are their rankings in comparison to all 8

V a u g h n | 13

Results regarding averages by age show a distinct trend towards people ranking words

higher the older they get. A slow incline can be seen in rankings by looking at the graph (Fig. 6).

The lowest average was an average of 2.16 by 19 year olds and the highest ranking was a

ranking of 3.18 by 24 year olds. From 21 year olds on, the answers go up roughly by .30 of a

point each year difference. Important things to note was that the older ages only ranked words

higher in the public context. For private context swear words they ranked them typically the

same as younger ages.

Figure 6. Averages shown by age

Results by gender showed little variation in answers. In nearly all public context carnal

words, both genders answered within .10 of each other. The private carnal words which had the

most variation were “dick” and “cunt.” There was much more variation between both the private

and public contexts of “damn” and “hell” usages. Despite these differences, their answers were

still relatively low for “damn” and “hell”, only twice were they ranked above a 2.0 severity. It

could also be noted that females rated words, on average, only .10 higher than males.

V a u g h n | 14

Figure 7. Averages shown by Gender. Males are represented in blue, females in orange

Results regarding the averages by religion begin to show much more variation than age

and gender. Atheists had an average ranking of 1.74 for all eight words which was the lowest

result of any group in the entire study. Most of the other three religions stayed close to each

other’s rankings. Islam ranked the highest with an average of 3.31. Atheist’s low average comes

from their low ranking of religious based words; furthermore they ranked carnal words much less

than other religious groups.

Figure 8. Averages sorted by religion. Christian in blue, Islam in orange, Buddhism in grey, atheism in yellow

V a u g h n | 15

The final result I will be highlighting in this section was the result regarding childhood

location. The participant was asked to identify where they spent the majority of their childhood

and I eventually divided the answer into two categories; North Dakota/Minnesota Native and

non-North Dakota/Minnesota native. These results showed the highest variation of any of the

results. For non-natives “cunt” had the lowest public and private context ranking of any group

along with “dick” both private and public again for non-natives. Likewise, native ND/MNs had

the highest ranking of “cunt” out of all the groups. Non-natives had the highest ranking of “God”

as well. For non-natives, nearly every word had a larger disparity than a .2 ranking.

Figure 9. Graph showing averages sorted by childhood location. North Dakota/Minnesota natives represented in blue, non-North Dakota/Minnesota natives represented in orange

V. Discussion

The results of this research show many trends and a few overarching conclusions. The

trends that I noticed and will be discussing the overall acceptance, between most social groups,

of a public standard for swear words. Another trend is the overall higher rankings the older

V a u g h n | 16

peoples ages were. As far as overall implications I will go over the big differences between

people raised in the northern Midwest and those who were not and how that had the biggest

impact on how people ranked the words.

To begin, the most recurring result was that people generally answered the same even

when they were compared based on all their different backgrounds. Especially true to this

statements were people’s rankings of public context swear words. In fact, the highest disparity in

averages (besides age, religion, and location) was .2 of a point. This implies that people have an

understanding about what words should be said and what words shouldn’t be said, despite their

own social norms. In Dr. Danette Johnson’s article referenced earlier, she talked about how

people who live in the same area, despite where they came from generally will adopt the norms

of the workplace or area that they move to. As we will find later on this isn’t always true but the

majority of the results I found point towards students having an understanding, especially in

public contexts, about how to act.

Along the lines of social expectations, the averages shown by ages imply that the older

people get the higher they rank swear words. More importantly, the older people get the higher

they ranked public context swear words. Looking at the detailed graph (Fig. 10) that displays

word for word, the older the age the higher they ranked public context swear words. From these

findings I concluded that once again there was an understanding of how to act in public. The

older people got the more they realized the need to follow the social norms. Most people by 24

years old were graduate students and they undoubtedly would have a higher level of

professionalism than an eighteen year old freshman. The importance of this then shows that

people change rapidly when forced to live in a new setting.

V a u g h n | 17

Figure 10. Detailed graph depicted average answers by ages. Ages 18-24 are represented from left to right in light blue, orange, grey, blue, green, and dark blue

Along the lines of social norms and people adapting to public expectation, I have found

that the results concerning gender varied little from the other results. In fact the differences

between genders was the lowest differential of all the results. This data shocked me since I’ve

always experienced differing attitudes towards swearing between genders. The general

stereotypes is that men swear much more than women. According to my data that is not so in

young college students. Most of them answered within .1 of each other for public context swear

words. These results suggest that gender plays a less prominent role in swear word selection,

especially when it comes to publically swearing. Minor differences in private contexts might

support the idea of men swearing more frequently than women but it is hardly convincing. More

and more the results have been pointing towards people generally sharing the same opinion.

With every result that I went through I found general parity in their rankings; except for two.

The two results that I found a lot of variation with was religion and childhood location.

Religion (Fig. 8) was what I had expected although I didn’t foresee atheisms having as low as

average as they ended up with. Their low rankings of religious based words play a major role in

their low average but their carnal words were extremely low rankings as well. I take these results

V a u g h n | 18

to suggest that the lower the participants ranked religious swear words (and religion in general)

the more lenient they were with all swear words in either context.

Other than religion, the largest difference was with childhood location. As I stated in the

results, I split the categories into native North Dakota/Minnesota resident or non-native. The

differences I found between the two were astounding. Natives had “cunt” ranked at 4.5 which is

the highest average in the study, while non-natives had “cunt” ranked at a little under 3.5 which

is the lowest average in the study. Even the atheist group, which had the lowest total average,

had a higher ranking for “cunt.” This implies a very large difference in how other people

perceive body parts. “Dick” had the same type of result with natives ranking much higher. Non-

natives ranked “God” at 3.0 in public and private, while ranking “cunt” a 3.0 in a private context.

None of the natives of the area had put any religious word on the same level as “cunt”, this

implies the two words are not regarded as the acceptance level in North Dakota and Minnesota.

The results of childhood location is where I draw my biggest conclusion. My conclusion

is that the most influential social factor when it comes to swear words is where you were born.

This is supported by the study conducted by Dr. Eilola comparing native English speakers to

non-native English speakers. In her results (Fig. 11) she found that native English speakers had a

much higher sensitivity to swear words than non-native speakers. This implies that in order for

swear words to have heavy meaning, you need to be a part of the culture that gives heavy

meaning to them. The same can be said for the research I conducted. The people who grew up

outside the northern mid-west have different sets of cultural norms, with different swear words

that mean something to them. No matter where they move to they would not be able to shake the

cultural baggage that they carry with them and it is my conclusion that the swear words you

grow up giving meaning to will always be the most important.

V a u g h n | 19

Figure 11. Chart showing the differences between native English speakers and non-natives

Implications for Further Research

The limitations of this research is that it was all conducted in the Fargo-Moorhead area. A

follow up research in other areas of the country would be advised for more accurate results.

Especially because this study concludes that location is the most important social factor to

speech, I believe going to different locations would be essential in formulating these results into

a well-rounded research.

V a u g h n | 20

Works Cited

Bowers, Jeffrey S., and Christopher W. Pleydell-Pearce. "Swearing, Euphemisms, And

Linguistic Relativity." Plos ONE 6.7 (2011): 1-8. Academic Search Premier. Web. 4 Apr.

2014.

Eilola, Tiina M., and Jelena Havelka. "Behavioural and Physiological Responses to the

Emotional and Taboo Stroop Tasks in Native and Non-Native Speakers of

English."International Journal of Bilingualism 15.3 (2011): 353-369.Academic Search

Premier. Web. 12 Apr. 2014.

Jay, Timothy. “The Utility and Ubiquity of Taboo Words.” Perspectives on Psychological

Science, Vol. 4, No. 2 (Mar., 2009), pp. 153-161. JSTOR. Web. 2 Apr. 2014. 

Johnson, Danette Ifert. "Swearing by Peers in the Work Setting: Expectancy Violation Valence,

Perceptions of Message, and Perceptions of Speaker." Communication Studies 63.2

(2012): 136-151. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2 Apr. 2014.

O'Callaghan, Tiffany. "Rude Awakenings." New Scientist 220.2948 (2013): 72-74. Academic

Search Premier. Web. 9 Apr. 2014.

http://www.oed.com/

V a u g h n | 21