SWEARING TARNISH THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE

Does swearing tarnish the English language or adorn it? Is it a sign of impoverished intellect or can it be seen as advantageous (e.g. in cognitive, intellectual, or evolutionary terms)? Make an argument either for or against swearing.

Does swearing tarnish the English language or adorn it? Is it a sign of impoverished intellect or can it be seen as advantageous (e.g. in cognitive, intellectual, or evolutionary terms)?

Introduction

A primary distinction is assumed between the language of politics and the politics of language. By the language of politics is meant the terminology and rhetoric of political activities and of politicians acting in their professional capacity, which is comparable to the discourses of other occupations such as the law, medicine, and religion.. The politics of english language concerns policies and decisions about official and standard languages, language planning, language academies, and educational language policies. Politicized language is neither the preserve of a profession nor the office of the state; it is a resource open to all, allowing (or inviting) one to consider and to use language for suasion and control (including lying and deceit). This paper focuses on swearing tarnish the english language or adorn it, but there is inevitable overlap between the two concerns, if only because politics is necessarily concerned with control, with advertising, with propaganda, and with ideology. It is in this overlap that politicized language and the politics of language meet.

Underpinning the approach taken in this article is a longstanding opposition in philosophy. The epistemological concept of realism assumes that universals exist, implying that scientific truth is attainable and unitary. The opposing doctrine of nominalism makes no such assumption, claiming rather that what is known is always relative, relative to space and to time. Householder (1952) has teasingly suggested that when transferred to linguistics realism may be regarded as the 'God's truth' approach, while nominalism is the 'hocus-pocus' approach. A nominalist position can be argued on the grounds that a realist view denies a critical capacity of flexibility to the language user, imprisoning him/her within the castle of his/her own language. Such an extreme Whorfian position (Whorf 1940) can be challenged on the grounds that it makes no allowance for a separation between language and thought.

Discussion

Language Classification

The concern with the politicizing of language through its classificatory systems emerges more in the discussions of sociologists than of linguists. Edelman (1977) points to the way in which differing connotations for the word 'poverty' may lead to quite contradictory philosophies and political actions (the poor as fraudulent and lazy; the poor as victims of exploitation). Edelman refers also to the social creation of social problems through the conventional mode to naming and classifying. Terms like 'mental illness,' 'criminal,' and 'drug abuse' focus attention on the alleged weakness and pathology of the individual, while diverting attention from their pathological, social and economic environments. 'Conventional names for social problems evoke… dubious beliefs and perceptions. The “welfare” label connotes to many that the problem lies in a public dole, which encourages laziness'...