1

Masaryk University Brno

Faculty of Education

Department of English Language and Literature

Euphemisms

Brno 2012

Author: Supervisor:

Mgr. Kristýna Šebková Mgr. Radek Vogel, PhD.

2

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my supervisor Mgr. Radek Vogel, Ph.D. for revising my thesis and his

helpful and friendly attitude.

3

Declaration

I hereby declare that this paper is completely my own work and that I used only the sources

listed in the bibliography.

..............................................................

25 July 2012

4

Annotation

This paper aims to outline the bright and the dark side of euphemizing. In the

increasingly complicated, globalised society, there is a rising tendency to avoid speaking

directly about sensitive topics. In this atmosphere, a disturbing question arises: is the

widespread overuse of euphemisms undermining our ability to recognize euphemisms used

as a tool of manipulation by politicians and the media? The main focus of this thesis is

exploring the use of euphemisms in public discourse and discussing the way they alter our

perception of inconvenient truths.

Key words

Euphemisms, political correctness, doublespeak.

5

CONTENTS

1. Introduction…………………………………………………………… 6

2. Formation of euphemisms……………………………………… 8

3. Why we need to euphemize…………………………….……. 9

3.1 A euphemizing instinct……………………………………… 9

3.2 The euphemism treadmill………………………………. 10

3.3 Motives for euphemizing………………………………… 12

4. Most commonly euphemized topics……………………… 15

4.1 Religious terms ………………………………………………. 15

4.2 Death and illness…………………………………………….. 15

4.3 Sex………………………………………………………………….. 18

5. Doublespeak: The dark side of euphemisms…………. 27

5.1 Political correctness……………………………………….. 27

5.2 Doublespeak……………………………………………………. 30

5.3 Fighting back……………………………………………………. 35

6. Conclusion……………………………………………………………. 37

Works cited………………………………………………………………. 39

6

1. INTRODUCTION

Euphemism is usually defined as “the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive

expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant. The origin of this word

is Greek euphēmismos, from euphēmos auspicious, sounding good, from eu- + phēmē

speech, from phanai to speak.” (Webster 428)

Therefore, it may be natural to assume that euphemizing serves good purposes and

the speakers use euphemisms with honest intentions, when their aim is not to hurt or offend

someone. However, this paper will show that using euphemistic expressions is much more

complicated than that. As various articles, comments or blogs suggest, people are

increasingly sensitive to avoiding naming things directly. This trend may have resulted from

so-called doublespeak, i.e. a term that William Lutz uses to describe “language designed to

evade responsibility, make the unpleasant appear pleasant, the unattractive appear

attractive. Basically, it is language that pretends to communicate, but really does not. It is

language designed to mislead, while pretending not to.” (Lutz “Doublespeak”)

What is more, the reasons why people euphemize keep changing, together with the

topics avoided, and the words used to allude to such topics indirectly. Bearing in mind the

well-known metaphor that language is the vehicle of thought, one can learn a lot about a

society, its knowledge, culture and values by studying euphemisms. As Keyes (30) observes,

“Words originally were not considered distinct from what they named.” The superstitious

need not to utter certain words that described e.g. evil spirits or things considered sacred is

still echoed today in idioms or proverbs, such as “touch/knock on wood“ or “speak of the

devil…”.

However, it is very difficult to avoid speaking about unpleasant issues completely. That

is why people have always felt the urge to find a way to speak about phenomena they

feared, disliked, worshipped or considered taboo, while not naming them directly. Taking

this into consideration, it could be concluded that attempts to use euphemisms are as old as

our ability to use language. Keyes (30-31) claims that “euphemisms are a key indicator of

increasing complexity of speech. Saying what we mean takes a high order of intelligence. It

takes an even higher order to not say what we mean, while still conveying our thought.”

7

In the present paper I will examine the motives behind using euphemisms, ways to

create them, I will outline the most commonly euphemized topics, and focus on the so-called

bright and dark sides of euphemisms; i.e. euphemisms as a creative source of amusement on

one hand, in contrast to using obscure terms in order to blur inconvenient truths and

society’s reaction to this form of manipulation.

8

2. FORMATION OF EUPHEMISMS

There have been many attempts to divide the ways of forming euphemisms into

several categories. It is not the aim of this paper to suggest its own categorization.

Nevertheless, I consider it useful to mention a few examples of different ways to

euphemize. The processes by means of which euphemisms are created include:

a. borrowing words from other languages (Williams, Allan and Burridge): in

English, Latin and French terms are preferred, e.g. Latin terminology for

body parts used by educators, medical terms, e.g. “halitosis” (bad breath)<

Latin halitus for breath; “au naturel” < French for naked, “lingerie” <

women’s underwear

b. semantic changes (Williams, Allan and Burridge, Rawson, Keyes): this

category is very wide and may include circumlocution, i.e. using longer

expressions, e.g. “little girl’s room” < toilet, “postconsumer secondary

material” < garbage, “terminological inaccuracy” < lie; widening, i.e.

increasing the level of abstraction, e.g. “growth” < cancer, “foundation” <

girdle, “solid human waste” < feces, “the situation” < pregnancy, “do it” <

have sex; metaphorical transfer, e.g. “blossom” < pimple, “the cavalry’s

come” < menstruation

c. phonetic distortion (Allan and Burridge, Keyes): this category includes

clippings and abbreviation (e.g. “ladies” < ladies’ room, “vamp” < vampire (a

seductive woman), “BS” or “bull” < bullshit, “ED” < erectile dysfunction) ,

reduplication (e.g. “pee-pee” < piss, “jeepers creeper” < Jesus Crist),

distortion of pronunciation (e.g. “shoot” or “shite” < shit, “fudge” < fuck,

“cripes” or “crust” < Christ)

The ways to euphemize are even more varied than the categories above suggest.

Nevertheless, how expressions are euphemized only arises from a more essential issue,

which is discussed in the following chapter: the need to actually do so.

9

3. WHY WE NEED TO EUPHEMIZE

This seemingly simple question has been asked and answered hundreds of times. For

instance, Cumming cites Allan and Burridge who claim: "A euphemism is used as an

alternative to a dispreferred expression, in order to avoid possible loss of face: either one's

own face or, through giving offence, that of the audience, or of some third party."

(Cumming)

3.1 A euphemizing instinct

If anyone starts thinking about when they last used a euphemistic expression rather

than a word that might cause offence or make someone feel uncomfortable, they will

probably not find it difficult to remember; it may have been a few minutes ago, when talking

to a colleague and excusing themselves saying “I need to wash my hands”, or “powder my

nose”, or “use the restroom”. However, if the motive for using such expressions is analyzed,

the answer may no longer be so simple; unless, of course, “everybody says that” is

considered a sufficient reason for this behavior. Although the rules by which our society

functions seem to be the obvious explanation, the question remains: how does the society

create these rules? Who decides what is appropriate and what is not? If this question is

narrowed to language, namely the expressions that are considered polite and suitable, the

answer might have been given by the University of Chicago linguist Joseph Williams, who

said: "Euphemism is such a pervasive human phenomenon, so deeply woven into virtually

every known culture, that one is tempted to claim that every human has been pre-

programmed to find ways to talk about tabooed subjects." (Walker)

Ralph Keyes calls this a “euphemizing instinct” and uses medical research conducted

by Valerie Curtis as evidence. Curtis claims that our need for euphemisms originates in the

newer parts of our brain, where complex thoughts are created. By contrast, spontaneously

uttered words emerge from the limbic brain. Keyes agrees with Curtis’s theory which

suggests that creating euphemisms may have contributed to developing our ability to think,

since the brain and our ability to speak have been evolving concurrently. (Keyes 247)

10

3.2 The euphemism treadmill

As mentioned above, euphemisms help everyone to talk about subjects that the

society considers taboo. What can help to understand the ever-changing essence of

euphemisms is the process of automatization: “If we examine the general laws of

perception, we see that as it becomes habitual, it also becomes automatic.”(Shklovsky 4-5)

When this principle is applied to euphemizing, it could be argued that “some words undergo

pejoration because of a taboo against talking about the things they name; the replacement

for a taboo term is a euphemism…Euphemisms, in their turn, are often subject to pejoration,

eventually becoming a taboo. Then the whole cycle starts again.” (Algeo and Pyles 214)

The process, known by linguists as pejoration or semantic change, has also been

given another term: the euphemism treadmill. As the feminist author Germaine Greer (298)

notes, “It is the fate of euphemisms to lose their function rapidly by association with the

actuality of what they designate, so that they must be regularly replaced with euphemisms

for themselves”.

The term “euphemism treadmill” was introduced and explained in detail by Steven

Pinker in his article “The Game of the Name”, where he says: “To a linguist, the phenomenon

is familiar: the euphemism treadmill. People invent new ‘polite’ words to refer to

emotionally laden or distasteful things, but the euphemism becomes tainted by association

and the new one that must be found acquires its own negative connotations. ‘Water closet’

becomes ‘toilet’ (originally a term for any body care, as in ‘toilet kit’), which becomes

‘bathroom,’ which becomes ‘restroom,’ which becomes ‘lavatory.’ The euphemism treadmill

shows that concepts, not words, are in charge: give a concept a new name, and the name

becomes colored by the concept; the concept does not become freshened by the name.”

(Pinker)

The whole process is indeed fascinating; sometimes the topic that is considered

taboo persists for centuries, it is just the words used to refer to it that keep changing. Other

topics are only perceived as taboo for a limited period; however, the role euphemisms play

in destigmatizing some sensitive topics is disputable.

11

Neil Postman would certainly disagree with Steven Pinker, as may be assumed from

his essay on euphemisms which appears in his book Crazy talk, Stupid Talk: “To begin with,

we must keep in mind that things do not have ‘real’ names, although many people believe

that they do. A garbage man is not really a ‘garbage man’ any more than he is really a

‘sanitation engineer’. There are things, and then there are the names of things, and it is

considered a fundamental error in all branches of semantics to assume that a name and a

thing are one and the same. It is true, of course, that a name is usually so firmly associated

with the thing it denotes that it is extremely difficult to separate one from the other.”

Further in his essay, Postman uses the example of advertizing to show the effect of

such associations. He claims that products which would be given names evoking negative

feelings or imaginations would not sell well. It is probably true that not many customers

would buy a perfume with a name like “Sewage” or “Chimney Fume”. It would be hard to

sell a child safety seat called “Killing Joke”, or a sandwich named “Vomit Deli”. This brings

Postman to the conclusion that if the names of things are changed, the way people regard

those things changes as well, and, as Postman says, that is as good as changing the nature of

the thing itself. He believes that people who refuse euphemisms are not more “honest” than

those who use them. What is more, Postman develops the idea that “euphemisms are a

means through which a culture may alter its imagery and by doing so subtly change its style,

its priorities, and its values.” (Postman)

For instance, euphemisms used to talk about people who suffer from various

handicaps may have led to the increasing level of acceptance of “the handicapped” by

society. Recently, there has been a trend to include “children with special needs” in

mainstream education, rather than educating them separately. Nevertheless, it is difficult to

prove that such approach has really contributed to changing the image of “the handicapped

citizens” for the better. By making the word “crippled” politically incorrect or even taboo,

the society creates a better image of itself; however, the individuals may find this

hypocritical, feeling no real difference between “the blind” and “the visually challenged”.

Who is right? Does a new name influence the concept or not? Would a negative

answer to this question mean people have been euphemizing taboo topics in vain? This

almost tempts us to conduct an experiment: spend a day avoiding euphemisms completely.

12

It will probably suffice to make such an experiment in our imagination; the consequences of

being blunt with everyone could be disastrous. On the other hand, it could be argued that

altering the names of things sometimes changes how people regard those things for the

better, other times for the worse. The negative side of euphemisms will be discussed further

in this paper.

3.3 Motives for euphemizing

Bearing in mind the ever-changing essence of euphemisms, it is logical that the

motives for euphemizing are varied and vacillating as well. They range from fear and

superstition, being polite and kind, avoiding embarrassment, playful ways to exclude others

from understanding what is being discussed, to white lies and manipulation. A general

distinction could be made between an “instinctive euphemism” and a “strategic

euphemism”. (Walker)

The “instinctive” group may include avoiding religious terminology and swearwords

(e.g. replacing “oh my god” with “oh my gosh” or “hell” with “heck”), careful choice of words

when not wanting to hurt or offend someone (e.g. “pass away” instead of “die” when talking

about a beloved relative), avoiding embarrassment when mentioning body parts and

functions (like when someone announces “going to the little boys room” rather than “taking

a piss”), which is closely related to the topic independent of time, place or culture – sex (the

creativity with which people refer to coital activity is stunning), followed by more recent

political correctness (e.g. calling the “blind” people “visually challenged”), which could be

perceived as a transition between the two groups. The widely criticized political double-

speak would then belong to the “strategic” group.

Finally, it is vital to mention language in its written form, which is even more sensitive

to offensive terms – what may be considered acceptable in a conversation changes

dramatically when used in black and white. Journalists, dramatists, scriptwriters, i.e. all

“those subjected to censorship have historically relied on euphemisms to get their message

across in the face of strict limits on the words they are allowed to use.” (Keyes 236) For

instance, Pauline Kiernan analyzes hundreds of euphemistic allusions to sex in Shakespeare’s

plays (e.g. “groping for trouts in a peculiar river”, “making the beast with two backs”).

13

A question arises as to whether these euphemisms used to prevent a work of art

from being censored, or if they should rather be perceived as means of artistic device. If

euphemisms are believed to show high level of intelligence and increasing complexity of

language, where else but in literature should evidence be found?

Shklovsky explains how “By ‘enstranging’ objects and complicating form, the device

of art makes perception long and ‘laborious’… The removal of (this) object from the sphere

of automatized perception is accomplished in art by a variety of means .” (Shklovsky 6) He

gives examples of allegory, erotic riddles (“a euphemism of sorts”) in Russian folk tales, but

also in Boccaccio’s Decameron: “The enstrangement of the sexual act in literature is quite

frequent. For example, in the Decameron, Boccaccio refers to ‘the scraping of the barrel’,

‘the catching of the nightingale’, ‘the merry woolbeating work’… Just as frequent is the

enstrangement of sexual organs.” (Shklovsky 12) If these ancient euphemisms are compared

to some recent ones, numerous similarities in the ways they are created become apparent;

in fact, various internet forums show that, although sometimes unaware of their origin,

people keep using or altering some of the euphemisms Shakespeare used in his work. For

example, “willy” is still slang for a penis. Shakespeare used the word “will” in several of his

sonnets, in many different meanings (“penis” being one of them; “sexual appetite” another).

Sonnet CXXXV (by William Shakespeare)

Whoever hath her wish, thou hast thy Will,

And Will to boot, and Will in over-plus;

More than enough am I that vexed thee still,

To thy sweet will making addition thus.

Wilt thou, whose will is large and spacious,

Not once vouchsafe to hide my will in thine?

Shall will in others seem right gracious,

And in my will no fair acceptance shine?

The sea, all water, yet receives rain still,

And in abundance addeth to his store;

So thou, being rich in Will, add to thy Will

One will of mine, to make thy large will more.

14

Let no unkind, no fair beseechers kill;

Think all but one, and me in that one Will.

It is beyond doubt that the potential to enrich the language and spur its users’

imagination belongs to the positive features of euphemizing. As Keyes (237) claims, “creating

euphemisms demands far more of a writer than resorting to taboo words does. When

comedians rely on profanity for laughs, it is not so much their lack of taste that offends as

their lack of imagination.”

15

4. MOST COMMONLY EUPHEMIZED TOPICS

The most common topics that the society prefers to avoid speaking directly about

have been outlined in the previous chapter. I will examine some of them more closely.

4.1 Religious terms

Euphemisms connected to people’s beliefs probably belong to the oldest. As I have

already mentioned, people used to believe that words possessed immense power.

Therefore, they feared mentioning evil spirits, as it may attract them and bring bad luck.

Keyes (29) describes how this type of euphemisms evolved: “Bears are scary animals. They

are so scary that early northern Europeans referred to them by substitute names for fear

that uttering their real name might beckon these ferocious beasts. Instead, they talked of

the honey eater, the licker, or the grandfather. The word ‘bear’ itself evolved from a

euphemistic term that meant ‘the brown one.’ It is the oldest known euphemism, first

recorded a thousand years ago.” Naturally, society’s fear of bears has decreased, perhaps

simply because people have little chance to encounter them except for in zoos, and

therefore there is no longer the need to invent other names for bears. Similarly, very few

people would now consider “hell” or “damn” very strong swearwords, as the threat for our

soul to suffer after death is no longer believed literally. Using the religious terms such as

“Jesus Christ”, once perceived as blasphemy, is no longer taboo either, even among many

church-goers. However, the superstitious fear of mentioning one’s good fortune in order not

to turn it into bad luck persists, as well as euphemizing topics that are feared; these could

include the next type of taboo issues - death and illness.

4.2 Death and illness

Death is a “fear-based taboo” (Keith and Burridge 153), independent of time, religion,

culture and society. Nobody feels happy and comfortable around dead bodies. Death has

always been shrouded in mystery, it is still not fully understood, and that is just one of the

reasons why people feel uneasy when talking about it. “Like terms for birth, death and

excretion, those for diseases are doubtless rooted in anxiety and superstition.” (Algeo and

16

Pyles 216) When people did not understand the origins of e.g. plague or someone’s

unexpected death, they used to resort to explaining such events as God’s punishment.

Nowadays, such superstitious approach may have been overcome; however, the

anxiety associated with death-related topics persists. Death is also connected with pain over

the loss of a loved one, and trying not to make this pain worse requires a careful choice of

words. As death often occurs away from home these days, i.e. mostly in health care facilities,

it has become medical professionals’ common duty to inform the relatives of the deceased.

However, the assumption that physicians only use euphemisms for the patients’ (or their

families’) benefit seems to be wrong. In fact, Keyes (138) refers to the results of various

studies suggesting that doctors are more afraid of dying than the average person, and that

studying medicine may even be a way to deal with this fear. When it comes to the choice of

words to announce a patient’s death, doctors’ aim is to prevent both themselves as well as

patients from trauma; “most often, doctors, like the rest of us, simply say a patient went

(“she went peacefully”) or that they have lost a patient. The latter led one immigrant doctor

to observe how odd this seemed to him when he arrived in the United States: “I wanted to

say, ‘Well, we didn’t really lose your husband…we know where he is. It’s just that he’s not

breathing anymore.’ ” (Keyes 137)

On the other hand, media show death so often that it may lead to increasing

insensitivity to the tragic news; various computer games’ aim is to kill as many “enemies” as

possible. At the same time, few people participate in real battles (there are professional

armies). Moreover, as it has already been mentioned, nowadays most people die without

their closest relatives being direct witnesses to their death. As a result, death is becoming

more abstract in people’s mind and this corresponds to the choice of words when speaking

about it. As Orwell (8) suggests in his classical essay, “when you think of a concrete object,

you think wordlessly, and then, if you want to describe the thing you have been visualizing

you probably hunt about until you find the exact words that seem to fit it. When you think of

something abstract, you are more inclined to use words from the start…at the expense of

blurring or even changing your meaning.”

17

Perhaps the perception of death as something abstract is another reason why

people resort to using “ready-made” euphemistic expressions. And the variety of

euphemisms for death they can choose from is enormous; they range from kind and

sensitive to funny and sarcastic, sometimes they rather seem to be dysphemisms or would

be perceived so in certain situations. The Internet is full of lists of euphemisms for death and

dying; here is a sample of alphabetically ordered expressions:

Tab. 1. Euphemisms for death and dying

a race well run

at room temperature

asleep

become a root inspector

bite the dust

buy a pine condo

call home

check out

cross the bar

definitely done dancing

departed

dirt nap

feeling no pain

final curtain call

finished

get a one-way ticket

go into the fertilizer business

go west

in a better place

in a horizontal phone booth

join the majority

kick the bucket

kick the oxygen habit

living-impaired

meet his/her maker

no longer with us

out of his/her misery

pass away

pushing up the daisies

permanently out of print

resting in peace

six feet under

terminated

wearing a toe tag

with the angels

yield up the ghost

Selected from “Euphemisms For Death”

Apparently, some of the listed euphemisms are well-known and widely used; others

may not have the potential to become a catchphrase. Nevertheless, the list above certainly

proves how deeply enrooted taboo death is.

18

Ironically, the awareness of being mortal does not seem to support the willingness to

speak about it directly. What is more, being blunt about the processes that eventually lead

to death (i.e. illness and the process of ageing) is perceived as equally unpleasant. The most

commonly used euphemisms for old people (“senior citizens” and “the elderly”) are

becoming slightly boring, yet language users’ creativity knows no borders. Those who are

not creative enough can ask advice on websites, such as democraticunderground.com, and

learn that good euphemisms for being old may be e.g. “seasoned”, “mature”, “experienced”,

“well-traveled”, or “golden”.

Regrettably, no similar playfulness is considered appropriate in so called doctor-

speak, i.e. phrases sometimes used by doctors to soften a difficult diagnosis. Terms like

"cluster of cells"; "abnormal growth", "mass", "troubling lab results" or "curious shadow on

your x-ray" are sometimes used rather than saying the word CANCER, even though,

according to American oncology experts, cancer euphemisms have lost their ability to soothe

and now disturb people as much as the word cancer itself. (Dunn et el.) This is a good

example of the process which has been called automatization. In the end, no words, abstract

or not, seem to possess the power to eliminate the fear of illness and death.

4.3 Sex

Compared to death or illness, one common feature can be identified; sex is also a

topic widely euphemized in every culture and era. Nevertheless, motives behind

euphemisms connected to sex are quite different from fear. People seem to find a great

pleasure in making and understanding allusions to various physically intimate activities. As a

result, euphemistic expressions referring to sex are often remarkably creative and amusing.

It is possible that the adult ‘game’ of euphemizing sex topics is not dissimilar to

children’s passion for solving riddles or speaking in secret codes, so that unwelcome

participants could be easily excluded from the conversation. Such language also gives its

speaker a feeling of superiority; being able to unveil what is hidden behind a riddle brings

satisfaction, being proud of one’s mental capacity.

19

With few exceptions, sex has always been considered a private matter and as such

inappropriate to be discussed in public. However, since sex is such an essential part of life (in

fact, till quite recently it has been the only way to create new life), pretending it does not

exist by not speaking about it is impossible. Therefore, it is not surprising that euphemisms

for sex are much older than Shakespeare’s puns; some of the oldest recorded ones may be

tracked in the Bible: “Why does the Bible say, ‘Adam knew his wife’? Asked a young man in a

Sunday school class. Someone answered: ‘It seems obvious he should know the woman to

whom he was married!’ Most people realize, of course, that the expression ‘Adam knew his

wife’ means he had sexual intercourse with her; for, as a result, ‘she conceived’ (Genesis

4:1). To say Adam ‘knew’ his wife (rather than to say ‘he had sex with her’) is an example of

euphemism… Biblical euphemisms for sexual intercourse, many of which are listed in

Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, include the following:

Adam knew Eve ... and she conceived (Genesis 4:1).

Go in unto my maid ... obtain children by her (Genesis 16:2).

A man ... to come in unto us (Genesis 19:31).

Jacob ... went in unto her (Genesis 29:23).

Abimelech had not come near her (Genesis 20:4).

Thou shalt not approach to his wife (Leviticus 18:14).

When I came to her, I found her not a maid (Deuteronomy 22:14).

I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived (Isaiah 8:3).

Thou hast humbled her (Deuteronomy 21:14).

He took her, and lay with her (Genesis 34:2).

The manner of as the earth (Genesis 19:31).” (Hunt)

A recent issue of The Economist illustrates how cross-cultural source of euphemisms

sex is, using an example of how different languages refer to offering sex for money: “A

prostitute accosting a client on the streets of Cairo will ask Fi hadd bitaghsal hudoumak ?

(Literally, ‘Do you have someone to wash your clothes?’) Even the most straight-talking

obfuscate that line of work. Swedes, like many others, refer to världens äldsta yrke (the

world’s oldest profession). A brothel in Russian is a publichny dom—literally a ‘public house’,

20

which causes problems when British visitors with rudimentary Russian try to explain the

delights of their village hostelry. In China many hair salons, massage parlors and karaoke

bars double as brothels. Hence anmo (massage), falang (hair salon) or a zuyu zhongxin (foot-

massage parlour) can lead to knowing nods and winks. For obscure reasons, Germans call

the same institution a Puff. In Japan, such places are called sopurando, (a corrupted version

of ‘soapland’) or a pin-saro (pink salon).” (“Making Murder Respectable”) In Czech, noční

klub (night club) is generally understood as a place where strippers and/or prostitutes might

be offering their services; this often causes an amusing misunderstanding among students

who do not know that a night club in English is simply a place for entertainment, now usually

for dancing. Similarly, very few Czech students would probably guess the real meaning of a

call house, if they heard this word out of context.

Another reason why sex is such an abundant source of euphemisms is that it is a very

wide topic. What has always called for euphemizing is not only the act itself, but also the

events preceding and following it, such as courtship and pregnancy/giving birth, and the

body parts involved. Nevertheless, the widest range of euphemistic (as well as dysphemistic)

expressions consists of those referring directly to sexual intercourse. As a result, sometimes

the level of intimacies hidden behind a euphemism may not be entirely clear. The ambiguity

of euphemisms for sex serves well for jokes, like in this legendary courtroom exchange:

“Did you sleep with this woman?”

“Not a wink, your honor.”

Perhaps this ambiguity of expressions for sex is what inspired Bill Clinton when he

decided to deny his affair with Monika Lewinsky, saying “I did not have sexual relations with

that woman.” Clinton’s statement may have had unforeseen impact, as a group of

researchers at the University of Kentucky-Lexington suggest. In 2007 they conducted a study

in which they surveyed 477 students and their views on sex. The results, which were

published in the journal Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health in June 2010, show

that only 20 percent of those students considered oral-genital contact to be sex, compared

with nearly 40 percent of a similar group of students surveyed in 1991. A term Clinton-

21

Lewinsky effect has been introduced to refer to the shift in attitude towards this type of

sexual contact. (Hans, Gillen and Akande)

The results of this research speak in favor of Postman’s assertion that euphemisms

may alter society’s imagery, priorities and values. In case of speaking about sex publicly, the

topic itself is no longer taboo, as long as the speakers choose appropriate vocabulary. And it

is appropriateness that makes the options limited. When sex becomes a topic of

conversation in polite, yet private company, using medical terminology may be just as

uneasy and embarrassing as vulgarisms. The entertaining aspect of an exchange between

two characters in a popular sitcom, The Big Bang Theory, is based on a genius physicist,

Sheldon’s inability to comprehend the inappropriateness of using formal, scientific

vocabulary when talking about people’s private lives, in contrast to a wannabe actress

Penny, who mixes up scientific words, but shows a higher social intelligence, explaining to

Sheldon how people should behave and what they say in everyday situations:

Series 3 Episode 20 – The Spaghetti Catalyst

Scene: The lobby.

Penny: Oh, damn, they cancelled my Visa. Oh, yay, a new MasterCard!

Sheldon: Uh-oh.

Penny: What?

Sheldon: I was going to get my mail.

Penny: Okay. Are, are you hoping to get it telepathically?

Sheldon: I think you mean telekinetically. And no, I just wasn’t sure of the proper protocol now that you and Leonard are no longer having coitus.

Penny: God, can we please just say no longer seeing each other?

Sheldon: Well, we could if it were true. But as you live in the same building, you see each other all the time. The variable which has changed is the coitus.

Penny: Okay, here’s the protocol, you and I are still friends, and you stop saying coitus.

Sheldon: Good, good. I’m glad we’re still friends.

22

Penny: Really?

Sheldon: Oh, yes. It was a lot of work to accommodate you in my life. I’d hate for that effort to have been in vain.

Penny: Right.

Sheldon: Just to be clear do I have to stop saying coitus with everyone or just you?

Penny: Everyone.

Sheldon: Harsh terms. But all right, I’ll just substitute intercourse.

Penny: Great.

Sheldon: Or fornication. Yeah. But that has judgmental overtones, so I’ll hold that in reserve. (Veloso)

The limited selection of vocabulary which will not offend anyone may be the reason

why people often resort to the most general expressions like “do it”, relying on context and

exchanging knowing looks to convey the real meaning.

Fortunately, those who consider “doing it” and “sleeping with” unbearably boring

have an increasingly wide range of euphemisms to choose from. The internet is obviously

the most easily available source and also a tool for people to vote on “top 10 euphemisms

for sex”, “the funniest/the worst euphemisms for sex you have ever heard” etc. Popular TV

shows also have a strong potential to offer catchphrases. However, the funniest or the most

creative euphemisms introduced by TV scriptwriters are often so strongly context

dependent, or long and complicated, that they only serve to amuse the viewers and avoid

censorship, but do not become widely used.

For instance, here is an extract from an episode of How I Met Your Mother called

“The First Time in New York”, where the characters, while waiting in a line to visit the Empire

State Building, share their stories of how and when they lost their virginity:

23

Robin : You only get one shot at losing your virginity. And even though I just barely had sex, it counts.

Lily : What do you mean just barely?

Robin : Well, he didn't dive all the way into the pool, but he... splashed around in the shallow end.

Lily : Then you didn't lose your virginity to him. Just barely doesn't count.

Robin : Yes, it does. Lily : No, it doesn't. Marshall : Yes, it does.

Lily : No, it doesn't. It doesn't count. End of story.

Barney : Ooh, why, Lily Aldrin, you saucy little harlot. Could it be that before Marshall took a swim, someone else tested the water?

Marshall : No. Nobody else tested the water, right? Scooter?

Barney : Who's Scooter?

Lily : My high school boyfriend, who I did not have sex with…

…

Lily : Marshall, why is this such a big deal?

Marshall : Why is this such a big deal? Oh, uh, sorry, Christopher Columbus, guess who actually discovered the New World. Some dude named Scooter. Oh, uh, Neil Armstrong, it actually goes like this: "One small step for man, one giant leap for Scooter." Whoa, hey, Adam, guess who got with Eve before you did...

Lily : Okay, Marshall, I get it.

Marshall : It's a big deal because it rewrites our history.

Lily : No, it doesn't. Look, have you been to the Empire State Building? No. You've only been in the lobby. People don't buy tickets to get in the lobby. They buy tickets to get to the top. Scooter only got in the lobby, and the lobby doesn't count.

Marshall : Really. Excuse me, sir, uh, can you tell me how to get to the Empire State Building?

Man: Um, we're in it right now. Marshall : Thank you, sir. You're a very wise and brilliant man. (Kassie)

24

This extract, which contains eight different euphemisms for sex, certainly shows that

euphemistic expressions can be a brilliant source of humor. The audience could try to

imagine what the same conversation would be like if the creative euphemisms were

replaced by e.g. “had (un)successful sexual intercourse”, or “coitus”; in this case the

entertaining effect would very probably be lost, unlike in The Big Bang Theory.

In the previous example, all participants of the conversation obviously understand

very well what the euphemisms refer to. It is the creativity that is the source of amusement

here. In contrast, the following example may seem funny to the audience not only due to the

euphemisms used, but also because one of the characters does not understand them at first.

This extract is from an episode of Fox TV’s House M.D. and includes a conversation between

Dr. House and a mother who thinks her young daughter may be having epileptic seizures:

House: In actuality all your little girl is doing is... saying yoo hoo to the hoo hoo.

Concerned Mom: She's what?

House: Marching the penguin... ya ya-ing the sisterhood... finding Nemo?

Little Girl Patient: (giggles) That was funny.

House: It's called gratification disorder, sort of a misnomer. If one was unable to gratify

oneself, that would be a disorder.

Concerned Mom: Are you saying she’s masturbating?

House: (making fun of the mother by talking out of the corner of his mouth so the little girl

supposedly won't see that he's talking) I was trying to be discreet. There's a child in the

room. (“Euphoria”)

As it was mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, euphemistic allusions to sex are

sometimes used by the speakers in order to exclude unwelcome participants from the

conversation as well as amuse. Keyes gives an example of couples who develop private

euphemistic language, which they use in public in order to both convey a secret message

without impolite whispering, and to amuse themselves. Such coded messages include e.g.

25

“Let’s go home and watch some TV”, which, in fact, means “Let’s leave and make love”.

Another “couple, who had nicknamed the man’s penis ‘Winston’ (based on the cigarette

slogan ‘Winston tastes good, like a cigarette should’), enjoyed discussing ‘Winston’s good

taste’ in the presence of friends and family.” (Keyes 233)

To illustrate the creativity with which people invent new euphemisms for sex, there

are some more examples listed in the following table:

26

Tab. 2. Euphemisms for sex

Bang

bake cookies

bury the bone

butter the muffin

check the oil

clean the carpets

dippity doo da

dip your pen in the ink

do it

exchange bodily fluids

feed the kitty

fix her plumbing

funky chicken

get a home run

get busy

go fishing

get into one’s pants

get your nuts cracked

hanky panky

hippity dippity

hit it

horizontal mambo

in and out

juice someone

knock boots

lay piping

make babies

make love

mattress dance

nail

park

party for two

pass the gravy

pickle tickle

play doctor

plug and play

pop the cork

put sour cream on the taco

ride the hobby horse

roll in the hay

ring her bell

shag

sink it in

skin the cat

score

scratch your itch

sexercise

sweep the chimney

thread the needle

throw a log on the fire

walk the dog

water the lawn

wet the wick

whoopty do

Selected from amog.com (OffbeatMOG)

Some of the listed euphemisms are actually becoming old-fashioned, others seem to

be very context dependent, but one thing is clear: almost any human activity, including

housework, can serve as a euphemism for sex – with the help of a context.

27

5. DOUBLESPEAK: THE DARK SIDE OF EUPHEMISMS

As the origin of the word “euphemism” suggests, a euphemistic expression is one that

sounds good, which does not necessarily mean it is good in essence. Furthermore, even if

something is primarily meant to be used for a good purpose, it can usually also be misused,

both inadvertently and intentionally. Currently, there seems to be no clear distinction

between euphemisms, political correctness or doublespeak; various dictionaries give

different definitions, and speakers tend to further confuse these terms, which is

unfortunate. Although it is challenging, I believe that the border between honest intentions

for using euphemisms and attempts to hide inconvenient truths in public discourse should

not be completely blurred.

5.1 Political correctness

In chapter 2.3 “instinctive” and “strategic” motives behind using euphemisms were

mentioned. Politically correct expressions seem to overlap these suggested groups, although

the “strategic” motives probably prevail. In his essay “A Critique of Politically Correct

Language”, Ben O’Neill (279-280) points out that those in favor of politically correct

language claim that society discourages the use of words that have negative or offensive

connotations in order to become more “civilized”, and, as a result, victims of unfair

stereotypes gain more respect. He says that “for the advocates of politically correct

language, replacement of existing terminology with politically correct terms has two

purported virtues:

1. It reduces the social acceptability of using offensive terms.

2. It discourages the reflexive use of words that import a negative stereotype, thereby

promoting conscious thinking about how to describe others fairly on their merits.”

Further in his essay, O’Neill examines how politically correct language is related to

euphemisms, how it is influenced by the process of semantic change (similarly to the

euphemism treadmill), and the effects of political correctness on discourse. He expresses his

disagreement and strongly criticizes the alleged purpose of politically correct language, i.e.

discouraging the reflexive use of words and promoting conscious thinking, since in his

28

opinion the effect is exactly opposite: “Politically correct language is narrow, faddish, and

highly reflexive in character, consisting in large part of euphemisms. It sometimes promotes

or amounts to outright dishonesty. Moreover, the drive for this kind of language involves

aggressive attempts to delegitimize the use of politically incorrect terms that fail to keep up

with current fashions.” (O’Neill 286)

Another concern expressed by a rising number of people is that political correctness

actually limits open debates; that it threatens the freedom of speech. Citizens of democratic

countries tend to highly value the possibility to express one’s opinion openly in public,

without being imposed on by those in power, who decide what is (politically) correct and

what is not. This concern is reflected in both serious articles and satirical shows or websites.

The satire seems to flourish, as it probably results from the increasing sensitivity to politically

correct terms which are rather controversial, misleading, or too complicated, and therefore

often ridiculed.

Tab. 3. Examples of politically correct terms

Retarded mentally challenged;

having learning difficulties

White Caucasian

Blind visually challenged

Crippled differently abled

Fat overweight

Tab. 4. Terms designed to ridicule political correctness

Alive temporarily metabolically abled

Bald follicularly challenged

Lazy motivationally deficient

Fat gravitationally challenged

Poor economically marginalized

Selected from “A List of PC Terms”

29

In fact, making the politically correct terms sound ridiculous has become a common

means of entertainment. This is another example of a conversation among the characters in

a popular sitcom How I Met Your Mother, taken from an episode called “Belly Full of

Turkey”, in which the characters discuss how they are going to celebrate the Thanksgiving:

Robin: So, probably hanging out with Barney, then? Ted: No, Barney’s got his own Thanksgiving tradition. (flashback to Ted, Barney, Lily and Marshall sitting at booth at MacLaren's) Barney: Thanksgiving in a strip club! Who’s in? The Lusty Leopard has a surprisingly good Thanksgiving buffet. Plus, they do this thing: Heather dresses up as a Pilgrim, and Misty dresses up as an Indian, and they share a meal together…(Barney indicates what sharing a meal really means using his mimes and gestures) Lilly (looking disgusted, disapprovingly): Oh, Barney!! Barney: I’m sorry. Native American. (Soleine92)

Apparently, in this scene it is not the euphemism used for an erotic performance in a

strip club which carries the main amusing aspect; it is rather Barney’s pretence to

misunderstand what really annoys Lilly (i.e. Barney showing disrespect to America’s public

holiday, based on religious belief and tradition, celebrating it in a rather perverse way),

apologizing for using a politically incorrect term instead, as if he “realized” that such

language may cause offence.

The question raised in chapter 2.2 of this paper persists. Postman believes that a

society changes its values by altering the vocabulary, yet O’Neill (291) argues that “we may

legitimately debate whether crippled, disabled, handicapped, or another term is the best,

most accurate, and most sensitive term to use in a given context. But to move toward

euphemistic terminology that is stripped of all meaning and to attack aggressively those who

continue to use meaningful words are not examples of sensitivity…At the heart of politically

correct language lies dishonesty, not civility. This reality is manifested in the preference for

euphemism over literalism, for vagueness over specificity, and for propaganda over honesty.

The politically correct society is not the civilized society, but rather the dishonest society.”

30

His view could be supported by Pinker’s comment on current politically correct terms for

racial groups; he notes that “we will know we have achieved equality and mutual respect

when names for minorities stay put”. (Pinker)

5.2 Doublespeak

When analyzing the motives behind political correctness (PC) in detail, the honesty of

those motives remains disputable. Rather than strictly stating that they are either honest or

dishonest, the conclusion may be: it is both. However, compared to PC, there is nothing

positive in doublespeak. Having spent many years studying this particular language

phenomenon, William Lutz (347-348) has established a widely accepted definition of

Doublespeak: “[it] is language that pretends to communicate but really does not. It is

language that makes the bad seem good, the negative appear positive, the unpleasant

appear attractive or at least tolerable. Doublespeak is language that avoids or shifts

responsibility, language that is at variance with its real or purported meaning. It is language

that conceals or prevents thought; rather than extending thought, doublespeak limits it.”

It is remarkable how Lutz’s definition of Doublespeak is similar to Orwell’s analysis of

the language of politics in his classical essay: “Political language….is designed to make lies

sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

In fact, the term Doublespeak itself is believed to originate from two words, “newspeak” and

“doublethink”, both of which Orwell introduced in his dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty Four.

In his essay Politics and the English Language, Orwell (7) claims: “In our time, political speech

and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible…Thus political language has to consist

largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness…Such phraseology is

needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. Consider for

instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot

say outright, "I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing

so." Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:

31

While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the

humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment

of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and

that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply

justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.

The inflated style itself is a kind of euphemism.”

In Orwell’s essay, just like in O’Neill’s, euphemizing is given negative connotations.

However, Lutz makes a clear distinction between euphemisms proper and doublespeak. He

divides doublespeak into four categories, or, four kinds: “euphemism, jargon, gobbledygook

or bureaucratese, and inflated language.” (Lutz “The World of” 348-351)

A) Euphemisms

Although Lutz (“The World of” 348) admits that euphemisms may be considered

doublespeak, he makes it clear that euphemizing itself is a positive thing, as long as the

speaker’s intentions to use euphemisms are honest, i.e. concern for someone’s feelings, or

respect for a recognized cultural or social taboo. He says that there is nothing wrong with

using the expressions such as “pass away” or “go to the restroom”; in fact, in his view such

behavior can be regarded as a mark of courtesy and good manners. It is the real purpose of

using euphemisms which makes all the difference. Lutz (“The World of” 349) puts it simply:

“When a euphemism is used to deceive, it becomes doublespeak.” He believes that a

euphemism becomes doublespeak when “it is designed to mislead, to cover up the

unpleasant, [when] its real intent is at variance with its apparent intent. It is language

designed to alter our perception of reality.”

For instance, when the government’s aim is to cover up the unpleasant reality of war, it

designs terminology that makes it sound less concrete and less horrible, e.g. “collateral

damage” instead of “killing innocent bystanders”, “asymmetric warfare” for “suicide

bombing attacks”, “enhanced interrogation” which in fact means “torture”, etc.

32

B) Jargon

Similarly to euphemisms, jargon can also be used for its good, original purpose (i.e.

allowing the members of a professional group to communicate efficiently with each other),

as well as misused and thus become doublespeak. According to Lutz (349), jargon can be

perceived as doublespeak when it is “pretentious, obscure, and esoteric terminology used to

give an air of profundity, authority, and prestige to speakers and their subject matter. Jargon

as doublespeak often makes the simple appear complex, the ordinary profound, the obvious

insightful. In this sense it is not used to express but impress.” Again, the intent to impress is

often connected with misleading the general public, unfamiliar with particular jargon.

Because the speaker using jargon sounds like an expert, the listeners assume that the

information is valid, and, if they do not understand what is being communicated, they do not

dare to ask, for fear of looking uneducated and ridiculous.

C) Gobbledygook

Lutz (“The world of” 350) established gobbledygook (or bureaucratese) as the third kind

of doublespeak. What makes overwhelming the audience with long sentences full of big

words doublespeak is again the intention to conceal the reality. Although, gobbledygook

could also be the evidence of how doublespeak limits thought rather than supporting it.

Sometimes, rather than deliberate attempt to mislead the audience, the analysis of

gobbledygook reveals that the speaker himself probably does not even know what he was

saying.

D) Inflated language

Inflated language is what Orwell criticized as a negative kind of euphemizing, and what

Lutz (“The world of” 351) explains as language “designed to make the ordinary seem

extraordinary, to make everyday things seem impressive, to give an air of importance to

people, situations or things that would not normally be considered important, to make the

simple seem complex.” It is this kind of doublespeak that Lutz considers both amusing and

dangerous. Inspired by Lutz’s characterization, I would further divide “Inflated language as

33

doublespeak” into two subcategories, because of the above mentioned controversy

(amusement versus danger):

D.1) Extraordinarily ordinary

Expressions belonging to this group are not difficult to notice and are often

humorous, or inspire the creation of similarly sounding words which serve to ridicule the

original. This is how “secretaries” become “executive assistants”, “car mechanics” are

“automotive internists”, and “garbage men” are called “sanitation engineers” while

performing the same job, customers are more satisfied when purchasing a “pre-owned”, or

“experienced” car rather than a “used” one, politicians do not “lie” but are “economical with

the truth”, etc.

These expressions can sometimes be perceived as political correctness or

euphemisms, and they are mostly harmless, since - if anything - they amuse rather than

mislead. Nevertheless, the border between the harmless and harmful doublespeak is thin: it

depends on the language users’ ability to recognize and fight the carefully designed terms

whose aim is to avoid responsibility and blur inconvenient truths.

D.2) Dangerous doublespeak

What is really hidden behind “revenue enhancement”, “rapid oxidation”, “pre-

emptive counterattack”, “poorly buffered precipitation”, or “unmanned aerial vehicles”?

Doublespeak becomes dangerous when it is successfully used to mislead, to appear to

communicate when it does not, when people fail to notice it and enable doublespeak to

alter the perception of reality and corrupt thought. (Lutz “The World of” 352-353)

This category corresponds to doublespeak characterized by the political economist

and media analyst Edward S. Herman, who stresses that the important thing in the world of

doublespeak is the ability to lie successfully, i.e. without being revealed or punished.

Moreover, lying according to Herman includes selecting and shaping facts which do not fit an

agenda or program, and this is where doublespeak becomes particularly “useful”; the

listeners succumb to the illusion that they have been told the truth (i.e. given the important

34

information), while this information is transmitted in the way which “makes murder sound

respectable”. (Herman)

Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman give examples of the structural nature of the

use of doublespeak; in Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media

they argue that people in modern democratic society consist of decision-makers and social

participants who have to be made to agree. They say that those in power in a totalitarian

state do not care much about what citizens think, since their actions can be controlled, and,

“the monopolistic control over media, often supplemented by official censorship, makes it

clear that the media serve the ends of a dominant elite.” However, if citizens have the

freedom of speech, the state wants to control what people think. “It is much more difficult

to see a propaganda system at work where the media are private and the formal censorship

is absent.” And that is what Herman and Chomsky analyze and call a “Propaganda Model”;

the “Manufacture of consent”. (Herman and Chomsky 1)

They claim that media are rarely truly impartial, for many reasons. “The media may

feel obligated to carry extremely dubious stories and mute criticism in order not to offend

their sources and disturb a close relationship. It is very difficult to call authorities on whom

one depends for daily news liars… Perhaps more important, powerful sources regularly take

advantage of media routines and dependency to “manage” the media… Part of this

management process consists of inundating the media with stories, which serve sometimes

to foist a particular line and frame on the media, and at other times to help chase unwanted

stories off the front page or out of the media altogether.” (Herman and Chomsky 22-23)

What is more, not only do those in power decide what to say, but they also pay close

attention to how they say it. It is not surprising that doublespeak is mostly employed in the

areas of business, advertising, and politics.

Why is this kind of doublespeak dangerous? Because living in illusions and believing

lies means losing personal freedom. Lutz (“The World of” 353) warns against the dangers of

doublespeak, against the corruption of language which can have far-reaching consequences,

as “[it] breeds suspicion, cynicism, distrust, and, ultimately, hostility. Doublespeak is

35

insidious because it can infect and eventually destroy the function of language, which is

communication between people and social groups.” Using the comparison to Orwell’s novel,

Lutz is very direct about what failure to understand the dangers of doublespeak may lead to:

“If we really believe that we understand such language and that such language

communicates and promotes clear thought, then the world of 1984, with its control of

reality through language, is upon us.” (Lutz 353)

5.3 Fighting back

The attempts to manipulate, through various means including language, can hardly

be eradicated, as they belong to human nature and, unfortunately, are a part of how society

is organized. Regrettably, no elections or revolutions seem to be able to change this. The

powerful will always dominate the society, and, although the situation in democratic

countries is better than in those with totalitarian regimes, it is not ideal. However, similarly

to Lutz, I believe that accepting this as a fact and giving up on resisting manipulation might

have disastrous consequences. The cynical misuse of language may go as far as speaking

about "Jewish problem" which was solved through the "Final Solution" (Endlösung), a

euphemism for extermination, infamous concentration camps entrance signs "Work Will Set

You Free" (Arbeit Macht Frei), followed by "bath houses" (Badeanstalten) and "special

installations" (Spezialeinrichtungen), the harmless-sounding names for the gas chambers and

crematoria. That said, I shall suggest the form that the resistance to being manipulated by

doublespeak can have.

Fortunately, many useful contributions have already been made by various writers,

linguists, political and media analysts (e.g. George Orwell, William Lutz, Hugh Rank, Daniel

Dieterich, Jacques Ellul), and committees, such as The National Council of Teachers of

English (NCTE) Committee on Public Doublespeak, established in 1971. Their effort and ideas

deserve to be acknowledged and further developed.

As means of attracting public attention, the Orwell Award (for outstanding

contributors to the critical analysis of public discourse), and the Doublespeak Award (an

ironic award for speakers who have seriously misused language to deceive, and to advance

their agenda) are worth supporting. Political manifestos and speeches, legal and business

36

documents, media discourse, and all other examples of using language to influence listeners

and achieve some goals, need to be critically examined. Nevertheless, such analysis would

not be very efficient if most language users were not familiar with both the beauty and the

power of language, and its potential abuse. Therefore, education is necessary to help fight

doublespeak. It is vital for students to learn to use language effectively, to be able to identify

euphemisms, doublespeak, and other ways to use or abuse language.

37

6. CONCLUSION

Recently, I have encountered suggestions that euphemizing should be eradicated,

and this became my motive for the closer examination of euphemisms. While writing my

paper, I have explored the ways euphemisms are created, the ever-changing essence of both

euphemistic expressions and the realities they refer to, the bright and the dark sides of

euphemisms.

Furthermore, I tried to find my own answers to several questions raised. Firstly, does

the society employ euphemisms in order to gradually change its values, or can the

“euphemism treadmill” serve as evidence supporting the claim that taboos persist,

independent of the words used to talk about them? I believe that language both reflects and

shapes thoughts; therefore, euphemisms have the potential to alter the reality.

Nevertheless, there are other aspects that influence the priorities, fears or values of a

society; euphemisms alone are not omnipotent. That is why euphemistic expressions remain

a helpful tool in the process of changing people’s attitudes, which is sometimes successful,

sometimes not.

My answer to the question if euphemisms should be completely avoided, as some

people suggest, calling for being more “direct” and “honest”, is clear: it is impossible, and

not even desirable. As I discussed in this paper, euphemisms are a necessary part of every

culture, they are probably as old as language itself, and, if used with honest intentions, they

are related to speakers’ good manners, express concern for the feelings of others, and show

respecting cultural taboos. Moreover, euphemisms can carry amusing aspects, spur the

listeners’ imagination, and promote complex thoughts.

It is probably due to political correctness and doublespeak that the society is

becoming more sensitive to using vague language and demands avoiding euphemisms.

However, in my opinion, there is serious misunderstanding. While it is true that,

linguistically, euphemisms, politically correct language and doublespeak have much in

common, their purpose and effect significantly differ. The purpose of doublespeak is in fact

opposite to that of euphemisms; speakers use euphemisms with the expectation that the

listeners will understand exactly what is hidden behind the words, in addition to mutual

38

understanding that the intention to use a euphemism is to avoid offence, or, in some cases,

to amuse. By contrast, the purpose of doublespeak is to mislead, to blur the reality, to hide

inconvenient truths. Using inflated language confuses the listeners, overwhelming them with

words so that they do not detect what is really hidden behind those words (unless, with

considerable effort, the listeners consciously analyze the vague expressions). While

euphemisms promote complex thoughts, doublespeak aims to limit or prevent clear

thinking.

To sum up, I strongly believe that everyone needs to pay attention to language used

as a tool of manipulation; language users should be aware that it is not the words

themselves, but the intentions that are good or bad. Education or experience is vital to help

the speakers distinguish between naked truths and lies in disguise.

39

WORKS CITED

Allan, Keith, and Kate Burridge. Euphemisms and Dysphemisms: Language Used as Shield and

Weapon. Oxford: OUP, 1991. Print.

Algeo, John, and Thomas Pyles. The Origins and Development of the English Language .

Wadsworth: Cengage Learning, 2009. Print.

Cumming, S. “Language & Power”. Linguistics, 50 (22 Jan. 2003): n. pag. linguistics.ucsb.edu.

Web. 21 Feb. 2012.

Dunn, S. M. et al. “Cancer By Another Name: A Randomized Trial of the Effects of

Euphemism and Uncertainty in Communicating with Cancer Patients.” Journal of Clinical

Oncology, 1993. American Society of Clinical Oncology. Web. 15 Mar. 2012.

<http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/11/5/989.abstract>

“Euphemisms For Death”. You-Can-Be-Funny.com. you-can-be-funny.com. n.d. Web. 12 Mar.

2012. <http://www.you-can-be-funny.com/Euphemisms-For-Death.html>

“Euphoria Part 2”. House M.D. Quotes.com. housemdquotes.com, n.p., n.d. Web. 03 Mar.

2012. <http://www.housemdquotes.com/221_euphoria_2.html>

Greer, Germaine. The Female Eunuch. New York: Farrer, Straus and Giroux, 1971. Print.

Hans, Jason D., Martie Gillen and Katrina Akande. “Sex Redefined: The Reclassification Of

Oral-Genital Contact”. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 42 (2010): 74–78.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com. Web. 7 Apr. 2012.

Herman, Edward S. “Little Versus Big Lies (And Structure of Lies)”. Political Commentaries.

20 May. 2003. musictravel.free.fr. Web. 15 Jun. 2012.

<musictravel.free.fr/political/political.htm>

Herman, Edward S., and Noam Chomsky. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of

the Mass Media, Second edition. New York: Pantheon, 2002. Print.

Hunt, K. M. “Biblical Euphemisms for Sexual Activity”. Restitution of All Things.

keithhunt.com. May 2007. Web. 20 Feb. 2012.

40

Kassie. “How I Met Your Mother>Script vo de l’épisode 2.12”. Hypnoweb.net. Hypnoweb.net,

18 Apr. 2011. Web. 03 Mar. 2012.

Keyes, Ralph. Euphemania: Our Love Affair with Euphemisms. New York: Little, Brown and

Company, 2010. Print.

“A List of PC Terms”. Bored.com. Bored.com, n.d. Web. 15 Jun. 2012.

<http://www.bored.com/pcphrases/>

Lutz, Wiliam. “Doublespeak”. Interview by Brian Lamb. booknotes.org: 31 Dec. 1989. Web.

14 Jan. 2012.

Lutz, Wiliam. “The World of Doublespeak.” cvhsfalcons.com. Web. 03 Jun. 2012. PDF file.

“Making Murder Respectable. Phoney Politeness and Muddled Messages: A Guide to

Euphemisms”. The Economist, economist.com. 17 Dec. 2011. Web. 15 Jan. 2012.

OffbeatMOG . “165 Sex Euphemisms”. AMOG|Alpha Male of the Group. AMOG, 05 Dec.

2008. amog.com. Web. 19 Feb. 2012. <amog.com/lifestyle/sex-euphemisms/>

O’Neill, Ben. “A Critique of Politically Correct Language”. The Independent Review, 16.2

(2011): 279-291. independent.org. Web. 27 May 2012. PDF file.

Orwell, George. “Politics and the English Language”. mla.stanford.edu. 2005-2006. Web. 25

May 2012. PDF file.

Pinker, Steven. “The Game of the Name”. The New York Times, 3 Apr. 1994.

stevenpinker.com. Web. 20 Jan. 2012. PDF file.

Postman, Neil. “Euphemism”. Crazy Talk, Stupid Talk. myclass.peelschools.org. Web. 20 Jan.

2012. PDF file.

41

Rawson, H. Rawson's Dictionary of Euphemisms and Other Doubletalk: Being a Compilation

of Linguistic Fig Leaves and Verbal Flourishes for Artful Users of the English Language. New

York: Crown Publishers, 1995. Print.

Shklovsky, Viktor, and Benjamin Sher – translator. Theory of Prose. Chicago: Dalkey Archive

Press, 1991. Print.

Soleine92 [Sosso Soleine]. “How I met your mother >Script VO de l'épisode 1.09”.

Hypnoweb.net. Hypnoweb.net, 20 Apr. 2009. Web. 03 Mar. 2012.

Veloso, B. “Series 3 Episode 20 – The Spaghetti Catalyst”. Big Bang Theory Transcripts.

Wordpress.com, n.d. Web. 10 Jun. 2012.

Walker, Ruth. “Euphemistically speaking”. The Christian Science Monitor, 19 Apr. 2011. Web.

7 Apr. 2012.

Williams, Joseph M. Origins of the English Language: A Social and Linguistic History. New

York: Free Press, 1975. Print.

Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield: Merriam-Webster Inc., 1989. Print.