Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Study of euphemism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Study of euphemism
This essay will examine and explore the question “Do euphemisms change the way we think about the topics they are describing?” The second part of the essay will discuss this topic in relation to a set of terms I encounter in everyday life. So to answer the first question, my response is yes. This essay will examine and explore the meaning of euphemism, why it is used and how it has become part of Australian culture. By its very definition the word euphemism means “the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant” (Merriam-Webster, 2015). Leech (1990, p. 46) describes this “a euphemism is usually used when the original word has very negative affective associations. …show more content…
Over time, the new word or phrase takes on the meaning for example ‘collateral damage’ is a term I have heard on many occasions used by either the military or Government when describing innocent people who have been killed or injured during an attack on a target. Bolinger (1980, p. 74) describes this as “the domino theory of euphemism: ―the fall of each term leads to the fall of the next, and in some areas of meaning we find an endless series of terms each of which had its day of innocence and then fell from grace”. Pinker (2007), labels this as a ‘euphemism treadmill’ stating that people ‘become tainted by their connection to a fraught concept, prompting people to reach for an unspoiled term, which only gets sullied in its turn’. Writers employ the use of euphemisms to deliver massages that are either social taboos, embarrassing or to distasteful to mention in public. In some cases writers are trying to avoid political or social censorship laws or religious persecution and death, therefore allowing euphemisms to touch on these issues. Here are some common examples of …show more content…
The use of euphemisms makes approaching a difficult or taboo subject easier. By sugar coating a particular topic or perhaps touching on taboo topics through the use of euphemisms allows us to communicate in a polite way. By sugar coating the truth behind euphemisms are we in fact disempowering ourselves? When I use the word disempower, it is meant to imply that we may be allowing certain members, leaders and government officials to spin us a story so they are seen in the best light. Perhaps governments try use fear or scaremongering to pass legislation through ‘in our best interest’. I often feel frustrated and shake my head in disgust when I watch question time in Parliament house and I witness the gobbledygook pouring out of a politician mouth. There really is a hidden art to avoid answering a direct question. All of that being said I believe that the downside to the overuse and abuse of euphemisms tend to desensitize an individual or community to the gravity of a situation. I often wonder when speakers of another language holiday or move to Australia cope with our unique euphemisms. I imagine the use of euphemisms can also be difficult to comprehend if you are not raised with that particular cultural
For instance, he uses the word “pornographic” (268) to describe animal horror videos and shots from a “Natural History” magazine. The word “pornographic” frequently makes people uncomfortable and disturbed, which is pathos. With or without the context, the audience will want to avoid the word and its meaning. The reason for this is because of the word’s connection to other inappropriate ideas. Another example is when McKibben uses "harass" (267) to describe what photographers do to wildlife. As a result, the audience relates this idea to violence and illegal activities. People can better understand the harm and destruction photographers have on
Naylor implies that derogatory terms have a twist and are a disguise of acknowledgement to her race. Although it was initially created to humiliate and dehumanize African Americans, ‘the n-word’ develops into a word that admires men of that race.
In the essay “From Ancient Greece to Iraq, the Power of Words in Wartime” by Robin Tolmach Lakoff, Lakoff discusses the fact that words are a tool as well when it comes to wars. She talks about the differences between our natural want and ability to kill things, and the mental training soldiers receive to make it easier for them. Lakoff talks about the practice of dehumanizing the “enemy” through nicknames that make us feel superior then our foes, and the repercussions of using this type of language. In the essay by George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language”, Orwell talks about the decay of the English language, especially in political writings. He discusses the fact that when it comes to writing, political being the main focus, it’s
In the modern society, millions of people realize that several offensive words with insulting taboo meanings heavily disturb their daily lives and break some special groups of people’s respect to push them to feel like outsiders of the whole society. As a result, more and more people join some underway movements to eliminate the use of these offensive words in people’s everyday speech and writing. However, these offensive words themselves are not the culprit, the bad meanings people attach are the problems and some other functions of the words are useful in the society. Christopher M. Fairman the author of “ Saying It Is Hurtful, Banning It Is Worse” also argues that although
are simply meaningless words meant to damage, humiliate and degrade certain groups of people. To prove those words worthless, the same groups of people that those hate words
The language has been used in writing before and many books use this type of language so they can build a connection to the real world. It is vital for teens especially in 8th grade and above to learn how important it is to stray away from these potentially hurtful words and how this type of language can set a certain tone to a
There are many reasons why people use euphemism as mentioned by William Lutz in “The world of Doublespeak” states that “euphemism is an inoffensive or positive word or phrase used to avoid the harsh, unpleasant, or distasteful reality” (390). However as mentioned by Lutz in “The world of doublespeak” when a euphemism is used to mislead or deceive, it becomes doublespeak” (391). For example instead of saying we killed three people they would use the phrase we exterminated three intruders to mislead and confuse people especially the uneducated. Also as stated by William Lutz in “The World of Doublespeak” indicates that “when you use a euphemism because of your sensitivity for someone’s feelings or for a recognized social or cultural taboo, it is not doublespeak” (390). For instance, imagine someone told you I heard your grandpa died that would sound harsh, but if someone said I heard your grandpa passed away that sounds more respectable which is not considered doublespeak. Lutz finds the People who are responsible for euphemism doublespeak tend to be people that try to cover up the unpleasant, which are mainly the government, armies and the news. Next as stated by Lutz “it is a language designed to alter our perception of reality”
That standpoint does not approach the argument that “bad” words are sometimes “good,” but rather that sometimes “bad” words are real. With that in mind, Ramifications
Connotative language: Words that relate to deeper, symbolic levels of meaning. It includes social meanings acquired through use and emotional associations. It can also reflect social, racial, political, or religious stereotypes. For example, a writer who refers to liberals as “bleeding hearts” communicates not only her or his own bias, but an expectation that the audience shares this bias.
"TV's Most Offensive Words | Media | MediaGuardian." Latest News, Comment and Reviews from the Guardian | Guardian.co.uk. 25 Nov. 2005. Web. Dec. 2010. .
In “Tense Present: Democracy, English and the Wars over Usage,” David Foster Wallace argues that it would be ridiculous to assume “that American ceases to be elitist or unfair because Americans stop using certain vocabulary that is historically associated with elitism.” Just because society uses words that are less offensive does not mean that society has adopted attitudes that are less offensive. To clarify why such a fallacy is often heard, Wallace defines two functions for politically correct language “On the one hand they can be a reflection of political change, and on the other they can be an instrument of political change.” Usage conventions can be the result of change, or they can result in change. However, when one function occurs, the other does not, and vice versa. Care must be taken when determining the efficacy of politically correct terminology; it could either signal great strides being made in social justice, or it could be a superficial impersonation of human
As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated hen-house” (Orwell). The especially dislike when the act of expressing our thoughts is mitigated by political correctness. The act of disguising our language in order to move ahead or appear something you are not is not moral. I observe this with politics today and its intent to control those around them more than it is for being polite. The candidates do not appear to be original in their stance; rather manipulation is the foundation of their candidacy in order to appear the better
...Giver” that hide their true meaning. Release distorts its true meaning of death. Assignment conceals its true implication of job and stirrings actually mean puberty. All three words in some way or another affect people’s behaviour and how they may view a situation. Even a world where precise language is viewed as very important, there still are words that are used to promote the ideals of the government and keep the truth from people. In a world where people are pressured into using precise language to prevent any misconceptions and misunderstandings, the government makes words that cloak the true definition so the public does not find out their true intentions, which is to control their behaviour. Language may be used as a tool to help communicate with others, but when used improperly, people will be deceived and ultimately be living a life of lies and illusion.
Robin Lakoff is a linguistics professor at the University of California at Berkeley and the author of The Language War. She published an article in The New York Times on May 18, 2044 titled, “From Ancient Greece to Iraq, the Power of Words in Wartime.” Her purpose for writing the article was to give a snippet from her book, in which argues that the usage of nicknames makes it easier for someone to kill another human being because it makes them appear to be inferior. Lakoff uses example such as, “In World War I, the British gave the Germans the nickname “Jerries” (Lakoff 15). Therefore, it makes it easier for soldiers to kill their enemies.
...n the January 1993 Library Journal, makes a similar suggestion: "Ultimately, however, we hope we use language that is more sensitive without enforcing strident political correctness or orthodoxy." We, as a society, are so concerned about avoiding confrontations that we are going overboard changing non-offensive names. The attempt to avoid possible protests of sensitive pressure groups by sanitizing our language is, in my opinion, censorship.