27 words as interjections might also belong to this type when it is followed by
utterances which contain a sense of amazement. The last but not least is cathartic swearing. Here the taboo words are used
to spontaneously convey the emotional burst of the speaker in response to something that happens to him her Pinker, 2007. In this case of cathartic swear
word, Crystal 1986 also adds that uttering swearing words might ease the emotionally psychological burden of the swearer, which he claims as an
“excellent relief mechanism”. Cathartic swear words might occur when the swear words or taboo words are used as expletive interjections to express anger,
surprise, pain, relief and other feelings and not addressed to anyone Ljung, 2011, which differentiate this type from abusive swearing, e.g. when someone hits his
her own finger with hammer he she shouts “fuck” or “damn”. Nevertheless, Ljung 2011
gives an overlook to Pinker‟s typology. He states
that the typology “spills over each other” p. 26, which means an utterance of taboo words could possibly belong to more than one type, for example the
utterance “fuck you” might belong to abusive swearing, idiomatic, or cathartic swearing p. 26. Therefore, a discursive review about the utterance becomes
necessary at this point. There can be one more than one type to be applied in analysis by considering the context in the discourse.
Furthermore, according to Ljung, not all type of Pinker‟s typology deal
with the complexity of swear words p. 27. In the other word, some of the categories are out of the discussion about pragmatic use of taboo words and swear
words. As can be seen above, Ljung has made criteria by which a word can be
28 said a swear word or a taboo word. Ljung puts emphasis on the second category of
Pinker‟s typology i.e. idiomatic swearing. According to him this category is “out of the track” compared to the other four due to the lack of content about emotive
function as Ljung has at his fourth criterion of swear word. Yet, this second category of Pinker‟s typology is still capable of describing the way people use
taboo words. The way people use swear words, however, affects the reference of the
words. The word fuck, for instance, does not always refer to “copulation” if it is
uttered in a certain way. It has been stated in the second point of Ljung‟s category
of swearing that when being used as swear word, taboo word will lose its literal meaning.
Considering Pinker‟s typology, taboo words only refer to their literal meaning when they are used descriptively. Taboo words or swear words, as
metaphors, might also have different reference when it is used idiomatically. In the expression “take that shit out,” for instance, the word shit does not refer to
“feces”, instead it refers to anything depends on the context which has the sense of unpleasant Wajnryb, 2006; Sheidlower, 2009. Besides, there are also some
expressions using taboo words or swear words which Pinker claims as “show no discernible analogy reference
to their subject matters” p. 223 such as “He went through a lot of shit
”, “ Get your ass over here”, “Stop fuckin’ around”, “Aw, fuck it”, etc. Pinker then concludes that those expressions incorporate taboo words or
swear words for their ability to grab the interest of the listener. The expression might emerge when a speaker uses taboo words or swear words abusively or
cathartically. The indiscernible analogy of taboo words or swear words might also
29 emerge when those words are us
ed as expletive like “fuckin’ amazing”. This occurrence might take place when taboo words or swear words are used
emphatically Pinker, 2007; Sheidlower, 2009.
2.2. Theoretical Framework
Having known the concept of taboo and the classification of taboo words and swear words, it is now easier to convey the reference or sense of taboo words
and swear words. In his monologue Carlin includes a lot of taboo words, but not all of those
are swear words. For example, the following sentence contains only taboo words “The original seven words were, shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker,
and tits.” Meanwhile, there is a swear word in this sentence “Oh, the shit hurt the broccoli”
In the first sentence, each taboo word does not contain the emotive function. The words are plainly uttered and they contain their literal meaning. The
second sentence is a different case. The word shit there has non-literal meaning and by then it constructs the formulaic structure of swearing. It means that the
words bring out a patent meaning recalled at the time they are used rather than being the subject to generation or analysis by the language grammar Ljung,
2011. It is important to distinguish whether the taboo word is purely taboo word
or it has been modified into swear word. The reference of the taboo words uttered
30 could be their literal meaning or not regarding the context in which the words are
uttered. To figure out the appropriate meaning of the taboo words or swear words uttered, the writer uses sources composed by several authors which provide some
possible references for taboo words or swear words uttered in various contexts such as Pinker 2007, Ljung 2011, Wajnryb 2006, Hughes 2006, Hunt
2009, and Sheidlower 2009. In brief, to answer the research question number one, the reference and or
sense of each utterance containing taboo words or swear words will be derived in order to convey the meaning of the utterance. The references and senses are also
classified based on some themes of taboo. The framework to address the research question number one is schemed as follows:
war
figure 2.2.
Theoretical diagram for research question number one To help answer the research question number two, the writer will employ
Austin‟s theory to assert Pinker‟s typology. Austin 1955 states that one might do something in and or by saying an utterance. Such utterance is called
“performative”. Meanwhile, an utterance which does not bring any action mere saying is called “constative” p.54. To deal with the complexity of performative
utterance, speech act theory of Austin will come in handy. Austin draws three distinction of speech acts i.e. locution, illocution, and perlocution. In brief Austin
explains that locution is an act of saying something, illocution is an act in saying Utterance
containing taboo words
swear words. reference
sense meaning
Theme of taboo
31 something, and perlocution is the feeling, attitude, or act of the addressee as a
result of the utterance p. 99. Austin emphasizes that the essential point of performative utterance is on the illocution by which the locution is used to: asking
or answering a question, giving some information or an assurance or a warning, announcing a verdict or an intention, pronouncing sentence, making an
appointment or an appeal or a criticism, making an identification or giving a description, etc. Austin depicts the concrete of that context in three famous
examples: l ocution: He said to me „Shoot her‟ meaning by „shoot‟ shoot and
referring by „her‟ to her, illocution: He urged or advised, ordered, etc. me to shoot her, perlocution: He persuaded me to shoot her Austin, 1955, p. 101.
By the examples it is now clearer the difference between locution, illocution, and perlocution.
The focus of the three sentences is in the verb “shoot”. In locution the word „shoot‟ is merely uttered. In illocution the word „shoot‟ is
uttered to make the addressee do so which make it has illocutionary force. In perlocution the word „shoot‟ is uttered and then whether intended or not the
addressee determined to do so. Yet, as Saddock 2004 states, illocution is the central of Austin‟s innovation p. 59 since by conveying the illocutionary force
within an utterance the act done by the utterance can be figured out. This is also relevant to know whether each taboo word or swear word has illocutionary force
or not. Furthermore, by knowing the existence of the illocutionary force, it can also be determined whether an utterance is performative or constative Saddock,
2004, p.60.
32 In advance, to deal with the intention of an utterance, the illocution should
be made clearer to figure out what kind of act done in speaking. Searle 1976, as an alternative taxonomy form Austin, proposes a theory which conveys the action
one commits with the utterances or is called the function of utterance. This taxonomy is regarded as the basic of illocutionary act p. 10. It is stated that there
are five basic kinds of action, namely representatives, directive, commissive, expressive
, and declarative. Representative act is the act of committing the speaker to something which is being the case. Some examples of representative
act are stating, announcing, informing, suggesting, and so on. In the case of directive
act, the speaker gets the hearer addressee to do something. Directive act involves commanding, requesting, asking, ordering, etc. Commissive act
means the act of committing the speaker to some future course of action such as promising, offering, etc. Expressive act is the act of expressing the psychological
state of affairs specified in the propositional content. The examples are thanking, apologizing, congratulating, welcoming, and so on. Meanwhile, declarative act,
linguistically speaking, is the act of bringing about the correspondence between the propositional content and reality. The examples are declaring war, firing an
employee, baptizing, etc. It is a little bit tricky to determine whether an utterance with taboo words
or swear words in it has an illocutionary force or not since Carlin often slips them in sub-clauses some of which are merely examples of the possible utterances in
which he imitates the context. Swearing might have an illocutionary force for example in utterance “go to hell” to order someone to go away. However, Carlin
33 often utters illocution within a statement which is merely a locution. In solving
such case the felicity of the utterance should be checked by using Austin‟s criteria
of felicity. To be a felicitous an utterance must meet some rules i.e.: A.1 There must exist an accepted conventional procedure having a certain
conventional effect, that procedure to include the uttering of certain words by certain persons in certain circumstances, and further,
A.2 the particular persons and circumstances in a given case must be appropriate for the invocation of the particular procedure invoked.
B.1 The procedure must be executed by all participants both correctly and B.2. completely.
T.1. Where, as often, the procedure is designed for use by persons having certain thoughts of feelings. Or for the inauguration of certain consequential
conduct on the part of any participant, then a person participating in and so invoking the procedure must in fact have those thoughts or feelings, and the
participants must intend so to conduct themselves, and further T.2 must actually so conduct themselves subsequently.
Austin, 1955, pp.14-15 Rules A.1, A.2, B.1, and B.2 must be fulfilled in order to make the act
achieved. If one or more of the criteria is not fulfilled the sentence becomes misfired
the act is not achieved. Then rules T.1 and T.2 determine whether the utterance has effect or not. In the other word, the speaker must intend to do the
act. If the speaker does not really intend to do the act, the rules T.1 and T.2 are not fulfilled and the act becomes void p. 16. For the context of this monologue, the
