A SOCIOLINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF SWEARING I

A SOCIOLINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF SWEARING IN FROM PARIS WITH LOVE MOVIE A THESIS

Presented as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Attainment of

a Sarjana Sastra Degree in English Language and Literature

By Ronanda Ayu Wulandari 08211144008 ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE STUDY PROGRAM ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT FACULTY OF LANGUAGES AND ARTS YOGYAKARTA STATE UNIVERSITY

MOTTOS

“If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I?

And if not now, when?” (Rabbi Hillel)

“The certainty in this world is uncertainty, and God keeps the uncertainty to all mankind so that they can always learn and dream” (Arman Marwing)

“You may say I’m a dreamer…but I’m not the only one” (John Lennon, Imagine)

DEDICATION

This work is lovingly dedicated to: My beloved mom, Buk Atik, for her everlasting love My father, Pak Nono, who always teaches me how to be a strong girl

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Alhamdullilahi robbil’alamin. All praise be to the Almighty and the Most Merciful, Allah SWT, who has always given me His blessing and grace, without which I would never have finished this thesis. Sholawat and salam are devoted to Muhammad SAW, the Prophet.

At this moment of accomplishment, first of all, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my first consultant, Erna Andryanti, S.S, M.Hum, and my second consultant, Siti Mukminatun, S.S, M.Hum who have guided me, and shared their ideas, knowledge and time with all their patience during my writing process. Thanks for their help, without them I probably cannot finish this thesis well.

I am also indebted to my academic supervisor, Susana W, S.S, M.A for her kind guidance during my years of study, to all lecturers for teaching me well, and to all staffs for their help during my study. Moreover, a million of thanks go to my beloved parents, Pak Nono and Buk Atik, who always love, understand, and support me. My special thanks go to my fiancé, Abi, who always knows me well whenever I need his supports. Then, a cup of thanks is for my little sister, Ivana, for her laugh which flowers my writing process.

I would like to extend huge, warm thanks to all friends in Linguistics 2008 for their invaluable help and support. Many thanks go to Bang Arman who has suggested me to use From Paris with Love as my source of data. Last but not least, I would like to thank all people who have sincerely helped me finish this thesis, and all of whom I cannot mention one by one.

Finally, I do realize that this thesis is far from being perfect. Therefore, I would gratefully accept any constructive comments and suggestions for the betterment of this thesis.

Yogyakarta, 9 August 2012

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

00:16:44 : Hour: 00; Minute: 16; Second: 44 ES

: Expletive Swearing ABS

: Abusive Swearing HS

: Humorous Swearing AUS

: Auxiliary Swearing HSS

: Hearing something strange EE : Expressing Emotions

FRU : To express frustration or anger SUR

: To express surprised or shocked SHO

: To shock AMU

: To amuse INS

: To insult someone FR

: To indicate friendship & assert identity in a group

A SOCIOLINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF SWEARING IN FROM PARIS WITH LOVE MOVIE

Ronanda Ayu Wulandari 08211144008

ABSTRACT

This research examines swearing occurring in From Paris with Love movie using a sociolinguistic approach. The research is aimed to analyze the types of swearing, reasons of swearing, and the relationship between swearing and social class which are portrayed from From Paris with Love movie.

This research employed descriptive qualitative method. The data were dialogues containing swearwords uttered by the characters in the movie and the context surrounding the interaction. Meanwhile, the source of the research was divided into two, i.e. primary source and secondary source. The primary source of the data was From Paris with Love movie. Then, the secondary source was the script of From Paris with Love movie downloaded from the internet. The primary research instrument was the researcher herself. She acted as the planner, the data collector, the data analyzer, and the data reporter of the research. The secondary instrument was the data sheet. To ensure the trustworthiness of the data, this research applied triangulations by applying source triangulation and investigator triangulation.

The findings of the research show that the types of swearing found in From Paris with Love movie could be categorized into 4 (four). The first type is Expletive Swearing (ES) with 25 data (23.8%). The second is Abusive Swearing (ABS) with 53 data (50.5%). The third is Humorous Swearing (HS) with 11 data (10.5%). The last one, Auxiliary Swearing (AUS), has 16 data (15.2%).The findings show that Abusive Swearing is the dominant type because swearing is mostly used to abuse someone else. Based on the reasons of swearing, only expressing emotions reason which occurs, which furthermore is specified into 6 (six) reasons. The first reason is to express frustration or anger with 36 data (34.3%). The second is to express surprise or shock with 21 data (20%). The third is to shock with 8 data (7.6%). The fourth is to amuse with 5 data (4.8%). The fifth is to insult with 27 data (25.7%). The last one is to assert identity in a group or indicate friendship with 8 data (7.6%). These findings show that the dominant reason influencing people to swear is to express frustration or anger. The last finding illustrates that people coming from upper class swear to people who belong to the middle class, middle class to middle class, middle class to low class, and low class to middle class. Thus, it shows that people who belong to upper class tend to swear to people who come from the class under them because they have power to control people under them.

Key words: Sociolinguistic analysis, swearing, types of swearing, reasons of swearing, and social class

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

A. Research Background

Swearing is a form of linguistic expression which is often referred to bad language because all swearwords are taboo, although not all taboo words are swearwords (Karjalainen, 2002: 18). In fact, many people always associate swearwords with something bad. That is why, they prefer not use them in a conversation. However, there are some other people who still employ them in their conversation, especially to express their feeling. This is in line with what Svensson (2004: 01) says that some people find swearing to be rude and disrespectful, while others find it quite useful in their everyday vocabulary. There are differences in occupation as a function of gender and status, men are always expected to swear more than women in equivalent occupations and higher status personnel (e. g., dean) are expected to swear less than lower status and there are also myths that grow in society that only the undereducated speakers swear ( Jay, 1992; 2009).

A psycholinguist, Jay of Massachusetts College of the Liberal Arts and author of Cursing in America via Faye Flam in Carnal Knowledge, and some other linguists believe that swearing is good to be used in communication. He states that it sometimes helps people avoid physical violence because it allows people to express their emotions symbolically at distance. In line with Jay’s theory, Andersson via Karjalainen (2002) states that there are some reasons A psycholinguist, Jay of Massachusetts College of the Liberal Arts and author of Cursing in America via Faye Flam in Carnal Knowledge, and some other linguists believe that swearing is good to be used in communication. He states that it sometimes helps people avoid physical violence because it allows people to express their emotions symbolically at distance. In line with Jay’s theory, Andersson via Karjalainen (2002) states that there are some reasons

People cannot deny that swearing is a part of social life. This fact is supported by a survey conducted by American Demographic Magazine which shows that among 60 people, 72% of them like swearing in public (Grimm, 2004 in Fagersten, 2005: 04). Knowing the fact that swearing is a part of social life, some script writers and directors of movie still do not avoid using swearing in the dialogues because movie is a representation of a real life.

A movie entitled From Paris with Love which is directed by Pierre Morell tries to represent the real life of society, especially people who are in the drug markets society. In this movie, there are many swearwords which are uttered by some characters. Through this movie people can see that swearwords can be used for any reasons depending on the situational contexts. This can be seen in the following dialogue.

(When Wax drives the car back to get Reese’s file in his own car, but Wax crashes the police car up against some parking cars. Then, Reese’s car is exploded. It makes Reese shocked.)

Reese: What the f*** 67 Wax?

(Smiling) Wax: A f***ing 68 boom. Work for you?

Reese: You're f***ing 69 crazy.

Data 67 and 69 show that f*** can be used to express shock, and datum 68 shows that swearing can be used to insult someone although in a humorous way.

This is one of the swearing cases reflected in From Paris with Love movie, and there are still many other data which prompt the researcher to analyze the phenomenon of swearing in this movie.

B. Research Focus

Jay (1992), in Cursing in America, proposes a classification system of bad language, covering 1) cursing, 2) profanity, 3) blasphemy, 4) taboo, 5) obscenity,

6) vulgar, 7) epithets, 8) insults and slurs, 9) scatology, and 10) slang. However, not all the ten categories are explored, but only the forth one, because swearing which becomes the focus of this research is a part of taboo.

Swearwords are a potential trouble for many people because not all people can understand the meaning and the reasons why others utter swearwords, specifically for the non-native English. The reasons that influence people to swear can be very various, i.e. to follow the others who have used it previously, and to imitate the dialogue in the movie to make them seem cool, although actually the meaning of the swearwords that they use is very rude and impolite.

Regardless of the controversy over whether swearing is good or not, today people can find swearwords in the entertainment world easily, i.e. movies, songs, and TV’s program. From Paris with Love is one of the movies that represents the real life of the society, especially the characters whose original country is America. The use of swearwords in this movie can be seen from the situation when the characters express anger, frustration, surprise, shock, insult, friendship and amusement. The phenomenon of swearing related to the society in From Paris with Love movie leaves several problems that can be identified.

The first problem is related to the types of swearing being used. From Paris with Love movie shows that swearing does not only arise in an abusive type, but it may occur in expletive, humorous, and auxiliary type.

The second problem is related to the reasons why the characters of From Paris with Love movie frequently swear in the dialogues. In fact, swearing is not only used to express anger or to insult other people, but it can be used to indicate friendship and express surprise.

The third problem is whether swearwords are identical with lower social status and undereducated person since there are opinions that higher status personnel (i.e. dean) are expected to swear less than lower status and the myths that only undereducated speakers swear still exist. This movie portrays the real life of some Americans who live in French. Although they belong to educated people, they still swear to express their feeling.

In addition, there is also a problem which can be identified related to racism issue in From Paris with Love. The problem emerges when some American characters insult Pakistani drug sellers and terrorists.

Moreover, swearing based on gender is an interesting topic to analyze since in this movie swearwords are not only uttered by men, but women characters do so. This movie shows the fact that women also swear which is portrayed through Caroline and Nicole characters.

Knowing the fact that there are too many problems arises dealing with swearing analysis, this research focuses on the types of swearing, the reasons influencing people to swear, and the relationship between swearing and social class in society as illustrated in From Paris with Love.

C. Formulation of the Problems

Based on the limitation of the problem, the problems of the research are formulated as follows:

1. What are the types of swearing which occur in From Paris with Love movie?

2. What are the reasons influencing the characters of the movie to swear?

3. How the relationship between swearing and social class in society as illustrated in the movie?

D. Objectives of the Research

In relation to the formulation of the problem, the objectives of this research are stated as follows:

1. to identify and to describe the types of swearing which occur in From Paris with Love,

2. to describe the reasons influencing the characters of the movie to swear, and

3. to explain the relationship between swearing and social class in society as illustrated in the movie.

E. Research Significances

Regarding to the background and the objectives of the research, it is expected that this research will contribute a great significance both theoretically and practically. Theoretically, the research findings will give additional information to linguistic researchers dealing with sociolinguistics research of Regarding to the background and the objectives of the research, it is expected that this research will contribute a great significance both theoretically and practically. Theoretically, the research findings will give additional information to linguistic researchers dealing with sociolinguistics research of

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter attempts to discuss all literatures related to the research. The discussion covers sociolinguistics, bad language, taboo, swearwords, types of swearing, reasons influencing people to swear, social class, and From Paris with Love movie.

A. Sociolinguistics

It cannot be denied that the existence of language cannot be separated from society. This phenomenon is studied in sociolinguistics. It is reinforced by Trudgill (1974: 32) who says that sociolinguistics is a part of linguistics which is concerned with language as a social and cultural phenomenon. It investigates the field of language and society & has close connections with the social sciences, especially social psychology, anthropology, human geography and sociology. This is in line with what Downes (1984: 15) says that sociolinguistics is the branch of linguistics which studies the properties of language and languages which require reference to social, including contextual, factors in their explanation. Moreover, Chaika (1982: 02) says that sociolinguistics is the study of the ways people use language in social interaction. Then, according to Holmes (1974: 01), there is a relationship between language and society because sociolinguistics examines the way people use language in different social contexts and the way people signal aspects of their social identity through their language.

Being more specific, Chaika (1982: 02) states that every social institution is maintained by language. People can use language to “carry on” love and to

“carry out” hate, and through language people can reveal or conceal their personal identity, their character, and their background, often wholly unconscious that people are doing so. Moreover, Whorf via Popenoe (1983: 57) states that the vocabulary of a language can reflect the culture and environment of its speakers. It can be seen from Indonesian people who eat rice as the main food, have so many different words for rice i.e. padi, gabah, beras and nasi.

Finnegan (1997: 436) states that language is a major symbol of one’s identity. People can indicate others’ original country through their way of speaking. Language can also be used as an indication of social class as stated by Bourdieu (1984) via McEnery (2006: 09).

if a taste for fine wine is supposed to be a token of high social status, then on seeing somebody pouring a drink from such a bottle of wine, other factors aside, one might assume they were of a certain social class. Similarly, if one sees somebody drinking a pint of beer, and this is a marker of low social class, other factors aside, one may also infer their social class.

In this case, Bourdieu relates language with wine and beer as a social class marker. He also argues that type of speech is already associated with certain social class. The wrong use of language is identical with lower classes because they do not have enough money to get a good education.

If there are forms of language which are identified with a refined form of speech, then those aware of the perception of this form of language, who are able to invest either the time or the money in order to acquire that ‘refined’ form of language, will be able to identify themselves with a particular group in society. Yet more perniciously, if that type of speech is already associated with a particular social class, then there is a zero cost for that social class in using that form of speech, while the speech associated with lower classes is devalued and the onus is placed on If there are forms of language which are identified with a refined form of speech, then those aware of the perception of this form of language, who are able to invest either the time or the money in order to acquire that ‘refined’ form of language, will be able to identify themselves with a particular group in society. Yet more perniciously, if that type of speech is already associated with a particular social class, then there is a zero cost for that social class in using that form of speech, while the speech associated with lower classes is devalued and the onus is placed on

Those bring us to the concept of good and bad language. In fact, according to Dinwoodie (2003: 16), the notion of good and bad language has been commented on by many researchers such as Trudgill (1974), Romaine (2000), Menzies (1991), Macauley (1977), Macafee (1994), Andersson and Trudgill (1990), and then Cameron (1995). The label “standard” English implies “correct” English and therefore anything which deviates from this is “incorrect”. Moreover, she argues that most linguists argue against the ideas about correctness and rather focus on the diversity or differences between one variety from another. None will say that “Standard English” is better but all would agree that most laymen do feel that way, and will promote speaking “well”, “more politely”, or “properly” over their own varieties which are by definition are “worse”, “less polite” and “improper”. Then, Trudgill (1974: 28-34) states that most nonstandard language, which sounds like a version of English, is thought to be bad or lower than what people “should” speak. According to Shelton (2007: 66), many groups of people believe that varieties in language can be labeled as “good” or “bad”. Wheeler and Swords (2004: 473) support that statement by defining it clearly:

While variation in language structure is always present, a different kind of variation lies in the public’s attitudes toward language. “Standard” English is often called “good” English while “non-standard” English is considered “bad”. These judgments are not based on linguistic grounds, but on sociopolitical considerations.

Regardless of the controversy related to the concept of bad and good language, in this study the researcher follows Trudgill’s theory (1974: 28-34) that bad and good language as language which “should” and “should not” be spoken, not based on grammatically correct or incorrect, and Standard (RP) or non Standard.

B. Bad Language

According to Anderson and Trudgill (1992) in Doyle (2006: 02), sociolinguists have various classification systems for “bad language”. Although each is somewhat different, sociolinguists who have studied “bad language” agree in general about the need for various classes and also agree that the relative “badness” of language is constantly changing; what is previously thought to be “bad language” may become “standard language”.

Jay (1992) via Doyle (2006: 2-3) classifies the “bad language” into ten categories, covering a) cursing, to call upon divine or supernatural power to send injury upon someone, b) profanity, to treat something sacred with abuse, irreverence, disrespect, or contempt, c) blasphemy, an intent to insult or show contempt for lack of reverence for a religion, d) taboo, a prohibition instituted for the protection of a cultural or religious group against supernatural reprisal, e) obscenity, disgusting to the sense; repulsive; indecent; abhorrent to morality; designed to incite lust or depravity, f) vulgar, coarse; morally crude; lacking in cultivation; unsophisticated; under-educated; or relating to common people; not necessarily obscene or taboo or bad or evil, but they just reflect the crudeness of “street language”, g) epithets, usually brief but forceful bursts of emotional Jay (1992) via Doyle (2006: 2-3) classifies the “bad language” into ten categories, covering a) cursing, to call upon divine or supernatural power to send injury upon someone, b) profanity, to treat something sacred with abuse, irreverence, disrespect, or contempt, c) blasphemy, an intent to insult or show contempt for lack of reverence for a religion, d) taboo, a prohibition instituted for the protection of a cultural or religious group against supernatural reprisal, e) obscenity, disgusting to the sense; repulsive; indecent; abhorrent to morality; designed to incite lust or depravity, f) vulgar, coarse; morally crude; lacking in cultivation; unsophisticated; under-educated; or relating to common people; not necessarily obscene or taboo or bad or evil, but they just reflect the crudeness of “street language”, g) epithets, usually brief but forceful bursts of emotional

C. Taboo

The term taboo comes from Tongan which refers to sacred places reserved for gods, kings, priests and chiefs. The word was borrowed into English by Captain James Cook in his book entitled Voyage to the Pacific Ocean published in 1777 (Ljung, 2011: 05).

Taboo is specific to a culture and a language but they often overlap, especially in western cultures. Words can also shed their taboos over time or acquire taboo status due to new usage. It is, for example, perfectly acceptable to call a dandelion pissabed and a windhover windfucker until part of the word gained a taboo dimension (Hughes, 1991: 03). It means that a word which is uttered by people in a certain place and time can be taboo, but not taboo in other place and time. People know that something is taboo through socialization process, including taboo language. People learn about what word people “should” and “should not” talk in society depending on the norms which exist at their place.

This is in line with what Jay (2009: 01) says that people’s ability to swear is not innate.

“…no one is born with knowledge of taboo words. It is only when we mature enough that we are aware of institutional standards. We learn about taboos through socialization of speech practices, which creates an oral of folk knowledge of swearing etiquette.”

The British anthropologist, Leach, via Andersson and Trudgill (1990: 15) divide taboo words into three major groups, i.e. 1) ‘dirty’ words having to do with sex and excretion, such as b***er and s**t, 2) words that have to do with the Christian religion such as Christ and Jesus, and 3) words which are used in ‘animal abuse’ (calling a person by the name of an animal), such as bitch and cow. Taboo words are often related to taboo behavior, such as sex and bodily functions. Taboo does not necessarily mean that it is forbidden to have sex, go to the bathroom etc, but what Andersson and Trudgill mean by taboo behavior is that there are conscious and unconscious rules of how people do it in a socially acceptable manner.

In western society people feel more or less disgust and shame for body fluid and other things that leave the body and that it should be hidden and certainly not being talked. They believe that if these “bodily function-words” necessarily need to be mentioned, people are expected to use expressions properly such as urine and faeces, rather than p*ss and s**t (1990: 56-57). Although the word ‘s**t’ literary refers to excrement, its meaning is more emotive than literal in swearing, meaning that it refers to person’s emotions about something, rather than referring to the semantic proportions of the word.

In addition, most European languages have “blasphemic” utterances. Blasphemy means words or phrases connected with the Christian religion in a disrespectful way, for example: Oh, for God’s sake. The word h**l, as a swearword, obviously has religious terminology. It can be used in several different situations, for example: The h**l with it, Like h**l, Go to h**l or perhaps Bloody H**l. The word d**n is also a blasphemic utterance and is by most people connected with the religious term ‘d**nation’, though it might in the beginning have had a connection with the word d**n, which means animal mother (Andersson and Trudgill, 1990: 15).

Karjalainen (2002: 18) states that taboo words or words that refer to taboo are swearwords, although all swearwords are taboo, not all taboo words are swearwords. This statement is supported by Ljung (2011: 12):

That the taboo words used in swearing do not retain their literal meaning and that, conversely, taboo words used with literal meaning cannot be regarded as swearing.

Moreover, Ljung also divides taboo into two groups, i.e. swearing and non- swearing. In this case he uses Pinker’s dictum to support his statement:

The dividing line between terms that are merely dysphemistic and those that cross over to taboo is mysterious. For many people, excrement has a far more unpleasant connotation than s**t, because excrement is reserved for descriptions of filth and squalor whereas s**t is used in a wider range of idioms and casual contexts. Nonetheless, s**t is less acceptable than excrement. People treat an unpleasant word as taboo to the extent that everybody else treats it as taboo… (Pinker, 2007: 357)

Based on Pinker’s statement, excrement is categorized into taboo word but it is not categorized into swearword. Meanwhile, s**t is not only taboo word but

S**t = taboo word = swearword Excrement = taboo  swearword

Further, Ljung (2011: 15-16) says that there are some differences between swearing and non - swearing in which both of them are a part of taboo. The difference can be seen from the following examples.

1. He made her life hell.

2. Oh h**l! H**l!

3. Who the h**l. . .

4. All hell breaks loose.

5. (As) guilty as h**l.

6. The fungus is hell on grasshoppers.

7. Come hell or high water.

8. For the hell of it.

9. Neighbors from hell.

10. She got hell for being absent.

11. They gave her hell for being absent.

12. Go to h**l!

13. The place went to hell (in a hand basket).

14. Hell for leather.

15. H**l’s bells!

16. A/one h**l of a(n)-

17. Get the h**l out.

18. Hell’s half acre ‘a great distance’.

19. It hurt like h**l.

20. Like h**l (it is)!

21. Not a hope in hell.

22. The rough road played hell with the tires.

23. There will be hell to pay.

24. Damn it to h**l!

25. To h**l with her objections!

26. Wait until hell freezes over. The word hell in the italic examples has retained enough of its original

sense to lend itself rather clearly to the metaphorical interpretation “something unpleasant” or “an unpleasant place” That is why it is counted as non-swearing. Then, the underlined examples do not really lend themselves to analysis. On the

D. Swearwords

1. Definition and Characteristics

There is a relation between swearing and swearwords. Swearing is the activities which produce swearwords. This relation is clearly explained by Andersson and Trudgill (1990: 53) who say that swearing can be defined as a type of language use in which the expression

a. refers to something that is taboo and/or stigmatized in the culture;

b. should not be interpreted literally;

c. can be used to express strong emotions and attitudes.

Further, Karjalainen (2002: 18-20) says that swearwords are a part of taboo words. Taboo words or words that refer to taboo are swearwords. Although all swearwords are taboo, not all taboo words are swearwords. Moreover, he says that when defining a swearword, it is important to keep in mind that not all foul language is swearing. Most people would agree that the use of swearwords is an instance of foul or poor use of language. However, the reverse is not, true-foul language does not always automatically involve swearing. For instance, the sentence “They were f**king like rabbits” may be regarded as poor or foul use of language. The word f**k in this example is an instance of swearing, since it is used in a technical sense, or in other words, used to signify the actual act of having intercourse.

According to Ljung (1984: 23), the first important point in defining a swearword is that it should be used in a non – technical sense, i.e. the word bitch, it will be non-swearing when it means a female dog, but it will be swearing when

used to disparage a woman. In line with the requirement of non-technicality, the word Jesus in the sentence “The life and teachings of Jesus forms” is not a swearword but becomes one when used in an exclamation like “Jesus f***ing Christ!”. He adds that a word or an expression should also be used in an emotive way to be classified as a swearword. In this case, he makes a difference between “emotive” and “emotional”. The key to the difference between emotive and emotional is the degree of control a speaker has over a situation, if a person accidentally drops a hammer on his or her foot, he or she probably feels a certain amount of pain, but not enough to lose control, this may result in an emotive expression to vent frustration and anger, e.g. “D**n!” However, if the same person drops a largish anvil on his or her foot, this likely leads to a highly emotional, inarticulate groan or cry of pain.

Jay in The Utility and Ubiquity of Taboo Words (2009: 02) states the characteristics of taboo words which are also be that of swearwords, namely a) sexual references (e.g., bl*w job, *unt), b) profane or blasphemous (e.g., god**n, Jesus Chr**t), c) scatological referents and disgusting objects ( e.g., s**t, cr*p, d**che bag), d) some animal names ( e.g., b**ch, p*g, *ss), e) ethnic–racial– gender slurs (e.g., n*gger, f*g, d*go), f) insulting references to perceived psychological, physical/ social deviations (e.g., ret*rd, w*mp, l*rd *ss), g) substandard vulgar terms (e.g., f*rt face, on the r*g), h) offensive slang (e.g., cl*ster, t*t run). Then, according to Andersson (1985: 79), in western cultures, people generally take taboo words, and swearwords, from one or more of the following categories: a) sexual organs and sexual relations, b) religion and church, Jay in The Utility and Ubiquity of Taboo Words (2009: 02) states the characteristics of taboo words which are also be that of swearwords, namely a) sexual references (e.g., bl*w job, *unt), b) profane or blasphemous (e.g., god**n, Jesus Chr**t), c) scatological referents and disgusting objects ( e.g., s**t, cr*p, d**che bag), d) some animal names ( e.g., b**ch, p*g, *ss), e) ethnic–racial– gender slurs (e.g., n*gger, f*g, d*go), f) insulting references to perceived psychological, physical/ social deviations (e.g., ret*rd, w*mp, l*rd *ss), g) substandard vulgar terms (e.g., f*rt face, on the r*g), h) offensive slang (e.g., cl*ster, t*t run). Then, according to Andersson (1985: 79), in western cultures, people generally take taboo words, and swearwords, from one or more of the following categories: a) sexual organs and sexual relations, b) religion and church,

g) narcotics and crime. Considering the overlap of the use of theory, the research adopts Andersson’s idea about the characteristics of swearwords (1985: 79).

2. Types of Swearing

Andersson and Trudgill (1990: 36-37) classify swearing into four types.

a. Expletive swearing Expletive swearing expresses personal emotions and it is not directed to other people. For example: H**l! S**t! and God d**n it!

b. Abusive swearing Abusive swearing is usually derogatory and directed to others, like name – calling and other kinds of cursing. For example: You *sshole! Go to h**l!

c. Humorous swearing Humorous swearing does not have to be emotional. It can be found in humorous scenes in which it is directed to others but it is not derogatory. It takes mostly the form of abusive swearing but has the opposite functions where the playfulness is the key and not the offensiveness. For example: Get your *ss in gear!

d. Auxiliary swearing Swearing can be used as an auxiliary, directed towards a person or a situation. This type of swearing is used as a way of speaking or sometimes called lazy swearing and often or always non-emphatic. For example: this f**king…, bl**dy…

3. Reasons Influencing the Use of Swearing

According to Adeoye (2005), there are two reasons influencing the use of swearing.

a. Hearing something strange

It usually happens when people hear something that they have never heard before. They tend to give a negative respond to it.

b. Expressing emotions

Swearing is regarded as an emotive or expressive function of language (Crystal, 1997). People are likely to swear when they want to express frustration or anger, surprise or shock, to shock, to amuse, and to insult someone, but sometimes they swear to assert their identity in a group or to indicate friendship (Andersson, 1985).

E. Social Class

According to Milroy and Milroy (1992: 02), social class is fundamentally

a concept designed to elucidate large-scale social, political, and economic structures and processes. Meanwhile, Meyerhoff (2006: 156) defines social class as a measure of status which is often based on occupation, income and wealth. Furthermore, Trudgill (1974: 35) in Rickford (1986: 215) categorizes it into three classes, upper class, middle class, and lower class. Trudgill’s theory is supported by Cannadine (1998: 161) in Kerswill (2007: 53) who states that there are three classes in society, i.e. upper class, middle class, and lower class.

1. Upper Class

Chambers (1995: 37) in Fabricius (2002: 357) states that upper class consists of people with inherited wealth and privileges. Meanwhile, Groot (2002:

02) assumes that the higher class people are people who are likely to be assumed or be given to control over people, places, systems, information, property, etc. A key to uprooting classism as well as racism, sexism, and other forms of oppression is the redistribution of control. The upper classes currently have enormous control over much of the everyday lives of everyone else, for it is the upper classes who decide who gets what and how come. In many cases the control is held in place by the buffer teachers, police, security, social workers, etc. People in the upper classes tend to hold on control in large and small things because this is what they are taught. At the same time, people in the “under classes” are systematically trained to give up control.

In addition, Gibert (1998) in Shepard (2003: 255) states that “aristocracy” is at the top of this class. Its members represent the old-money families whose names appear in high society, such as Ford, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, and du Pont. The basis for membership in this most elite of clubs is blood rather than sweat and tears. Parents in this class send their children to the best private schools and universities. Investors, heirs, and chief executive officers are also categorized in this class.

2. Middle Class

Kerswill (2006: 01) states that by the beginning of the twentieth century,

“middle classes”, including managers and bureaucrats, whose wealth was not linked to capital or property. That statement is supported by Milroy (1992: 18). He states that doctors, lawyers, teachers, welfare personnel, and the like are categorized in the middle class.

This condition also happens in the United States as Shepard (2003: 255) state that most Americans think of themselves as Middle Class, but in reality, only

40 to 50 percent of Americans fit this description. They also add that the middle class is composed variedly of those who have been successful in business, the professions, politics, and the military. They are typically educated in a college and have high educational and career goals for their children. However, owners of small business and farms, independent professionals (small-town doctors and lawyers), and other professionals (clergy, teachers, nurses, social workers and police officers) are categorized in this class.

3. Lower Class

Shepard (2003: 255) use “underclass” term to refer to lower class. They state that the underclass is composed of people who are usually unemployed and who come from families with a history of unemployment generations. They either work in part-time menial jobs (unloading trucks and picking up litter) or are on public assistance. In addition to a lack of education and skills, many members of the underclass have other problems. Physical or mental disabilities are common and many are single mothers with little or no income. They also add that the most commonly shared characteristics of the underclass are a lack of skills to obtain jobs that pay enough money to meet basic needs.

F. From Paris with Love Movie

From Paris with Love is a spy thriller movie directed by Pierre Morel. The script is written by Luc Beson and Adi Hasak. This movie involves some big Hollywood artists such as John Travolta, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, and Kasia Smutniak

This movie tells about a personal aid to the U.S. Ambassador in France, James Reese (Jonathan Rhys Meyers), who has an enviable life in Paris and beautiful French girlfriend, but his real passion is his side job as a low- level operative for the CIA. Reese actually wants to become a bona fide agent and see some real actions. Thus, when he is offered his first senior-level assignment, he cannot believe his good luck until he meets his new partner special agent, Charlie Wax (John Travolta).

Reese’s first test is to have Wax released from airport detention by the French Customs when Wax does not surrender the cans of his favorite energy drink. Despite the apparent triviality of an energy drink that Wax could probably purchase in Paris, Wax keeps orally abusing French Customs until Reese places a Diplomatic Mail sticker on Wax’s luggage containing the energy drink which makes them immune from Customs and Quarantine requirements.

Once in the car, Wax apologizes for his behavior and opens the tins that contain pieces of his personal stainless steel pistol (named “Mrs. Jones”). Reese discovers that Wax has been sent to Paris to stop terrorist attack. Beginning with a Chinese restaurant which becomes cocaine supplier in the drugs ring, Wax leads Reese to against Asian gangsters, and some criminals in the Parisian underworld.

Then, when Reese and Wax against some Pakistani terrorists in an apartment, they discover that Reese is the target of the same crime ring they are trying to arrest, and it makes him shocked and confused. Finally, they realize that the mission that they are facing is really a mission to trace the money back to a circle of Pakistani terrorist. In the Pakistani center which becomes cocaine market and prostitution center, they find some explosive vest on the tables in a room which prove that the Pakistanis are terrorists in France.

Ultimately, Reese learns that the terrorist, who he and Wax wiped out mostly, are targeting a summit and that his fiancée, Caroline (Kasia Smutniak) is one of them. Caroline tries to be a suicide bomber who will explode the summit, while the last remaining terrorist tries to attack the US Motorcade with a car that has a bomb. However, before the Pakistani crashes his car to the motorcade, Wax successfully explodes the terrorist’s car with AT4 rocket launcher. In the summit, Reese tries to convince Caroline to stop her action, and is apparently successful at first, but when she reaches to trigger her bomb, he has no choice but to shoot her head. Wax disarms the bomb and the threat is over. Later, after that incident, Reese becomes an official agent of CIA, escorts Wax to his plane. Wax offers for Reese to be his full - time partner, but Reese refuses it.

G. Previous Research

There is a previous research having swearing as the topic of investigation. This research was conducted by Budiwanto Cipto (2006) as undergraduate thesis in Petra Christian University entitled “An Analysis of Swearwords in Jackass: the Movie”. The similarity between Cipto’s research and current research is on the There is a previous research having swearing as the topic of investigation. This research was conducted by Budiwanto Cipto (2006) as undergraduate thesis in Petra Christian University entitled “An Analysis of Swearwords in Jackass: the Movie”. The similarity between Cipto’s research and current research is on the

The difference of this current research from the previous one is based on the object and the aims of the research. The object of this research is the dialogues of From Paris with Love movie. Meanwhile, Cipto’s is the dialogues in Jackass: the Movie. Then, this research identifies the types of swearing, reasons of swearing, and the relationship between swearing and social, while the previous one only investigate the characteristics and reasons.

H. Theoretical Framework

This research aims to investigate From Paris with Love covering three important points of objectives, i.e. types of swearing, reasons influencing the use of swearing, and the relationship between swearing and social class in the society based on the situation in From Paris with Love. This research was conducted based on sociolinguistics approach, considering that sociolinguistics is the study of the ways people use language in social interaction. It does not only study about good language, but also bad language or dirty language which is often prohibited to be spoken in society.

Then, the researcher refers to Jay’s classification system (1992) in Doyle (2006: 02-03) which says that bad language has 10 (ten) classifications, i.e. 1) cursing, 2) profanity, 3) blasphemy, 4) taboo, 5) obscenity, 6) vulgar, 7) epithets,

8) insults and slurs, 9) scatology, and 10) slang.

To answer the first question, this research uses Andersson and Trudgill’s classification of types of swearing (1990: 36-37). They are expletive swearing, abusive swearing, humorous swearing, and auxiliary swearing.

To get the reasons influencing the use of swearing which occur in From Paris with Love, this research employs Adeoye’s theory (2005) that there are two reasons behind the use of swearing, they are hearing something strange and expressing emotions. In expressing emotion, people swear when they want to express frustration or anger, surprise or shock, to shock, to amuse, and to insult someone, but sometimes they swear to assert their identity in a group or to indicate friendship.

Moreover, to get the relationship between swearing and social class in society based on the situation in From Paris with Love, the researcher uses Trudgill’s (1974: 35) categorization of social class related to linguistic features,

i.e. upper, middle, and lower class.

Age Social Class

Gender

Good Language

Bad Language

Insults & Slurs

Blasphemy

Profanity Cursing

Swearing

Non - Swearing

Notes: ES

: Expletive Swearing

HSS

: Hearing something strange

SHO

: To shock

ABS : Abusive Swearing

EE : Expressing emotions

AMU

: To amuse

HS : Humorous Swearing

FRU

: To express frustration or anger

INS

: To insult someone

AUS : Auxiliary Swearing

SUR

: To express surprised or shocked

FR

: To indicate friendship or assert identity in a group

Figure 1: Analytical Construct of “An Analysis of Swearing

in From Paris with Love Movie”

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD

A. Type of the Research

This research employed qualitative method. According to Vanderstoep and Johnston (2009: 167), this method emposes cultural, social, and personal identity, and its purpose is more descriptive than predictive. This is in line with what the researcher aimed in this research, to identify and to describe the types of swearing which occur in From Paris with Love, to describe the reasons influencing the characters of the movie swear, and to explain the relationship between swearing and social class in society based on the situation in the movie.

B. Data and Source of the Data

The data of this research were dialogues containing swearwords uttered by the characters of From Paris with Love movie. Meanwhile, the source of the research was divided into two, i.e. primary source and secondary source. The primary source of the data was From Paris with Love movie. Then, the secondary source was the script of the movie downloaded from the internet.

C. Instruments of the Research

In qualitative research, according to Moleong (2009: 56), the researcher acts as the main instrument. The researcher is the planner, the data collector, the data analyzer, and the data reporter of the research. In this research, the researcher was the main instrument. In addition, the secondary instrument which helped the researcher was data sheet. The data sheet is in the form of table for the types of In qualitative research, according to Moleong (2009: 56), the researcher acts as the main instrument. The researcher is the planner, the data collector, the data analyzer, and the data reporter of the research. In this research, the researcher was the main instrument. In addition, the secondary instrument which helped the researcher was data sheet. The data sheet is in the form of table for the types of

N Code Swear E A H A H o EE Explanation

Dialogue

word S B S U S F S S A S I S S R U H M N F U R O U S R

Caroline calls FRU/00: Reese.)

1. 19 ES-EE- (In a toilet, Caroline calls

Shit

Reese when he is 35:20

Reese: Caroline, I'm sorry, I in a toilet but meant to call you.

suddenly his hand phone battery is

Caroline:

low. Here the type disappeared. Where are

You

just

of swearing is you?

expletive because (Reese’s hand phone battery

it does not point is low)

to somebody else and it express

Reese: S**t 19 !

frustration.

Abbreviations: 00:16:44 : Hour: 00; Minute: 16; Second: 44

ES : Expletive Swearing ABS

: Abusive Swearing HS

: Humorous Swearing AUS

: Auxiliary Swearing HSS

: Hearing something strange EE : Expressing Emotions

FRU : To express frustration or anger SUR

: To express surprised or shocked SHO

: To shock AMU

: To amuse INS

: To insult someone FR

: To indicate friendship & assert identity in a group

D. Technique of Data Collection