The analysis of Taboo words and swear words in George Carlin`s monologue seven words you can’t say on television.

(1)

ABSTRACT

Kurniawan, Erda. 2015. The Analysis of Taboo Words and Swear Words in George Carlin’s Monologue Seven Words You Can’t Say on Television

Yogyakarta: English Language Education Study Program, Department of Language and Arts Education, Faculty of Teachers and Training and Education, Sanata Dharma University.

This thesis discusses the emergence of taboo words and swear words in

George Carlin’s monologue entitled Seven Words You Can’t Say on Television. This occurrence is considered problematic by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC). The Supreme Court then upheld the right of FCC to define indecent material using some those taboo words and swear words for the consideration.

This study aims at observing how problematic the occurrence taboo of words and swear word in the monologue is. Hence, the problems are formulated as follows: 1.What are the references or senses of taboo words and swear words

uttered in George Carlin’s monologue? 2. How are the taboo words and swear

words used in George Carlin’s monologue?

This study uses content analysis method. The research subjects of this research are the recorded version of the monologue Seven Words You Can’t Say on Television and the transcription of the monologue. Several relevant books related to some theories such as semantics, pragmatics, sociolinguistics, psychology, and history are used as the references to address the problem formulation.

Based on the analysis, this study found that the reference or sense of the taboo words and swear words in this monologue are included in six themes such as profanity, sexual activity, bodily effluvia, intimated part of the body, ancestral allusion, and name of animal. Then, Carlin utters the taboo words and swear words in five ways: descriptively, idiomatically, abusively, emphatically, and cathartically.

(2)

Kurniawan, Erda. 2015. The Analysis of Taboo Words and Swear Words in George Carlin’s Monologue Seven Words You Can’t Say on Television

Yogyakarta: Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa dan Seni, Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan, Universitas Sanata Dharma.

Skripsi ini membahas kata tabu dan kata makian yang ada dalam monolog George Carlin yang berjudul Seven Words You Can’t Say on Television. Kemunculan kata tabu dan kata makian tersebut dianggap bermasalah oleh Federal Communication Commission (FCC). Mahkamah Konstitusi Amerika kemudian memberikan hak kepada FCC untuk merumuskan materi yang dianggap tidak layak dengan menggunakan kata tabu dan kata makian yang ada dalam monolog George Carlin tersebut sebagai rujukan.

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengamati seberapa bermasalah kata tabu dan kata makian yang ada dalam monolog tersebut. Oleh karena itu, masalah dirumuskan sebagai berikut: 1. Apa referensi dan pengertian dari kata tabu dan kata makian yang diucapkan dalam monolog George Carlin tersebut? 2. Bagaimana kata tabu dan kata makian tersebut digunakan dalam monolog ini?

Penelitian ini menerapkan metode analisis isi. Subjek dari penelitian ini adalah rekaman dari monolog George Carlin yang berjudul Seven Words You Can’t Say on Television dan transkrip dari rekaman tersebut. Buku-buku yang relevan terkait beberapa teori seperti semantik, pragmatik, sosiolinguistik, psikologi, dan sejarah juga digunakan sebagai rujukan untuk menjawab rumusan masalah.

Berdasarkan hasil analisis, penelitian ini menemukan bahwa referensi dan pengertian dari kata tabu dan kata makian dalam monolog tersebut mencakup enam tema, yaitu kiasan terhadap istilah religius, aktivitas seksual, hasil keluaran tubuh, bagian intim tubuh, kiasan terhadap garis keturunan, dan nama binatang. Kemudian, Carlin mengungkapkan kata tabu dan kata makian tersebut dengan lima cara, yaitu secara deskriptif, idiomatik, abusif, empatik, dan katartik.

(3)

THE ANALYSIS OF TABOO WORDS AND SWEAR WORDS

IN GEORGE CARLIN’S MONOLOGUE

SEVEN WORDS

YOU CAN’T SAY ON TELEVISION

A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

in English Language Education

By

Kristoforus Erda Kurniawan

Student Number: 091214052

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM

DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ART EDUCATION

FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY

YOGYAKARTA

(4)

SEVEN WORDS

YOU CAN’T SAY ON TELEVISION

A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

in English Language Education

By

Kristoforus Erda Kurniawan

Student Number: 091214052

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM

DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ART EDUCATION

FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY

YOGYAKARTA

(5)

_@crn

Pewdidikan Thesis on

THE ANALYSIS OF TABOO WORDS AND SWEAR WORDS

\

_IN

_GEORGE

_CARLIN'S

_MONOLOGUE

SEWN WOftITS

Y.Oq

CAN'T

SAY ON

TELEWSION

Apprwed by

(6)

IN

GEORGE

CARLIN'S

MONOLOGUE

SEWN WORDS YOU

CAN'T

SAY ON

TELEWSION

Kristoforus Erda Kurniawan Student Number: 091214052

' .i

Deferded b9{o1e the Board of Examiners

rr

_{: on}

_February_5h,2a15

and Declared dcceptable

Board ofExaminers

Chairperson : P. Kuswandono, Ph.D.

Secretary

: Drs. Ba,rii Bram,:MF.d,, Ph,D,

Member

: Drs. Barli Bram,'M,Ed., Ph.D,

Member

: Drs. Y.B. Gunawan, M.A.

Member

: P. Kuswandono, Ph.D.

Yogyakart4 February 5'h:, 2Ol 5

Faculty of Teachers Training and Educatidn Sanata Dharma University

Dean

Rohandi, Ph.D.

(7)

DEDICATION PAGE

It's a great word,

fuck,

nice word, easy word,

cute word, kind of easy

word to say…

-George Carlin-

(8)

h*estly

declare that ttris thesiq which I have written, does not contain the work or parts of the work of other people, except those cited in the quotations and the references, as a sciertific paper should.

Yogyakart4 Febnrary Ss, zOtS

The Writer

09rzt4052

(9)

LEMB^A.R PERI\IYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI KARYA

ILMIAII

T'NTUK KEPENTINGAI\ AXAONVTTS

Yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini, saya mahasiswa Universitas Sanata Dharma:

Nama

: Kristoforus Erda Kumiawan

NomorMahasiswa

:091214052

Demi pengembangan ilmu pengetahuan, saya mernberikan kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma karyailmiah saya yang berjudul:

THE

ANALYSIS OF TABOO WORDS

AI\D

SWEAR WORDS

IN

GEORGE

CARLIN'S MONOLOGUE

SEVEN

WORDS YOU

CAN'T

SAY ON

TELEVISION

Beserta perangkat yang diperlukan (bila ada). Dengan demikian saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma

hak untuk

menyimpan, mengalihkan dalam bentuk media lain, mengelolanya dalam bentuk pangkalan data, mendistribusikan secara terbatas, dan mempublikasikannya di internet atau media

lain

untuk kepantingan akademis tanpa perlu meminta

ijin

dari

saya maupun mernberikan royalti kepada saya selama tetap mencantumkan nama saya sebagai penulis.

Demikian pernyataan ini yang saya buat dengan sebenarnya.

Dibuat di Yogyakarta

Pada tangg al 23 J anuai 201 5 Yang menyatakan

vl Kristoforus Erda Kurniawan

(10)

vii

Kurniawan, Erda. 2015. The Analysis of Taboo Words and Swear Words in

George Carlin’s Monologue Seven Words You Can’t Say on Television

Yogyakarta: English Language Education Study Program, Department of Language and Arts Education, Faculty of Teachers and Training and Education, Sanata Dharma University.

This thesis discusses the emergence of taboo words and swear words in

George Carlin’s monologue entitled Seven Words You Can’t Say on Television. This occurrence is considered problematic by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC). The Supreme Court then upheld the right of FCC to define indecent material using some those taboo words and swear words for the consideration.

uttered in George Carlin’s monologue? 2. How are the taboo words and swear words used in George Carlin’s monologue?

This study uses content analysis method. The research subjects of this research are the recorded version of the monologue Seven Words You Can’t Say on Television and the transcription of the monologue. Several relevant books related to some theories such as semantics, pragmatics, sociolinguistics, psychology, and history are used as the references to address the problem formulation.

(11)

viii

ABSTRAK

Kurniawan, Erda. 2015. The Analysis of Taboo Words and Swear Words in

George Carlin’s Monologue Seven Words You Can’t Say on Television

Yogyakarta: Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa dan Seni, Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan, Universitas Sanata Dharma.

Penelitian ini menerapkan metode analisis isi. Subjek dari penelitian ini adalah rekaman dari monolog George Carlin yang berjudul Seven Words You

Can’t Say on Television dan transkrip dari rekaman tersebut. Buku-buku yang relevan terkait beberapa teori seperti semantik, pragmatik, sosiolinguistik, psikologi, dan sejarah juga digunakan sebagai rujukan untuk menjawab rumusan masalah.

(12)

First, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to The Creator for giving me life. Every challenge given to me makes me stronger in accomplishing each phase of life.

I respectfully express my gratitude to my advisor, Drs. Barli Bram, M.Ed., Ph.D., for sharing his idea and knowledge. I appreciate his support, trust, and patience in guiding me to write this undergraduate thesis. My gratitude also goes to all of the lecturers and staff of the English Education Study Programme for all their help and guidance during my study at this university.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my beloved parents, Norbertus Darmadiyono and Yosephin Erika Lestari, for giving me a chance to attend this university. Their affection and sacrifice for me are irreplaceable. The support and prayer from them are the eternal fuel for the journey of my life. I also thank my only sister, Kristofora Erma Kurniawati, for giving me countless inspirations.

I really thank all of my comrades in UKPM Natas who play an important role in introducing some perspectives of knowing the world. I would also thank all my fellows in English Language Education Study Programme for their care and cooperation in accomplishing the study at ELESP of Sanata Dharma University.

At the end, I would like also express my dearest gratitude to Teresia Dian Triutami, with whom I share story, laughter, and tear. She is the one who gives

(13)

the strongest psychological support and instills a positive anxiety in me so that I can finally complete this thesis.

(14)

TITLE PAGE ... i

APPROVAL PAGES ... ii

DEDICATION PAGE ... iv

STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY ... v

PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI ... vi

ABSTRACT ... vii

ABSTRAK ... viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... xi

LIST OF APPENDICES ... xiv

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ... 1

1.1. Research Background ... 1

1.2. Research Problem ... 6

1.3. Problem Limitation ... 7

1.4. Research Objectives ... 7

1.5. Research Benefits ... 8

1.6. Definition of Terms ... 9

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELETED LITERATURE ... 12

2.1. Theoretical Description ... 12

2.1.1 The Concept of Taboo ... 12

2.1.2. Major Topics of Taboo Words ... 19

2.1.3. Taboo Words and Swear Words ... 23

(15)

xii

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY ... 35

3.1. Research Method ... 35

3.2. Research Setting ... 36

3.3. Research Subject ... 36

3.4. Instruments and Data Gathering technique ... 36

3.5. Data Analysis Technique ... 37

3.6. Research Procedure ... 38

CHAPTER IV RESEACH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ... 41

4.1. The References and Senses of the Taboo Words and Swear Words ... 41

4.1.1. Profanity ... 42

4.1.2. Sexual Activity ... 42

4.1.3. Bodily Effluvia ... 43

4.1.4. Intimated Part of the Body ... 44

4.1.5. Ancestral Allusion ... 44

4.1.6. Name of Animal ... 45

4.2. How the Taboo Words and Swear Words Are Used ... 45

4.2.1. Taboo Words or Swear Words Uttered Descriptively ... 46

4.2.2. Taboo Words or Swear Words Uttered Idiomatically ... 63

4.2.3. Taboo Words or Swear Words Uttered Abusively... 80

(16)

xiii

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... 89

5.1. Conclusions ... 89

5.2. Recommendations ... 91

REFERENCES ... 93

(17)

xiv

LIST OF APPENDICES

Page Appendix A The transcript of Seven Words You Can’t Say on Television ... 98

Appendix B The Table of Reference and Sense ... 104

(18)

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This chapter discusses six major sections: the research background, research problem, problem limitation, research objectives, research benefits, and definition of terms.

1.1. Research Background

Since Ramadan Month of 2012 Komisi Penyiaran Indonesia (Indonesian Broadcasting Commision), or KPI in short, had a lot of task keeping an eye on some Ramadan-themed television programs. Recently KPI had found several programs which were considered problematic by several cases, one of which was conclusively about the use of some indecent words by the hosts or people involved in the programs toward others (as can be seen at http://www.kpi.go.id/index.php/siaran-pers-1/30755-pelanggaran-serupa-dan-berulang-di-acara-komedi-ramadhan). The official site of KPI, www.kpi.go.id, noted that there were seven Ramadan-themed television programs which were accused to infringe the law of Indonesian broadcasting six of which were comedy shows. KPI then has sent admonitory letters to the stations which

(19)

2 Almost the same but quite different cases also happened in the USA. Indecent words case in American media frequently attracted the attention of the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) since 1937 (Levi, 2008). Yet, one of the influential cases is FCC v. PacificaFoundation in which George Carlin was posed to be the defendant. In 1975, the FCC reprimanded Pacifica Foundation due to broadcasting Carlin’s Filthy Words routine in its radio channel namely WBAI FM, New York. The case began when WBAI FM aired a recorded comedic monologue performed by Carlin entitled Seven Words You Can’t Say on Television in 1973. A father (John Douglas) who once was driving with his son heard the broadcast and sent a complaint letter to FCC a few weeks later. Carlin’s monologue was considered to be full of obscene words which are not appropriate to be heard especially by kids.

FCC then claimed that Carlin’s monologue was “patently offensive” (Samaha, 2010). Later in 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed FCC to regulate (prohibit)

“indecency” on broadcast radio or television during the hours when children were

likely to be listening (Pinker, 2008) using some (considered) indecent words appearing in Carlin’s monologue as the consideration (Levi, 2008). There are seven words which could not be said on broadcast, i.e. shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits. Here is the influential point of this case.

Since then, The Supreme Court upheld FCC’s right to define that to be obscene materials must meet three criteria (by means known as Miller Test): first, an average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as whole, appeals to the prurient interest; second, the material must depict or

(20)

3 describe, in patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; third, the material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literacy, artistic, political or scientific value (Ljung, 2011, p. 10; Levi, 2008; Pinker, 2007).

However, some claimed that the definition was not determinative enough to convey the punishable act which was aired (Ljung, 2011, p.10). The “contemporary

community standards”, as the first point states, was claimed to be no more than ideas of morality possessed by the commissioners themselves (Levi, 2008). This condition made a slight fissure of debatable issue, especially for those who concerned about free speech. The most conflict was the clash between the regulation and the First Amendment of the U.S. constitution which guaranteed that the government would not interfere with the publication of mass media as the symbol of democracy. However, The Supreme Court claimed that the case of obscenity was excluded from the protection of the First Amendment (Cohen, 2002).

In response to this policy, Carlin himself insisted that his monologue had an origin in a love of words (Carlin, 1997). Steven Pinker (2008), a psychologist, wrote an article The Atlantic Magazine stating that Carlin said fuck not to describe sexual activities nor to shock the audience, but to show how people use taboo words and the government should not regulate them. Pinker came to this statement with the notion

that the rules (which restricted Carlin’s speech) “mocks” the very rationale for free

speech. Adam M. Samaha (2010) in his Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper

claimed that the decision of FCC “had an archaic quality”. Since the internet is freely accessible, many people can still watch Carlin’s “list of over two-hundred filthy

(21)

4 words from a long scroll” (Samaha, 2010). The strugglers of free speech, such as Mark Leigh and Mike Lepine (2005), Jonathan Hunt (2009), and some others delivered denial opinion about the policy separately.

In fact, it was not Carlin solely who had been charged by FCC due to indecent word case. Some exemplary series of similar cases were sanctioned as follows: first,

James Joyce’s book Ulysses was declared obscene and banned in the United States in 1921; second, Lady Chatterley’s Lover of D.H. Lawrence was banned in the United

States due the case of “obscene libel” and the use of taboo words in 1928; third, between 1961 and 1964 the comedian Lenny Bruce was frequently arrested for obscenity and banned from performing in many cities. Bruce’s popular themes were satires about some issues like abortion, drugs, the Ku Klux Klan, and the Roman Catholic Church (Hughes, 2006, p 435). He then died in 1968 while appealing a four-month sentence by a New York Court and was finally pardoned by the Governor thirty-seven years after his death (Pinker, 2007); fourth, the FCC fined Howard Stern for violation by shock jocks. He was fined $ 1.7 million which was the highest fine ever paid for the case of indecency (Levi, 2008; Pinker, 2007; Hughes, 2006).

The fear of the FCC and the U.S. Supreme Court is somewhat depicted schematically in Stanley Cohen’s Moral Panic theory. There are the “folk devil”

(scapegoat to be blamed for a state of affair) and the “moral entrepreneur” (the

interest group intending to eliminate the moral problem) who conflicted about values (McEnery, 2006). In his theory, Cohen (2002) explained that the rampancy of swear words might harm the morality of the citizen, particularly to the youth depending on

(22)

5 the context in England at that time. Meanwhile, McEnery (2006) criticizes that the debate about morality was very ambiguous with vague goal and (the case’s contextualization) was outdated. McEnery also claims that the state of problem was posed for the sake of those who took advantage from the absence (and the presence) of the taboo words in media. In the case of FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, similar scheme is obvious considering the case that the FCC maintains the increasing amount of fine (forfeiture) which Levi (2008) claims “as minor costs of doing bussines”. Here Carlin (as well as WBAI FM) was accused to be the folk devil while the FCC and the Supreme Court played as the moral entrepreneur.

Are those words so bad that the FCC could be such reactive about the case? Meanwhile, Andersson and Trudgill (1990) say that no words are bad. Since then it is

important to convey the meaning beyond Carlin’s utterances of indecent words. Here semantic and pragmatic analysis of those words plays an important role. Yet, the discussion about indecent words is always covered by the moral and cultural boundaries (context). However, the value which the moral based on cannot as well be separated from the power dominating certain area, as it is schemed by McEnery. The sure thing is that the indecent words have a strong relation with things which is claimed as taboo. This thesis will analyze further the taboo words and swear words uttered by Carlin in his monologue to provide semantic and pragmatic understanding about those words.

In the realm of education, the occurrence of taboo words and swear words is highly restricted. It is similarly expressed by Fairman (2006) that “public school

(23)

6 students do not shed their constitutional right to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate” (p. 61). However, taboo words and swear words are a phenomenon which is present in daily language across ages, gender, and social class (Howe, 2012). Jay (2000) claims that taboo topics are not regarded as a legitimate topic for scholarly examination due to the nature of the taboo itself, which perpetuates and strengthens the taboo within the culture (p. 10). As the future teacher of English, the ELESP students should be able to teach their ESL students well about taboo, swear words, and their implementation in order to understand that phenomenon. Some universities, like University of Colorado Denver, have had a

curricular subject which discusses “taboo” in particular (the syllabus can be seen in appendix C). By adopting Carlin’s monologue as a model, this thesis tries to provide information and analysis about taboo words and swear words which might help make the design. Being taught properly about taboo words and swear words, the ESL students are expected to be able to use taboo words and swear words appropriately and know the situation in which they have to use them or not.

1.2. Research Problems

This study addresses two research questions:

1. What are the references or senses of the taboo words and swear words uttered in Carlin’s monologue?

(24)

7 1.3. Problem Limitation

In this research, the writer focuses on analyzing words, phrases, or sentences which contain words with taboo as their origin (both taboo words and swear words). In his monologue Carlin provides the contexts where the taboo words and swear word are uttered. The scope of this research is the semantic and pragmatic aspect which makes the taboo words and swear words. The other words, phrases, or sentences which do not contain taboo words/ swear words or do not have a relation with those words are not going to be analyzed further.

Primarily the form of the data is recorded monologue, but for this research the writer used the verbatim transcription of Seven Words You Can’t Say on Television monologue in order to be easier for the writer to analyze and present the analysis. The writer uses only one of Carlin’s monologues due to its abundance of taboo words and swear words which is considered to be sufficient to be analyzed in this thesis.

1.4. Research Objectives The purposes of this study are:

1. To figure out the taboo-themed words used in Carlin monologue Seven Words You Can’t Say on Television and their reference or sense. These various taboo words and swear words will provide different cases in which those usually emerge. These miscellanea might also enrich the historical and linguistic context

(25)

8 of the swear words in this study. The writer will describe the historical contexts from which the swear words originates if necessary. Obviously, the contexts are still related to the existence of taboo.

2. To find out the pragmatic aspect taboo words and swear words uttered. Despite the cultural contexts, there is also a certain way of using taboo words and swear words in the speech. The writer will determine the pragmatic aspect of the taboo words or swear words by considering the contexts provided in the utterances in which those words take place.

1.5. Research Benefits

The benefits of this research are as follows:

1. For scholars: The background knowledge of taboo, taboo words and swear words will help the students understand the context in which taboo words and swear words are acceptable. The information in this research can improve the understanding about the concept of taboo and the words derived from it which is least in curricular education material. Although it is somewhat restricted to openly use taboo words or swear words, the scholars might use them for the other informal contexts which are also valuable in learning English as a second language.

(26)

9 2. For future researchers: As this research contains information about taboo, taboo

words, and swear words. The researchers who want to conduct similar research can use the information in this thesis as a reference.

3. For those who are interested in the discussion about taboo, taboo words, or swear words: This thesis is expected to be a source of information for those who need to know about taboo, taboo words, and swear words. Taboo words and swear words might occur in daily conversation. Hopefully, the information within can help the reader understand the matters of taboo words and swear words.

1.6. Definition of Terms

There are several key words which are better to be understood to deal with the research of this thesis. Here is the definition of those considered important terms: 1. Taboo

Taboo is generally used to describe something which is “unmentionable” in the sense that it is ”ineffably sacred” or “unspeakably vile” (Hughes, 2006). In the context of this research taboo refers to anything or any activity which is considered not appropriate to reveal in front of public.

2. Taboo words

Taboo words are words which refer to things which are considered taboo. The emergence of these words is strictly avoided and their presence is hardly received

(27)

10 by the society (Hughes, 2006). Taboo words include oath, blasphemy or profanity (hell, damn, bloody Mary), obscenity or vulgarity (fuck, shit, piss, pussy, cock), ethnic/ racial slurs (yankee, kaffir, gringo, nigger), and so on.

3. Swear words

Swear words are taboo words which are uttered by involving emotive function and do not refer to its literal meaning (Ljung, 2011). The eleventh edition of Oxford English Dictionary mentions that the emotion carried on in swearing is merely anger. Whereas, in the context of this research, swear words can also express any other emotions like happiness (Scherer & Sagarin, 2006).

4. Reference

Reference is the actual object or real world entity picked out by a linguistic expression (Frawley, 1992). Reference is also understood as a relation that holds between speakers and what they are talking about in particular occasions (Lyons, 1995, p. 294).

5. Sense

Sense means the idea or other information derived from how the expression is expressed as the product of logic (Lyons, 1995). Frawley (1992) also conceptualizes that sense is all the information which makes a sentence meaningful to someone who may or may not know the referential facts of a word.

From the definitions above it can be synthesized that this research analyzes the meaning of the words, phrases, or sentences as a unit of utterance which contain words which have taboo reference, whether they are in the form of taboo words or

(28)

11 swear words. This research will take an eye on every qualified word which is uttered by Gorge Carlin in his monologue entitled Seven Words You Can’t Say on Television.

(29)

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter reviews some related studies which support the present research. There are two major points that are discussed in this section. The first point is the theoretical description which reviews some theories and also other related studies relevant to the topic. The second point is the theoretical framework which provides the synthesized major theories which help the researcher solve the research questions.

2.1. Theoretical Description

Before going further to the analysis of taboo words in Carlin‟s monologue it is important to convey the basic concept of taboo and some topics related to it.

2.1.1. The Concept of Taboo

Since the origin of taboo words and swear words is from a sort of things considered taboo, it is important to dig out the concept of taboo itself for the reason that it will be the notional basic of the whole discussion in this thesis. Factually, there is no certain author capable of defining taboo precisely. Yet, some authors note that the word “taboo” came from Tongan as its origin (spelled „tabu‟

(30)

priests, or chiefs, and therefore prohibited for general use (Hughes, 2006, p. 462). . However, the concept of taboo grows in ages adapting the cultural contexts which bound the culture and the society. The context also includes the moral value which is accepted and embedded within a society. As a result, the present understanding about taboo somehow differs from the context in which that word was firstly accepted by the society.

Freud (2004) defines taboo in the context of ancient Aboriginal Australian. He explains that Aboriginal Australian professes totemism as their system of tribal life. Different symbols of totem are attached to the clans (clans are the smaller division of the tribe). Totem itself could be animals or sometimes plants and some natural phenomena (such as rain or water) which are believed to be their “guardian spirit” protecting the clans from danger by its oracle (p.3). Therefore, the members of a clan must not destroy, kill, eat its flesh, nor take benefit from their totem to avoid the consecutive sanction. Thus, as Freud claims, this relation between the totem and the tribe is called “sacred obligation”. Besides, it is also noted that totemism has a strong bond with exogamy. The totem symbolized by the clan functions as sign to prevent incest among the same totemic clans. Thereby, marrying or having sexual intercourse with the same member of the clan (with the same totem) is prohibited. Conclusively Freud notes that there are two taboos of which violation would lead the breaker to death as the penalty.

(31)

Freud emphasizes that since people do not have the exact concept of taboo, it is hard to define precisely what taboo really is. Yet in an attempt to define taboo, Freud highlights that the meaning of taboo diverges in two contrary directions: „sacred‟ or „consecrated‟ and „uncanny‟, „dangerous‟, „forbidden‟, or

„unclean‟ (p. 21). Above that all, Freud also underscores that taboo is then manifested in „prohibition and restriction‟. It is obvious that Freud determines the meaning of taboo based on his finding which is still related to Aboriginal Australian context.

Coming out from the context of Aboriginal Australian, some authors also offer some other definitions of taboo in more general sense. Hughes admits that taboo in present context transforms into some prohibitions and restrictions varying in all societies (2006, p. 462). It indicates that there are different taboos in different regions of which cultures are also distinct. Hughes then tries to expand the definition into some aspects in which taboo is manifested. The manifestation could be in several relations of things, creatures, human experiences, condition, deeds, and words. Yet, all of those manifestations still convey the sense of “ought

to be avoided” and “strictly speaking”. Further Hughes extracts that prohibition is

fundamental and found in taboos in all societies, prohibition in doing either in

saying. Here only left the notion of “prohibition” and the main reason why the things are prohibited disappears by time and space.

Dwelling upon Jay‟s logic, this condition is then accommodated by an institution to fill the vain in which the notion of taboo is absent. Jay (2009) explains that the fear of taboo is not naturally embedded within each individual.

(32)

regulate and define the taboo and have right to punish those who break the prohibition (Allan & Burridge, 2006, p. 154).

An example of this case is described by Foucault (1978). Foucault explains that sex is defined as taboo by Victorian regime. At the beginning of the seventeenth century, the theme “sex” was more freely spoken, discussed, or even performed. Actually, there had existed the codes which regulated sexual matters. Yet, those codes were not too strict compared to those of the nineteenth century. Foucault explains that condition as the period when bodies “made display of

themselves” (p.3).

But then, after the Victorian bourgeoisie took place, the discussion about sex was then put into silence and the pleasure about sex was strictly concealed. Sex had to aim for procreative purpose under a penal law. Those who employed sexual pleasure not for procreative purpose must be sanctioned. Since then sexual intercourse should be done by married couple in a private room. Topic about sex must only be discussed in confessional as Christianity also took role in that censorship (p. 20). Even uttering a subject of sex (which had been claimed as indecent) in public would cost death penalty. It was until 1617 people were burned to death as the sanction for saying indecent words (Sulistya, 2012, p.246).

Then why must that prohibition be legalized in that certain period? Population was considered as wealth and labor capacity, which became an economic and political problem of England in that period (Foucault, 1978, p. 25).

(33)

The government needed many labors to establish their industrial state. Thus, many new human were needed every year to perpetuate the run of the industry. Here the government acted as the “institution” itself. That archaic example conveyed that a power might define taboo and propagate hegemony toward people.

Therefore, the two different examples presented by Freud and Foucault

still contain the notion of “prohibition”. Yet, the two examples are somewhat

different in how the “prohibition” is made. People of Australian aborigine

considered their taboo as their “sacred obligation”, which means the prohibition is

conventionally received. Meanwhile, in Foucault (1978), the prohibition arises from authority or power with a set of law. There is also an unrevealed interest of the institution to establish the prohibition i.e. industrialization of the state.

The hegemony about taboo heralded by the institution supported by its apparatus (law, media, etc.) makes the society sensitive to any notion of the tabooed things (Crystal, 2007, p. 172). As a result, people then internalize this concept of taboo in individual level. Therefore, Jay argues that no one is born with the concept of taboo (2009, p. 153). He claims that people acquire the concept of taboo when they become aware of institutional standards through the socialization with others and the elements of institution which strengthen the existence of taboo. Another more recent example is, of course, the case of Carlin versus the FCC, as Fairman (2006) claims as a perfect example of institutional taboo (p. 33).

But the question is “why is a mere saying about taboo prohibited?”

(34)

God, the Devil, death, damnation, diseases, varieties of copulation and sexual reference and the predicates people tend to avoid such as being poor, being fired, and so on (2006, p.463). Words are believed to have symbolic power and are considered as magic. Besides, mere utterance of taboo words is believed to be capable of evoking the uttered idea in mind, in this case the tabooed things (Pinker, 2007). It can be a possible reason why even uttering tabooed things is strictly forbidden.

But yet, it cannot be separated from the context of culture. Wajnryb (2006) states that the cultural context influences the words‟ sense of danger. She then explains that there is a “reflexive relationship” between the words and the cultural context: “the view that the certain words have power invests these words with power. This manifested power then reinforces the view that these words have

power” (p. 32).

Some beliefs claim that mere uttering of the tabooed things, such as evil, or misfortune, will wreak that force in front of the speaker (Ljung, 2011, p. 47). The example can be in form of superstition as can be found in the beginning of chapter two in Chinua Achebe‟s novel, Things Fall Apart, as described below:

“…Children were warned not to whistle at night for fear of evil spirits. Dangerous animals became even more sinister and uncanny in the dark. A snake was never called by its name at night, because it would hear. It was called a string.” (p.9)

(35)

In his novel, Chinua Achebe uses Igbo culture of African as the setting where the whole story takes place. The description above is one of the ways how taboo is understood. Something, in this case snake, which is believed to bring an evil force, is not allowed to be mentioned. In addition to this, Allan and Burridge (2006) explain that taboo arises out of social constraint on the individual‟s behavior where it can cause harm, discomfort, or injury (p. 1).

The case of restriction by power is also reflected in Orthodox Judaism culture. In that culture, people do not call the name of God (Yahweh, spelled YHWH). It is only the high priest of an ancient temple who might utter such name. In the daily conversation, people use the word hashem (“the name”) to refer to God (Pinker, 2007; Ljung, 2011).

Beside word magic, some authors, like Pinker and Jay, underline the

relation between the words uttered and the ability of human‟s mind to evoke the

idea of the words as a reason for restriction toward tabooed things. For instance, the utterance about bodily effluvia might cause disgust toward the listener (Hunt, 2009). This is another reason why even uttering taboo word is problematic.

Hence, it can be concluded that there are various concepts on how taboo is understood. Different contexts of place on time serve different manifestations of taboo. That is why several authors claim that there is no absolute taboo. Yet, the

notion of “prohibition” cannot be separated from the idea of taboo in all contexts

(36)

The topic of taboo varies in different areas and context of time. Yet, the dichotomy of religious and secular taboo is believed by some author to be the major topic of taboo (Crystal, 2007; Ljung 2011). These two topics will be discussed briefly in this part to give a frame in classifying the words containing taboo. This part also tries to figure out the terminology used to label the taboo word with its reference.

In short, religious taboo relies on profanity or blasphemy (goddamn, damn, hell, bloody Mary). Therefore, secular taboo includes the theme of sexual activities (fuck, cunt, blowjob, motherfucker, cocksucker), excretory product/ bodily effluvia (shit, crap, douche, piss), some animal names (bitch, pig, ass), and intimated part of the body (tit, asshole, cock, prick, dick). Despite that dichotomy, there are also several types of taboo from which taboo words and swear words are derived e.g. ethnic-racial-gender slurs (nigger, fag, dago), perceived psychological, physical, or social deviation (retard, wimp, lard ass), ancestral allusions (son of bitch, bastard), substandard vulgar terms (fart face, on the rag), and offensive slangs (cluster fuck, tit run) (Jay, 2009). Meanwhile Allan and

Burridge (2006) added “food gathering, preparation, and consumption” in

categories of taboo in their book. Wardaugh (2006) adds that (discussion of) politics might also be included in tabooed topic for some contexts. Thomas (2004)

also puts the topic of “death” into taboo in several cultures. However, that classification will be made more succinct to give ease in the further analysis in this thesis.

(37)

The most common religious taboo is known as blasphemy or profanity.

The word “blasphemy” is from Greek word “blasphemia” which means “profane

speech or evil slander” (Hughes, 2006, p.31). Even though the root of the words

shares some concept about “evil”, Hughes (2006) notes the differences between

the two terms. The distinction is in the intention in which the words are spoken; blasphemy is more intentional and profanity is more habitual. This premise is strengthened by Wajnryb (2006) who states that blasphemy “deliberately vilifies religion or anything associated with religious meaning” (p. 17). Wajnryb also adds that profanity involves the use of religious terminologies in a more secular manner

(e.g. “God!” or “Jesus!”) and added no more information about intention (p.21).

Crystal (1997) underscores that profanity had a wider range than blasphemy (p. 173). However, the source of the reference is still the same i.e. anything related to religion which is considered sacred and not to be uttered without necessity (sacrilege).

Hughes (2006) claims that profanity historically formed the first major area of taboo (p. 127). Christian believes that this taboo is related to the third

Commandments in one part of the Old Testament which ban people to “take the

Lord‟s name in vain” (Holy Bible, Exodus. 20.7). This quotation is claimed to be

the most firm basis of plenty executions for blasphemy and profanity (Ljung, 2011, pp. 48-49). In some regions dominated by Catholic culture, like England, religious profanity is common considering its firm bond to its people. Then blasphemous libels refer to crime committed if a person insults, offends, or vilifies deity, Christ, or the Christian religion (McEnnery, 2006, p.31). This kind of abuse

(38)

Hughes records that the punishment would be “burning at the stake” up to 1677 and death penalty prevailing in Scotland until 1825 (Hughes, 2006, p.32). No wonder that the Church had authority to punish people in such regions since the Church was considered as the part of the law itself (2006, p.31). Beside death penalty, the other kinds of punishment for uttering taboo during the 25th century are imprisonment and excising of the tongue (Pinker, 2007; Vingerhoets et al., 2012)

Chronologically speaking taboo has moved from religious to sexual and racial area in the last two centuries (Hughes, 2006, p.331). This secular taboo began to be more popular than the religious one. According to Hughes this changing inclination happened due to the overtaking of censorship on publications by the ecclesiastical court which concerned more about sacrilegious matters (in England). Pinker (2007) added that this extenuation of religious taboo is a consequence of the secularization of Western culture (p. 213).

In scope of secular taboo the term like obscenity and vulgarity are the common one. Those two terms include the theme of intimate parts of the body. During the seventeenth century, the reference of those terms goes broader which includes private (genital) part and sexual activities (Hughes, 2006, p. 332). Hughes records some articles which are believed to be the proto definitions of obscenity. One of them is the Obscene Publication Act which was held in 1857. That article contains the understanding that obscenity has the sense of

(39)

feelings of decency in any well-regulated mind” (p.333). Wajnryb also suggests that there is an emotive function in the definition of obscenity with direct reference to intimated part of the body as well as the body‟s function and product (bodily effluvia) which includes the words shit and fuck (p. 21).

Another kind of secular taboo is vulgarity. It shares the same theme with obscenity i.e. the intimated part of the body. However, it does not contain emotive function like obscenity does. Vulgarity works like dysphemism (Wajnryb, 2006, p.22). It means that in case of vulgarity, taboo words replace the position of the

other word in a sentence e.g. “I have to finish this shit” in which the word shit refers to “task”, for instance. It is also said that vulgarity is broader than obscenity even though it is loosely used interchangeably with obscenity.

The next theme of taboo is ethnic/ racial slurs. Ethnic/ racial slurs include the words which have derogatory meaning toward a certain ethnic, race, community, or a particular group of people e.g. nigger, yankee, kaffir, gringo, and so on. According to Hughes ethnic/ racial slurs are a linguistic manifestation of xenophobia and prejudice against out-group (p. 146). Hughes also states that the abusive point of ethnic/ racial slurs is not in the words themselves, but who uses it, for instance, J.L Dillard pointed out, “even nigger was not offensive to Blacks

until Whites used in derogatory way” (1997, in Hughes, 2006) as the effect of

colonialism. Beside colonialism, it is also explained that migration, war, religious conflict, and expansion take a role in forming the perception of the ethnic/ racial slurs with emphasis in distinctive features like race or skin tone.

(40)

There is a certain similarity which makes these two kinds of words share a same definition. The similarity is the root of both kind of word which is emanated from taboo. Nonetheless, there is a difference between both. Karjalainen (2002) states that although all swear words are taboo, not all taboo words are swear words. Cannibalism, for instance, is taboo in some cultures, yet the swear words derived from that theme are absent (p.18) The using of the words here is specifically how the users use the words and involve their emotion to their utterance. However, Ljung (2011) thinks that taboo word and swear words are two

different cases. The difference could be clearer by observing Ljung‟s criteria of

swear words:

1. Swearing (uttering swear words) is the use of utterances containing taboo words.

2. The taboo words are used with non-literal meaning.

3. Many utterances that constitute swearing are subject to severe lexical, phrasal, and syntactic constraints which suggest that most swearing qualifies as formulaic language.

4. Swearing is emotive language: its main function is to reflect, or seem to

reflect, the speakers‟ feeling or attitude.

(Ljung, 2011, p. 4)

The second point of Ljung‟s criteria underlines that the reference of taboo

words which has transformed into swear words might be used as metaphor to refer to anything else which is possibly not taboo. For example, the word shit (taboo

(41)

word) refers to “feces”, but in utterance “put that shitin your bag!” the word shit t might refer to “something which is considered unpleasant” (p. 17). The third point of Ljung‟s criteria emphasizes on the fixed grammar (formulaicity) of swear words of which meaning cannot be simply derived from the composing word. In

the expression “what the fuck do you mean?” for instance, the sense is deduced from the grammatical arrangement rather than from each composing word (p. 19). In one of his approaches (Approach 1: Meaning and References), Frawley (1992) splits up the referential meaning into two: reference and sense. Reference is the actual object or real world entity packed out by linguistic expression (e.g. shit for feces). Reference can also be understood as the relation which holds between speakers and what they are talking about on particular occasions (Lyons, 1995, p. 294) e.g. the word “bat” in one context refers to “a nocturnal animal” and refers to

“sport instrument” in another context (which is commonly called homonymy

(Aitchison, 2003)). Meanwhile, sense means the idea or other information of how the expression is expressed, for example when someone shouts “Fuck! my toes!” it can be derived that the person does something bad or terrible toward his/ her toes. As the third point of Ljung‟s category suggests, swear word emphasizes on the sense they make when they are uttered since it is not related their reference as taboo word is.

At the fourth point, Ljung highlights that uttering swear words involves

“direct expression of the speaker‟s attitude what he/ she is speaking about” (p.

21). The presence of emotive function might be identified by the emergence some features such as expletive interjections (when expressing anger, disappointment,

(42)

as “What the hellare you doing?”), and expletive slot-filler (such as in “I need the bloodyhammer.”).

However, the reference or sense of taboo words and swear words can only be known considering the context and the way they are used. Pinker (2007) presents five different ways in which people use taboo words or swear words: 1) descriptively, 2) idiomatically, 3) abusively, 4) emphatically, and 5) cathartically (Pinker, 2007, p. 219). Terminologically, that typology is called the typology of swearing. Pinker‟s typology of swearing provides a concise tool to analyze what people do when they use swear words.

Descriptive swearing includes the use of taboo words which refers directly to their literal meaning. Literal meaning is defined as the meaning (of word or sentence) which is computed from the lexical meaning automatically associated any entries before any extra interferences based on contextual assumptions have been derived (Giora, 1997, p. 185). (e.g. “let‟s fuck” with the word fuck refers to

“have sex”). Mere utterances of taboo words with no context which might change

the references of those words also indicate that those taboo words are used with their literal meaning.

The next is idiomatic swearing. As the name suggests, the use of taboo words and swear words as idioms is included here. Idioms are the expressions with fixed phrases, consisting of more than one word, with meaning which cannot be inferred from the meanings of the individual words (Fromkin et al., 2000). Fromkin et al. (2000) explain that many idioms may have originated as

(43)

metaphorical expressions which established themselves in the language and became frozen in their form of meaning (p. 181) e.g. “when the shit is going to hit

the fan” means “when disastrous consequences of something become known”.

Idioms also involve collocation of a special kind (Palmer, 2001, p. 79.) e.g.

“fuckedup” for “destroyed”. Taboo words and swear words in a form of metaphor also belong to this type. In the case of metaphor, the words are not used with their literal meaning as their reference. Instead, the reference of the words swaps with something else based on a certain context, as it is conceptualized by Lakoff and Johnson (2003). Lazar (2003) defines that metaphor is a comparison which identifies one thing with another in which some qualities of the second are transferred to the first (p. 3). For example in the case of “job is unpleasant thing”, the reference of the word shitin “I think I can‟t finish this shit” is possibly “task”.

The third type is abusive swearing in which people use taboo words to abuse or offend someone. An utterance of taboo words or swear words might be offensive since it serves the emotional needs of the speaker and affects the listeners (addressees) emotionally as well (Jay, 2000). It strongly carries emotive function like the example “fuck you, motherfucker!” As the example shows, swear words which belong to this type are used as expletive interjections and the utterance is directed to addressees (Ljung , 2011).

Emphatic swearing here is manifested in the use of taboo words as expletive interjections or slot-filler like in “that painting is fuckin’ amazing!” (Ljung, 2011). The taboo words here usually role as an adjective intensifier which give stronger emotional sense to an admiration, for instance. The use of swear

(44)

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

(45)

said a swear word or a taboo word. Ljung puts emphasis on the second category of

Pinker‟s typologyi.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 assover 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

(46)

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

(47)

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 theoryto 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

(1)

Assignments Overview

• Participation Grade (15%): You are expected to participate in class, on the blog, and/or in office

hours. Your Participation Grade also covers small in‐class and homework assignments (typically credit/no‐credit).

o The Blog: At various moments in class, I’ll ask you to post to our blog. It will be especially

useful at the end of the course, when you’ll post a proposal of your final project to share with your peers. http://english4991.blogspot.com/

o Class Readings & Questions/Queries: All the readings are on BlackBoard – please print them

out and bring them to class.*_{For each class that has required readings, you’ll need to}

prepare at least one question or idea, large or small, to share with the class. Bring the question written on a note card I’ll provide (this must be done before arriving in class). While we likely won’t get to every question in class, I want to make sure that you are helping to actively shape what we do.

• Projects (40%): There are five small projects you’ll complete in the course. They are creative‐type

projects and are designed to get you thinking and writing in new ways.

o Project #1: Word Reclamation/Removal Project (10%). Due 2/6. o Project #2: Re‐Evaluation, Poem, or Reflection (10%). Due 3/2. o Project #3: Blog Analysis of a Joke (10%). Due 3/18.

o (Mini)Project #4: Breaking the Silence (5%). Due 4/13. o Project #5: Manifesto (10%). Due 4/27.

• My Taboo List & Artifacts (10%): This is your own compilation of “taboo rhetorics” beyond what we

discuss in the course. Quantity does not necessarily equal quality – the best lists will have specific examples that reflect you and your interests. Avoid boring Google searches and instead keep a notebook in your pocket and jot ideas down as they come to you. Another good idea is to ask friends and family (“what can’t, or won’t, you talk about?”). This will be incorporated into your final portfolio, but will also receive a separate grade. Check in date (bring what you have so far to class): 3/9. Final due date (bring a paper version to class and post to the blog): 5/4.

• Final Project: “What’s Left Unsaid” (30%): The final project will reflect the hard work you have done

in this course and in the English Writing major. You will need to choose an audience, and you might begin by choosing between a personal audience (such as friends and family members), an academic audience (perhaps more research‐oriented), and/or a professional audience (such as a future employer). Your portfolio will include:

(1) My Taboo List & Artifacts (see above), with a one‐page reflection;

(2) A compilation of all the smart questions you produced for the Questions/Queries requirement (you can compile these creatively if you like);

(3) Three of the five numbered projects you completed for this course (give them another proofread/revision);

(4) Your two‐three favorite papers or projects you produced outside of this course in the English Writing Major that you feel represent you well as a student;

(5) A Statement on “What’s Left Unsaid” About You as a Writing Major. Having nearly completed the major, it is time to reflect on what you want to communicate that isn’t represented by your grades, possible letters of recommendation you might request, and the items already in this portfolio. It may be that what is “left unsaid” is taboo, in which case

*_In_many_cases,_I_opted_to_only_put_one_book_page_per_8½_x₁₁_page_for_those_who_prefer_larger_‐_type_print._If_you_want,_you_can_instead print multiple pages per sheet with smaller print (if your eyes can handle it!). To do this, go to the usual print screen in Adobe Reader (Ctrl + “P”) and select “Properties.” Under “Document Options,” you’ll see an option to print multiple sheets per page.

(2)

you’ll want to tread carefully. Or it may be that one of the topics in the course really struck you, and you have more to say about it in this Statement. This is where your chosen audience for your project really comes into play.

This assignment will be more fleshed out once we reach the end of the course, and I’ll meet with each of individually to help craft a plan. It can be completed as a website, a “typical” text, or another format you propose.

Class Policies

Okay, here’s the heavy stuff. Each unexcused absence after two absences will lower your overall class grade by a third (a B+ becomes a B, etc.). Chronic lateness will be counted as being absent. If you miss class, check in with BlackBoard, the blog, a classmate, and with me. Please do not use the blog to post

questions about what happened in class if you were not there. All work is due at the beginning of class or will be counted late. I do not accept day‐to‐day class assignments (including Questions/Queries) if they are late. For major assignments, the late policy is one half grade per class period late (an A‐ would be a B, a C would be a D+, etc.) If you have a grade complaint, please begin by talking to me. If you disagree with my decision, you may then appeal the grade to the Chair of the English Department.

My policy for handling plagiarism is based on the guidelines from the CLAS Faculty Guidebook

(http://thunder1.cudenver.edu/clas/facultyGuide06.pdf). If I believe you have committed plagiarism, I

will meet with you to discuss the incident. Should the case move forward, a formal letter will be delivered to you, the Chair of the English Department, and the Associate Dean of CLAS. The penalty for plagiarism in English 4991 is failure of the course. If you have questions about what constitutes plagiarism, talk to me and/or consult the Academic Policies and Regulations section in the UCD course catalog: http://www.cudenver.edu/Academics/Catalog0607/Policies/pages/default.aspx.

With all that said, I understand that life sometimes interferes with our best plans – just keep in touch and you’ll be fine. ☺

(3)

Introduction to Readings & Projects Overview

What is a Taboo Rhetoric? Can We Talk About It?

• Allan, Keith and Kate Burridge. “Chapter One: Taboos and Their Origins.” In Forbidden Words: Taboo and the Censoring of Language. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge UP, 2006. 1‐12.

• Cameron, Deborah. “’Naming of Parts’: Gender, Culture and Terms for the Penis among American College Students.” On Language and Sexual Politics. London/New York: Routledge, 2006. 149‐164.

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Why Language Matters: The Political Correctness Debate

• Allan, Keith and Kate Burridge. “Chapter Four: The Language of Political Correctness.” In Forbidden Words: Taboo and the Censoring of Language. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge UP, 2006. 90‐111. • Kennedy, Randall. “Pitfalls in Fighting ‘Nigger’: Perils of Deception, Censoriousness, and Excessive

Anger.” Censoring Culture: Contemporary Threats to Free Expression. Eds. Robert Atkins and Svetlana Mintcheva. New York: The New Press, 2006. 256‐269.

• Bodine, Ann. “Androcentrism in Prescriptive Grammar: Singular ‘They,” Sex‐Indefinite ‘He,’ and ‘He or She.’” The Feminist Critique of Language: A Reader. Ed. Deborah Cameron. London: Routledge, 1998. 124‐138.

• Garner, James Finn. Politically Correct Bedtime Stories: Modern Tales of Our Life & Times. New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1994. (Snow White and The Three Little Pigs)

Project #1: Word Reclamation/Removal Project. While the PC movement has been mocked for being “only about words,” this assignment contends that words do matter (though they certainly aren’t the only thing that matters). For this project, you will reclaim a word you think should be used to describe yourself or a group you belong to, OR, you will explain why a certain term should not be used to describe yourself or a group you belong to. You will trace its history using the OED, its appearance in the media using Lexis Nexus, and other resources. Minimum 3 pages, double‐spaced.

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Imposed Taboos: Case Study: Corporations & Banned Music

• Soley, Lawrence. “Private Censorship, Corporate Power.” Censoring Culture: Contemporary Threats to Free Expression. Eds. Robert Atkins and Svetlana Mintcheva. New York: The New Press, 2006. 15‐ 23.

• Lentine, Genine and Roger W. Shuy. “Mc‐: Meaning in the Marketplace.” Language: Introductory Readings. Eds. Virginia Clark, Paul Eschholz, Alfred Rosa, and Beth Lee Simon. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2008. 173‐189.

• Blecha, Peter. Taboo Tunes: A History of Banned Ballads and Censored Songs. San Francisco: Backbeat Books, 2004. 137‐185. (images are clearer on the companion site:

http://www.tabootunes.com/gallery.html)

• Fox, Mark. “Market Power in Music Retailing: The Case of Wal‐mart.” Popular Music and Society 28.4 (October 2005): 501‐519.

Extra Credit: Visual Song Dissection. For this optional project, you will dissect a song that you feel is, or might be interpreted as, unpatriotic. For your Visual Song Dissection, you will place the lyrics of the song in the middle of the page and then surround it with your notes and arguments. This can be done

electronically or with paper and pen. This can be completed anytime up until April 1st_.

(4)

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Speaking Taboo: Swearing, Cursing, and “the Kids”

• Wajnryb, Ruth. Expletive Deleted $&#a*!: A Good Look at Bad Language. New York: Free Press, 2005. 15‐38.

• Montagu, Ashley. “The Four‐Letter Words.” The Anatomy of Swearing. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press (2001). 300‐307. (I cut the latter part of the chapter.)

• Sohn, Steve and Marina Krcmar. “The Role of Bleeps and Warnings in Viewers’ Perceptions of On‐Air Cursing.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 48.4 (2004): 570‐583.

• MPAA Ratings Guide: http://www.mpaa.org/FilmRatings.asp (have a look ‐ we’ll discuss more in

class)

• Aitchison, Jean. “Whassup? Slang and Swearing Among School Children.” Education Review 19.2 (2006): 18‐24.

• Rubin, Marian, Jacqueline Livingston, Marilyn Zimmerman, and Betsy Schneider. “’Not a Pretty Picture’: Four Photographers Tell Their Personal Stories About Child ‘Pornography’ and Censorship.” Censoring Culture: Contemporary Threats to Free Expression. Eds. Robert Atkins and Svetlana Mintcheva. New York: The New Press, 2006. 213‐227.

Project #2: Re‐Evaluation, Poem, or Reflection. For this unit’s project, you have three options: (1) make a brief argument as to why a particular TV show or movie has received the wrong rating (and provide the appropriate rating); (2) write a poem about a swear word without using the word; (3) write a reflection about a specific time you were censored as a child – and why this was a good thing. Minimum two‐three double‐spaced pages (or a bit shorter for poetry). For all options, you must select a consonant and vowel that you will not use!

_____________________________________________________________________________________ “Oh Come On, It’s Just a Joke!”

• Billig, Michael. “Humor and Hatred: The Racist Jokes of the Ku Klux Klan.” Discourse & Society 12.3 (2001): 267‐289.

• Kuipers, Giselinde. “’Where Was King Kong When We Needed Him?’ Public Discourse, Digital Disaster Jokes, and the Functions of Laugher After 9/11.” The Journal of American Culture 28.1 (March 2005): 70‐84.

• Greenwood, Dara and Linda M. Isbell. “Ambivalent Sexism and the Dumb Blonde Joke: Men’s and Women’s Reactions to Sexist Jokes.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 26 (2002): 341‐350.

Project #3: Blog Analysis of a Joke. For this project, I’m asking you to analyze a “problematic” joke by designing your own blog. I’ve asked you to do a blog so that you can incorporate visuals and videos. You are welcome to have others participate in your project (that is, comment on your blog), but it should be clear that it is your project. Remember that your project need not be a simple “English paper” posted on a blog (borrrrrring). Take advantage of the ability to link to other sources: websites, visuals, videos. Take advantage of color and layout options. You will also be asked to comment on the blog of two of your peers. We will go over blog creation in class.

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Silence Taboos: Gestures, Sanitation, and Salary

• Glenn, Cheryl. Unspoken: A Rhetoric of Silence. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2004. 1‐19. (The entire chapter is included, but focus p. 4+. There are various heavy citations, but focus on her main points – underline what you see as the clear arguments she makes about silence.)

(5)

• “Series of Salary Articles” from The New York Times, Business Week, and Money. (All bundled into one .pdf file under “Series.”)

• Praeger, Dave. Poop Culture: How America is Shaped by Its Grossest National Product. Los Angeles: Feral House, 2007. 165‐183. (this one is a bit tongue in cheek)

• Black, Maggie and Ben Fawcett. The Last Taboo: Opening the Door on the Global Sanitation Crisis. London/Sterling, VA: Earthscan, 2008. (excerpt TBD)

• Miller, George A. “Nonverbal Communication.” Language: Introductory Readings. Eds. Virginia Clark, Paul Eschholz, Alfred Rosa, and Beth Lee Simon. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2008. 52‐59.

• Axtell, Robert E. Gestures: The Do’s and Taboos of Body Language Around the World. New York: Wiley, 1991. 117‐123.

(Mini)Project #4: Breaking the Silence. You have two options for this project, one practical and one experimental. (1) Chances are you will have to “break the silence” and professionally introduce yourself to someone unexpectedly and quickly in what’s often called the “ elevator pitch” or the “elevator speech” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevator_pitch). Write your pitch and prepare to share with the

class. (2) “Break the silence” in an area where there is typically no talking. I’ll ask that you run your idea by me first, as making a joke in an elevator is a good idea while yelling out in a religious setting is not. Jot down a few notes about what occurred (and why!) to share with the class. For each option, prepare to talk with the class for about five minutes and provide a visual or audio aid.

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Case Study: Gender, Language, Women, & Weight

• Cameron, Deborah. “Cross‐Purposes: The Myth of Male‐Female Understanding” from The Myth of Mars and Venus. Oxford/New York: Oxford UP, 2007.

• reference only: Bordo, Susan. “Hunger as Ideology.” Eating Culture. Eds. Ron Scapp and Brian Seitz. New York: SUNY Press, 1998. 99‐134. (This is a classic piece on advertising & women’s bodies that we’ll talk about in class. Read lightly.)

• Weiner, Jessica. Do I Look Fat in This? Life Doesn’t Begin Five Pounds From Now. New York: Simon Spotlight Entertainment, 2006. 1‐25. (easy read!)

• Saukko, Paula. “’I Feel Ridiculous about Having Had It’ – Critical Readings of Lived and Mediated Stories of Eating Disorders.” Critical Bodies: Representations, Identities and Practices of Weight and Body Management. Eds. Sarah Riley, Maree Burns, Hannah Frith, Sally Wiggins, and Pirkko Markula. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008. 43‐59. (the entire chapter is included, but focus on p. 47+) • Day, Katy and Tammy Keys. “Starving in Cyberspace: The Construction of Identity on ‘Pro‐Eating

Disorder Websites.” Critical Bodies: Representations, Identities and Practices of Weight and Body Management. Eds. Sarah Riley, Maree Burns, Hannah Frith, Sally Wiggins, and Pirkko Markula. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008. 81‐100. (the entire chapter is included, but focus p. 87+)

Project #5: Manifesto. How should discussions about, and information relating to, anorexia and bulimia circulate? Are “pro‐anorexia” websites problematic, as many have claimed? Where and how should men be represented in this discussion (and why haven’t they been)? What should be the response to the circulation of extremely thin bodily representations in the media (which can be used for

“thinspiration”)? What should be censored, if anything? You will write a one‐page, single‐spaced

manifesto on one of these topics, or a related topic of your choosing. We’ll talk about manifestos in class and refer to websites such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

(http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm); the Students for Free Culture Manifesto

(http://freeculture.org/manifesto/); The Bitch Manifesto (http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/wlm/bitch/);

and others.

(6)

SCHEDULE

The readings listed below must be read BY the date they are listed. (Don’t forget your

Questions/Queries!) The various readings are separated by semi‐colons. (“Sohn & Krcmar” indicates a single reading with two authors; “Soley; Lentine & Shuy” indicates two different readings, etc.) The article/book title is provided when there is more than one course reading by the same author. WEEK ONE

Wed 1/20 introduction to course WEEK TWO

Mon 1/26 Allan & Burridge, “Chapter One…”; Cameron, “’Naming of Parts…” Wed 1/28 Allan & Burridge, “Chapter Four…”; Kennedy

WEEK THREE

Mon 2/4 Bodine; Garner

Wed 2/6 Project #1 due; workshop

WEEK FOUR

Mon 2/11 Soley; Lentine & Shuy (revised Project #1 due) Wed 2/13 Blecha; Fox

WEEK FIVE

Mon 2/16 CANCELED; Extra Credit: Attend the talk by Rosemarie Garland Thomson in Tivoli 640. I am

hosting this speaker, so just drop me an email with your thoughts on the event afterward. Wed 2/18 Wajnryb; Montagu

WEEK SIX

Mon 2/23 Sohn & Krcmar; MPAA ratings Wed 2/25 Aitchison; Rubin

WEEK SEVEN

Mon 3/2 Project #2 due; workshop

Wed 3/4 Billig; model blog

WEEK EIGHT

Mon 3/9 Kuipers; My Taboo List & Artifacts check‐in due (bring what you have so far)

Wed 3/11 CANCELED WEEK NINE

Mon 3/16 Greenwood & Isbell

Wed 3/18 Project #3 due; midterm evaluation

spring break, then…WEEK TEN

Mon 3/30 Glenn; Thacuk

Wed 4/1 salary articles; Praeger

WEEK ELEVEN

Mon 4/6 Black & Fawcett Wed 4/8 Miller; Axtell

WEEK TWELVE

Mon 4/13 (Mini)Project #4 due; presentations

Wed 4/15 Cameron, “The Myth of Male‐Female Understanding”; Bordo (lightly skim)

WEEK THIRTEEN

Mon 4/20 Weiner; Saukko Wed 4/22 Day & Keys

WEEK FOURTEEN

Mon 4/27 Project #5 due; workshop, optional revision

Wed 4/29 FCQs; discussion of final project

WEEK FIFTEEN

Mon 5/4 workshop; My Taboo List & Artifacts due

Wed 5/6 workshop