Advertisement

Building the perfect curse word: A psycholinguistic investigation of the form and meaning of taboo words

  • Jamie ReillyEmail author
  • Alexandra Kelly
  • Bonnie M. Zuckerman
  • Peter P. Twigg
  • Melissa Wells
  • Katie R. Jobson
  • Maurice Flurie
Article

Abstract

Taboo words represent a potent subset of natural language. It has been hypothesized that “tabooness” reflects an emergent property of negative valence and high physiological arousal of word referents. Many taboo words (e.g., dick, shit) are indeed consistent with this claim. Nevertheless, American English is also rife with negatively valenced, highly arousing words the usage of which is not socially condemned (e.g., cancer, abortion, welfare). We evaluated prediction of tabooness of single words and novel taboo compound words from a combination of phonological, lexical, and semantic variables (e.g., semantic category, word length). For single words, physiological arousal and emotional valence strongly predicted tabooness with additional moderating contributions from form (phonology) and meaning (semantic category). In Experiment 2, raters judged plausibility for combinations of common nouns with taboo words to form novel taboo compounds (e.g., shitgibbon). A mixture of formal (e.g., ratio of stop consonants, length) and semantic variables (e.g., ± receptacle, ± profession) predicted the quality of novel taboo compounding. Together, these studies provide complementary evidence for interactions between word form and meaning and an algorithmic prediction of tabooness in American English. We discuss applications for models of taboo word representation.

Keywords

Taboo Profanity Sound symbolism Valence Arousal 

Notes

References

  1. Bergen, B. K. (2016). What the F: What Swearing Reveals About Our Language, Our Brains, and Ourselves. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  2. Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kucera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 977–990.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.977 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Brysbaert, M., Warriner, A. B., & Kuperman, V. (2014). Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 46(3), 904–911.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0403-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Coltheart, M. (1981). The MRC Psycholinguistic database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33, 497–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fox, J., Weisberg, S., Price, B., Adler, D., Bates, D., Baud-Bovy, G., … R-Core. (2018). car: Companion to Applied Regression (Version 3.0-2). Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=car
  6. Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., & Hyams, N. (2011). An Introduction to Language (Int. ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  7. Groemping, U., & Matthias, L. (2018). Package ‘relaimpo.’ Google Scholar
  8. Hudson, D. (2017). Profanity. In The First Amendment Encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1143/profanity
  9. Hughes, G. (1998). Swearing: A Social History of Foul Language, Oaths and Profanity in English. Penguin UK.Google Scholar
  10. Janschewitz, K. (2008). Taboo, emotionally valenced, and emotionally neutral word norms. Behavior Research Methods, 40(4), 1065–1074.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.4.1065 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Jay, T. B. (1980). Sex roles and dirty word usage: A review of the literature and a reply to Haas. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 614–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jay, T. B. (1992). Cursing in America: A Psycholinguistic Study of Dirty Language in the Courts, in the Movies, in the Schoolyards, and on the Streets. John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Jay, T. B. (2009). The utility and ubiquity of taboo words. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(2), 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Marian, V., Bartolotti, J., Chabal, S., & Shook, A. (2012). CLEARPOND: Cross-linguistic easy-access resource for phonological and orthographic neighborhood densities. PloS One, 7(8), e43230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Miller, GA (1995). WordNet: A lexical database for English. Communications of the ACM, 38(11), 39–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mohr, M. (2013). Holy Sh* t: A brief history of swearing. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Rastle, K., & Davis, M. H. (2008). Morphological decomposition based on the analysis of orthography. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(7–8), 942–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Tessier, A.-M., & Becker, M. (2018). Vowel but not consonant identity and the very informal English lexicon. Proceedings of the Annual Meetings on Phonology, 5(0).  https://doi.org/10.3765/amp.v5i0.4248
  19. Warriner, A. B., Kuperman, V., & Brysbaert, M. (2013). Norms of valence, arousal, and dominance for 13,915 English lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1191–1207.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0314-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Zimmer, B. (2017, February 13). A Hero for Our Time: We Found the Man Behind the Priceless Trump Insult “S---gibbon.” Retrieved March 21, 2019, from Slate Magazine website: https://slate.com/culture/2017/02/the-origin-of-the-trump-insult-shitgibbon-revealed.html

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jamie Reilly
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Alexandra Kelly
    • 1
    • 2
  • Bonnie M. Zuckerman
    • 1
    • 2
  • Peter P. Twigg
    • 1
    • 2
  • Melissa Wells
    • 1
    • 2
  • Katie R. Jobson
    • 3
  • Maurice Flurie
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Eleanor M. Saffran Center for Cognitive NeuroscienceTemple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Communication Sciences and DisordersTemple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyTemple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations