Euphemisms

Euphemism refers to the use of deliberately indirect, conventionally imprecise, or socially “comfortable” ways of referring to taboo, embarrassing, or unpleasant topics. Although many euphemisms are self-evident, as in formulas like “four-letter word” or “go to the bathroom,” a surprisingly large number are unconscious and collective. Euphemism is a continuous process, since it is an essential mode of politeness, although there are periods, such as the Puritan and Victorian eras, when it is more pronounced and evident. All speech communities, from the most “primitive” to the most “advanced,” have taboo topics and thus demonstrate euphemism. Observers of linguistic mores generally regard the contemporary period as having such a glut of swearing and foul language that there are few euphemisms left. However, this is not the case, as is shown by the whole development of Political Correctness. Furthermore, the feared or prohibited semantic areas that promote the growth of euphemism vary enormously, and include the following: the names of God and the Devil, references to death, disease, madness, being crippled, being fired, being poor, excretion, copulation, and in some societies such comparatively trivial embarrassments as references to underclothes, being fat, or having a humble occupation. Several cases are discussed under rude words. As this list shows, euphemism is difficult to avoid: excretion, copulation , and having a humble occupation are all euphemisms themselves; some readers will feel that crippled should be replaced by disabled .

Taboo , a key factor in euphemism, is a surprisingly recent borrowing in the language, having been brought back to England from the Pacific by Captain (James) Cook in 1777. It subsequently came to refer generally to human experiences, words, or deeds that are unmentionable because they are either ineffably sacred or unspeakably vile. Taboo is now used loosely of any social indiscretion or word that ought to be avoided, since strictly speaking, a taboo word should never be uttered.

In origin euphemism is profoundly involved with word magic, a primitive but enduring superstition that there is a mystical relationship between words and things. The etymology of the word in the Greek roots eu (“well”) and pheme (“to speak”) is revealing, since the process is to describe the situation as better than it is, or to avoid a taboo topic, thereby pacifying some dreaded force by not offending it. This verbal dynamic is found across all cultures. In Greek mythology the Furies were termed the Eumenides , literally “the friendly ones.” In many European languages the weasel, a bloodthirsty and ferocious creature, is called by a variety of pacifying names, such as “little beauty” or “little lady” (Ullmann 1951, 77). Within Christian societies there are similar titles of respect for the Devil, such as Old Nick, the Prince of Darkness , and so on.

Absolute taboos are obviously problematic, since they impede communication and cause confusion. They are also impractical, since in modern secular democratic society one cannot prevent people from uttering the offending terms. However, in print culture it is possible to enforce them. Thus no major English dictionary included the most egregious of the “four-letter” words between 1728 and the 1960s. In Victorian times there was a taboo against mentioning terms like leg and breast: consequently one finds references to “the limbs of a piano” and the convention of referring to the white meat and the brown meat of a chicken. The continuing use of these terms shows that the euphemism was genuine. On the other hand, the Victorian taboo against mentioning trousers generated ironic and humorous forms like indescribables and unmentionables . A quotation in the Oxford English Dictionary dated 1809 illustrates the point starkly: “A fine lady can talk about her lover’s inexpressibles, when she would faint to hear of his breeches.” (In this period lover did not have the modern explicit sense, being closer to “suitor” or “amorous admirer.”)

Less drastic is the abbreviation or deformation of the offending word. Articulating the name of God is completely taboo in many religions, such as Islam and Judaism, generating coded forms like JWH. Historically, it provides the longest continuous example of euphemism in English, from forms like gog and cokk in the fourteenth century, followed by several dozen variants. Around 1600 a number of apostrophized forms like zounds for “God’s wounds” and ‘sblood for "God’s blood" sprang into prominence, as a response to injunctions against the use of the name of God on the stage. These are called minced oaths. Secular examples are blooming and plain b for bloody , and the euphemistic variants of pissed off —namely, peed off, teed off , and kissed off .

The most typical device of euphemism is the use of metaphor. Although in modern times sexually explicit language is generally common, the majority of speakers still prefer euphemistic formulas such as to sleep with, go to bed with, make love, make out, do it, have it away with , and so on, since these are socially acceptable. Interestingly, we find a similar euphemism in the Anglo-Saxon translation of the Bible by Ælfric (ca. 1000). Rendering the attempted seduction of Joseph by Potiphar’s wife in Genesis 39:7, Ælfric has “His hlæfdige lofude hine and cwæð to him Slap mid me” (His lady loved him and said to him ‘Sleep with me.’) The King James Bible (1611) has another euphemistic idiom: “His master’s wife cast her eyes upon Joseph and said, ‘Lie with me.’” Equally noteworthy here is the suggestive phrase of “cast her eyes upon Joseph,” similar to the modern idiom to “make eyes at.” Sexual euphemisms can be absurd, notably in the case of six jazz players in the 1930s who called themselves a septet . They can also be frustrating, as when Captain Francis Grose defined larking in his slang dictionary of 1785 as “a lascivious practice that will not bear explanation.” (He was referring to cunnilingus.) It can even be tragic, as in L.P. Hartley’s novel The Go-Between (1953) where the sexually innocent young boy referred to in the title is perplexed by the meaning of spooning , imagining to be mean merely “kissing” or “flirting.”

These euphemistic idioms are made up of common, everyday core words. However much euphemism employs high-register classical terminology or abstraction. As older native words for sexual activity became unacceptable, a great number of classically derived terms were absorbed into the word field. Among them are rape (1482), consummation (1530), seduce (1560), erection (1594), copulation (1632), orgasm (1684), intercourse (1798), climax (1918), and ejaculation (1927). These have to a large extent become standard direct terms, discussed more fully in the entry for copulation. Others have faded away: two centuries ago Grose wittily defined commodity as “the private parts of a modest woman and the public parts of a prostitute.” If there is no socially acceptable native term, a direct classical borrowing is often used, as in the case of fellatio and cunnilingus . This process was succinctly described by Edward Gibbon in the eighteenth century as a recourse to “the decent obscurity of a learned language” (1854, 212).

The preference for some classically derived abstractions has often come about naturally and spontaneously in the speech community. However, examples can also be seen in perspiration, urination, micturition, defecation , and such terms, which make up the vocabulary of medicine. In this case the development is not truly natural. Up to medieval times “four-letter” words could be used in medical contexts; since then the professional language of medicine has separated itself from ordinary, everyday parlance in order to establish distance and status. Still more deliberate is the institutional euphemization of the vocabulary of death, seen in formations like elimination, extermination, neutralization , and liquidation . These are all modern terms or new senses generated by government propaganda machines. Interestingly, however, the actual terminology used by the armed forces, who deal with the fact of death regularly, is also full of euphemisms, but of a different kind. Prominent along them are wasted for “killed,” general in American English, matched by strange metaphorical idioms in British English, such as to go for a burton, have one’s chips, buy it , and kick the bucket , most of which have problematic origins.

Politically correct language constitutes a recent development of a whole series of euphemistic formulas. These include vertically challenged for “short,” differently abled for “disabled,” sex worker for “prostitute,” and substance abuse for “drug addiction.” These are all artificial coinages, not natural developments, to the point that they invite irony, humor, and parody: one cannot envisage the first two formulas being used in conversation or a newspaper report. However, substance abuse and sex worker are starting to develop a general currency, since they avoid stigmatizing labels. They clearly contain an agenda to use nonjudgmental language, just as ageism has been coined to highlight prejudice against the elderly. In the United States matters of race and color are tempered by the avoidance of black and white through the use of terms like African-American and Caucasian , which is technically a misnomer. One can see here certain ideological motives coming into play.

Euphemisms are a fundamental aspect of language, being variously spontaneous, unconscious, collective, contrived, and institutional. There is, however, a general tendency, even a continuous process, whereby euphemisms lose their “disguise” capacity and become direct or explicit, and then need to be replaced.