Profanity. Is it cultural or a universal feature of languages?

[Space60]

Is swearing, cursing or cussing a cultural thing with there being languages that don't feature it, or is it a universal thing that occurs in all languages?

[akam chinjir]

I'm pretty sure it's exactly as you'd probably guess---there's cursing everywhere you might go, but different cultures draw on different domains for their cursing. (Like, if you had to make a guess about the context in which "chalice" and "tabernacle" are curses, you'd probably be on the right track.)

[Pabappa]

I've heard Japanese described as having no obscene words. Like, there's /kuso/ "shit", but it's the same morpheme used in the word for dung beetle and that word doesn't require a euphemism. I'm not sure about a culture without blasphemy .... Even in a culture with no obscene words, you can still say things like "devils pee on God" or even just "God is a devil" to create a blasphemous sentence entirely without the slightest hint of obscenity.

[Vijay]

Cursing is a lot more common in some cultures than others. There are certainly curse words in Malayalam, but I know some native speakers who can't even fathom the concept of curse words existing in their language, even though they are pretty comfortable with swearing in English.

[Whimemsz]

.

[Opalescent Yams]

I think it's worth considering that what we think of as profanity seems to be less defined by being usable as insults, and more by being a set of words that are taboo to utter in certain/most social or discourse contexts. Or are there other ways profanity is typically defined?

[Vijay]

I think that's another area where culture is a complication. For example, there are taboos against mentioning certain relatives in some Australian cultures at least by name, but I'm not sure that means they are profane per se.

[Salmoneus]

Is swearing, cursing or cussing a cultural thing with there being languages that don't feature it, or is it a universal thing that occurs in all languages?

I think this is an interesting question, because it appears to prejudge its own answer. It assumes that the concept "swearing, cursing or cussing" is universal across languages - because if the concept isn't applicable to a language, it makes no sense to say that it is or isn't instantiated in that language.

It's like asking "do all cultures have things that are on fleek?" - well, all cultures have phenomena that in some way parallel or overlap the phenomenon of "being on fleek", but whether these are or are not truly on fleek is not something that can really be judged objectively. The concept is so specific to a time and place that, in looking at any other culture, the concept will not be applicable without extending it or redefining it in a broader way, and how you choose to do that is in the eye of the beholder, not a fact about the culture.

Similarly, does every society have forms of language that are socially discouraged in certain situations, or that bear particular social connotations when used in those situations? Absolutely. Does every society have people who will respond to certain linguistic cues in precisely the way that a conservative maiden aunt in 1920s Wiltshire would respond to someone shouting the word "fuck!"? No, of course not. Some cultures completely lack a Wiltshire, for a start.

Or, to put it in a shorter and more universal form: when asking your question, first define your terms. What is "swearing", and how is it different from "cursing" and "cussing"? [I, for instance, lack any concept of "cussing" other than as a weird American euphemism for "cursing"]

[circeus]

I've heard Japanese described as having no obscene words. Like, there's /kuso/ "shit", but it's the same morpheme used in the word for dung beetle and that word doesn't require a euphemism. I'm not sure about a culture without blasphemy .... Even in a culture with no obscene words, you can still say things like "devils pee on God" or even just "God is a devil" to create a blasphemous sentence entirely without the slightest hint of obscenity.

Re: Japanese, I recently read What the F and he points out that Japanese speakers who learn foreign languages (Spanish or English, usually) find it quite satisfying to be able to cuss as it's indeed essentially impossible in Japanese. (The entire book is quite interesting, though sometimes you question the way experiments described were conducted)

[Vijay]

That's probably how Malayalees learning swearwords in English feel, too. It also feels a lot more awkward to me to talk dirty with Indians, at least in theory. I just can't see it working the same way.

[Pabappa]

I think it's worth considering that what we think of as profanity seems to be less defined by being usable as insults, and more by being a set of words that are taboo to utter in certain/most social or discourse contexts. Or are there other ways profanity is typically defined?

i stick with the traditional definition where profanity involves religion, and obscenity involves sex and bodily fluids . I dont use either, .... ive said I have the vocabulary of a kindergarten teacher....But obscene words have never bothered me the way profanity has. Profanity is a slippery slope though... if you can't say "my God!", so you resort to a cover phrase like "my gosh", soon that cover phrase will put the same thoughts in your head so you make a cover phrase for that, and so on.... ive gotten to the point where I try to avoid interjections altogether. Some Christians believe this is the right way to speak, because of a verse in the Bible that seems to prohibit any kind of oath. But what is an oath? That word seems to often be used as a synonym for "curse", which itself has many meanings, so we could go on and on.... this is probably why many Christians are ok with "Jeez!" and some even with "Jesus!" ..... nobody can ever prove the other viewpoint wrong.

[Vijay]

If profanity involves religion, then it can't be universal because religion isn't universal.

[Pabappa]

But there will always be religious people in every society. Even in China where the state promotes atheism, there are hundreds of millions of religious people, and the others are, I'm sure, at least familiar with basic religious concepts.

[Xwtek]

If profanity involves religion, then it can't be universal because religion isn't universal.

Almost universal because until now, everyone is religious.

[Ares Land]

If profanity involves religion, then it can't be universal because religion isn't universal.

Contemporary European French has a lot of profanity and none of it is religious.

(I mean, as used by the agnostic / irreligious majority. Muslim kids in my neighborhood seem to swear by Allah a great deal)

[Vijay]

But there will always be religious people in every society.

The religious definition of profanity seems to involve a specific definition of religion that would probably exclude most societies on Earth.

The oldest religion (if it can be called that) that I can think of in Kerala is snake worship, yet somehow I doubt that anyone who worshiped snakes would bat an eyelid even at the most brutal murder of a snake (EDIT: let alone at mere words against snakes).

Almost universal because until now, everyone is religious.

Huh? Atheism has been documented for over 3,000 years. EDIT2: Plus religions don't exist by default. They are human-made.

[Xwtek]

Almost universal because until now, everyone is religious.

Huh? Atheism has been documented for over 3,000 years. EDIT2: Plus religions don't exist by default. They are human-made.

Whoops, you're right. It's still almost universal, though. Also, while I don't think God creates a human with some religion, I think religion is something naturally developed, just like language.

[Vijay]

It's still almost universal, though.

It's really not. 61% of people in China claimed to be atheist in 2015. 20% of people in the EU claimed not to be religious in 2010.

Also, while I don't think God creates a human with some religion, I think religion is something naturally developed, just like language.

This is also false. Humans need language in order to function normally. Humans do not need religion to function normally. Plus as I said before, most societies probably don't even have religion per se.

[Salmoneus]

This is a pointless debate. "All societies have religion" and "most societies don't have religion" are just unacknowledged arguments about how to define "religion".

[fwiw, under the better definition, all societies have religion by definition. but there are plenty of other definitions.]

------


More fruitfully, I thought I'd clarify something because it might shed some light on the actual topic...


Strictly speaking, profanity and obscenity are different - indeed, they're opposite.

Something is profane when it improperly combines something serious and important (usually something very good or very bad) with something ordinary, in a way that seems to show insufficient respect for the serious topic.

Something is obscene when it improperly combines something private with something public in a way that makes people feel uncomfortable. (this tends to include certain bodily functions and reproductive processes, but can be much wider in cultures with more rigid rules of privacy - eg talking about certain emotions, or about certain financial arrangements, or about honour, or your in-laws, can be regarded as obscene)


The notion of profanity requires the notion of something sacred - they are opposites. [strictly speaking, profanity makes the sacred profane]. However, you certainly don't need organised religion of a pseudo-Christian kind in order to have the sacred - all societies hold things sacred.

In the modern west, saying something like "Mary's tits!", or "by heaven, I will win the next hand!" is no longer particularly profane. But profanity still abounds. Indeed, profanity has taken up a prominent role in modern politics, or at least the media's coverage of politics. From making jokes about Auschwitz to using the n-word inappropriately, when people talk about "crossing a line" in a context that doesn't involve actual attacks on other people, they're usually talking about the line between the profane and the sacred.

[profanity and obscenity are probably the same at an underlying level - the sacred is, as it were, the communal private area, and invasions of the sacred are treated as intrusions on the private space of everybody, which is why they evoke such powerful feelings of anger].


----

The essence of "swearing" is that it is a social norm whereby, in certain contexts, social norms of privacy and the sacred are violated, usually in order to demonstrate disregard for the threat of norm-enforcing sanctions (eg, I swear to show I don't care what you think of me, or to show I'm confident that you will still think well of me even if I swear).

The details of this - what is taboo, and which taboo things are 'safe' enough to violate and which remain dangerous, and when it is considered good to violate the taboo - will vary almost completely between cultures. But I think the basic framework is probably universal.

[vegfarandi]

Icelandic traditionally used Christian words as profanity. Genitive forms of nouns referring to the devil are popular: "andskotans, djöfulsins, fjandans, bévítans bölvans" and to hell "helvítis". There's also just breaking the third commandment "Jesús!" "Jesús Kristur!" "Jesús, María og Jósep!" and "Guð minn almáttugur" 'My god almighty'.

As Christianity's power has vaned and correspondingly, the shock value of blasphemy, English cursewords have been liberally borrowed: "fokk, fokking" and "sjitt" are heard all the time now (but with significantly less bite than in English). Interestingly, we've also borrowed a couple of English blasphemous ones: "díses, díses kræst, dísuss, djísöss, dísengs" and "ómægod" should be parsable for you all.

So Icelanders curse for sure, but it's hard to get the same heights in terms of shock value as is possible in English. None of these sting quite the way a well uttered "fuck" can sometimes do in English.