1 23

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research ISSN 0090-6905 J Psycholinguist ResDOI 10.1007/s10936-014-9345-z

Swears in Context: The Difference BetweenCasual and Abusive Swearing

Hansika Kapoor

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and all

rights are held exclusively by Springer Science

+Business Media New York. This e-offprint is

for personal use only and shall not be self-

archived in electronic repositories. If you wish

to self-archive your article, please use the

accepted manuscript version for posting on

your own website. You may further deposit

the accepted manuscript version in any

repository, provided it is only made publicly

available 12 months after official publication

or later and provided acknowledgement is

given to the original source of publication

and a link is inserted to the published article

on Springer's website. The link must be

accompanied by the following text: "The final

publication is available at link.springer.com”.

J Psycholinguist ResDOI 10.1007/s10936-014-9345-z

Swears in Context: The Difference Between Casualand Abusive Swearing

Hansika Kapoor

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Abstract Although swearing is taboo language, it frequently appears in daily conversations.To explain this paradox, two studies examined contextualized swearing in Indian and non-Indian participants. In Study 1, participants assessed the appropriateness of mild, moderate,and severe swears in casual and abusive contexts; in Study 2, participants completed contex-tual dialogues with mild, moderate, or severe swearwords. Results indicated that mild andmoderate swears were more appropriate in casual settings than in abusive scenarios; severeswears were the most inappropriate, regardless of context. Mild and moderate swears werelikely to be used to complete casual and abusive dialogues respectively, even though it wasexpected that severe swears would be compatible with abusive settings. Moreover, genderand nationality differences suggested that assessing appropriateness of swearing behaviourand likelihood of swearword usage provided independent and contrasting findings. Culturalvariations in swearing behaviour, particularly contextualized swearing, and suggestions forfurther research are outlined.

Keywords Swear words · Taboo words · Casual swearing · Abusive swearing ·Contextual swearing

Swearing serves the purpose of expressing one’s emotional state to listeners (Jay 1999,2000; as cited in Jay and Janschewitz 2008), and comprises offensive and obscene language.However, prior research has found that using profanity in all contexts at all times was notequivalently offensive (e.g., Johnson and Lewis 2010; Rieber et al. 1979). To study swear-ing contextually, Ross (1969; as cited in Beers-Fägersten 2012) differentiated two kinds ofswearing: (a) annoyance swearing, associated with greater transgression, where the swearer

I thank Ahuti Das, Anupama Nair, Aakankshi Javeri, and Merin Sanil for their assistance during datacollection. I acknowledge the valuable comments of two anonymous reviewers on a previous version of thismanuscript.

H. Kapoor (B)Department of Psychology, Monk Prayogshala (Sec 25), 1103, Hillside, A Wing, Raheja Vihar, Powai,Mumbai 400072, Indiae-mail: hk@monkprayogshala.in

123

Author's personal copy

J Psycholinguist Res

is stressed; and (b) social swearing, associated with social context, where the swearer isrelaxed. The latter was hypothesized to promote social bonding, enabling the formation ofcoalitions. Similarly, this paper examined the contextual use of swearing (Allan and Burridge2006) in casual and abusive scenarios.

Contextual Swearing

Historically, the linguistic evolution of swearing in English progressed from Ancient Rometo Biblical references, through the Middle Ages and Renaissance, culminating into a validarea of linguistic study in contemporary times (Mohr 2013). In line with this evolution,the modern-day usage of swearwords is expanding—linguistically and contextually. Forinstance, Murphy (2009) studied the variations and uses of the word fuck and its derivatives,while Barbieri (2008) assessed the linguistic multi-functionality of swearwords. In addition,earlier research suggested that the connotations of words, including swears, were closelyrelated to milieu, pragmatics, gender, and importantly culture (Allan 2007; Jay 2009; Jay andJanschewitz 2008; Ljung 1983; as cited in Karjalainen 2002; Spinney 2007).

The contextualized study of swearing also addresses the swearing paradox (Beers-Fägersten 2007, 2012). The paradox revealed that in spite of swearing being highly offensiveand taboo behaviour, especially when context was disregarded, it was very frequent. Beers-Fägersten (2007) provided on-campus dialogues, and thus context to swearwords in herstudy. These were subsequently rated as less offensive, in comparison to denotative ratingsof swears. Similarly, Jay (2009) suggested that inequalities between taboo words might beaccentuated by the contexts of their use. Fuck you! has a strong emotional loading, but mighthave different emphases in conversational and hostile contexts.

These findings were consistent with Rieber et al. (1979), who found that “obscenities useddenotatively can be considered far more harsh and offensive than those used connotatively”(p. 221). The word asshole and the sentence He’s an asshole for cheating on you may leadto different offensiveness ratings. Context clarified the intention of swearword usage, andmight have attenuated its offensiveness (e.g., Jay and Janschewitz 2008).

A recent patent for offensiveness detection proposed that each word has an “offensivenessscore,” calculated based on its perceived severity (U.S. Patent No. 2011/0191105 A1 2011).Reactions to offensive words were explained in terms of an “offensiveness threshold” basedon the individual’s sensitivity to profane language. Thus, if a word’s offensiveness scorewas higher than the individual’s offensiveness threshold, the word would be consideredinappropriate and offensive; but if the individual’s tolerance for swearwords were high, andthe word’s offensiveness score did not exceed the threshold, it was not likely to be perceived asoffensive. Extending this premise, individuals’ offensiveness thresholds might be lowered inthe company of friends and colleagues, such as when they are swearing in casual scenarios.Similarly, when a word’s offensiveness score is lower, like a mild and moderate swear,these might be used more often than words with higher offensiveness scores, like severeswearwords.

This import of context in swearing behaviour was illustrated through expectancy vio-lations theory (EVT; Burgoon 1993; Johnson and Lewis 2010). EVT suggested that whencommunicating in formal settings, swearwords violated scripts associated with such con-versations. The more severe the word, the greater was the violation, and the higher was theoffensiveness rating. In casual scenarios, on the other hand, expectations were not violated tothe same extent, and swearwords were not judged to be as offensive (Johnson 2012; Johnson

123

Author's personal copy

J Psycholinguist Res

and Lewis 2010). In fact, communication expectancies were proposed to be based on contextcharacteristics, along with communicator and relationship factors (Burgoon 1993).

Further, earlier studies examining the why of swearing unknowingly assessed their con-textual use. Psychological (e.g., to emphasize feelings), linguistic (e.g., out of habit), andsociological (e.g., to act cool) motives were important for both males and females (Fineand Johnson 1984). Such motives could be related to the formality of scenarios in whichswearing occurred. Similarly, Nasution and Rosa (2012) found that a significant motive forswearing, after expressing anger, was to make a joke. Hence, although irritation elicitedabusive swearing, humour might elicit casual swearing.

Gender and Swearing

Along with context, gender differences in the use and perception of swearwords have beenreported extensively in classic and contemporary works (e.g., DeKlerk 1991; Jay 1980, 2009;Sapolsky and Kaye 2005). Rieber et al. (1979) concluded that swearwords were stronger,more potent, and more active for women than for men. Foote and Woodward (1973) foundthat males produced more swearwords than females; however, qualitative differences werenot obtained. In contrast, more recent work by Beers-Fägersten (2012) presented detailedqualitative analyses of gender, among other differences, in spontaneous swearing behaviour.

In addition to influencing the number of taboo words known, sex also moderated theirusage by speakers and reactions to their use by listeners (Jay 1980). Beers-Fägersten (2012)continued to find such distinctions in swearing patterns, and in ratings of offensiveness andtabooness of swearwords based on gender. However, Johnson and Lewis (2010) indicatedno prominent difference between male and female swearers in contemporary language use.In sum, earlier research reported inconsistent results with respect to gender differences inswearing. It was therefore important to explore cross-cultural gender differences by studyingswearing in Indian participants.

The Present Study

It is evident that contextualized swearing provides a sociolinguistic lens through which toview the behaviour. Hence, two studies were conducted to assess the contextual appropri-ateness and frequency of usage of swearwords. Appropriateness of swearing, distinct fromoffensiveness, was the extent to which individuals found swearing permissible in differentcontexts. Another goal was to determine how likely participants were to use certain swears tocomplete contextual dialogues. In general, it was hypothesized that mild and moderate swearswould be more appropriate and frequently selected in casual contexts; although severe swearswould be deemed inappropriate, they would be the words of choice in abusive contexts.

Earlier studies (e.g., Janschewitz 2008) derived taboo word norms using participants fromWestern universities. Since the perceived severity of taboo language differs across the globe,English swearwords were classified into mild, moderate, or severe categories based on resultsfrom an online survey conducted with Indian participants (N = 300, 203 females) from Augustto October 2011. 94 % used English as their primary language and the majority (66 %) were20–24 years old. Also, the majority of respondents (>40 %) classified words as mild, moder-ate, or severe, which were used in the subsequent studies. Since English swears are frequentlyused by urban Indians, particularly young adults, swearing in English was a relevant startingpoint for taboo language research with this bilingual, if not multilingual, demographic.

Prior research in the swearing domain has studied participants from Western universitiesand nations. Given the dearth of taboo language research with Indian participants (but see

123

Author's personal copy

J Psycholinguist Res

Fernandez 2008), the current study was an initial step to explore swearing appropriatenessand usage in the Indian context, especially in comparison with non-Indian participants. Thestudies intended to elaborate the idea of contextual swearing, as well as broach the notion ofcultural differences in swearword perceptions and usage (Ljung 1983; as cited in Karjalainen2002).

Study 1

Study 1 aimed to determine how appropriate contextual swearing was in casual and abusivescenarios, with swearwords of varying severity. Chief hypotheses were:

H1: Mild swears are more appropriate than moderate swears, which in turn, are more appro-priate than severe swears.

H2: Swearing in casual contexts is more appropriate than swearing in abusive settings.H3: Mild swears in casual contexts are the least inappropriate, and severe swears in abusive

contexts are the most inappropriate.

Ancillary analyses evaluated gender and nationality differences in appropriateness ratingsof different context–swear scenarios.

Method

Participants

An international sample of 254 participants (103 Indians, 159 women, Mage = 24.99, SD =9.7, range 15–70) was obtained after data screening. Participants were recruited throughonline sampling methods, employing multiple site entry to limit self-selection (Reips 2002).The diverse sample was 40 % Indian, 30 % American, 7 % Singaporean, 5 % British, 4 % Aus-tralian, 3 % Canadian, 1 % Dutch, 1 % French and <1 % Austrian, Belgian, Brazilian, Chi-nese, Egyptian, Finnish, German, Italian, Malay, Mexican, Norwegian, Romanian, Russian,Spanish and Thai. All participants were eligible to enter a random draw to win a gift voucherworth Rs. 500. Participants were clearly notified that the study contained abusive languageand profanity, and had the right to leave the study at any time.

Measures and Procedure

Swearing Questionnaire

A 12-item questionnaire (Appendix A) assessed the appropriateness of swearing behaviourthrough dialogue-like sentences. A mixed 3×2×2×2 design was used to manipulate twowithin-subject variables and two between-subject variables of gender (male, female) andnationality (Indian, non-Indian; see also Jay and Janschewitz 2008). The severity of theswearword or phrase (mild, moderate, severe) and the context of its use (casual, abusive)were within-subject variables. Two items in the questionnaire represented each of the sixcontext–swear conditions; ratings on items assessing the same context–swear situation wereaveraged. Items were randomized across three versions of the questionnaire to prevent ordereffects.

In the dialogues, letters of the alphabet represented speaker and listener names, toavoid confounding by speaker and listener sex (Johnson and Lewis 2010; Martensson2013).The speaker–listener relationship implied equal status; all dialogues suggested interac-

123

Author's personal copy

J Psycholinguist Res

tions between friends or colleagues. Four swearwords were selected in each severity categorybased on the earlier pilot data. The context was manipulated as being abusive (swearing withthe direct intention of causing harm, including hostile and antagonistic swears), or casual(swearing with little or no intention of causing harm). The latter included conversationalswearing in humourous and emphatic tones (Beers-Fägersten 2012) and cathartic swearingas spontaneous reactions to physical or emotional pain (Pinker 2007; Stephens and Umland2011). While swearing in abusive contexts was chiefly propositional, swearing in casualscenarios was propositional or non-propositional (Jay and Janschewitz 2008).

An item from the questionnaire is, “X to a friend Y, while drinking some soup: ‘Oh fuck!I burnt my tongue!”’ that manipulates a moderate swear (oh fuck) in a casual context.

The primary dependent variable was the appropriateness of the swearword in the dialogue,rated on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = very appropriate to 7 = very inappropriate). Further,appropriateness was defined as whether the swear was suitable for use in the given context ofthe dialogue. Offensiveness ratings were deliberately not used, since they were likely to reducethe import of context (see Beers-Fägersten 2012). This is not to say that appropriateness wasa neutral anchor to make ratings. For the purpose of this study, it was assumed that higherratings implied inappropriateness, and lower ratings implied appropriateness. Self-reportedusage frequencies for mild, moderate, and severe swears were recorded for supplementaryanalyses.

Reynolds Short Form C of the Marlowe–Crowne Social Desirability Scale (SDS)

This scale was used in its 13-item True–False format (Reynolds 1982). An item from the scaleis “I am sometimes irritated by people who ask favours of me.” This measure was employedto determine whether participants responded to the swearing questionnaire honestly, andwhether item-wise appropriateness was mediated by social desirability.

Results

Descriptive data for appropriateness ratings are displayed in Table 1. Severity of swearwordand context were within-subject variables, while gender and nationality of participants werebetween-subjects factors. Appropriateness ratings were analyzed with a four-way mixedANOVA. In all results, partial eta-squared estimates revealed the extent of variance in thedependent measure, appropriateness, as a function of the IVs and their combinations.

Significant main effects were found for the all variables: context, F(1, 250) = 248.06,MSE = 361.12, p < .001, η2

p = .50; severity of swearwords, F(2, 500) = 152.67, M SE =197.84, p < .001, η2

p = .38; gender, F(1, 250) = 8.65, MSE = 7.28, p = .004, η2p = .03;

and nationality, F(1, 250) = 4.98, M SE = 4.19, p = .03, η2p = .02. Significant interactions

were found between context and severity, F(2, 500) = 11.23, MSE = 11.20, p < .001, η2p =

.04; context and nationality, F(1, 250) = 14.90, M SE = 21.69, p < .001, η2p = .06; context,

severity, and nationality, F(2, 500) = 2.98, M SE = 2.97, p = .05, η2p = .01; and severity,

gender and nationality, F(2, 500) = 3.42, M SE = 4.43, p = .03, η2p = .01.

The SDS displayed low internal consistency for the Indian sample (α = .50), the non-Indian sample (α = .62), and the total sample (α = .57). However, scores on the measurewere only moderately correlated with appropriateness ratings of the Abusive-Mild scenarios(r = .13, p = .04), suggesting that participants were likely to have responded candidly.

In addition to robust quantitative results, qualitative data analyses indicated that partici-pants used mild and moderate swearwords more frequently than severe ones, in a temporal

123

Author's personal copy

J Psycholinguist Res

Table 1 Means and standard deviations of appropriateness ratings for nationality and gender subsamples,and all participants for each context and severity of swearword (Study 1)

Context–swear Indian (n = 103) Non-Indian (n = 151) Men (n = 95) Women (n = 159) All (N = 254)

Casual-mild

M 3.04 3.32 3.01 3.33 3.21

SD 1.17 1.41 1.22 1.38 1.32

Casual-moderate

M 2.98 2.84 2.83 2.94 2.90

SD 1.21 1.40 1.24 1.38 1.33

Casual-severe

M 4.03 3.78 3.74 3.97 3.88

SD 1.39 1.51 1.45 1.48 1.47

Abusive-mild

M 3.96 4.36 4.03 4.30 4.20

SD 1.13 1.25 1.28 1.17 1.22

Abusive-moderate

M 3.40 3.95 3.51 3.86 3.73

SD 1.38 1.69 1.49 1.64 1.59

Abusive-severe

M 5.06 5.56 4.95 5.60 5.36

SD 1.39 1.24 1.38 1.23 1.32

Higher ratings indicate more inappropriateness

frame of one week, χ2(2, N = 254) = 349.2, p < .001. Similarly, participants more oftenused swearwords in casual settings, including conversational and cathartic contexts, than inabusive scenarios, including hostile contexts, χ2(1, N = 254) = 64.64, p < .001.

Discussion

Swearing in casual contexts was more appropriate than in abusive ones (H1), which providedan explanation for the swearing paradox (Beers-Fägersten 2007, 2012). Although swear-words are considered taboo, their usage can increase substantially in casual settings, beingless offensive in such contexts. Qualitative analyses strongly supported this view. Counter-intuitively, inappropriateness ratings increased from moderate to mild to severe swearwords,partially in line with H2. Mild swears (e.g., asshole) were deemed more inappropriate thanmoderate swears (e.g., bitch); this may be due to increased frequency of use, compatibilitywith other swearwords, and syntactic variation (e.g., Murphy 2009).

Male participants found swearing more appropriate than females, regardless of context,consistent with Jay (1981) and Beers-Fägersten (2012). In abusive settings, Indian participantsfound swearing more appropriate than non-Indian participants (Fig. 1), implying a higheroffensiveness threshold for taboo language use (U.S. Patent No. 2011/0191105 A1 2011).

The context–swear interaction explained the mitigating role of context on the appropri-ateness of swearing. Moderate swears in casual settings were the least inappropriate, whilesevere swears in abusive contexts were the most inappropriate, as illustrated in Fig. 2; this waspartially in line with H3. Based on EVT (Burgoon 1993), mild or moderate swears might nothave violated conversational expectations in casual scenarios, raising their appropriatenessin comparison to severe swears.

123

Author's personal copy

J Psycholinguist Res

Fig. 1 Context–nationality interaction displaying appropriateness ratings of Indian (n = 103) and non-Indian(n = 151) participants in casual and abusive contexts. Higher ratings indicate more inappropriateness

Fig. 2 Context–swear interaction displaying mild, moderate and severe swears in casual and abusive contextsfor the total sample (N = 254). Higher ratings indicate more inappropriateness

The context–swear–nationality interaction suggested that non-Indian participants ratedswearing in abusive scenarios as more inappropriate than Indian participants, as severityincreased from moderate to mild to severe. The severity–gender–nationality interaction indi-cated that Indian women found severe swears the most inappropriate, while Indian menfound moderate swears the least inappropriate. Further, there was a larger disparity betweenappropriateness ratings between Indian men and women, as compared to non-Indian men andwomen. Thus, cultural variations in swearword usage and tolerance implied that non-Indianconceptions of swearing were more alike across the genders (Johnson and Lewis 2010), incomparison to Indian notions. However, it must be borne in mind that all participants were

123

Author's personal copy

J Psycholinguist Res

self-selected netizens, whose views of appropriate swearing behaviour cannot be generalizedto populations at large.

Study 2

Study 1 indicated that the contextual appropriateness of swearwords was linked to swearseverity. Study 2 extended this finding, where participants rated the likelihood of using mild,moderate, and severe swearwords to complete contextual dialogues. It was hypothesized thatmild and moderate swears are more likely to be used in casual, conversational, and catharticscenarios, while severe swears are likely to be employed in abusive and hostile contexts (H4).

Method

Participants

Two hundred and sixty-five participants (105 Indians, 148 women, Mage = 24.64, SD =9.25, range 16–79) were recruited through online methods, employing multiple site entry.This sample was 40 % Indian, 37 % American, 8 % Singaporean, 4 % British, 3 % Australian,2 % Canadian, and less than one percent Brazilian, Chinese, Finnish, Irish, Israeli, Italian,Korean, Malay, New Zealander, Norwegian and Pakistani. All participants were eligible toenter a random draw to win a Rs. 500 gift voucher. Participants were clearly informed thatthe study included profane language.

Measures and Procedure

Dialogue Questionnaire

A ten-item questionnaire (Appendix B) assessed the likelihood of using mild, moderate,or severe swears to complete five kinds of contextual dialogues defined for this study: (a)casual, directed to a nonliving object, situation or experience; (b) conversational, directed toan individual with no intention to cause harm; (c) cathartic, to express physical or emotionalpain (Pinker 2007; Stephens and Umland 2011); (d) abusive, directed to an individual to causeharm; and (e) hostile, to indicate antagonism. Two items represented each context; ratings onitems assessing the same context were averaged. A mixed 3×5×2×2 design was employed,similar to Study 1. Within-subject variables were swear (mild, moderate, severe) and context(casual, conversational, cathartic, abusive, hostile); between-subject factors were gender andnationality.

An item from the questionnaire is, “X to a friend Y while passing by a store: ‘That outfitwould make anyone wearing it look ________ (stupid/bitchy/slutty).”’ Using a five-pointLikert scale, participants rated how likely they were to use each of the mild, moderate, andsevere swears given to complete the contextual dialogue. They were also given an option toenter another swearword of their choice.

Reynolds Short Form C of the Marlowe–Crowne Social Desirability Scale (SDS)

Social desirability was measured again to assess the relationship between likelihood of usingmild, moderate, or severe swears in different contexts, and propensity to maintain a favourableself-image.

123

Author's personal copy

J Psycholinguist Res

Table 2 Means and standard deviations of likelihood ratings of swear use for nationality and gender subsam-ples, and all participants for each context and severity of swearword (Study 2)

Severity Indian (n = 105) Non-Indian (n = 160) Men (n = 117) Women (n = 148) All (N = 265)

Casual

Mild

M 3.23 2.64 2.83 2.91 2.88

SD 0.98 0.99 1.01 1.04 1.03

Moderate

M 2.42 2.80 2.70 2.61 2.65

SD 0.75 0.83 0.69 0.91 0.82

Severe

M 1.88 2.58 2.21 2.37 2.30

SD 0.87 1.19 1.04 1.18 1.12

Conversational

Mild

M 2.91 2.70 2.84 2.73 2.78

SD 0.95 1.03 1.00 1.00 1.00

Moderate

M 2.19 2.76 2.65 2.45 2.53

SD 0.82 1.19 1.10 1.08 1.09

Severe

M 1.35 1.67 1.63 1.47 1.54

SD 0.56 0.96 0.86 0.82 0.84

Cathartic

Mild

M 3.05 2.75 2.82 2.90 2.87

SD 1.02 1.04 1.02 1.06 1.04

Moderate

M 2.53 2.91 2.69 2.81 2.76

SD 0.76 0.98 0.78 1.01 0.92

Severe

M 1.41 1.49 1.55 1.39 1.46

SD 0.60 0.80 0.82 0.64 0.73

Abusive

Mild

M 2.74 2.39 2.46 2.58 2.53

SD 0.97 1.12 1.07 1.08 1.07

Moderate

M 2.60 3.46 3.06 3.17 3.12

SD 1.11 1.14 1.22 1.19 1.20

123

Author's personal copy

J Psycholinguist Res

Table 2 continued

Severity Indian (n = 105) Non-Indian (n = 160) Men (n = 117) Women (n = 148) All (N = 265)

Severe

M 1.75 2.56 2.32 2.18 2.24

SD 0.89 1.19 1.06 1.22 1.15

Hostile

Mild

M 3.32 3.48 3.38 3.45 3.42

SD 1.05 1.28 1.18 1.20 1.19

Moderate

M 2.21 2.00 2.21 1.98 2.08

SD 0.99 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.96

Severe

M 1.34 1.23 1.29 1.25 1.27

SD 0.54 0.62 0.61 0.58 0.59

Results

Table 2 displays descriptive data for the likelihood of swear use in each context, and foreach severity level. Using a four-way mixed ANOVA, significant main effects were foundfor context, F(3.8, 984.8) = 32.21, M SE = 20.79, p < .001, η2

p = .11; severity, F(1.9,

487.3) = 369.69 M SE = 505.28, p < .001, η2p = .59; and nationality, F(1, 261) = 5.89,

M SE = 1.77, p = .02, η2p = .02. Neither gender differences, F(1, 261) = .15, M SE =

.05, ns, nor a gender × nationality interaction was obtained. Greenhouse–Geisser correctionswere used for variables that violated the sphericity assumption. Partial eta-squared estimatesrevealed the extent of variance in the dependent measure, likelihood, as a function of the IVsand their combinations.

Significant interaction effects were found between context and nationality, F(3.8,984.8) = 10.15, M SE = 6.55, p < .001, η2

p = .04; severity and nationality, F(1.9,

487.3) = 31.31 MSE = 42.79, p < .001, η2p = .11; context and severity, F(6.5, 1,700.2) = 66.64,

MSE = 48.05, p < .001, η2p = .20; and context, severity and nationality, F(6.5,

1700.2) = 15.76, MSE = 11.36, p < .001, η2p = .06. Again, the SDS displayed low inter-

nal consistency for the Indian sample (α = .50), the non-Indian sample (α = .69), andthe total sample (α = .63). SDS was negatively correlated with the likelihood of usingmoderate and severe swears in casual, conversational, and abusive scenarios (rs = −.21to −.12, ps < .05), implying that participants who scored higher on the SDS reported alower likelihood of using swears in the aforementioned contexts. In contrast, SDS correlatedpositively with the likelihood of using severe swears in hostile dialogues (r = .13, p = .03).

When participants completed dialogues with swearwords of their choice, they were clas-sified according to their severity based on the initial pilot data. Mild swears were likely tobe used in casual, cathartic, and hostile scenarios; moderate swears were more likely to beused in conversational and abusive contexts. Further, some Indian participants completedthe dialogues with Hindi swears, encouraging the study of contextual swearing in Hindi andother languages.

123

Author's personal copy

J Psycholinguist Res

Fig. 3 Context–swear interaction displaying mild, moderate, and severe swears in casual, conversational,cathartic, abusive, and hostile contexts for the total sample (N = 265). Higher ratings indicate higher likelihoodof swear use

Discussion

Results obtained partially supported H4. Regardless of severity, swears were most likely to beused in casual and abusive dialogues, and least likely to be used in conversational and hostilesettings. Mild swears were more likely to be used in casual, conversational, and catharticcontexts, as well as in hostile scenarios. Severe swears were least likely to be used in any ofthe five contexts, with participants preferring moderate swears even in abusive contexts. Theself-report nature of the questionnaire or inadequate contextualization may have inhibitedparticipants’ reporting of severe swearword usage.

Non-Indian participants were more likely to use swearwords as compared to Indian partic-ipants. Contrary to Study 1, there was no difference in the likelihood of usage between malesand females (Johnson and Lewis 2010; McEnery 2006). The context–nationality interactionindicated that non-Indians were most likely to swear in abusive dialogues, followed by casualones; conversely, Indians were most likely to swear in casual dialogues and least likely touse swearwords in conversational settings. The severity–nationality interaction revealed thatnon-Indian participants were more likely to use mild and moderate swears, compared tosevere ones. Indian participants were likely to use swears in the increasing order of severity.

The context–swear (Fig. 3) and context–swear–nationality interactions (Figs. 4, 5) revealedinteresting patterns of swearword usage. Overall, severe swears were least likely to be used,while mild and moderate swears were often used to complete contextual dialogues. For Indianparticipants, likelihood of usage was clearly linked to swear severity, with minor changesacross contexts. For non-Indian participants, moderate swears were most likely to be usedin all contexts, except hostile dialogues, where mild swears were used. It was interesting tonote that usage patterns across severity were not extremely different in casual dialogues.

General Discussion

The appropriateness, frequency, and likelihood of using contextualized swearwords of differ-ing severity were examined in two studies. In Study 1, participants rated the appropriateness

123

Author's personal copy

J Psycholinguist Res

Fig. 4 Context–swear interaction displaying mild, moderate, and severe swears in casual, conversational,cathartic, abusive, and hostile contexts for the Indian sample (n = 105). Higher ratings indicate more likelihoodof swear use

Fig. 5 Context–swear interaction displaying mild, moderate, and severe swears in casual, conversational,cathartic, abusive, and hostile contexts for the non-Indian sample (n = 160). Higher ratings indicate morelikelihood of swear use

of mild, moderate, and severe swears in casual and abusive settings; and Study 2 required par-ticipants to rate how likely they were to use mild, moderate, and severe swears in contextualdialogues.

Results across the studies indicated that (a) although mild swearwords were less appro-priate than moderate swears, mild swears were most likely to be used in all casual contexts;(b) participants used mild and moderate swears more frequently than severe ones; (c) swear-words were used more in casual contexts than in abusive ones; and (d) participants rated severeswearwords to be the least appropriate and the least likely to be used in casual and abusivesettings. Severe swears were not only likely to violate contextual expectations (Burgoon

123

Author's personal copy

J Psycholinguist Res

1993), but also had higher offensiveness scores than most participants’ offensiveness thresh-olds (U.S. Patent No. 2011/0191105 A1 2011). Further, almost all severe swears referred towomen (e.g., whore), which may have influenced participants’ ratings (see also Pilotti et al.2012).

Interestingly, moderate swears were the preferred words of choice in abusive contexts inStudy 2, and were the most appropriate swears in Study 1. Thus, desensitization towardsswearwords, as well as a reduction of their potency due to overuse (Hughes 1991) may havelead to these results. As swears were classified based on a pilot study with Indian participants,context–swear interactions should be studied using a larger corpus of swearwords.

With respect to gender, although female participants deemed swearing as more inap-propriate, they were just as likely to use swearwords as male participants. With respect tonationality, although Indian participants found swearing more appropriate, they were lesslikely to use swearwords in comparison to non-Indian participants. Thus, rating swearingbehaviour as appropriate or offensive or taboo may not be associated with actual swearingbehaviour, especially when contextualized (Beers-Fägersten 2007, 2012; Jay and Jansche-witz 2008). Moreover, as dividing samples along the lines of nationality was not optimal,future research can address such cross-cultural contradictions.

A major limitation was the inability to study bilingual and multilingual swearing amongIndian participants. Multilinguals swear in L1 more frequently than in languages acquiredlater (Dewaele 2004a). Also, swearwords were perceived to carry greater emotional loadingin L1 for bilinguals (Harris et al. 2003) and multilinguals (Dewaele 2004b). As the currentwork assessed appropriateness and likelihood of swearing in English, which may or maynot be the L1 of Indian participants, and as most Indian participants are at least bilingual(if not multilingual), it is important to extend the current work using taboo words in variousL1s. An Indian participant’s L1 can be: their mother tongue; language of the state of origin;language of the state of residence; or one of the two official languages of the nation–Hindi orEnglish. To begin, appropriateness of contextualized Hindi swearwords as well as the levelsof severity for Hindi swears can be examined.

As euphemisms do not have conditioned emotional responses, unlike swear words (Bowersand Pleydell-Pearce 2011), future research can study their contextualized use. Euphemisms,especially in abusive settings, may not violate conversational expectancies due to their dimin-ished linguistic and emotional impact. The use of other linguistic devices that convey aggres-sion and hostility in some contexts, but which are acceptable in other casual scenarios canalso be studied.

In conclusion, the current work provided a preliminary investigation of contextualizedswearing and differences in swearing patterns across nations. Linguistic profanities punctuateconversation in all scenarios, and may influence perceived competence in a language. Theuse of mild, moderate, and severe swears was influenced by the context of their use—animportant outcome in swearing literature. Examining the contextual use of swears in two ormultiple languages in bi- or multi-lingual participants would be the next step in applying thecurrent work.

123

Author's personal copy

J Psycholinguist Res

Appendix A

Swearing Questionnaire (Study 1)

You will be presented with several dialogues between two people, each containing a swearword/phrase. Please read each sentence carefully and decide whether the swear word/phraseused is appropriate or not, in the given context. Please make your ratings using the followingscale:

(1) Very Appropriate(2) Appropriate(3) Somewhat Appropriate(4) Neither Appropriate nor Inappropriate(5) Somewhat Inappropriate(6) Inappropriate(7) Very Inappropriate

1. X to a friend Y, while drinking some soup: “Oh fuck! I burnt my tongue!” (casual-moderate)

2. A to a colleague B at work: “I think this is bullshit. You will have to redo the report.”(abusive-mild)

3. Y to a flat-mate Z, during a verbal fight: “You cocksucker! You can’t do anything right!”(abusive-severe)

4. C to a colleague D at office: “Who ate my goddamn sandwich?” (casual-mild)5. C to a friend D, while debating ethics: “This is bloody painful—talking to you.” (abusive-

mild)6. X to a friend Y while shopping: “That outfit makes even the mannequin look like a

whore!” (casual-severe)7. C to a friend D, who made a suggestion: “Come on, don’t be stupid. How can I possibly

quit my job?” (casual-mild)8. A to a colleague B, during a heated argument: “You’re a back-stabbing sisterfucker!”

(abusive-severe)9. A to flat-mate B, who is very messy: “Fuck you, I’ve had it. Clean it up yourself.”

(abusive-moderate)10. Y to a childhood friend, Z: “So how are you, my favorite motherfucker?” (casual-severe)11. A to a roommate B: “My laptop’s behaving like a real bitch today!” (casual-moderate)12. X to a colleague Y, who is giving X a hard time: “Why do you have to be such an asshole?”

(abusive-moderate)

Appendix B

Dialogues Questionnaire (Study 2)

You will be presented with some statements with blanks. You will have the option of usingswear words to complete these sentences. You task is to indicate how likely YOU would beto use EACH of the swear words to fill in the blank in the statement provided by using thefollowing scale: 1 = least likely to 5 = most likely.

123

Author's personal copy

J Psycholinguist Res

1. A to a friend B, about the concert they just attended: “That concert was so _________ good!”(casual-mild, moderate, severe)Bloody Fucking Motherfucking Other

2. X to a colleague Y, during a physical altercation: “You _______! How dare you hit me!”(abusive-mild, moderate, severe)Idiot Bitch Whore Other

3. Z on not being able to find the house keys: “Oh _______, I think I’ve lost the house keys again!”(cathartic-mild, moderate, severe)Damn Fuck Motherfucker Other

4. B greeting a close friend: “What’s up _______?” (conversational-mild, moderate, severe)Jackass Shitface Whore Other

5. X to an employee Y: “That was such a _________ presentation! Redo it!” (hostile-mild, mod-erate, severe)Bullshit Fucked Slutty Other

6. B joking with a close friend C: “Haha, don’t behave like a(n) _____!” (conversational-mild,moderate, severe)Idiot Asshole Cocksucker Other

7. D on not finding a good pen to fill the form: “This ________ of a pen isn’t working!” (cathartic-mild, moderate, severe)Bullshit Bastard Cunt Other

8. B to C during a heated argument: “You _______, I’m gonna make sure you get what youdeserve!” (abusive-mild, moderate, severe)Jackass Asshole Motherfucker Other

9. X to a friend Y while passing by a store: “That outfit would make anyone wearing it look________.” (casual-mild, moderate, severe)Stupid Bitchy Slutty Other

10. G in an outburst to a pestering colleague H: “________! Mind you own business.” (hostile-mild,moderate, severe)Damn it Fuck it Cunt Other

References

Allan, K. (2007). The pragmatics of connotation. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(6), 1047–1057. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2006.08.004.

Allan, K., & Burridge, K. (2006). Forbidden words: Taboo and the censoring of language. New York: Cam-bridge University Press.

Barbieri, F. (2008). Patterns of age-based linguistic variation in American English. Journal of Sociolinguistics,12(1), 58–88. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9841.2008.00353.x.

Beers-Fägersten, K. (2007). A sociolinguistic analysis of swear word offensiveness. Saarland Working Papersin Linguistics (SWPL), 1, pp. 14–37. Retrieved from http://scidok.sulb.uni-saarland.de/

Beers-Fägersten, K. (2012). Who’s swearing now? The social aspects of conversational swearing. CambridgeScholars Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/.

Bowers, J. S., & Pleydell-Pearce, C. W. (2011). Swearing, euphemisms, and linguistic relativity. PloS One,6(7), e22341. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0022341.

Burgoon, J. K. (1993). Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional communication.Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12(1–2), 30–48. doi:10.1177/0261927X93121003.

DeKlerk, V. (1991). Expletives: Men only? Communication Monographs, 58(2), 156–169. doi:10.1080/03637759109376220.

Dewaele, J.-M. (2004a). Blistering barnacles! What language do multilinguals swear in?! Estudios de Soci-olinguistica, 5(1):83–105. Retrieved from http://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/

Dewaele, J.-M. (2004b). The emotional force of swearwords and taboo words in the speech of mul-tilinguals. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 25(2–3), 204–222. doi:10.1080/01434630408666529.

Fernandez, R. J. J. (2008). Swear words used by male Indian undergraduates in daily conversation. Master’sthesis, Faculty of Languages and Linguistics, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur. Retrieved from http://dspace.fsktm.um.edu

123

Author's personal copy

J Psycholinguist Res

Fine, M. G., & Johnson, F. L. (1984). Female and male motives for using obscenity. Journal of Language andSocial Psychology, 3(1), 59–74. doi:10.1177/0261927X8431004.

Foote, R., & Woodward, J. (1973). A preliminary investigation of obscene language. The Journal of Psychology:Interdisciplinary and Applied, 83(2), 263–275. doi:10.1080/00223980.1973.9915614.

Harris, C. L., Aycicegi, A., & Gleason, J. B. (2003). Taboo words and reprimands elicit greater autonomicreactivity in a first language than in a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24(4), 561–579. doi:10.1017/S0142716403000286.

Hughes, G. (1991). Swearing: A social history of foul language, oaths and profanity in English. Retrievedfrom http://books.google.co.in/books

Janschewitz, K. (2008). Taboo, emotionally valenced, and emotionally neutral word norms. Behavior ResearchMethods, 40(4), 1065–1074. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.4.1065.

Jay, T. B. (1980). Sex roles and dirty word usage: A review of the literature and a reply to Haas. PsychologicalBulletin, 88(3), 614–621. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.614.

Jay, T. B. (1981). Comprehending dirty-word descriptions. Language and Speech, 24(1), 29–38. doi:10.1177/002383098102400102.

Jay, T. B. (2009). The utility and ubiquity of taboo words. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(2), 153–161. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01115.x.

Jay, T. B., & Janschewitz, K. (2008). The pragmatics of swearing. Journal of Politeness Research: Language,Behaviour, Culture, 4(2), 267–288. doi:10.1515/JPLR.2008.013.

Johnson, D. I. (2012). Swearing by peers in the work setting: Expectancy violation valence, perceptions ofmessage, and perceptions of speaker. Communication Studies, 63(2), 136–151. doi:10.1080/10510974.2011.638411.

Johnson, D. I., & Lewis, N. (2010). Perceptions of swearing in the work setting: An expectancy violationstheory perspective. Communication Reports, 23(2), 106–118. doi:10.1080/08934215.2010.511401.

Karjalainen, M. (2002). Where have all the swearwords gone? An analysis of the loss of swearwords in twoSwedish translations of J. D. Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye. Master’s Thesis, University of Helsinki,Finland. Retrieved from https://helda.helsinki.fi/

McEnery, T. (2006). Swearing in English: Bad language, purity and power from 1586 to the present. London:Routledge.

Martensson, S. (2013). Sociolinguistics of swearing: A corpus-based investigation of male and female use ofdamn, darn, hell and heck in soap operas compared to real life. Sweden: Linnaeus University.

Mohr, M. (2013). Holy Sh*t: A brief history of swearing. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://books.google.co.in/

Murphy, B. (2009). ‘She’s a fucking ticket’: The pragmatics of fuck in Irish English—An age and genderperspective. Corpora, 4(1), 85–106. doi:10.3366/E1749503209000239.

Nasution, R. F., & Rosa, R. N. (2012). Swearwords found in chat room Yahoo messenger. English Languageand Literature E-Journal, 84–93. Retrieved from http://ejournal.unp.ac.id/

Pilotti, M., Almand, J., Mahamane, S., & Martinez, M. (2012). Taboo words in expressive language: Do sexand primary language matter? American International Journal of Contemporary Research, 2(2), 17–26.Retrieved from http://www.aijcrnet.com/

Pinker, S. (2007). The stuff of thought : Language as a window into human nature. New York: Viking.Reips, U.-D. (2002). Standards for Internet-based experimenting. Experimental Psychology (formerly

Zeitschrift Für Experimentelle Psychologie), 49(4), 243–256. doi:10.1027//1618-3169.49.4.243.Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe–Crowne Social

Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38(1), 119–125. doi:10.1002/1097-4679(198201)38:1<119:AID-JCLP2270380118>3.0.CO;2-I.

Rieber, R. W., Wiedemann, C., & D’Amato, J. (1979). Obscenity: Its frequency and context of usage ascompared in males, nonfeminist females, and feminist females. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,8(3), 201–223. doi:10.1007/BF01067305.

Sapolsky, B. S., & Kaye, B. K. (2005). The use of offensive language by men and women in prime time televisionentertainment. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 13(4), 292–303. doi:10.1207/s15456889ajc1304_5.

Spears, J. L. (2011). U.S. Patent No. 2011/0191105 A1. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.Spinney, L. (2007). The science of swearing. New Scientist, 196(2635–2636), 51–53.Stephens, R., & Umland, C. (2011). Swearing as a response to pain—Effect of daily swearing frequency. The

Journal of Pain, 12(12), 1274–1281. doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2011.09.004.

123

Author's personal copy