Taboo Lexeme Conditioning and Obscenities in American English

Taboo Lexeme Conditioning refers to the neurological, psychological, and sociological conditioning required during lexical acquisition for a native speaker to treat or experience certain lexemes as highly taboo. Taboo words differentiate both neurologically from non-emotional or non-taboo lexemes, and lexically person to person, in at least 4 ways: 1) they exhibit high activity in the emotional and moral processing structures of the limbic system, and can activate, or be uttered, independently of cortical structures involved in propositional language processing; 2) they generally receive a high amount of negative emotional response during lexical acquisition and subsequent usage, which affects how they are processed and encoded by the brain; 3) they are consistently suppressed through social mores, religious or legal censorship, persecution and/or prosecution; 4) they violate a morality code by means of taboo and describe the most potent taboos of a culture. American English Obscenities meet all of these criterion: 1) they exhibit independent, nonpropositional limbic activation, as seen in brain imaging of patients with neurological damage or disorders; 2) they receive highly negative emotional responses from people who find them offensive morally and socially, which influences neurological encoding during lexical acquisition; 3) they have been subjected to censorship by American Church and State, deriving from an English legal system censoring profanities and blasphemies, each consistently influenced by Puritan interests; and 4) they violate linguistic taboos, which evolve from two much older taboos in Judeo-Christianity: taboos against the body and taboos against anti-religious or deity invoking language. The rise of the secular West sapped TABOO LEXEME CONDITIONING iv religious profanities, blasphemies, and oaths of their emotional power, but taboos of and negative attitudes towards the body remained, and obscenity filled that emotional void left by profanity. Today we are left with a unique class of lexemes in American English that came about only through a very specific progression, and repression, of attitudes towards the body and the power of language. TABOO LEXEME CONDITIONING v TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements.ii Abstract.iii List of Figures.vi Chapter 1: Introduction.1 The N of NPS.3 The P of NPS.5 The S of NPS.6 Purpose of the Thesis.8 Hypotheses.9 Background on Obscenities.14 Chapter 2: The Limbic System and Neurolinguistics of Swearing.18 Chapter 3: Disgust, Emotional Conditioning, and Morality.33 Chapter 4: The Sacred, Profane, and Christianity.46 Chapter 5: Linguistic Censorship by Church, Crown, and Law.64 Part I: England.66 Part II: America.79 Conclusion.95 References.108 List of Terms.118 TABOO LEXEME CONDITIONING vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Linguistic Origins of English Obscenities.15 2 Earliest Evidence of English Obscenities.15 TABOO LEXEME CONDITIONING Chapter 1: Introduction Piss, Shit, Fuck, Cunt, Cocksucker, Motherfucker, and Tits. Those are the heavy seven. Those are the ones that'll infect your soul, curve your spine, and keep the country from winning the war. (George Carlin, 1972) In 1999, Timothy Jay attempted to explain the nature and reasons for taboo language in his book Why We Curse, proposing a Neuro-Psycho-Social (NPS) Theory of swearing. Jay offers insight into this linguistic class by examining components of the brain, the limbic system, thought to be involved in taboo utterances; psychological processes such as language acquisition, learning, and emotion; linguistic factors such as syntax, semantics, and pragmatics; and social factors such as taboo, language censorship, religion, law, social status, gender identity, speaker power, humor and word magic. Jay's NPS theory offers a prototype framework for understanding swearing, but it is limited to data available at the time and therefore lacks current data from the fields of neurology, psychology, sociology, and linguistics, which would make his theory more comprehensive. While attempting to explain the nature of taboo word acquisition and how certain words achieve taboo status, Jay leaves an incomplete picture of the neurolinguistic, psycholinguistic, and sociolinguistic aspects of swear words, missing some key information on how swear words acquire such strong negative emotional connotations. Thanks to over a decade of new research in the areas of neurology and emotion, we now have finer tools to dissect the problem of how swear words become so negatively charged and activate in the limbic system. The purpose here is to form a general theory of taboo lexeme conditioning that can apply to the human linguistic ability, TABOO LEXEME CONDITIONING 2 adapting Jay's neurological/psychological/sociological framework in Why We Curse (1999) and examining these factors in relation to American English obscenities. Much of what is known about how the brain processes swearing has been observed in subjects with neurological damage or neuro-degenerative diseases that create an inability to control swearing, or uncontrolled utterances of taboo language. This includes Tourette Syndrome (TS), Aphasia, Huntington's Disease, Parkinson's Disease, Epilepsy, Dementia, and Schizophrenia. Uncontrollable swearing is known as coprolalia. Jay recognized that coprolalia provides a “nexus for cursing” (1999) that involves specific neurological, sociological, and psychological factors. This includes brain structures that give “normal speakers” the ability to control cursing, the sociological factors that inhibit certain thoughts and words, and the psychological factors that affect each patient differently as to what they find to be the most taboo. As Jay puts it: Coprolalia in TS is not merely the uttering of dirty words; it is a behavior far more deeply integrated into a speaker’s experiences and personality. Coprolalia represents the inability to inhibit oneself from saying a forbidden word. But a word is not forbidden until the child is told that it is. The child learns from his or her parents and from the community at large that some words are too offensive to say in public. (1999, p. 5) Through coprolalia Jay recognizes that taboo words are the result of enculturation, a combination of psychological and sociological conditioning that gives certain words emotive force or power. This conditioning in turn affects how neurological components activate these TABOO LEXEME CONDITIONING 3 words during linguistic processing and production. The following provides a review of Jay's NPS Theory (1999) and highlights what holes in that theory this thesis will fill. The N of NPS In Jay's literature review, he proposes that propositional language processes, the ability to produce sentences within a language's correct syntax, operate in the left hemisphere (LH) of the brain. Non-propositional and automatic vocalization processes such as emotional vocalizations (crying, laughter, screams), musical abilities, cliches, idioms, and swearing activate in the right hemisphere (RH). An increased use of swearing occurs with damage to the left side of the brain, while propositional language production and processing can be impaired, leaving swearing as one of the only forms of speech that survive. Jay then assumes that non-propositional speech processes lie within the RH. His argument relies on studies suggesting that emotional processing may occur in the RH, stating that damage to the RH results in a decrease of swearing, or no swearing at all. Jay provides only one source for this decrease in/no swearing claim, and he notes that in many of these studies of RH damaged subjects, participants were generally discouraged from swearing at all, unless it was deemed helpful to recovery. Also, Jay's work remains restricted to Western subjects and cites work by Tsunoda (1985) suggesting that Japanese speakers lateralize emotional speech p