Chapter 4 Attacking the identity: taboo language and verbal aggression
4.3. Taboo language and verbal aggression in natural conversation
4.3.2. Polish
153
clearly highly negative affect and the justification for adding the slightly taboo exclamation in the English interpretation.
154
B: Tim should have run and you should have walked there leisurely C: it was like that but I was in a hurry
A: it’s just bad organization *laugh*
The conversation proceeds in a humorous atmosphere, frequently interspersed with laughter. Other participants make inquiries of the storyteller, trying to understand what delayed her on her way. The questions are prompted by the relatively small distance between the point of departure and the destination, in light of which running late is an unexpected ocurrence. The questions are, however, asked in a friendly manner. But one speaker then makes what sounds like a rather stern rebuke, saying “you have made an organizational error.” The rebuke is later repeated for a second time.
However, the comment is unlikely to be serious criticism. Firstly, the critical speaker’s theatrically serious tone of voice is inconsistent with the casual tone in the rest of the conversation. Secondly, the phrase “organizational error” normally belongs in formal language, such as a written report. In the register of informal conversation it feels out of place. Thirdly, laughter follows soon after the second comment, which would not have happened if the critical speaker wanted to make a point of criticizing the storyteller as a priority.
The critical comment was formal in style and it was not requested by the woman who received it, as she never asked for evaluation of her conduct. In the context of a chat with a friend, such a comment would be harsh if made seriously, its redundancy suggesting an intention of committing a personal attack. However, because it is humorous in nature it should be seen as a friendly jab, an example of mock aggression used for bonding.
The fact that the semantic content of the word doesn’t guarantee it will be branded as taboo is illustrated by the new usage of the word masakra. The word’s original meaning is “massacre,” an event in which a large group of helpless people are brutally killed. However, in recent years a new informal way of using it has emerged, especially among younger Poles. When used in this manner, masakra is only a light and vague negative evaluation of the topic at hand, meaning “that’s bad/troublesome/difficult.” As the following conversational examples show, it can be used to describe events which are ultimately little more than a minor annoyance.
155 Excerpt 7
C: jak była ta awaria gazu to akurat jechałam na spotkanie z moją promotor pracy embiowiej nie? i spóźniam się jedynie półtorej godziny *śmiech*
B: ja jechałam na sushi i spóźniłam się tylko dwie C: masakra
C: when that gas system failure happened I was just on my way to meet my MBA thesis advisor, right? and I was only27 late one hour and a half *laughter*
B: I was on my way to get sushi and I was only late two hours C: massacre
In a different conversation, one speaker shares some snuff (a type of tobacco) with another person and invites him to have another portion.
Excerpt 8
Peter: chcesz jeszcze?
Mark: nie, dużo wziąłem .. jak na siebie to już w ogóle masakra
Peter: you want some more?
Mark: no, I took a lot .. considering it’s me it’s totally a massacre
Mark refers to the fact that he is not used to tobacco, which is why he is sensitive to it. That is why the amount that he took before is already too much, and this excessive size of the tobacco portion is apparently enough of an incident to be described as a masakra.
Despite the fact that masakra originally refers to a gruesome happening and that in its new sense it can be used as an expressive unbound by sentence structure like kurwa described in section 5.1.2, it is not currently anywhere near the degree of taboo associated with the other word. This goes to show that
27 Considering that a being late an hour and a half or more is not acceptable in Polish culture, by saying “only” here the speakers are likely being ironic.
156
although some categories of meaning are surrounded by taboo more often than others, across cultures, there is also a considerable degree of arbitrariness in the process of specific words becoming taboo.
The following conversation takes place between three men in their twenties. It stands out in the collected data, as it is peppered with taboo language, starting from the 12second mark and continuing throughout its entire length.
Excerpt 9
Mark: ej a macie przecier pomidorowy tej Peter: na chuj przecier pomidorowy
Mark: nic no w razie czego Peter: nie nie mamy
Mark: co za geje
Mark: hey, do you have some tomato puree?
Peter: why the fuck do you need tomato puree Mark: no reason, just in case
Peter: no, we don’t have any Mark: what gays
In this exchange, speaker uses a swearword to strengthen his utterance asking Mark to explain his request for tomato puree. This shifts the mood of the second line from neutral questioning to criticism or ridicule. Mark responds in turn with the term “gays,” which is clearly intended as an insult. It is perhaps a counter to Peter’s previous verbal attack, but the plurality of “gays” – and the fact that immediately follows Peter’s statement saying he is unable to comply with the request - suggests that the insult is also intended for Peter’s roommate.
Mark is a guest attempting to cook for everyone gathered. He seems to express disappointment with the fact the apartment is not supplied with the ingredients he needs. The implication of homosexuality does not seem to make sense, as neither of the roommates is gay, and furthermore the contents of a kitchen cupboard have little to do with one’s sexual orientation. But that is not the point here. As C.J. Pascoe points out:
157
‘Fag’ is not necessarily a static identity attached to a particular (homo- sexual) boy. Fag talk and fag imitations serve as a discourse with which boys discipline themselves and each other through joking relationships.
Pascoe 2011 : 330
Using an implication of homosexuality as an insult regardless of the actual sexuality of the target is a phenomenon found not only Polish, but also at least in English speaking countries. It is clearly linked to anti-homosexual sentiments in society, which can be quite strong in Poland.
Excerpt 10
Peter: gejury *śmiech* słyszeliście jak dzisiaj mnie wyzwał od gejurów? [B]
rano? się obudziłem pogłaskałem go po głowie a on “spierdalaj gejurze”
*śmiech*
John: mówię ci że [C] ci się udziela
Peter: ej .. ja bym mu za to wpierdolił .. no dalej dżudujcie się Mark: ja jestem
John: Mark dżuduje tylko z żoną
Mark ja jestem dzisiaj yy pokojowo nastawiony do życia
Peter: gays *laughter* did you hear how he called me a gay today? B, in the morning? I woke up and stroked his head and he said “fuck off you gay”
*laughter*
John: I’m telling you, C:ness is rubbing off on you
Peter: hey .. I’d fuck him up for that .. come on, do some judo Mark: I am…
John: Mark only does judo with his wife Mark: I am in a pacifistic mood today
Peter and John are roommates, and so sleep in the same apartment. Peter describes a scene in which some physical contact between the two friends is involved in the morning, leading John to react in a superficially aggressive
158
manner. John comments that the propensity for the kind of physical contact displayed in the morning by Peter is typical of Mark, hence “Markness” is
“rubbing off on him.” Next, Peter suggests that constructing “Markness” in this way is an insult that ought to be avenged with violence, in the form of judo techniques, which John claims are only applied by Mark on his wife. The specific meaning of that last comment is not very clear, but it might be a reference to the visual similarities between ground wrestling and sex. In any case, the comment is certainly meant to ridicule Mark. Despite the insults and the invitation to violence, nowhere in the conversation is even a hint of any real tension. The teasing may be rough, but it is understood as teasing by all parties involved.
Excerpt 11
Peter: nie w dalszym ciągu nie działa... I don’t know ..
Mark: nie gadaj po angielsku bo wyjdzie że jesteśmy ritardami które o właśnie a propos
*śmiech*
Mark: które makaronizują
John: ja zawsze krzyczę na chłopaków za wieśniaczenie jeżeli ym żeby się starali jeżeli nie mogą znaleźć słowa po polsku
Mark: no ale słowo ritard już wstąpiło do naszego socjolektu więc myślę John: ale możesz po prostu powiedzieć “młotek” na przykład
Mark: w sumie słowo “młotek” jest całkiem fajne .. młotku
John: it’s still not working .. I don’t know [in English]
..
Mark: don’t talk in English or else it’s going to look like we are retards who right speaking of which
*laughter*
Mark: who use too many foreign words
John: I always scold the boys and tell them to make an effort if they can’t find the word in Polish
Mark: but the word retard is already a part of our sociolect so I think
159 John: but you could say “młotek” for example
Mark: come to think of it the word “młotek” is pretty cool... młotek
Two of the men continue their attempts to solve the computer problem. Peter doesn’t seem to understand the source of the problem, and says so in English:
“I don’t know.” This leads to an admonishment from Mark, who is still conscious of being recorded and concerned about the image of him and the others. Mark is critical of Peter’s usage of a foreign language within a conversation in Polish, but while scolding Peter he uses a foreign word himself – ritard, which comes from the English insult “retard.” This misstep is found humorous by the speakers and Mark tries to defend himself by saying that ritard is now assimilated into “their sociolect,” so it is no longer a truly foreign word. John shows support for Mark’s stance on “keeping Polish Polish,” declaring that he polices the way his roommates talk and suggests a Polish alternative for ritard, that is: młotek, literally “a hammer,” here used to insultingly refer to someone of low intelligence, like the word “retard” does.
According to Giles and Johnson (1981, 1987), when one group sees another in a favorable light, this group may begin to adjust its language to bring itself closer to the other one. This may eventually lead to assimilation or language erosion (cf. Fillmore 1991). While we are not witnessing a development as deep or one-directional in this conversation, the English word seems to have some power of attraction for Mark, or at least the power to become habitual in its use, as the speaker utters it seemingly despite himself.
This is an example of what some scholars describe as the
“contradictory” nature of identity (Weedon 1997 : 32, Miller 2000 : 72). On one hand, Mark explicitly refers to ritard as a part of “their” in-group parlance, and thus a part of his and the other men’s identity as a circle of friends. On the other hand, when considering things from a national perspective, ritard is a foreign influence which must be resisted and rejected. Mark’s multiple identities as a friend and as a Pole in this particular case are in conflict with each other, but he seems to have no intention to compromise either of them in order to resolve the tension.
Let us note that the two speakers find the overuse of foreign words problematic, but don’t take issue with the idea of insulting people. Some
160
speakers of English consider “retard” to be insensitive to people with intellectual disabilities, and the stigma covers the scientific term “mental retardation” from which the slur is derived, causing it to be occasionally substituted by other terms (Cummings and Wright 2013 : 8), even though it was not regarded as offensive originally. The insensitive nature of the word is not discussed by the speakers. John suggests a substitute term from the speakers’ own language, but he does so because the term is Polish, not because it is less offensive.
Excerpt 12
Peter: ale ci zjebało .. a, wiesz czemu?
John: czemu?
Peter: bo on się odwrócił
Mark: bardzo reprezentatywne to będzie *śmiech*
Peter: it’s fucking down again .. you know why?
John: why?
Peter: because he turned around
Mark: this is going to be very representative *laughter*
Peter and John are trying to solve some technical problem with a computer.
While doing so, Peter yet again uses a swearword. Mark jokingly comments how this is going to be “representative,” by which he most likely is expressing awareness of the fact that the conversation is being recorded, including all of the frequent swearing. This is not the only time in the conversation where the speakers show they are conscious of being observed.
Excerpt 13
Peter: no kurwa nie zrzucaj mi skarpetek tak one się tu suszą ..
Peter: muszę je chować przed Mattem Mark: kradnie ci skarpety?
Peter: no kurwa on wszystkim kradnie skarpety
*śmiech*
161 John: a to wszystko się nagrywa
..
John: ale bezwiednie niech to będzie nagrane że bezwiednie Peter: no mamy gadać normalnie
Peter: oh fuck, don’t drop my socks ok? they’re there to dry Peter: I have to hide them from Matt
Mark: he’s stealing your socks?
Peter: yeah, fuck, he’s stealing everyone’s socks
*laughter*
John: and all this is being recorded ..
John: but let’s pretend that we’re not conscious of it Peter: we’re supposed to talk like usual, right?
This is another instance of one of the speakers vocalizing his awareness of being observed. Whether John’s commented is prompted by Peter’s swearing or the potentially embarrassing topic is not clear, but Peter makes it known that he doesn’t think there is anything to be concerned about and that his manner of speaking is normal. While the study participants’ consciousness of being observed is usually considered to have a contaminating effect on the data, in this case this consciousness in itself becomes a telling piece of data. It is clear Peter has no qualms about publicizing his swearing. Some language users may sometimes inadvertently use rough language but be embarrassed by the deed later on. If it wasn’t clear to us as observers whether Peter is conscious of being recorded or not, we would not know his stance on this subject. There is the possibility that being aware of the observation Peter swore more than usual (as a prank, for example), but it would still mean that he is not bothered by presenting this kind of self-image to others.
The conversation of the young men is not only full of swearing, but also abounds in personal attacks. That such rough tone is acceptable to the participants and the attacks are not treated as serious is evidenced by the frequent laughter, as well as the flow of the conversation. If one of the speakers had taken offense, we would have likely seen the flow interrupted, as the
162
offended party could comment on the hurtful nature of the insult, demand an apology or altogether refuse to communicate any longer. No such thing happens.