Chapter 4 Attacking the identity: taboo language and verbal aggression
4.4. Attitudes towards taboo language and verbal aggression
4.4.2. Results
Since the results are self-reported, they are necessarily less than perfectly accurate, because they rely on the memory of the respondents. A few persons did comment that it was not easy to recall exactly their past linguistic behavior.
To minimize the influence of the flow of time on respondents’ recall, the questions asked only about the behavior during the previous month. This also helps avoid ambiguity, as without a set timeframe some respondents might contemplate their whole lifespan up to the current point, while others may only focus on the more recent past.
165 Table 58: Frequency of swearing
In the last month, how often did you use swearing/higo? Include face-to-face conversation, telephone talk, internet and other forms of communication, as well as talking to yourself.
JP PL
Not at all 49.1% 4.5%
Rarely 26.4% 31.6%
Sometimes 20.8% 27.8%
Often 3.8% 23.2%
Very often 0.0% 12.5%
Despite higo being a broader category, it was used considerably less often by Japanese speakers than the narrower przeklinanie by Poles. Almost half of the Japanese respondents said they used no higo at all, while among Polish speakers this answer was only chosen by 4.5% of respondents. In other words, 95.5% of Poles reported swearing at least once during the previous month. On the other end of the scale, no Japanese speakers said they swore very frequently, while 12.5% of Poles did choose this answer. This may explain why Polish respondents did not have doubts as to what the category of przeklinanie includes – they are familiar with it, not only due to input from others, but also their own output.
166 Table 59: Reasons for swearing
In the last month, how often did you swear for the following reasons?
JP PL
Did not
use Used Did not
use Used Negativee motions
(anger, irritation) 25 28 3 247
Positive emotion
(joy, excitement) 42 11 76 164
For emphasis 33 20 41 209
To insult the addressee 41 12 143 107
To insult a third-party 37 16 87 163
As humor 33 20 30 220
Habitual use 38 15 80 170
The table above displays the reasons that respondents reported for their use of taboo language. In “used/did not use” pairs marked with an underline, the
“used” answer was given in the majority of cases. The survey asked about specific frequency of usage, but for the sake of brevity those results are condensed here into the “used” choice.
A common point for both nationalities is the fact that the response
“negative emotions” was given most often. That being said, for Japanese respondents this was the only field with a majority of “used” answers, which is why it is the only one marked in red in the Japanese columns. Those answers constitute a majority by only a slight margin, a difference of 3 responses. On the other hand, for Poles all reasons except one have a majority of “used”
answers, and in the case of negative feelings the majority is overwhelming – over 98% of respondents.
These results support the association of swearing with negative emotions, but it should be noted that swearing caused by positive emotions was also reported. Humorous usage was the second most common among Poles as well as Japanese, tied with “emphasis” in the latter group. Emphasis was the third most popular choice among Polish respondents, and among Japanese
167
speakers “insulting a third party” takes that position.
The least used reason for both national groups was insulting the addressee directly. Such usage has the most socially damaging results, which is the likely reason why speakers avoid it. Out of the ways of employing taboo words listed by the survey, this is the only one that is unambiguously designed to provoke a negative reaction from another person. In case of the others, such a reaction is not a purpose achieved, but rather a by-product which may or may not be generated, depending on the circumstances.
For both groups insulting someone not present was more common. It cannot be said that offending the target of the insult is always the intention of the speaker in this case, because if that were true the insult would be delivered directly to the insulted. This kind of linguistic behavior permits one to express negative feelings towards a certain person while mitigating the risk of interpersonal conflict. Tannen (1989 : 105-110), writing about spoken criticism of absent persons, explains that such behavior may also have other motivations, for example displaying someone not present in a negative light only to make someone else look good in comparison. Tannen (1989 : 109) says the following:
“I suggest that absent persons are treated without consideration because they do not exist in that context; in other words, in contexts in which they are absent, they are not perceived as persons, that is, not perceived as potentially affected by the acts of that context. Rather, absent parties are simply resources for the facework of the immediate context.”
Giles and Johnson (1981, 1987), discussing group membership, show what purpose such use of linguistic resources may have beyond the level of an individual. They argue that if the speakers contrast their own in-group with a separate out-group, and the in-group achieves a positive image as a result, this allows speakers to build a desirable social identity.
This supports the point that within the scope of this survey question, only swearing in direct insults can be unequivocally seen as an intentionally damaging act, and its rarity puts into question the assumed anti-social character of taboo language.
The Japanese and the Polish group both display a similar pattern
168
when it comes to the order of reasons for using taboo words, from most to least common. What differs, and by a large margin, is the frequency of the usage that is a result of a particular reason.
Table 60: Swearing and listener
In the last month, when using taboo language, who did you talk to?
JP PL
Did not use Used Did not use Used
Own child 49 4 222 28
Adult family
member 48 5 79 171
Spouse/
partner 45 8 73 177
Close friend 40 13 27 223
Acquaintance 47 6 95 155
Stranger 50 3 198 52
Superior 51 2 211 39
Person of a
different sex 49 4 33 217
Person of the
same sex 41 12 22 228
Speaking to
yourself 20 33 41 209
The table above show what kind of people the speakers were talking to during remembered incidents of taboo language use. Here, too, the difference in frequency is obvious, but the general pattern is very similar for both cultures.
Only a minority of both Japanese and Polish speakers swore when talking to their children, strangers or superiors. For both cultures, swearing was more likely when interacting with friends (especially close ones) and adult family members. Speakers are more likely to use vulgar language in same gender interactions rather than when talking to someone of a different gender. This gender pattern is similar for both cultures, but is perhaps more pronounced in the case of Japanese speakers.
169
A significant consideration when using vulgar language is the potential to cause offence or even conflict. This factor may deter some users and cause them to limit their swearing when they would not do so otherwise.
The risk of causing friction is smaller among speakers who know each other well and tolerate – or even enjoy – each other’s language. With less familiarity, there are more unknowns and a greater likelihood of unintentional insult. With superiors, the potential fallout from an incident caused by inappropriate speech can be more serious than with peers.
All of those concerns do not matter, however, when vulgar words are spoken to oneself and no one else. This was a usage commonly reported by Polish speakers and the only category that received a majority of “used”
responses from the Japanese group. There is no possibility of causing a relationship conflict if the potentially offensive utterance is not witnessed by anyone.
The question is why anyone would use any form of language, thought by many to be tool of communication with others, when there is no-one to communicate with. Talking to oneself is a common phenomenon and is not restricted to taboo words. However, taboo words are more likely to be used instinctively, without conscious intention or prior planning.
Although this usage was frequently reported by Polish speakers, it is not actually the most frequent one. In fact, conversations with familiar people saw somewhat more taboo language. If this difference is significant, it would suggest that some Polish speakers not only have relationships in which swearing is performed freely without limits, but in some cases the presence of other people may encourage the speakers to swear more. Hence it would be incorrect to say swearing is merely a suppressed impulse which in more liberal settings may find release. This result shows that it is also actively and intentionally used for its socializing function.
170 Table 61: Self-censoring
Are you trying to limit your swearing?
JP PL
No, not at all. 11 (20.8%) 12.4%
Yes, depending on the situation. 21 (39.6%) 30.4%
Yes, regardless of the situation. 21 (39.6%) 57.2%
Those speakers who reported at least some swearing in the recent month were then asked whether they make any effort to curb their language. Most said yes, but the percentage of positive answers is somewhat higher for Poles, and furthermore among those who chose them a higher percentage answered that they attempt to limit the swearing unconditionally. This reveals a certain internal tension among Polish speakers: a vast majority of respondents do swear, but a majority of those who do also attempts to refrain from swearing in all situations. Choosing the option “yes, depending on the situation” may suggest a willingness to conform to external factors, the need of the situation.
The speakers may avoid vulgarity in order to save themselves embarassment or avoid offending others. On the other hand, keeping in mind that talking to oneself is a context in which taboo language often appears, unconditional avoidance of taboo suggests the presence of an internal pressure, such as guilt.
Religion may be a factor here. When asked about the reasons for curbing their swearing, some Polish respondents brought up the fact that they are Christians, and so they are bound by the precepts of their faith to abstain from inappropriate language. This would be true even if the speaker is not around any other people, since – according to Christians – God is always watching. Catholicism – the dominant form of Christianity in Poland – in no ambiguous terms identifies some language as sin. The prayer of confession that is a standard part of Mass includes the line “I have sinned in thought, in speech, in deed and in neglect.” One of the Ten Commandments instructs “Thou shalt not give false testimony.” Vulgar language is also proscribed and someone who
171
swore frequently is expected to admit this behavior during personal confession of sins to a priest, which is considered an obligation of every Catholic.
On the other hand, no Japanese speaker mentioned religion as a motivation to self-censor. Shintoism and Buddhism are two major religions in Japan. Shintoism places emphasis on the concept of “purity,” which could lead one to expect it would proscribe vulgarities like Christianity does. However the presence of such proscriptions is not apparent in the results of this study. In fact, a certain Shintoistic ceremony shows that the religion may embrace taboo language in an unexpected manner.
In Ibaraki prefecture, an event bearing the very straightforward name Akutai Matsuri, or “Swearing Festival,” is organized annually. During that festival, participants are not only permitted, but indeed encouraged to hurl obscenities at a group of masked performers (Nishimura 1986 : 6-7). These performers must endure the insults with quiet dignity, as they are a part of the ceremony. This language use would normally be seen as a direct form of language aggression, a type of taboo language which is relatively uncommon, as noted above. However, in this particular case the aggression has been ritualized and sanitized of most of its disruptive potential. The act is closer to a theatrical play where the actors pretend to insult each other than to a sincere quarrel. Still, it seems that the ritualization doesn’t dull the edge of taboo language completely, as one of the volunteers said he would not want to repeat the experience.
172 Table 62: Reasons for self-censoring
Please give reasons for limiting swearing or not swearing at all (multiple choice).
JP PL
I don’t want to hurt people 31 (73.8%) 53.7%
I care about my image
(refinement) 22 (52.4%) 62.8%
I was raised this way 19 (45.2%) 59.3%
I care about the quality of my
mother language 5 (11.9%) 50.2%
I care about the image of my
country 2 (4.8%) 17.7%
I don’t want children to hear my
swearing 6 (14.3%) 49.4%
People of my sex should avoid
swearing 4 (9.5%) 18.6%
No particular reason 4 (9.5%) 13.4%
Other 5 (11.9%) 19.0%
The table shows the reasons reported for choosing not to swear or attempting to limit one’s swearing. The three most often chosen answers were the same for both groups of respondents: caring for other people’s feelings, about one’s own reputation and being raised in a certain manner. There is a difference in the distribution of those answers, however, as Poles tend to focus more on their own person, while the Japanese seemed to care more about others. This result is in agreement with values often quoted as being typical to the Japanese style of discourse, that is: empathizing with your interlocutor and avoiding conflict if possible. Relatively speaking, Japanese society puts a greater emphasis on collective harmony, while Polish society is more individualistic.
Another visible difference lies in nationalistic attitudes (or their absence) concerning language. A slight majority of Poles said they limit swearing in order to protect the quality of their mother tongue, while only
173
11.9% of Japanese speakers chose this answer. Fewer speakers quoted caring about the image of their country as a whole, but the proportion of those who did was much larger among Poles.
The abundance of normative writings condemning taboo language provides a clue why this is the case. That the use of taboo carries a risk of causing conflict or offense is simply a fact which remains true regardless of one’s views on language. But if one views taboo vocabulary as a contaminant which pollutes the language as a whole, it becomes an additional reason to avoid swearing. In this view, the context – including the relation of the speaker to the interlocutor – is less important, and thus the constraint is in effect regardless of the situation.
The question is, why is it that the Japanese are less likely to see taboo language as a blemish on their mother tongue? One possible reason is simply the relatively low frequency of its usage. Swearing is often discussed as a societal problem in Poland because it is prevalent and visible. If Japanese speakers use such language considerably less often, then even if some scholars and journalists take issue with it, they might consider it a minor problem not worth taking up. If the presence of discourse condemning swearing is weak in Japan, the speakers of Japanese may not have the concept of swearing as a pollutant of national culture. The fact that higo as a category is less sharply defined than swearing in Poland may also be a contributing factor, as it is makes discussion on common ground more difficult.
Finally, although the proportion of Poles who agreed with the statement
“I don’t want children to hear my swearing” reached 49.4%, while only 14.3%
of Japanese participants chose this answer, this does not necessarily mean that swearing in front of children is any less of a taboo in Japan. It is unclear how much contact with children each of the participants had in daily life, and so some respondents may not have cared about
174
Table 63: Thinking about swearing and feelings of discomfort
When reading the above questions and answering them, did you feel uncomfortable because the topic was swearing, or did you feel no such discomfort?
JP PL
No, the topic of swearing did not bring
me any discomfort. 40 (75.5%) 68.3%
Yes, I felt slight discomfort. 13 (24.5%) 29.0%
Yes, I felt considerable discomfort. 0 (0.0%) 2.7%
The purpose of asking the question above was finding out the speakers’ internal motivations which may cause them to limit their swearing or avoid it altogether.
If even thinking about the topic of swearing is unpleasant, then on top of any external factors, the feeling of discomfort may restrict the swearing of speakers.
Despite the large difference in the frequency of swearing, the answers to this question were surprisingly similar. In fact, even though Polish speakers swear far more often, a slightly higher proportion of that group replied that they did feel at least some discomfort when contemplating the topic. A small percentage answered that they felt considerable discomfort, while no Japanese speaker chose this answer. In any case, the majority of respondents from both groups stated that thinking about the topic is not uncomfortable in itself.
However, some Polish respondents commented that while answering questions about swearing was not uncomfortable, being asked to produce one’s own examples was.
Some of the Polish respondents who made personal comments concerning the survey called it “a survey about swearing,” even though only part of the questions were concerned with taboo language. This suggests that for some respondents this topic leaves a particular impression in the memory, for better or worse.
It has already been established that almost all Polish respondents use taboo language to at least some extent. In light of this, it seems that perceiving swearwords as personally unpleasant is not enough to stop people from using them. Furthermore, even though the answers to the question above were very
175
similar for both countries, answers to other questions show a very different pattern of swearword usage. This suggests that any internal repressions do not play a significant role in changing the frequency of taboo language use in both countries.
Table 64: Swearing on the internet - receiving
In the last month, were you the target of swearing by another person when using the Internet?
JP PL
Not even once. 46 (86.8%) 80.0%
Rarely. 5 (9.4%) 13.2%
Sometimes. 0 4.4%
Often. 1 (1.9%) 2.0%
Very often. 1 (1.9%) 0.4%
Table 65: Swearing on the internet - sending
In the last month, how often have you used vulgar language with the intention of insulting someone in internet communication
(e.g. Facebook, chat or Youtube comments)?
PL JP
Answer Options
insulting the person
you are talking to
insulting a third party (not the person you are talking to)
insulting the person you are talking to
insulting a third party (not the person you are talking to)
Not even once. 226 210 50 49
Rarely. 19 28 1 3
Sometimes. 2 7 0 0
Often. 0 1 1 1
Very often. 1 1 0 0
176 Table 66: Taboo address as humor
Do you sometimes address the person you are talking to with an insulting term but with friendly inentions (e.g. As a joke)?
Answer Options PL JP
No, never. 64 (24.4%) 18 (34.0%)
Yes, but I only use terms which are not very
vulgar. 144 (55.0%) 32 (60.4%)
Yes, including highly offensive terms. 54 (20.6%) 3 (5.7%)
While other questions concerned the relationships in which a language might be used, and revealed its potential convivial qualities by making it clear it is a part of interactions between friends, this question directly asks about potential positive intentions of speakers using superficially offensive elements in their speech. A majority of speakers in both groups reported using seemingly insulting expressions with friendly intentions, at least from time to time. Most of the Japanese speakers who provided examples listed insults related to the intellect, such as baka or aho, or sporadically to the physical appearance (busu), but words related to sexuality which were given as hypothetical examples in a previous question did not appear here.
Among Polish speakers, 22 out of 248 respondents reported insulting the person they were talking to directly on the internet. Most of those 22 speakers said they did it rarely. The proportion of Japanese respondents who used such insults was even smaller: 2 out of 52 for directly insulting the interlocutor, 4 out of 53 for insulting a third party. In sum, despite frequent Internet use, few speakers reported using insulting language on the web and if they did, they were more likely to do so when not communicating directly with the target of their attack.