Tag: (E) Fuck!

(2002) English (Australia) – BLOODY

Wierzbicka, Anna (2002). Australian cultural scripts – bloody revisited. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(9), 1167-1209. DOI: 10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00023-6

This paper focusses on ‘‘the great Australian adjective’’ bloody and it shows that far from being meaningless, the humble bloody is packed with meaning; and that by unpacking this meaning we can throw a good deal of light on traditional Australian attitudes and values. It argues that the use of bloody furnishes an important clue to both the changes and continuity in Australian culture, society, and speech and also offers us a vantage point from which to investigate a whole network of Australian attitudes and values. Furthermore, the paper shows that the Australian use of bloody also illuminates some important theoretical issues, it demonstrates that frequently used and apparently ‘‘bleached’’ discourse markers do in fact have their own precise meaning, and that this meaning can be revealed by means of the Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM), based on empirically established universal human concepts. It also shows that once the precise meaning of such discourse markers is accurately portrayed, it can provide important clues to the values, attitudes, and modes of interaction characteristic of a given society or speech community.


Research carried out by one or more experienced NSM practitioners

Tagged as: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

(2014) English (Australia) – Interjections

Goddard, Cliff (2014). Jesus! vs. Christ! in Australian English: Semantics, secondary interjections and corpus analysis. In Jesús Romero-Trillo (Ed.), Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2014: New empirical and theoretical paradigms (pp. 55-77). Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-06007-1_4

Using corpus-assisted semantic analysis, conducted in the NSM framework, this chapter explores the meanings and uses of two closely related secondary interjections, namely, Jesus! and Christ!, in Australian English. The interjections Shit! and Fuck! are touched on briefly. From a methodological point of view, the chapter can be read as a study in how corpus techniques and semantic analysis can work in tandem; in particular, how interaction with a corpus can be used to develop, refine and test fine-grained semantic hypotheses. From a content point of view, this study seeks to demonstrate two key propositions: first, that it is possible to identify semantic invariants, i.e. stable meanings, even for highly context-bound items such as interjections; second, that it is possible to capture and model speakers’ awareness of the degree and nature of the “offensiveness” of secondary interjections, in a Metalexical Awareness component that attaches, so to speak, to particular words. Both these propositions challenge conventional assumptions about the nature and interfacing between semantics and  pragmatics. A final question raised in the study is how linguists can come to terms with the fact that people use interjections not only orally but also mentally, in “inner speech”.


Research carried out by one or more experienced NSM practitioners

Tagged as: , , , ,

(2015) English (Australian, American) – Swear/curse words

Goddard, Cliff (2015). “Swear words” and “curse words” in Australian (and American) English: At the crossroads of pragmatics, semantics and sociolinguistics. Intercultural Pragmatics, 12(2), 189-218. DOI 10.1515/ip-2015-0010

This study seeks to show that Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM) analytical techniques allow an integrated semantic-pragmatic approach to the use of “swear words” and “curse (cuss) words”. The paper begins with a semantic exegesis of the lexical items swear word and curse word. This is helpful to delimit and conceptualize the phenomena being studied, and it also hints at some interesting differences between the speech cultures of Australian English and American English. Subsequent sections propose semantic explications for a string of swear/curse words and expressions as used in Australian English, including: exclamations (Shit! Fuck! Damn! Christ! Jesus!), abuse formulas (Fuck you!, Damn you!), interrogative and imperative formulas (e.g. Who the fuck do you think you are?; Get the hell out of here!), and the free use of expressive adjectives, such as fucking and goddamn, in angry swearing. A novel aspect, with interesting implications for the relationship between semantics and pragmatics, is that the explications incorporate a metalexical awareness section, modelling speaker awareness of the ethnometapragmatic status of the word in the community of discourse. The study goes on to address so-called “social/conversational” swearing. Cultural scripts are proposed to capture some Anglo ethnopragmatic assumptions about how the use of swear/curse words can be affected by perceptions of familiarity, solidarity, and mutuality. Differences between Australian English and American English are discussed at various points.


Research carried out by one or more experienced NSM practitioners

Tagged as: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

(1993) English (Australia) – Swear words

Kidman, Angus (1993). How to do things with four-letter words: A study of the semantics of swearing in Australia. BA(Hons) thesis, University of New England. HTML (open access)

This thesis presents and defends semantic explications for a number of swear words commonly used in Australian English. Its focus is on different constructions which can be conveyed using the three lexical forms shit, fuck and cunt. Contrary to the popular belief that swear words are “meaningless”, it is shown that each of these swear words can be used to convey a number of specific meanings. These meanings are sometimes related, but each needs to be defined independently if similarities and differences between terms are to be precisely captured. Aspects of meaning discussed include the contrast between the exclamations Shit! and Fuck!, the common adjectival form fucking, the relationship of the referential term cunt to other uses, the contrast between fucking and making love, and the meaning conveyed by
semi-metaphorical forms such as to kick the shit out of someone. The method of semantic representation adopted is the Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM) approach advocated by Anna Wierzbicka and others. The explications presented here have a number of implications. Relevant issues examined include the relationship between referential uses of swear words and the other meanings which they convey, the semantic importance of the consciousness of “phonetic form” in swearing, and the role of prototypes in the semantics of swear words. The semantic characterization of the concepts “swearing” and “swear word” is also discussed.


Research carried out in consultation with or under the supervision of one or more experienced NSM practitioners

Tagged as: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,