Tomorrow and tomorrow and too
Much for me to bear
The tears and abrasions of
Wading into the murky under toe.
My stage-pacing, day-wasting,
Unremitting wanderings
Lead me from fragrant fields
And comforting folds.
Waist deep in self-made ruins
I try to reach up, I try to
Call out, but fretting threats
Signify nothing.
So I raze my wrists and
Release molten scarlet flow:
An attempt to out, out
This painfully lingering flicker.
Like a tumultuous tide,
Shadows swallow me.
Engulfed as in a leviathan's bowels,
I wane.
Waters recede.
Time revolves.
Turn
Come down
Come round
Right back, spat onto shore
An altogether unexpected escape.
Saline simplicity nurses my wounds,
As breath enters me again.
Rosy fingers dry my cheeks,
While the rolling waves sing
In time with my heart's gentle beat.
My spirit alights, flexible and free.
Notes:
Shaken Hymn: Simple Gifts written by the Shaker Elder Joseph Brackett Jr. often called
"Shaker Hymn":
'Tis a gift to be simple,
'tis a gift to be free,
'tis a gift to come down where we ought to be,
And when we find ourselves in the place just right,
'twill be in the valley of love and delight.
Refrain:
When true simplicity is gained,
To bow and to bend we shan't be ashamed.
To turn, turn 'twill be our delight
'til by turning, turning we come round right.
Shakespeare's Macbeth (V, v, 19)
"River Constantine" Jars of Clay, Nov. 1999, album If I Left the Zoo
2) History of Cambodia, "Two Doomed Presidents", Summer 2008 Two Doomed Presidents: United States Involvement in the Cambodian Civil War The impending trials of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) have taken center stage of Cambodia’s current events. During the creation of the courts, twenty years in the making, the forming body settled on the strict time period of 1975-1979. However, Pol Pot’s crimes against humanity started as early as 1970 and lasted until 1998, when he too met the finality of death. In the discussion and debate over whether the prosecution will seek a conviction for genocide, the limited time period muddies the water quite a bit as Pol Pot clearly carried out the systematic cleansing of his ranks from the Vietnamese, as well as other minority groups, with the intent to eradicate them and their influence during the early 1970s and 1980s but it is not as easily proven within the period. One main reason for the capped timeline is to avoid marking others outside the Democratic Kampuchea leadership as guilty for some of the same crimes Pol Pot and Ieng Sary are accused of. What if the trials opened the window to include the beginning of the Vietnamese War, when Prince Norodom Sihanouk encouraged uprisings against the Vietnamese population in Cambodia, and included the first half of the 1970s when Lon Nol also instigated widespread persecution of the Vietnamese? What of Nixon and Kissinger, who most certainly would be guilty of genocide against Vietnamese Communists if the final International Genocide Conference of 1948 had retained the word “political” in its definition? Though the case of genocide may be too weak to convict in the limited time period at the trials for the surviving members of Pol Pot’s inner circle and no such attempt has been made to insinuate Nixon’s administration’s guilt, the decisions made by Nixon and Kissinger poured accelerant on the otherwise contained blaze of Cambodian politics and proliferated an inferno that would consume Cambodia for over thirty years. Bidding farewell to Cambodia and political turmoil in early 1970, Norodom Sihanouk embarked on what he intended to be brief stay abroad in France then Russia and China to let the brewing unrest in the government simmer down. Little did he know, his sojourn would turn into nearly five years of exile. Sihanouk left the country’s political, economical, and international state in utter chaos as his break with the United States in 1963 directly resulted in weakening of his military and his nationalization of banks and international trade to the decline of the economy. These long-reaching decisions of Sihanouk lead to the Samlaut uprising, which Sihanouk ruthlessly had put down and further isolated Sihanouk both from the conservatives, who held the sway of the army, and the communists on the left. Retreating into films and egomania, Sihanouk’s final straws included a casino, which instead of generating revenue led many Cambodians to bankruptcy (Chandler 203). Therefore, by the end of 1969, more than a few of the leading politicians were plotting the overthrow of the prince. As Sihanouk made his exit in January of 1970, President Richard Nixon, narrowly voted in on a platform of peace in the southeast, was wrapping up his first year as president of the United States and continued down a path to get in too deep in Cambodia. Immediately after his departure, the remaining power-holders in Cambodia sought to unravel the mess left in Sihanouk’s wake. The casino was shut down, the banks privatized, the riel devalued, and an offensive stance was taken against the North Vietnamese. Sirik Matak orchestrated the changes, and Lon Nol supported the efforts, though the two were divided on what to do about the prince. Lon Nol, a loyal and long-time friend of Sihanouk, wished only to usurp his power and curb his destructive maneuvers. Matak meant for the demise of the Sihanouk’s reign. Despite Nol’s loyalties, on 18 March 1970, the coup d’état unfolded as Nol had the army surround government buildings and shut down the airport, and the assembly unanimously voted Sihanouk out of office. Coincidentally, the same day marked the anniversary of the Nixon Administration’s clandestine operation “Breakfast”, the bombing of presumed communist military bases within neutral Cambodia’s borders. With the regime shift and over a year of US secret bombings, Cambodia entered into a new season of political upheaval and nightmarish war. In the final year of Sihanouk’s reign, General Creighton Abrams requested permission from General Earle Wheeler to attack the Central Office of South Vietnam (COSVN) headquarters, which Abrams believed to be in Base Area 353, in Cambodia’s “Fishhook” region. His request was forwarded all the way up to Nixon and his “National Security Affairs Adviser, Dr. Henry Kissinger” (Shawcross, 20). Abram’s proposal came about a year after the bloody Tet Offensive of the Viet Cong against Saigon, which had completely caught the US forces off guard. Following the Tet Offensive, the US became obsessed with seeking out the bases of operation of the Viet Cong that had enabled them to organize such a secret attack. As early as 1966, US troops had conducted covert raids into Cambodia’s territory, while Sihanouk exhaustively proclaimed its neutrality, to feel out if the Viet Cong were located within the country’s borders. Then, by February 1969, Abrams was convinced of COSVN’s presence in Cambodia. After making its way through the elaborate system of the National Security Council to by pass the Secretaries of State and Defense to go straight to Kissinger then to Nixon, Abram’s plan birthed “Operation Breakfast.” Supposedly a onetime jaunt of bombing into Cambodia on the specific Base Area 353, the name itself suggests this air raid was just the beginning, the first course of a bloody banquet. Operation Breakfast comprised B52 and F111 bombings of forty-eight one half by two mile boxes in eastern Cambodia. Yet, the operation did not succeed as Abram’s had suggested and Nixon had hoped it would, and they concluded further action needed to be taken. “Once the decision had been made in principle that communist violators of Cambodia’s neutrality justified aggressive reciprocal action, it was not difficult to repeat the performance” (Shawcross 25). In the following fourteen months 3,630 B52 raids in Cambodia composed operations Lunch, Snack, Dinner, Dessert, and Supper that followed Breakfast. “Project Menu” initiated the B52 reign of terror in Cambodia. The table below shows the breadth of Project Menu: Operation Target Scope in sq. km Estimated Population by US military Estimated Number of Towns Breakfast BA 353 25 1640 13 Lunch BA 609 - 198 - Snack BA 351 101 383 1 Dinner BA 352 - 707 - Dessert BA 350 - 120 1 Shawcross laid out the US military’s estimates of the areas they were bombing. Even a decade later, after Nixon’s impeachment and accusations tossed at Kissinger for war crimes and illegal actions, Kissinger would firmly hold to the notion that the areas they bombed during Project Breakfast were scarcely populated, despite the numerous reports of the Joint Chiefs that warned of Cambodian casualties. Sihanouk still held a loosening grip of control in Phnom Penh when the bombings commenced, and in a gasp for air as his ship started to sink, Sihanouk made appeals to the US to reestablish the relationship that Sihanouk had severed years earlier. In these talks, Sihanouk had obliged US military action in Cambodia as he had no other choice, pinned in between the Viet Cong, who were making great use of Sihanoukville and the Ho Chi Minh trail, and US friendly South Vietnam and Thailand. Trying to regain a clench of power, Sihanouk attempted his infamous juggling act of bidding the communists and Americans against one another to preserve Cambodia and his reign. This time, however, Sihanouk’s scheming backfired as Nixon and Kissinger took the prince’s predicament as acquiescence to bomb-away. Overall, by the beginning of 1970, Project Menu had succeeded not in quashing the Vietnamese Communists presence in Cambodia but in driving the them deeper into Cambodia while rumbling Sihanouk’s balancing act of the leftists and conservatives. Most historians seem in agreement that the US embassy, as well as the CIA’s presence in Cambodia at the onset of 1970, was not strong enough to single-handed orchestrate a coup. Though, the CIA had long been in the business of uprooting unaccommodating regimes, like in Indonesia and the disastrous Bay of Pigs scandal, Cambodia simply was not important enough to the US to waste such an effort. Henry Kissinger, himself, stated that Cambodia was just a “sidewshow” to Vietnam (Shawcross 395). Nevertheless, forces on the ground and the middle men of the US did not discourage—that is they openly supported— the US friendly Nol and others to do away with the unruly Prince (Deac 113). With the increase bombings and Sihanouk reaping the blame for both the Vietnamese presence in Cambodia and the US bombing, the prince’s carefully designed house of cards began to collapse, culminating in his ousting in March 18, 1970, with a unanimous assembly vote for his removal. Whereas the politicians in Phnom Penh celebrated the end of Sihanouk, the peasants in the countryside, far removed from city politics, knew little of Sihanouk’s corruption and had strong cultural ties to the monarchy. As seen by the 19th century uprisings against the Vietnamese for the removal of the monarchy, the rural villagers clung to the notion a king and had huge support for Sihanouk. Moreover, Sihanouk’s relentless travels to the villages solidified this support (Chandler 199). Less than a week after the coup, Sihanouk joined with his former rivals and those who fled Phnom Penh and Sihanouk in the 1960s—those whom Sihanouk himself named the “Khmer Rouge.” To rally his loyal followers in the countryside, Sihanouk urged the peasants to pick up arms with the Khmer Rouge and restore Sihanouk to power. “Pro-Sihanouk riots broke out almost immediately in the eastern part of the country” (Chandler 204). The communist’s and Sihanouk’s support fell in the same section of the country where the US was unleashing a furious air raid. Despite no evidence of direct intervention of the CIA or US embassy, the secret bombings, which were all too apparent to the villagers losing family members and being uprooted from the ruins of their homes, pushed the politicians in Phnom Penh to a coup and the peasants to the communists—all while failing to rid Cambodia of the Viet Cong and pushing them deeper and deeper within the borders. On April 30, 1970 Nixon unveiled to the people his administration’s plan to invade Cambodia. The motivation behind such a seemingly drastic action was to support the removal of American troops from Vietnam. Lon Nol had been given no forewarning as US and South Vietnamese troops launched an attack on the communists within Cambodia’s borders. US domestic unrest with the war abroad culminated in tragic protests, like the May 4 Kent State protest. Both Nol and Nixon reaped the disapproval from their people for the US invasion. In reaction to growing opposition, Nixon instilled secret and illegal intelligence gathering systems like the “Huston Plan.” Not only was the American public at odds with Nixon’s obsession with Cambodia, but Congress as well had had enough. At the close of 1970, the Cooper-Church amendment became law, which was “to prevent the use of appropriated funds for any American involvement in Cambodia” (Gordon 34). Meanwhile, Lon Non, Nol’s bother, sought to ensure his sibling’s grasp on control in Phnom Penh and brutally dealt with Nol’s opposition. The events of 1970 planted the seeds of the rising political and social strife against Nixon and Nol that gradually would undo them both. 1971 unmasked the faulty foundations of the Republic of Kampuchea. Lon Nol in February suffered a stroke and left to spend time abroad to heal. The physical weakness embodied the weakening state of Cambodia. Half the country now stood in the hands of the Communists, with more soldiers and villages defecting. Like a ferociously growing vine, corruption snaked its way through every aspect of Cambodian politics and military. The increase in US soldiers in Phnom Penh, as well as thousands of refugees and rampant shortages, increased exponentially the black market and drug trafficking. Plaguing the army in particular was the practice of “phantom soldiers.” With a seemingly endless stream of money from the United States to pay wages for soldiers, military higher-ups started exaggerating the number of men in their units, pocketing for themselves the extra salaries. Moreover, if taking the money from a fake soldier could easily be done, then why not actually soldiers? Not only were there estimates as a quarter of the national forces were “phantoms” but even living soldiers started losing pay and being underfed. Thousands of unpaid and hungry Nol soldiers, embittered at their starvation as their leaders drove around in Mercedes and presented expensive trinkets to their wives and girlfriends, defected to FUNK. The corruption further hindered military strategy as it blurred the true number of soldiers that Republic had. Also, 1971 witnessed the beginning of terror attacks and bombings in Phnom Penh. The bloating city started grumbling with increased pressure of the rising refugee population, government corruption, and protests against the government. Lon Nol’s psyche started coming undone at the hinges along with his political legitimacy as he turned to supernatural powers, mystics, and radical xenophobia to guide him. In October of 1971, Nol declared a “state of emergency” (Shawcross 347). He seized control of the papers, limited gatherings and set a city curfew—it was the first of long string of “emergencies” he would declare. The year ended the offensive actions of Lon Nol’s army, as the communist forces crushed Chenla II. These fanatical actions would only increase over the next three years as the war raged on. When the sun set on 1972, all the problems of 1971 had been revisited and swelled. Both Nixon and Nol, under more than questionable measures, secured the votes to continue their presidencies. Over half the country fell to the communists as the Khmer Rouge made huge advances like cutting Battambang off from Phnom Penh and subsequently the rice. Renewed attacks on the city added to the turbulence. Six out of seven major highways into the city had been severed. Inflation soured to an increase of five hundred percent on rice from 1970, which only further fueled the black market. As for the Republic’s armed forces, “phantom soldiers” persisted and those that existed had “limited technical skill, leadership potential, management capabilities, and manpower base” (Deac 153). The rise of 1973 observed the end of America’s involvement in Vietnam and Nixon’s renewed interest in Cambodia. On January 23, 1973, the Paris Peace Accords were signed and a cease-fire went into place between the US and the North Vietnamese. This would earn Kissinger a Noble Peace Prize. But the North Vietnamese could not agree to a cease-fire in Cambodia, much to Kissinger’s disappointment. By 1973, Hanoi’s grip on Pol Pot and the Communist Party of Kampuchea had been loosened greatly as Pol Pot and his followers sought to take the government while Hanoi demanded the communists in Cambodia wait until after the fall of Saigon. The Khmer Rouge led an offensive on Phnom Penh in January. Not even a month after the cease-fire in Vietnam, US air strikes accompanied Republic forces with 60 B52 raids under the guise of protecting American withdrawal—it was just a taste of what the next few months would bear. In March the Joint Chiefs of Staff proposed that the US military unleash “the full spectrum of US air strike forces against targets posing a threat to friendly forces and population centers” (Deac 153). Nixon, desperate to continuing aiding Lon Nol and inspired by Patton, his favorite movie, was eager to go forward. In the spirit of his “Madman of war” theory, Nixon decided to show what might the US had and to leave SE Asia with dignity. Whether believing the bombing would actually help or nursing a bruised ego from leaving Vietnam, the decision was made to rain down massive amounts of bombs over the next several months on Cambodia. When the US pulled out of Vietnam, the US embassy in Cambodia took direct roll in the bombings, which ended with the US Senate’s investigations. Kissinger and Nixon’s web of lies started to unravel as reports of the illegal bombings of 1969 surfaced as well as of the continuing bombing. Finally, fed-up with Nixon’s back-handed dealings and war in SE Asia, the House of Representatives suspended all funding for Cambodia. To reconcile the White House and Congress, an agreement was struck to cease the bombing of Cambodia on August 15, 1973. In all of 1972, the US dropped fifty-three thousand tons of bombs on Cambodia; in only seven months the US bombing totaled 257,465 tons. Some understand that the bombing was the only way Phnom Penh did not fall to the communists in 1973. Under Kissinger and Nixon’s order, the US bombings “killed an indeterminate number of people in order to save Lon Nol’s Republic” (Deac 176). Moreover still, the cancerous corruption of Lon Nol’s government ate away at his control, but the US extinguished all attempts at overthrowing him, despite the fact even Kissinger could see the ailing man’s weaknesses. Student-teacher protests against the government increased; food, oil, and energy shortages intensified; the city’s population grew to two million; and, to top it off, due to bombings of his residence, Lon Nol put the city under strict lock down and clung to mysticism and “Neo-Khmerism.” However, as the curtain fell on 1973, Nixon had enough on his plate to worry about in the States. Though now lacking the air coverage of the US, The Republic of Kampuchea pushed on. In January, the Khmer Rouge picked up their annual siege of Phnom Penh. While soldiers battled in Cambodia and investigators uncovered more and more of Nixon’s schemes from paranoia, another battle took place in the United Nations as Sihanouk strived to replace the Republic of Kampuchea and to have his government in exile recognized in the UN. A vote narrowly passed to continue to acknowledge Lon Nol in 1973 with pressure from the US. Again in 1974, the extremely close vote of 56 to 54 kept Lon Nol in (Dirk “Cambodian Government...” 58). International recognition of GRUNK would have been devastating to the US cause in Cambodia and Nixon would struggle to preserve Cambodia at any cost—numbering in the millions of US dollars. The fiscal year showed that ninety-five percent of the Republic’s economy was US aid (Dirk “Cambodian Government...” 60). Furthermore, since early 1973, Phnom Penh relied heavily on US airlifts for food and energy. By 1974 over eighty percent of the country had fallen to the Khmer Rouge. The bombings of 1973 may have saved Phnom Penh for the moment, but “the added civil disruption caused by the Allied bombings accelerated the collapse of rural social order, brought many new recruits [to the Khmer Rouge], and strengthened the hand of Pol Pot, who insisted compromise was impossible” (Deac 166). 1974 was also a turning point for the communists in Cambodia, as Pol Pot and his followers had severed ties with the North Vietnamese and started to purge the ranks of Vietnamese influence by systematically killing both Vietnamese and suspected Vietnamese supporters, those who did not recognize the beginning of the Party as when Pol Pot took the reigns. Rumors of forced labor, executions, and bans of Buddhism made their way into Phnom Penh as refugees fled the Khmer Rouge. Yet these whisperings were overshadowed by shouts demanding Lon Nol resign. He held firmly to his place and continuously reshuffled the government, but the writing was on the wall, and soon Nol’s one supporter in Nixon would succumb to the corruption of his own regime. In July of 1974, the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee was formed to impeach Nixon for the Watergate Scandal, his list of offenses also included accusations of “waging an illegal War in Cambodia” (Shawcross 347). On August 9, 1973, Richard Nixon resigned as President of the United States. Lon Nol was suddenly alone. In 1975, when Pol Pot at last seized complete control of Cambodia, there was not much of an economy for Pot to do away with and very few true supporters of Lon Nol left to persecute (though many died for this reason). As in the two prior years, the Khmer Rouge focused their fire on Phnom Penh in January. By February, the Mekong fell completely, leaving the city entirely stranded. Without the US aid and Nixon’s support that Lon Nol had become so dependent on, the absence of the US met the end of the Republic of Kampuchea. Nol was formerly asked to step down and given a million US dollar incentive to leave. The ailing former general accepted and departed the country he had attempted to lead for five years. Less than three weeks later, the Khmer Rouge, whose forces had quadrupled from 50,000 in 1970 to 200,000 by 1974 due in great part to the American bombings, marched into the city and began their chapter of Cambodia’s history. Years later, as stories of the atrocities from the Democratic Kampuchea emerged, Kissinger, when asked about his involvement in Cambodia and if he regretted what happened, responded with cool denial of culpability. He firmly held the belief that the clandestine bombings were only against North Vietnamese in Cambodia, that COSVN was causing US military casualties and the bombing prevented more, that Sihanouk had given Nixon permission to go ahead with the bombing, and that more communists died with US aid than before the bombings (Shawcross 395). “Kissinger ...talked in terms of the military aspects of the invasion rather than emotion, law, morality or public opinion” (Deac 126). However, the questions that Kissinger is still answerable for over thirty years later: the legalities of the 1969 bombings, Menu’s spreading of the fighting, the deliberate extension of the war and Lon Nol’s regime as it suited Nixon’s interests, the indiscriminant bombings of 1973, the altogether inadequate attempts for peace, and perhaps most importantly, the way that the Khmer Rouge was “born out of the inferno that American policy did much to create” (Deac 196). As the ECCC tribunals process, perhaps these questions of Kissinger and Nixon’s accountability in the ruin of Cambodia and the rise of the Khmer Rouge will at last be addressed. Though one cannot say that blame for Cambodia’s bloody civil war and the years of the Khmer Rouge falls solely on Kissinger or Nixon, to exclude them from any responsibility based on whom they are where they come from is an injustice. Works Cited Chandler, David. A History of Cambodia. 2nd Edition. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press Inc., 1993. Deac, Wilfred P. Road to the Killing Fields: The Cambodian War of 1970-1975. College Station, Texas: Texas A & M University Press, 1997. Gordon, Bernard K. Kathryn Young. “The Khmer Republic: That was the Cambodia That Was”. Asian Survey. Vol. 11. No. 1 “A Survey of Asia in 1970: Part I” University of California Press, January 1971. Kirk, Donald. “Cambodia 1973: year of the ‘Bomb Halt’”. Asian Survey. Vol. 14 No. 1 “A survey of Asia in 1973” University of California Press, 1973. Kirk, Donald. “Cambodia Government on Trial”. Asian Survey. Vol. 15 No. 1 University of California Press, January 1974. Shawcross, William. Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon and the Destruction of Cambodia. New York City, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1979. 3) Historical Linguistics, "F*cking Term Paper", Spring 2008: English: The Taboo Language I. Introduction The sun’s perpetual shining on the British empire during the 1800 and 1900s and United States’ popular culture emitting out to the ends earth through the world-shrinking technology of the media and the internet, the native tongue of the two global powers, English, has become an international language. Ethnologue estimates that the total amount of native and second-language speakers of English numbers 508,000,000 speakers.1 About ninety-two countries contain English speakers—seventy-nine of which consider English the national or official language. Considering the wide range of use, the magnitude and multitude of literature in English and about English, it may seem little work is left to do in documenting and describing English. SVO word order, prepositions, head-final phrases, consonant and vowel clusters name just a few of the well-established characteristics of the pervasive language. However, one trait not immediately associated with English is taboo. Nevertheless, taboo words and topics and their avoidance provides a powerful motivation in language shift and change in English. This essay will take a brief look at what words and topics are considered taboo, specifically in American English, and how these taboos drive the creation of new lexical items by: changing the vowel or consonants of the taboo word; shifting the meaning of phonetically similar word; using an entirely different word all-together; and also blending. Lastly, the essay will examine what propels the taboos and how taboos have shifted over time in the United States. 1 Gordon. II. The Taboo Social and linguistic taboos appear in almost every culture and language and differ between those cultures. The taboo of a man not being allowed to see his betrothed in her bridal gown before the wedding ceremony demonstrates an American cultural taboo based in the superstition that the groom’s seeing the bride will bring bad luck to the marriage. Though many may practice this taboo out of tradition, few would believe the wedding actually doomed were the groom to see the bride; nonetheless, the taboo exists and alters how couples act on the wedding day. Similarly, taboo words and topics force English to alternate their language. So what are these taboo words and topics? The taboo words in English are those deemed “foul language”—just to name a few. The most severe of these words and their most general definitions follow2: 1) [bɪtʃ]3 n. derogatory term for a female 2) [æs] n. the buttocks 3) [dæm] v. condemn 4) [kɑk] n. penis 5) [kʌnt] n. vagina 6) [ʃɪt] n. feces Laslty, English’s favorite and great contribution to world’s lexicon: 7) [fʌk] copulation In addition to these, many other words fall into the categories of swears, curses, cusses, profanity, blasphemy, obscenity, vulgarity, epithets, and of course taboo.4 For the 2 The list is a combination of words named most through out the texts as taboo and most recognized by my peers and colleagues as taboo. The above also have proven to be the most productive in forging new lexical items in avoidance of these terms 3 I will continue to present these words in IPA phonetic transcription. See Author’s Note. 4 This list is a combination of categories found in Jay. p 1-8 and Wajnryb. p 10-16 sake of brevity, the categories need not be explained. It is sufficient to say that these categories at one point held significant distinctions that can still be used today; however, at present English speakers use the categories interchangeably to refer to taboo words in general.5 English has a plethora of swear words, which differ in severity depending upon the context in which they are used. For example, many consider [dæm] and [æs] warranting less shock than [ʃɪt], which earns less reprimand than [kʌnt]. Swear words hold a particular position in the lexicon as words that demand attention and elicit certain responses. Speakers utilize them to convey anger, to insult, to jest, to level or abolition social barriers, to shock, and depending on circumstances in everyday speech. As for other taboo words and topics, these often include words or discussions that involve “intimate acts, mental illness, birth defects, a person’s previous detention in prison, death, income, or a person’s religious affiliation.”6 Politics, a person’s weight, and abortion7, as well as “words for body parts, body processes, and sex”8 fall under the umbrella of taboo topics. Euphemisms and use of more general terms allow people to talk around taboos in daily conversation (“Stomach ache” in replacement of diarrhea or “use the bathroom” instead of piss or urinate), but native English speakers found it difficult to produce replacements for taboo topics, like abortion, as “You just don’t talk about those things in public.”9 English’s taboo words, on the other hand, produce more new lexemes and dictate change far more than any other process in the language. The following section looks at a few ways in which the taboos do so. 5 For consistency, through out the rest of the paper, I will refer to these words as swear words. 6 Wajnryb. p 16 7 In various discussions among my peers, they cited these topics as well. 8 Jay. p 5 9 Johnson, Anne. Quoted 15 April 2008 during casual conversation. III. The Ever-changing Face of [fʌk] and its Friends Above, I refer to [fʌk] as America’s favorite word and contribution to world’s lexeme, and it earns this title with flying colors. The book, The F Word, dedicates over 230 pages to cataloging the many uses and faces of [fʌk]. At the intersection of taboo and proliferation, this particular word takes on five different parts of speech and propagates dozens of new words. As a noun, [fʌk] describes 1) the act of copulation; 2) copulation; 3) a sexual partner; 4) interchangeable with “a jot, a care”; 5) interchangeable with “anything whatsoever”; 6) a comparative; 7) a bit of difference; 8) semen; 9) a despicable male; 10) an evil turn of events; 11) a notable example; 12) interchangeable with “the hell”. [fʌk] can be an adjective to describe anything relating to sex. As a verb, it has around ten different meanings. It causes denominal verbalization when suffixed to nouns, especially of animals, but also in the case of “mind-f”. These new compound verbs then can become nouns. [fʌk] attaches to “-able”, “-aholic”, “-ed” to create adjectives, and with “-ing” to become a adverb. In conjunction with “mother-f” it can undergo all other processes [fʌk] undergoes, save compounding. Also, [fʌkɪŋ] is English’s only productive infix, as seen with fantastic: [fæn-fʌkɪŋ-tæstɪk]; absolutely: [æbso-fʌkɪŋ-lutli]; fantastic: [fæn-fʌkɪŋ-tæstɪk]. [fʌk] has many as different phonetic substitutions as it does semantic meanings, that is indefinite and ever increasing. Entirely new and spontaneous replacements for [fʌk], according to The F Word, include “ferk”, “furk”, “frap”, “frick, and “frig”.10 Others include “frell” from the TV show Starship Galactica and numerous other inventions of local or group origin but not more widely 10 Jay. p. 60, 69, 76, 77, 78, recognized11. Most instances of new brand new lexemes retain the initial voiceless, labial-dental fricative. In some cases he final stop is voiced or replaced, yet the primary alternation appears in vowel replacement of one of similar height. Words already present in the lexicon can shift meaning to become replacements for [fʌk]. Jay lists “foul”, “fork”, “foul”, and “freak.” Others identify “fudge”, “fiddlesticks”, as well as other English words that share similar sounds to [fʌk]. The shifted meaning words and the new lexical items can for the most part appear in any form that [fʌk] can and undergo all the same processes. Acronyms are a very productive process to create replacement words, especially in the military and on the Internet: military, FUBAR12 and Internet LMFAO and WTF13. In the same way, “futhermucker”, “motorcycle”, and “em-eff” show that avoidance of [mʌðәɹ-fʌkәɹ] uses the same processes to create replacements. One last way [fʌk] avoidance creates new lexemes is by blending [fʌkɪŋ] and an adjective to creating an intensified form of that adjective. “Fugly” is perhaps most recognized, as 83% of 42 surveyed14 recognized it to mean “extremely ugly”. “Fawkward” is another example. This formation, however, is less productive as it requires a vowel initial adjective. No other swear word in English morphs as much as [fʌk], but other taboos have made lasting impacts on English. Taboo replacements for the blasphemous or profane use of “God” and “Jesus” and for [dæm] have arose then fallen in and out of use. Due to the shifts in meaning to that of swear words, English lexical items that were once common have been abandoned because of an associated taboo. [bɪtʃ] loses its original 11 In my own circle of friends, we use “fruck” as a replacement. 12 [fʌk]ed Up Beyond All Recognition, Jay p 88. 13 Laughing my [fʌk]ing [æs] Off, What The [fʌk] 14 Lawrence. Survey meaning of “female dog” as it took on the derogatory connotation for a female woman and becomes less taboo as a verb to mean “to whine, complain, moan.” English adopted “rooster” for a male chicken when [kɑk] became stigmatized as a word for male genitalia. Few native speakers retain the meaning “happy” for gay, as its taken on the adjectival meaning of “homosexual”. When speakers create replacements for taboo words they undoubtedly change the language; the more they us the replacement the greater the impact it has on the language. IV. The Motivation Behind the Taboo. Of the forty-nine 18-26 year olds surveyed, 98% reported they would not use swear words in front of their grandparents and 91.8% in a professional or academic situation. Others listed, in front of parents, at church, and in front of children as times to avoid using swear words. Two out of forty-nine claimed they never use swear words in any context or situation. 94% of those surveyed would refrain from swearing at a holiday dinner with family, in professional writing, and when speaking to one’s superior in a work setting. Contrastively, 80% would avoid using swear words in front of ones superior in a non-professional setting. Samplings of words that people would avoid using in any given situation reflect the trends noted by Jay and Wajnryb above. In seeking out further explanation for people’s attitudes toward swearing, two main motivations for the taboo became clear: Respect and “Career Limiting Moves”. Jay writes: The power of the taboo or the strength of the taboo is relative to the power of the controlling group to sanction or punish the perpetrator. The larger the threat, the greater the inhibition of the language. 15 What then are the threats, the sanctions that motivate the taboos in English. Comedian Nick Swardson in his routine about swearing jokes “We can’t say those words around Grandma. No, not in front of Grandma.” Those surveyed agreed. Grandparents fall into the social categories of elders, superiors, and authority—these are people one does not swear in front. Whether it’s a parent’s threat to “wash your mouth out with soap” or the more abstract loss of respect or making a display of disrespect, many refrain from using swear words in front of grandparents and other elders. Stronger still is the pressure made by the professional setting. One friend of mine, while attending an orientation to his first professional job post-graduation, was told to “avoid career limiting moves.” “Dropping the F-bomb,” he explained, “in front the boss or another higher could get you overlooked for a promotion.”16 Bosses or people of authority yield the ability to sanction those who use taboos. Furthermore, in the workplace, topic taboos are more closely followed. One would rarely say to his or her boss “I have to pee”, but more appropriately “Excuse me while I use the restroom.” Taboo replacement for bodily functions, body parts, and swear words are more strictly adhered to around clients and other coworkers in the business setting. Outside the office, the taboos are relaxed, depending only upon the level of relationship and intimacy an underling may share with his or her boss. Professionals avoid taboo subjects, as listed above, with clients or VIPs at all costs. Professors, students, and those in academia follow a similar pattern, though more relaxed. Six weeks into the fifteen-week term my older professor uttered, “The 15 Jay. p 4 16 Keogh, Justin. Casual Conversation. excrement hit the fan,” but this past week, week fifteen, he said, “Pardon my language, but [ʃɪt] happens.” At first he observed the taboos, but as he grew in intimacy and comfort ability with the students, he observed them more loosely. The students surveyed, as well as others, support this phenomenon. Geoffrey Hughes describes the shifting views of swearing and demonstrates academia as preserving taboos. Gabriele Azzaro in his book documents the use of swear words in American films from the 1920s through 2005. Although his work reveals an increase in tolerance, a relaxing of censorship of words, and an increase in swear word use over the past century, popular culture has not yet infiltrated the realms of academia and professional writing and conduct that adhere to the taboos that those of the present 20-something generation ignore on a peer level, but practice to their grandparents. V. Conclusion The corpora of work done of English swear words continues to build as linguists and anthropologists throw taboo to the window to delve into the taboo of their own cultures. Nevertheless, as English unfolds into more and more cultures and the amount of speakers augments, more change and taboos will reveal themselves in time. Words that a century ago were so stigmatized they could not appear print today are unquestionably ordinary: for example, “leg”. Taboo in English has proven itself a driving force in change in the language. Therefore, it is necessary to study such a powerful motivation for new words and even morphology—[fʌkɪŋ] is even an infix. Jennifer Lawrence 9 Works Cited Azzaro, Gabriele. Four-letter Films Taboo Languages in Movies. Rome: Arcane, 2005. Gordon, Raymond G., Jr. “English” (ed.), 2005. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Fifteenth edition. Dallas, Tex.: SIL International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.org/show_language.asp?code=eng Hughes, Geoffrey. Swearing: A Social History of Foul Language, Oaths and Profanity in English. Oxford: Blackwell, 1991. Jay, Timothy. Cursing in America. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1992. Lawrence, Jennifer. “Language Taboos”. Survey. 25 March-16 April 2008.
No comments:
Post a Comment