Hubbry Logo
ProfanityProfanityMain
Open search
Profanity
Community hub
Profanity
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Profanity
Profanity
from Wikipedia

Profanity is often depicted in images by grawlixes, which substitute symbols for words.

Profanity, also known as swearing, cursing, or cussing, is the usage of notionally offensive words for a variety of purposes, including to demonstrate disrespect or negativity, to relieve pain, to express a strong emotion (such as anger, excitement, or surprise), as a grammatical intensifier or emphasis, or to express informality or conversational intimacy. In many formal or polite social situations, it is considered impolite (a violation of social norms), and in some religious groups it is considered a sin.[1] Profanity includes slurs, but most profanities are not slurs, and there are many insults that do not use swear words.

Swear words can be discussed or even sometimes used for the same purpose without causing offense or being considered impolite if they are obscured (e.g. "fuck" becomes "f***" or "the f-word") or substituted with a minced oath like "flip".

Etymology and definitions

[edit]

Profanity may be described as offensive language, dirty words, or taboo words, among other descriptors.[2] The term profane originates from classical Latin profanus, literally 'before (outside) the temple', pro meaning 'outside' and fanum meaning 'temple, sanctuary'.[3][4][better source needed] This further developed in Middle English with the meaning to desecrate a temple.[5] In English, swearing is a catch-all linguistic term for the use of profanities, even if it does not involve taking an oath.[6] The only other languages that use the same term for both profanities and oaths are French (jurer), Canadian French (sacrer), and Swedish (svära).[7]

English uses cursing in a similar manner to swearing, especially in the United States. Cursing originally referred specifically to the use of language to cast a curse on someone,[8] and in American English it is still commonly associated with wishing harm on another.[9] Equivalents to cursing are used similarly in Danish (bande), Italian (imprecare), and Norwegian (banne).[10] The terms swearing and cursing have strong associations with the use of profanity in anger.[11] Various efforts have been made to classify different types of profanity, but there is no widely accepted typology and terms are used interchangeably.[12]

Blasphemy and obscenity are used similarly to profanity, though blasphemy has retained its religious connotation.[5] Expletive is another English term for the use of profanity, derived from its original meaning of adding words to change a sentence's length without changing its meaning.[13] The use of expletive sometimes refers specifically to profanity as an interjection.[14][15] Epithet is used to describe profanities directed at a specific person.[16] Some languages do not have a general term for the use of profanities, instead describing it with the phrase "using bad language". These include Mandarin (zang hua), Portuguese (palavrão), Spanish (decir palabrotas), and Turkish (küfur etmek).[10] Colloquial English terms include potty-mouth, defined by the OED as "A tendency to be foul-mouthed; (also) a foul-mouthed person".[17]

History and study

[edit]

Historical profanity is difficult to reconstruct, as written records may not reflect spoken language.[18] Despite being relatively well known compared to other linguistic mechanisms,[19] profanity has historically been understudied because of its taboo nature.[20] Profanity may be studied as an aspect of linguistics and sociology, or it can be a psychological and neurological subject.[21] Besides interpersonal communication, understanding of profanity has legal implications and is related to theories of language learning.[22][19]

In modern European languages, swearing developed from early Christianity, primarily through restrictions on taking God's name in vain in the Old Testament.[23] Invocations of God were seen as attempts to call upon his power, willing something to be true or leveling a curse.[24] Other mentions of God were seen as placing oneself over him, with the person uttering a name implying power over the name's owner.[25]

Modern study of profanity as its own subject of inquiry had started by 1901.[2] Sigmund Freud influenced study of the topic by positing that swearing reflects the subconscious, including feelings of aggression, antisocial inclinations, and the broaching of taboos.[26] Significant activity began in the 1960s with writings on the subject by Ashley Montagu and Edward Sagarin, followed by increased study the following decade.[21] Specific types of discriminatory profanity, such as ethnophaulism and homophobia, came to be described as part of a broader type of profanity, hate speech, toward the end of the 20th century.[27] Another increase in the study of profanity took place with the onset of the 21st century.[20]

Subjects

[edit]

Profanities have literal meanings, but they are invoked to indicate a state of mind, making them dependent almost entirely on connotation and emotional associations with the word, as opposed to literal denotation.[28][29] The connotative function of profanity allows the denotative meaning to shift more easily,[30] causing the word to shift until its meaning is unrelated to its origin or to lose meaning and impact altogether.[31]

Literal meanings in modern profanity typically relate to religion, sex, or the human body, which creates a dichotomy between the use of highbrow religious swears and lowbrow anatomical swears.[32][33] Languages and cultures place different emphasis on the subjects of profanity. Anatomical profanity is common in Polish, for example, while swearing in Dutch is more commonly in reference to disease.[34] Words for excrement and for the buttocks have profane variants across most cultures.[35] Though religious swears were historically more severe, modern society across much of the world has come to see sexual and anatomical swears to be more vulgar.[32][36] Common profane phrases sometimes incorporate more than one category of profanity for increased effect. The Spanish phrase me cago en Dios y en la Puta Virgen (transl. I shit on God and on the prostitute Virgin) invokes scatological, religious, and sexual profanity.[37] Other swear words do not refer to any subject, such as the English word bloody when used in its profane sense.[38]

Not all taboo words are used in swearing, with many only being used in a literal sense.[39] Clinical or academic terminology for bodily functions and sexual activity are distinct from profanity. This includes words such as excrement and copulate in English, which are not typically invoked as swears.[39] Academics who study profanity disagree on whether literal use of a vulgar word can constitute a swear word.[40] Conversely, words with greater connotative senses are not always used profanely. Bastard and son of a bitch are more readily used as general terms of abuse in English compared to terrorist and rapist, despite the latter two being terms being associated with strongly immoral behavior.[41]

Some profane phrases are used metaphorically in a way that still retains elements of the original meaning, such as the English phrases all hell broke loose or shit happens, which carry the negative associations of hell and shit as undesirable places and things.[42] Others are nonsensical when interpreted literally, like take a flying fuck in English as well as putain de merde (whore of shit) in French and porca Madonna (the sow of Madonna) in Italian.[43]

Religion

[edit]
A woman exclaiming "Oh My God!" before a dirtbike crash
Graffiti on a mailbox in Quebec reading Pas de publicité tabarnak, meaning "no advertising mail" and using the sacre "tabarnak" (tabernacle)

A distinction is sometimes made between religious profanity, which is casual, versus blasphemy, which is intentionally leveled against a religious concept.[44] It was commonly believed among early civilizations that speaking about certain things can invoke them or bring about curses.[24] Many cultures have taboos about speaking the names of evil creatures such as Satan because of these historical fears.[23]

Religions commonly develop derogatory words for those who are not among their members. Medieval Christianity developed terms like heathen and infidel to describe outsiders.[45] Secularization in the Western world has seen exclamations such as God! divorced from their religious connotations.[46] Religious profanity is not inherent to all languages, being absent from Japanese, indigenous languages of the Americas, and most Polynesian languages.[47]

European languages historically used the crucifixion of Jesus as a focal point for profane interjections. Phrases meaning "death of God" were used in languages like English ('Sdeath), French (Mort de Dieu), and Swedish (Guds död)[48] Christian profanity encompasses both appeals to the divine, such as God or heaven, and to the diabolic, such as the Devil or hell. While the impact of religious swearing has declined in the Christian world, diabolic swearing remains profane in Germany and the Nordic countries. Islamic profanity lacks a diabolic element, referring only to divine concepts like Muhammad or holy places.[49]

Words related to Catholicism, known as sacres, are used in Quebec French profanity, and are considered to be stronger than other profane words in French. Examples of sacres considered profane in Quebec are tabarnak (tabernacle), hostie (host), and sacrament (sacrament). When used as profanities, sacres are often interchangeable.[50]

The Book of Leviticus indicates that blasphemous language warrants death, while the Gospel of Matthew implies condemnation of all swearing, though only the Quakers have imposed such a ban.[51] Islam, Judaism, and Brahmanism forbid mention of God's name entirely.[52] In some countries, profanity words often have pagan roots that after Christian influence were turned from names of deities and spirits to profanity and used as such, like perkele in Finnish, which was believed to be an original name of the thunder god Ukko, the chief god of the Finnish pagan pantheon.[53][54][55][56]

Anatomy and sexuality

[edit]
The phrase "get fucked" spoken by an American

Profanity related to sexual activity, including insults related to genitals, exists across cultures.[57] The specific aspects invoked are sensitive to a given culture, with differences in how much they emphasize ideas like incest or adultery.[58] Certain types of sex acts, such as oral sex, anal sex, or masturbation, may receive particular attention.[59] Verbs describing sexual activity are frequently profane, like fuck in English, foutre in French, fottere in Italian, jodido in Spanish, and ебать (yebatˈ) in Russian.[60] Words describing a person as one who masturbates are often used as terms of abuse, such as the English use of jerk-off and wanker.[61][59] Terms for sexually promiscuous women can be used as profanity, such English terms like hussy and slut.[62] Reference to prostitution brings its own set of profanities. Many profane words exist to refer to a prostitute, such as whore in English, putain in French, puttana in Italian, kurwa in Polish, блять (blyat') in Russian, and puta in Spanish.[63] Some languages, including German and Swedish, do not see significant use of sexual terms as profanity.[60]

Profanities for the penis and vulva are often used as interjections. Penile interjections are often used in Italian (cazzo), Russian (хуй, khuy), and Spanish (carajo). Vulvar interjections are often used in Dutch (kut), Hungarian (pisca), Russian (пизда, pizda), Spanish (coño), and Swedish (fitta).[64] Such terms, especially those relating to the vulva, may also be used as terms of abuse.[65] Profanities related to testicles are less common and their function varies across languages. They may be used as interjections, such as in English (balls or bollocks), Italian (coglione), and Spanish (cojones). Danish uses testicles as a term of abuse with klotzaak.[60]

Words for the buttocks are used as a term of disapproval in many languages, including English (ass or arse), French (cul), Polish (dupa), Russian (жопа, zhopa), and Spanish (culo). Similar words for the anus appear in languages like Danish (røvhul), English (asshole or arsehole), German (Arschloch), Icelandic (rassgat), Norwegian (rasshøl), and Polish (dupek).[64] Excrement and related concepts are commonly invoked in profanity.[49] European examples include shit in English, merde in French, Scheiße in German, and stronzo in Italian.[66] An example in an East Asian language would be くそ (kuso) in Japanese.[67]

Other subjects

[edit]

Illness has historically been used to swear by wishing a plague on others.[68] The names of various diseases are used as profane words in some languages; Pokkers (transl. pox) appears in both Danish and Norwegian as an exclamation and an intensifier.[69] Death is another common theme in Asian languages such as Cantonese.[48] Terminology of mental illness has become more prominent as profanity in the Western world, with terms such as idiot and retard challenging one's mental competency.[35]

Profane phrases directed at the listener's mother exist across numerous major languages, though it is absent from Germanic languages with the exception of English. These phrases often include terms of abuse that implicate the subject's mother, such as son of a bitch in English or wáng bā dàn (transl. child of a cuckolded man) in Mandarin.[59] Russian profanity places heavy emphasis on the sexual conduct of the listener's female relatives, either by describing sexual activity involving them or suggesting that the listener engage in activities with them.[10] Aboriginal Australian languages sometimes invoke one's deceased ancestors in profanity.[48]

The names of political ideologies are sometimes invoked as swear words by their opponents. Fascist is commonly used as an epithet in the modern era, replacing historical use of radical.[70] Far-left groups and anti-capitalist have historically used words like capitalist and imperialist as terms of abuse, while anti-communist speakers use communist in the same manner.[71] The use of political terms in a profane sense often leads to the term becoming less impactful or losing relevance as a political descriptor entirely.[72]

Words for animals can be used as terms of abuse despite not being inherently profane, commonly referencing some attribute of the animal. Examples in English include bitch to demean a woman or louse to describe someone unwanted.[73] They may also be used in interjections like the Italian porco dio (transl. pig of a God).[48] Animal-related profanity is distinct from other forms in that it is used similarly across different languages.[74] Terms for dogs are among the most common animal swears across languages, alongside those for cows, donkeys, and pigs.[75] Swear words related to monkeys are common in Arabic and East Asian cultures.[76]

Slurs are words that target a specific demographic.[32] These are used to project xenophobia and prejudice, often through the use of stereotypes. They typically develop in times of increased contact of conflict between different races or ethnic groups, including times of war between two or more nations.[77] Terms for minority groups are sometimes used as swears. This can apply to both profane terms such as kike or non-profane terms such as gay.[68] Many of these are culture-specific.[75] In a case of using the name of one group to demean another, Hun came to be associated with a brutish caricature of Germans, first during the Renaissance and again during World War I.[78] Some terms for people of low class or status can become generically profane or derogatory. English examples include villain, lewd, and scum.[79]

Grammar and function

[edit]
Exposing the buttocks is considered profane in many cultures.

Profanity is used to indicate the speaker's emotional state,[28][80] and the negative associations of swear words mean they are often emotionally charged.[81][82] Expressions of anger and frustration are the most common reason for swearing.[14] Such expressions are associated with abusive profanity,[83] which is the most negatively charged and is specifically chosen to insult or offend the subject. This may take the form of a direct insult, such as calling the subject an asshole, or by addressing the subject profanely, such as telling someone to fuck off.[14] It can also be used to indicate contempt.[82] Cathartic profanity is used as an expression of annoyance,[14] and it is often considered less rude than profanity directed at a specific subject.[84] Profanity can be used as a statement of agreement or disagreement, though disagreement is more common; the hell it is and my ass are examples of English profanities that indicate disagreement.[85] The potent nature of swearing means that it can be used to gain attention,[86] including the use of profanity to cause shock.[82] In some circumstances, swearing can be used as a form of politeness, such as when a speaker gives positive reinforcement by describing something as pretty fucking good.[84]

Propositional or controlled swearing is done consciously, and speakers choose their wording and how to express it. This is more common when using descriptive swearing. Non-propositional or reflexive swearing is done involuntarily as an emotional response to excitement or displeasure.[87][68] Frequent swearing can become a habit, even if the speaker does not have a specific intention of being profane.[88]

Profanity is often used as a slot filler, which functions as a modifier,[89] and modifying a noun with a swear is commonly used to indicate dislike.[90] A profane word can modify words as an adjective, such as in it's a bloody miracle, or as an adverb, such as in they drove damn fast.[16] One type of adverbial profanity is to use it as a modal adverb, such as in no you fucking can't.[90] Compound words can be created to create a new modifier, such as pisspoor.[16] Many European languages use profanity to add emphasis to question words in the form of who the hell are you? or with a preposition in the form of what in God's name is that?.[91] Modifier profanities are frequently used as an expletive attributive, or intensifiers that put emphasis on specific ideas.[92] These commonly take the form of interjections to express strong emotion, such as the English examples bloody hell and for fuck's sake.[92] Such stand-alone profanities are among the most common in natural speech.[15] Expletive infixation is the use of a profane word as an intensifier inside of another word, such as modifying absolutely to become abso-fucking-lutely.[93] Some languages use swear words that can generically replace nouns and verbs. This is most common in Russian.[94]

Though profanity exists in nearly all cultures, there is variation in when it is used and how it affects the meaning of speech.[57] Each language has unique profane phrases influenced by culture.[34] Japanese is sometimes described as having no swear words, though it has a concept of warui kotoba (transl. bad words) that are not based on taboos but are otherwise functionally equivalent to swears.[95] One linguistic theory proposes that sound symbolism influences the pronunciation of profanities. This includes the suggestion that profanities are more likely to include plosives, but this remains unstudied, especially outside of Indo-European languages.[96]

The use of profanity is the most common way to express taboo ideas.[22] The dichotomy between its taboo nature and its prevalence in day-to-day life is studied as the "swearing paradox".[97] It is used casually in some social settings, which can facilitate bonding and camaraderie, denote a social environment as informal, and mark the speaker as part of an in-group.[98] The way speakers use profanity in social settings allows them to project their identity and personality through communication style,[99] and in some circumstances it can be used as a method used to impress one's peers.[88] Stylistic swearing is used to add emphasis or intensity to speech,[14][100] which can be used to emphasize an idea in an aggressive or authoritative fashion, make an idea memorable, or produce a comedic effect.[98]

The front of a man's hand with his middle finger raised
The finger, an obscene hand gesture

Profanity often presents as formulaic language, in which specific words can only be used in specific phrases, often developed through grammaticalization.[101] Many of these phrases allow words to be swapped, presenting variations on a phrase like what in the bloody heck, why in the flamin' hell, and how in the fuckin' hell.[102] Profane phrases can be used as anaphoric pronouns, such as replacing him with the bastard in tell the bastard to mind his own business.[90] They can similarly be used to support a noun instead of replacing it, such as in John is a boring son of a bitch.[103] Though profanity is usually associated with taboo words, obscene non-verbal acts such as hand gestures may be considered profane. Spitting in someone's direction has historically been seen as a strong insult.[104] Exposure of certain body parts, often the genitals or buttocks, is also seen as profane in many parts of the world.[105]

Though cursing often refers to the use of profanity in general, it can refer to more specific phrases of harm such as damn you or a pox on you.[9] Historically, people swore by or to the ideas that they were invoking, instead of swearing at something.[106] Oaths in which the speaker swears by something, such as by God, can be used as interjections or intensifiers, typically without religious connotation. This is especially common in Arabic.[9] Self-immolating oaths, such as I'll be damned, involve speakers casting harm upon themselves.[107] These are often invoked as conditional statements based on whether something is true—I'll be damned if...[108] Profanity directed at an individual can take the form of an unfriendly suggestion. English examples include go to hell and kiss my ass.[85] Some profanities, such as your mother!, imply taboos or swear words without using them explicitly.[109]

Social perception

[edit]
Pejorative terms like queer may be reappropriated by the people they are directed against.

Whether speech is profane depends on context, because what is taboo or impolite in one environment might not be in another.[83][110][111] Swear words vary in their intensity, and speakers of a language might disagree that weaker swear words are actually profane.[112] Isolated profanities are often seen as more profane than those used in context.[97]

The identity of the speaker affects how profanity is seen, as different cultures may hold classes, sexes, age groups, and other identities to different standards.[113] Profanity is often seen as more socially acceptable when coming from men,[114] and it is commonly associated with machismo.[115] Profanity varies in how it affects a speaker's credibility. It can be seen as unprofessional in some circumstances, but it can make an argument more persuasive in others.[86] Milder words can become more impactful in different circumstances; cheat may be more provocative in schools or gambling clubs, and informer replaces crook as a term of abuse for a dishonest person in a criminal setting.[116] Profanity is often associated with lower class professions like soldiers and carters.[39]

Expectancy violations theory holds that expectations about a speaker's behavior come from impressions based not only on the speaker's identity, but how the specific speaker typically communicates and the socially expected way to speak to a given listener.[117] Swearing in formal contexts is a greater violation of expectations than swearing in informal conversation.[97] Whether the profanity is spoken in public or private is also a factor in social acceptability.[118] Conversations that involve profanity are correlated with other informal manners of speech, such as slang, humor, and discussion of sexuality.[82]

Native speakers of a language can intuitively decide what language is appropriate for a given context. Those still learning a language, such as children and non-native speakers, are more likely to use profane language without realizing that it is profane.[111] Acceptable environments for profanity are learned in childhood as children find themselves chastised for swearing in some places more than others.[118] Swearing is often milder among young children, and they place more stigma on terms that are not seen as profane by adults, like fart or dork. Young children are more likely to use the mildest terms as swear words, such as pooh-pooh. Adolescents develop an understanding of double meanings in terms like balls.[118]

The severity of a swear word may decline over time as it is repeated.[119] In some cases, slurs can be reclaimed by the targeted group when they are used ironically or in a positive context, such as queer to refer to the LGBTQ community.[120] People who speak multiple languages often have stronger emotional associations with profanity in their native languages over that of languages that they acquire later.[121] The severity of a profane term can vary between dialects within the same language.[116] Publishers of dictionaries must take profanity into consideration when deciding what words to include, especially when they are subject to obscenity laws.[122] They may be wary of appearing to endorse the use of profane language by its inclusion.[123] Slang dictionaries have historically been used to cover profanity in lieu of more formal dictionaries.[124]

In some cultures, there are situations where profanity is good etiquette. A tradition exists in some parts of China that a bride was expected to speak profanely to her groom's family in the days before the wedding, and one Aboriginal Australian culture uses profanity to denote class.[47]

Censorship and avoidance

[edit]
Profane language is often subject to regulation in media. This icon, used by PEGI, indicates that a video game may contain "bad language".[125]

The idea of censoring taboo ideas exists in all cultures.[126] Swearing inappropriately can be punished socially, and public swearing can bring about legal consequences.[32] There is disagreement as to whether freedom of speech should permit all forms of profane speech, including hate speech, or if such forms of speech can be justifiably restricted.[127] Censorship is used to restrict or penalize profanity, and governments may implement laws that disallow certain acts of profanity,[128] including legal limitations on the broadcast of profanity over radio or television.[129] Broadcasting has unique considerations as to what is considered acceptable, including its presence in the home and children's access to broadcasts.[130]

Profanity may be avoided when discussing taboo subjects through euphemisms. Euphemisms were historically used to avoid invoking the names of malevolent beings.[131] Euphemisms are commonly expressed as metaphors, such as make love or sleep with as descriptors of sexual intercourse.[132] Euphemisms can be alternate descriptors such as white meat instead of breast meat, or they may be generic terms such as unmentionables.[133] Minced oaths are euphemisms that modify swear words until they are no longer profane, such as darn instead of damn in English.[134]

Substitution is another form of euphemism, with English examples including the replacement of fuck with the f-word or effing and the use of "four-letter words" to refer to profanity in general.[135] Chinese and some Southeast Asian languages use puns and sound-alikes to create alternate swear words. The Chinese word for bird, niao, rhymes with the Chinese word for penis and is frequently invoked as a swear.[76] The Cockney dialect of English uses rhyming slang to alter terms, including profanity; titty is rhymed as Bristol city, which is then abbreviated as bristols.[136]

Speakers and authors may engage in self-censorship under legal or social pressure.[128] In the 21st century, censorship through social pressure is associated with political correctness in Western society.[137][138] This has led to the intentional creation of new euphemisms to avoid terms that may be stigmatizing. Some become widely accepted, such as substance abuse for drug addiction, while others are ignored or derided, such as differently abled for disabled.[139]

Physiology and neurology

[edit]

The brain processes profanity differently than it processes other forms of language.[140] Intentional controlled swearing is associated with the brain's left hemisphere, while reflexive swearing is associated with the right hemisphere.[68] Swearing is associated with both language-processing parts of the brain, the left frontal and temporal lobes, as well as the emotion-processing parts, the right cerebrum and the amygdala.[84] The association of emotional swearing with the amygdala and other parts of the limbic system suggests that some uses of profanity are related to the fight-or-flight response.[140]

Profanity requires more mental processing than other forms of language, and the use of profanity is easier to remember when recalling a conversation or other speech.[141] Exposure to profanity leads to higher levels of arousal,[121] and it can cause increases in heart rate and electrodermal activity as part of a fight-or-flight response.[142][143] Swearing has also been shown to increase pain tolerance, especially among people who do not regularly swear.[144]

Compulsive swearing is called coprolalia, and it is associated with neurological conditions such as Tourette syndrome, dementia, and epilepsy.[114] The ability to use profanity can remain intact even when neurological trauma causes aphasia.[140][57] Frequent swearing is more common among people with damage to the brain or other parts of the nervous system.[57] Damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex can negatively affect one's ability to control their use of profanity and other socially inappropriate behaviors. Damage to Broca's area and other language-processing regions of the brain can similarly make people prone to outbursts. Damage to the right hemisphere limits the ability to understand and regulate the emotional content of one's speech.[114]

Legality

[edit]

Australia

[edit]

In every Australian state and territory it is a crime to use offensive, indecent or insulting language in or near a public place.[145] These offences are classed as summary offences. This means that they are usually tried before a local or magistrates court. Police also have the power to issue fixed penalty notices to alleged offenders.[146] It is a defence in some Australian jurisdictions to have "a reasonable excuse" to conduct oneself in the manner alleged.[147]

Brazil

[edit]

In Brazil, the Penal Code does not contain any penalties for profanity in public immediately. However, direct offenses against one can be considered a crime against honor, with a penalty of imprisonment of one to three months or a fine.[148] The analysis of the offence is considered "subjective", depending on the context of the discussion and the relationship between the parts.[149]

Canada

[edit]

Section 175 of Canada's Criminal Code makes it a criminal offence to "cause a disturbance in or near a public place" by "swearing [...] or using insulting or obscene language". Provinces and municipalities may also have their laws against swearing in public. For instance, the Municipal Code of Toronto bars "profane or abusive language" in public parks.[150] In June 2016, a man in Halifax, Nova Scotia, was arrested for using profane language at a protest against Bill C-51.[151]

India

[edit]

Sections 294A and 294B of Indian penal code have legal provisions for punishing individuals who use inappropriate or obscene words (either spoken or written) in public that are maliciously deliberate to outrage religious feelings or beliefs.[152] In February 2015, a local court in Mumbai asked police to file a first information report against 14 Bollywood celebrities who were part of the stage show of All India Bakchod, a controversial comedy stage show known for vulgar and profanity based content.[153] In May 2019 during the election campaign, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi listed out the abusive words the opposition Congress party had used against him and his mother during their campaign.[154]

In January 2016, a Mumbai-based communications agency initiated a campaign against profanity and abusive language called "Gaali free India" (gaali is the Hindi word for profanity).[155] Using creative ads, it called upon people to use swachh (clean) language on the lines of Swachh Bharat Mission for nationwide cleanliness. It further influenced other news media outlets who further raised the issue of abusive language in the society especially incest abuses against women, such as "mother fucker".[156]

In an increasing market for OTT content, several Indian web series have been using profanity and expletives to gain attention of the audiences.[157]

New Zealand

[edit]

In New Zealand, the Summary Offences Act 1981 makes it illegal to use "indecent or obscene words in or within hearing of any public place". However, if the defendant has "reasonable grounds for believing that his words would not be overheard" then no offence is committed. Also, "the court shall have regard to all the circumstances pertaining at the material time, including whether the defendant had reasonable grounds for believing that the person to whom the words were addressed, or any person by whom they might be overheard, would not be offended".[158]

Pakistan

[edit]

Political leaders in Pakistan have been consistently picked up for using profane, abusive language. While there is no legislation to punish abusers, the problem aggravated with abusive language being used in the parliament and even against women.[159]

Philippines

[edit]
refer to caption
Tagalog-language graffiti in San Juan, Metro Manila, depicting a penis and the text Docdocos burat titi, claiming that "Docdocos" has an uncircumcised penis.

The Department of Education in the Philippine city of Baguio expressed that while cursing was prohibited in schools, children were not following this prohibition at home. Thus as part of its anti profanity initiative, in November 2018, the Baguio city government in the Philippines passed an anti profanity law that prohibits cursing and profanity in areas of the city frequented by children. This move was welcomed by educators[160] and the Department of Education in Cordillera.[160][161]

Russia

[edit]

Swearing in public is an administrative crime in Russia. However, law enforcement rarely targets swearing people. The punishment is a fine of 500–1000 roubles or even a 15-day imprisonment.[162]

United Kingdom

[edit]

In public

[edit]

Swearing, in and of itself, is not usually a criminal offence in the United Kingdom although in context may constitute a component of a crime. However, it may be a criminal offence in Salford Quays under a public spaces protection order which outlaws the use of "foul and abusive language" without specifying any further component to the offence, although it appears to be unclear as to whether all and every instance of swearing is covered. Salford City Council claims that the defence of "reasonable excuse" allows all the circumstances to be taken into account.[163] In England and Wales, swearing in public where it is seen to cause harassment, alarm or distress may constitute an offence under section 5(1) and (6) of the Public Order Act 1986.[164] In Scotland, a similar common law offence of breach of the peace covers issues causing public alarm and distress.

In the workplace

[edit]

In the United Kingdom, swearing in the workplace can be an act of gross misconduct under certain circumstances. In particular, this is the case when swearing accompanies insubordination against a superior or humiliation of a subordinate employee. However, in other cases, it may not be grounds for instant dismissal.[165] According to a UK site on work etiquette, the "fact that swearing is a part of everyday life means that we need to navigate away through a day in the office without offending anyone, while still appreciating that people do swear. Of course, there are different types of swearing and, without spelling it out, you really ought to avoid the 'worst words' regardless of who you're talking to".[166] Within the UK, the appropriateness of swearing can vary largely by a person's industry of employment, though it is still not typically used in situations where employees of a higher position than oneself are present.[166]

In 2006, The Guardian reported that "36% of the 308 UK senior managers and directors having responded to a survey accepted swearing as part of workplace culture", but warned about specific inappropriate uses of swearing such as when it is discriminatory or part of bullying behaviour. The article ended with a quotation from Ben Wilmott (Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development): "Employers can ensure professional language in the workplace by having a well-drafted policy on bullying and harassment that emphasises how bad language has potential to amount to harassment or bullying."[167]

United States

[edit]
Local law in Virginia Beach prohibits the use of profanity along the boardwalk of Atlantic Avenue

In the United States, courts have generally ruled that the government does not have the right to prosecute someone solely for the use of an expletive, which would be a violation of their right to free speech enshrined in the First Amendment. On the other hand, they have upheld convictions of people who used profanity to incite riots, harass people, or disturb the peace.[168] In 2011, a North Carolina statute that made it illegal to use "indecent or profane language" in a "loud and boisterous manner" within earshot of two or more people on any public road or highway was struck down as unconstitutional.[169] In 2015, the city of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina passed an ordinance that makes profane language punishable with fines up to $500 and/or 30 days in jail.[170] An amount of $22,000 was collected from these fines in 2017 alone.[171]

Religious views

[edit]

Judaism

[edit]

Rabbi Yisroel Cotlar wrote in Chabad.org that Judaism forbids the use of profanity as contradicting the Torah's command to "Be holy", which revolves around the concept of separating oneself from worldly practices (including the use of vulgar language).[172] The Talmud teaches that the words that leave the mouth make an impact on the heart and mind; he stated that the use of profanity thus causes the regression of the soul.[172] Judaism thus teaches that shemirat halashon (guarding one's tongue) is one of the first steps to spiritual improvement.[172]

Christianity

[edit]
"Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" is one of the Ten Commandments of Christianity and Judaism.

Various Christian writers have condemned the use of "foul language" as being sinful, a position held since the time of the early Church.[173][1] To this end, the Bible commands including "Don't use foul or abusive language. Let everything you say be good and helpful, so that your words will be an encouragement to those who hear them" (Ephesians 4:29)[174] and also "Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving" (Ephesians 5:4).[175] These teachings are echoed in Ecclesiasticus 20:19,[176] Ecclesiasticus 23:8-15,[177] and Ecclesiasticus 17:13-15,[178] all of which are found in the Deuterocanon/Apocrypha.[179] Jesus taught that "by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned." (cf. Matthew 12:36-37[180]),[181] with revilers being listed as being among the damned in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.[182][183] Profanity revolving around the dictum "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain", one of the Ten Commandments, is regarded as blasphemy as Christians regard it as "an affront to God's holiness".[184][185] Paul the Apostle defines the ridding of filthy language from one's lips as being evidence of living in a relationship with Jesus (cf. Colossians 3:1-10[186]).[187] The Epistle to the Colossians teaches that controlling the tongue "is the key to gaining mastery over the whole body."[179] The Didache 3:3 included the use of "foul language" as being part of the lifestyle that puts one on the way to eternal death.[1] The same document commands believers not to use profanity as it "breeds adultery".[173] John Chrysostom, an early Church Father, taught that those engaged in the use of profanity should repent of the sin.[188] The Epistle of James holds that "blessing God" is the primary function of the Christian's tongue, not speaking foul language.[179] Saint Tikhon of Zadonsk, a bishop of Eastern Orthodox Church, lambasted profanity and blasphemy, teaching that it is "extremely unbefitting [for] Christians" and that believers should guard themselves from ever using it.[189]

Islam

[edit]

According to Ayatullah Ibrahim Amini, the use of "bad words" is haram in Islam. Additionally, impertinence and slander are considered immoral acts.[190]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
Profanity, also termed swearing or cursing, encompasses the emotive deployment of linguistic elements deemed vulgar, obscene, or irreverent, frequently invoking references to bodily excretions, sexual acts, or sacred entities to convey heightened affective states such as , , or emphasis. The term originates from profanitas, denoting the quality of being "profane"—that which lies beyond the temple or consecrated space, thus impure or secular—and entered English around 1600 to signify irreverent speech or conduct. In English usage, profanity traces to Germanic roots, with many core terms emerging from descriptors of physiological functions or religious oaths, evolving amid Christian prohibitions against vain invocations of the divine as outlined in scriptural tenets like the Third Commandment. Swearing fulfills biopsychosocial roles, including emotional , where its phonetic intensity and cultural amplify expressive potency, often outperforming neutral language in eliciting or relief. Empirical investigations reveal swearing elevates , as demonstrated in controlled cold-pressor tasks where participants enduring immersion reported diminished perceived discomfort upon vocalizing expletives, suggesting a hypoalgesic mechanism possibly linked to activation. It also correlates with heightened , as individuals prone to profanity exhibit reduced deceptive tendencies in self-reports and behavioral assays, potentially signaling authenticity in social exchanges. Conversely, profanity incurs social costs, including interpersonal friction or institutional sanctions, though it can foster in-group cohesion by flouting in trusted contexts. Cross-culturally, profanity's contours reflect societal priors: Latin-derived languages emphasize maternal insults, Slavic and variants target familial honor, while English prioritizes corporeal and blasphemous motifs, with phonetic universals like avoidance of liquid consonants (l, r) in expletives across Indo-European and Sino-Tibetan tongues underscoring innate perceptual biases in encoding. Though often stigmatized as indices of low restraint, profanity's persistence attests to its adaptive utility in , unbound by moralistic overtones but grounded in evolutionary pressures for emotive signaling and norm transgression.

Definitions and Etymology

Core Definitions

Profanity refers to the use of words or expressions considered , obscene, or vulgar, often involving terms that disrespect sacred matters, depict sexual or excretory functions, or convey toward individuals. In linguistic analysis, it encompasses taboo that violates social norms, with swear words functioning primarily as emotive intensifiers rather than literal descriptors, evoking or emphasis through cultural prohibitions. While profanity overlaps with swearing and cursing—terms often used synonymously in everyday speech—precise distinctions highlight its core as profane in the sense of desecrating the holy, such as blasphemous oaths invoking deities irreverently. , by contrast, emphasizes repulsive or sexually explicit content, and denotes general coarseness, though these categories frequently intersect in profane utterances. Empirical studies confirm that profane triggers physiological responses, including increased skin conductance, underscoring its potency as a social signal of intensity or . The offensiveness of profanity arises from its context-dependent status, rooted in cultural, religious, or moral boundaries rather than inherent linguistic properties; words deemed profane in one society may lack such elsewhere. For instance, religious profanities like invoking exploit sacred fears for expressive impact, while scatological or sexual terms leverage mechanisms. This framework positions profanity not merely as linguistic deviance but as a pragmatic tool for emotional discharge, social bonding, or , supported by cross-cultural patterns in swear word usage.

Historical Etymology

The English noun "profanity," denoting profaneness or profane language and conduct, first appeared around 1600, borrowed from profanitas ("profaneness"). This term derives directly from the Latin adjective profanus, which compounds pro- ("before" or "outside") and fanum ("temple" or "sanctuary"), yielding a literal sense of "outside the temple" to contrast with the sacred or consecrated. In classical Roman contexts, profanus applied to secular matters, unconsecrated objects, and individuals not initiated into religious mysteries, emphasizing a divide between ritual purity and everyday profane realms. The adjective profane entered as profane by the and English by the late 14th or mid-15th century, initially conveying "unhallowed," "secular," or "un-ecclesiastical" qualities. By the 1550s, under Christian theological influence, its meaning expanded to "irreverent toward " or desecratory, aligning with biblical prohibitions such as the Third Commandment against taking 's name in vain, which framed irreverent oaths as profanation. The verb form, meaning "to desecrate" or treat holy things irreverently, also arose in late 14th-century English from profaner and Latin profanare. This evolution from neutral to connotations of and, eventually, reflected broader cultural shifts: early uses tied profanity to violations of sacred oaths or rituals, while the extension to vulgar or "foul" speech—distinct from narrower —remained rare until the , when legal and moral discourses increasingly equated irreverence with lewdness. In medieval and , profane language often invoked religious taboos, such as false swearing by divine attributes, underscoring causal links between linguistic and perceived moral disorder.

Historical Development

Pre-Modern Periods

In the , curses invoking deities to inflict harm or enforce treaties were pervasive across Sumerian, Akkadian, and Hittite texts from the third millennium BCE onward, often detailing divine judgments like or to deter covenant breaches. These formulations emphasized separation from life and communal , appearing in royal inscriptions and magical incantations where the gods served as enforcers. In , cursing extended to execration rituals involving the destruction of enemy effigies or names from the (c. 2686–2181 BCE), alongside magical spells and monument inscriptions threatening postmortem denial of burial. Obscene elements emerged in later , such as 2nd-century BCE examples from featuring sexual threats like copulation demands, used for apotropaic or abusive purposes. In (5th–4th centuries BCE), profanity manifested in obscenities of , where employed vulgar terms for sexual acts and genitals, as in Acharnians (line 529) with laikazein implying lewdness, to satirize politics and society. insults, such as katapygon (anal recipient) from SEG 13.32, paralleled literary usage, while contexts like the festival incorporated obscene gestures and chants for fertility magic. Philosophers like ( 3.395E) and ( 1336b3–6) critiqued such , advocating bans in ideal polities to preserve , though it persisted in Dionysian rites for cathartic release. Roman usage (1st century BCE–1st century CE) amplified this in invective poetry, with ' Carmen 16 threatening pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo (I will sodomize you and fellate you) against critics, blending with dominance assertions. Public (e.g., CIL 4.5263) and chants during triumphs echoed these, serving aggressive or functions like warding evil in festivals for . Medieval European profanity, particularly in England from the 11th–15th centuries, centered on blasphemous oaths invoking Christ's body parts, such as "by God's bones" or "by Christ's nails," viewed as desecrations akin to harming the Eucharist's real presence. These were deemed gravely sinful, punishable by courts, as false oaths impugned divine veracity and covenant integrity. In contrast, terms for bodily functions like "," "arse," or "fart" appeared routinely in place names (e.g., "Shitwell Way") and records without , reflecting lower cultural offense compared to . such as "cunte" or "pintel" () occurred in medical and legal texts, but insults like "whoreson" gained force later, underscoring religion's dominance in defining foulness over anatomy.

Industrial and Modern Eras

The , spanning roughly from the late 18th to the mid-19th century, coincided with and the rise of factory labor, fostering environments where coarse language proliferated among working classes amid harsh conditions and social mixing. Victorian sensibilities (1837–1901) imposed strict public decorum, suppressing overt profanity in polite and literature, yet private correspondence and lower-class retained scatological and sexual terms as primary swears, reflecting a shift from earlier religious oaths to bodily-focused taboos. This era's —prudish facades masking persistent —manifested in euphemisms and coded expressions, while class divides amplified swearing's association with the unrefined laboring masses. Into the early , reform movements targeted profanity's public spread, with anti-profanity leagues emerging around 1900 to curb swearing on streets, in media, and among , viewing it as a moral decay linked to industrialization's disruptions. U.S. laws like the Comstock Act of 1873 prohibited mailing obscene materials, including profane content, enforcing national standards against vulgarity amid growing print and postal networks. self-censorship via the 1930 Motion Picture Production Code banned profanity in movies until its 1968 replacement by the ratings system, which permitted limited use based on audience age. Post-World War II cultural shifts, accelerating in the , normalized casual swearing, decoupling it from strict class markers and integrating it into mainstream discourse, though broadcast media lagged due to regulatory oversight. The 1972 George routine listing "seven dirty words" prompted FCC fines against broadcasters, upheld by the in (1978), establishing that profane language could be indecent on radio and TV during certain hours but not absolutely banned. By the late , profanity permeated , , and , with content warnings like ratings for video games signaling bad language since 2003 in . In the digital age, platforms reduced formal , enabling widespread profane expression, though self-imposed guidelines persist; surveys indicate younger generations, such as Gen Z, employ profanity up to 24 times daily, far exceeding prior cohorts, correlating with diminished taboos around once-sacrosanct terms. This evolution underscores profanity's adaptation to technological and social liberalization, from industrial grit to global media saturation, without eradicating contextual offensiveness.

Linguistic Structure and Usage

Grammatical Functions

Profanity demonstrates exceptional syntactic versatility, enabling swear words to occupy diverse grammatical roles that enhance emotional intensity or emphasis within discourse. Common functions include interjections, which standalone express abrupt emotions such as surprise or anger, as in "Shit!" or "Fuck!"; these operate outside standard sentence structure to convey raw affect. Nouns and verbs represent core referential uses, where terms like "shit" denote excrement or incompetence ("a load of shit") and "fuck" describes copulation or forceful action ("to fuck something up"), adhering to inflectional rules for plurality, tense, and derivation. Adjectival and roles predominate in intensification, transforming profane bases into modifiers that amplify predicates or nouns, such as "fucking" in "a fucking disaster" () or "fucking quickly" (). This adaptability allows profanity to slot into syntactic positions akin to , providing descriptive force tied to semantics rather than neutral . further exemplifies morphological integration, inserting a swear word within a host term before the primary stressed —for instance, "abso-fucking-lutely" or "fan-fucking-tastic"—a rule-governed process unique to emphatic English constructions and absent in non-profane morphology. Such multifunctionality stems from profanity's emotive primacy over literal semantics, permitting flexible parsing while preserving potency; linguistic analyses of corpora confirm that over 75% of swear occurrences in conversational English involve non-declarative roles like emphasis or exclamation, underscoring their deviation from conventional grammatical constraints. This syntactic range facilitates pragmatic effects, such as signaling or , but varies by and context, with favoring adverbial "" more than American variants.

Common Subjects and Taboos

Profane language predominantly targets subjects rooted in biological imperatives and social prohibitions, including , excretory functions, religious sanctity, and personal derogation. These categories emerge because they invoke primal responses, violate norms, or challenge communal frameworks, rendering open reference socially disruptive. Linguistic analyses consistently identify them as cross-cultural constants, with variations in intensity but persistent status due to their linkage to , , , and . Sexual obscenity constitutes a core domain, featuring terms for genitalia (e.g., "," "prick" in English), copulatory acts ("," attested in Middle English around 1500 as a vulgarism for intercourse), and related deviations like or bestiality. Such words leverage the evolutionary premium on controlled to generate shock, as unrestricted discussion historically risked social disorder in kin-based societies. Studies of English corpora show sexual terms comprising 30-40% of swear word inventories, often amplified in compounds like "," which combines maternal with sexual violation. Excretory or scatological references form another frequent category, invoking waste elimination (e.g., "," from scitan meaning to defecate; "piss," from Late pysse). These exploit innate circuits, wired for avoidance, with brain imaging revealing activation akin to physical revulsion. In usage data from and , scatological terms account for about 20% of profanities, serving to demean by associating targets with filth, as in "shithead." Religious profanity, or , desecrates the sacred through oaths or invocations, such as "damn" (from Latin damnare, to condemn, evolving to invoke eternal by the ) or "" as eschatological threat. This category, prominent in Abrahamic traditions, taboos divine reference to preserve awe and cohesion, with historical edicts like England's 1606 Act to Restrain Abuses penalizing such speech to uphold ecclesiastical order. Corpus analyses indicate religious terms diminishing in secular contexts but retaining potency where faith structures authority. Derogatory epithets target human frailties or group identities, including mental incapacity ("," originally a medical term for severe retardation before shift), illegitimacy ("," from for "saddle-born"), or animal comparisons ("bitch," female extended to insult women by the ). These amplify taboos around lineage and competence, often intersecting with or , and comprise 15-25% of profanities in conversational data, functioning to assert dominance via . Taboos endure not merely from arbitrary convention but from causal linkages to : sexual and excretory words trigger hygiene-related aversion, religious ones safeguard rituals, and epithets police in-group boundaries. Empirical surveys across languages confirm 80-90% overlap in these domains, underscoring their basis in shared rather than cultural idiosyncrasy.

Psychological and Neurological Dimensions

Beneficial Effects

Research indicates that uttering profanity can elicit a hypoalgesic effect, increasing during acute physical discomfort. In a 2009 experiment by Stephens, Atkins, and Kingston, participants submerged their hands in ice water while repeating either a swear word or a neutral word; those using profanity tolerated the for significantly longer durations, with heart rates elevated, suggesting an -mediated reduction in perceived intensity. Subsequent studies confirmed this, showing swearing extends threshold by up to 33% compared to neutral utterances, particularly among individuals with lower habitual swearing frequency, implying reduced diminishes the effect over time. This benefit appears tied to emotional rather than mere distraction, as swearing activates limbic regions associated with threat response and stress modulation, though data remains limited. Profanity also facilitates emotional , aiding in the of negative affect such as or . A 2023 study by Alharbi and Alosaimi found swearing correlates positively with venting stress and anxiety, functioning as a self-regulatory mechanism that lowers immediate emotional distress without long-term psychological harm in controlled contexts. Experimental evidence from road rage simulations demonstrates that verbalizing expletives reduces aggressive impulses and subjective levels post-incident, supporting cathartic release over suppression. Neurologically, this may involve heightened autonomic activation, akin to the pain response, which dissipates pent-up tension through verbal violation. In social-psychological terms, swearing enhances interpersonal trust and group cohesion by signaling authenticity and emotional openness. Jay's analysis posits that mutual profanity use fosters familiarity and , as it demonstrates within ingroups, thereby strengthening bonds without formal hierarchies. Correlational data links frequent swearing to elevated traits, with individuals who profane more exhibiting reduced in behavioral tasks, potentially due to lower inhibition thresholds for genuine expression. These effects, however, are context-dependent and most pronounced in permissive settings, where profanity reinforces rather than alienation.

Detrimental Effects

Exposure to profanity, particularly through media, has been linked to more permissive attitudes toward swearing and increased aggressive in adolescents, based on surveys of over 500 participants aged 14-17 who reported on their media habits and self-assessed aggression levels. Frequent profanity use correlates with lower and higher instances of aggressive , as swearing often emerges in contexts of or , per analyses of patterns. Psychological profiles of habitual swearers show elevated trait anger, verbal aggressiveness, and Type A traits, suggesting profanity serves as an outlet that may reinforce rather than mitigate underlying . In developmental contexts, children's exposure to parental swearing or harsh verbal involving curses predicts longitudinal risks for externalizing behaviors, such as defiance and , in a study tracking over 1,300 families from ages 1-3 to , where 50% of parents reported using such toward teens. This modeling can impair emotional , leading to reliance on profanity for expression and heightened , as experimental exposure elevates negative emotional states in short-term assessments using algorithms on verbal outputs. Neurologically, habitual profanity engages limbic structures like the during word processing, heightening emotional that, if chronic, may contribute to sustained stress responses without adaptive resolution, though direct causal evidence remains limited to correlational fMRI data on word comprehension rather than production effects. Overuse potentially desensitizes prefrontal inhibitory controls, as seen in reduced in EEG studies linking swearing to , which could exacerbate impulsive decision-making in high-stress scenarios.

Evolutionary and Biological Foundations

Adaptive Functions

Profanity exhibits adaptive functions rooted in its capacity to modulate physiological responses and facilitate social interactions, potentially conferring survival advantages in ancestral environments where rapid emotional signaling and were crucial. Empirical evidence suggests that swearing enhances through a hypoalgesic effect, as demonstrated in a experiment where participants submerged their hands in and endured longer durations while repeating a swear word compared to a neutral one, with the effect attributed to heightened emotional akin to a . This mechanism likely evolved to enable individuals to persist through injuries during conflicts or , reducing the fitness costs of incapacitation. Subsequent replications, including those using swear words, confirm the robustness of this effect, though in frequent swearers may diminish it. Beyond physical resilience, profanity serves as an emotional outlet, inversely correlating with levels of stress, anxiety, and depression in observational studies; for instance, among 253 participants, higher profanity use was associated with lower depression scores (M=29.91 vs. 33.48, p=0.009) and stress (M=30.83 vs. 35.16, p=0.003). This function aligns with views of swearing as a mature mechanism, channeling into verbal expression rather than maladaptive rumination, thereby preserving cognitive resources for threat response. Physiologically, swearing elevates autonomic —such as and skin conductance—facilitating adaptive mobilization without physical exertion. Socially, profanity signals honesty and group affiliation, fostering coalitions essential for cooperative hunting, defense, and mate guarding in human evolutionary history. words convey intense emotions like or more efficiently than neutral , promoting rapid or deterrence and averting costly physical confrontations. This verbal substitution for may represent an from vocalizations, where expressive calls reduced injury risks in dominance disputes. Collectively, these functions underscore profanity's persistence as a biopsychosocial tool, though individual variability and cultural modulate its expression.

Innate Mechanisms

Neurological evidence indicates that profanity engages distinct brain circuits from propositional language, primarily involving the , , and other limbic structures associated with emotional processing rather than cortical areas like Broca's region. These subcortical pathways, evolutionarily older and conserved in mammals, facilitate rapid, automatic expression of affective states such as or , bypassing higher cognitive filters. Functional imaging studies show heightened activation in these regions during swearing, correlating with physiological arousal like increased , underscoring an innate linkage to emotional salience over semantic meaning. In conditions like resulting from left-hemisphere damage, patients often retain the ability to swear while losing other functions, suggesting profanity's relative from learned linguistic networks and its rooting in primal, right-hemisphere or subcortical mechanisms. This preservation implies an innate substrate for utterances, potentially evolved for signaling dominance or distress in social groups, akin to vocalizations in nonhuman . Coprolalia, the involuntary ejection of profanities in , further evidences innate mechanisms, affecting approximately 10-15% of cases and manifesting as tics driven by dysfunction rather than cultural learning. Unlike voluntary swearing, coprolalia emerges prepubertally and targets taboo content, indicating a hardwired predisposition to prioritize emotionally charged, socially aversive words in motor output, independent of deliberate intent. This phenomenon resists suppression and persists across languages, supporting a biological imperative for profanity as an outlet for suppressed affect, though its rarity highlights modulation by inhibitory cortical controls in typical development.

Social and Cultural Dynamics

Perceptions Across Cultures

Perceptions of profanity differ markedly across cultures, often mirroring core societal taboos related to religion, family honor, sexuality, and bodily functions. A multi-laboratory study across 17 countries and 13 languages identified consistent patterns in taboo word categories, such as references to sex, excretion, and religion, but with varying intensities: for instance, religious insults evoked stronger emotional arousal in Catholic-majority nations like Italy and Spain compared to secular contexts. These differences arise from cultural norms shaping what constitutes offense, with some societies emphasizing communal harmony over individual expression, while others tolerate profanity as a marker of authenticity or solidarity. In Islamic cultures, profanity is broadly condemned as incompatible with religious ethics, with Islamic texts prohibiting foul language as a form of verbal immorality that distances one from . Scholars interpret hadiths, such as those in , as barring believers from cursing or using obscenities, viewing such acts as eroding personal piety and social decorum; this stance prevails in countries like and , where public swearing can incur legal penalties under laws. Empirical surveys in Muslim-majority regions confirm low tolerance, with users associating profanity with moral lapse rather than emotional release. East Asian cultures, particularly , exhibit restrained attitudes toward direct profanity, prioritizing hierarchical politeness and indirect communication over explicit vulgarity. Swear words like (shit) or baka (idiot) exist but are context-dependent, often avoided in formal settings to preserve wa (harmony); a cross-cultural pain tolerance study found Japanese participants rated swearing as less effective for emotional catharsis than British counterparts, reflecting cultural norms that favor restraint. In contrast, Latin American societies, influenced by Spanish colonial legacies, perceive profanity as a vibrant, everyday tool for emphasis or camaraderie, with terms like puta (whore) or mierda () integrated into casual speech across , , and . Usage rates are high, with surveys indicating acceptance in informal male-dominated interactions, though religious contexts retain taboos against . European variations further illustrate divergence: Italian profanity frequently invokes religious sacrilege (e.g., porco Dio, pig ), tolerated regionally as expressive flair despite Catholic heritage, while German swearing leans toward anatomical precision without equivalent blasphemy. linguistic analyses confirm that norms persist universally—men swear more than women—but taboo potency shifts with local values, such as family honor in or animalistic insults in . These perceptions evolve with , yet core cultural anchors maintain profanity's role as a boundary-testing mechanism.

Modern Shifts and Normalization

In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, profanity has undergone a marked normalization in Western societies, particularly in English-speaking contexts, transitioning from largely private or subcultural expression to more public and multifunctional usage. Linguistic analyses indicate that swear words, once primarily vehicles for or taboo-breaking, are increasingly employed for emphasis, humor, , or emotional , contributing to broader over the past two decades. This shift correlates with corpus-based studies showing a progressive rise in profanity frequency, peaking in the 20th and 21st centuries, as evidenced by diachronic examinations of English texts where once-shocking terms have integrated into casual lexicon. Media and technological proliferation accelerated this trend. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission's 1978 ruling in upheld restrictions on broadcast indecency following George Carlin's 1972 "" routine, yet enforcement waned amid challenges, with cable and exempt from such rules since the 1980s, allowing unrestricted profanity in programs like HBO's (1999–2007). By the 2010s, streaming platforms such as further eroded barriers, with series like Deadwood (2004–2006) and (2016–2023) normalizing expletives in dialogue reflective of historical or contemporary speech patterns. Online, Americans exhibit the highest profanity rate among English-speaking nations at 0.036% of words in analyzed corpora from 20 countries, driven by platforms where unfiltered expression thrives. Generational surveys underscore attitudinal divergence: a 2025 poll revealed that 89% of those aged 65+ deem public cursing rarely or never acceptable, compared to lower disapproval among , signaling a desensitization linked to exposure via and pop culture. Despite this, parental resistance persists, with only 20% comfortable swearing at home around children, highlighting residual taboos amid rising incidence—evident in a 2021 report noting increased swearing in public spaces but sustained discomfort with juvenile exposure. Cultural factors, including and the erosion of class-based stigma (swearing once confined to working-class male spheres), have facilitated this, though formal contexts like workplaces retain prohibitions, as seen in varying institutional policies.

Religious Perspectives

Abrahamic Traditions

In , profanity, often termed nivul peh (foul speech), is prohibited under broader halakhic principles derived from commandments against cursing others and maintaining verbal purity. The (e.g., Shabbat 33a) harshly condemns vulgar language, equating it with moral degradation and warning that habitual use erodes personal sanctity and communal harmony. Leviticus 19:14 explicitly forbids cursing the deaf, extending to general abusive speech, while rabbinic sources like the (Yoreh De'ah 245) classify cursing fellow as a grave violation punishable by . This stance reflects a causal view that impure speech corrupts the soul and society, prioritizing empirical observance of speech's impact on ethical conduct over . Christian scriptures similarly denounce profanity as incompatible with godly living, with the providing direct injunctions against corrupt or foolish talk. Ephesians 4:29 instructs believers to avoid "corrupting talk" that fails to edify, while Colossians 3:8 commands putting away "abusive language" alongside anger and malice. Jesus' teaching in Matthew 5:33-37 against oaths underscores the sanctity of speech, interpreting the Third Commandment (Exodus 20:7) against profane use of God's name as prohibiting casual or irreverent invocation, which early like Augustine extended to all as dishonoring divine image in humanity. Protestant reformers, such as in his Institutes (Book III), reinforced this by linking profane speech to unchecked passions, arguing it undermines the pursuit of holiness evidenced in restrained discourse. Islamic texts categorically prohibit profanity and abusive language (sabb or la'n), viewing it as a sign of weak faith and moral failing. The (e.g., 49:11) forbids insulting others and reviling people behind their backs, equating such acts with enmity toward . Hadiths narrated by Bukhari and Muslim report the Prophet Muhammad stating that believers do not curse or use foul language, as it invites reciprocal harm and distances one from paradise. Jurists like those in IslamQA classify non-insulting swearing as impermissible (makruh or ) due to its erosion of adab (), supported by observations of speech's role in fostering social cohesion in early Muslim communities. Across these traditions, profanity's prohibition stems from shared emphasis on speech as a reflection of inner , with empirical precedents in scriptural narratives showing for verbal sins (e.g., Miriam's for speaking against in Numbers 12). While cultural expressions vary, core texts prioritize causal restraint to prevent interpersonal strife and spiritual impurity, unsubstantiated claims of permissiveness notwithstanding.

Eastern and Indigenous Views

In Buddhism, the principle of sammā-vācā (right speech), one of the components of the Noble Eightfold Path as outlined in the Pāli Canon, explicitly cautions against speech that is harsh, abusive, or divisive, which encompasses profane language intended to harm or demean others. This derives from the ethical framework in texts like the Dhammapada, where verses such as 133 emphasize abstaining from "evil speech" to cultivate mindfulness and non-harm (ahimsā). However, interpretations vary; some contemporary Buddhist commentators argue that profanity can align with skillful means (upāya) if used non-maliciously, such as in humor or emphasis without causing suffering, though traditional monastic codes like the Vinaya impose stricter prohibitions on monks against coarse expressions. Hindu scriptures, including the Manusmṛti and Bhagavad Gītā, advocate for śuddha bhāṣā (pure speech) as integral to sāttvic conduct, viewing vulgar or profane language as a manifestation of tāmasic (ignorant or instinctive) impulses that disrupt mental purity and dharma. For instance, the Yajurveda and later texts like those of Swami Sivananda stress avoidance of asatya vāk (false or foul speech) to prevent karmic accumulation of negative impressions (saṃskāras), with profanity equated to verbal violence that pollutes the subtle body. Empirical observations in Hindu practice, such as ritual purity requirements during pūjā, extend to linguistic restraint, where obscene words are seen as ritually impure, akin to physical defilement. Confucian , rooted in the and , prioritize (rectification of names) and (ritual propriety), condemning coarse or vulgar speech as a failure of that undermines social and (). Confucius specifically advocated yǎ yán (elegant speech) over crude expressions, arguing in Analects 15:11 that refined language fosters moral governance and personal virtue, with profanity indicative of unrefined character (bù rén). This extends to East Asian traditions influenced by , such as in , where contextual assess profane language by intent and circumstance rather than absolute prohibition, though cultural norms favor indirect insults over explicit vulgarity to maintain wa (). Indigenous perspectives on profanity exhibit profound diversity across thousands of cultures, often lacking direct equivalents to Western scatological or blasphemous swear words, with taboos instead targeting sacred, ancestral, or kinship-related terms to preserve spiritual balance and communal respect. In many Native American languages, such as and , no dedicated profanity exists; expressions of anger rely on descriptive insults or metaphors rather than fixed vulgar lexicon, reflecting oral traditions emphasizing relational harmony over verbal aggression. Similarly, feature avoidance speech (yothu-yindi) post-bereavement, prohibiting names or words evoking the deceased—far stricter than general profanity—but permit contextual coarse terms without the moral absolutism of Abrahamic views. These patterns suggest profanity's conceptualization is culturally embedded, prioritizing ritual sanctity over universal linguistic purity, as evidenced in ethnographic studies of Polynesian and African indigenous groups where verbal taboos safeguard cosmological order rather than individual decorum. In liberal democratic legal systems, profanity—defined as language employing vulgar, blasphemous, or irreverent terms—is presumptively protected as a form of expressive speech, subject to narrow exceptions grounded in preventing tangible harm rather than mere offense. This principle derives from foundational free expression doctrines, which prioritize the over subjective discomfort, recognizing that profanity often conveys emotional intensity, protest, or emphasis without inherently impairing societal function. For instance, the U.S. in Cohen v. California (1971) ruled that displaying the phrase "Fuck the Draft" on clothing in a public courthouse constituted protected speech, as it neither incited violence nor met criteria, emphasizing that "one man's is another's lyric." Core limitations hinge on unprotected speech categories, including "" that provoke imminent retaliatory violence, as articulated in (1942), where face-to-face epithets like "You are a God damned racketeer" and "a damned Fascist" were deemed outside First Amendment purview due to their direct tendency to incite breach of peace. represents another carve-out, assessed via the three-prong (1973) test: whether material, judged by contemporary community standards, appeals to prurient interest, depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive manner, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Profanity alone seldom satisfies this standard, as mere swearing typically retains communicative value absent explicit eroticism; courts have consistently distinguished profane outbursts from regulable , protecting the former unless conjoined with unprotected elements like child exploitation or true threats. Contextual regulations apply in non-public forums, such as schools or broadcast media, where governments may impose content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions to safeguard captive audiences or scarce resources. In Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986), the Court upheld disciplining a for lewd sexual in a speech, reasoning that educational environments demand decorum to foster civic virtues. For over-the-air broadcasting, the enforces prohibitions on indecent or profane content during hours when children may be exposed (6 a.m. to 10 p.m.), as validated in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (1978), which permitted sanctions for George Carlin's monologue on "" due to the medium's pervasiveness and children's potential access—restrictions inapplicable to cable or platforms. Broader principles under , such as of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ratified 1976), affirm freedom of expression encompassing profane speech, but permit proportionate restrictions for protecting others' rights, public order, or morals, provided they are prescribed by and necessary in a democratic society. In practice, this yields variance: common-law nations like and the maintain public order offenses for profane language likely to cause , alarm, or distress, with penalties up to fines of AUD 660 or , justified by empirical correlations between unchecked and eroded social cohesion in shared spaces, though such laws face scrutiny for overbreadth in chilling dissent. These exceptions reflect causal realism: speech regulation targets demonstrable harms like provocation or audience , not abstract offensiveness, with courts demanding evidence of necessity over paternalistic norms.

National Variations

In the United States, profanity enjoys broad protection under the First Amendment, with regulation limited primarily to obscenity, as defined by the Supreme Court's 1973 Miller v. California test requiring material to lack serious value, appeal to prurient interest, and depict patently offensive sexual conduct. Federal broadcast regulations enforced by the Federal Communications Commission prohibit airing indecent or profane content outside the 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. safe harbor, resulting in multimillion-dollar fines, such as the $550,000 penalty imposed on CBS following the 2004 Super Bowl halftime incident involving fleeting expletives. State-level disorderly conduct statutes in places like Massachusetts and Virginia may penalize public profanity if it disturbs the peace, though enforcement is rare and often challenged on constitutional grounds. European frameworks emphasize public order and personal over blanket bans, with variations tied to civil law traditions. In the , the targets materials tending to deprave or corrupt susceptible minds, while profane language in public can violate Section 5 of the if it causes , alarm, or distress, punishable by fines up to £1,000. Germany's Section 185 criminalizes insults, including profane epithets directed at individuals, with penalties up to two years imprisonment, reflecting a focus on protecting honor rather than speech per se. France's Penal Code Articles 33 and 226-3 impose fines for public outrages or non-public insults involving profanity, but courts prioritize and , upholding convictions only when is clearly violated. Many European states, including the UK (2008) and (2018), have repealed standalone laws, reducing penalties for religiously profane speech, though residual provisions in countries like link it to offense against religious feelings until reforms in 2023. In and the , religious and moral considerations often amplify restrictions, intertwining profanity with . Pakistan's Penal Code Section 295-C prescribes death or life imprisonment for derogatory words or imputations against the Prophet Muhammad, with over 1,500 accusations recorded from 1987 to 2023, many involving alleged profane statements. India's Section 295A criminalizes deliberate acts intended to religious feelings through words or signs, including profane insults, with imprisonment up to three years; enforcement has risen, with 305 cases in 2022 alone. South Korea's Act on the Protection of Youth prohibits obscene materials and public profanity deemed harmful to minors, with fines or imprisonment, as upheld in constitutional reviews emphasizing social morals. In contrast, Japan's lack of comprehensive statutes relies on Article 175 of the Penal Code for explicit depictions, rarely extending to verbal profanity absent harm. African and Caribbean nations show colonial legacies in enforcement. enforces penalties under , including execution for incorporating profane curses against , as codified in royal decrees. Jamaica's Town and Country Planning Act retains a 19th-century on public swearing, punishable by fines up to J$600 or six months' imprisonment, though prosecutions are infrequent. As of 2024, laws—often capturing profane religious —persist in 89 countries worldwide, impacting 57% of the global population and disproportionately enforced in Muslim-majority states like and , where penalties include death or lengthy imprisonment. These disparities highlight tensions between universal free expression norms under of the International Covenant on and national sovereignty over moral and religious order.

Regulation in Media and Institutions

Broadcast and Digital Media

In the United States, the (FCC) regulates profanity on over-the-air broadcast television and radio under Section 1464 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, which prohibits the utterance of obscene, indecent, or profane language via radio communication. Obscene content, defined by the test as lacking serious value and appealing to prurient interest, is banned at all times. Indecent material, involving patently offensive depictions of sexual or excretory organs or activities, and profane language, characterized as grossly offensive terms invoking religious disparagement or invoking excretory functions, are restricted from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., when children are likely to be in the audience. These rules stem from the 1978 Supreme Court decision in , which upheld FCC authority to channel indecent speech to late-night hours due to the intrusive nature of broadcast media invading private homes. Enforcement involves fines up to $544,043 per violation for indecency as of 2023, with notable cases including a $550,000 penalty against in 2004 for Jackson's halftime , later reduced, and a $325,000 fine against for fleeting profanities during the 2002 . The FCC's policy originated from George Carlin's 1972 "Seven Dirty Words" routine, which listed terms like "," "piss," "," "," "cocksucker," "," and "tits" as exemplars of indecent speech, though context determines violations rather than a strict list. Broadcasters must implement parental advisories or bleeping, but the agency does not regulate cable, satellite, or streaming services, as these do not rely on scarce public spectrum resources, rendering FCC jurisdiction inapplicable. In digital media, including streaming platforms like and , profanity faces no federal mandates akin to broadcast rules, allowing mature content ratings such as TV-MA under the system, which flags strong language without prohibiting it. Platforms self-regulate through voluntary standards from the , emphasizing viewer discretion via warnings rather than , as evidenced by unrestricted profanity in series like or on premium cable and streaming. Social media sites such as X (formerly Twitter) and employ algorithmic and human moderation to curb profanity in contexts of or spam, but permit it in expressive posts unless tied to violations like threats; for instance, automated filters may suppress ads with expletives, yet often evades blanket bans due to scale and free speech considerations. Internationally, the UK's applies "generally accepted standards" to broadcast offensive language, prohibiting the strongest terms like "" or "" before the 9:00 p.m. watershed, with post-watershed tolerance increasing per 2021 public research showing greater acceptance of swearing if contextualized or apologized for. Digital on-demand services in the UK fall under lighter oversight since 2016, focusing on harm to minors without preemptive profanity bans. These frameworks reflect a causal distinction: broadcast's universal accessibility justifies stricter controls to prevent unintended exposure, while digital media's opt-in nature and abundance prioritize user choice over paternalistic limits.

Educational and Workplace Settings

In educational institutions, profanity by students is commonly regulated through codes of conduct and zero-tolerance policies aimed at minimizing disruptions and promoting , with violations often leading to disciplinary actions such as suspensions. A 2018 analysis of U.S. data found that suspending students for minor infractions like cursing correlates with reduced academic performance and no discernible benefits in behavior improvement or school safety. and profanity account for approximately 25% of suspensions in some districts, alongside fighting and assaults, reflecting broader efforts to curb disruptions that comprise up to 45% of disciplinary incidents. Research on or use of profanity yields mixed results regarding impacts on learning and perceptions. A 2025 study involving undergraduate students exposed to lectures with varying profanity levels indicated that mild swearing by instructors can heighten and , potentially aiding , though stronger expletives risk alienating learners and diminishing perceived . Conversely, student retrospective accounts highlight contextual factors like the swear word's intensity and target influencing views of appropriateness, with profanity directed at material often tolerated more than personal attacks. Institutional responses to student swearing vary, sometimes enforcing stricter moral standards in classrooms than societal norms, which can escalate minor incidents into broader disputes over acceptable behavior. In workplaces, profanity lacks outright legal prohibition in most jurisdictions but falls under harassment guidelines if it creates a hostile environment based on protected characteristics, requiring severity, pervasiveness, and impact on work conditions per U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission standards updated in 2024. Employer policies often proscribe excessive or targeted swearing via codes of conduct to maintain , with consistent enforcement key to avoiding claims; however, the has ruled that profanity during concerted activities—such as group complaints over wages or conditions—qualifies as protected speech under the National Labor Relations Act, shielding employees from discipline in those contexts. Empirical studies suggest profanity can foster social cohesion and authenticity in interactions by signaling , particularly in high-stress fields, though it risks eroding trust and relationships if perceived as aggressive. Surveys indicate up to 57% of workers use profanity on the job, correlating with potential benefits like increases of 33% via emotional release, yet overuse undermines and in diverse teams. Employers thus balance these dynamics through training and selective tolerance, prioritizing context over blanket bans to align with causal links between verbal norms and morale.

Controversies and Societal Impacts

Free Speech Versus Civility

The tension between free speech protections and demands for civility arises in discussions of profanity, as unrestricted profane expression can clash with societal expectations of decorum in public forums. In the United States, the First Amendment generally shields profanity from government censorship unless it falls into unprotected categories like "" that incite immediate violence, a doctrine originating in (1942), though subsequent rulings have significantly narrowed its application. For instance, in (1971), the upheld the right to display "Fuck the Draft" on a jacket in a , reasoning that offensive language does not lose protection merely because it provokes discomfort, as alternative viewpoints thrive through counterspeech rather than suppression. This principle underscores a first-principles view that free speech encompasses even distasteful content to prevent slippery slopes toward broader censorship. Civility advocates, often drawing from institutional guidelines in workplaces or schools, argue that profanity undermines productive by signaling disrespect and escalating conflicts, potentially eroding social cohesion. In Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986), the permitted schools to discipline students for lewd speech during assemblies, prioritizing educational environments conducive to civil interaction over absolute expression . Similarly, recent cases like Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. (2021) affirmed protections for off-campus profane posts but highlighted limits in captive audiences, such as minors, where unchecked could normalize coarseness without advancing discourse. offers mixed support for concerns: while profanity can heighten emotional arousal and perceived authenticity in persuasive contexts, such as positive online reviews where it boosts usefulness ratings by up to 10-15%, overuse in debates correlates with reduced listener engagement and heightened defensiveness, though no causal data links it directly to broader societal fragmentation. Proponents of expansive free speech counter that enforcing through profanity bans risks subjective enforcement favoring dominant norms, chilling in heated public debates on issues like or . Historical precedents, including profane in pamphlets and modern political rallies, demonstrate that such language often amplifies urgency without derailing democratic processes, as evidenced by its prevalence in unfiltered forums like congressional hearings where interruptions with expletives have not halted legislative outcomes. Studies on swearing's cognitive effects indicate it enhances and emotional , suggesting adaptive value in expressive rather than inherent toxicity, countering claims of uniform harm. Nonetheless, private entities like media platforms impose voluntary standards via , as seen in broadcast regulations under (1978), which allow fleeting profanity restrictions to protect non-consenting audiences without violating core speech rights. This balance reflects causal realism: while profanity may offend, its suppression more predictably fosters than enhances truth-seeking dialogue, absent of direct causal damage to cohesion beyond anecdotal offense.

Effects on Discourse and Cohesion

Profanity in interpersonal and group communication can foster in-group by signaling authenticity and shared informal norms, particularly in high-trust settings like close friendships or where it reinforces and emotional alignment. A 2023 study of interactions found that swearing, when mutual, enhances perceptions of camaraderie and reduces perceived power distances, aiding cohesion among colleagues accustomed to such language. Conversely, in broader or heterogeneous groups, profanity often signals disrespect or , eroding trust and mutual understanding essential for sustained . In public , the habitual use of profane language correlates with diminished , as it violates norms of polite exchange and heightens emotional reactivity, potentially derailing rational . Analysis of political shows that candidates employing swear words may appear more relatable and informal, improving short-term impressions among supportive audiences, yet this risks alienating moderates and framing as combative rather than collaborative. Public meetings increasingly feature profanity-laden outbursts, which empirical reviews link to stalled proceedings, heightened antagonism, and fractured community consensus, as observed in U.S. sessions from 2019 to 2024 where such incidents rose sharply. On social cohesion at scale, profanity's role is contextually double-edged: while it may cathartically vent frustrations and build resilience in insular networks, widespread normalization in media and online platforms contributes to perceived societal fragmentation by normalizing and reducing incentives for empathetic . Surveys indicate that 34% of admit to profanity use, associating it with broader declines in interpersonal , though causal links remain debated amid factors like cultural shifts toward expressiveness. Experimental exposure to swearing elevates without proportionally enhancing persuasive outcomes in diverse groups, suggesting it undermines long-term discursive harmony more than it bolsters it.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.