A couple of great newspaper articles today about corporate doublespeak, one from The Scotsman, and one from Andrew Cassel's business column in The Philadelphia Inquirer.
Posts: 1390 | Location: Near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
Euphemism, and its flip-side, dysphemism, is a rather common linguistic phenomenon. Like the passive voice, it has been derided by many, but used by more. Some seem to think that it was created by a cabal of the politcally correct, when it is simply a part of the language we all speak.
There's a good book on the subject: Euphemism and Dysphemism: Language Used as a Shield and a Weapon, 1991, by Keith Allan and Kate Burridge, two Australian linguists.
quote:
The form of language that a person uses can cause offense to other human beings and to gods—even to dangerous animals. The result of misusing language can be dire: according to Leviticus (24:16) God told Moses "He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord shall be put to death." To shield a speaker from the consequences of giving offence, all languages have euphemisms. Euphemistic expressions trade on illusion: the bluntly profane (and therefore in some eyes blasphemous) "Jesus Christ!" is euphemistically transmuted into "Jeepers Creepers!" but the same person is referred to by both, and if the former is profane, even blasphemous, so should the latter be, too. Similarly, the euphemistic "Your dog went to the bathroom in my driveway!" describes an event that is equally well captured by "Your dog shat in my driveway!" Euphemisms have existed throughout recorded history; they are used among preliterate peoples, and have probably been around ever since recognizably human language developed. Likewise has offensive language, what we call "dysphemism."
How are euphemism and dysphemism to be defined? Is euphemism necessarily tied to taboo? What topics are taboo? Why are women's bodies so strongly tabooed? Do euphemism and dysphemism reflect the intrinsic conflict between intellect and body within human geings? What sorts of euphemisms are there? Where do conventional euphemisms and dysphemisms come from? How are euphemism and dysphemism related to one another? How are they related to neutral terms, if there are such things? Why is it that the euphemism of yesteryear (e.g., "toilet") is replaced by a new one ("bathroom")? How do euphemism and dysphemism related to slang and jargons? What makes people swear? How many euphemisms are there in English for the genital organs? All these questions and many more are broached in this book.
[I apologize, in advance, if the style of this quotation and the book itself are in an impenetrable academese.]
Oh, Richard, you know I love Geoffrey Pullum (not in the biblical sense of course. ).
I hadn't heard of "right-sizing" and "decruitment." I do rather like "Director of First Impressions;" I wonder if that one really exists. CW, would you like to be called an "Information Architect?"
I work for a telecommunications company, and in my office "information artichect" wouldn't sound so weird. It would be something like a system administrator.
I had heard of "right-sizing" but not "decruitment." "Right-sizing" is right up there with "Work smarter, not harder" on the Employee Blood Pressure Monitor. Fast becoming a Pullam fan myself. The Allan-Burridge quote was not inpenetrable at all--sounds like one for the reading list. How ignorant I was: I had never heard of "dysphemism" either. Good thing I found you people when I did. Wordmatic
Posts: 1390 | Location: Near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
I work for a telecommunications company, and in my office "information artichect" wouldn't sound so weird.
Gooofy, I mentioned that because CW is a librarian.
Richard, I see that I had written "biblical" and you wrote "Biblical." Should it be capitalized? A physician once told me that he loved his secretary...he then looked at me and realized that could be taken the wrong way so he added, "But not in the biblical sense!" That's how we use it.
I've heard that in classical Greek literature a commonly used euphemism for sexual intercourse was "he removed her belt [or girdle]" meaning the tie holding her robe closed. Hence the ninth labor of Hercules, retrieving the Girdle of Hippolyta, was meant to imply that the task was actually to have sex with Hippolyta rather than just nick one of her wardrobe accessories.
Richard, I see that I had written "biblical" and you wrote "Biblical." Should it be capitalized?
The COED has:
biblical (also Biblical) so either rendition would seem correct.
I have never heard of "loving" someone in the Biblical sense; the euphemism for sexual intercourse was "knowing". As I recall, in the Authorised version of the New Testament appears the sentence about Joseph and Mary: "Before he knew her she was with child".
In later versions the meaning is spelt out. Whether that was a euphemism common in England at the time of King James or whether that was the term used in the original, I don't know.
Richard English
Posts: 8038 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UK
You apparently are right. Here is a good explanation of it (scroll down to "Lovemaking"). I suspect that use of it has evolved, at least here in the U.S.
Interesting. So the euphemism was originally Hebrew and the scholars who translated it all those years ago were accurate.
I wonder whether the euphemisms cited were ever common in the UK? Interestingly the expression "to lie with" is physically more accurate and less ambigious than "to know". The UK's popular euphemism these days is "to sleep with" - which always amuses me, since sleeping is generally the last thing on any couple's mind!
Richard English
Posts: 8038 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UK
Originally posted by neveu: Hence the ninth labor of Hercules, retrieving the Girdle of Hippolyta, was meant to imply that the task was actually to have sex with Hippolyta rather than just nick one of her wardrobe accessories.
Which is probably the only place in all of literature where sex for a man was considered laborious! And it's usually the woman who enters labor nine months later.
).
