Masaryk University Brno

Faculty of Education
Department of English Language and Literature

Euphemisms

Brno 2012

Author:

Supervisor:

Mgr. Kristna ebkov

Mgr. Radek Vogel, PhD.

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my supervisor Mgr. Radek Vogel, Ph.D. for revising my thesis and his
helpful and friendly attitude.
2

Declaration
I hereby declare that this paper is completely my own work and that I used only the sources
listed in the bibliography.

..............................................................
25 July 2012
3

Annotation
This paper aims to outline the bright and the dark side of euphemizing. In the
increasingly complicated, globalised society, there is a rising tendency to avoid speaking
directly about sensitive topics. In this atmosphere, a disturbing question arises: is the
widespread overuse of euphemisms undermining our ability to recognize euphemisms used
as a tool of manipulation by politicians and the media? The main focus of this thesis is
exploring the use of euphemisms in public discourse and discussing the way they alter our
perception of inconvenient truths.

Key words
Euphemisms, political correctness, doublespeak.

CONTENTS

1. Introduction 6
2. Formation of euphemisms 8
3. Why we need to euphemize.. 9
3.1 A euphemizing instinct 9
3.2 The euphemism treadmill. 10
3.3 Motives for euphemizing 12
4. Most commonly euphemized topics 15
4.1 Religious terms . 15
4.2 Death and illness.. 15
4.3 Sex.. 18
5. Doublespeak: The dark side of euphemisms. 27
5.1 Political correctness.. 27
5.2 Doublespeak. 30
5.3 Fighting back. 35
6. Conclusion. 37
Works cited. 39

1. INTRODUCTION
Euphemism is usually defined as the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive
expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant. The origin of this word
is Greek euphmismos, from euphmos auspicious, sounding good, from eu- + phm
speech, from phanai to speak. (Webster 428)
Therefore, it may be natural to assume that euphemizing serves good purposes and
the speakers use euphemisms with honest intentions, when their aim is not to hurt or offend
someone. However, this paper will show that using euphemistic expressions is much more
complicated than that. As various articles, comments or blogs suggest, people are
increasingly sensitive to avoiding naming things directly. This trend may have resulted from
so-called doublespeak, i.e. a term that William Lutz uses to describe language designed to
evade responsibility, make the unpleasant appear pleasant, the unattractive appear
attractive. Basically, it is language that pretends to communicate, but really does not. It is
language designed to mislead, while pretending not to. (Lutz Doublespeak)
What is more, the reasons why people euphemize keep changing, together with the
topics avoided, and the words used to allude to such topics indirectly. Bearing in mind the
well-known metaphor that language is the vehicle of thought, one can learn a lot about a
society, its knowledge, culture and values by studying euphemisms. As Keyes (30) observes,
Words originally were not considered distinct from what they named. The superstitious
need not to utter certain words that described e.g. evil spirits or things considered sacred is
still echoed today in idioms or proverbs, such as touch/knock on wood or speak of the
devil.
However, it is very difficult to avoid speaking about unpleasant issues completely. That
is why people have always felt the urge to find a way to speak about phenomena they
feared, disliked, worshipped or considered taboo, while not naming them directly. Taking
this into consideration, it could be concluded that attempts to use euphemisms are as old as
our ability to use language. Keyes (30-31) claims that euphemisms are a key indicator of
increasing complexity of speech. Saying what we mean takes a high order of intelligence. It
takes an even higher order to not say what we mean, while still conveying our thought.
6

In the present paper I will examine the motives behind using euphemisms, ways to
create them, I will outline the most commonly euphemized topics, and focus on the so-called
bright and dark sides of euphemisms; i.e. euphemisms as a creative source of amusement on
one hand, in contrast to using obscure terms in order to blur inconvenient truths and
societys reaction to this form of manipulation.

2. FORMATION OF EUPHEMISMS
There have been many attempts to divide the ways of forming euphemisms into
several categories. It is not the aim of this paper to suggest its own categorization.
Nevertheless, I consider it useful to mention a few examples of different ways to
euphemize. The processes by means of which euphemisms are created include:
a. borrowing words from other languages (Williams, Allan and Burridge): in
English, Latin and French terms are preferred, e.g. Latin terminology for
body parts used by educators, medical terms, e.g. halitosis (bad breath)<
Latin halitus for breath; au naturel < French for naked, lingerie <
womens underwear

b. semantic changes (Williams, Allan and Burridge, Rawson, Keyes): this

category is very wide and may include circumlocution, i.e. using longer
expressions, e.g. little girls room < toilet, postconsumer secondary
material < garbage, terminological inaccuracy < lie;

widening, i.e.

increasing the level of abstraction, e.g. growth < cancer, foundation <
girdle, solid human waste < feces, the situation < pregnancy, do it <
have sex; metaphorical transfer, e.g. blossom < pimple, the cavalrys
come < menstruation

c. phonetic distortion (Allan and Burridge, Keyes): this category includes

clippings and abbreviation (e.g. ladies < ladies room, vamp < vampire (a
seductive woman), BS or bull < bullshit, ED < erectile dysfunction) ,
reduplication (e.g. pee-pee < piss, jeepers creeper < Jesus Crist),
distortion of pronunciation (e.g. shoot or shite < shit, fudge < fuck,
cripes or crust < Christ)

The ways to euphemize are even more varied than the categories above suggest.
Nevertheless, how expressions are euphemized only arises from a more essential issue,
which is discussed in the following chapter: the need to actually do so.
8

3. WHY WE NEED TO EUPHEMIZE

This seemingly simple question has been asked and answered hundreds of times. For
instance, Cumming cites Allan and Burridge who claim: "A euphemism is used as an
alternative to a dispreferred expression, in order to avoid possible loss of face: either one's
own face or, through giving offence, that of the audience, or of some third party."
(Cumming)
3.1 A euphemizing instinct
If anyone starts thinking about when they last used a euphemistic expression rather
than a word that might cause offence or make someone feel uncomfortable, they will
probably not find it difficult to remember; it may have been a few minutes ago, when talking
to a colleague and excusing themselves saying I need to wash my hands, or powder my
nose, or use the restroom. However, if the motive for using such expressions is analyzed,
the answer may no longer be so simple; unless, of course, everybody says that is
considered a sufficient reason for this behavior. Although the rules by which our society
functions seem to be the obvious explanation, the question remains: how does the society
create these rules? Who decides what is appropriate and what is not? If this question is
narrowed to language, namely the expressions that are considered polite and suitable, the
answer might have been given by the University of Chicago linguist Joseph Williams, who
said: "Euphemism is such a pervasive human phenomenon, so deeply woven into virtually
every known culture, that one is tempted to claim that every human has been preprogrammed to find ways to talk about tabooed subjects." (Walker)
Ralph Keyes calls this a euphemizing instinct and uses medical research conducted
by Valerie Curtis as evidence. Curtis claims that our need for euphemisms originates in the
newer parts of our brain, where complex thoughts are created. By contrast, spontaneously
uttered words emerge from the limbic brain. Keyes agrees with Curtiss theory which
suggests that creating euphemisms may have contributed to developing our ability to think,
since the brain and our ability to speak have been evolving concurrently. (Keyes 247)
9

3.2 The euphemism treadmill

As mentioned above, euphemisms help everyone to talk about subjects that the
society considers taboo. What can help to understand the ever-changing essence of
euphemisms is the process of automatization: If we examine the general laws of
perception, we see that as it becomes habitual, it also becomes automatic.(Shklovsky 4-5)
When this principle is applied to euphemizing, it could be argued that some words undergo
pejoration because of a taboo against talking about the things they name; the replacement
for a taboo term is a euphemismEuphemisms, in their turn, are often subject to pejoration,
eventually becoming a taboo. Then the whole cycle starts again. (Algeo and Pyles 214)
The process, known by linguists as pejoration or semantic change, has also been
given another term: the euphemism treadmill. As the feminist author Germaine Greer (298)
notes, It is the fate of euphemisms to lose their function rapidly by association with the
actuality of what they designate, so that they must be regularly replaced with euphemisms
for themselves.
The term euphemism treadmill was introduced and explained in detail by Steven
Pinker in his article The Game of the Name, where he says: To a linguist, the phenomenon
is familiar: the euphemism treadmill. People invent new polite words to refer to
emotionally laden or distasteful things, but the euphemism becomes tainted by association
and the new one that must be found acquires its own negative connotations. Water closet
becomes toilet (originally a term for any body care, as in toilet kit), which becomes
bathroom, which becomes restroom, which becomes lavatory. The euphemism treadmill
shows that concepts, not words, are in charge: give a concept a new name, and the name
becomes colored by the concept; the concept does not become freshened by the name.
(Pinker)
The whole process is indeed fascinating; sometimes the topic that is considered
taboo persists for centuries, it is just the words used to refer to it that keep changing. Other
topics are only perceived as taboo for a limited period; however, the role euphemisms play
in destigmatizing some sensitive topics is disputable.
10

Neil Postman would certainly disagree with Steven Pinker, as may be assumed from
his essay on euphemisms which appears in his book Crazy talk, Stupid Talk: To begin with,
we must keep in mind that things do not have real names, although many people believe
that they do. A garbage man is not really a garbage man any more than he is really a
sanitation engineer. There are things, and then there are the names of things, and it is
considered a fundamental error in all branches of semantics to assume that a name and a
thing are one and the same. It is true, of course, that a name is usually so firmly associated
with the thing it denotes that it is extremely difficult to separate one from the other.
Further in his essay, Postman uses the example of advertizing to show the effect of
such associations. He claims that products which would be given names evoking negative
feelings or imaginations would not sell well. It is probably true that not many customers
would buy a perfume with a name like Sewage or Chimney Fume. It would be hard to
sell a child safety seat called Killing Joke, or a sandwich named Vomit Deli. This brings
Postman to the conclusion that if the names of things are changed, the way people regard
those things changes as well, and, as Postman says, that is as good as changing the nature of
the thing itself. He believes that people who refuse euphemisms are not more honest than
those who use them. What is more, Postman develops the idea that euphemisms are a
means through which a culture may alter its imagery and by doing so subtly change its style,
its priorities, and its values. (Postman)
For instance, euphemisms used to talk about people who suffer from various
handicaps may have led to the increasing level of acceptance of the handicapped by
society. Recently, there has been a trend to include children with special needs in
mainstream education, rather than educating them separately. Nevertheless, it is difficult to
prove that such approach has really contributed to changing the image of the handicapped
citizens for the better. By making the word crippled politically incorrect or even taboo,
the society creates a better image of itself; however, the individuals may find this
hypocritical, feeling no real difference between the blind and the visually challenged.
Who is right? Does a new name influence the concept or not? Would a negative
answer to this question mean people have been euphemizing taboo topics in vain? This
almost tempts us to conduct an experiment: spend a day avoiding euphemisms completely.
11

It will probably suffice to make such an experiment in our imagination; the consequences of
being blunt with everyone could be disastrous. On the other hand, it could be argued that
altering the names of things sometimes changes how people regard those things for the
better, other times for the worse. The negative side of euphemisms will be discussed further
in this paper.
3.3 Motives for euphemizing
Bearing in mind the ever-changing essence of euphemisms, it is logical that the
motives for euphemizing are varied and vacillating as well. They range from fear and
superstition, being polite and kind, avoiding embarrassment, playful ways to exclude others
from understanding what is being discussed, to white lies and manipulation. A general
distinction could be made between an instinctive euphemism and a strategic
euphemism. (Walker)
The instinctive group may include avoiding religious terminology and swearwords
(e.g. replacing oh my god with oh my gosh or hell with heck), careful choice of words
when not wanting to hurt or offend someone (e.g. pass away instead of die when talking
about a beloved relative), avoiding embarrassment when mentioning body parts and
functions (like when someone announces going to the little boys room rather than taking
a piss), which is closely related to the topic independent of time, place or culture sex (the
creativity with which people refer to coital activity is stunning), followed by more recent
political correctness (e.g. calling the blind people visually challenged), which could be
perceived as a transition between the two groups. The widely criticized political doublespeak would then belong to the strategic group.
Finally, it is vital to mention language in its written form, which is even more sensitive
to offensive terms what may be considered acceptable in a conversation changes
dramatically when used in black and white. Journalists, dramatists, scriptwriters, i.e. all
those subjected to censorship have historically relied on euphemisms to get their message
across in the face of strict limits on the words they are allowed to use. (Keyes 236) For
instance, Pauline Kiernan analyzes hundreds of euphemistic allusions to sex in Shakespeares
plays (e.g. groping for trouts in a peculiar river, making the beast with two backs).
12

A question arises as to whether these euphemisms used to prevent a work of art

from being censored, or if they should rather be perceived as means of artistic device. If
euphemisms are believed to show high level of intelligence and increasing complexity of
language, where else but in literature should evidence be found?
Shklovsky explains how By enstranging objects and complicating form, the device
of art makes perception long and laborious The removal of (this) object from the sphere
of automatized perception is accomplished in art by a variety of means. (Shklovsky 6) He
gives examples of allegory, erotic riddles (a euphemism of sorts) in Russian folk tales, but
also in Boccaccios Decameron: The enstrangement of the sexual act in literature is quite
frequent. For example, in the Decameron, Boccaccio refers to the scraping of the barrel,
the catching of the nightingale, the merry woolbeating work Just as frequent is the
enstrangement of sexual organs. (Shklovsky 12) If these ancient euphemisms are compared
to some recent ones, numerous similarities in the ways they are created become apparent;
in fact, various internet forums show that, although sometimes unaware of their origin,
people keep using or altering some of the euphemisms Shakespeare used in his work. For
example, willy is still slang for a penis. Shakespeare used the word will in several of his
sonnets, in many different meanings (penis being one of them; sexual appetite another).
Sonnet CXXXV (by William Shakespeare)
Whoever hath her wish, thou hast thy Will,
And Will to boot, and Will in over-plus;
More than enough am I that vexed thee still,
To thy sweet will making addition thus.
Wilt thou, whose will is large and spacious,
Not once vouchsafe to hide my will in thine?
Shall will in others seem right gracious,
And in my will no fair acceptance shine?
The sea, all water, yet receives rain still,
And in abundance addeth to his store;
So thou, being rich in Will, add to thy Will
One will of mine, to make thy large will more.
13

Let no unkind, no fair beseechers kill;

Think all but one, and me in that one Will.
It is beyond doubt that the potential to enrich the language and spur its users
imagination belongs to the positive features of euphemizing. As Keyes (237) claims, creating
euphemisms demands far more of a writer than resorting to taboo words does. When
comedians rely on profanity for laughs, it is not so much their lack of taste that offends as
their lack of imagination.

14

4. MOST COMMONLY EUPHEMIZED TOPICS

The most common topics that the society prefers to avoid speaking directly about
have been outlined in the previous chapter. I will examine some of them more closely.
4.1 Religious terms
Euphemisms connected to peoples beliefs probably belong to the oldest. As I have
already mentioned, people used to believe that words possessed immense power.
Therefore, they feared mentioning evil spirits, as it may attract them and bring bad luck.
Keyes (29) describes how this type of euphemisms evolved: Bears are scary animals. They
are so scary that early northern Europeans referred to them by substitute names for fear
that uttering their real name might beckon these ferocious beasts. Instead, they talked of
the honey eater, the licker, or the grandfather. The word bear itself evolved from a
euphemistic term that meant the brown one. It is the oldest known euphemism, first
recorded a thousand years ago. Naturally, societys fear of bears has decreased, perhaps
simply because people have little chance to encounter them except for in zoos, and
therefore there is no longer the need to invent other names for bears. Similarly, very few
people would now consider hell or damn very strong swearwords, as the threat for our
soul to suffer after death is no longer believed literally. Using the religious terms such as
Jesus Christ, once perceived as blasphemy, is no longer taboo either, even among many
church-goers. However, the superstitious fear of mentioning ones good fortune in order not
to turn it into bad luck persists, as well as euphemizing topics that are feared; these could
include the next type of taboo issues - death and illness.

4.2 Death and illness

Death is a fear-based taboo (Keith and Burridge 153), independent of time, religion,
culture and society. Nobody feels happy and comfortable around dead bodies. Death has
always been shrouded in mystery, it is still not fully understood, and that is just one of the
reasons why people feel uneasy when talking about it. Like terms for birth, death and
excretion, those for diseases are doubtless rooted in anxiety and superstition. (Algeo and
15

Pyles 216)

When people did not understand the origins of e.g. plague or someones

unexpected death, they used to resort to explaining such events as Gods punishment.
Nowadays, such superstitious approach may have been overcome; however, the
anxiety associated with death-related topics persists. Death is also connected with pain over
the loss of a loved one, and trying not to make this pain worse requires a careful choice of
words. As death often occurs away from home these days, i.e. mostly in health care facilities,
it has become medical professionals common duty to inform the relatives of the deceased.
However, the assumption that physicians only use euphemisms for the patients (or their
families) benefit seems to be wrong. In fact, Keyes (138) refers to the results of various
studies suggesting that doctors are more afraid of dying than the average person, and that
studying medicine may even be a way to deal with this fear. When it comes to the choice of
words to announce a patients death, doctors aim is to prevent both themselves as well as
patients from trauma; most often, doctors, like the rest of us, simply say a patient went
(she went peacefully) or that they have lost a patient. The latter led one immigrant doctor
to observe how odd this seemed to him when he arrived in the United States: I wanted to
say, Well, we didnt really lose your husbandwe know where he is. Its just that hes not
breathing anymore. (Keyes 137)
On the other hand, media show death so often that it may lead to increasing
insensitivity to the tragic news; various computer games aim is to kill as many enemies as
possible. At the same time, few people participate in real battles (there are professional
armies). Moreover, as it has already been mentioned, nowadays most people die without
their closest relatives being direct witnesses to their death. As a result, death is becoming
more abstract in peoples mind and this corresponds to the choice of words when speaking
about it. As Orwell (8) suggests in his classical essay, when you think of a concrete object,
you think wordlessly, and then, if you want to describe the thing you have been visualizing
you probably hunt about until you find the exact words that seem to fit it. When you think of
something abstract, you are more inclined to use words from the startat the expense of
blurring or even changing your meaning.

16

Perhaps the perception of death as something abstract is another reason why

people resort to using ready-made euphemistic expressions. And the variety of
euphemisms for death they can choose from is enormous; they range from kind and
sensitive to funny and sarcastic, sometimes they rather seem to be dysphemisms or would
be perceived so in certain situations. The Internet is full of lists of euphemisms for death and
dying; here is a sample of alphabetically ordered expressions:
Tab. 1. Euphemisms for death and dying
a race well run

feeling no pain

meet his/her maker

at room temperature

final curtain call

no longer with us

asleep

finished

out of his/her misery

become a root inspector

get a one-way ticket

pass away

bite the dust

go into the fertilizer business

pushing up the daisies

buy a pine condo

go west

permanently out of print

call home

in a better place

resting in peace

check out

in a horizontal phone booth

six feet under

cross the bar

join the majority

terminated

definitely done dancing

kick the bucket

wearing a toe tag

departed

kick the oxygen habit

with the angels

dirt nap

living-impaired

yield up the ghost

Selected from Euphemisms For Death

Apparently, some of the listed euphemisms are well-known and widely used; others
may not have the potential to become a catchphrase. Nevertheless, the list above certainly
proves how deeply enrooted taboo death is.
17

Ironically, the awareness of being mortal does not seem to support the willingness to
speak about it directly. What is more, being blunt about the processes that eventually lead
to death (i.e. illness and the process of ageing) is perceived as equally unpleasant. The most
commonly used euphemisms for old people (senior citizens and the elderly) are
becoming slightly boring, yet language users creativity knows no borders. Those who are
not creative enough can ask advice on websites, such as democraticunderground.com, and
learn that good euphemisms for being old may be e.g. seasoned, mature, experienced,
well-traveled, or golden.
Regrettably, no similar playfulness is considered appropriate in so called doctorspeak, i.e. phrases sometimes used by doctors to soften a difficult diagnosis. Terms like
"cluster of cells"; "abnormal growth", "mass", "troubling lab results" or "curious shadow on
your x-ray" are sometimes used rather than saying the word CANCER, even though,
according to American oncology experts, cancer euphemisms have lost their ability to soothe
and now disturb people as much as the word cancer itself. (Dunn et el.) This is a good
example of the process which has been called automatization. In the end, no words, abstract
or not, seem to possess the power to eliminate the fear of illness and death.
4.3 Sex
Compared to death or illness, one common feature can be identified; sex is also a
topic widely euphemized in every culture and era. Nevertheless, motives behind
euphemisms connected to sex are quite different from fear. People seem to find a great
pleasure in making and understanding allusions to various physically intimate activities. As a
result, euphemistic expressions referring to sex are often remarkably creative and amusing.
It is possible that the adult game of euphemizing sex topics is not dissimilar to
childrens passion for solving riddles or speaking in secret codes, so that unwelcome
participants could be easily excluded from the conversation. Such language also gives its
speaker a feeling of superiority; being able to unveil what is hidden behind a riddle brings
satisfaction, being proud of ones mental capacity.

18

With few exceptions, sex has always been considered a private matter and as such
inappropriate to be discussed in public. However, since sex is such an essential part of life (in
fact, till quite recently it has been the only way to create new life), pretending it does not
exist by not speaking about it is impossible. Therefore, it is not surprising that euphemisms
for sex are much older than Shakespeares puns; some of the oldest recorded ones may be
tracked in the Bible: Why does the Bible say, Adam knew his wife? Asked a young man in a
Sunday school class. Someone answered: It seems obvious he should know the woman to
whom he was married! Most people realize, of course, that the expression Adam knew his
wife means he had sexual intercourse with her; for, as a result, she conceived (Genesis
4:1). To say Adam knew his wife (rather than to say he had sex with her) is an example of
euphemism Biblical euphemisms for sexual intercourse, many of which are listed in
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, include the following:

Adam knew Eve ... and she conceived (Genesis 4:1).

Go in unto my maid ... obtain children by her (Genesis 16:2).
A man ... to come in unto us (Genesis 19:31).
Jacob ... went in unto her (Genesis 29:23).
Abimelech had not come near her (Genesis 20:4).
Thou shalt not approach to his wife (Leviticus 18:14).
When I came to her, I found her not a maid (Deuteronomy 22:14).
I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived (Isaiah 8:3).
Thou hast humbled her (Deuteronomy 21:14).
He took her, and lay with her (Genesis 34:2).
The manner of as the earth (Genesis 19:31). (Hunt)

A recent issue of The Economist illustrates how cross-cultural source of euphemisms

sex is, using an example of how different languages refer to offering sex for money: A
prostitute accosting a client on the streets of Cairo will ask Fi hadd bitaghsal hudoumak ?
(Literally, Do you have someone to wash your clothes?) Even the most straight-talking
obfuscate that line of work. Swedes, like many others, refer to vrldens ldsta yrke (the
worlds oldest profession). A brothel in Russian is a publichny domliterally a public house,
19

which causes problems when British visitors with rudimentary Russian try to explain the
delights of their village hostelry. In China many hair salons, massage parlors and karaoke
bars double as brothels. Hence anmo (massage), falang (hair salon) or a zuyu zhongxin (footmassage parlour) can lead to knowing nods and winks. For obscure reasons, Germans call
the same institution a Puff. In Japan, such places are called sopurando, (a corrupted version
of soapland) or a pin-saro (pink salon). (Making Murder Respectable) In Czech, non
klub (night club) is generally understood as a place where strippers and/or prostitutes might
be offering their services; this often causes an amusing misunderstanding among students
who do not know that a night club in English is simply a place for entertainment, now usually
for dancing. Similarly, very few Czech students would probably guess the real meaning of a
call house, if they heard this word out of context.
Another reason why sex is such an abundant source of euphemisms is that it is a very
wide topic. What has always called for euphemizing is not only the act itself, but also the
events preceding and following it, such as courtship and pregnancy/giving birth, and the
body parts involved. Nevertheless, the widest range of euphemistic (as well as dysphemistic)
expressions consists of those referring directly to sexual intercourse. As a result, sometimes
the level of intimacies hidden behind a euphemism may not be entirely clear. The ambiguity
of euphemisms for sex serves well for jokes, like in this legendary courtroom exchange:
Did you sleep with this woman?
Not a wink, your honor.
Perhaps this ambiguity of expressions for sex is what inspired Bill Clinton when he
decided to deny his affair with Monika Lewinsky, saying I did not have sexual relations with
that woman. Clintons statement may have had unforeseen impact, as a group of
researchers at the University of Kentucky-Lexington suggest. In 2007 they conducted a study
in which they surveyed 477 students and their views on sex. The results, which were
published in the journal Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health in June 2010, show
that only 20 percent of those students considered oral-genital contact to be sex, compared
with nearly 40 percent of a similar group of students surveyed in 1991. A term Clinton20

Lewinsky effect has been introduced to refer to the shift in attitude towards this type of
sexual contact. (Hans, Gillen and Akande)
The results of this research speak in favor of Postmans assertion that euphemisms
may alter societys imagery, priorities and values. In case of speaking about sex publicly, the
topic itself is no longer taboo, as long as the speakers choose appropriate vocabulary. And it
is appropriateness that makes the options limited. When sex becomes a topic of
conversation in polite, yet private company, using medical terminology may be just as
uneasy and embarrassing as vulgarisms. The entertaining aspect of an exchange between
two characters in a popular sitcom, The Big Bang Theory, is based on a genius physicist,
Sheldons inability to comprehend the inappropriateness of using formal, scientific
vocabulary when talking about peoples private lives, in contrast to a wannabe actress
Penny, who mixes up scientific words, but shows a higher social intelligence, explaining to
Sheldon how people should behave and what they say in everyday situations:
Series 3 Episode 20 The Spaghetti Catalyst
Scene: The lobby.
Penny: Oh, damn, they cancelled my Visa. Oh, yay, a new MasterCard!
Sheldon: Uh-oh.
Penny: What?
Sheldon: I was going to get my mail.
Penny: Okay. Are, are you hoping to get it telepathically?
Sheldon: I think you mean telekinetically. And no, I just wasnt sure of the proper protocol
now that you and Leonard are no longer having coitus.
Penny: God, can we please just say no longer seeing each other?
Sheldon: Well, we could if it were true. But as you live in the same building, you see each
other all the time. The variable which has changed is the coitus.
Penny: Okay, heres the protocol, you and I are still friends, and you stop saying coitus.
Sheldon: Good, good. Im glad were still friends.
21

Penny: Really?
Sheldon: Oh, yes. It was a lot of work to accommodate you in my life. Id hate for that effort
to have been in vain.
Penny: Right.
Sheldon: Just to be clear do I have to stop saying coitus with everyone or just you?
Penny: Everyone.
Sheldon: Harsh terms. But all right, Ill just substitute intercourse.
Penny: Great.
Sheldon: Or fornication. Yeah. But that has judgmental overtones, so Ill hold that in reserve.
(Veloso)

The limited selection of vocabulary which will not offend anyone may be the reason
why people often resort to the most general expressions like do it, relying on context and
exchanging knowing looks to convey the real meaning.
Fortunately, those who consider doing it and sleeping with unbearably boring
have an increasingly wide range of euphemisms to choose from. The internet is obviously
the most easily available source and also a tool for people to vote on top 10 euphemisms
for sex, the funniest/the worst euphemisms for sex you have ever heard etc. Popular TV
shows also have a strong potential to offer catchphrases. However, the funniest or the most
creative euphemisms introduced by TV scriptwriters are often so strongly context
dependent, or long and complicated, that they only serve to amuse the viewers and avoid
censorship, but do not become widely used.
For instance, here is an extract from an episode of How I Met Your Mother called
The First Time in New York, where the characters, while waiting in a line to visit the Empire
State Building, share their stories of how and when they lost their virginity:

22

Robin : You only get one shot at losing your virginity. And even though I just barely had sex,
it counts.
Lily : What do you mean just barely?
Robin : Well, he didn't dive all the way into the pool, but he... splashed around in the
shallow end.
Lily : Then you didn't lose your virginity to him. Just barely doesn't count.
Robin : Yes, it does. Lily : No, it doesn't. Marshall : Yes, it does.
Lily : No, it doesn't. It doesn't count. End of story.
Barney : Ooh, why, Lily Aldrin, you saucy little harlot. Could it be that before Marshall took a
swim, someone else tested the water?
Marshall : No. Nobody else tested the water, right? Scooter?
Barney : Who's Scooter?
Lily : My high school boyfriend, who I did not have sex with

Lily : Marshall, why is this such a big deal?

Marshall : Why is this such a big deal? Oh, uh, sorry, Christopher Columbus, guess who
actually discovered the New World. Some dude named Scooter. Oh, uh, Neil Armstrong, it
actually goes like this: "One small step for man, one giant leap for Scooter." Whoa, hey,
Adam, guess who got with Eve before you did...
Lily : Okay, Marshall, I get it.
Marshall : It's a big deal because it rewrites our history.
Lily : No, it doesn't. Look, have you been to the Empire State Building? No. You've only been
in the lobby. People don't buy tickets to get in the lobby. They buy tickets to get to the top.
Scooter only got in the lobby, and the lobby doesn't count.
Marshall : Really. Excuse me, sir, uh, can you tell me how to get to the Empire State
Building?
Man: Um, we're in it right now. Marshall : Thank you, sir. You're a very wise and brilliant
man. (Kassie)

23

This extract, which contains eight different euphemisms for sex, certainly shows that
euphemistic expressions can be a brilliant source of humor. The audience could try to
imagine what the same conversation would be like if the creative euphemisms were
replaced by e.g. had (un)successful sexual intercourse, or coitus; in this case the
entertaining effect would very probably be lost, unlike in The Big Bang Theory.
In the previous example, all participants of the conversation obviously understand
very well what the euphemisms refer to. It is the creativity that is the source of amusement
here. In contrast, the following example may seem funny to the audience not only due to the
euphemisms used, but also because one of the characters does not understand them at first.
This extract is from an episode of Fox TVs House M.D. and includes a conversation between
Dr. House and a mother who thinks her young daughter may be having epileptic seizures:
House: In actuality all your little girl is doing is... saying yoo hoo to the hoo hoo.
Concerned Mom: She's what?
House: Marching the penguin... ya ya-ing the sisterhood... finding Nemo?
Little Girl Patient: (giggles) That was funny.
House: It's called gratification disorder, sort of a misnomer. If one was unable to gratify
oneself, that would be a disorder.
Concerned Mom: Are you saying shes masturbating?
House: (making fun of the mother by talking out of the corner of his mouth so the little girl
supposedly won't see that he's talking) I was trying to be discreet. There's a child in the
room. (Euphoria)

As it was mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, euphemistic allusions to sex are
sometimes used by the speakers in order to exclude unwelcome participants from the
conversation as well as amuse. Keyes gives an example of couples who develop private
euphemistic language, which they use in public in order to both convey a secret message
without impolite whispering, and to amuse themselves. Such coded messages include e.g.
24

Lets go home and watch some TV, which, in fact, means Lets leave and make love.
Another couple, who had nicknamed the mans penis Winston (based on the cigarette
slogan Winston tastes good, like a cigarette should), enjoyed discussing Winstons good
taste in the presence of friends and family. (Keyes 233)
To illustrate the creativity with which people invent new euphemisms for sex, there
are some more examples listed in the following table:

25

Tab. 2. Euphemisms for sex

Bang

hanky panky

pop the cork

bake cookies

hippity dippity

put sour cream on the taco

bury the bone

hit it

ride the hobby horse

butter the muffin

horizontal mambo

roll in the hay

check the oil

in and out

ring her bell

clean the carpets

juice someone

shag

dippity doo da

knock boots

sink it in

dip your pen in the ink

lay piping

skin the cat

do it

make babies

score

exchange bodily fluids

make love

scratch your itch

feed the kitty

mattress dance

sexercise

fix her plumbing

nail

sweep the chimney

funky chicken

park

thread the needle

get a home run

party for two

throw a log on the fire

get busy

pass the gravy

walk the dog

go fishing

pickle tickle

water the lawn

get into ones pants

play doctor

wet the wick

get your nuts cracked

plug and play

whoopty do

Selected from amog.com (OffbeatMOG)

Some of the listed euphemisms are actually becoming old-fashioned, others seem to
be very context dependent, but one thing is clear: almost any human activity, including
housework, can serve as a euphemism for sex with the help of a context.
26

5. DOUBLESPEAK: THE DARK SIDE OF EUPHEMISMS

As the origin of the word euphemism suggests, a euphemistic expression is one that
sounds good, which does not necessarily mean it is good in essence. Furthermore, even if
something is primarily meant to be used for a good purpose, it can usually also be misused,
both inadvertently and intentionally. Currently, there seems to be no clear distinction
between euphemisms, political correctness or doublespeak; various dictionaries give
different definitions, and speakers tend to further confuse these terms, which is
unfortunate. Although it is challenging, I believe that the border between honest intentions
for using euphemisms and attempts to hide inconvenient truths in public discourse should
not be completely blurred.
5.1 Political correctness
In chapter 2.3 instinctive and strategic motives behind using euphemisms were
mentioned. Politically correct expressions seem to overlap these suggested groups, although
the strategic motives probably prevail. In his essay A Critique of Politically Correct
Language, Ben ONeill (279-280) points out that those in favor of politically correct
language claim that society discourages the use of words that have negative or offensive
connotations in order to become more civilized, and, as a result, victims of unfair
stereotypes gain more respect. He says that for the advocates of politically correct
language, replacement of existing terminology with politically correct terms has two
purported virtues:
1. It reduces the social acceptability of using offensive terms.
2. It discourages the reflexive use of words that import a negative stereotype, thereby
promoting conscious thinking about how to describe others fairly on their merits.

Further in his essay, ONeill examines how politically correct language is related to
euphemisms, how it is influenced by the process of semantic change (similarly to the
euphemism treadmill), and the effects of political correctness on discourse. He expresses his
disagreement and strongly criticizes the alleged purpose of politically correct language, i.e.
discouraging the reflexive use of words and promoting conscious thinking, since in his
27

opinion the effect is exactly opposite: Politically correct language is narrow, faddish, and
highly reflexive in character, consisting in large part of euphemisms. It sometimes promotes
or amounts to outright dishonesty. Moreover, the drive for this kind of language involves
aggressive attempts to delegitimize the use of politically incorrect terms that fail to keep up
with current fashions. (ONeill 286)

Another concern expressed by a rising number of people is that political correctness

actually limits open debates; that it threatens the freedom of speech. Citizens of democratic
countries tend to highly value the possibility to express ones opinion openly in public,
without being imposed on by those in power, who decide what is (politically) correct and
what is not. This concern is reflected in both serious articles and satirical shows or websites.
The satire seems to flourish, as it probably results from the increasing sensitivity to politically
correct terms which are rather controversial, misleading, or too complicated, and therefore
often ridiculed.

Tab. 3. Examples of politically correct terms

Retarded

mentally challenged;
having learning difficulties

White

Caucasian

Blind

visually challenged

Crippled

differently abled

Fat

overweight

Tab. 4. Terms designed to ridicule political correctness

Alive

temporarily metabolically abled

Bald

follicularly challenged

Lazy

motivationally deficient

Fat

gravitationally challenged

Poor

economically marginalized

Selected from A List of PC Terms

28

In fact, making the politically correct terms sound ridiculous has become a common
means of entertainment. This is another example of a conversation among the characters in
a popular sitcom How I Met Your Mother, taken from an episode called Belly Full of
Turkey, in which the characters discuss how they are going to celebrate the Thanksgiving:
Robin: So, probably hanging out with Barney, then?
Ted: No, Barneys got his own Thanksgiving tradition.
(flashback to Ted, Barney, Lily and Marshall sitting at booth at MacLaren's)

Barney: Thanksgiving in a strip club! Whos in? The Lusty Leopard has a surprisingly good
Thanksgiving buffet. Plus, they do this thing: Heather dresses up as a Pilgrim, and Misty
dresses up as an Indian, and they share a meal together(Barney indicates what sharing a
meal really means using his mimes and gestures)
Lilly (looking disgusted, disapprovingly): Oh, Barney!!
Barney: Im sorry. Native American.
(Soleine92)

Apparently, in this scene it is not the euphemism used for an erotic performance in a
strip club which carries the main amusing aspect; it is rather Barneys pretence to
misunderstand what really annoys Lilly (i.e. Barney showing disrespect to Americas public
holiday, based on religious belief and tradition, celebrating it in a rather perverse way),
apologizing for using a politically incorrect term instead, as if he realized that such
language may cause offence.

The question raised in chapter 2.2 of this paper persists. Postman believes that a
society changes its values by altering the vocabulary, yet ONeill (291) argues that we may
legitimately debate whether crippled, disabled, handicapped, or another term is the best,
most accurate, and most sensitive term to use in a given context. But to move toward
euphemistic terminology that is stripped of all meaning and to attack aggressively those who
continue to use meaningful words are not examples of sensitivityAt the heart of politically
correct language lies dishonesty, not civility. This reality is manifested in the preference for
euphemism over literalism, for vagueness over specificity, and for propaganda over honesty.
The politically correct society is not the civilized society, but rather the dishonest society.
29

His view could be supported by Pinkers comment on current politically correct terms for
racial groups; he notes that we will know we have achieved equality and mutual respect
when names for minorities stay put. (Pinker)

5.2 Doublespeak

When analyzing the motives behind political correctness (PC) in detail, the honesty of
those motives remains disputable. Rather than strictly stating that they are either honest or
dishonest, the conclusion may be: it is both. However, compared to PC, there is nothing
positive in doublespeak. Having spent many years studying this particular language
phenomenon, William Lutz (347-348) has established a widely accepted definition of
Doublespeak: [it] is language that pretends to communicate but really does not. It is
language that makes the bad seem good, the negative appear positive, the unpleasant
appear attractive or at least tolerable. Doublespeak is language that avoids or shifts
responsibility, language that is at variance with its real or purported meaning. It is language
that conceals or prevents thought; rather than extending thought, doublespeak limits it.

It is remarkable how Lutzs definition of Doublespeak is similar to Orwells analysis of

the language of politics in his classical essay: Political language.is designed to make lies
sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.
In fact, the term Doublespeak itself is believed to originate from two words, newspeak and
doublethink, both of which Orwell introduced in his dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty Four.
In his essay Politics and the English Language, Orwell (7) claims: In our time, political speech
and writing are largely the defense of the indefensibleThus political language has to consist
largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vaguenessSuch phraseology is
needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. Consider for
instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot
say outright, "I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing
so." Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:

30

While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the
humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment
of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and
that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply
justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.
The inflated style itself is a kind of euphemism.
In Orwells essay, just like in ONeills, euphemizing is given negative connotations.
However, Lutz makes a clear distinction between euphemisms proper and doublespeak. He
divides doublespeak into four categories, or, four kinds: euphemism, jargon, gobbledygook
or bureaucratese, and inflated language. (Lutz The World of 348-351)
A) Euphemisms
Although Lutz (The World of 348) admits that euphemisms may be considered
doublespeak, he makes it clear that euphemizing itself is a positive thing, as long as the
speakers intentions to use euphemisms are honest, i.e. concern for someones feelings, or
respect for a recognized cultural or social taboo. He says that there is nothing wrong with
using the expressions such as pass away or go to the restroom; in fact, in his view such
behavior can be regarded as a mark of courtesy and good manners. It is the real purpose of
using euphemisms which makes all the difference. Lutz (The World of 349) puts it simply:
When a euphemism is used to deceive, it becomes doublespeak. He believes that a
euphemism becomes doublespeak when it is designed to mislead, to cover up the
unpleasant, [when] its real intent is at variance with its apparent intent. It is language
designed to alter our perception of reality.
For instance, when the governments aim is to cover up the unpleasant reality of war, it
designs terminology that makes it sound less concrete and less horrible, e.g. collateral
damage instead of killing innocent bystanders, asymmetric warfare for suicide
bombing attacks, enhanced interrogation which in fact means torture, etc.

31

B) Jargon
Similarly to euphemisms, jargon can also be used for its good, original purpose (i.e.
allowing the members of a professional group to communicate efficiently with each other),
as well as misused and thus become doublespeak. According to Lutz (349), jargon can be
perceived as doublespeak when it is pretentious, obscure, and esoteric terminology used to
give an air of profundity, authority, and prestige to speakers and their subject matter. Jargon
as doublespeak often makes the simple appear complex, the ordinary profound, the obvious
insightful. In this sense it is not used to express but impress. Again, the intent to impress is
often connected with misleading the general public, unfamiliar with particular jargon.
Because the speaker using jargon sounds like an expert, the listeners assume that the
information is valid, and, if they do not understand what is being communicated, they do not
dare to ask, for fear of looking uneducated and ridiculous.

C) Gobbledygook

Lutz (The world of 350) established gobbledygook (or bureaucratese) as the third kind
of doublespeak. What makes overwhelming the audience with long sentences full of big
words doublespeak is again the intention to conceal the reality. Although, gobbledygook
could also be the evidence of how doublespeak limits thought rather than supporting it.
Sometimes, rather than deliberate attempt to mislead the audience, the analysis of
gobbledygook reveals that the speaker himself probably does not even know what he was
saying.

D) Inflated language

Inflated language is what Orwell criticized as a negative kind of euphemizing, and what
Lutz (The world of 351) explains as language designed to make the ordinary seem
extraordinary, to make everyday things seem impressive, to give an air of importance to
people, situations or things that would not normally be considered important, to make the
simple seem complex. It is this kind of doublespeak that Lutz considers both amusing and
dangerous. Inspired by Lutzs characterization, I would further divide Inflated language as
32

doublespeak into two subcategories, because of the above mentioned controversy

(amusement versus danger):

D.1) Extraordinarily ordinary

Expressions belonging to this group are not difficult to notice and are often
humorous, or inspire the creation of similarly sounding words which serve to ridicule the
original. This is how secretaries become executive assistants, car mechanics are
automotive internists, and garbage men are called sanitation engineers while
performing the same job, customers are more satisfied when purchasing a pre-owned, or
experienced car rather than a used one, politicians do not lie but are economical with
the truth, etc.
These expressions can sometimes be perceived as political correctness or
euphemisms, and they are mostly harmless, since - if anything - they amuse rather than
mislead. Nevertheless, the border between the harmless and harmful doublespeak is thin: it
depends on the language users ability to recognize and fight the carefully designed terms
whose aim is to avoid responsibility and blur inconvenient truths.

D.2) Dangerous doublespeak

What is really hidden behind revenue enhancement, rapid oxidation, preemptive counterattack, poorly buffered precipitation, or unmanned aerial vehicles?
Doublespeak becomes dangerous when it is successfully used to mislead, to appear to
communicate when it does not, when people fail to notice it and enable doublespeak to
alter the perception of reality and corrupt thought. (Lutz The World of 352-353)
This category corresponds to doublespeak characterized by the political economist
and media analyst Edward S. Herman, who stresses that the important thing in the world of
doublespeak is the ability to lie successfully, i.e. without being revealed or punished.
Moreover, lying according to Herman includes selecting and shaping facts which do not fit an
agenda or program, and this is where doublespeak becomes particularly useful; the
listeners succumb to the illusion that they have been told the truth (i.e. given the important
33

information), while this information is transmitted in the way which makes murder sound
respectable. (Herman)

Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman give examples of the structural nature of the
use of doublespeak; in Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media
they argue that people in modern democratic society consist of decision-makers and social
participants who have to be made to agree. They say that those in power in a totalitarian
state do not care much about what citizens think, since their actions can be controlled, and,
the monopolistic control over media, often supplemented by official censorship, makes it
clear that the media serve the ends of a dominant elite. However, if citizens have the
freedom of speech, the state wants to control what people think. It is much more difficult
to see a propaganda system at work where the media are private and the formal censorship
is absent. And that is what Herman and Chomsky analyze and call a Propaganda Model;
the Manufacture of consent. (Herman and Chomsky 1)

They claim that media are rarely truly impartial, for many reasons. The media may
feel obligated to carry extremely dubious stories and mute criticism in order not to offend
their sources and disturb a close relationship. It is very difficult to call authorities on whom
one depends for daily news liars Perhaps more important, powerful sources regularly take
advantage of media routines and dependency to manage the media Part of this
management process consists of inundating the media with stories, which serve sometimes
to foist a particular line and frame on the media, and at other times to help chase unwanted
stories off the front page or out of the media altogether. (Herman and Chomsky 22-23)
What is more, not only do those in power decide what to say, but they also pay close
attention to how they say it. It is not surprising that doublespeak is mostly employed in the
areas of business, advertising, and politics.

Why is this kind of doublespeak dangerous? Because living in illusions and believing
lies means losing personal freedom. Lutz (The World of 353) warns against the dangers of
doublespeak, against the corruption of language which can have far-reaching consequences,
as [it] breeds suspicion, cynicism, distrust, and, ultimately, hostility. Doublespeak is
34

insidious because it can infect and eventually destroy the function of language, which is
communication between people and social groups. Using the comparison to Orwells novel,
Lutz is very direct about what failure to understand the dangers of doublespeak may lead to:
If we really believe that we understand such language and that such language
communicates and promotes clear thought, then the world of 1984, with its control of
reality through language, is upon us. (Lutz 353)

5.3 Fighting back

The attempts to manipulate, through various means including language, can hardly
be eradicated, as they belong to human nature and, unfortunately, are a part of how society
is organized. Regrettably, no elections or revolutions seem to be able to change this. The
powerful will always dominate the society, and, although the situation in democratic
countries is better than in those with totalitarian regimes, it is not ideal. However, similarly
to Lutz, I believe that accepting this as a fact and giving up on resisting manipulation might
have disastrous consequences. The cynical misuse of language may go as far as speaking
about "Jewish problem" which was solved through the "Final Solution" (Endlsung), a
euphemism for extermination, infamous concentration camps entrance signs "Work Will Set
You Free" (Arbeit Macht Frei), followed by "bath houses" (Badeanstalten) and "special
installations" (Spezialeinrichtungen), the harmless-sounding names for the gas chambers and
crematoria. That said, I shall suggest the form that the resistance to being manipulated by
doublespeak can have.
Fortunately, many useful contributions have already been made by various writers,
linguists, political and media analysts (e.g. George Orwell, William Lutz, Hugh Rank, Daniel
Dieterich, Jacques Ellul), and committees, such as The National Council of Teachers of
English (NCTE) Committee on Public Doublespeak, established in 1971. Their effort and ideas
deserve to be acknowledged and further developed.
As means of attracting public attention, the Orwell Award (for outstanding
contributors to the critical analysis of public discourse), and the Doublespeak Award (an
ironic award for speakers who have seriously misused language to deceive, and to advance
their agenda) are worth supporting. Political manifestos and speeches, legal and business
35

documents, media discourse, and all other examples of using language to influence listeners
and achieve some goals, need to be critically examined. Nevertheless, such analysis would
not be very efficient if most language users were not familiar with both the beauty and the
power of language, and its potential abuse. Therefore, education is necessary to help fight
doublespeak. It is vital for students to learn to use language effectively, to be able to identify
euphemisms, doublespeak, and other ways to use or abuse language.

36

6. CONCLUSION
Recently, I have encountered suggestions that euphemizing should be eradicated,
and this became my motive for the closer examination of euphemisms. While writing my
paper, I have explored the ways euphemisms are created, the ever-changing essence of both
euphemistic expressions and the realities they refer to, the bright and the dark sides of
euphemisms.
Furthermore, I tried to find my own answers to several questions raised. Firstly, does
the society employ euphemisms in order to gradually change its values, or can the
euphemism treadmill serve as evidence supporting the claim that taboos persist,
independent of the words used to talk about them? I believe that language both reflects and
shapes thoughts; therefore, euphemisms have the potential to alter the reality.
Nevertheless, there are other aspects that influence the priorities, fears or values of a
society; euphemisms alone are not omnipotent. That is why euphemistic expressions remain
a helpful tool in the process of changing peoples attitudes, which is sometimes successful,
sometimes not.
My answer to the question if euphemisms should be completely avoided, as some
people suggest, calling for being more direct and honest, is clear: it is impossible, and
not even desirable. As I discussed in this paper, euphemisms are a necessary part of every
culture, they are probably as old as language itself, and, if used with honest intentions, they
are related to speakers good manners, express concern for the feelings of others, and show
respecting cultural taboos. Moreover, euphemisms can carry amusing aspects, spur the
listeners imagination, and promote complex thoughts.
It is probably due to political correctness and doublespeak that the society is
becoming more sensitive to using vague language and demands avoiding euphemisms.
However, in my opinion, there is serious misunderstanding. While it is true that,
linguistically, euphemisms, politically correct language and doublespeak have much in
common, their purpose and effect significantly differ. The purpose of doublespeak is in fact
opposite to that of euphemisms; speakers use euphemisms with the expectation that the
listeners will understand exactly what is hidden behind the words, in addition to mutual
37

understanding that the intention to use a euphemism is to avoid offence, or, in some cases,
to amuse. By contrast, the purpose of doublespeak is to mislead, to blur the reality, to hide
inconvenient truths. Using inflated language confuses the listeners, overwhelming them with
words so that they do not detect what is really hidden behind those words (unless, with
considerable effort, the listeners consciously analyze the vague expressions). While
euphemisms promote complex thoughts, doublespeak aims to limit or prevent clear
thinking.
To sum up, I strongly believe that everyone needs to pay attention to language used
as a tool of manipulation; language users should be aware that it is not the words
themselves, but the intentions that are good or bad. Education or experience is vital to help
the speakers distinguish between naked truths and lies in disguise.

38

WORKS CITED
Allan, Keith, and Kate Burridge. Euphemisms and Dysphemisms: Language Used as Shield and
Weapon. Oxford: OUP, 1991. Print.
Algeo, John, and Thomas Pyles. The Origins and Development of the English Language.
Wadsworth: Cengage Learning, 2009. Print.
Cumming, S. Language & Power. Linguistics, 50 (22 Jan. 2003): n. pag. linguistics.ucsb.edu.
Web. 21 Feb. 2012.
Dunn, S. M. et al. Cancer By Another Name: A Randomized Trial of the Effects of
Euphemism and Uncertainty in Communicating with Cancer Patients. Journal of Clinical
Oncology, 1993. American Society of Clinical Oncology. Web. 15 Mar. 2012.
<http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/11/5/989.abstract>
Euphemisms For Death. You-Can-Be-Funny.com. you-can-be-funny.com. n.d. Web. 12 Mar.
2012. <http://www.you-can-be-funny.com/Euphemisms-For-Death.html>
Euphoria Part 2. House M.D. Quotes.com. housemdquotes.com, n.p., n.d. Web. 03 Mar.
2012. <http://www.housemdquotes.com/221_euphoria_2.html>
Greer, Germaine. The Female Eunuch. New York: Farrer, Straus and Giroux, 1971. Print.
Hans, Jason D., Martie Gillen and Katrina Akande. Sex Redefined: The Reclassification Of
Oral-Genital Contact. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 42 (2010): 7478.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com. Web. 7 Apr. 2012.
Herman, Edward S. Little Versus Big Lies (And Structure of Lies). Political Commentaries.
20 May. 2003. musictravel.free.fr. Web. 15 Jun. 2012.
<musictravel.free.fr/political/political.htm>
Herman, Edward S., and Noam Chomsky. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of
the Mass Media, Second edition. New York: Pantheon, 2002. Print.

Hunt, K. M. Biblical Euphemisms for Sexual Activity. Restitution of All Things.

keithhunt.com. May 2007. Web. 20 Feb. 2012.
39

Kassie. How I Met Your Mother>Script vo de lpisode 2.12. Hypnoweb.net. Hypnoweb.net,

18 Apr. 2011. Web. 03 Mar. 2012.
Keyes, Ralph. Euphemania: Our Love Affair with Euphemisms. New York: Little, Brown and
Company, 2010. Print.
A List of PC Terms. Bored.com. Bored.com, n.d. Web. 15 Jun. 2012.
<http://www.bored.com/pcphrases/>
Lutz, Wiliam. Doublespeak. Interview by Brian Lamb. booknotes.org: 31 Dec. 1989. Web.
14 Jan. 2012.
Lutz, Wiliam. The World of Doublespeak. cvhsfalcons.com. Web. 03 Jun. 2012. PDF file.
Making Murder Respectable. Phoney Politeness and Muddled Messages: A Guide to
Euphemisms. The Economist, economist.com. 17 Dec. 2011. Web. 15 Jan. 2012.

OffbeatMOG . 165 Sex Euphemisms. AMOG|Alpha Male of the Group. AMOG, 05 Dec.
2008. amog.com. Web. 19 Feb. 2012. <amog.com/lifestyle/sex-euphemisms/>

ONeill, Ben. A Critique of Politically Correct Language. The Independent Review, 16.2
(2011): 279-291. independent.org. Web. 27 May 2012. PDF file.

Orwell, George. Politics and the English Language. mla.stanford.edu. 2005-2006. Web. 25
May 2012. PDF file.

Pinker, Steven. The Game of the Name. The New York Times, 3 Apr. 1994.
stevenpinker.com. Web. 20 Jan. 2012. PDF file.
Postman, Neil. Euphemism. Crazy Talk, Stupid Talk. myclass.peelschools.org. Web. 20 Jan.
2012. PDF file.

40

Rawson, H. Rawson's Dictionary of Euphemisms and Other Doubletalk: Being a Compilation

of Linguistic Fig Leaves and Verbal Flourishes for Artful Users of the English Language. New
York: Crown Publishers, 1995. Print.

Shklovsky, Viktor, and Benjamin Sher translator. Theory of Prose. Chicago: Dalkey Archive
Press, 1991. Print.
Soleine92 [Sosso Soleine]. How I met your mother >Script VO de l'pisode 1.09.
Hypnoweb.net. Hypnoweb.net, 20 Apr. 2009. Web. 03 Mar. 2012.
Veloso, B. Series 3 Episode 20 The Spaghetti Catalyst. Big Bang Theory Transcripts.
Wordpress.com, n.d. Web. 10 Jun. 2012.

Walker, Ruth. Euphemistically speaking. The Christian Science Monitor, 19 Apr. 2011. Web.
7 Apr. 2012.
Williams, Joseph M. Origins of the English Language: A Social and Linguistic History. New
York: Free Press, 1975. Print.
Websters Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield: Merriam-Webster Inc., 1989. Print.

41