Latest news with #swearing
SBS Australia
29-05-2025
- General
- SBS Australia
Why do we curse and swear: #!@*&% ?
Listen to learn how swearing can bond people together, how it changes across cultures and languages, and why some words just hit harder than others, especially in your first language. Together, we'll explore how bad words might not be so bad after all. SBS Audio 29/05/2025 32:36 Host: Rune Pedersen joined by Stefan Delatovic Producers: Rune Pedersen, Stefan Delatovic Writers: Rune Pedersen and Stefan Delatovic Artwork: Wendy Tang Post production and sound design: Dom Evans and James Coster at EARSAY SBS Audio team: Joel Supple, Max Gosford, Bernadette Phương Nam Nguyễn Guests: Professor Kate Burridge Stefan: How Humans Talk is an SBS podcast recorded on Wurundjeri country. We pay our respects to the custodians of this land, which has been shaped by stories and language and love for generations. The following episode contains swearing and bad language. So if you're listening with children, family, or friends, make sure they listen closely because studies show swearing might be good for your health and optimise your performance. Rune: But if you rather skip any coarse language. This might be a good episode to miss. Although we think you might miss out. Stefan: That little Danish. That's fun. What does that mean? Rune: Ah, it's just, uh, some, some friendly banter, like Aussie style banter. Oh, cool. What does it translate into? I think it's something like, um, you disgusting dick face. Stefan: Oh my God. Why would you call me that? Rune: I don't know. It's just like the, just what we say here, right? Like just. You dick face. Stefan: Oh, you are thinking of dickhead. Rune: Isn't that the same? Stefan: It's uh, similar. I dunno, for some reason when you call me a disgusting dick face, it feels more offensive than dickhead. But maybe that's just because I, I say dickhead all the time. Rune: Well, the head and the face is kind of connected. I don't quite get Aussie swear words are really, really confusing. But I, I'm so like intrigued and I wanna, I wanna Stefan: just learn them. Yeah. Okay. I mean, there's probably some safer ones. If you want to just sprinkle them in to sort of Aussie chat, please. Uh, there's some classics like Struth or Crikey. Yeah, those are some of the all time classics. You've got my all time favorite Fuckwit. My mom used to love that one. And that leads to, we got a lot of sort of sex ones, like, uh oh, bugger me or get rooted, or, oh, you're soft cock. And then obviously there's the C word, but, um, you know, a handle with care. Like, like what do you mean? Like, crap? No, no, not that one. But you just said cock, was it, is it cock? No, no, it's not cock like creepy cock. No, no. Not creepy Cock. Uh, I, yeah, I wouldn't feel comfortable saying it. Well, Rune: well what, what is it? Stefan: It's, uh, look, I actually think I'm not qualified to be teaching you this stuff. I think we need to find someone else. Rune: You. Creepy cock. Creepy cock is so upsetting. So off I went. On my merry way to meet none other than Kate Burridge, distinguished linguist professor at Monash University and a professional swearer. For someone like yourself who deals with language every day, what's your take on using language as a means of cursing? Kate: Well, it's the fallout of taboo, really. It's all part and parcel of it. Yes. These things that go bump in the nighters as sometimes describe it for society, whatever they be, uh, we, you know, I'm incredibly powerful and uh, Kate: I think even today, words have this power. Rune: Why do you think that? Kate: Oh, that's a, that's a really good question. Why? Why? Why is it? I think in the case of taboo, taboo words, people really do behave as if there is a very real connection between what the word means and how it sounds, you know? Linguist, bang on about the arbitrary nature of language, the fact that there's no necessary or natural connection between, I don't know, table, um, you know, what I'm looking at now and the word table. But in the case of taboo words, it's very, very different. People talk about these as, you know, ugly sounding and. Dirty words and parents even wash kids' mouths out with soap, you know, when they utter one of these words. Uh, so they, I think that is where the power comes from. And this, you know, is also power that's attached to names. Look at, you know, Rumpelstiltskin , which I think has parallels in many different, uh, cultures where, you know, learning the, the name of the little villain, uh, stripped him of his power, you know, so there's all sorts of examples of that. Rune: So it's, it's what humans attach to it. Hmm. It's the energy we put into it. Kate: Yes. I mean, when you think about it, these words are just assemblages of vowels and consonants. Uh, and they can easily be stripped of their power, and they are often over time. But, uh, people just have this. Reaction, and people talk about them as sort of raising goose flesh. And, and then there are scientific experiments to show that they do, uh, bring on, you know, larger, stronger galvanic skin responses. Uh, they, there's evidence that they're, if they're not stored differently in their brain, they're at least access differently. Some people lose all ability to, you know, to use language, accept the ability to use dirty words or swear words. This is. Fascinating. Really? Mm. Rune: So that's a different part of the brain. Kate: And that would only be possible if these words were well, if not stored differently, then certainly accessed differently. And people often, you know, I've heard a number of people describe the very distressing situation where, you know, older relatives. Experience this, and they, they suddenly start to, you know, swear like a trooper and they've never sworn all their life. So there are, there's something very special about these words. Rune: Yeah. So have we been able to then figure out if it's the intent and meaning of the words or if it's the sounds of the words or if it's a combination of both? Kate: Combination of both. I think. Because I think they're tied closely together. Yes. Some last for centuries and retain their slangs or their power, uh, others, peter out. And so what is it that allows these words to survive so well? Uh, so, and, and the sound, the aesthetics of words. That's a big part of it. Rune: Yeah. They feel good in your mouth. Rune: And I think it's interesting also being a, a non-native English speaking person, um, I'm very fond of saying, uh, the F word. Mm-hmm. Um, and I don't attach a great big deal to it. Kate: No. And that's the interesting thing because there have been many studies done on. Bilingual multilingual speakers. Um, and yes, certainly swear words in, let's say both languages. If we think of bilingual speakers, will, um, raise goose flesh if I put it loosely like that. So they will have a greater emotional reaction to, you know, the swear words in, in, um, in both languages. But, um, you know, in the first language, it's always much stronger in fact. Bilinguals often report that, you know, say the F word as you've just said, does nothing. It'll depend on, you know, when the second language was acquired. But it has to do with the very early experience. It has to, uh, swear words. I mean, kids learn the power of these words really very early on. Uh, you know, I've spoken to many traumatized Australians who have had their mouths washed out by soap. Usually older Australians now. Really? Yeah. Very traumatic experience for them. So. These, these, um, words will, will kind of enter the brain with a kind of linguistic health warning as, uh, the psycho linguist Timothy J put it, you know, these words come with with rewards. You know, kid drops one of these words and they get, you know, all the attention in the world. I. Uh, they also come with penalties, washing your mouth out with soap, uh, sent off to your room, whatever. Uh, so, and if you learn it later in life, you know, a swear word, then it's not going to have the same kind of cultural imprint of the forbidden. So it's, it's just not gonna have that sort of power. Rune: A lot of us had to adopt English as a second language. Um, there is this sort of. For lack of a better way of defining it, and maybe you can help me out here, but there's this sort of blue collar, larrikin Australian identity in terms of how we talk. Is that the case? Kate: Most certainly. And I think it goes back to the very early appearance of English in this country. And when you think of the, what went into that linguistic melting pot, it was, you know, the slang and cant of sailors and whalers and gold diggers and convicts of course. So a lot of underworld slang at that time, uh, there was a lot of early commentary around the fact that Australian English speakers swore a lot. Interestingly, and this goes to what you were saying, uh, a number of people commented that, you know, and nothing was meant much by this. So it's this idea of kind of solidarity. So yes, I think, uh, and that is a marked difference, I believe with Australian. English swearing and swearing elsewhere. You know, and Australians might be disappointed to know that. Uh, we're not the top when it comes to vulgarity. Uh, we are third in fact, behind the US and behind the uk. But the big difference is that we wear these swear words. Uh. Along with the kind of nicknames and the shortenings and the insults, a bit like emblems on a t-shirt. You know, they define us, they're important part of our Australian ness, the kind of mythic friendliness and you know, that's how we like to imagine ourselves anyway, the larrikin. Rune: And so, so from someone who's coming to Australia and also want to, to fit in, like how can I navigate, how can I navigate swearing to a degree where I fit in? Um, but I also don't offend. Kate: Hmm. 'cause 'cause these words still can offend. Of course they can. Yeah. Rune: And I, I know it's context based of course. Right. But yes. Is that the, is that the answer to it? I think the, the Kate: only thing to do is to watch and learn, which is obviously what you've been doing. Uh, there are always, um. Camouflage words, remodelings, linguistic fig leaves to use. Uh, you know, society recognizes that you might have the inner urge to swear, but it may not be appropriate. So you've got this out in the way of these kind of remodeled swear words. And Australian English is full of those two, like crikey and cripes and all those, you Butte Aussie lingo words from way back, uh, they still trotted out. Uh, so yeah, there's, there's a way, but it is a very hard part to learn. I mean, it's a bit like the, those what are sometimes called discourse markers, the little words that we pop in our conversations like the, your nose and the likes. And I mean, and I think, and yeah, no, and. Uh, they're hard, but they take a long time. But they are important part of full competence of a language like the swearing. I mean, there are some key expressions and bloody would be one of them. You know, the so-called great Australian adjective. I mean, it isn't an adjective, as I'm sure you probably aware, adjectives will describe nouns. You know, the, the bloody door would be a door that has blood smeared all over it, but, you know, shut the bloody door. That bloody there just smears the sentiment all over the entire sentence. Mm. Uh but it's, um, that's an important part of Australian English, you know? 'cause we just love the vernacular language. Uh, so little words like that are important probably. Yeah. Two years Rune: I think. So. I think, uh, it's a. Because you stand out when you use them incorrectly. Mm-hmm. Um, Kate: and they are complex. I mean, you know, depending on the li the, the situation, depending on the linguistic context, what's the bloody, you know, nestled up against a whole lot of different meanings. Rune: Could you help us define what makes a swear word? Kate: I suppose we still have the earlier understanding of swearing, you know, um, where you make a solemn oath, I swear by almighty God to tell the truth, et cetera. That's the sort of early understanding of swearing. So profane, swearing in that early period would've been irreligious language. So language that's not respectful of the deity. And then I. From there, it just broadened to encompass whatever was taboo at the time. So these days you could think of swearing as being the emotional use of. Of a taboo word? Well, for a number of purposes, it could be to let off steam. It could be to insult somebody. It could be to show surprise or excitement. It could be as a bit of verbal cuddling, you know, to show your good mates, uh, whole lot of different functions for swearing. And it's, I think, important to think of those different functions. Rune: And how is wearing then different than saying other taboo words? Uh, taboo phenomenons like a euphemism. Kate: Uh, so yes. So it won't learn. I mean, if I, if I can use a swear word, shit, for example. Uh, it's not gonna cut it. If you say excrement, if you use a, uh, a Latin based. Euphemistic term. Um, of course, you know, Latin and French have been deodorizing English for a long time and we have a vast array. And what you will find with taboo is that you'll typically get a incredible richness of vocabulary. As of course, euphemisms wear out and become themselves taboo or just simply disappear and then have to be replaced. So they just don't cut it. They don't, 'cause what gives you that emotional release is the breaking of the taboo. So. You might think, well, there have been studies done, for example, to show how swearing will alleviate pain. Famous experiment by Professor Stevens. In England and uh, participants were had to plunge their arm into ice cold water and they were given a swear word of their choice and then they had to do it again. I'm not sure how we got ethics approval for this. It's not very nice. Plunging your arm into ice cold water. But anyway, then they were, had to repeat the experiment with, uh, just an ordinary word, like table or whatever. And of course they could keep their. In the water longer, um, with a swear word. Kate: Um, than without. So, you know, there's pretty robust evidence. There are plenty of other experimental, um, or other experimental evidence to show that swearing can alleviate pain. It has that power to do that. Only, you know, plenty of studies coming out of maternity wards to, to see, you know, the air blue with language and it does help to, so, you know, it shares that with other, I suppose. Mostly involuntary. Um. Noises that we make, like laughter, like screaming, like, um, those sorts of crying, you know, that, that it will help you cope with a stressful, painful situation. It will help you to focus, uh, it'll make you feel better. There's always something good about bad language, whatever that bad language is. And of course, you know, there's a whole lot of things that people will brand with the label. Bad language, you know? Yeah. Whether we're talking about pronunciation features or lousy grammar or whatever Rune: we often call swearing. Bad language. Bad, bad thing to do, but yeah. And you kind of answered it now, but can swearing be good? Kate: Yes. Absolutely. I shouldn't use the word. Absolutely. I'm sure many people would brand that, that emphatic use of absolutely as a swear word, as probably more so than bugger or shit. But anyway, I'll stop using. Absolutely. Most certainly indeed. Uh, it, uh, it has, uh, a lot of therapeutic benefits. So alleviating pain, Stevens went on to do another. Well, a number of experiments. In fact, one, to show that, uh, people who sort of curse their way through a half a minute bike exercise on a, on an exercise bike could, I think it was, raise their power. I think something like 24 watts or something like that. Mm-hmm. Uh, a hand grip, uh, exercise and gripping this, I quite can't, there is a term for it. I can't think of it now. Um, their strength was increased by over two kilos if they were allowed to swear. There have been studies where people have been put in stressful situations and been told they can't swear. I mean, I think there is good evidence that swearers will lead less stressful, you know, lives. Kate: But I should add to this, and this will again, interest you because of the power of words. Uh, the effects in all areas as far as I know, will diminish if you're an habitual swearer. Kate: of these words will diminish with use. Rune: Okay. That's good advice then. Yes. Kate: So if, yeah, so don't overdo it Rune: Now. Choose your swear words Kate: carefully. Mm-hmm. Gordon Ramsey would be well advised to. Uh, in fact, I often think that there's a lot in common between language and food. You know, that, uh, as my cookbook, I've got one cookbook that says, you know, a flavor repeated too often, it becomes tiresome. And what is interesting too is that many studies, and these are studies going back to the 1930s, show that when things get really, really stressful, the swearing cuts out. There was a study done by the, um, Australian lexicographer. Partridge, Eric Partridge of swearing amongst World War I soldiers. And again, when things got really stressful, the swearing diminished. Uh, it was a study, one of the very famous early studies done in 1960. A woman looked at, um, swearing amongst zoologists in the Norwegian arctic periods of, you know, total darkness. And again, when things got very stressful, swearing diminished. Psychiatric Ward sa, same study. I've looked at black boxes from, you know, when aircraft crashes. Awful stuff, swearing while it's, you know, dreadful things are happening. But as soon as it's clear that the plane is gonna crash, then the swear words cut out. Kate: I'm not sure to be honest why, why that is, why that would be why. You know, when things get really, really ful, well, there's often just silence. I think people are literally lost for words. Rune: You're getting closer to a a almost, if you're in that belief system. Mm-hmm. If you believe of something like that, then you're getting close to it. Then it's really quite interesting. Mm-hmm. That if we, if we say that swearing in its initial form was. Uh, cussing off, you know, the deity. Rune: Then when we are now getting really close to it in a serious situation, we actually stopped doing it. There's something there that's giving me actual goosebumps. Interesting. Yes, yes, Rune: And I know this is just me speculating, right. But of course, if you've been in a really tragic situation, you also just know you're lost for words. Kate: Yes, exactly. It could be as simple as that. So you kind of wonder whether, uh, one of these remodeled swear words would have the same effect as. Sort of like fiddle fat or that's a cute one, but you know, there are sugar, shoot, shucks, all these, there, there are hundreds of these remodel swear words. Would they have the same effect? I suspect not because the effects comes from that, you know, violating a taboo that's gives you the emotional release. Rune: Could you, yeah. Could you expand on that for me? What it means to, to violate the taboo or to break the taboo? I. Kate: By actually saying the taboo word. Kate: So if you use one of these linguistic fig leaves, you're not actually saying the word. And yes, it will give you. The same release. You know, let's say you hit your thumb with a hammer, uh, you can say ow or you can say a whole lot of much stronger words. Mm. I don't know yet of a study that's done comparing those. I think that would be very, very interesting. Rune: Can you, in a short amount of time, take a word and then make it into a swear word even without it being a taboo? Kate: Now it has to arise out of those things that are difficult for society, you know? So ma, in an early times it was, you know, God and supernatural and. Body parts, particularly the body, body parts, the, sometimes it was dangerous animals, sometimes, you know, uh, bodily functions. And these days, you know what really packs a punch, of course, is what my colleague Keith Allen describes is Easter language. So racist, sexist, ageist, religionist. Language, you know, language that's deemed discriminatory in some way. Mm. They, so these have legal restraints now, whereas, you know, the, the legal restraints around other types of swearing have been lifted. And what is also interesting is that whenever there have been, you know, periods of censorship or oppression, it doesn't matter whether it's just social niceties or whether it's been in a full-blown laws. I mean, the first laws in English were in the Renaissance period. It was laws against, um, blasphemous language on the stage. Did people stop using that language? Well, no. They just got really inventive, and that's where you got some of these curious remodelings, like Zunes or Zs as sometimes pronounced God's wounds, swot. Every part of God's anatomy was sworn upon, but always in heavy disguise. Mm-hmm. You know, and again, when you come to the Vic. Victorian era. There was all this squeamishness about sex and body parts and bodily flu and bodily functions. And anyway, did they, you know, periods of great social nicety swearing didn't stop. Of course it didn't. And it was a Victorian era that gave us these great dictionaries of vulgar language. They, they came outta that time. Um, Rune: yeah, it's funny. It's almost like it's, it's, it's almost a futile exercise. Kate: It is a futile, so it's, you know, it's, it's not like trying to get people to stop biting their nails or stop smoking, you know, there's something, and it. Goes to this idea that there is always something good about bad language. Our brain swear for, for very, very good reasons. I always love that image of, um, Shakespeare's, you know, the worm in the bud. It's as if you've got this kind of offensive little worm feeding on the sort of bud, the rose bud of social nicety. Kate: It's, it just seems to, any sort of periods of, of repression seem to bring about even greater creativity of swearing. Kate: I've greater flourishing of it anyway, so I've probably gone off on tangents. I feed that you Rune: can kind of, I'm feeding you. Yeah, Kate: you are feeding me, uh, you are leading me down the garden pathway, right? Yeah, exactly. Rune: Yeah. Um, imagine me being a little, little thick worm. Is there a, this is quite linguistic question, but is there like a consistent linguistic formula that makes a word a taboo? Or is it purely the sort of the cultural context? Kate: Um, I love the description once of a, a mother of a child who had Tourette syndrome and she said, as she put it, society shapes the noise that is made. So she made the point that if I think if wish whistling the national anthem was the greatest obscenity, her daughter would be doing it there as a tick. Is how she put it. So, and, but I thought her description of society shaping the noise that is made is, is perfect because it is exactly that, you know, so you will find that taboo is dynamic. Uh, it will change over time. It will change from place to place. Uh, it will change, you know, even within the different English speaking communities. If I give an example, like, screw you or fuck you, or something like that. These are probably the only structures that my students of English grammar will remember, because we looked at the interesting grammar around these. So you look at screw you, you think, okay, what is that verb? You know who, who, what's the subject of that verb? It doesn't make sense. It's not a command. It's who's, who's the subject. Then when you look at earlier expressions like, damn you, or Bless you, if it could be something positive, of course there's God, God damn, you. Um, and God gets deleted because of euphemistic reasons. So it's just damn you. And then you just put it with the modern idiom. Mm-hmm. Um, screw you the more sexually, physically based verb. So it's a bit like, you know, new wine in old bottles. So you've got the linguistic bottle and you, you just put the modern idiom. Into that bottle. Rune: Wow. So, so, so the, so the sort of, the, the, the blasphemy energy is retained in that structure? Rune: But we, we just use new words. Rune: That's fascinating. Kate: And presumably that will change again, and you see it also the way that. Taboos will change. Is that in that curious expression? Pot calling Kettle black in English. So you know where you um, say someone is guilty of doing whatever they're accusing. Someone else of doing pot calling Kettle Black. You know that used to be pot calling Kettle black ass. In the Victorian era. So you've gotta think of kettles and pots on a fire and they're black and bottoms from the fire. And the kettle is saying to the pot, you've got a black ass just like I have. Mm. You know? And then of course the Victorians got a bit queasy about ass. So Ass was dropped. Pot calling Kettle Black. These days there's a lot of discussion on the internet about the racist nature of that word. So what happens now is that black gets dropped and so it's pot calling Kettle. It's all about pots and kettles. I've heard someone say so that that model, that that expression just kind of adapts as it Yeah. Moves through time. Rune: Okay. Interesting. Yeah. 'cause I. Uh, we don't have the same expression in, in Danish, but I've, uh, I heard it in English and understand it, but I always just like imagine, oh, I guess, I guess all puddles and ke kettles were black, but I never thought it was the actual burnt bottom. Kate: Burnt bottom. Mm-hmm. Yeah. Rune: Okay. Because I'm just like, oh, it's cast iron because, so knowing that swearing can be actually good sometimes, can swearing also connect people? Kate: That's the most usual function for swearing in. All the studies will show that, that it's the social. Social side of swearing, the, the use of swearing for friendly banter or to show mateship or solidarity or, you know, particularly when directed against outsiders, you know, it's kind of defines the gang. Kate: So that's where you might use a, a swear word, but not with any hostility. And then, you know, it might be thrown back at you. I could, I could call you a silly bugger and you. Hurler, you know, an insult back at me. But it's, it's all meant, you know, it's all signaling great friendship. Uh, and, and this has been the case for a long, long time. In fact, if you go back early enough in English, and you certainly get this in the Scandinavian languages, there's something called flighting, which is what, what was it defined as? The fine art of the savage insult. This is basically where the players, and we are looking at, you know, we're thinking of old Norse literature here. So it's embedded in exquisite literature of the time where the players will hurl abuse terms at each other. You know, really offensive terms, and it comes as quite a shock when you encounter these, um, examples. But it's, it's, um, it's not meant to be negative. It can turn nasty, but, and it, it's some, you know, that I suppose you get echoes of flighting as it's called in, um, in the kind of modern rap battles where you exchange these insults with rap. So, you know, it does have its modern appearances as well. Rune: Yeah, yeah. But it is Kate: something called flighting, Rune: and this is a really sensitive topic. Then when we are navigating all, a lot of people living together with different beliefs as well because it's like, how do you navigate this Kate: language? It's like anything in life, you know, you wouldn't use a knife to eat peas, um, because it's not the right tool and it's the same with language. Kate: There's a time and a place, you know. There's no point in washing kids' mouths out with soap. You're just giving those words extra power and fascination for kids. But it's good to have a good discussion with kids about these words. Rune: Yeah. It's quite interesting that action in itself is empowering the word. Kate: Mm. I mean, it's a, it's a striking, a literal, you know, that dirt metaphor? Uh, we talk about them as dirty words. I mean, they're poor little things. They're just words. Rune: Is there a common myth about swearing you would like to debunk? Kate: I suppose the idea that you can stamp it out well, that I would like to get that message across for all bad language, really, uh, that it's not intrinsically bad, uh, and there are positive aspects to it, and that indeed, as I've mentioned earlier. History shows that periods of censorship and repression just simply coincide with a, a greater flourishing of swear words. Mm. It just seems to provide more fertile soil for the swear words to thrive. Uh, so that was, you know, I, I think that's right. Rune: Okay. So last question. What does swearing say about how humans communicate? Kate: What's wearing says for me, and I suppose it's vernacular language generally, or what it drives home to me, is just this extraordinary creativity of ordinary language users. You know, the sorts of poetic language metaphors that. That come up in this sort of language are, are, are amazing. And you see it also in the remodelings, we talked about the remodel swear words. So you know everything from sort of holy moly to drought, to suffering, sache to yes, just having fun really. Stefan: So swearing feels good because it let us play around with taboos. Yeah. And like everything we're looking at, it's got all this sort of unexamined importance baked into it. Like Kate, I thought. I had a really great point about how you can use swearing to find the sore points in a culture like. It used to be blasphemy and now it's the stuff that people say that's really cooked is all about prejudice and inequality and those current preoccupations and you know, still sex stuff. Rune: Still sex stuff. So when we try to hold this down, right, like we try stopping people from swearing, it just gets stronger and it just builds and we can't really stop it. And I thought that was such an important point. Swearing still feels like blasphemy, but I thought it was so interesting that when we are truly looking at guard and we are meeting a daily and we're in a desperate situation, humans just stop swearing and it's just funny how that all binds us together. Yeah. Wow. Kate was really smart. Very smart. We should find a way of recognizing her. Could we make a new swear word in her honor? Yeah. Like what? So what's the recipe then for creating a good swear word Kate: sound? I. Mm. And shortness if it's gonna be a good expletive. I think so. Thinking of the, oh, no second, where you, you know, where you think of pressing that key and dispatching the email to your work, the entire workplace instead of your mate, what word bubbles up then? It's usually a short, sharp, for English anyway. Word. And Rune: I guess that depends then on the phonetics of a particular link, which, what's Kate: yes. Yes. I think in the case of swear words, you've got, um, in English anyway, the sort of recipe would be single syllable, low vowel and stopped consonants. So like, shit, you know, ends in a, a strong stopped consonant. Fuck. Interestingly, they're the same characteristics of the quintessential male name in, in English like Jack, you know? Kate: But I mean, it doesn't go across the board, and that's always the way with sound symbolism. So my own name, Kate, ought to be a very good swear word, but Rune: maybe that will be the new swear word. Kate: that's right. That's Rune: right. Thank you very much, Kate. I really appreciate it. That's my pleasure. Rune: you. Ah, okay, so that's the recipe for, for a good swear word. What do we, what do, what should we do? I. I Stefan: dunno, what should we do? You're sick, Kate. Rune: How Humans Talk is produced and written by Stefan Delatovic and by me Rune Pedersen from Onomato People. Post-production and sound design for the series was done by Dom Evans and James Coster at EARSAY. The SBS team is Joel Supple and Max Gosford, and our artwork is by Wendy Tang. Rune: And just to be clear, any swearing in this episode was done with a lot of love. But if we raised your goose flesh, tell us off wherever you found this podcast.
The Guardian
23-05-2025
- General
- The Guardian
Americans and Britons swear more online than Australians, research finds. WTF?
Australians' proud reputation as a pack of cunning linguists has taken a hit from a study finding they come only third in the swearing stakes online. The research found Australians were more restrained – online, at least – than potty-mouthed Poms and vulgar Americans. 'What the feck?' as the Irish would say – 'feck' being their preferred profanity relative to other countries' use of the word, according to the research. For the British it's 'cunt', and for the US it's 'asshole'. For Australians, disappointingly, it's 'crap'. 'We were super surprised by that,' says Dr Martin Schweinberger, from the University of Queensland's school of languages and cultures. 'We expected it to be 'fuck' or something.' Schweinberger and his colleague, Monash University's Prof Kate Burridge, analysed more than 1.7bn words from 20 English-speaking countries to find the frequency of almost 600 vulgar words (and their spelling variations, such as 'fuuuuuck', 'feck' or 'focking'). The results have been published in the journal Lingua, and Schweinberger said it was the first large-scale analysis that combined traditional linguistics with computational methods. To pick the words, the researchers used 'the middle-class politeness criterion' and other measures. 'Vulgar language generally refers to words or expressions that are considered rude, offensive, or inappropriate in certain social contexts at a given time,' the researchers wrote. 'The usual suspects that challenge social norms in this way include overlapping categories such as blasphemy, curses, ethnic-racial slurs, insults, name-calling, obscenity, profanity, scatology, slang, swearing, tabooed words, offence, impoliteness, verbal aggression, and more – essentially, any form of speech capable of violating conventional standards of politeness.' They acknowledge that the real world is more complex, with culturally specific norms. One example cited in the article is the cheeky 2006 'Where the bloody hell are you?' Tourism Australia advertisement. That ad – created while the former prime minister Scott Morrison was managing director – resulted in a string of complaints to the UK advertising regulator. Another example of culturally specific differences is 'cunt', which is highly offensive in many settings. But the authors say it is now viewed by younger Australians as a 'significant part of Australian culture and identity'. High school students see it as normal, and typically Australian, and think that criticising it is basically un-Australian. The researchers say vulgar language is a 'natural playground' for unleashing 'linguistic creativity'. It taps into taboos and societal fears, to make an impact through 'shock value, the emotional charge and the social fallout when boundaries are breached'. They found swear words made up 0.022% of Australian general online content, which is the average across all the nations. Britain's content was 0.025% sweary and the US came in at 0.036%. But there is a heartening twist to the tale that shows Australians are not here to fuck spiders. One is that the Global Web-Based English Corpus (GloWbE) dataset the researchers used did not include blogs for Australia – and blogs are typically more sweary than general online content. But it did include them for other countries. 'If we had blog data for Australia it might have pushed us to second place,' Schweinberger says. He says it could be that in the US, which is 'often associated with Protestant puritanism, Christian fervour, and prudishness', people are less likely to swear in public. That, Schweinberger says, might mean they are more likely to let it all out online. Australians are likely to swear more face to face, he says, and they also do better on another measure – creativity. 'What we see with Americans is that they really stick to 'fuck' … they really like that word,' Schweinberger says. 'But when we look at low-frequency words which typically are more creative – like 'cockknuckle' – Australians are actually in second place.'
Free Malaysia Today
19-05-2025
- Automotive
- Free Malaysia Today
FIA cuts controversial F1 driver swearing fines
The FIA reduced the controversial penalties dished out to drivers for swearing from €10,000 to €5,000 after a backlash from the grid. (AP pic) LONDON : Formula One's governing body on Wednesday reduced the controversial penalties dished out to drivers for swearing after a backlash from the grid. Ahead of this weekend's Emilia Romagna Grand Prix, the FIA has removed the risk of a race ban and cut the 'base maximum penalty from €10,000 (US$11,180) to €5,000'. Importantly the new guidelines given to race stewards now differentiates between swearing in 'controlled' or 'uncontrolled' circumstances. This will give drivers more latitude for turning the air blue in the heat of the moment, for example on the team radio during races. 'Controlled environments include settings such as press conferences, while uncontrolled environments refer to spontaneous comments made by drivers or teams when on track or during a rally stage,' a statement from the FIA explained. It went on to describe the development as 'major improvements' to appendix B of the sporting code. The previous policy had come in for intense criticism from the likes of four-time world champion Max Verstappen, who was sanctioned for swearing at a press conference in Singapore. The drivers will have a chance to give their reaction to the toned-down swearing policy at Imola on Thursday at the traditional pre-race round of press conferences. The relaxation in the rules came after an open letter to FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem, up for re-election later this year, from the drivers who asked the FIA to treat them 'like adults'. In February, Williams driver Carlos Sainz questioned the FIA's hardline approach to the subject. Sainz said while it was reasonable to expect drivers to avoid swearing while speaking in a public setting such as a news conference, it was a different matter while they were on the track. 'What we say on the (car) radio, I don't agree with what is happening,' said the Spaniard. 'I think you can not be too tough on these kinds of things because you cannot understand the pressure and adrenaline and the way we feel in the car when we open the radio. 'And I feel for F1 it is good to have those moments because you see the real driver.' Witness football history in Malaysia as Manchester United take on the Asean All-Stars – it's the clash you can't afford to miss. Book your seat now at before they're gone!
CNA
16-05-2025
- Automotive
- CNA
Russell sees no reason to thank FIA for swearing backtrack
IMOLA, Italy :George Russell saw no reason to thank Formula One's governing body after it halved the maximum penalties drivers face for swearing. The Mercedes driver, a director of the Grand Prix Drivers' Association (GPDA), said the high fines were "a little bit ludicrous in the first place. "Of course we're happy to see (the changes), but it (the fines) should never have been there," the Briton told reporters ahead of the Emilia-Romagna Grand Prix at Italy's Imola circuit. "So it feels a bit wrong to be thanking (the FIA) for the changes when we shouldn't have been in that place to begin with." The governing FIA announced on Wednesday that it was reducing the maximum penalties for drivers swearing by 50 per cent and giving stewards more discretion on deciding penalties. Competitors in Formula One and rallying have been at loggerheads with FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem over a crackdown on bad language during events. The FIA amended the sporting code in January to set out stiff sanctions for drivers who break the rules concerning conduct. A first offence triggered a 40,000 euros ($44,764) fine for F1 drivers, rising to 80,000 for the second and 120,000 with a one-month suspension and deduction of championship points for a third breach. Those fines are now halved. Abuse of officials will now result in sporting penalties rather than fines. McLaren's Oscar Piastri, the Formula One championship leader, said that was a positive step. "The stewards have a lot more control now, which I think is a good thing because the circumstances definitely need to be taken into account," said the Australian. "I think one of the big things for the FIA was putting something in for abusing officials, which I think is very fair and reasonable. I think maybe some of the other areas got a bit caught up in that sentiment and felt a bit harsh. "But I think there are some genuine reasons behind what they're doing. I think they've listened to some of our feedback and the changes are in the right direction."
Reuters
16-05-2025
- Automotive
- Reuters
Russell sees no reason to thank FIA for swearing backtrack
IMOLA, Italy, May 16 (Reuters) - George Russell saw no reason to thank Formula One's governing body after it halved the maximum penalties drivers face for swearing. The Mercedes driver, a director of the Grand Prix Drivers' Association (GPDA), said the high fines were "a little bit ludicrous in the first place. "Of course we're happy to see (the changes), but it (the fines) should never have been there," the Briton told reporters ahead of the Emilia-Romagna Grand Prix at Italy's Imola circuit. "So it feels a bit wrong to be thanking (the FIA) for the changes when we shouldn't have been in that place to begin with." The governing FIA announced on Wednesday that it was reducing the maximum penalties for drivers swearing by 50% and giving stewards more discretion on deciding penalties. Competitors in Formula One and rallying have been at loggerheads with FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem over a crackdown on bad language during events. The FIA amended the sporting code in January to set out stiff sanctions for drivers who break the rules concerning conduct. A first offence triggered a 40,000 euros ($44,764) fine for F1 drivers, rising to 80,000 for the second and 120,000 with a one-month suspension and deduction of championship points for a third breach. Those fines are now halved. Abuse of officials will now result in sporting penalties rather than fines. McLaren's Oscar Piastri, the Formula One championship leader, said that was a positive step. "The stewards have a lot more control now, which I think is a good thing because the circumstances definitely need to be taken into account," said the Australian. "I think one of the big things for the FIA was putting something in for abusing officials, which I think is very fair and reasonable. I think maybe some of the other areas got a bit caught up in that sentiment and felt a bit harsh. "But I think there are some genuine reasons behind what they're doing. I think they've listened to some of our feedback and the changes are in the right direction." ($1 = 0.8936 euros)
