Introduction
Swearing is a phenomenon strongly connected to social interaction, to which its linguistic features have often been linked (cf. Montagu 1973; Averna 1977; K. J. K. 1978; Averna and Salemi 1982; Allan and Burridge 1991, 2006; Zwicky et al. 1992 [1971]; Culpeper 1996; Hughes 1998; McEnery 2006; Spencer-Oatey 2005; Hughes 2006; Bousfield and Locher 2008; Jay and Janschewitz 2008; Jay 2009; Culpeper 2011). Yet despite the growing interest in the study of swearing among linguists, only a minority of studies have focussed on the grammatical features of swearing (e.
The notions of chunking and collocational networks are central to linguistics (e.g. Bybee 2010; McEnery 2006, 2012); chunking has been described as follows: “When two or more words are often used together, they […] develop a sequential relation, [… known] as ‘chunking’ […]. The strength of the sequential relations is determined by the frequency with which the two words appear together. […] The frequency with which sequences of units are used has an impact on their phonetic, morphosyntactic and semantic properties.
This paper focuses upon research aimed at providing a more detailed definition of dysphemisms and euphemisms in the context of a constructional approach to language (e.g. Goldberg 2006). In the last decades increasing attention has been devoted to taboo language, swearing and impoliteness, with a focus on so-called swearwords (also dysphemisms) and euphemisms - (e.g. Allan and Burridge 2006; McEnery 2006). To provide an understanding of how taboo language works, I propose a constructional approach centred on dysphemisms and euphemisms.
This paper focuses upon research aimed at providing a more detailed definition of dysphemisms and euphemisms in the context of a constructional approach to language (e.g. Goldberg 2006). In the last decades increasing attention has been devoted to taboo language, swearing and impoliteness, with a focus on so-called swearwords (also dysphemisms) and euphemisms - (e.g. Allan and Burridge 2006; McEnery 2006). To provide an understanding of how taboo language works, I propose a constructional approach centred on dysphemisms and euphemisms.
This paper focuses upon research aimed at providing a more detailed definition of dysphemisms and euphemisms in the context of a constructional approach to language (e.g. Goldberg 2006). In the last decades increasing attention has been devoted to taboo language, swearing and impoliteness, with a focus on so-called swearwords (also dysphemisms) and euphemisms - (e.g. Allan and Burridge 2006; McEnery 2006). To provide an understanding of how taboo language works, I propose a constructional approach centred on dysphemisms and euphemisms.