e and oe two aussie blokes calling each other bastard and poofter over their next tinny of castlemaine
-- srs (blackberry) -----Original Message----- From: Srini RamaKrishnan <[email protected]> Sender: [email protected] Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 15:19:25 To: <[email protected]> Reply-To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [silk] Sociolinguistic query On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <[email protected]> wrote: > Well well .. I sort of suspected someone would have written a paper on this. > > http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/rev/8/2/113/ > > Citation > Database: PsycARTICLES > [ Journal Article ] > The psychology of profanity. Profanity when it is not cathartic is a weapon isn't it? The idea is to shock and wound the opponent. The subject of the profanity therefore is anything that the opponent values which can be degraded. What profanity gets used though depends on context, even if the aggravation levels are the same across contexts. When it is two soldiers exchanging abuses across trenches, it is usually about nationality. When it is neighbors cursing each other, kids, spouses and pets seem to be invoked. Kids in a playground prefer unflattering comparisons to body parts, mothers and scatology. In each context the perceived identities of the parties is different, and this chooses the language. Now, men historically seem to have fought more often than women, so the body of non-physical violence is mostly equipped with curses that are effective against men. The profusion of unflattering references to women in curses is a natural outcome of this. Most men after all place their identity in their women, and it's an excellent object of attack. Cheeni
