My neighbour is of some sort of eastern European descent…
and instead of using common subconscious time/gap fillers such as ‘umm’ or
‘like’, he uses the work fuckin’….and I
reckon that each sentence that is used there is at least 2 or 3 fuckin’s. One
time I tried to count the amount of times he used the word and lost count (I am
pretty bad at counting generally…but he did use it a lot).
With this in mind it is interesting what fits within a
particular code may be completely unacceptable within the realms of another
code. Profanity, it seems, is one of those particulars that can differ in terms
of what is acceptable depending on context. But it would seem that the way in
which one uses profanity is highly pertinent to how that profanity is heard or
interpreted. And this is part of what Daly et al (2004) are getting at. I think
this is also part of what Garfinkle (1971, pg 77) sort of gets at when he says “to
recognise what is said means to recognise how a person is speaking”.
I don’t think that my eastern European friend is getting
angry at me each time he swears, quite the opposite, I think that with his
searing communicates warmth and acceptance. Some food for thought I guess…
Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. 301.2/23
Daly, N, Holmes, J, Newton, J & Stubbe, M 2004, ‘ Expletetives as solidarity signals in FTAs on the factory floor’, Journal of Pragmatics, vol.36, no.5, pp945-964.
No comments:
Post a Comment