X-phemisms, or On the difficulty in distinguishing between euphemisms and dysphemisms

Abstract

The present paper attempts to examine the existing approaches to the study on euphemisms and dysphemisms. The paper finds that the study on euphemisms and dysphemisms should be based on the holistic approach that entails combining particular aspects of diverse fields and provides a comprehensive understanding of language as a cognitive-communicative, sociocultural and biopsychological phenomenon. Applying both functional-pragmatic and diachronic approaches proves to be effective in identifying euphemisms and dysphemisms and distin- guishing between them. The results of the study indicate that not all low colloquialisms may be considered dysphemisms, although in some cases pejorative words, taboos and vulgarisms may serve as a conceptual source of dysphemisms. The study reveals that there can be no such notion as universal euphemism or universal dysphemism as the status of a word is determined by a set of social attitudes that may vary between dialect groups and even between individual members of the same community. Thus, when distinguishing between euphemisms and dysphemisms one should take into consideration diachronic meaning change, the current context, the previous context, subject-object relationship. The research data is taken from English socio-political discourse, media discourse, English monolingual and etymology dictionaries. The choice of the research data stems from the fact that media discourse and socio-political discourse reflect public ideologies and values, which allows to monitor diachronic meaning change conditioned by social factors. In addition to it, the dynamic nature of x-phemisms becomes observable in socio-political and media experiential contexts.

Keywords:

euphemisms, dysphemisms, orthophemisms, diachronic semantics, context