Taboo language usage and emotional impact among bilingual Québécois

Department of French
THE USAGE AND EMOTIONAL IMPACT
OF ENGLISH & FRENCH TABOO LANGUAGE
AMONGST QUÉBÉCOIS BILINGUALS
Author: Fiona Dunkin
Supervisor: Dr. Rachel Hoare
Trinity College Dublin
Date: 5 – 03 - 12

2

Acknowledgements
I wish to firstly thank Dr.Rachel Hoare for her invaluable assistance and patience over the
course of the preparation and writing of this dissertation. A sincere thanks is also owed to my
family and friends.

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction 7
II. Literature Review 9
II.i Definition of swearwords/jurons
II.ii Definition of a bilingual
II.iii Does a bilingual have more than one identity?
II.iv How do bilinguals process two languages?
II.v Sociobiographical factors
II.v.i Gender
II.v.ii Context of acquisition of languages
II.v.iii Age of acquisition vs proficiency
II.v.iv L1 vs dominant language
II.v.v Biculturalism/Language Preference
II.vi Translation problems
II.vii Elements of emotional impact of language
II.vii.i Measuring emotional impact of language
II.vii.ii Semantics
II.viii The language situation in Quebec today
II.ix Purpose of the present study

4

III. Methodology 28
III.i Procedure
III.ii Sampling method
III.iii Distribution of the survey
III.iv The Questionnaire
III.iv.i Quantitative vs qualitative
III.iv.ii Language of the questionnaire
III.iv.iii Language profiling
III.iv.iv Likert Scale
III.iv.v Questions
III.v Participants
III.vi Analysis
III.vi.i Analysing two language versions of the survey
III.vii Hypotheses
IV. Results & Discussion 37
IV.i Initial discussion
IV.i.i Overall Dominance
IV.i.ii Overall First Language
IV.i.iii Overall Context of Acquisition
IV.i.iv Overall Language Preference
IV.i.v Overall Language Proficiency
IV.i.vi Overall Age of Acquisition

5

IV.i.vii Overall Impact of taboo language
IV.i.viii Overall Comprehension of taboo language
IV.ii Main discussion
IV.ii.i Dominance
IV.ii.ii L1 vs. L2
IV.ii.iii Dominance vs First language
IV.ii.iv Context of acquisition - Naturalistic
IV.ii.v Context of acquisition - Mixed
IV.ii.vi Language preference
IV.ii.vii Language proficiency
IV.ii.viii Age of acquisition
IV.ii.ix Language Proficiency vs age of acquisition
V. Conclusion 70
V.i Contribution to knowledge
V.ii Limitations/Bias
V.iii Recommendations for further research
VI. Appendices 76
Bibliography 139

6

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the use and emotional impact of English and French
taboo language amongst Québécois English - French bilingual speakers, both in a general sense,
and in relation to variables such as language dominance, language preference etc. An overall
tendency towards use of French taboo language emerged, yet some variables (language
preference, the first language of the speaker, context of acquisition, age of acquisition) were
found also to correlate somewhat to use of such language. Minimal links, however, between
variables and the emotional impact of taboo language manifested themselves, perhaps owing
somewhat to the format of tools of analysis. Some suggestions of a process of categorisation of
taboo words by type or intensity, and not by language were also presented.

7

I: INTRODUCTION
‘You have to be mad in the language you're mad in.’
Chris Crutcher, Angry Management (2009)
Swear words. Curse words. Profanity. Bad words. Dirty words. A plethora of denotations exist for this
prominent element of language. It is, at its very core, universal. Ignorant of age, gender, race, and
social class, it is found in many guises, under varying categories and languages. Its reason for being,
however, is undeviating. This being said, unlike many other classes of words, its usage, impact and
even semantic base are prone to wide-ranging mutability. It is a habit rooted in the subconscious,
subject to our emotions, our personalities, and our environment. Overarchingly a mere remnant of
times in which the main categories of words we find today were, in fact, worthy of reverence and
aversion, taboo language, remains a still useful and widely used tool. ‘Political correctness’, of course
polices its unmitigated practice, but in turn highlights its inextricable humanness and indeed its
astonishing potency. Humans are instinctual beings, and instinct lies at the very essence of taboo
language.

8

Instinct, as we have noted, usually manifests itself linguistically through a sub-conscious utterance of
a speaker, its intentions either cathartic, or indeed, injurious. For the monolingual speaker, this is quite
a clean-cut issue. Emotion-speech-effect. However, can such a statement just as readily be applied to
the bilingual or multi-lingual? What other chains are added to the process? How does the perception
of the swear word by the bilingual/multilingual alter according to the language used? What
determines the language the bilingual/multilingual chooses to swear in? Is the operation still even a
sub-conscious one? Indeed, the subject here becomes rather more complex and multi-faceted.
In order to shed light on these pertinent questions of the linguistics field, a number of studies have
been executed. While offering an insightful and probing examination of the matter, very little
investigation has provided a perspective of taboo language within the predominantly bilingual
community; i.e. an area, region or country in which the majority of its inhabitants speak two or more
languages fluently. Studies of bilinguals are, in most cases, carried out whilst the bilingual is
immersed in an environment in which just one of their languages prevails. With this in mind, a study
on the usage and emotional impact of taboo language amongst Québécois English/French bilinguals
in Canada was undertaken by this author. Whilst Québec’s only official language in French, in 2006,
some 40.6% of Québécois claimed to be bilingual, with this figure rising to 60% in the city of
Montréal. The number of bilinguals residing in Québec is the largest in Canada. Québec indeed
constitutes an exciting hub of linguistic activity which should be intensely explored.
Whilst owing to a lack of resources the parameters of research were limited, it is hoped that these
small steps may pave the way for a more comprehensive study and further research in the area.

9

II: LITERATURE REVIEW
In order to gain a full and rounded understanding of the question of taboo language in the bilingual
context, and to render this study conclusive and tenable, it is vital to examine knowledge already
garnered in areas directly related to the issue and also those peripheral to it. A number of lingustic
studies have already shed light on the area of emotions and bilinguals, relationships to their respective
languages and also the methods by which this information should be gathered and analysed. Relavant
points of note will critically examined, with possible conclusions or suggestions bolstering the present
study.
II.i Definition of swearwords/jurons
Firstly, and perhaps most fundamentally, it is necessary to ascertain a generally accepted definition of
taboo language. Taboo is a derivative of the Tongan word tabu signifying ‘to forbid’, ‘forbidden’, and
can be applied to ‘any sort of prohibition’. It is ‘a rule of etiquette, an order issued by a chief, an
injunction to children not to meddle with the possessions of their elders’, (Radcliffe-Brown) cited in
(Allan.,Burridge., 2006). The word initially came into English, (and indeed French) usage after
Captain James Cook’s voyage to Tahiti in 1977 during which he describes tabu as a ‘word of very
comprehensive meaning’ generally signifying ‘forbidden’. Cook’s observations of certain rules
regarding areas such community rituals and meals resulted in this understanding of the word.
(K.Allan, K. Burridge, 2006). Taboo language, in its modern incarnation, is interchangeable with a
number of other words, including obscenity, swearwords, cursewords, and in French jurons, les gros
mots, imprécation. Pierre Guiraud in ‘Les Gros Mots’ (1991) notes a disparity however between
vulgar or base language and obscenity or swearwords. The two notions, according to Guiraud, ‘ne se

10

confondent pas’. ‘Bassesse’, has a greater socially determined correlation with ‘une bassesse morale,
intellectuelle, spirituelle, et esthétique’, whilst les mots grossiers are defined by their contenu.
Guiraud notes that obscène is in one dictionary defined as ‘ce qui révolte, offense ouvertement la
pudeur’, and is synonymous with an array of words such as ‘indécent, immoral, pornographique,
degoutant, ordurier, sale, grossier’. Taboo language is, thus that which offends by its very essence; the
significance of the means or vehicle of transmission being minimal. What purpose then does the use
of taboo language serve? Guiraud highlights ‘cacophemie’ as one of the main triggers ; a desire to
engender the ‘dévalorisation des choses dont on parle…’, as well as an ‘expressive’ function; in other
words to express anger or any strong and usually spontaneous emotional reaction, including ‘notre
frustration’ or ‘notre dépit’. Its function has also been noted as an intention to ‘to invoke harm on
another person through the use of certain words or phrases’, (Jay,1996) . However, what renders a
taboo or swearword offensive? What makes it taboo? The acquisition by a word of taboo status
appears to vary from culture to culture, and thus, from language to language. English taboo words can
usually be classed into a rather small range of categories; including ‘cursing’, ‘profanity’,
‘blasphemy’, ‘obscenity’, ‘sexual harassment’, ‘vulgar language’, and ‘insults, name calling and
ethnic slurs’ (Jay, 1996). Some categories carry, unsurprisingly, a greater weight of taboo than others,
in relation to cultural relevance. The import of taboo words within these categories cannot, therefore,
be declared as directly applicable to every language. This is certainly true of much of the taboo
language used in the region of Quebec. The vast majority of language considered as taboo among
French speakers in Quebec is expressly related to religion and the church, words such as calisse
(chalice) and tabernacle deemed offensive by many Québécois speakers. (Dawaele, 2004a). Indeed,
Catholicism has historically dominated Quebec society for hundreds of years;
since the English conquest, the Quebec Roman Catholic Church has been the most important
single agency for the defense and perpetuation of the Frenc-Canadian heritage in North
America (Barnes, 1961).

11

Although the power and influence of the Catholic church on Quebec today remains to be thoroughly
investigated, linguistic researchers have noted that, ‘we can only desecrate what we venerate’ (Bauer,
2011). The cultural congruence of taboo language would seem then to be irrefutable. Likewise and
consequently, the impact of culture on emotion and use of language would also seem undeniable. The
effect and purpose of taboo language can therefore be similarly defined across languages, but the
semantic origins of its weapons of choice entirely variable.
II.ii Definition of a bilingual
Before attempting any study of emotion and language in relation to the bilingual, it is vital to
determine what, in fact, a bilingual is. By its most primitive definition, a bilingual is a person who
‘knows’ two languages, (Valdez & Figueora) cited in Grosjean, (1994). This basic representation of a
bilingual does not however clearly portray the existence of a language ‘continuum’, based on
numerous factors such as proficiency, preference, context of acquisition, age of acquisition, reason for
acquisition etc. Valdez and Figueora have emphasised the need for linguists to ‘consider varying
degrees of bilingualism.’. Bilinguals are ‘rarely equally fluent’ in each of their languages. (Grosjean,
1994). Noteworthy as well is the fact that the L1 (the language first acquired by the bilingual) may not
always be the most dominant or stronger language. Indeed, largely disputed in discussions of the issue
is the common misconception of the bilingual as ultimately a speaker who adopts a monolingual
identity according to the language in use ;
‘Si l’on devait considérer comme bilingues uniquement les personnes qui passent pour etre
monolingues dans chacune de leurs langues, nous ne pourrions classer un grand nombre d’individus
qui utilisent régulièrement deux ou plusieurs langues dans leur vie quotidienne sans toutefois posséder
parfaitement l’ensemble des competences linguistique dans chacune de celle-ci’.
(Gorouben, Virole., 2003)

12

A perfect control of two languages is described here as a ‘phénomène assez rare’.
Also worth considering are the various categories or contexts of bilingualism; i.e. writing, reading,
speaking, listening. A strong proficiency in at least one of these tasks has been proposed as a
definition of bilingual.
The path to bilingualism itself can also vary according to the individual. Two kinds of
processes or types of bilinguals have been defined ; The Sequential Bilingual and The Simultaneous
Bilingual. Acquisition of a second language by the sequential bilingual generally commences after an
established acquisition of the first language (generally over the age of three). In contrast, the
simultaneous bilingual, as its title would suggest, learns two languages simultaneously. Furthermore,
the simultaneous bilingual may belong to one of the following categories; a majority ethno linguistic
community, or a minority ethno linguistic community. In the former, the L2 of the bilingual may not
be officially recognised, but its acquisition by citizens ‘supported and valued’, e.g. English in Quebec.
The latter comprises a community in which the L2 of the bilingual speaker is ‘not reflected in the
community at large’, and is generally not supported or valued; e.g. any other language than English in
the U.S.A. The process of acquisition of the L2 by the participants of the present study may largely
differ, but those characterised as a simultaneous bilingual shall most likely constitute part of the
majority ethno linguistic community. (Libardo Alvarez, 2006)
Indeed, a comprehensive definition of a bilingual is perhaps non-existent, (or at the very least opaque)
and the process by which bilingualism can be determined widely debated and extremely difficult to
devise. Perhaps the best and most straightforward solution lies in a exhaustive pursuit of a definition
of bilingualism by those who would consider themselves to be bilingual.

13

II.iii Does a bilingual have more than one identity?
The question of the identity of the bilingual is key to a thorough examination of the emotional impact
and usage of their two languages. As already mentioned, the bilingual, according to many linguists,
should not be seen as a leopard who changes their spots; as merely possessing the ability to adopt the
guise of a monolingual according to their surroundings. The bilingual is often viewed as possessing
two different identities or personalities, as encountering problems of ‘two incompatible identities’
(Pavlenko, 2006). Some have even gone as far as to suggest that bilingualism may be conducive to
‘split personality and, at worst, to schizophrenia’, (Adler,1977). This is without doubt a highly
questionable statement, but it is generally accepted that in the field of psychoanalysis that
bilingualism may possess a link with ‘problems brought on by culture shock, cognitive, linguistic and
cultural dissonance and different social roles’. (Pavlenko, 2006). Many bilinguals themselves would
attest to feeling they possess two identities or personalities and may even ‘derive enjoyment from
hybridism and relativity of their existence’, whilst ‘others may feel that they inhabit distinct and at
times incommensurable life worlds and experience pain and anguish over this condition’. (Pavlenko,
2006) Nonetheless, even this much broader view of the question of identity for bilinguals is a source
of contention for some. The opposing argument is based on the opinion that the perceived shift in
personality owes more to the role of the interlocutor than any duplication of identity, that behaviour
does indeed alter according to whether the bilingual is speaking, ‘ à ses parents, à ses amis, à des
supérieurs hiérarchiques…’ In relation to theories of a difference in cerebral pathways of the mind of
the bilingual, it is argued that recent studies have shown that monolinguals and bilinguals in fact share
the same cerebral organisation. (Gorouben, Virole., 2003). Much like the issue of bilingualism, the
issue of identity of the bilingual is not easily or succinctly defineable, and is also perhaps something
which, far from being universally applicable, is individual to the bilingual himself/herself.

14

II.iv How do bilinguals process two languages?
The method of processing of two languages is of interest to the present study - perhaps offering an
insight into conclusions to be garnered from results of the fieldwork undertaken. With regard to
engagement with others, it has been observed that bilinguals often encounter three different
communication possibilities on a regular basis, where;
1. ‘both codes are used by both speaker
2. ‘each one uses a difference code but the two understand both sides’
3. ‘only one of the two speakers uses and understands both codes whereas the other speaker is
monolingual in one of the codes’
(Grosjean, 2008)
The element of spontaneity has been noted to suffer from contact with a monolingual, when the
bilingual may not ‘feel the same liberty when talking with monolinguals’, and will often try to
‘maximise alignment’ with the norms of monolinguals. Thus, it would be wise to take into account
here that the authenticity of emotional reactions may be negatively affected under such circumstances.
The existence of a language mode continuum for bilinguals has also been noted, literally referring to
the ‘state of activation of the bilingual’s languages and language processing mechanism at a given
point in time.’ In other words, one language may be activated by the speaker more intensely than

15

another. The concept of bilingual language mode and a monolingual language mode at either end of
this scale or continuum is proposed here. However, it is stressed that some are rarely to be found at
the ‘bilingual end’, whilst some indeed rarely stray from this end. The suggestion that perhaps the
position of the bilingual on the continuum alters regularly, that they ‘navigate along the language
mode continuum at different moments in their everyday life’ is also proffered in this study.
Factors influencing language mode include;
language proficiency, language mixing, habits and attitudes, usual mode of interaction.
Situational factors, (i.e.) physical location, presence of monolinguals, formality.
Language act, (i.e.) to communicate information, to create a social distance etc
(Grosjean, 2008)
This information is vital to a study of the emotional impact of language and the usage of language by
bilinguals. The purpose of the language appears fundamental to the choice and processing of
languages, which could suggest that perhaps that one particular language be specific to the use of
taboo language among bilinguals. It also suggests the potential for individual differences among
bilinguals in relation to the effect and use of langage according to a stable or indeed more fluid
position on the language mode continuum.

16

II.v Sociobiographical factors
The careful study of sociobiographical factors is also essential to a study of the emotional import of
language, and indeed the language preferred by the bilingual according to the situation, speaker etc.
Pertinent factors include;
Gender,
Age,
Education level,
Dominant languages,
Frequency of use,
Proficiency,
Typical interlocutors,
Age of acquisition of first language,
Age of acquisition of second language,
Context of acquisition.
(Dawaele, 2004)
The significance of each factor varies greatly, and so it is essential to examine those most important to
this study in order to gather conclusions from the sociobiographical details of the participants of the
fieldwork.

17

II.v.i Gender
The impact of gender upon the use of taboo language in the first language (L1) has been widely
documented. It does appear that their use is ‘often linked to gender…of the speaker’ (Dawaele,
2004a). In terms of frequency, it would seem that male speakers tend to use taboo language more
often. (Rayson et al., 1997). Self-reported use and comprehension of taboo language was also found to
be higher among men in Janschewitz’s study of emotional word norms. (2008) However, this
disparity was seen to disappear in another study amongst teenagers. (Stenstrom,1995). The kind of
taboo language, nonetheless appears to vary according to gender, with men reported as using ‘stronger
ones’
Nonetheless, the perception that women do not use swear words is without a doubt outdated and
easily refutable, a perception evident in this statement;
‘women don’t use off-colour or indelicate expressions; women are the experts at euphemism’
(Lakoff, 1975)
Overall, however, it would appear that gender continues to have quite a role to play in relation to use
of taboo words in the L1.
In relation to the L2, a correlation with gender and use of emotional words would seem to exist, with
females tending to use them more often. (Dawaele, Pavlenko., 2002). With regard to taboo words
themselves however, this gender difference seems to lessen. Dawaele’s study of the effect of gender
on the ‘perceived emotional force of swearwords in five languages’ found the difference in gender to
be only ‘marginally significant’ in the L2, with the emotional impact of swear words slightly higher
for the female participants.
Some researchers have noted links between gender and self-reported use and comprehension of taboo
language of the L2, (Register,2006), when participants were presented with audiotapes of 20
monologues. Nonetheless, Dawaele’s study of the language used for swearing by multi-linguals by

18

way of a web questionnaire of T-Tests and two-way ANOVAS (Analysis of Variance) discovered no
link between gender and choice of language for swearing. (Dewaele, 2004b). Thus, it would appear
that while the emotional impact may somewhat have a relationship (if very minimal) with gender in
the L2, as would seem to be also the case in the L1, but the actual choice of language, whether the
bilingual/multilingual prefers to swear in the L1 or L2/3/4 etc has no association with gender.
It could be suggested then, that the emotional impact of taboo language in both the L1 and L2 varies
according to gender, but that the actual choice of the first or second language for swearing bears no
link to gender.
II.v.ii Context of acquisition of languages
It is generally accepted among linguists that the more naturalistic the learning environment, the more
emotionally charged the language learned will be. Context of acquisition is usually divided into three
general categories; ‘naturalistic’, ‘mixed’ and ‘instructed’ (Dewaele, 2004a). It is important to note
that learning practices have altered greatly over time, but the presence of the teacher and students still
remains key to the ‘instructed’ setting. Similarly, the element of ‘interaction with speakers of the TL’
still encompasses a definition of the ‘naturalistic’ setting. In an online study of 10390 multi-linguals
Dewaele found the emotional impact of taboo words to be much higher for the language that had been
learned in a mixed or naturalistic setting. Similar results were found in another study among Turkish-
English bilinguals using skin conductance testing, (Aycicegi,Gleason, Harris.,2003). Harris et al’s
(2006) theory of the emotional context of learning, i.e. the L1 as being usually acquired in a
naturalistic environment and therefore associated with more emotional experiences, would seem to
support these findings. Further skin conductance testing among native and non-native speakers of
English found a ‘significant increase’ of skin conductance levels among native speakers for taboo and
negatively Positive Valenced words, yet no disparity for positive and neutral words. (Eilola,
Halvelka., 2010).

19

The findings in the area of context of acquisition are highly conclusive. It may be thus presumable
that the context of acquisition of French/English by participants of the present study will impact
greatly on results of their perception of taboo language.
II.v.iii Age of acquisition vs proficiency
As the context of acquisition is evidently influential on the emotional impact of taboo language, it
would seem natural that age of acquisition would have an equally significant effect, either through
determining the context of acquisition itself (i.e. if a participant begins learning at age 1, the context
will most likely be naturalistic) or even by way of how many years the language has been known.
The age of acquisition is indeed, among linguists one of the most important strands of
sociobiographical information in relation to the emotionality and use of language among bilinguals
and multilinguals. A study by Anooshian and Hertel (1994), cited in Ayicegi, Harris, Gleason (2003)
found age of acquisition to be more crucial to use of taboo language than proficiency in the language.
An example of a Spanish participant, who began acquiring English at the age of 8, and who preferred
to pray in Spanish as it ‘didn’t feel right in English’ is proffered here. In simple terms, it has been
noted that,‘the lower the age of onset of learning the L2, the higher the scores on self-reported use of
the L2 for swearing.’ (Dewaele, 2004b)
This correlates with a study of two groups of Latin Americans; the 1st
group of which were the
children of Latin American immigrants (with English as L2 but the dominant language) and the 2nd
of
which who had emigrated to the U.S.A in their teenage years. Results established ‘similar patterns of
electro-dermal responding in their second language’ among participants of the 1st
group and
‘heightened emotionality to reprimands in Spanish’ among participants of the 2nd
group. This would
therefore imply that languages learned in childhood evoke ‘similar psychological reactions’.
(Ayicegi., Gleason., & Harris., 2006)

20

Despite this, it is essential to note the potential for coincidentiality within these findings, already
implied at the outset of this paragraph. It is vital to consider that the ‘age of acquisition may have the
highest correlation with emotional responsiveness, yet not itself be a causal factor’. This hypothesis is
compounded by the argument that the causability of early acquisition of language on emotional
reactions would be supportable if the reaction was similar even if the language was learned to ‘low
proficiency’. (Ayicegi., Gleason., & Harris., 2006)) Thus, it is vital to also take proficiency into
account, and not make assumptions about proficiency in relation to the age of acquisition. Indeed, in
terms of usage of taboo language itself, proficiency has been judged as being ‘positively correlated
with proportions of colloquial words’. (Dewaele, 2006)The two factors, while often related, are not
co-dependant, and judging from the findings outlined here are not always conducive to prediction of
emotional response to language. Perhaps Gleason, Harris & Ayicegi’s (2006) suggestion of the
existence of two cases in which bilinguals’ emotional reactivity is similar across languages: (a) when
proficiency is similar, and (b) when the less-proficient language is the first learned language’ brings us
closer to the reality of the matter. They propose then that age of acquisition and proficiency may
‘trade off against each other;’ early acquisition a compensatory factor for lower proficiency.
Indeed an accurate portrayal of the real situation is not yet clear or available. Harris et al., (2006)
declares that ‘whether proficiency or age of acquisition is more important for emotional response
remains to be studied’.
II.v.iv L1 vs dominant language
Proficiency is most usually determined by the language used the most often, or the dominant
language. Dominance in a language is widely recognised as the language ‘generally most accessible in
day-to-day life’, ‘the most highly activated’ and ‘can be the default language for thinking and
speaking’. (Bahrick et al., cited in Gleason, Harris & Aycicegi, 2006) What then, is the relationship
between the dominant language and the use and impact of taboo or emotionally charged language, and

21

is it more or less relevant than the L1? Initially it is wise to note that the dominant language may
either be the L1 or the L2. In general, it is recognised that, as with proficiency, the use of colloquial
words is connected to the ‘frequency of contact with the TL’. A study of Dutch-French and Russian-
English speakers by Dewaele and Pavlenko also found a correlation between dominance of language
(and indeed proficiency) and the use of emotional words. However, the previously mentioned study
by Ayicegi, Harris and Gleason (2003) noted stronger ‘physiological reactions’ to taboo words in the
L1 than their L2 counterparts.
(The thorny issue of translation arises here. The effect of the taboo word as an entity in itself has
already been promulgated in our discussion. How is it possible to find a ‘translation equivalent’ if a
direct translation may have no significant effect? If the word were to judged by its emotional valence
in order to find a similarly emotionally valenced word in the other language, the entire aim of the
research - to discover whether taboo language has more of an emotional impact in one particular
language - would be rendered void. This issue is discussed in further detail within the Methodology
chapter.)
Indeed, even casting the issue of translation momentarily aside, the question of a stronger emotional
reaction to the L1 has been disputed in further studies. The study of a Portugeuse (L1) -French (L2)
bilingual woman, Linda, is just one of these (Koven, M.,2006). While she was brought up in a
Portugeuse suburb of Paris, speaks Portugeuse with her family, spends one month a year in Portugal,
her French is ‘indistinguishable from that of a monolingual of her age group and social background’
and is for her the ‘language of public and private interactions’. French is evidently Linda’s dominant
language, and indeed one in which she is highly proficient. In relation to taboo language, Linda
prefers to use French as she perceives Portugeuse to be more ‘taboo-like’ or ‘forbidden’.
Could it therefore be suggested that some bilinguals may prefer to use the ‘less taboo-like’ taboo

22

language of their L2, but find the taboo language of their L1 to have a greater personal emotional
impact? Does language dominance therefore have a minimal role to play in the emotionality of
language? From this perspective, it would seem that the taboo language of the L1 has a greater impact
than the L2. The L1, as the language of the parent, possesses greater and more intense emotional
associations. However, does this explain the lack of disparity between the impact of L1 and L2 taboo
words when the L1 and L2 are both acquired in childhood, as is seen among the Latin American 1st
group. Perhaps high levels of socialisation in the L2, (in school, the workplace) work to bring the
language to a par emotionally to the language of the parent (s). Indeed, Dewaele and Pavlenko (2002)
state that ‘higher proportions of colloquial and emotion words in the L2 could therefore be indicative
of higher levels of L2 socialization’.
Thus, whether language dominance or L1 is more relevant to emotional and taboo language is
debatable, yet it could be reasonably argued that the L1 is more likely to have an influence on the
majority of multilinguals than their dominant language.
II.v.v Biculturalism/Language Preference
As has already been discussed, culture is largely instrumental in determining what kind of language a
speaker will find offensive or taboo. However, is it possible for the bilingual to straddle the line of
two different cultures? Can an individual possess two ways of thinking, intrinsically linked to two
different languages and two different cultures? It has been remarked that some cultures are
‘complementary’ or in other words it is ‘permissible to belong to several or all of these at the same
time’, whilst others, usually dominant cultures are often ‘mutually exclusive’, which may create
problems. (Ayicegi., Gleason., & Harris., 2006)) A study of autobiographical memories examining
cognitive styles among Russian-English bilinguals found evidence of bilculturalism. The language
most associated with individualism induced more individualistically styled narratives, whilst that
which was more associated with collectivism provoked a more collectivististic narrative. (Marian,
Kaushanskaya.,2004). A similar effect was produced in a study of Greek-English bilinguals, which

23

also studied participants reactions to the same story told in both English and Greek. Reactions differed
greatly between the two languages; with greater sympathy elicited for the protagonist in the Greek
version than in the English version. Varying imagery between the two languages was also noted.
(Paniyitou, 2004). Furthermore, code switching according to language deemed more suitable to a
certain emotion was discerned.
This leads to the question of whether the position of the bilingual on the scale of bilculturalism, or
whether they are indeed monocultural, may suggest the language they choose for taboo word
utterences, or likewise, which taboo language will affect them to a greater degree.
Preference for a certain language could easily be said to be linked to cultural affinity. However,
findings have differed in relation to its correlation with the emotional effect of language. Among the
study of descriptions of autobiographical Russian-English bilinguals in the Marian, Kaushanskaya
(2004) study, preference was seen to have little to no impact on emotional reactions. However, a later
study (2008) by the same researchers found a definite relationship among Russian-English bilinguals
between language preference and use of emotion-laden words. Use of the preferred language by
participants ‘enhanced accessibility of emotion words’. Also noted was that in terms of ‘access to the
emotion lexicon’ , preference appears to be more predictive of performance than proficiency.
II.vi Translation problems
Bilculturalism goes hand in hand then with an element of this discussion already mentioned, issues of
translation . In order to study differences in usage and impact according to each language used by the
bilingual speaker, it would seem vital to study similar words. However, is this, in fact, a tenable task?
Let us take cultural differences between Turkish and English as an example. A study on the impact of
words such as ‘grave’, ‘war’, ‘disease’ and so on, found the Turkish equivalents to be much more
‘emotionally colourful’. They were rated higher in emotional intensity than the proposed English

24

equivalent. The author does insist however, that the English words used were not ‘arcane’ or
‘literary’, thus the incongruence here does not seem to be based in mode or level of language. The
problems of ‘stimulus equivalence when comparing ratings across cultures’ are thus acknowledged by
the author.
Popvic (1976), cited in Agar (1991) distinguishes between two translation difficulties in relation to
biculturalism ;
One where the ‘block’ in translation is caused by ‘lack of denotation or connotation’ and another
where ‘the relation between the creative subject and its linguistic expression’.
Thus, in a study of the differences according to language in the usage and impact of any type of
vocabulary by bilinguals, it is essential to be aware of possible pitfalls in terms of translation. This
issue will be attempted to be dealt with catiously and appropriately in the present study.
II.vii Elements of emotional impact of language
II.vii.i Measuring emotional impact of language
A measuring of valence, arousal and imagery will be used in the present study as part of an
examination of the emotional impact of taboo language. However, what, in essence, do the terms
constitute? Arousal has been defined as a ‘negative probability of falling asleep’ (Corcoran 1965) or
an ‘invigorating response to stimulation’ (Duffy,1957), both cited in Altaribba (2006). Positive
Valence, on the other hand, is characterised by the ‘dimension that qualifies words as being either
positive or negative’. Imagery may be described as the potentiality of the word in question to provoke
mental imagery, i.e. the word ‘apple’ will most likely proffer more mental imagery than the word
‘honour’. A number of scales are commonly used to measure all three elements of emotional impact,
including, perhaps the most accurate, the 9-point Likert Scale. In terms of administration, it is said to

25

be, in an overall sense, easier than both the Thurstone Scale and the Guttman Scale (Davies, 2005).
Also, compared to the 5-point and 7-point Likert scale, it has been found to be rather more precise.
Scales with fewer than 5 points have been deemed as possessing ‘decreased reliability’,
(McKelvie,1978), cited in Busch (1993). Nine points allow for greater scope of response on the part
of the participant, and thus shall be utilised in the present study. Further discussion on this will be
contained in the Methodology chapter.
II.vii.ii Semantics
As has been already emphasised, although culture is instrumental in determining what kind of taboo
language is used, the matter of the actual meaning of taboo language should be brought into question.
It has been observed that the taboo word, as an entity in itself, is a potent one. Despite this, it can be
declared almost indisputably that the semantic element is one of the least fundamental to the
emotional impact of the word. Of course, culture defines what category taboo words fall into, but
remarkably, the actual meaning of the vocabulary is practically irrelevant. Euphemisms are very
indicative of this. Gleason, Harris and Aycicegi (2005) found weaker skin conductance reactions
among participants to euphemisms than actual taboo words. The ‘sounds and spellings’ of words
associated with emotional responses are akin to the association of a ‘tone’ or ‘visual signal’ with a
stimulus. (Bowers, Pleydell-Pearc) cited in Pavlenko, (2004).
Thus, in relation to the present study, it can be said with relative authority that the actual meaning of
the taboo word in French or English should have little impact upon emotional response, leaving scope
for an examination of the pertinence of other factors already outlined.
II.viii The language situation in Quebec today
What is the linguistic situation in Quebec at present? Are there more Francophones than
Anglophones, and is it really a bilingual region? Quebec is officially a monolingual region; French

26

being its only official language. However, the true language position is quite varied. According to
data collated in 2006, (www.statcan.com), the total number of speakers whose mother tongue was
French was 5,877,660 with the number of mother-tongue English speakers at 575,560.. The number
of citizens whose mother tongue was both French AND English was 43,335. The language most
spoken in the home was French, at 6,027,730. English was mostly spoken in the home by 744,430
people. Both languages were spoken an equal amount in the home by 52,330.French was the language
used most often in work, at 410,770, while 7,840 spoke mainly in English and 6,530 used both. About
40% of Québécois would consider themselves bilingual, with this figure increasing to 60% on the
island of Montreal, making Quebec the province with the highest proportion of bilinguals in Canada.
In terms of education, the passing of the Charter of the French language in 1977, ruled obligatory
attendance of French language schools. However, excluded from this obligation are temporary
residents, children who have come from another region of Canada, (where schooling was conducted
through English), or if indeed their parents’ or siblings’ education, in another area of the country,
involved primary use of English.
Nonetheless, English is taught as a second language in Québec French language schools, often from
the age of seven onwards. (Oakes, 2004)
Overall, the linguistic situation of Quebec is unique in terms of concentration of bilingual speakers,
rendering it a prime location for a broad range of linguistic research, including the present study.
II.ix Purpose of the present study
The principal purpose of this study is to provide an analysis of the linguistic perspective of the
Québécois bilingual, with specific reference to taboo language. As previously mentioned, although
indeed an area of huge interest to linguists, little or no research into the particular area of taboo
language has been conducted in Québec, or indeed even within any predominantly bilingual

27

community. An attempt shall be made to discern links (or lack thereof) with previous research in the
area of emotional and taboo language. Furthermore, although the emotional impact of taboo language
among bilinguals/multilinguals in general has been rather extensively studied, less emphasis has been
placed upon the actual use of taboo language. For example, much research on context of acquisition
and language proficiency has been largely based on the significance of emotional impact as opposed
to usage. The present study will endeavour to consolidate this area.
In essence, the principal aim of this study comprises a desire to fashion a connection between the
linguistic condition of Québécois speakers and prior research in the domain of emotional/taboo
language, in order to contribute to the present knowledge and to potentially bring forth new findings
regarding the overall relationship of the bilingual with taboo language.

28

III: METHODOLOGY
III.i Procedure
A major initial impediment to this study was a lack of direct access to native Quebec French-English
bilingual speakers. Seeking out participants for any study can indeed present varying challenges, but
for this case in particular, to an even greater extent. The use of online surveys, utilising the resources
of the website ‘www.surveymonkey.com’ was thus settled upon as the most feasible solution. A
gradual shift to online research is notable within studies across the linguistic field, c.f. Ayoun, 2000.,
Adams, 2006., Dörnyei 2007: 121., in Wilson and Dewaele (2010). Naturally, use of the method has
been both lauded and criticised, with advantages comprising; decreased costs, efficiency, anonymity,
an increased and more varied scope of samples, and, pertinent to this study the rendering possible of
inclusion of ‘‘small, scattered, or specialised populations which would otherwise be difficult to
reach’. Comparatively, Dornyei warns of potential for bias including self-selection by participants and
‘increased heterogeneity’ (Dewaele, Wilson, 2010). Such a statement may well be accurate, with a
number of studies revealing a higher ratio of female participants in online surveys than men (Joinson
and Reips, 2007) cited in (Dewaele, Wilson, 2010).
III.ii Sampling method
Also worth considering is the sampling strategy employed by the researcher. This complex factor is
by no means confined to internet research, but is perhaps compounded by its very nature. Decreased
control over the participants in the snowball strategy used in much internet research indeed leaves it

29

open to self- selection. However, Gosling et al in (Dewaele, Wilson, 2010) have observed responses
from self-selecting participants to be ‘clearer and more complete’.
Indeed, according to Dornyei, the use of the snowball strategy common to web-based research should
not nullify results of scientific value; citing it as the most commonly used approach, even in non-web
based research. (Dewaele, Wilson, 2010).
III.iii Distribution of the survey
A snowball strategy was implemented in the present study, with web-links to the survey distributed on
a random basis through the mediums of social networking sites and interactive forums, with an
attached request to forward the survey to other potentially suitable candidates. Contact with McGill
University was also established, with a view to garnering further participants. However, as the survey
was forwarded by the university to mainly linguistic students, the issue of heterogeneity, in relation to
age and academic interest in the area, poses itself. This factor is essential to bear in mind when
considering the findings of the study. Contact with The Irish Canadian Society also lead to interaction
with Trade Officer of the Canadian Embassy, Caroline Bolduc, who assisted in the seeking of
participants. Participants were thus self-selected, but with consideration to physical limitations, this
was a necessary procedure.
III.iv The Questionnaire
The process by which the questionnaire was formed involved thorough study of questionnaires
created in similar linguistic studies. This proved useful to the consideration of both the conceptual and
physical framework of the survey.
III.iv.i Quantitative vs qualitative
The respective merits of quantitative and qualitative research are much debated within the academic
linguistic domain. Indeed, it would appear that both hold equally important positions within linguistic

30

research. The subject matter itself is largely considered to be indicative of the method to be used.
Much research into the use and impact of emotional and taboo language has involved use of both
methods; allowing for a larger scope than mono-methodical studies. The qualitative approach is
deemed central to comprehensive linguistic research, as Wiersbicka (cited in Dewaele, 2004) would
contend; ‘...such testimonies need to be taken into account...they complement semantic (and other)
objective approaches’.
Wiesbicka also emphasises the need within linguistic research to link ‘soft’ subjective experience with
‘’hard’’objective evidence. (cited in Dewaele, 2004). Open, qualitative questioning was used here on
a number of occasions - one of which being one of the principle questions of the entire study; the
overall choice of language by the bilingual speaker when swearing. This proved fruitful to Dewaele’s
study on the emotional force of swearwords amongst multilinguals (2004). However, in order to
garner uniformed results that would facilitate clear and discernible reflection on the remaining issues
at hand, the quantitative method was determined to be most efficient. Use and emotional impact of
taboo language needed to be quantifiable in order to allow for an impartial perspective.
Indeed, the choice of method should directly correlate to the purposes of the individual study;
What is important for researchers is not the choice of a priori paradigms, or methodologies,
but rather to be clear about what the purpose of the study is and to match that purpose with
the attributes most likely to accomplish it. (Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1994)
III.iv.ii Language of the questionnaire
Another major area of consideration comprises the language used within the survey itself. As one
would assume, the language of the survey has been proved to be influential upon responses of
participants in previous studies - based on the Whorfian language-thought hypothesis (Richard,
Toffoli., 2008). The hypothesis advocates a strong link between language and thought, and the
potential for cultural exclusivity of language. At its most extreme, the hypotheses claims language as

31

influential upon the speaker’s ‘world view’ and at its least extreme, insists upon the cognitive effect of
linguistic structure upon the thought process of the speaker. (Kay, 2009). Consequently, within
linguistic research, the language of the survey or questionnaire has been noted as possessing the
potential to affect responses. It has been suggested therefore that researchers have ‘little choice but to
accept the cost and inconvenience of questionnaire translation’ within bilingual research. (Harzing,
2004) However, in order to encourage unbiased reporting by participants, should selection of
language be unrestricted, or should it be randomised? A study of language choice within cross-
cultural interpersonal communication among German-English bilinguals allowed participants to
choose the language of the survey themselves. (Piller, 2002) Conversely, the Harzing study (2004)
advocates random distribution of two or more versions of surveys in research of multi-linguals.
Indeed, taking into account the Whorfian hypothesis, random selection was utilised in the present
study, allowing for a mixed range of possible cognitive effects. Prior to commencement of the
survey, participants were required to select a symbol that would in turn determine the operative
language. However, this being said, it must be conceded that even this approach does not entirely
eliminate potential for bias, considering that the language chosen (even if at random) will, according
to research impact upon the thought process of the participant. Indeed, while it is vital to ensure as
little conceivable bias as possible, the question of language in the field of bilingual research will
continue to pose problems. Random selection of language by participants was considered to be
appropriate to the purposes of the present study.
III.iv.iii Language profiling
The determination of the language profile of the participant (i.e. whether they were a bilingual speaker
or not, and if so, to what extent) of the survey also required careful deliberation. The decision was
taken to model this element of the questionnaire on some aspects of the LEAP Q (Language
Experience and Proficiency) survey developed by Blumenfield, Kaushanskaya and Marian (2006).
Research having previously indicated self-proficiency ratings as being not entirely accurate in

32

ascertaining bilingual language status, successful results of the addition of language use and
experience renders (according to its creators) the LEAP Q survey a ‘valid, reliable and efficient tool
for assessing the language profiles of multilingual, neurologically intact adult populations in research
settings’. Questions on age of acquisition, proficiency of language in speaking, understanding spoken
language and reading and exposure to language in various settings (television, reading, listening to
music etc.)were thus included in the present study, Questions in relation to language history
(including language used in dreaming, counting and expressing anger or affection) were modelled on
those contained in a questionnaire used by Penn State University. (Brain, Language, and Computation
Lab, Penn State University, 2008)
III.iv.iv Likert Scale
Within the quantitative dimension of the study, the Likert scale was employed. The Likert scale has
been established as an accurate psychometric scale, and can range from three to nine points. Choice of
number of points is generally considered to be largely irrelevant, having been found to be ‘all
comparable for analytical tools’ (Dawes, 2008) According to Dewaele, the Likert Scale, can offer
‘excellent baseline data, provided they are backed up by different types of data’. (2004)..
III.iv.v Questions
A number of sociobiographical questions were presented, (gender, age, context of acquisition of L1
and L2, language preference etc.), as well as various questions relating to choice of language for
swearing, and the effect of a number of factors such as context and setting upon this. For a complete
list of questions, see Appendix 8.

33

In relation to the actual usage of taboo words, the participants were requested to list five French taboo
words and rank them in order of general offensiveness. The participant was subsequently questioned
on various aspects such as; their personal rate of usage of the words, rate of encounter with the words,
their perceived Positive Valence, arousal and imagery levels, and the participants understanding (or
lack thereof) of the literal meaning of the words.
An identical process was then conducted with participant-selected English taboo words.
III.v Participants
In total, responses from 87 online participants were collected through the medium of social
networking sites, forums and contact with universities and the Canadian Trade Embassy, as outlined
previously. However, a number of participants completed only sociobiographical information, which
was irrelevant to the study, while others did not complete the survey in its entirety. The responses
which were deemed to be of no merit to the present study were discarded. Nonetheless, care was taken
to preserve those which, although incomplete, bore at least some relevance to it. Among the
participants, 25% were female, and 25% were male; a ratio of 3:1. In relation to age category, 62%
were aged between twenty-one to twenty-nine, and 22% between the age of thirty to thirty-nine. The
majority of participants 51% reside in Montreal, and the next highest percentage, 21% reside in
Montérégie.
Indeed, as predicted, in terms of gender and age the sample was rather homogeneous, which directly
stems from the sampling method employed, which is detailed more thoroughly in the section on
sampling method in Chapter III. This study should therefore not be treated as representative of
Quebec holistically, but rather in terms of its own defined category.

34

III.vi Analysis
The method of analysis of the data garnered from participants was crucial to an effective examination
of the use and impact of French and English taboo words among the sample French-English bilingual
speakers. An initial general analysis of the independent sociobiographical variables and indeed the
dependent variables was deemed essential to provide an overview of;
a) The type of sample the study had included and whether or not it could be considered as reflective of
Quebec as a whole;
and
b) the ‘status quo’ in terms of the general usage and impact of taboo language upon Québécois
French-English bilingual speakers.
Secondly, and perhaps key to the study, it was concluded as necessary to examine the effect of the
independent sociobiographical variables upon the dependent variables upon participants, both as a
whole, and individually. Thus, factors such as language dominance, language preference and so on,
were filtered and their impact upon the use and impact of French and English taboo language
scrutinise.

35

III.vi.i Analysing two language versions of the survey
Within the present study, as previously discussed, both English and French versions of the
survey were distributed. Thus, a number of participants responded in English, while the others
responded in French. The issue of the Language-Thought Whorfian Hypothesis reappears
here, as analysis of the data necessitated a combination of the answers of the French and
English participants in order to portray overall linguistic tendencies, while also remaining
wary of possible variation of response in relation to the language used in the survey itself, and
that which was used by the participant. Perhaps, (and the Whorfian Hypothesis would be
adamant about this) the issue of the language, while certainly not fundamental to the aims of
this particular study, would nonetheless be essential for consideration and would present some
interesting results. In order to surmount this challenge, a general overview of tendencies, (i.e.
a combination of results from both the English and French version of the survey) are outlined,
while greater detail is allocated to language within the analysis of the effect of
sociobiographical independent variables, (language dominance, preference, etc.), upon usage
and emotional impact of taboo language. This sensitivity to language, while as already
conceded to be not entirely indispensable to this study (as other studies have simply combined
results of both language versions), was nonetheless regarded as important to a comprehensive
and transparent analysis of results.

36

III.vii Hypotheses
1. That language dominance, preference, high proficiency, the first language learned would
equal higher rate of usage and emotional impact (i.e. more negative Positive Valence,
higher arousal and imagery ratings) of taboo words in that language.
2. That the language learned in a naturalistic environment would equal higher rate of usage
and emotional impact of taboo words in that language than if learned in a mixed
environment.
3. That age of acquisition below the age of eight in a language would equal higher rate of
usage and emotional impact of taboo words in that language.
4. That age of acquisition will have a greater effect on use of taboo language than
proficiency.
5. That there will be a greater usage and emotional impact of the taboo language of the first
language than that of the dominant language.

37

IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
IV.i Initial discussion
General overview of participants
Results of English and French version of survey combined.
Note: Participants were given the option to choose more than one option in most questions.
IV.i.i Overall Dominance
French is clearly the overall dominant language in both domains, yet almost half use only/also
English in the workplace.
Language dominance French English Don’t work Other
Language used in family home 68% 37% 0% 5%
Language used in workplace 60% 49% 3% 3%
IV.i.ii Overall First language
The majority of participants first language is French, which reflects quite accurately the
language situation of Quebec as a whole, as seen in the literature review.
First language English French Don’t
know
Other
32% 54% 6% 5%
IV.i.iii Overall Context of acquisition

38

French, as expected again, has been learned by the majority of participants in a naturalistic
environment, and is also the language learned by the least number in a mixed environment.
The percentage difference between participants who learned English in an instructed
environment and French in such an environment is a rather striking,yet unsurprising 8%.
Context of acquisition English
French
Naturalistic 33% 55%
Mixed 39.7% 25%
Instructed 27% 19%
IV.i.iv Overall Language preference
French appears to be the preference of the most participants in general, and more specifically,
mostly in the home. This is possibly reflective of the common use of English in the workplace
in Quebec.
Language preference English French No preference
At home 38% 64% 25%
At work 38% 53% 36%
At a party 36% 45% 43%
In general 32% 59% 39.7%
IV.i.v Overall Language Proficiency

39

It is immediately clear from these results, that even though each respondent classified
themselves as bilingual speakers, the majority appear to be possess higher proficiency across
each category in French. However, it is important to note that varying proficiency of the
languages of the bilingual speaker is very common, as acknowledged in the literature review.
Proficiency
(those who gave 10 rating i.e. very
proficient)
English French
Speaking 42% 60%
Understanding spoken language 59% 79%
Writing 38% 53%
IV.i.vi Overall Age of acquisition
It is patent from these results that the vast majority of participants learned French below the
age of eight, while half of the total number learned English or indeed, both English and
French, below the age of eight.
Age of acquisition(- age 8) English French
50% 98%
IV.i.vii Overall Use of taboo language
The majority of responses reflect greater usage of French taboo language when alone and
‘under one's breath’, with an almost equal percentage considering context to be highly
significant in terms of choice of language when the interlocutor is a French-English bilingual.

40

A similar figure was calculate with regards to choice of language, with 40% claiming to
seldom use taboo language unknown to a monolingual interlocutor.
Swearing to oneself under breath French English Equal amount of
both
40% 23% 36%
In terms of specific usage of taboo language, French was again the most popular overall, yet
average ratings of usage of English were high in the following instances; joking with a friend,
expression of amazement, and expression of anger at someone else.
Language used to swear in
specific circumstances
English French Other
Jokingly with a friend 68% 77% 0%
To express amazement 66% 64% 4%
To express distress/frustration
51% 77% 4%
To express physical pain 45% 72% 4%
To express anger to oneself
(not directed to anybody else)
51% 75% 4%
To express anger towards
someone else
64% 80.9% 4%
To express anger TO someone
else (i.e. the anger is not
directed at the other person
himself/herself)
59.6% 79% 4%

41

To express physical pleasure
(i.e. taste of food, sexual
pleasure, physical sensation
such as touch etc.)
57% 66% 6%
IV.i.viii Overall Impact of taboo language
E – English taboo words
F – French taboo words
Little variation is apparent between impact of French and English taboo words. No overall
variation occurs for ratings of Positive Valence, and arousal ratings are slightly higher only
for the English D word. Rating of imagery is marginally higher among all English taboo
words. Thus, we can estimate, that in terms of our independent variables, the actual impact of
taboo language will indicate very little.
Pos.Positive Valence Arousal Imagery
A E 2
F 2
E 6
F 6
E 5
F 4
B E 2
F 2
E 5
F 5
E 4
F 4
C E 3
F 3
E 5
F 5
E 4
F 3
D E 3
F 3
E 5
F 4
E 4
F 3
E E 3
F 3
E 4
F 4
E 4
F 3

42

IV.i.ix Overall comprehension of taboo language
In general, a considerably greater number of participants admitted to incomprehension of the
literal meaning of the French words they listed. Although some were uncertain of the meaning
of some English taboo words, none felt they did not understand the word at all. It will be of
interest then, to examine whether this will affect the emotional impact of the taboo language
of both languages, or not.
Yes No Not Certain
A E 100%
F 92%
E 0%
F 1%
E 0%
F 7%
B E 98%
F 96%
E 0%
F 4%
E2%
F 0%
C E 95%
F 92%
E 0%
F 4%
E5%
F 4%
D E 98%
F 93%
E0%
F 7%
E 3%
F 0%
E E 100%
F 98%
E 0%
F 3%
E0%
F 0%

43

IV.ii Main discussion
Effect of independent variables on dependent variable
The independent variables examined in this portion of the study are as follows;
Language dominance
L1 – English
L1 - French
Context of acquisition of English and French
Language preference
Language proficiency
Age of acquisition
The dependent variables are;
Language mainly used for swearing
Language used for swearing to oneself
Language used for swearing to a French-English bilingual
Language used for swearing to a monolingual

44

Language used for swearing in particular settings
Effect of level of emotion upon choice of language for swearing
Positive Valence rating of participant-selected taboo words
Arousal rating of participant-selected taboo words
Imagery rating of participant-selected taboo words
Knowledge of meaning of participant-selected taboo words
The effect of each independent variable upon dependent variables shall thus be examined .
Results of independent variables
Key:
EV – English version of survey
FV – French version of survey
Emotional impact:
Arousal - 1 – Not at all arousing 9 – Highly arousing
Valence -1 – Highly negative 9 – Highly positive
Imagery – 1 – Provokes no imagery 9 – Provokes vivid imagery
Eng. – English
Fr. – French
Oth. – Other (eg. Depends on context/interlocutor)

45

IV.ii.i Dominance
Use of taboo language
In terms of general usage of taboo language, dominance appeared to have little impact, with
even English language dominant participants reporting main usage of French taboo language,
as well as the predicted use of French taboo language by the French language dominant
participants. Much emphasis was placed upon the context, setting and interlocutor as
influential upon choice of language for swearing. Interestingly, the remark by one participant
that, ‘(when) my brain set on the ‘English switch’ I will swear in English…’ could be
regarded as indicative of the significance of the theory of the language continuum, as
discussed in the literature review.
What language do you generally swear in?
Dominance Eng. Fr. Oth.
English dominant 23% 30% 47%
French dominant 8% 62% 30%
In terms of personal usage (i.e. swearing to oneself) results from English language dominant
participants suggest a usage of an equal amount of both languages by most of those who
responded in English, with an equal percentage of participants responding to the French
version claiming mainly English/French usage. However, the vast majority of French
dominant individuals maintain use of mainly French.

46

In which language do you mainly swear to yourself i.e. under your breath?
Language dominance – English
English French Equal amount
EV 35% 25% 40%
FV 40% 40% 20%
Language dominance – French
EV 8% 46% 46%
FV 20% 53% 27%
French is also the language used most commonly by both groups when intending to seriously
insult a French-English bilingual. In terms of expressing anger to their interlocutor, and
expressing physical pain and distress/frustration, French is also most popular among French
dominant participants. This could be suggested to adduce the intensity of such emotions.
However, usage of English taboo language by English dominant candidates would not seem
to quite so distinctly reflect this trend (i.e. dominant language = language of expression of
intense emotion). Though English is the most popular language of swearing in many
instances, rather large disparity exists between the French and English language versions. One
proposed explanation is the possibility of the first language of the majority of those who are
English dominant as being, in fact French, yet English possibly being the language of the
workplace or social sphere etc.
This said, upon analysis of further questions on the matter, the majority of all participants
failed to accept a clear link between intensity of emotion and choice of language–favouring
instead category of emotion/setting/interlocutor as impactive factors.

47

Overall, though some trends relating to greater usage of taboo language of the dominant
language do emerge, they would appear to be minimal, suggesting quite a weak
correspondence of language dominance with use of taboo language.
For more detailed tables see Appendix 1C - IH
Impact of taboo language
Language dominance appeared to bear minimal, if no impact upon impact of taboo language,
with no striking trends emerging. However, in ratings of variables such as; arousal (higher =
more arousing) Positive Valence (higher = more positive) and imagery, those English
language dominant participants who responded to the survey in French rated each higher for
the French A (very taboo) words. On the whole, however, upon comparison of rating of
French and English A words, arousal would appear to be the only constant, with ratings
slightly higher for the A taboo word of the participants’ dominant language. However, this
difference must be stressed to be marginal.
French taboo word impact
Language dominance - English
Positive Valence Arousal Imagery
EV 1.88
FV 2.43
EV 6.00
FV 5.29
EV 2.88
FV 4.00
Language dominance –French
EV 1.56
FV 2.64
EV 6.44
FV 4.91
EV 3.22
FV 3.64
English taboo word impact
Language dominance - English

48

EV 1.67
FV 2.40
EV 6.60
FV 4.60
EV 4.00
FV 4.60
Language dominance – French
EV 1.71
FV 2.00
EV 6.12
FV 4.11
EV 4.12
FV 4.50
Comprehension of taboo language
See Appendix 1K, 1L, 1O, 1P
Little contrast in comprehension of the A word between French and English language
dominant participants exists, yet, surprisingly, a slightly higher proportion of English
language dominant speakers claimed to understand the French A words. Both groups fully
comprehended the English A word.
IV.ii.ii L1 vs. L2
Usage of taboo language
A relationship between language first acquired by the bilingual individual and general use of
taboo language is markedly reflected in results, with the L1 generally the most popular choice
for swearing among participants. Also noteworthy is the remark made by one respondent that
he/she would tend to use the non-dominant language for swearing in a professional setting,
perhaps with a view to engendering the least amount of offence. Some French L1 candidates
also proffer, by way of explanation of its use for swearing, the ‘naturalness’ or
‘automaticness’ of French.

49

First language Eng. Fr. Oth.
English L1 44% 19% 38%
French L1 10% 68% 22%
The L1 was also the preferred language for ‘swearing to oneself’ among the English L1
participants. The French L1 group, however, while the majority of those who responded in
English did select French as their language of choice, a sizeable proportion (an equal majority
in the English language version) felt they would use an equal amount of both languages.
First language - English
EV 46% 18% 36%
FV 60% 20% 20%
First language – French
EV 5% 47 % 47%
FV 8% 58 % 33%
Regarding swearing to a fellow English/French bilingual with intent to personal injury,
context emerged again as the dominant constituent, yet an inclination towards the L1 of
participants was still discernible. In terms of use of taboo language a monolingual would be
unlikely to understand, it was found that, on the whole, a greater number of French L1
participants would tend to do so, yet this was, according to the majority, a seldom occurrence.
Specific usage of taboo language generated trends towards use of L1 when experiencing
physical pain, this being most significant among the French L1 speakers. However, anger to

50

or at an interlocutor elicited a greater leaning among both the L1 French and the L1 English
speakers towards French, reflecting perhaps the prominence of the French language in
Québec. In relation to level of emotion/choice of taboo language, context, again, is considered
by the majority to be more relevant.
A clear correlation between use of the L1 and language choice for swearing, and particularly
when experiencing more extreme emotions, would thus serve to confirm a rather strong link
between L1 and use of taboo language for the Québécois bilinguals of the present study.
For more detailed tables see Appendix 2C - 2H
The general impact of taboo language greatly varied in terms of the L1. Those whose L2 was
French reported higher positive valence, arousal and imagery in relation to the French A word
than the L1 French speakers. Positive valence could be suggested to indicate a lesser intrinsic
knowledge of the taboo language, yet a higher rate of arousal and imagery was rather
surprising. Nonetheless, arousal and imagery in relation to the English A word were higher
among the L1 English speakers, as well as encounter. French L1 rated the words more
positively. In terms of the language of the survey, arousal ratings were consistently higher in
the English version of both surveys.
As such, no striking trends emerge from ratings of the French and English A words. Indeed,
results here are inherently conflicting and illustrate little correlation of initial language and
emotional impact of taboo language
L1 English
EV 2.00
FV 2.67
EV 6.57
FV 6.33
EV 2.71
FV 4.00

51

L1 French
EV 1.67
FV 2.56
EV 6.40
FV 4.56
EV 2.93
FV 3.33
L1 English
EV 2.00
FV 1.00
EV 7.00
FV 4.50
EV 4.50
FV 5.00
L1 French
EV 1.71
FV 2.13
EV 6.14
FV 3.63
EV 3.71
FV 4.00
All participants, regardless of language of the survey and language first acquired appear to
possess knowledge of the literal meaning of not just the English A words, but all of them.
IV.ii.iii Dominance vs First language
As maintained in the literature review, a notable flurry of debate encompasses the issue of the
relevance of language dominance and first language of the bilingual/multilingual speaker in
relation to usage/impact of emotional and taboo language. The likelihood of the first language

52

as possessing a greater sway over use and emotional impact of taboo language than that of
dominance, as reasoned in the literature review, is implicit within results of this study. This
said, upon examination of results, merely seven out of fifty six participants claimed
contrasting first and dominant languages, and thus results were deemed perhaps unsuitable for
analysis, and concurrent conjecture. However, among these results, though indeed potentially
anomalous, arousal and valence ratings revealed greater emotional reaction to French words
among the French L1/English dominant participants. Minimal variation was deduced from
results of the English L1/French dominant participants however. Therefore, within such
limitations, it is difficult to wholly confirm that first language has a greater correlation with
use and emotional impact of taboo language than language dominance.
IV.ii.iv Context of acquisition - Naturalistic
On the whole, use of taboo language did not appear to remarkably reflect the context of
natural acquisition. Upon examination of participants who describe their acquisition of
English/French as naturalistic, minimal conventions of use of taboo language arose. Indeed, in
general terms, those who described their acquisition of English as naturalistic believed their
usage of taboo language to consist of a mélange of French and English, with only a slight
majority claiming to use English more often. A much stronger inclination towards general
usage of French taboo language was apparent in responses from those who learned French in
a naturalistic environment. An emphasis on the importance of setting and interlocutor in
relation to choice of language applied to both groups however.
Context of acq. Eng. Fr. Oth.
English naturalistic 26% 25% 49%

53

French naturalistic 17% 57% 26%
Results of personal use of taboo language (i.e. swearing to oneself) garnered unpredicted
results as well, with most English naturalistic participants in such an instance tending to use
French, and a conflicting number of French naturalistic participants claiming to use
French/English (i.e. in the EV most selected English, while in the FV, most selected French).
English naturalistic
Eng. Fr. Equal amount
EV 17% 42% 42%
FV 25% 75% 0%
French naturalistic
EV 47% 13% 40%
FV 13% 50% 38%
Regarding specific use of taboo language, most of the English naturalistic participants felt
they would use English when experiencing physical pleasure, which corresponded to usage of
French by the majority of French naturalistic participants. In terms of joking with friends,
results varied, indicating no significant trends of language use in either group. Furthermore,
usage of French in expression of anger directly or indirectly to an interlocutor was common to
both groups. It should also be noted that, on the whole, a considerably greater amount of
French naturalistic participants claimed to use French in these instances than English
naturalistic participants claimed to use English.

54

In general, although some tendencies are portrayed, results here appear rather discordant,
which evinces the possibility that while many some candidates, in fact, have learned both
English and French in a naturalistic context. However upon research of this matter, it was
found that merely five out of the total fifty-six participants acquired both languages in a
naturalistic setting. Though context of acquisition may have somewhat of an impact on usage
of taboo language, perhaps other factors are at play here – for example, the prominence of the
French language in Québec. The relevance of naturalistic context of acquisition with choice
of language when swearing among Québécois bilinguals, in this instance at least, thus remains
to be confirmed.
Despite predictions, an indication of higher emotional impact of the A word among those who
acquired the language of the word in a naturalistic setting did not manifest itself very
strikingly. Though the English naturalistic participants did, in general allocate higher arousal
and imagery ratings to the English A words, their rate of positive valence was also higher than
their French counterparts. The French A word was also given higher arousal and imagery,
although the French naturalistic participants did find the word more negative overall. It was of
interest that all participants who responded in English applied rather higher arousal ratings for
both the French and English words.
Thus, the only evidence of correlation with the hypothesis here is the slightly more negative
connotations of the French word among those who learned the language in a naturalistic
context, and a marginally higher arousal and imagery rating of the English A word for those
English naturalistic participants. Results, however, are inconsistent, and contrasts marginal,

55

and so an outright declaration of the influence of naturalistic acquisition upon the emotional
impact/perception of taboo language is, in the case of this particular study, inappropriate.
EV 1.89
FV 3.33
EV 7.22
FV 5.33
EV 2.22
FV 6.00
French naturalistic
EV 1.38
FV 2.50
EV 6.08
FV 4.33
EV 3.08
FV 4.33
EV 1.78
FV 2.33
EV 7.22
FV 5.33
EV 4.00
FV 4.00
French naturalistic
EV 1.69
FV 2.80
EV 5.62
FV 4.40
EV 3.92
FV 4.00
IV.ii.v Context of acquisition - Mixed

56

Upon examination of participants who had either learned English or French in a mixed
context, definite trends in terms of usage of taboo language emerged. It appeared that those
who acquired English in a mixed setting did possess a distinct overall preference for swearing
in French, while those who acquired French in such a setting insisted mainly on the influence
of context and interlocutor upon choice of language. A mixed setting involving a certain (to a
lesser or greater extent) element of instruction, it could be theorized that among those who
learned English in a mixed setting, French may be the first language to the majority, and vice
versa. Evidence of a greater consideration to context/interlocutor by the French mixed
participants could be again suggested to be a consequence of the dominance of the French
language in Québec.
Context of acq. Eng. Fr. Oth.
English mixed 10% 67% 23%
French mixed 27% 27% 46%
Use of taboo language indicated similar inclinations, with most of those who responded in
English to the survey claiming to use an equal amount of both, the next most popular option
being French. This contrasted in a congruent fashion to those who responded in French, with
French most used for swearing ‘to oneself’, and then an equal amount of both. Similarly,
participants who learned French in a mixed environment and who responded to the English
version claimed to use an equal amount of both – but in this case English was preferable to
French according to the second greatest majority. A similar inverse pattern seen among the
English mixed individuals therefore occurred here.
English mixed

57

EV 15.4% 39% 46.2%
FV 13% 50% 38%
French mixed
EV 33.3% 17% 50%
FV 67% 33.3% 0%
In relation to more specific usage of taboo language, a considerable tendency towards usage
of French as opposed to English among those whose environment of acquisition of English
was mixed, and usage of English among those whose acquisition of French was mixed was
observable. The sole exceptions on this occasion are an overall preference for French when
exhibiting amazement, anger at someone else, and anger to someone else, which corresponds
to previous findings of the study, again suggesting a possible divide between private and
public practices regarding use of taboo language.
In comparison with those who learned English/French in a naturalistic context, then, much
more marked trends materialized in terms of usage of taboo language. While, those who
learned English/French in a naturalistic setting did claim to generally swear in English/French
more than those who learned English/French in a mixed setting, as already outlined, overall,
findings were mixed. Conventions among the mixed participants mirroring those seen in
analysis of taboo language and L1 vs L2, ‘Mixed’ may indeed be a practical misnomer for or
an equivalent to ‘L2’ for many participants.
However, results on impact of taboo language were a little more mixed. French mixed
participants, as a whole, rated the French A word as more arousing, yet more positively than

58

English mixed candidates. Nonetheless, French mixed participants also generally found the
English A word more arousing, image-provoking and negative than English mixed
participants did.
Comparing these findings to emotional impact of taboo language on those who learned
English/French in a naturalistic setting, it would appear that English taboo words would have
a greater overall emotional impact upon those who learned English in a naturalistic than those
who acquired the language in a mixed setting, and vice versa. However, differences must be
stressed to be minimal, and not applicable to each category encompassing the present study’s
definition of emotional impact.
English mixed
EV 2.00
FV 2.40
EV 5.63
FV 4.80
EV 3.00
FV 2.80
French mixed
EV 2.67
FV 3.00
EV 6.00
FV 6.50
EV 3.11
FV 1.50
English mixed
EV 1.50
FV 2.00
EV 5.67
FV 3.20
EV 3.83
FV 3.75

59

French mixed
EV 2.00
FV 1.00
EV 7.71
FV 5.00
EV 5.00
FV 9.00
IV.ii.vi Language Preference
The effect of language preference over usage of taboo language largely conformed to
previous research on the subject. Within results, the use of the preferred language for
swearing was predominant.
Preference Eng. Fr. Oth.
Prefer English 50% 13% 38%
Prefer French 90% 0% 10%
Use of an equal amount of both languages was also highlighted by a number of participants in
relation to swearing ‘under one’s breath’ or to an interlocutor. This figure was much higher
however, for the former, among all those who responded in English, and slightly higher for
those who preferred English, in comparison to those who preferred French. None of those
whose preferred language was French felt they often swore ‘under their breath’ in English.
Language Preference –English
EV 33% 17% 50%
FV 67% 0% 33%

60

Language Preference – French
EV 0% 57% 43%
FV 0% 80% 20%
Those who preferred French were also collectively more likely to use taboo language
unknown to a monolingual, either sometimes or seldomly. A distinct preference for use of the
taboo language of the preferred language when communicating distress/frustration, anger or
when in pain, also materialised. This may be linked to the intensity of emotion usually
implicated in such situations. This said, the majority of individuals participating in the French
version of the survey noted equal usage of French and English on such occasions.
In a general sense, however, language preference would appear, judging from results of this
study, to bear quite a great influence upon use of taboo language, with more intense or
spontaneous emotions more likely to be expressed in the preferred language, which would
seem to echo the argument of greater access to the emotional lexicon, as outlined in the
literature review.
For more detailed tables see Appendix 5C – 5H
Those who preferred French did find the French A word generally more arousing and also as
bearing more negativity. However, average imagery ratings of the non-preferred language
were slightly higher in both the English and French versions of the survey. In addition, French
naturalistic participants were also more aroused by the English A word, and found it slightly
more negative than most English preference participants. Results here were therefore rather
incongruous, with little difference of impact according to the language itself, yet may

61

illustrate a greater emotional impact of taboo language in general, among those who prefer
French.
English preference
EV 2.50
FV 3.50
EV 5.50
FV 5.50
EV 4.00
FV 2.00
French preference
EV 1.91
FV 2.50
EV 6.73
FV 4.75
EV 3.09
FV 1.50
English preference
EV 3.00
FV 1.00
EV 7.00
FV 1.00
EV 5.00
FV 2.00
French preference
EV 1.30
FV 2.25
EV 6.40
FV 3.25
EV 4.10
FV 5.50
Comprehension of taboo words

62

This said, knowledge of the taboo language itself may not, as has been previously suggested,
be at all relevant to emotional impact, with a considerable percentage of French language
preference candidates who answered in English admitting to being ‘uncertain’ of the literal
meaning of the A word, despite rather high arousal ratings, and high negative association of
the word.
IV.ii.vii Language proficiency
A connection between proficiency and use of taboo language appears minimal upon analysis
of results. Although those who describe themselves as highly proficient French speakers do
believe they swear more often in French, also do the majority of those who are highly
proficient in English . The comment made by one participant that he would swear in English,
if speaking English at the time, yet would swear in French if he hurt himself badly, is
noteworthy, and could imply that while English is his dominant language, it is not his most
emotional, and based on the hypothesis on the subject, may not be his L1. Furthermore, it is
vital to take into account that qualitative responses here would seem to overlap, indicating
participation in the survey by individuals who declare to be highly proficient in both
language.
Proficiency Eng. Fr. Oth.
High English prof. 27% 41% 32%
High French prof. 11% 53% 36%
In terms of swearing ‘under one’s breath’, English does seem to be the preference of those
highly proficient English speakers, but only those who responded in French. A clearer trend
towards usage of French among the highly proficient French speakers exists.

63

High Proficiency - English
EV 23% 33% 43%
FV 57% 29% 14%
High Proficiency - French
EV 10% 55% 35%
FV 25% 50% 25%
This trend extends to usage of French taboo language in specific instances
(distress/frustration, physical pain etc.), yet again figures on usage of taboo language on such
occasions by those highly proficient in English are contradictory.
(When questioned specifically on their opinion on level of emotion and a connection to
choice of language for swearing one participant remarks;
‘I know I swear in English sometimes to say ‘fuck, shit’ or small words like this. I think that
it's because they became sort of French words, hearing them so often. It is not like if I was
speaking in English....’
This observation is of course, highly insightful, engendering questioning as to the possibility
of assimilation of certain vocabulary into another language, or not requiring any deviation
from the position of the speaker on the language continuum.
In any case, language proficiency does appear congruent to usage of taboo language among
those highly proficient in French, yet does not seem to extend to highly proficient English
speakers. As mentioned however, it is crucial to take into account the possible effect of other
variables upon this i.e. that the speaker may be highly proficient in both languages etc., and

64

also note findings from previous research into the area, in which the true significance of
proficiency on taboo language in general was inderminate.
For more detailed tables see Appendix 6C – 6H
Results varied in relation to impact of taboo language, with those highly proficient English
speakers rating both the French and English A words overall as more arousing than the highly
proficient French speakers. In contrast, the majority of highly proficient French speakers gave
both sets of words a higher imagery rating. Rather more surprising was a greater perception of
positivity in relation to the language the average participant claimed to be highly proficient in,
in contradiction to the hypothesis. Considerable diversity between the English and French
language versions of the survey were also distinguishable with ratings of imagery of the
French A word slightly higher for those highly proficient English speakers who answered in
French, and arousal ratings slightly higher for the highly proficient French speakers who
responded in English. Within classification of the English A words, arousal ratings among the
highly proficient French speakers were slightly higher in the English language version.
Results here are thus undeniably irresolute, and conflict somewhat with our hypothesis.
Interesting, however, was the higher rating of imagery of the French taboo words for those
who responded in French, and may echo elements of the Whorfian Language-Thought
Hypothesis, featured in the literature review.
High English proficiency
EV 1.87
FV 2.60
EV 6.43
FV 5.40
EV 3.04
FV 5.20

65

High French proficiency
EV 1.47
FV 2.64
EV 6.80
FV 4.91
EV 3.67
FV 3.64
High English proficiency
EV 1.76
FV 2.33
EV 6.52
FV 5.33
EV 4.19
FV 4.33
High French proficiency
EV 1.86
FV 2.00
EV 6.14
FV 4.11
EV 4.50
FV 4.50
IV.ii.viii Age of acquisition
Within this element of analysis, solely participants who claimed to have initiated acquisition
of French before the age of eight, and English between the ages of nine and thirteen were
examined. Though an actual comparison with their counterparts (i.e. those who began
learning English below the age of eight, and French between the ages of nine and thirteen)
would have allowed for a more concrete analysis, a very small number of participants actually
constituted this category. Thus, any subsequent comparison may have been misrepresentative
and inaccurate. Indeed, although, as highlighted in the literature review, English is taught in
most elementary schools from the age of six/seven onwards, 57% of participants of this study
who began acquisition of French below the age of eight in fact began acquisition of English

66

over the age of nine. Exact reasons for such an incidence are unclear. Taking all of these
factors into account, a study then of those who learned French at a young age, and English at
a slightly higher age, was deemed of merit to the present study.
Conforming to the hypothesis, age of acquisition appeared to quite a significant impact upon
choice of language for swearing in general, with almost half claiming to usually swear in
French. However, context and interlocutor were also considered important to a large number
of participants.
Age of acquisition Eng. Fr. Oth.
-8 Fr +8 Eng 15% 48% 37%
Regarding specific usage of taboo language, however, results did vary. When ‘swearing to
oneself’, figures are unbalanced, with a slight majority of those responding in English
claiming to use an equal amount of both languages, while adhering to predictions, a large
portion of those who responded in French selecting French. None of the participants of the
FV claim to use English in such circumstances. This disparity reflects, perhaps, the inherent
effect of the language of the survey upon participants.
EV 22% 35% 44%
FV 0% 75% 25%
Nonetheless, results appear to retain balance in term of more specific usage of taboo
language, with French the most popular in all instances (joking with a friend,

67

distress/amazement, expression of anger), bar expression of amazement (in both the English
version and French version) and physical pleasure (just the French version).
One could suggest a distinct divide between the personal and the public here. In terms of
category of emotion, amazement could be proposed to be rather less spontaneous and intense
than others. Although results may genuinely attest to preferences of candidates, the
inclination towards the use of the later acquired language (English) when experiencing
physical pleasure may merely reflect the great range of emotional intensity physical pleasure
may encompass (i.e. taste, feel, sexual pleasure). Simply put, this category of emotion may
have required further compartmentalization.
Generally speaking, age of acquisition of language may indeed influence use of taboo
language, and may also involve quite precise categorisation of the language of swearing in
relation to specific situations. In basic terms, the language learned at an earlier age is perhaps
be more emotional (as has been observed in previous research), and the language learned a
later age may be, to a greater extent, influenced by social convention.
The actual impact of taboo language among the early French speakers/later English speakers,
despite assumptions, does not appear here to match explicit tendencies associated with usage
of taboo language. Although arousal ratings of the French A words are marginally higher
overall, they are also rated as more positive. In addition, the English A words appear to
provoke more vivid imagery overall among participants, notably among those who responded
in English. As a whole, therefore, minimal differences existed between impact of French and
English taboo language.

68

EV 2.05
FV 2.00
EV 6.16
FV 6.00
EV 3.42
FV 4.25
EV 1.83
FV 1.00
EV 6.67
FV 5.25
EV 4.00
FV 6.00
A much higher general knowledge of the English A word was recorded, despite a higher
overall rate of arousal in relation to French taboo words. However, a better comprehension of
the English taboo words may serve to explain its higher imagery ratings. This finding may
serve to evidentiate the theory, as outlined in the literature review, of the potential lack of
significance of meaning upon the potency of taboo language itself.
IV.ii.ix Language Proficiency vs age of acquisition
The effect of age of acquisition would appear to have a much greater impact upon use of
taboo language. Indeed, as outlined, trends regarding use of taboo language among those who
describe themselves as highly proficient in French did become clear, yet were not consistent
with findings in relation to highly proficient English speakers. Strong trends emerged among
those who learned French below the age of eight, and English over the age of eight, yet, as
explained, yet as explained, limitations of the present study meant for a lack of access to
direct comparison (i.e. with those who learned English below the age of eight and French over

69

the age of eight). Nonetheless, even with consideration to such factors, it may be safe to
assume that age of acquisition possesses a greater correlation with use of taboo language than
language proficiency, as was hypothesised. However, as illustrated in the literature review, a
number of other elements may be implicated, or, in other words; ‘age of acquisition may have
the highest correlation with emotional responsiveness, yet not itself be a causal factor’.

Taboo language usage and emotional impact among bilingual Québécois

Taboo language usage and emotional impact among bilingual Québécois

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (12)

Similar to Taboo language usage and emotional impact among bilingual Québécois

Similar to Taboo language usage and emotional impact among bilingual Québécois (20)

Taboo language usage and emotional impact among bilingual Québécois