Unit 13 TEXT I

EUPHEMISM

Neil Postman

Pre-reading Questions:

 1. What is ‘euphemism’? Can you give some examples both in English and in Chinese languages? (Lib. W.)  2. Do you think the use of euphemisms makes our language more pleasant?

Definition:

 (Pre-rd): the substitution of a mild, indirect, or vague expression for one thought to be offensively harsh or blunt.



Ency. Bri.

(CD, 98): the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant.

Definition:



NEC

(Book 4): (an example of) the use of a pleasanter, less direct name for something thought to be unpleasant.  or, the substitution of a mild or vague expression for a harsh or blunt one. The word is derived from a Greek word meaning ‘to speak favorably’. The Greek prefix eu- means ‘well’.

Euphemism

 1. Euphemisms are used to replace words associated with subjects that are ‘sensitive’ or ‘taboo’, such as death, sex, madness and so on. e.g. we avoid saying ‘He died last night’, but say instead ‘passed away’, ‘join his maker’, ‘left us’, ‘kicked the bucket’.

Euphemism

 2. Sometimes euphemisms are employed out of politeness. The words we use to refer to our natural bodily functions are generally euphemisms. The word ‘lavatory’ is itself a euphemism, derived from the Latin ‘lavatorium’ meaning ‘a place for washing’. The American word ‘rest-room’ is another example. ‘Offal’(Brit) or ‘inside’ (US) is used to refer to a pig’s stomach, liver, or lungs. Such euphemisms may be stylistically ‘permissible’ if they are kept within limits.

Euphemism

 3. Euphemisms are also used by politicians and advertisers to hide reality from us. Euphemisms of this kind often lead to a distortion of style and meaning because they tend to be used to defend practices that would sound ugly and brutal in plain words. As George Orwell pointed out in his essay ‘Politics and the English language’:

Euphemism

 In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemisms. Defenseless village are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire: this is called ‘pacification’.

Euphemism

 And a motorcar becomes ‘a symphony of speed and style’ by the advertisers.   Other examples: at liberty - out of work, senior citizen - old people, in the family way - pregnant,  burier - undertaker, mortician, prison correctional institution,  去世、逝世、作古、牺牲、与世长辞（死 亡），身体发福（胖）、赋闲、下岗、分流、 待业（失业）、拮据（贫困）

In-reading Interpretation:

Para. 1

 1. What is the definition of euphemism according to the author? 

... as an auspicious or exalted term (like ‘sanitation engineer’) that is used in place of a more down-to-earth term (like ‘garbage man’).



auspicious or exalted:

favorable or dignified, glorified, raising the status of a man referred to 

more down-to-earth

something actually is : factual, telling what

In-reading Interpretation:

Para. 1

 Why is a term like

garbage man down-to-earth,

and

sanitation engineer auspicious or exalted?

(3-2)  Garbage man is a man cleaning the garbage, which is factual, telling what something actually is. But by using

sanitation engineer

, the same man cleaning the garbage seems to become an engineer, which is a more glorified term.

In-reading Interpretation:

Para. 1

 2.

People who are partial to ... really talking about.

 Euphemism-prone people are subject to the charge that they are insincere.

 People don’t believe them as well as what they talk about.

In-reading Interpretation:

Para. 1

  3. What is the example given in this para. to illustrate it?

‘Operation Sunshine’ : a pretty name for

the experiments with the hydrogen bomb in the South Pacific,

which actually bring a lot of harms to the surrounding areas. This is

an immoral act,

but by giving this pretty name, the govt. tried

the bomb evokes.

to expunge the hideous imagery that

The name is pretty, but the reality is ugly.



This sort of process ... is such a bad name.

(this is why euphemism has such a bad connotation:

People who are partial to ... really talking about.

)

In-reading Interpretation:

Para. 1

 4. What is G.Orwell’s opinion on euphemism?

 (Note 1) Politicians prefer to euphemisms. Their speech and writing consist largely of euphemisms, trying to make some brutal reality vague, etc. e.g. British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bomb on Japan, the Japanese invasion of the Asian countries ( 建立大东亚共荣圈 ).

In-reading Interpretation:

Para. 1

 5. What is the function of the last sentences?

 Transition, guiding the reader to the next para., telling them what will be talked about next.

 6. What is this para. about?

 a common definition, euphemism has got a bad name.

In-reading Interpretation:

Para. 2

 1. How do you understand ‘Things do not have real names’? Can you give examples? (3-3, 4)  The meaning of the majority of words is arbitrary and conventional; thus words are no more than labels given to things.

 The name of an object was given in the ancient times. It has been handed down through generations so that it becomes conventional. Names are symbols of the things. They can be changed.

In-reading Interpretation:

Para. 2

  If we first called the man cleaning garbage some other name instead of garbage man or sanitation engineer, that would be OK. If we called the animal we call pig now ‘shrimp’, it would become a shrimp, and vice versa. So are the names of ‘lumbering elephant’ for an automobile, and ‘perfume’ for Bronx odor. As Shakespeare said in

Romeo and Juliet

, ‘

What’s in a name? That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet.’

(Even if we change the name of the plant we call conventionally ‘rose’ to some other name, this plant will still smell as sweet as before/usual.) Therefore, it is wrong

to assume that a name and a thing are one and the same.

In other words, names can be changed at any time if we want or need.

In-reading Interpretation:

Para. 2

 2. But

a name is usually ... one from the other.

Is this sentence contradictory to the first one in this para.? (3-5)  No. Things do not have real names. Names can be changed. But since we have been using the name for a long time, we are most probable / gradually come to establish a kind od association, particularly in semantics, between the two. e.g. When we call the animal ‘pig’, we tend to think it fat, stupid, eating and sleeping, etc. Because of this semantic association, we have the expressions as

make a pig of oneself

(eat too much),

buy a pig in a bag

(buy without checking it up), etc.

In-reading Interpretation:

Para. 2

 3. This is all because

what we call things affects how we will perceive them.

(= Things will take on a different look when named differently. The name we give to something affects our perception.)

It is not only harder to ... the horse mackerel.

虎斗，牛鞭 , Goldlion 凤爪，龙 金狮，金利来， 山水豆腐

In-reading Interpretation:

Para. 2

  4.

It would appear ... of the thing itself.

It seems that mankind is predisposed to regard things as being inseparable from the labels they bear. This is a most intriguing delusion. We naturally think that things and their corresponding names are the same, but this is the illusion.   There is some truth in this illusion.

With the change of the names of things, you have changed their images in the eye of people, which, in effect, means a change in what the things really are. If you change the names of things, you change your way of perception, and you, in effect, change the nature of the things.

In-reading Interpretation:

Para. 2

 5. Do you agree with P on this point? (3-6)  This may sound a bit dubious. While the 1st change (change in the way people regard things) has been evidenced, the 2nd change (change in the nature of the thing itself) has not.

 6. Main idea: A change in name leads to a change in nature.

In-reading Interpretation:

Para. 3

 1.

All sorts of scoundrels ... they are promoting.

 The scoundrels give a charming name to the dirty thing they are committing to hide its real dirty or illegal nature, to make us believe they are doing something good.

抢劫－交保护费

In-reading Interpretation:

Para. 3

  2.

Euphemizing ... of perceiving things.

Giving a new name to some thing by using euphemism will generate a new way of perceiving things. This is the same as

What we call things affects how we will perceive them.

 e.g.

The man who wants us ... notice or respect.

The status of a garbage man is considerably raised in the eye of the public from a ‘man’ to ‘an engineer’. ‘Garbage’, a word with bad connotations is replaced by ‘sanitation’, a shift focus from what he disposes of to what he preserves.

In-reading Interpretation:

Para. 3

 3.

The teacher who ... be attended to.

 It is true that the teacher is euphemizing when he has us use ‘culturally different children’ in place of ‘slum children’, but what he is doing is to try to turn our attention to an aspect of life that might easily be neglected.

 4. Main idea: euphemism - a method of generating new and useful ways of perception

In-reading Interpretation:

Para. 4

 1. Euphemizing itself is not contemptible. It is contemptible only when it tries to hide something true, esp. the dirty nature. e.g. Operation Sunshine ... but ‘culturally different children’ is different.

 2. Main idea: euphemism is not a contemptible process.

In-reading Interpretation:

Para. 5

  1.

I grant that ... the intended effect.

Sometimes euphemism is only a superficial term. It cannot achieve the intended effect: to elevate the praise or the status, or to call attention to ... (as stated in l.53) In other words, although the name changes, the nature remains the same.  E.g. (ll. 56-60) Even if a teacher, who believes ‘slum children’ are those who are in great porverty, less educated, rude, rough, impolite, or the like, use the term ‘culturally different children’, it makes no difference to the effect that people intend to achieve when creating this euphemism. Other examples: senior citizen old people, mental institution - lunatic asylums

In-reading Interpretation:

Para. 5

  2.

Nonetheless, euphemizing ... on a subject.

However, if we change the name by using euphemism, we will also change our way of perception. This is the same as we have in l. 27, ll. 32-3.

 e.g. (ll. 62-4) senior citizens for old people perceive them to have political identities though they are of an old age. Though they are old, they still have the political identities and they can still be elected as President or something.

In-reading Interpretation:

Para. 5

 3.

In fact, ... to predict:

whether a particular euphemistic expression will be accepted or not, whether it will change people’s way of perception or not.

 e.g. (ll. 65-70) chairperson, sanitation engineer, senior citizen, tuna fish

In-reading Interpretation:

Para. 5

  4.

There is danger ... appear ridiculaous.

The change of people’s way of perception does not occur quickly or always. Sometimes we have such change, but sometimes not. And the change needs to undergo a long way. The change will occur if there is a social, cultural, (or other’s) tendency. i.e. if the new perspective coincides with a kind of tendency in the society, otherwise, the euphemistic name will remain incongruous or ridiculous.

 e.g. (ll. 73-5) ‘facilitator’ (teacher): wildly accepted in ELT field now, pedegogical theory  ‘childperson’ (boys and girls): ridiculous

In-reading Interpretation:

Para. 5

 5. Why the attempt to rename ‘old people’ ‘senior citizens’ has turned out successful and that to rename ‘boys and girls’ ‘childpersons’ would not? (3-8)  Among the general public as well as the old people themselves, there is the urge for recognition of their political identity. But so far there has not emerged such an urge to eliminate the gender distinction between ‘boys’ and ‘girls’.

 6. Main idea: change must be supported by authentic trends  There is a danger in supposing that a new name can change attitudes quickly or always.

In-reading Interpretation:

Para. 6

  1.

But to suppose ... the power of names.

As we know from above, a new name cannot always change attitudes. But if we think a new name will not at all change the attitudes, we underestimate the power of names.

 e.g. (ll. 77-80) black - negro (euphemism) black (euphemism in reverse): perceptions and attitudes have changed significantly with the change of the name.

In-reading Interpretation:

Para. 6

 2. Do you think so? (3-9)  Not really. The change in name might not have been so powerful as P assumes. If there was any marked change in people’s perception of and attitude to the Americans of African origin in the 60’s, it should really be attributed to the mounting civil rights movement at that time.

 3. Main idea:

In-reading Interpretation:

Para. 7

    e.g. dead, pass away - both plainly and honestly, but different conception of what the event means. shithouse, restroom - both lead to the same place, but different attitude towards privacy and propriety (= politeness).

 1.

The key idea ... employ euphemism.

Euphemizing can affect the culture, e.g. black (race discrimination), chairperson (sex discrimination) I don’t think euphemism is not ‘earthy’ (down-to-earth), direct language.

facilitator, teacher - both refer to the person doig the same job, but different function in education

In-reading Interpretation:

Para. 7

   2.

What I am saying ... to value and to see.

Changing a name by using euphemism (this figure of speech) has nothing to do with morality. Only when the name has some moral content explicitly or implicitly, we have the morality question.

 e.g. Operation Sunshine: hide the ugly reality, an immoral act, hide the immoral reality but, sanitation engineer: nothing to do with morality

In-reading Interpretation:

Para. 7

 3. Main idea: a more elaborated definition  NATO plays word games  WHILE launching an undeclared war against Yugoslavia, US-led NATO is playing a game of words.  At news briefings, Pentagon and NATO officials are likely to use euphemisms to whitewash their crimes in Yugoslavia.

In-reading Interpretation:

Para. 7

 Shortly after US-led NATO began its air strikes against Yugoslavia, Pentagon officials touted their actions as   "humanitarian intervention" to justify their barbarism. During their more than 70 days of strikes, they repeatedly played the same game of words. First, they explained their  missile raids on the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade as a "mistake," and then attempted to transform their atrocities into  regrettable but necessary "collateral damage."

In-reading Interpretation:

Para. 7

  citizens into thinking that to die for this war amounts to "joining the immortals." What a smart expression!  In their eyes, no other means is more effective in hoodwinking the public than euphemisms, with which they lull their While inflicting the scourge of war on Yugoslav people, Pentagon officials seem to let the world know that Yugoslavia  should thank them for not using "selective ordinances."

In-reading Interpretation:

Para. 7

 Every phrase used is so "sweet" and "gracious" to hear, it is difficult to associate the words with war maniacs stained by   the blood of Yugoslavians. Their well-prepared euphemistic words, however, cannot fool people of common and moral sense.  Pentagon officials made a fatal mistake when they cooked up their lies: Who can believe a wolf in sheep's clothing?