Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics
Vol. 28:1 (2018) ► pp.113–138

Taboo effects at the syntactic level

Reducing agentivity as a euphemistic strategy

| Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium
| Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium
This paper analyses the linguistic resources used by speakers to profile the participants in taboo actions, focusing on expressions for the concept abortar 'to abort' in Spanish sociolinguistic interviews. The tokens referring to the action are analysed in terms of linguistic features that affect agentivity at the level of verbs, subjects and objects. The combination of different linguistic features is classified in three levels of agentivity (prototypical agents, non-prototypical agents and non-agents) with various sublevels. The presence of modals further contributes to reducing agentivity, causing the maximally agentive profiling to be rather infrequent. Second, though the direct construal abortar is generally preferred, the levels of agentivity interplay with onomasiological variation. Third, social variables are not significantly correlated with the levels of agentivity. The paper concludes that mitigating agentivity is a euphemistic strategy against the taboo of a fully agentive woman who aborts, based on the cultural conceptualization of unwanted abortion.
Keywords: taboo, Spanish, agentivity, modality, mitigation, euphemism
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Agentivity and taboo
    • 2.1The case of taboo actions
    • 2.2 Abortar ‘to abort’
  • 3.Data and method
    • 3.1Data
    • 3.2Analytical method
      • 3.2.1Verbs
      • 3.2.2Subjects
      • 3.2.3Objects
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Levels of agentivity
      • Level 1.Prototypical agents (PA)
      • Level 2. Non-prototypical agents (NPA)
      • Level 3Non-agents (NA)
    • 4.2Presence of modals
    • 4.3Interaction with directness of construal
    • 4.4Interaction with social variables
  • 5.Interpretation: Reducing agentivity as a euphemistic strategy
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 13 February 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17001.piz
References (53)
References
Allan, Keith, and Kate Burridge. 1991. Euphemism and Dysphemism. Language Used as Shield and Weapon. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2006. Forbidden Words. New York: Cambridtge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ávila, Rubén, and Pedro Gras. 2014. “‘No sin él’: Análisis crítico del discurso de las campañas de prevención del VIH dirigidas a hombres que tienen sexo con hombres en españa.” Discurso y Sociedad 8 (2): 137–81.Google Scholar
Barron, Nancy. 1971. “Sex-Typed Language: The Production of Grammatical Cases.” Acta Sociologica 141: 24–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berk-Seligson, Susan. 1983. “Sources of Variation in Spanish Verb Construction Usage: The Active, the Dative, and the Reflexive Passive.” Journal of Pragmatics 7 (2): 145–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logo DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cestero Mancera, Ana María. 2015. “La expresión del tabú: Estudio sociolingüístico.” Boletín de Filología 50 (1): 71–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chamizo Domínguez, Pedro J., and Francisco Sánchez Benedito. 2000. Lo que nunca se aprendió en clase. Eufemismos y disfemismos en el lenguaje erótico inglés. Granada: Comares.Google Scholar
Christie, Christine. 2013. “The Relevance of Taboo Language: An Analysis of the Indexical Values of Swearwords.” Journal of Pragmatics 581: 152–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulson, Seana. 1992. “Is Incest Best? The Role of Pragmatic Scales and Cultural Models in Abortion Rhetoric.” Center for Research in Language Newsletter 7 (2), accessed March 20, 2017, [URL].
Crespo-Fernández, Eliecer. 2007. El eufemismo y el disfemismo. Procesos de manipulación del tabú en el lenguaje literario inglés. Alicante: Universidad de Alicante.Google Scholar
. 2013. “Words as Weapons for Mass Persuasion: Dysphemism in Churchill’s Wartime Speeches.” Text and Talk 33 (3): 311–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Sex in Language. Euphemistic and Dysphemistic Metaphors in Internet Forums. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Croft, W., and A. Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruse, D. A. 1973. “Some Thoughts on Agentivity.” Journal of Linguistics 9 (1): 11–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Cock, Barbara. 2014. Profiling Discourse Participants. Forms and Functions in Spanish Conversation and Debates. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
De Cock, Barbara, and Daniel Michaud Maturana. 2014. “La expresión de la agentividad en el Informe Rettig (Chile, 1991).” Revista Internacional de Linguistica Iberoamericana 231: 123–40.Google Scholar
. 2018. “Discursive Construction of Human Rights Violations: The Case of the Chilean Rettig Report.” Text & Talk 38(1): 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delancey, Scott. 1984. “Notes on Agentivity and Causation.” Studies in Language 81: 181–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delbecque, Nicole. 2003. “La variable expresión del agente en las construcciones pasivas.” Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica LI (21): 373–416. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delbecque, Nicole, and Béatrice Lamiroy. 1999. “La subordinación sustantiva: Las subordinadas enunciativas en los complementos verbales.” In Gramática Descriptiva de La Lengua Española (Vol. 21), edited by Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte, 1965–2083. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk, Stefan Grondelaers, and Peter Bakema. 1994. The Structure of Lexical Variation. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gómez Torrego, Leonardo. 1998. La impersonalidad gramatical: Descripción y norma. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
. 1999. “Los verbos auxiliares. Las perífrasis verbales de infinitivo.” In Gramática Descriptiva de La Lengua Española (Vol. 21), edited by Ignacio Bosque, and Violeta Demonte, 3323–90. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.Google Scholar
Gradečak-Erdeljić, Tanja, and Goran Milić. 2011. “Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Case of Euphemisms and Dysphemisms.” In Defining Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. Towards a Consensus View, edited by Réka Benczes, Antonio Barcelona, and Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, 147–166. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan, and Dirk Geeraerts. 1998. “Vagueness as a Euphemistic Strategy.” In Speaking of Emotions: Conceptualisation and Expression, edited by Angeliki Athanasiadou, and Elżbieta Tabakowska, 357–74. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gruber, Jeffrey S. 1967. “Look and See.” Language 43 (4): 937–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood. 1967. “Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English: Part 2.” Journal of Linguistics 3 (2): 199–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janicki, Karol. 2006. Language Misconceived. Arguing for Applied Cognitive Sociolinguistics. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Kany, Charles E. 1960. American-Spanish Euphemisms. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Kumar, Anuradha, Leila Hessini, and Ellen M. H. Mitchell. 2009. “Conceptualising Abortion Stigma.” Culture, Health & Sexuality 11 (6): 625–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lemmens, Maarten. 1997. “The Transitive-Ergative Interplay and the Conception of the World: A Case Study.” In Lexical and Syntactical Constructions and the Construction of Meaning, ed. by Marjolijn Verspoor, Kee Dong Lee and Eve Sweetser, 363–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. Lexical Perspectives on Transitivity and Ergativity. Causative Constructions in English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leonetti, Manuel. 1990. El artículo y la referencia. Madrid: Taurus.Google Scholar
López Morales, Humberto. 2001. “Estratificación social del tabú lingüístico: El caso de Puerto Rico.” In Actas del I Congreso de la Asociación de Lingüística y Filología de América Latina (ALFAL) Región Noroeste de Europa, edited by Bob de Jonge. Estudios de Lingüística del Español 13, accessed March 20, 2017, [URL].
Lyons, John. 1968. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mendikoetxea, Amaya. 1999a. “Construcciones con se: Medias, pasivas e impersonales.” In Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, edited by Ignacio Bosque, and Violeta Demonte, 1631–1722. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.Google Scholar
. 1999b. “Construcciones inacusativas y pasivas.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española (vol. 21), edited by Violeta Demonte, and Ignacio Bosque, 1575–1630. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.Google Scholar
Norris, Allison, Danielle Bessett, Julia R. Steinberg, Megan L. Kavanaugh, and Davida Becker Silvia De Zordo. 2011. “Abortion Stigma: A Reconceptualization of Constituents, Causes, and Consequences.” Women’s Health Issue 49–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan, Pieter Byloo, and Janneke Diepeveen. 2010. “On Deontic Modality, Directivity, and Mood: The Case of Dutch Mogen and Moeten.” Journal of Pragmatics 42 (1): 16–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Observatorio de Salud de la Mujer, O.S.M. 2005. “Estudio sociológico: Contexto de la interrupción voluntaria del embarazo en población adolescente y juventud temprana.” Madrid: Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo.Google Scholar
Pizarro Pedraza, Andrea. 2013. Tabú y eufemismo en la ciudad de Madrid. Estudio sociolingüístico-cognitivo de los conceptos sexuales. Madrid: Universidad Complutense.Google Scholar
. 2015. “Who Said ‘Abortion’? Semantic Variation and Ideology in Spanish Newspapers’ Online Discussions.” Australian Journal of Linguistics 35 (1): 53–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. “Calling Things by Their Name: Exploring the Social Meanings in the Preference for Sexual (In)Direct Construals.” In Linguistic Taboo Revisited: Novel Insights from Cognitive Perspectives, ed. by Andrea Pizarro Pedraza, 245–268. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. Submitted. “ MadSex: Collecting a spoken corpus of indirectly elicited sexual concepts.”
Purcell, Carrie, Shona Hilton, and Lisa McDaid. 2014. “The Stigmatisation of Abortion: A Qualitative Analysis of Print Media in Great Britain in 2010.” Culture, Health & Sexuality 16 (9): 1141–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramos, Ramón. 1982. “Informe-resumen de los resultados de una investigación sociológica sobre el aborto mediante discusiones de grupo.” Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas 211 (enero-marzo): 243–54.Google Scholar
Real Academia Española. (2001). Diccionario de la lengua española (DLE) (23rd ed.). [URL].
Rodríguez González, Félix. 2011. Diccionario del sexo y el erotismo. Madrid: Alianza.Google Scholar
Tolchinsky, Liliana, and Elisa Rosado. 2005. “The Effect of Literacy, Text Type, and Modality on the Use of Grammatical Means for Agency Alternation in Spanish.” Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2): 209–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verstraete, Jean Christophe. 2005. “Scalar Quantity Implicatures and the Interpretation of Modality. Problems in the Deontic Domain.” Journal of Pragmatics 37 (9 SPEC. ISS.): 1401–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Warren, Beatrice. 1992. “What Euphemisms tell us about the Interpretation of Words.” Studia Linguistica 46 (2): 128–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yamamoto, Matsumi. 2006. Agency and Impersonality: Their Linguistic and Cultural Manifestations. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Greco, Sara & Barbara De Cock
2021. Argumentative misalignments in the controversy surrounding fashion sustainability. Journal of Pragmatics 174 ► pp. 55 ff. DOI logo
Pizarro Pedraza, Andrea
2019. MadSex: collecting a spoken corpus of indirectly elicited sexual concepts. Language Resources and Evaluation 53:1 ► pp. 191 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.