The reason we swear

Press, Volume CXVI, Issue 34099, 11 March 1976, Page 18

The reason we swear

(By

KEN COATES)

One reason we swear is to show we are out-in-front touuh guys, according to a leading authority on the English language. Professor Randolph Quirk, who is visiting Christchurch.

In an interview, the professor — who must rank as one of the world’s most articulate of men — said swearing was more of an exercise in personality than a denuding of the language. “If you feel you are a frontiersman, a tough guy. you want to do something to show it.” he said. ‘Most of us can’t — we live in a city, get into a car. and if we bash into people we get locked up. "If someone looks askance at your girlfriend. you, hesitate to throw a punch at; him: there are all kinds ofj constraints on showing your; manhood. “One way to show it is to; say. ‘I can’t flaunt conventions by knocking you down, you ugly-looking bastard. I( can call you an ignorantlooking. ugly bastard’ ” Swearing was an aggressiveness and show of fearlessness. And this was the;

basis of religious or, blasphemous swearing “when' you say you will even take on God.” Professor Quirk is Quain Professor of English at the ■University of London, is a prolific writer on the English 'language and grammar. and has lectured widely in coun-i tries including the United' States, the Soviet Union.! India. Canada, Nigeria,;

Ghana, and most Western European countries. He said there was much greater linguistic permissiveness today than when he grew up. But he noted less swearing in New Zealand than in Britain. In pubs, men used all kinds of euphemisms and even the übiquitous “bloody” seemed to be much less frequently heard in New Zealand than in Australia. The professor was obviously no stranger to the subject ’of swearing — he even dropped an odd one or two swear-words quite naturally for emphasis himself. Generally, he said, swearing did not replace more pre-1 cise words; it replaced other i cliche words. As to what he termed ex-j cretory and sexual swearing, j Professor Quirk said this was I not so much a debasing of! language, as a debasing of) human sensibilities. “If the language of sexual love is used in relation to ) trivial things, then it seems ■one is making certain un-j conscious equations which, .mean reducing love to the* ilevel of the brothel. It is a' matter of public taste and morality, rather than langu»age standards.” i

The professor said it was no longer appropriate to talk of the standard of English—“one talks about national standards of English.” The standard of New Zealand English was here in New Zealand. He spoke of Australian, British, and American pressures but added: “Our standards are fixed within our boundaries, but are carried by our professional people—by our newspapers, broadcasters, by our lawyers, teachers, and schools and universities. “They are always modified as people look over their shoulders at standards else- ' where.” ■ Spoken English in New j Zealand was closer to midAtlantic or British English I than any other expatriate ; English in the world, with ! the possible exception of j Rhodesia. Professor Quirk will give 'a lecture, “English Across I Frontiers” at Canterbury j University tonight. In it. he ; will say that the wider use jof English must not be used ;as an excuse for New Zealanders and other English- | speakers not to learn foreign ' languages themselves.