9.10
BLENDS
BLENDS are hybrid words. They are compounds made in an unorthodox way by joining chunks of word-
forms belonging to two distinct lexemes. This word-formation method has grown in popularity in recent
decades. Many ordinary words are blends. Like acronyms, some of them are so well installed in the lexicon
that most speakers are unaware of the fact that they are hybrid words rather than simple roots. Which of the
following words did you know were hybrids?
[9.18]
smog
smoke+fog
spam
spiced+ham
brunch
breakfast+lunch
privateer
private+volunteer
stagflation
stagnation+inflation
chunnel
channel+tunnel
Oxbridge
Oxford+Cambridge
pornotopia
pornography+Utopia
napalm
naphthenic+palmitic
guestimate
guess+estimate
Reaganomics
Reagan+economics
telethon
telephone+marathon
128 WORDS GALORE
Fortran
formula+translation
selectric
select+electric
quasar
quasi+stellar
heliport
helicopter+airport
Franglais
Français+Anglais
9.11
EUPHEMISM
People normally try to avoid topics or words that they or their interlocuter might find distasteful, unpleasant
or embarrassing. So they use EUPHEMISMS to replace an unpleasant word with a more pleasant one (cf.
Holder 1987, Green 1987). Euphemisms motivated by the need to be sensitive to other people’s feelings
came into the foreground in the late 1980s and early 1990s in a lively debate about ‘political correctness’.
The issue was the extent to which language that might be offensive to any of the less powerful groups in
society should be avoided—or even banned. For instance, a vigorous discussion was conducted in the media
about attempts to replace the term disabled with the more positive term differently abled, and even more
recently, physically challenged. Interestingly, what many people do not know is that the term disabled was
itself a euphemism for crippled, which was abandoned because of its pejorative connotations.
Similar examples from earlier periods in history are numerous. Imbecile originally meant ‘weak’ and
idiot
meant ‘non-expert, layperson’. When these words had their meanings extended to soften the blow of
saying that someone had very limited intellectual powers, the original meanings were obscured and
eventually got lost. Unfortunately, when we use euphemisms, the unpleasant associations eventually catch
up with the new word. Then it is time to find another one. Surely, a more effective solution to the problem of
reducing the hurt caused by using pejorative language is to change the attitudes of people who consciously
or unconsciously use such language.
Euphemisms are often motivated by TABOO rather than the desire not to hurt people’s feelings. Every
culture has its forbidden subjects which are normally not referred to directly because of decency or respect
or fear. Let us take respect first. At one time God could not be referred to by name—for using his name in
vain was blasphemous. So, instead of saying God, people spoke of the Lord, the Lord of Lords, the King of
Kings, the King of Glory, the Omnipotent, the All-Powerful
and so on.
There are many euphemisms for the devil too, but these are motivated by fear rather than respect. As the
saying goes ‘Speak of the devil…’. So, euphemisms were used in more superstitious times. Many of these
are immortalised in the poem ‘Address to the De’il’ (devil) by Robert Burns (in Beattie and Meikle (1972)
which opens with the lines:
[9.19]
ADDRESS TO THE DE’IL
O thou! whatever title suit thee,
Auld Hornie, Satan, Nick or Clootie,
Wha in yon cavern grim an’ sootie,
Clos’d under hatches
Spairges about the brunstane cootie,
To scaud poor wretches!
Hear me, auld Hangie, for a wee,
ENGLISH WORDS 129
An’ let poor damned bodies be;
I’m sure sma’ pleasure it can gie,
E’en to a de’il,
To skelp an’ scaud poor dogs like me,
An’ hear us squeel!
Taboo may also be due to decency. Sexually explicit language is often avoided. Thus, the Victorians
spoke of a lady’s limb, not her leg because that was deemed too suggestive. (This was even extended to
pianos. They would refer to a piano’s limbs rather than its legs.) And today in North America a rooster is called
a rooster in order to avoid saying the embarrassing c… word.
There is a particular kind of euphemism that involves using language in a perverse way to conceal thought.
This is called DOUBLESPEAK. It is an indispensable weapon in the armoury of totalitarian regimes. It
endeavours to make acts of unspeakable brutality look tolerable, or even humane and civilised. When
political opponents are incarcerated without even a semblance of a trial, they are said to be in preventive
detention
. Extra-judicial killings are referred to as mere disappearances. Torture colonies are called
protected villages
or re-education centres. The state agency responsible for the assassination of political
opponents during the apartheid regime in the Republic of South Africa was called the Civil Co-operation
Bureau
. Population purges, pogroms and forced migrations are referred to as ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and
Zaïre. Hitler called the genocide of the Jewish people in death factories the final solution.
A perverse use can be found for almost any word in doublespeak. Let us illustrate this with the word
friendly
. In the carve-up of Europe at Yalta, Stalin insisted on the governments of Eastern Europe being
‘friendly’. A reasonable demand? We all know what he meant. He wanted Eastern Europe to be part of the
Soviet empire which he ruled with an iron fist.
Doublespeak is very common in the language of the military of all colours—even the good guys. Many a
militaristic regime which regularly terrorises its neighbours will refer to its war machine as a defence force.
An unprovoked attack is often referred to as a preventive war. If a campaign goes badly wrong and the
troops are forced by enemy fire to retreat, the official report that goes out describes the disaster as a
strategic withdrawal
. If things go disastrously wrong and you kill soldiers who are on your own side, you tell
the world that they were killed by friendly fire.
Killing people is something that shocks even the hardened professional soldier or the executioner. The
shock is usually dampened by using euphemisms like:
[9.20]
neutralise
kill
take out
kill
stretch the hemp
to kill by hanging
the (electric) chair
electrocution
neck-tie party
lynching
Thus language is used not to reveal thought or represent reality, but to obscure both. The false images
created using doublespeak replace the inconvenient reality one would rather not confront.
130 WORDS GALORE
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |