page 3

Swearing Patterns

The Science of Swearing .,.!***?!

By G.J.N

Psychologists seem to have given only scant attention to the subject of swearing, in the course of some other study, and only the psycho-analysts offer theories as to its origin and purpose? For example. Fenichel regards obscene swearing as a substitute sex-activity giving the swearer a sense of power over the sex-demon. This may explain obscene swearing, but does not account for the blasphemous swearing which often occurs in the same breath For many people, particularly among industrial working classes, swearing is a habit and has no more meaning than a difference in dialect. Of students who have worked in freezing-works, etc.. during the vacation, few will disagree with this. Temperament and upbringing would also play a significant part in determining the swearing habits of the individual.

During a three-week expedition in Arctic Norway, the swearing-rates of the members of the party were recorded and as swearing is thought to be a sign of annoyance or stress, an indication of group morale was obtained. The group consisted of five men and three women, all in their early twenties, all zoologists except the psychologist making the test. The expedition was studying the diurnal rhythms of birds during the continuous daylight, and since this work entailed considerable interruptions of and loss of sleep, most members had cause for irritation. The knowledge that records were being kept did not seem to affect the scores (after the initial reaction of amusement or anger), except when two of the heavier swearers had a deliberate competition.

The words used were blasphemous rather than obscene, as it is to be expected among the middle classes. Unlike working class people, their use of obscene words was deliberate and they took a delight in using them in the correct biological sense. The more violent language was used by the heavier swearers. There seemed to be two types of swearing: "social" swearing and "annoyance" swearing. Social swearing, by far the more common, was intended to be friendly and a sign of being "one of the gang" (also called "insecurity swearing"): it depended on the audience for effect, while annoyance swearing was a reaction to stress regardless of audience. The amount of swearing increased when people were relaxed and happy. It also increased under slight stress but decreased when members became really annoyed or tired. The variation of the total amount of swearing formed a graph like this. Social swearing predominant under low stress. With increasing stress, the drop in social swearing was greater than the rise of the other, resulting in a dip in the total during medium stress. Under high stress annoyance swearing reached a maximum and under really serious stress there was silence. As an example climbing down a cliff face at 4 a.m. in the rain to ring roughlegged buzzards produced a typical medium-stress situation, resulting in considerable "annoyance" and a little "social" swearing. Later, the expedition went on a twenty-mile all-night trek over rough tundra. Initially, there was little stress and swearing was of the "social" type. By morning, fatigue, thirst, delays and disagreements were causing a fair amount of "annoyance" swearing. Toward the end the group split up into twos and threes and straggled back to camp in silence.

Social swearing was easily inhibited by the lack of an appreciative audience, or the presence of non-swearers. Men (noble fellows) who had been in camp for a week felt it necessary to watch their tongues once the women arrived. When half the group, including three non-swearers, left on a separate expedition, the swearing rate immediately doubled and remained very high. This may have been due to a deliberate attempt to compensate for lost numbers by an increase in solidarity. When a female medium swearer spent two days alone with a male heavy swearer, the swearing rates of both increased, but when she spent a fortnight with a medium swearer (male) all swearing soon stopped. Other subjects might not be so easily influenced by the moods of their companions, but unless they are affected to some degree their swearing cannot be classed as "social" and must be merely verbal habit.

The fact that the usual reaction to serious stress is silence suggests that swearing is a sign that a disagreeable situation is bearable; the verbal expression of discomfort may even help to reduce stress. There is some experimental evidence which lends support to the hypothesis that subjects who swear or complain are likely to be under less stress than those who keep silent. For example tests on enlisted soldiers have shown that those who felt free to gripe about army life with their interviewer were less likely to show a rise in blood pressure than those who did not complain. Among subjects taking a written test where it was possible to cheat, those who swore and blamed the questioner were liable to cheat without compunction whereas those who kept silent and blamed their own stupidity felt guilty at the very idea of cheating and were more anxious and tense during the test.

The scientific study of swearing is complicated by the difficulty of deciding what is to count as swearing. The same words may be habitual for one person and very rare for another. In future studies it may be best to concentrate on medium swearers. More light might be thrown on social swearing by studying the same individual in similar experimental situations but among different sizes and types of groups. More direct experiments could also be made on the effects of swearing on reducing tension, and on the differences in upbringing and personality which encourage such swearing. It is expected that heavy swearing would correlate with extraversion and light swearing with introversion.