Modern English is known to be a language made up of mainly two different roots: the Germanic
language that was spoken by many inhabitants of the British Isles before the Norman
Conquest in 1066, and the Romanic language that the Norman invaders brought with them.
These two origins, however, are not distributed equally on the English vocabulary: very generally
speaking, Germanic words more often denote basic concepts, while Romanic words
more often denote abstract concepts. This is illustrated by the fact that the General Service
List (GSL), listing the 2000 most frequent (and therefore most basic) English words, is
made up by 50.98 percent of words of Germanic origin, whereas in the Computer Dictionary
(CD)1, which consists of 80 096 words, only 26.28 percent of the entries have Germanic
roots, but a majority of 58.52 percent have Latin or Romanic ones (Scheler 1978: 72).
Therefore it seems quite obvious that swear-words in particular should, to a higher
percentage, have Germanic roots, because the concepts they denote are mostly ‘basic’,
the domain in which Germanic words are represented to a greater extent than Latin or
Romanic words.
Moreover, bearing in mind that words of Latin or Romanic origin are more likely to
denote abstract concepts and that they often seem to have a certain taste of ‘culture’ and
‘good education’, one could suppose that there is a higher percentage of Latin or Romanic
words among euphemisms.
These considerations led to the following hypothesis:
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Hypothesis
3. Methods
4. Results
5. Discussion / Conclusion
6. Literature
7. Appendix
Research Objectives and Topics
This paper investigates the etymological origins of English euphemisms and swear-words to determine if there is a predictable correlation between word origin (Germanic versus Latin/Romanic) and the social function or taboo status of the expression.
- Etymological analysis of Germanic versus Latin/Romanic roots in English.
- Creation of comparative corpora for swear-words and euphemisms.
- Analysis of the "basic" versus "abstract" nature of vocabulary categories.
- Correlation between word origin and taboo concepts (e.g., bodily functions, religion).
- Comparison of study results against general English vocabulary lists (GSL and CD).
Excerpt from the Book
1. Introduction
Modern English is known to be a language made up of mainly two different roots: the Germanic language that was spoken by many inhabitants of the British Isles before the Norman Conquest in 1066, and the Romanic language that the Norman invaders brought with them. These two origins, however, are not distributed equally on the English vocabulary: very generally speaking, Germanic words more often denote basic concepts, while Romanic words more often denote abstract concepts. This is illustrated by the fact that the General Service List (GSL), listing the 2000 most frequent (and therefore most basic) English words, is made up by 50.98 percent of words of Germanic origin, whereas in the Computer Dictionary (CD)1, which consists of 80 096 words, only 26.28 percent of the entries have Germanic roots, but a majority of 58.52 percent have Latin or Romanic ones (Scheler 1978: 72).
Therefore it seems quite obvious that swear-words in particular should, to a higher percentage, have Germanic roots, because the concepts they denote are mostly ‘basic’, the domain in which Germanic words are represented to a greater extent than Latin or Romanic words.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Introduces the linguistic roots of English and sets the premise that Germanic words typically represent basic concepts while Romanic words represent abstract ones.
2. Hypothesis: Posits that Germanic words are more prevalent in swear-words, while Latin/Romanic words are more frequent in euphemisms compared to standard vocabulary.
3. Methods: Details the creation of two corpora from existing dictionaries and linguistic literature to analyze the etymology of approximately 100 euphemisms and 55 swear-words.
4. Results: Presents statistical data and diagrams comparing the etymological distribution of the studied corpora against standard English word lists.
5. Discussion / Conclusion: Evaluates the findings, confirming that Germanic roots dominate swearing while exploring why euphemisms exhibit a more complex etymological makeup than initially expected.
6. Literature: Lists the academic sources and dictionaries utilized for etymological and corpus analysis.
7. Appendix: Provides the comprehensive lists of the created corpora, including the etymological breakdown of every included token.
Keywords
Germanic, Romanic, Etymology, Swear-words, Euphemisms, Linguistics, Vocabulary, Taboo, Basic concepts, Abstract concepts, Corpus, GSL, Computer Dictionary, Norman Conquest, Social history.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research?
The paper examines the etymological origins—specifically Germanic versus Latin/Romanic roots—of English swear-words and euphemisms.
What are the primary thematic areas covered?
It covers historical linguistics, word frequency, taboo language, and the relationship between the origin of a word and its perceived social "register" or "abstractness."
What is the primary hypothesis of the paper?
The study hypothesizes that swear-words are predominantly of Germanic origin due to their link to basic concepts, while euphemisms are more likely to contain Latin/Romanic roots.
Which methodology is employed in this study?
The author created two specific corpora (one for euphemisms and one for swear-words) and cross-referenced each token with entries in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary to determine etymology.
What does the main body of the text cover?
The body covers the theoretical justification for the study, the detailed methodological process of selecting and categorizing words, the presentation of statistical results, and an analysis of why certain euphemisms might defy expected etymological patterns.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include etymology, Germanic, Romanic, taboo, swearing, euphemisms, and corpus linguistics.
How were words involving multiple components handled during the etymological analysis?
The author established specific rules: functional words like prepositions were ignored to avoid skewing data, and complex expressions were either treated as single tokens or split depending on whether their components shared an etymological origin.
Why does the author suggest that swear-words have a higher percentage of Germanic roots?
The author argues that swear-words typically refer to "basic" bodily functions, family, and religious concepts, which are historically dominated by Germanic vocabulary in English.
- Quote paper
- Judith Huber (Author), 2004, The Origins of Euphemisms and Swear Words in the English Language, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/24862
