UNIVERZITET U BEOGRADU FILOLOŠKI FAKULTET Jelena Ilić STAVOVI NOVIH GENERACIJA STUDENATA ENGLESKOG JEZIKA PREMA UPOTREBI TABU IZRAZA SA ENGLESKOG I BOŠNJAČKOG / HRVATSKOG / SRPSKOG GOVORNOG PODRUČJA doktorska disertacija Beograd, 2012. 1 UNIVERSITY OF BELGRADE FACULTY OF PHILOLOGY Jelena Ilić THE ATTITUDES OF NEWER GENERATION OF STUDENTS OF ENGLISH TOWARDS THE TABOO WORD USAGE WITHIN ENGLISH AND BOSNIAC / CROATIAN / SERBIAN SPEAKING REGIONS doctoral dissertation Belgrade, 2012 2 Rad je izrađen u pet (5) primjeraka. Broj UDK Narodne i/ili Univerzitetske biblioteke: ____________________ Rad ima ukupno 259 stranica. Rad broj: ____________________ INFORMACIJE O MENTORU I ČLANOVIMA KOMISIJE: Mentor rada: doc.dr. Ivana Trbojević Milošević, docent, Filološki fakultet, Univerzitet u Beogradu Članovi komisije: _________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Datum odbrane doktorske disertacije: ____________________ 3 JELENA ILIĆ BIOGRAFIJA ▪ Rođena 07.03.1980. godine u Tuzli. ▪ Završila Osnovnu školu "Brčanska Malta" u Tuzli školske 1994./1995.godine, a zatim i maturirala u Općoj gimnaziji pri Katoličkom školskom centru "Sveti Franjo" u Tuzli 1999.godine. ▪ U toku dodiplomskog studija engleskog jezika i književnosti pri Odsjeku za engleski jezik i književnost Filozofskog fakulteta Univerziteta u Tuzli (1999- 2003) ostvarila prosječnu ocjenu 8.19, a zahvaljujući postignutim akademskim rezultatima nagrađivana je na Dan Univerziteta i to, 18.12.2002. godine, bronzanom plaketom Univerziteta u Tuzli za postignutu prosječnu ocjenu u toku treće godine studija od 8.80, a 18.12.2003. godine srebrnom plaketom Univerziteta u Tuzli za postignutu prosječnu ocjenu u toku četvrte godine studija od 9.25. ▪ Diplomirala 10.12.2003. godine, pod mentorstvom doc. dr. Boris Berića, ocjenom deset (10) na temu iz oblasti Moderne engleske književnosti pod nazivom "Problematika rasizma i kolonijalizma u Joseph Conradovom Srcu tame". ▪ U zvanje asistenta za užu naučnu oblast 'Savremeni engleski jezik' izabrana počevši od 18.02.2004.godine, otkada je angažirana na kolegiju 'Savremeni engleski jezik I i II', odnosno na dijelu kolegija jezične vježbe engleskog jezika. ▪ U trenutnoj akademskoj 2011/12. godini izvodi vježbe na kolegiju 'Jezične vježbe III i IV', za tri grupe studenata druge godine odsjeka za engleski jez ik i književnost, zatim na kolegiju ‘Sintaksa engleskog jezika II’ za jednu grupu studenata druge godine, zatim na kolegiju ' Engleski jezik I’ za tri grupe studenata prve godine odsjeka za žurnalistiku, te izbornom kolegiju ‘Pragmalingvistika’ za studente treće godine odsjeka za engleski jezik i književnost. ▪ Od 08.09.2003.- 30.03.2004. godine angažirana je i na izvođenju nastave u Općoj gimnaziji pri Katoličkom školskom centru "Sveti Franjo" u Tuzli. ▪ Postdiplomski polilingvalni studij savremene lingvistike Filozofskog fakulteta Univerziteta u Tuzli upisala je u aprilu 2004.g. i uspješno odslušala i položila sve predmete s visokom prosječnom ocjenom (9,71). ▪ Magistarski rad na temu „ (Ne)eksplicitnost jezičnog izraza nasilja u crtanim filmovima“ („ (In)explicitness of linguistic presentation of violence in cartoons“) pripremala s mentorom doc. dr. I vanom Trbojević-Milošević i uspješno ga odbranila 28.09.2007.godine, te time stekla pravo na naučni stepen Magistra humanističkih nauka iz područje lingvistike. ▪ Objavila je deset publikacija iz uže naučne oblasti, te učestvovala i prezentirala radove na pet međunarodnih lingvističkih konferencija. 4 SUMMARY The aim of this doctoral thesis is to analyze and determine the attitudes of newer generations of under-graduate students of English at several universities in Bosnia and Herzegovina towards usage of taboo expressions. Taboos stem from social and cultural repressions marking impoliteness, disrespect, bad manners and even impudence and rudeness. Although often considered irrelevant and degrading there is a great attention paid to a swear word within the framework of taboo words. Swear words regularly undergo processes of censorship, especially in the media, and it is not a rari ty that a great number of sw earwords have been omitted and forbidden in various contexts for good. It is a fact that most 20 th-century eminent linguists used to ignore and marginalize the issue of swearwords within their linguistic theories although being aware that swearing freely exists within formal and especially informal contexts. Not only has swearing been considered a marginal phenomenon in academic linguistic research but it has also been considered disrespectful and rejected as unworthy. The lack of research and analyses goes in favour of the aforementioned statement. Therefore, this doctoral thesis will present a comprehensive, meticulous and complete piece of research based on the serious and thorough analysis of the attitudes of newer generations of students of English towards the taboo word usage within English and Bosniac / Croatian / Serbian speaking reg ions. The thesis aims at presenting the actual usage of taboo words in everyday conversations and in the languages students communicate in on a daily basis. The general ai m will be to remove all taboo off such a legitimate topic which contemporary linguists should not disregard nor ignore. It will also tackle the attitudes towards the censoring and censorship as well as the possible change in tolerance and acceptance of tab oo words in this day and age. There are many quest ions related to taboo word usage to be answered as the general 5 usage of taboo words nowadays, the consequences of the usage, the influence that such words may have upon the standardized language(s) as well as the influence of such words on the linguistic behaviour of an individual. The research presented in the doctoral thesis has been conducted in accordance with current sociolinguistic and pragmatic theories and with the application of appropriate sociolinguistic parameters. Key words: taboo, Politeness Theory, pragmatic competence, saving / losing face, swearing, political correctness, euphemism, censorship. 6 REZIME Cilj ove doktorske disertacije jeste da ispita i utvrdi stavove novih generacija studenata sa dodiplomskog studija Engleskog jezika i književnosti u univerzitetskim gradovima na području Bosne i Hercegovine prema upotrebi jezičnih izraza koji pripadaju veoma delikatnoj jezičnoj pojavi - tabuu. Tabu izrazi proizilaze iz socijalnih i kulturoloških stega identifikujući ponašanje koje je, kao takvo, presedan nepoštivanja, neuljudnosti, loših manira i čak bestidnosti i bezobrazluka. U okviru tabu izraza posebna se pažnja posvećuje psovci koja je rijetko bila predmet lingvističkog istraživanja, jer se s matrala apsolutno nevažnom i štaviše degradirajućom. U medijima su ovakvi izrazi prolazili kroz iscrpne procese cenzurisanja, ili, pak, bili u potpunosti zabranjivani. Čak su i eminentni lingvisti prošloga stoljeća razvijali jezične teorije isključujući psovanje, premda su bili svjesni da ono itekako postoji i da je, šta više, vrlo zastupljeno, naročito u neformalnim svakodnevnim razgovorima. Itekako je osjetna njihova marginalizovanost u naučno- istraživačkim lingvističkim radovima, a donekle i izopćenost iz javne komunikacije, čemu svjedoče i sva dosadašnja ispitivanja i analize. Zbog te činjenice ova doktorska disertacija će sveobuhvatno, iscrpno i cjelovito istražiti i analizirati stavove novih generacija studenata prema upotrebi tabu izraza sa engleskog i boš njačkog / hrvatskog / srpskog govornog područja, nastojeći pokazati stvarnu upotrebu tabu izraza u svakodnevnom govoru i to na oba jezika koje studenti svakodnevno koriste. Ovaj rad će pokušati ukloniti sve tabue sa jedne legitimne teme koju lingvisti nikako ne bi trebali ignorirati i odbacivati. Promotrit će se i stavovi prema cenzuri tabu izraza, kao i eventualno pomijeranje granica tolerancije koje postoji prema tabu izrazima. Također će se ispitati i stavovi pr ema posljedici upotrebe tabu izraza i eventualnom uticaju na promjenu jezika, te ocijeniti takvi uticaji na jezik i jezično ponašanje ispitanika, polazeći 7 sa osnovnih stajališta sociolingvistike , pragmatike i odgovarajućih sociolingvističkih parametara. Ključne riječi: tabu, teorija učtivosti, pragmatička kompetencija, čuvanje / ugrožavanje obraza, psovanje, politička korektnost, eufemizam, cenzura. 8 List of symbols and abbreviations used / Pregled korištenih simbola i oznaka: B/C/S – Bosniac / Croatian / Serbian speaking regions BLW – bad language word D - distance FTA – face threatening act H – hypothesis MGT – matched-guise technique MP – model person P - power PC – political correctness PP – politeness principle R – rank of imposition SW - swearword TT – taboo topic Wx – weightiness (or seriousness) of the FTA 9 CONTENTS 1. CHAPTER 1 – General Introduction 12 1.1. The Aims of the Study 12 1.2. Hypotheses 13 1.3. Theoretical Framework 16 1.4. Methodology and the Corpus 17 2. CHAPTER 2 – On Politeness 19 2.1. Definitions of Politeness2 22 2.2. Approaches to Politeness2 25 2.2.1. Grice’s Cooperative Principle 26 2.2.2. Lakoff’s Pragmatic Competence 28 2.2.3. Leech’s Model of General Pragmatics 30 2.2.4. Brown & Levinson’s Theory of Linguistic Politeness 32 3. CHAPTER 3 – Notion of Face 34 3.1. Positive and Negative Politeness Sub-strategies 37 3.2. Relevant Parameters for Adequate Strategy Use 41 3.2.1. Rapport Orientation 42 3.2.2. Contextual Variables 44 3.2.3. Pragmatic Principles and Conventions 50 3.3. Criticism of Brown & Levinson’s Notion of Face 51 3.4. Facework and Impoliteness 53 4. CHAPTER 4 – The Phenomenon of Swearing 56 4.1. The Power of Taboo 57 4.2. Bad Language 59 4.2.1. Jargon 61 4.2.2. Slang 62 4.2.3. Offensive language (foul language, coarse language, swearing, cursing, cussing) 64 4.2.4. Political Correctness 68 10 4.2.5. Insults and Maledictions 74 4.3. Essential Sociolinguistic Parameters Relevant for Bad Language Use 75 4.3.1. Gender and Swearing 76 4.3.2. Age and Swearing 78 4.3.3. Social class and swearing 79 4.3.4. Geographical Area and Swearing 81 4.3.4.1. Swearing in Bosnia and Herzegovina 82 5. CHAPTER 5 – The Role of Censorship 84 6. CHAPTER 6 – On Attitudes 87 6.1. The Structure of Attitudes 88 6.2. Attitudes and Behaviour 91 6.3. Attitude Formation and Change 92 6.4. Functions of Attitudes 94 6.5. Language Attitudes 95 6.6. Types of Language Attitudes 97 6.7. Measuring Attitudes 99 7. CHAPTER 7 – Language Attitudes on Politeness / Impoliteness 104 8. CHAPTER 8 – The Survey 108 8.1. Conducting the Survey 108 8.2. Results and Discussion 114 8.2.1. Common Taboo Topics 114 8.2.2. Talking about Taboo Topics with Parents, Friends and Teachers 130 8.2.3. Common Swearwords 141 8.2.4. On Usage of Swearwords 146 8.2.5. Swearwords do Hurt? 153 8.2.6. When to Use Swearwords? 168 8.2.7. On Censorship and Censoring 175 8.2.8. Examinees’ Strongest Mother Tongue / English Swearwords 187 8.2.8.1. The Frequency of Mother Tongue / English Swearwords 192 9. CHAPTER 9 – Conclusion 198 11 10. CHAPTER 10 – References 210 Electronic references 216 11. Appendix A – Questionnaire (in English) 217 12. Appendix B – Questionnaire (in mother tongue) 220 13. Appendix C – List of Figures and Tables 223 14. Appendix D – Statistical Calculations 229 15. Appendix E – Izjava o autorstvu 257 16. Appendix F – Izjava o istovetnosti štampane i elektronske verzije doktorskog rada 258 17. Appendix G – Izjava o korišćenju 259 12 1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION 1.1. The Aims of the Study Given that a swear word is often considered irrelevant and degrading in many societies and that an issue of swearwords has regularly been avoided and ignored in academic linguistic research, there is an apparent and urgent need to address the matter of taboos and swearing in detail. It can be realized that th e issue of swearwords becomes a core concern, especially in cases when translation of swearword is required, from one language into another. It is of great importance to find out the public attitude towards this matter as to determine an actual nature and use of swearwords in social interactions . Moreover, the importance of conducting this study lies in answering the question of swearing being marked as an inappropriate and impolite language reserved only for the uneducated and the marginalized . Then, there is a persistent problem related to the frequent occurrences and (in)ap propriate tr anslations of swearwords . Therefo re, this doctoral thesis focuses on the main aim to provide a comprehensive and meticulous overview, analysis and interpretation of the real usage of taboos and swearing. In order to achieve this aim the generations of unde r-graduate students of English enrolled from 2008 to 2011 at several universities in Bosnia and Herzegovina have been examined revealing interesting facts on their attitudes towards the taboo word usage within English and Bosniac / Croatian / Serbian speaking regions. Thus, the aims of the study are as follows: • to identify and analyze the taboo word usage 13 • to examine and describe the relation between the taboo word usage and linguistic behaviour of an individual • to conduct a survey of such word usage in the population of the under-graduate students of English at four universities in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Tuzla University, Banja Luka University, Zenica University and Mostar University) and describe their attitudes towards swearwords from English and Bosniac / Croatian / Serbian speaking regions • to investigate their attitudes towards the possible use of euphemisms as swearword replacements • to address the most common swearword selection in relation to various parameters, such as gender, age, social class and geographical area • to tackle the issue of (possible) swearword censorship 1.2. Hypotheses Principal Hypothesis Inherently bearing sociolinguistic and pragmatic features, swearword has changed its status and has become less of a tabooed concept, which also r esults in the minimal censorship of a great number of swe arwords from English and Bosniac / Croatian / Serbian speaking regions in social interactions. There are eight supporting hypotheses additional to the principal hypothesis. 14 Supporting Hypotheses As t aboo words construct a very powerful socio- linguistic force, the apparent everyday need to use these words in communication s eems therefore quite reasonable and justified. Although the most typical function is thought to be sheer offence and violence, swearwords may actually assume various functions in various contexts; they are used to describe a person’s legitimate and purposeful behaviour, which can never be taken for granted – swearing may not necessarily appear as a violent and offensive behaviour of a person towards the listener / audience. A euphemism could not completely replace swearword. These do not appear as complete synonyms, so there is a potential room for a gap in semantic meanings i.e. swearwords expressed through euphemisms are often altered and sometimes totally different, changing the expressive effect of original swearwords. Sociolinguistic parameter gender influences the choice of foul language vocabulary and swearing habits within particular situations – it is to be estimate d which bad language words are more typical for males and whi ch are more typical for females . It is, generally, anticipated that male students would be more swearing-prone than female students, which is also due to a traditional belief that men generally swear more than women and that women tend to use more polite, refined and ladylike language . Gender differences in swearword usage and swearing style are to be observed and estimated. 15 Sociolinguistic parameter age influences the choice of foul language vocabulary and swearing habits within particular situations – it is to be estimated which age group uses bad language words more, from freshmen to senior students. It is, generally, anticipated that first year students, as a younger generation, use swearwords more than senior students. The research will also discuss the choice of foul language vocabulary typical for freshmen, sophomores, juniors and seniors. Sociolinguistic parameter social class influences the choice of foul language vocabulary and sweari ng habits within particular situations – it is to be investigated whether the social class of a particular interactant plays a significant role in BLWs us age i.e. it is to be determined whether the underprivileged students use BLWs more than the privileged students or vice versa. It is expected that the privileged students will strongly object to its use. Sociolinguistic parameter geographical area influences the choice of foul language vocabulary and swearing habits within particular situations – it is to be determined whether BLW choice varies across regions of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Whether BLW usage is a greater taboo in eastern, western, northern or southern part of Bosnia and Herzegovina remains to be looked into within this piece of research. It is quite difficult to tell which part of Bosnia and Herzegovina is more or less likely to use swearwords as there is little evidence found upon this particular issue. What co uld be expected when this particular parameter is taken into consideration is that urban regions are less likely to use swearwords on a 16 daily basis, as opposed to rural regions. It is expected that this parameter is tightly intertwined with other parameters, especially sociolinguistic parameter social class. Political correctness reflects as well as alters the changes in society, determining a tacit agreement on the norms and future of censorship. 1.3. Theoretical Framework The chief theoretical framework for this doctoral thesis includes an eclectic approach to examining, analysing and demonstrating the common features of sociolinguistic and pragmatic theories with a highly important aim to focus on the language usage or, to be more precise, the use of taboo language and swearwo rds. It starts with the Politeness Theory from cultural and s ociolinguistic point of view and it elaborates on the notion of face, saving and losing face, committing and avoiding face -threatening acts. The issue of euphemisms is to be discussed as well as the issue of censoring and censorship of taboo words and swearwords within English and Bosniac / Croatian / Serbian speaking regions. Furthermore, the framework will also include the well-known language attitude research and its valuable methodologies used in such a wide and multifaceted field. In general, t he research is to be conveyed in line with the existing rules of language theory and practice. 17 1.4. Methodology and the Corpus As the main object ive of this paper is to demystify every taboo in the usage of bad language and swearwords in social contexts, there has been a great effort made to provide a comprehensive and meticulous overview and analysis that will live up to the expectations of many linguists, scholars and possibly public interested in the topic. Namely, the corpus is based on the data obtaine d from a questionnaire distributed among the under -graduate students of English in four university towns in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Tuzla, Banja Luka, Zenica and Mostar. The questionnaire was distributed as anonymous one to both male and female students. Fur thermore, all four years, from freshmen to senior students took a part in it. The questionnaire was conducted from January to May 2011 and over 300 students were examined in that period. The questionnaire is divided in two parts. In the first par t there are questions regarding the demographic personal data th at a student had to provide (gender , age, the year of study, place of birth, place of residence, the type of high school finished, levels of education of their mother and father). As for the second pa rt, it is comprised either of open or closed type of questions. Closed- question formats have proved to be quite easy and simple for statistic data -processing. Answers are offered in yes / no format, so the examinee simply places a choice upon yes or no ans wer. On the other hand, open questions might have turned out to have some disadvantages as examinees offered a wide spectrum of responses that have been difficult to process statistically. Those open questions consisted either of multiple choice questions in which an examinee circles one or a few answers they personally consider the best or most appropriate answer(s), or examinees are required to complete the statement(s) with their best or most appropriate 18 answer (fill -in-the-blank type of a question). The re are 28 open -question formats examinees are supposed to answer this way or another. More on the questionnaire layout and question types could one find within the Appendixes chapter of this paper. It is to be stressed that a standard program for social r esearch SPSS + IBM Package has been used for the statistic data -processing. There have been exactly 328 questionnaire samples altogether. The questionnaire was conducted with the aim of empirical research and the data obtained has proved to be a great and reliable source for the interpretation of the real usage of taboos and swearwords . Howe ver, as the corpus is quite huge and complex, there has been a limitation in presenting all the results and details found in the corpus. Therefore, this paper is to be concerned with examining the status of the principal hypothesis as well as supporting hypotheses. All the most interesting and appealing facts on their attitudes towards the taboo word usage and swearing are to be revealed and described in detail. Once ag ain, relevant sociolinguistic parameters will serve as a main tool in fixing and determining the swearword mechanism within English and Bosnian / Croatian / Serbian speaking regions. In addition, the data is to be used to tackle the issue of (possible) swearword censoring and censorship nowadays. 19 2. ON POLITENESS Complex and intriguing phenomenon, politeness has always been an unlimited area of linguistic interest. There has been a great shift in emphasis of this relevant issue within sociolinguistics in the late 20 th century in Europe. Politeness has become mainstream and popular among many researchers carrying out the most salient and exemplary sociolinguistic research (Lakoff, 1975; Brown and Levinson, 1978/1987; Leech, 1983; Fraser and Nolen, 1981; Arndt and Janney, 1985; Hill et al.,1986; Ide, 1989; Blum- Kulka, 1989; Kasper, 1990; Sifianou, 1992; Watts, 1992; Eelen, 2001). Yet, there are many dilemmas and problems emerging once one starts dealing with politeness. There seems to be a difficult tas k in determining what politeness really means. Some theorists of politeness (Watts, Eelen, Sifianou, and many other Asian and Japanese pragmaticists) showed a considerable disagreement towards various definitions of politeness, claiming that the criteria ‘ being polite’ should be more prec isely defined and therefore better understood. So, there is an interesting metaphor Watts (2003) introduces suggesting that politeness is a many-headed hydra, difficul t to make friends with on one hand, and difficult to defeat on the other, as there is always a new head promptly emerging once one believes they got to know the hydra quite well. One of the major problems lies in the fact that it is not easy to characterize what politeness reall y is. Every culture comprehends politeness differently, in its own way. Some personally believe that politeness is associated with correctness and righteous type of behaviour; some think that polite behaviour is a symbol of cultivated behaviour . There are cultures who just define politeness as being considerate and thoughtful towards others around you. Furthermore, there are those who assign politeness negative connotations, such as pompousness, insincerity, hypo crisy and vanity. Those cultures find polite 20 language and polite expressions to be an obstacle and redundant means in communicating freely and spontaneously with one another. Generally, it could be concluded that politeness represents a category of a sociolinguistic and pragmatic significance. There are critical debates upon how politeness is done in a particular cultural context. The degree of politeness involved within particular contexts is the very choice of a particular language itself, and therefore, the very choice of a culture and an individual. As mentioned earlier, there ha ve been many attempts in providing a definition of the linguistic concept of politeness contributing to and developing the concept of Politeness Theory. Ho wever, Watts (2003: 4) warns that one has to be careful when defining politeness making a clear distinction between ‘folk’ or ‘lay’ notions of politeness and ‘technical’ or just linguistic notion of politeness. The author suggests: ‘that we should make a distinction between first -order politeness, that is the various ways in which polite behaviour is pe rceived and talked about by members of socio-cultural groups, that is common- sense notions of politeness; and second- order politeness, that is the theoretical construct, a term within a theory of social behaviour and language usage’ (Watts et al., 1992: 3, cited in Mills, 2003: 8). Eelen (2001) proposes first-order politeness or folk-linguistic politeness to be politeness1 and second-order politeness or politeness to be a concept in sociolinguistic theory as politeness2. In this sense, the author claims th at there should be opposite terms of impoliteness taken into consideration i.e. impoliteness1 and impoliteness2. The author openly criticizes other researchers who have kept introducing new terminology in order to avoid the problematic term of (im)politeness. Not only does he find the differences of terminology leading to most confusions and misinterpretations of politene ss but he also 21 argues that theories of politeness do not focus attention on impoliteness at all. This appears to be the crucial point in understanding what politeness is, differentiating , on one hand, between politeness1 and politeness 2, and on the other hand, between impoliteness1 and impoliteness2. It is, still, an extraordinary fact that politeness is not inherent within a human being, b ut it needs to be taught by parents, teachers and mentors and therefore needs to be acquired by the youth. People are socialized into the phenomenon of polite skills and polite language. However, the term politeness 2 represents an entity w hich is different from lay understanding of the concept politeness. Its focus lies upon polite language usage in the study of ongoing verbal interaction between the speaker(s) and the hearer(s). Against all odds, many researchers and theorists of politeness, even participa nts within communication process themselves are still confronted with the apparently never -ending struggle over politeness1 in the ongoing social interaction. Politeness Theory, therefore, is not to be concerned with the ways a participant’s behaviour, polite or impolite, is interpreted and evaluated by lay members. Being objective and evading the influence of folk- linguistic notions of politeness should be a theorist’s major points in analyzing and assessing various utterances. Watts (2003: 23) highly suggests paying attention to a few additional points that have been largely ignored within Politeness Theory: a) polite behaviour can be evaluated only within the context of real, ongoing verbal interaction; the context itself should be considerable; b) the pers pectives of both the speaker(s) and the hearer(s) should be adequately taken into consideration, due to the fact that within a real ongoing interaction, speakers and hearers switch their roles constantly and that ongoing interaction 22 always leaves some open space for re -correction and re- modification of what has been stated; c) it is to be admitted that a predictive model of linguistic politeness will never exist due to the fact that verbal interaction is always subject to change as well as participants in the communication process; d) it is impossible to propose a perfect, idealized universal concept of politeness2 which could be applicable to instances of social interaction across cultures, subcultures and languages. Indeed, it is of high importance not to take forms of politeness at face value . A clear distinction between politeness 1 and politeness2 has to be established as well as unique institutionalised terminology expressing the theory of linguistic (im)politeness. 2.1. Definitions of Politeness2 Providing a s uitable definition of politeness 2 has been an attempt conducted by many theorists and pragmaticists . As it has been stated earlier, it has not been an easy task to characterize what politeness 1 represents, let alone to make it a separate unit from politeness2. Those problems have created great confusion between theorists of politeness who sometimes deliberately omitted to provide a definition of politeness 2 in their works. Every one of them has been aware that finding a proper definition is an arduous task; therefore, they frequently omitted to provide it, leaving it to a reader to infer it from theoretical principles within their works. Nonetheless, some modern definitions have a general characteristic of politeness 2 in common, and that characteristic relie s on the 23 notion of mutually shared forms of consideration for others. Yet, the assessment of mutually shared forms of consideration appears to be a general expression quite often misunderstood and misinterpreted. There are a few modern definitions of polit eness2 given by different authors and presented by Sifianou (Sifianou, 1992a: 82-3, cited in Watts, 2003: 50-3): a) Lakoff (1975a: 64, cited in Watts, 2003: 50) defines politeness as being ‘developed by societies in order to reduce friction in personal interaction’. b) Leech (1980: 133) maintains that it is ‘a strategic conflict avoidance which can be measured in terms of the degree of effort put into the avoidance of a conflict situation, and the establishment and maintenance of comity’. c) Brown and Levinson (1987: 24) consider politeness as ‘a complex system for softening face-threatening acts’. d) Kasper (1990: 194, cited in Watts, 2003: 51) views politeness as ‘the strategies available to interactants to defuse the danger and to minimalise the antagonism’. e) Arndt and Janney (1985b: 282, cited in Watts, 2003: 51) claim that politeness is nothing but ‘interpersonal supportiveness’. f) Hill et al. (1986: 349, cited in Watts, 2003: 51) argue that politeness is ‘one of the constraints on human interaction, whose purpose is to consider others’ feelings, establish levels of mutual comfort and promote rapport’. g) Ide (1989: 225, cited in Watts, 2003: 52) believes politeness to be ‘language usage associated with smooth communication’. h) Fraser and Nolen (1981: 96, cited in Watts, 20 03: 52) define it as ‘a property associated with a voluntary action’. 24 As it can be seen at first sight, some of the definitions of linguistic politeness are fairly mysterious and imprecise, as the very last one given by Fraser and Nolen (1981: 96, cited in Watts, 2003: 52) , who use the term of ‘voluntary action’ being quite ambiguous and leaving the interpretation of it quite open. There are various terms introduced as to explain the problematic term of linguistic politeness, such as ‘a strategic conflict avoidance’, ‘a system for softening face -threatening acts’, ‘interpersonal supportiveness’, ‘a property associated with a voluntary action’, ‘ a reduction of friction’, ‘a minimalisation of the antagonism’, ‘levels of mutual comfort and promotion of rapport associated with smooth communication’. Generally speaking, most of the definitions of politeness2 describe politeness2 as a strategy, system or an effort used to avoid a conflict situation which appears to be a part and parcel of every actual social interaction, being regarded as ‘a fundamentally dangerou s’ and ‘antagonistic endeavor’. I t is necessary to point out that politeness2 in these definitions rarely escapes from the evaluative framework of politeness 1. There are many elements of politeness 1 found within the nature of definitions of politeness 2. Ne vertheless, what seems to be the essential disadvantage of some of these definitions (Brown and Levinson’s, Kasper’ s) is that they are not focused entirely on speakers and therefore lack concern and reacti on of the other participant(s) involved in an ongoing social interaction. Hence, Sifianou (Watts, 2003: 52- 3) summarizes these definitions highlighting that politeness2 is a joint venture of both interactants (there is a ‘give and take’ of interaction involved). But again, she admits that some very relevant notions that underlie politeness1 also rest within the definition of politeness2. People tend to be considerate because this repays them with a pleasant feeling of satisfaction; furthermore, they recei ve consideration in return and at the same 25 time satisfy the needs of others. It is a multiple reward . This obviously does not mean that they behave in the way that they do because they have any ulterior motives (although this may be true in a few cases), or that they expect any tangible reward. It simply means that they have internalized the fact that in order to live in a harmonious society you give and take and thus participate in maintaining the necessary equilibrium of relationships (Watts, 2003: 52). 2.2. Approaches to Politeness2 It is an interesting fact that linguistic politeness belongs to a pioneering discipline in pragmatics and sociolinguistics in western Europe and North America, as opposed to China and Japan, where it has been studied for millennia within the framework of theories of rhetoric (in the case of China) and theories of the national language (in the case of Japan). The major reason for such a late arrival of linguistic politeness on the European and American linguistic scene appears to be th e lack of theoretical basis for politeness phenomena. However, the introduction of facework by the sociologist Erving Goffman in the 1950s and 1960s and the work on conversational implicatures by the philosopher H. Paul Gric e in the late 1960s prepared the ground for politeness phenomenon within the new branch of linguistic study - pragmatics. Watts (2003: 54) states that there have been many attempts since the early 19 th century made by German ‘school of idealism’ its representatives Spitzer, Beinhaue r and Lerch and by the Saussurean and immediate post -Saussurean Genevan school of linguists and representatives such as Bally, Gabelentz, Brunot, Dauzat, Kainz and others. The author therefore describes these ‘politeness attempts’ as pre- pragmatic approaches to linguistic 26 politeness. Some notions behind politeness phenomenon as well as the normative nature of politeness recognized in pre -pragmatic period could be said to be influenc ing today’s way of considering linguistic politeness. Still, serious research on linguistic politeness started to gain academic interest in the 1970s being constructed and developed on the principles of pragmatics. 2.2.1. Grice’s Cooperative Principle The most fundamental concept in understanding politeness ₂ as a relatively young sociolinguistic and pragmatic subdiscipline is the concept of implicature founded by Oxford philosopher Paul Herbert Grice in the late 1960s and early 1970s. His ground- breaking work on conversational implicatures influenced many theorists of politeness to tackle these politeness phenomena. Implicature is known to be ‘a paradigmatic example of the nature and power of pragmatic explanations of linguistic phenomena. The sources of this species of pragmatic inference can be shown to lie outside the organization of language, in some general principles for co -operative interaction, and yet these principles have a pervasive effect upon the structure of language (Levinson, 1983: 97). More precisely, the notion of implicatures explicitly prov ides a simple approach in understanding and communicating a language more efficiently and effectively. Grice develops his concept of implicatures further into a theory about the real language usage. He proposes a set of guidelines for efficient and effecti ve language usage i.e. the Cooperative Principle (CP) and its maxims. The CP basically focuses on contribution of interactants being as such as is required for the particular ongoing interaction. Violation of any of the maxims results in failing to convers e in maximally efficient, rational and 27 cooperative way. Within his maxims, Grice specifies which rational means participants need to follow for conducting cooperative exchanges: a) the maxim of Quality, in which interactants’ contributions have to be true and with adequate supporting evidence; b) the maxim of Quantity, in which interactants’ contributions have to be informative as is required for the particular purposes of exchange, but not more informative than required; c) the maxim of Relevance, in which interactants’ contributions are relevant for the particular purposes of exchange; d) the maxim of Manner, in which interactants avoid being obscure and ambiguous, but remain brief and orderly. Still, many theorists of politeness (Lakoff, Leech) have expressed their view on Grice’s CP and its maxims claiming that the model needs to be re -established for a fuller and better understanding. Many believe the maxims to be rather loose in nature and for that reason ambiguous and misleading in some rather important aspects. Moreover, Strawson (Bousfield, 2008: 31) claims that the CP is not watertight due to failing to take intention as a very important factor into consideration. He elaborates upon the CP problems stemming from not accounting for speakers’ intentionality. It is up to a speaker, a hearer, and sometimes even an analyst to choose how to interpret a situational context at a certain point in time and space. Bousfield (2008: 31) also reminds readers not to disregard some important factors influencing the interpretation of situational context, such as the power relations, social distance between the interactants and some mutual background knowledge interactants might share from the specific point in the past. 28 Indeed, Grice himself was aware of all the roughness and faults of the CP and his work on the topic was still developing until 1988. While the conversational maxims have, on the whole been quite well received, the same cannot, I think, be said about my invocation of a supreme principle of conversation cooperation. One source of trouble has been that it has been felt even in the talk -exchanges of civilized people browbeating disputation and conversational sharp practice are far too common to be offenses [sic] against the fundamental dictates of conversational prac tice. Another source of discomfort has perhaps been the thought that, whether its tone is agreeable or disagreeable, much of our talk- exchange is too haphazard to be directed toward any end cooperative or otherwise. Chitchat goes nowhere, unless making the time pass is a journey (Bousfield, 2008: 28). He was conscious of the fact that there is no perfect , utopian-like type of interaction and that an interaction will not cease in case when conflictive or impolite discourse begins to occur. He briefly comments on the CP possibly being augmented by the addition of a new maxim, the maxim of Politeness. 2.2.2. Lakoff’s Pragmatic Competence The positive influence of Grice’s CP made American linguists Robin Lakoff develop the additional maxim Grice was having in mind. Namely, her suggestion was that the CP should be upgraded with an additional set of ‘rules of politeness’. It is the significance of 29 pragmatic rules that the author stresses that go hand in hand with syntactic and semantic rules of a language. Furthermore , the author argues that pragmatic competence is composed of a set of sub- rules, i.e. rules of conversation (Grice’s CP) and rules of politeness. Rules of politeness comprise of several sub- rules describing the ways to be polite, such as: (1) do not impose; (2) give options; (3) make a feel good – be friendly. Schematically, pragmatic competence would be represented as in figure below: Figure 1: Lakoff’s Rules of Pragmatic Competence Nevertheless, Lakoff’s production model of politeness has come up agai nst a lot of criticism and objections due to the fact that it turned out to have great weaknesses, one of the major being the author’s firm and rigorous attitude and principle on the pragmatic well-formedness of an utterance. To sum it up, linguistic polit eness and the pragmatic rules cannot be based on algorithmic rules as utterances can hardly be pragmatically well - formed. 30 2.2.3. Leech’s Model of General Pragmatics In order to explain linguistic politeness phenomena, Leech also conducted a research in the field setting up a descriptive and taxonomic model of general pragmatics. Namely, the term general pragmatics refers to ‘general conditions of the communicative use of language’ (Watts, 2003: 63). It is not the pragmatic competence that is accounted f or in an ongoing interaction, as Lakoff suggested, but the approach is taken to the next level, where the communicative use of language is principle -controlled or rhetorical. Prior to the division of rhetoric into two parts, Leech also proposed two pragmat ic systems within general pragmatics, the first one being pragmalinguistics, concerned with the linguistic end of pragmatics, and the second one being socio- pragmatics, devoted to more specific and local conditions on language use. Leech’s model of general pragmatics (Leech, 1983: 16) is composed of two systems of rhetoric: a) textual rhetoric, that comprises of several principles such as the Processibility Principle, the Clarity Principle, the Economy Principle and the Expressivity Principle. b) interpersonal r hetoric, which includes Grice’s CP, The Politeness Principle and The Irony Principle. Indeed, Leech’s model of general pragmatics proved to be problem -solving regarding the politeness issues as it now focused on the hearer rather than on the speaker. More over, Leech introduced a range of new maxims within the Politeness Principle (PP) that were supposed to regulate minimizing the cost and maximizing the benefit to both speakers and hearers. The PP (Leech, 1983: 132) consists of the following maxims: 31 a) the Tact Maxim, created to minimize the cost to other, as well as maximize the benefit to other, typical for orders, requests, advice, recommendations, promises, offers, etc. (e.g. You know, I really do think you ought to sell that car. It’s costing more and more money in repairs and it uses up far too much fuel.); b) the Generosity Maxim, applicable in impositives and commissives used to minimize the benefit and maximize the cost to self (e.g. It’s none of my business really, but you look so much nicer in the gree n hat than in the pink one. If I were you, I’d buy that one.); c) the Approbation Maxim, applicable when thanking, congratulating, pardoning, blaming, condoling, stating, boasting and complaining, used to maximize the praise of other and minimize the disprais e of other (e.g. Dear Aunt Mabel, I want to thank you so much for the superb Christmas present this year. It was so very thoughtful of you.); d) the Modesty Maxim, created to minimize the praise of self and maximize the praise of other, usually applicable in expressives and assertives (e.g. Well done! What a wonderful performance! I wish I could sing as well as that.); e) the Agreement Maxim, used to minimize any disagreement and maximize the agreement between self and other, found in many assertives (e.g. I know we haven’t always agreed in the past and I don’t want to claim that the government acted in any other way than we would have done in power , but we believe the affair was essentially mismanaged from the outset.); f) the Sympathy Maxim, as the previous maxim a pplicable only in assertives in order to minimize antipathy and maximize sympathy between self and other (e.g. Despite very serious disagreements with you on a technical level, we have done 32 our best to coordinate our efforts in reaching an agreement, but have so far not been able to find any common ground.). Nevertheless, Leech’s model has been a target of criticism as it evoked a barrage of questions related to the definition of the parameters such as cost, benefit, praise, sympathy. What is more, the author himself re-analyzed and re-developed the model even further, introducing some relevant scales that the PP must operate with, such as the Cost - Benefit Scale (ranging values such as agreement – disagreement, praise – dispraise; sympathy – antipathy), the Optionality Scale (the degree of choice one has when accepting or rejecting advice, recommendation, offer), the Indirectness Scale (a hearer’s assessing in/directness of a speaker), the Authority Scale (assessing whether a speaker has the right to impose on a hearer), the Social Distance Scale (describing the relation between a hearer and a speaker) and so on. Even though the model has been re - established and complemented by the scales, many theorists of linguistic politeness have found it to be complex and inadequate for a real individual speaker and hearer. In addition, Leech’s model is blamed for relying on Speech Act Theory and speech act types which are inherently polite or impolite. 2.2.4. Brown and Levinson’s Theory of Linguistic Politeness One o f the most influential theories that has left an impact on all the theoretical and analytical work in the field of politeness is the theory built by Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson in 1978. It is often referred to as the ‘face -saving’ theory of politeness. It originated from Goffman’s notion of ‘face’; however, Brown and Levinson made an 33 appreciable change of Goffman’s concept of face incorporating also Grice’s model of the Cooperative Principle. It is proposed that the concept of ‘face’ is crucial for developing and understanding the theory of politeness. 34 3. THE NOTION OF FACE As it has been stated earlier, it is the notion of ‘face’ that is the key motivating force to the theory of politeness. It has been used as a metaphor fo r human qualities such as respect, honour, status, reputation. It has been concerned with people’s identity and dignity. Being intuitively meaningful to people, face is a technical term which Goffman (1967) borrowed from the Chinese theory of politeness defining it as: ‘… the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact. Face is an image of self delineated in terms of approved social attributes – albeit an image that others may share, as when a person makes a good showing for his profession or religion by making a good showing for himself’ (Goffman 1967: 5). To put it simply, it is best understood as ‘the public self -image of a person’ (Yule, 1996: 60). Brown and Levinson (1987: 61) claim that there is some emotional investment of an individual composing the notion of face, and they furthermore comment that investment can be lost and therefore minimal, but, also it can be saved and enhanced during an ongoing social interaction. Participants involved in everyday social interactions anticipate and behave in the way that their public self -image or their face wants will be respected. It is also considered that each and every public self -image is to be respected. Otherwise, if one of the participants says something which is considered to be a threat to another individual’s self -image, it is regarded as a face-threatening act (FTA). 35 What is more, Brown and Levinson (1987: 61-64) differentiate between two types of face wants, positive and negative one. Positive face wants is understood to be ‘the individual’s desire that her/his wants be appreciated and approved of in social interaction, whereas negative face wants 1 is the desire for freedom of action and freedom of imposition’ (Watts, 2003: 86). Participants in verbal interaction are thus required to maintain every participant’s face and reduce face -threatening to a minimum. In the light of that fact, Brown and Levinson formulated a production model of how individuals produce linguistic politeness. They assume that there should be ‘a Model Person (MP) with the ability to rationalize from communicative goals to the optimal means of achieving those goals’ (Watts, 2003: 85). To be more precise, the MP has to have the abil ity to recognize the threatening of other participants’ face as well as their own. After recognition of a threat, it is once again up to the MP to either avoid the FTA completely or to lessen or minimize the impact of it by choosing one or more appropriate linguistic strategies. Linguistic politeness is therefore presented as a set of strategies (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 68- 69) that enhance the addressee’s positive face and avoid transgression of the addressee’s freedom from imposition. It is crystal clea r that the best politeness strategy would be not to do the FTA. Nonetheless, as it can be seen in the figure below, there are some other strategies that could soften the impact of a committed FTA. In case of committing an FTA, there is still a rational dec ision a speaker could make between going on record as doing it so baldly or going off record. If the speaker goes on record, there is again a rational decision s/he could make, between carrying out some redressive actions and carrying out no redressive act ion at all. Finally, there is a choice between redressive actions a speaker could have, the first one being that an FTA is aimed at addressing 1 ‘The word negative here doesn't mean 'bad', it's just the opposite pole from 'positive' (Yule, 1996: 61-62). 36 hearer’s positive face wants, the other one being aimed at addressing hearer’s negative face wants. Figure 2: Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Strategies To sum it up, among all of these strategies, strategy 5 is the least face -threatening, i.e. do not commit an FTA at all. What is more, the degree of face- threat among all strategies is different, so strategy 4 is next after strategy 5, then follows strategy 3, strategy 2 and at the final place and being most face -threatening is strategy 1, i.e. do an FTA baldly with no redressive action. This figure provides the rational decisions the MP has to make at each stage as well as the strategies from the most to the least threatening. 37 3.1. Positive and Negative Politeness Sub-strategies This ‘face -management’ approach of Brown and Levinson has influenced the understanding of the politeness phenomenon in full. The authors developed and extended their theory furthermore by positing some sub- strategies of politeness that could be deployed for politeness work. Obtaining examples from three different languages (English, Tzeltal and Tamil) they proved those strategies to be similar in the mentioned languages and they illustrated the kinds of choices a speaker has when choosing either positive or negative politeness sub-strategies. There are fifteen sub -strategies of politeness addressed to the hearer’s positive face i.e. positive politeness strategies and ten sub -strategies of politeness addressed to hearer’s negative face i.e. negative politeness strateg ies. Those will be presented within the five - point model posited by Brown and Levinson (1987: 91-227): 1. Bald on record poli teness – when the FTA is performed ‘…in the most direct, clear, unambiguous and concise way possible’ (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 69). This sub- strategy is basically based on Grice’s maxims. 2. Positive politeness – the FTA aims at redressing of the positive face threat to the hearer (H). It includes some relevant sub-strategies: - claim common ground with H: a) notice, attend to H and their interests, wants, needs, goods; b) exaggerate at interest, approval, sympathy with H; c) intensify interest to H in S’s contribution; 38 d) use in- group identity markers in speech i.e. mutual language, dialect, jargon, slang, contraction or ellipses; e) seek agreement with H – discuss safe topics; f) avoid disagreement with H (use token agreement, pseudo agreement, white lies, hedging opinions.) g) presuppose / raise / assert common ground (gossip, small talk, point of view operations, presuppositions manipulations); h) joke to put H at ease. - convey that S and H are co-operators: a) assert or presuppose S’s knowledge of and concern for H’s wants; b) offer, promise; c) be optimistic that H wants what S wants i.e. that the FTA is slight; d) include both S and H in the activity; e) give (ask for) reasons; f) assume or assert reciprocity (tit for tat). - fulfill H’s want for some X: a) give gifts to H (goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation). 3. Negative politeness - the FTA aims at redressing of the negative face threat to the hearer (H). It includes some relevant sub-strategies: - be indirect: a) be conventionally indirect. - don’t presume / assume: a) do not assume willingness to comply; question, hedge. - don’t coerce H: 39 a) be pessimistic about ability or willingness to comply; b) minimize the imposition; c) give deference. - communicate S’s want to not impinge on H: a) apologize (admit the impingement, give overwhelming reasons, beg forgiveness); b) impersonalize S and H (use performatives, imperatives, impersonal verbs, passive and circumstantial voices, replace the pronouns ‘I’ and ‘you’ by indefinites, pluralize the ‘I’ and ‘you’ pronouns, use point -of- view distancing); c) state the FTA as an instance of a general rule; d) nominalize to distance the actor and add formality. - redress other wants of H’s: a) go on record as incurring a debt, or as not indebting H. 4. Off-record – when the FTA is performed ‘…through the deployment of an indirect illocutionary act which has more than one interpretation, and, thus, allows for plausible deniability on the part of the utterer if the intended recipient takes offence at the face threat inherent in the utterance’ (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 211-227). This sub-strategy includes: - invite conversational implicatures: a) give hints; b) give association rules; c) presuppose; d) understate; 40 e) overstate; f) use tautologies; g) use contradictions; h) be ironic; i) use metaphors; j) use rhetorical questions. - be vague or ambiguous: a) be ambiguous; b) be vague; c) overgeneralize; d) displace H; e) be incomplete, use ellipsis. 5. Don’t perform the FTA – as it is considered too threatening, it is avoided for the sake of mutual rapport. Watts (2003: 92) argues that there is some confusion presented within Brown and Levinson’s positive and negative politeness strategies, adding that the problem lies in the discursive struggle over the social values of politeness. He claims that some of these sub - strategies, both positive and negative, could be interpreted as polite or impolite depending on the contextual environment of the FTA. Indeed, participant’s interpretation and classification of a certain sub -strategy depends thoroughly on the contextual environment of an ongoing interaction. Moreover, the interpretation and classification of a certain sub- strategy also depends on the participant himself / herself. It is not a rare thing that one participant evaluates an action as a positive politeness sub -strategy, and the other may 41 claim, at the same time, that the same action appears to be an instance of a negative politeness sub-strategy, as it might seem inappropriate to them at that particular moment and particular place. Watts (2003: 93) gives an illustration of negative politeness sub - strategy 1 – be conventionally indirect – with an example: Example 1: ‘Could you tell me the time, please?’ The assessment of the sub -strategy could be two-fold i.e. some participants may regard it as an imposition; some may find it to be a proper and conventionally normal way to make a request. As it is the case with negative politeness sub -strategies, positive, as well, as the number thirteen – give or ask for reasons – could be also differently understood. In the example below one can recognize that the FTA might reside in imposition when addressing to the hearer’s positive face as well. Example 2: ‘I think you’ve had a bit too much to drink, Jim. Wh y not stay at our place this evening?’ 3.2. Relevant Parameters for Adequate Strategy Use When considering social politeness, it is essential to consider the notion of appropriateness or appropriacy. It is a term which needs to be taken seriously, with caution, as it represents something that might be misleading. To put it more simply, an individual can and may judge upon an ongoing interaction and evaluate it as appropriate or inappropriate, but, they might have some misguided notions of what is appropr iate due 42 to different variables effecting the process of assessment by both, the hearer and the speaker. It is sometimes a case that politeness is used for bad cause, in a manipulative and insincere way. So, what might seem as appropriate at first sight co uld turn out to be just an insincere, formal politeness. There are many relevant parameters for determining and using an adequate politeness strategy. According to Spencer -Oatey (2008: 31- 42) factors influencing strategy use should be divided into several categories: a) rapport orientation; b) contextual variables; c) pragmatic principles and conventions. 3.2.1. Rapport Orientation Even Brown and Levinson stress the need of the participants to maintain each other’s face in order to avoid the loss of face for both of them. What is more, Spencer -Oatey (2008: 31) emphasizes two fundamental rapport orientations: - supporting of one’s own face needs, sociality rights and interactional goals and - supporting of the other speaker’s own face needs, sociality rights and interactional goals. Spencer-Oatey (2008: 17) furthermore clarifies that there are certain face needs threats endangering the rapport of the participants. Those are: face -threatening behaviour 43 (realized through FTAs), rights -threatening behaviour (infring ement of a person’s sociality rights) and goal -threatening behaviour (infringement of the goal -achievement of a person’s). Some authors in the field recommended additional orientations, such as Ting- Toomey and Cocroft (1994: 323) who recommended mutual support as the third one, and Turner and Culpeper (1996, 2005, cited in Spencer -Oatey, 2008: 32) who introduced challenged orientation as the fourth one. All in all, Spencer -Oatey (2008: 32) opines that ‘speakers can hold any of the following four types or rapport orientation: a) rapport enhancement orientation: a desire to strengthen or enhance harmonious relations between the interlocutors; b) rapport maintenance orientation: a desire to maintain or protect harmonious relations between the interlocutors; c) rapport neglect orientation: a lack of concern or interest in the quality or relations between the interlocutors (because of a focus on self); d) rapport challenge orientation: a desire to challenge or impair harmonious relations between the interlocutors. Nonetheless, rapport orientation set of factors has been criticized due to the fact that it is very difficult to distinguish between the factors unless participants explicitly talk about them. Rapport orientation can therefore only be inferred from participant’s ch oice of rapport-management strategies. 44 3.2.2. Contextual Variables On the other hand, contextual variables are found to be quite essential when determining and using a positive politeness strategy. Spencer -Oatey (2008: 34) differentiates among four types of these variables: participants and their relations, message content, social / interactional roles and activity type. 1. As far as the first variable is concerned, it is extremely important to determine a type of relation between the participants. It is a type of relation they have that influences the level of politeness, and consequently the seriousness of the FTA. Many theorists do agree with Brown and Levinson’s model (1987: 74) of three key socio- cultural sub- variables of the FTA affecting participant relation: a) power (P), b) distance (D), c) rank of imposition (R). a) Power (social power, status, dominance, authority) is a sub- variable based on the ability of one person to impose their will on the other. Its definition is provided by Brown and Gilman (Spencer-Oatey, 2008: 34): ‘One person may be said to have power over another in the degree that he is able to control the behavior of the other. Power is a relationship between at least two persons, 45 and it is nonreciprocal in the sense that both cannot have power in the same area of behavior’. Furthermore, Foucault (Mills, 2003: 100) introduces the term of repressive hypothesis claiming that the speaker’s power is repressive to the hearer, denying the hearer’s freedom. He also commented that power could have a productive role as well suggesting that a careful thought is to be paid to the variable power. Brown and Levinson opine that power and politeness are correlated in the sense that ‘as S’s power over H increases, the weightiness of the FTA diminishes (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 78). However, it really turns out that the sub- variable power is a concept problematic to understand. It is primarily based on inequality of role relations such as employer – employee, or teacher – student. The most apparent confusion appears when it comes to determining in/equality of role relations, such as taxi driver – passenger over which many authors do disagree. Therefore, it is recommended that five types of power determined by French and Raven (1959) should be conside red when dealing with similar role relation confusions (Spenser-Oatey, 2008: 34-5): 1. Reward power is a power of A over B in sense that A may provide B with something B desires, typically positive outcome (e.g. bonus payments, improved job conditions, etc.); 2. Coercive power is a power of A over B in sense that A may order B to perform something B wants to avoid, typically negative outcome (e.g. demotion, allocation of undesirable tasks, etc.); 46 3. Expert power is a power of A over B in sense that A has some speci al knowledge or expertise B does not have, but wants or needs; 4. Legitimate power is a power of A over B in sense that A has the right due to certain reasons (their role, status or situational circumstances) to prescribe or expect certain things of B; 5. Referent power is a power of A over B in sense that B admires A , and has a strong desire to be like A in some respect. Generally speaking, the assessment of one’s power is dependable upon a range of factors within a certain situation. And again, it is to be emp hasized that power is not something that a participant simply gains or is assigned to; moreover, as Diamond (1996: 12) stresses, it is a quality that relies on interactional skill and process. b) Distance (social distance, solidarity, closeness, familiari ty, relational intimacy) is the second relevant sub- variable which represents the degree of closeness or familiarity between the participants. Now we are concerned with a … set of relations which are symmetrical … Not every personal attribute counts in determining whether two people are solidary enough to use the mutual T 2. Eye color does not ordinarily matter nor does shoe size. The similarities that matter seem to be those that make for like -mindedness or similar behavior dispositions … The T of solidar ity can be produced by frequency of contact as well as by objective similarities. However, frequent contact does not necessarily lead to the mutual T. It depends on whether contact 2 Mutual T is an intimate form of address. 47 results in the discovery or creation of the like -mindedness that seems to be the core of the solidarity semantic (Brown and Gilman cited in Spencer -Oatey, 2008: 35). Brown and Levinson define D as a ‘frequency of interaction and the kinds of material non-material goods (including face) exchanged between S and H’ (Mills, 2003: 101). Like P, D is a sub- variable that is never constant, that depends on each interaction between the same participants. Every person has a perception of and can tell a difference between a close and distant relationship; however, it remains a percep tion always open to negotiation. Some authors believe this is due to the fact that even relationships are never static and stable, yet dynamic and volatile. c) Rank of imposition like all the previous sub- variables appears to be a changeable unit. Namely, it is primarily connected to the previous socio -cultural variables, power and distance. Yet, rarely is it clear whether participants totally agree on the perception of an imposition. It is noteworthy that Brown and Levinson (Mills, 2003: 102- 3) advanced and put forward a formula for computing the weightiness (or seriousness) of the FTA, and therefore the level of politeness. They maintain that P, D and R are significant variables which lead to a participant’s choice between high or low politeness strategies: Wx = D (S, H) + P (H, S) + Rx 48 As it can be calculated from the formula, the weightiness of the FTA represents a summary of the social distance between a speaker and a hearer, the relative power that H wields over S and the degree to which the FTA constitutes an imposition. According to the formula, if one needs to calculate the value of the FTA, variables P, D and Rx should be determined and well -known. However, it is unclear how participants could possibly assess the values of P, D and Rx. It is even vague when these assessments should be obtained, during or after an interaction. This would be one of the major reasons why Brown and Levinson’s schematic formula has been criticized. Some authors (as for instance, Fraser) cast doubt on the relevant and r eal value of Wx, even in the case when there is a possibility to determine the value of parameters P, D and Rx. Needless to say, some authors like Scollon and Scollon (1995: 52-57) proposed a slightly different model of key socio- cultural sub- variables of the FTA: power, distance, interrelationship between power and distance and number of participants. What is found to be intriguing is the fact that it is sometimes rather difficult to distinguish between power and distance, especially in some cultures wher e these two variables co -occur. The next essential fact has been proven to be the number of participants taking part in a conversation. The influence of the presence of the third party in an interaction appears to be a relevant variable that also needs to be taken into consideration, as face management norms are number -sensitive. Scollon and Scollon (1995: 56) also recommended considering the salient variable age, as judgments about utterances, and utterances in general are differently perceived by people w ho are older . To sum up, it turns out that many salient variables have been omitted for some reason in Brown and Levinson’s model of socio-cultural variables. 49 2. Message content as the second variable plays a significant role within the contextual variables. The content of a message is fundamental for the choice of adequate politeness strategies. Messages are believed to be costly and / or beneficial in terms of time, effort, imposition, inconvenience, risk and sometimes even in terms of financial means. Of course, there is a degree range of costs and benefits in every single message. For instance, asking a friend to drive you to the airport can be costly for your friend in terms of time, inconvenience, effort and financial cost. On the contrary, if your f riend suggests on their own driving you to the airport, it appears that message content is beneficial for you in terms of time (you do not have to call a taxi, or wait for the bus or train carrying all the heavy luggage around, so it is time -saving), incon venience (your friend will pick you up so you do not have to bother calling a taxi or waiting for the bus and so on), effort (there is a minimal effort made by you, as your friend offered help) and financial cost (your friend will not probably charge you a drive to the airport). 3. Being the third set of variables social / interactional roles seem to be tightly connected to socio -cultural sub- variables power (P) and distance (D). Every person in every interaction takes up a different social role influenci ng in that way the P and D of the relationship. Not only does a social role influence the P and D of the relationship, but it also helps specify the rights and obligations of every role member. It is to be pointed out that every social role has certain rig hts but also certain limits in terms of what could be done. The nature of role relationship, for example, employer - employee determines the rights and obligations of both employer and employee. 4. Activity type describes what kind of communicative activity is taking place. Levinson (1979, cited in Spenser -Oatey, 2008:38) defines it as ‘a fuzzy category whose 50 focal members are goal-defined, socially-constituted, bounded, events with constraints on participants, setting, and so on, but above all on the kinds of allowable contributions. Paradigm examples would be teaching, a job interview, a jural interrogation, a football game, a task in a workshop, a dinner party and so on’ ( Levinson, cited in Spencer-Oatey, 2008: 38). Activity type as a communicative acti vity often displays certain communicative genres. These communicative genres are intertwined with historically and culturally specific convention and ideals which influence the composition and interpretation of an interaction. For instance, an interviewee for a job interview is expected not to be modest at all, but to praise his qualities, as opposed to an award- receiving actor at an awards ceremony who is expected to be modest and humble and ascribe his success to others, usually the director, fellow actor s, film cast, God, supportive wife and kids and so on. 3.2.3. Pragmatic Principles and Conventions Within pragmatic principles and conventions one may realize two different aspects that can affect the ways in which people choose a politeness strategy. T he first aspect encompasses socio -pragmatic principles posited by Leech which focuses on conceptualization of politeness through specific maxims and those are discussed in chapter 2 .2.3. in this paper , Leech’s model of general pragmatics. The second aspect involves pragmalinguistic conventions which focus on how a given pragmatic meaning is conveyed in a given context. It is to be stressed that every single participant acquires knowledge on pragmatic principles and conventions and gains the sense for pragmalinguistic competence. However, there is a possibility for a pragmalinguistic 51 failure which might happen when ‘there is a mismatch between the linguistic form chosen by the speaker and the pragmatic meaning that they intend to convey’ (Spencer -Oatey, 2008: 42). Typically, pragmalinguistic failure occurring might be culture -specific, language-specific, but very often it might appear as context -specific. All in all, there are many salient factors influencing pragmatic principles and conventions. 3.3. Criticisms of Brown and Levinson’s Notion of Face One of the major criticisms of Brown and Levinson’s notion of face is that it is based on the individualistic concept of face. Universal proposals provided by Brown and Levinson are inadequate for politeness res earch, as there are many collectivist societies around the world. Watts maintains that ‘the criticism assumes that a theory of politeness 2 which stresses the choice of an individual to use a politeness strategy is appropriate only to individualistic societies but not to collectivist ones’ (Watts, 2003: 102). This concept is clearly and strongly supported by many Easter n theorists of politeness, as Watts mentions, there is a concept provided by Lee-Wong (1999) who states that Chinese face is intimately linke d to the views of the community and a concept given by Yoshiko Matsumoto (1988) who claims that the preservation of Japanese face is always the maintenance of the social ranking order. Moreover, it appears that many theorists of politeness worldwide find t he same concept to be true and valid (Nwoye (1992) in Nigerian Igbo society, Bayaktaroglu (2000) in Turkish society, Mursy and Wilson (2001) for Egyptian Arabic society). Another severe criticism is posited by Werkhofer (1992) who highlights that Brown and Levinson’s model should be revised and foregrounded on principles of economics. 52 Namely, he explicitly shows the similarity between the social power of money and the social power of politeness. In developed market economies … money may become a social for ce in itself, a force that, like politeness, playing the role of an active, powerful medium, will feed back into the processes that had once given rise to it (Werkhofer, 1992: 159). What Werkhofer recommends is that theorists of politeness pay special att ention to the social power of politeness and to interpret it within the social processes that had given rise to it. The social power of politeness lies and mediates between the individual and the group. Politeness is the means which an individual uses to adopt his / her behaviour to the particular type of a social interaction. He furthermore demonstrates the analogy of politeness with money in the following way (Werkhofer, 1992: 190): a) both politeness and money are socially constituted media; b) both politenes s and money present a symbolic medium ‘in the sense that its functions originally derive from an association with something else, namely with values’; c) politeness, like money, is ‘historically constituted and reconstituted; its functions and the values it is associated with are essentially changeable ones’; d) throughout history the functions of politeness ‘turn into a power of the medium in the sense that it may, rather than being only a means to the ends of an individual user, itself motivate and structure the courses of action’; e) ‘the chances of the user mastering the medium completely (which would mean being able to use it to his / her wishes) will be diminished. 53 Obviously, the notion of politeness resembles the notion of money on several important points. Werkhofer recognizes these mutual characteristics and concludes that politeness will be a central factor not only of discourse practices but also of social institutions as well. Therefore, the notion of social powe r of politeness relates to politic behavior , as being the type of a ‘behaviour, linguistic or non- linguistic, which the participants construct as being appropriate to the ongoing social interaction’ (Watts, 2003: 144). Participants do get involved into various types of social interactions and then they use some previously-gained knowledge on what is appropriate and what is not for a particular type of situation. According to this their behaviour changes and accommodates. Needless to say, many theorists of politeness have recognized linguistic resour ces as a form of capital (Bourdieu’s theory of practice). 3.4. Facework and Impoliteness It is a well -known fact that conflictive and impolite type of interaction does happen from time to time. However, all the approaches and theories have given a great contribution to the area of politeness, whereas impoliteness has remained marginal and therefore undeveloped and unexplored. Among a few who addressed the impoliteness phenomenon Bousfield (2008) attempted to lay some groundwork for the construction of a framework for impoliteness. Before defining impoliteness, he took into consideration Goffman’s division of the type of action that can lead to face threat. According to Goffman (1967: 14) there are three types: 54 a) intentional threats to face (there is a deliberate threat that is aimed at aggravating the face of the recipient); b) incidental threats to face (face damage is not planned, although in some cases it might be anticipated as a by-product – offensive consequence of an action); c) accidental threats to fac e (face threats seem unintended and unwitting, usually appear as faux pas, gaffes, boners or bricks). So, impoliteness is considered to be a successful impoliteness when there is an intention of the speaker to offend or threaten the face of the listener. Bousfield (2008: 72) pinpoints impoliteness as constituting ‘the communication of intentionally gratuitous and conflictive verbal face-threatening acts (FTAs) which are purposefully delivered: i. unmitigated, in context where mitigation is required, and / or, ii. with deliberate aggression, that is, with the face threat exacerbated, boosted or maximized in some way to heighten the face damage inflicted’ (Bousfield, 2008: 72). It has to be stressed that impoliteness is not to be understood as the polar opposite of politeness. It is certainly not a deviating, abnormal or irrational counterpart of politeness. Impoliteness has to be seen as an assessment of a participant’s action. Furthermore, not all utterances that seem impolite are always face- threatening. It is only when it is assumed that the speaker has the intention to be impolite and has the intention to threat to the face of the listener. 55 Interlocutors do not wear their intentions on their sleeves and one interlocutor does not have access to the internal s tates of other interlocutors. However, speakers’ intentions are fundamental to speech act theory. As a consequence, the fact that Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness theory is built on speech act theory means that it also has speakers’ intentions at its heart. However, even within conversation analysis and other more sociologically oriented approaches to interaction, there is an admission that participants in conversation do attribute intentions and purposes of some kind to talk (Cul peper cited in Bousfi eld, 2008: 74). Still, it is to be admitted that no actual intention of the speakers is to be reconstructed, but only plausible intentions, having in mind salient parameters such as: knowledge on social roles, past encounters of the interactants, contextual variables and pragmatic principles and conventions, and so on. Mills (2003: 140-141) puts forward two different linguistic features within the discussion of impoliteness: directness and swearing. The first one, directness, is often associated with impoliteness, although that is not always the case. In certain contexts directness is tolerated, even appropriate and efficient for certain reasons (e.g. business contexts i.e. getting some things done). On the contrary, in some contexts directness is found as impolite, rude, offensive and barely tolerated. What is more, directness is found to be culture-specific, e.g. German cultures being more direct than the Chinese. The second linguistic feature, swearing, seems to be acceptable in some context; nevertheless there are different degrees of swearing acceptable in different contexts. 56 4. THE PHENOMENON OF SWEARING History of swearing is as old as man’s history. It is not precisely known when the first swearword appeared but there has been an interesting view posited that emotionally charged sounds or expletives had existed before man developed articulate means of communication. The view was expressed by Sanskrit and Comparative Philology professor William Dwight Whitney in 1890s who stated that these expletive s were not a creation of man’s but pure response to sudden shocks and surprises found in the surroundings. These expletives proved to be universal – every existing culture shared and has shared expletives, the earliest and elementary forms being oh, ah, oo, ow, ugh, oi, eh and so on. Nonetheless, it appears that swearing is not completely a universal phenomenon. Few cultures are believed never to swear, such as American Indians, the Japanese, Malayans and most Polynesians. At the other extreme, there are s ome societies that do abide by the convention of obligatory swearing practice; for instance, in some parts of China, a bride - to-be has to swear at and sing swearing songs to her husband -to-be and in-laws-to-be for three days before the wedding day. Across other cultures worldwide swearing is manifested in great diversities of styles and content. Some cultures use swearwords more than others, but each has their own conventions and norms related to the use of swearwords. These mentioned swearing conventions a nd norms as well as non- swearing conventions and norms are tightly connected to the power of taboo. Furthermore, history of swearing witnesses extreme oscillations from one period to another. It is to be pointed out that there were periods of repression of swearwords as during the Renaissance, Restoration and Victorian era, as well as tolerance and acceptance of the same during the medieval period and present day. 57 Today swearing has become an inevitable part of linguistic environment worth considering and analyzing. As Hughes (2006: 16) points it up, swearing is ‘a perennial source of fascination for those interested in language and society, continuously provoking controversy and raising topical issues’. Yet, it has to be admitted that the topic of swearing used to be ignored and marginalized and historical data related to it very often considered valueless and unimportant and published only as supplements of other books. In conclusion, one may state that publishing swearwords was either completely forbidden or in some cases, extremely tabooed3. 4.1. The Power of Taboo As it has been mention earlier swearing does always involve a range of topics that are the targets of certain taboos. The notion of taboo used to be understood as ‘something that should not be touched – whether because of disgust or awe’ (E.S. Lucas Freitas, 2008: 1). TABOO also spelled TABU, Tongan Tabu, Maori Tapu, the prohibition of an action or the use of an object based on ritualistic distinctions of them either as being sacred and consecrated or as being dangerous, unclean and accursed. The term TABOO is of Polynesian origin and was first noted by Captain James Cook during his visit to Tonga in 1771; he introduced the term into the English 3 Needless to say, British lexicographical cant and slang written tradition has its roots back in the 16 th century, with the arrival of the first dictionaries, such as T. Harman’s Caveat or Warening for Commen Cursetors in 1567, B.E. Gent’s New Dictionary of the Terms Ancient and Modern of the Canting Crew at the end of the 17th century, F. Grose’s Classical Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue in 1785 and the dictionaries of the 1780s, N. Bailey’s Universal Etymological Dictionary and S. Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language. Due to the disreputable nature of ‘hard words’ that appeared within these glossaries and dictionaries, most of them were published as rouge-books (descriptive catalogues of the various types of villains that should be avoided in everyday life) or as supplements of biographies or autobiographies. 58 language, from which it achieved widespread currency. Taboos were most highly developed in the Polynesian societies of the South Pacific, but they have been present in virtually all cultures (Encyclopaedia Britannica 2000 cited in E.S. Lucas Freitas, 2008: 01). Taboos have often been interpreted as beliefs of primitive peoples. Tabooed objects were believed to have certain demonic power that should be avoided and generally prohibited. They were motivated by various notions among which the strongest ones were those of uncleanliness, the creation of n ew human life as well as the ending of human life. Throughout history taboos have changed, from religious to secular, from traditional to modern ones. The most common taboos still refer to (Allan, Burridge, 2006: 01): - bodies and their effluvia (sweat, snot, faeces, menstrual fluid, etc.); - the organs and acts of sex, micturition and defecation; - diseases, death and killing (including fishing and hunting); - naming, addressing, touching and viewing persons and sacred beings, objects and places; - food gathering, preparation and consumption. Taboos do change within a culture, in time and place. There are neither absolute nor universal taboos whatsoever; they are different in every country, in every culture, in every language. They are mostly culture -specific and language -specific, but it is undoubtedly true that there are some international and intercultural taboos, as a sign of social cohesion between cultures or societies. Nowadays, there are taboos developed around the most embarrassing and terrifying issues such as human appearance, 59 disabilities and other characteristics, vices, gender -related issues, religion, race, ethnicity, politics, war, crime. Furthermore, taboos can be divided into two areas: taboo acts (referring to constraints on an individual’s behaviour) and taboo words (referring to constraints on an individual’s language). There is usually a correlation between taboo language and taboo behaviour, but sometimes that correlation does not seem to be existing (e.g. some act might be a taboo, however, not all the cultures will develop and use taboo language for the particular taboo act). Taboo language is usually avoided as being inappropriate, harmful, dirty and bad. Hence, it turns out to be potentially bad and face-threatening in a social interaction. 4.2. Bad Language The notion of bad language has appeared to be a difficult notion to define. Many authors have had dilemmas on how to provide a suitable and plain definition. Namely, it is not just simple to state that bad language is bad and dirty. I n addition, one cannot opine that bad language does not follow syntactic and semantic rules. Bad language is patterned and systematic as good language, therefore, bad language cannot be defined in absolute terms. Good language is mostly understood to be ‘g rammatically correct, rhetorically simple, free of regionalisms and foreign influences, and neither too coarse nor too avant -garde’ (Battistella, 2005: 11). It also signals social uniformity, conformity, tradition, and may signal a person’s education, intelligence and character. The variability of language is the crucial fact that needs to be taken into consideration. Language changes from one era to another, from one generation to another, from one medium to another. What is a standardized language form today does not necessarily 60 imply that it will be tomorrow. However, language change is not something that occurs over night. Innovations in vocabulary, grammar and pronunciation do not automatically become the norm, but take their time in achieving the wid espread use, usually under the influence of the media, fashion, casual speech and non-standard usage. After all, one needs to highlight the relativity of the notion of bad language as well. Bad language does not corrupt our minds nor does it sound unpleasa nt and uneducated, at least in certain contexts. What is more, it is as social construct as good language used to express one’s attitudes and thoughts in particular situations. It might be said that general attitude towards bad language demonstrates the evolution in acceptance and tolerance of bad language by many societies worldwide. Wh at is apparent and more common is that different media and different informal styles of communication do exhibit different degrees of acceptance and tolerance of bad languag e. Bad language is, according to Battistella (2005: 68) divided into three categories: - slang, - offensive language (foul language, coarse language, swearing, cursing, cussing), - political correctness (PC). Allan and Burridge (2006: 55) do differentiate among five different categories as they provide two additional ones, those being jargon on the one hand and insults and maledictions on the other. Every single category bears different characteristics and a degree of tolerance among speakers in social interaction. 61 4.2.1. Jargon The term jargon is applied to ‘a wide range of different phenomena, including the specialist register of professionals such as lawyers or sailors’ (Concise Encyclopedia of Sociolinguistics). More precisely, sociolinguists refer to it as a sublanguage, register or sociolect, ‘marked by a special set of vocabulary (technical terminology) associated with a profession or occupation or other defined social group’ (Spolsky, 1998: 33). Allan and Burridge (2006: 56) define it as ‘the language peculiar to a trade, profession, or other group; it is the language use in a body of spoken or written texts, dealing with a circumscribed domain in which speakers share a common specialized vocabulary, habits of word usage, and forms of expression’. Jargon as a sublanguage serves two functions, the first one being an adequate and efficient language in precise and economical interaction, the second one being the mutual and somewhat private language for a particular group of people. A jargon is marked b y certain lexical, syntactic and presentational markers. Lexical markers refer to specialized vocabulary, idiomatic expressions and abbreviations used in a particular domain, whereas syntactic markers refer to grammatical conventions. Lastly, presentationa l markers refer to prosodic, paralinguistic and kinesic characteristics in a spoken medium and typographical in a written medium. All of these jargon features enhance communication among in-groupers. On the contrary, for the out -groupers of the same langua ge jargon is negatively assessed, and therefore unintelligible, meaningless and very often tabooed. It 62 is not a rare thing that jargon is censored, although censoring a jargon indeed alters the message conveyed among the speakers. It is impossible to tabo o jargon. Jargon cannot be translated into ‘ordinary English’ (or whatever language) because there is no such thing. Changing the jargon alters the message: a speaker simply cannot exchange faeces for shit or terrorist for freedom-fighter, or even bottlene cks for localized capacity deficiencies, without changing the connotations of the message s/he intends to convey. There is no convenient substitute for some jargon: to replace legalese defendant with a person against whom civil proceedings are brought is communicatively inefficient (Allan, Burridge, 2006: 67). 4.2.2. Slang Slang is usually defined with two senses, the first one being ‘the special, restricted speech of subgroups or subcultures in society and, second, … a highly informal, unc onventional vocabulary of more general use’ (Concise Encyclopedia of Sociolinguistics). Spolsky (1998: 35) defines slang as ‘a kind of jargon marked by its rejection of formal rules, its comparative freshness and its common ephemerality, and its marked use to claim solidarity’. Slang might be understood as a marker of social differences deriving from the multiple subcultures of urban, modern society. It ha s been referred to as ‘street language’ typical 63 for youth speech and gang speech, used to claim gr oup membership very often echoing rebellion and disrespect . Due to its dynamic nature it does certainly transgress social norms, but it sets up its own in -group norms including coining new in- group vocabulary and special meanings of the ordinary words, dis tinctive pronunciation and even some grammatical differences. Slang has very often been confused with the term jargon as the definitions of both terms overlapped in some wa y. Namely, both of them used to be understood as a special realm of vocabulary and phraseology that belonged to particular calling or profession. Indeed, there are some particular features these term have in common, such as that both of these represent markers of in -group solidarity. Slang as well as jargon becomes a way of identification of an in- group member, their involvement in activities, events and objects. On the other hand, slang has some particular qualities jargon does not have. For instance, its playfulness and inventiveness are features that highlight humour, vituperation and informality. Another distinctive quality is that slang can usually be replaced by standard language, although the communicative effect might be drastically changed. Then, slang has a characteristic of changing quickly, turning into neutral style or be coming a part of standard usage, or they totally disappear forever. To sum up, slang remains a speaker’s way of negotiating a new role or a new identity. Typically, it is associated with teenagers and adolescents who use it as a way of identification and adjustment to the group they want to belong to; in addition, there are types of slang particular for a certain profession or calling, such as: printers’ slang, doctors’ slang, lawyers’ slang, fishermen’s slang and so on. 64 4.2.3. Offensive Language (Foul Language, Coarse Language, Swearing, Cursing, Cussing) It has been proven that foul language has a shockingly powerful effect on both speakers and listeners making this area a complex and intriguing social and linguistic phenomenon. Foul language is thoug ht not to be for public consumption, being rather offensive and corrupting the cultural values of a society. Moreover, it is regarded to be a vehicle of political subversion, potentially dangerous for a society as a compact unit. It is considered bad and evil, a form of verbal violence. To define the semantic range of foul language is quite difficult as notions of obscenity differs at both macro and micro levels, i.e. from culture to culture, over a period of time even within one culture, and from individual to individual . The use of obscenities might be found to be disgusting and repugnant by some people, but quite entertaining and relaxing for others. So, the label ‘bad’ indicates quite a personal and subjective attitude of particular individuals within a culture. Objections towards bad language are usually found within cultures which also strongly support an attitude of repugnance towards certain taboos and obscene words. There are also some stereotypes existing within certain cultures when it comes to bad language usage in front of children and women who are assumed to be quite weak and fragile and in need of special protection. The irony of this stereotype is evidently present, as there has been a change in bad language usage in terms of gender and age; there are more and more female and young speakers using foul language today. Furthermore, censorship efforts have become evidently visible in written type of language, whereas spoken remains a wealthy area of juicy swearwords. As a 65 matter of fact, there are also many argu ments for tolerance of foul language, such as the importance of understa nding ideas underlying foul language, the importance of acknowledging rights of those who want to use it, the importance of realizing that it is an inevitable part of everyday conversations, etc. As Andersson (Ham, 2005: 12) suggests, the dirtiness of some words does not exist but in people’s associations, values and attitudes. These words are as good and usable as all other words in general. There is an interesting observation of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes (Wajnrub, 2004: 109): ‘… a word is not a crystal, transparent and changed; it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used’4. Generally, there are four criteria for determining what constitutes foul language provided by Ljung (2011: 04): 1. appears in utterances containing taboo words; 2. the taboo words used in these utterances are of non- literal meaning; 3. represents a formulaic language; 4. represents an emotive language. 4 Words do not have stable and fixed meanings; on the contrary, these change through time and place, e.g. the term PIMP changed several meanings, from 1. pander, procurer, 1607. > ; 2. minister to evil, 1704. > ; 3. informer (Australian) 1885. > ; 4. Peeping Tom (Welsh) 1940. > 5. a man who controls prostitutes and lives on the money they earn (today); or the term SHREW, from 1. small aggressive mole-like animal 800. > ; 2. rascal 1250. > ; 3. belligerent spiteful woman 1400. > . 66 As a language devise offered to people for practical usage, foul language represents a way to emphasise one’s speech along with the non- linguistic phenomena like gestures and facial expressions. It does always appear with taboo words, earlier with religious taboo words, lately with non- religious taboo words. Those taboo words are inherently vulgar and there fore embarrassing, or as Anders son (Ljung, 2011: 07) puts it, those are words ‘that are ‘bad’ both with rega rd to their content and their form, viz. words whose literal meaning is ‘bad’ and whose form is frowned upon by most speakers’. Ljung (2011: 09) furthermore claims that taboo strength leads a taboo itself to a membership of the swearing category, though admitting that ranking swearing expressions would be an arduous task due to changeable nature of those words over time. Next, the author argues that those taboo words have to be used with their non- literal m eaning in order to be regarded as swearing. They need to reflect the speaker’s state of mind indicating a symptomatic function that foul language features. Those words or combinations of words appear to be prefabricated, taught, stored and retrieved from memory when necessary. So, their formulaic nature ma kes them a pragmatic marker expressing the speaker’s attitude and their reaction to a certain stimulus. And finally, that reaction equals the production of a certain emotion therefore foul language bears an emotive (expressive) function letting emotive attitudes to the surface via formulaic, prefabricated linguistic constructions. Foul language could be divided into several categories (Battistella, 2005: 72): a) epithets (different types of slurs usually referring to race, ethnicity, sexuality, gender, appearance, etc.) b) profanity (so called religious cursing) 67 c) vulgarity and obscenity (the last two referring to sexual body parts and human waste products and processes – the difference between those two being a matter of degree and prurience). Offensive words are classified by Sapolsky and Kaye (2005: 296) into five groups: 1. the seven dirty words (shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, tits)5 2. sexual words (describing sexual body parts and sexual functions and behaviour: screw, boobs, pecker, jack off…) 3. excretory words (explicit and literal references to human waste products and processes: poop, asshole, butt, ass…) 4. mild other words (typically uttered in vain, like: damn, hell, goddamn, Jesus, Christ, God, Lord) 5. strong other words (words which evoke strong and negative emotions and offence, like: bastard, bitch, bullshit) Nevertheless, it should be emphasized that language is a volatile category so the boundaries between these categories are not precisely clear, but blurred and muddled 6. 5 These are also Steven Pinker's seven words you cannot say on television, often referred as the Big Seven. 6 The two research on the worst swearwords used by the Britons conducted by the BBC, the Independent Television Commission and the Advertising Standards Association in 1997. and 2000. have showed that some swearwords in three years’ time remained quite strong and at the top of the scale (such as: cunt, motherfucker, fuck), whereas some became stronger (nigger), or less strong (shag). 68 The notion of offensive language is ‘a variable one, shifting over time, relative to domain (the workplace, broadcast media, literature, political discourse, polite conversation) and affected by social, historical, political, and commercial forces’ (Battistella, 2005: 83). 4.2.4. Political Correctness (PC) Used to denote the language that is the least offensive, political correctness (PC) is the third type of stigmatized usage of bad language. The term appeared in the 1960s in the USA and became extremely popular in 1990s generating the attitudes of social sensitivity and tolerance towards various types of diversity based on race, gender, age, nationality, religion, sexual performance, political views, disability and so on. PC is based on the assumption that by changing the prejudicial language people use in social interactions the attitudes towards the mentioned emotive and sensitive issues will consequently be changed. Therefore, PC has been believed to be a social tool for ra ising social consciousness and ‘a healthy exp ansion of moral concern’ as Chomsky puts it (Allan, Burridge, 2006: 90). Yet, there are two currents of PC, the first one developed by the supporters who think PC will soften reality, control thought, create tol erance and peace among people, the second one developed by PC critics who regard PC as a sort of censorship manipulating, intimidating and controlling language, attitudes and behaviour of people in this day and age. 69 …Critiques of political correctness see it as (a) thought control; (b) nihilistic relativism; (c) damaging to the clarity, specificity, and precision of language; (d) trivial accommodation toward groups portrayed as cultural victims; and (e) a distraction from any serious agenda of social and economic progress. It is quite an indictment. (Batistella, 2005: 96) Lately there have been many discussions on PC being more politically driven issue rather than a linguistic issue, or more precisely a performance of linguistic censoring. PC has been criticized for brainwashing and manipulation of the minds of people and insisting on the usage of new appropriate terminology. The debate over PC has remained unresolved up to this day. Needless to say, PC has evolved and eventually entered into both written and spoken domains enriching it with appropriate neutral terms for once problematic vocabulary. As a matter of fact , there have been cases of languag e modification based on any particular type of difference, physical characteristic, orientation, etc . For in stance, there are: gender -related modification, disability -related modification, modification related to race and ethnicity, religious inclusiveness and other modifications. Gender-related modification is regarded the most common and problematic one. The issue at stake here is that language is thought to be male-oriented as there are many male- oriented words consisting or incorporating the explicitly male -oriented term –man. Such words are: fireman, chairman, policeman, salesman, businessman, weatherman, l ayman, fisherman, mankind, mailman, and so on. PC has therefore shifted the orientation sanctioning intolerance toward females. So there are terms formed as: policewoman, saleswoman, firewoman, businesswoman, and so on. Still, it appears to be quite a vain attempt to find the female counterpart for all terms, as some of them have a long tradition 70 of strongly and continuously being male -oriented and thus embedded in culture and religion. Some proposals on a neutrally -oriented term usage sometimes do really s eem to make sense, especially in instances such as: chairman – chairperson; policeman – police officer; salesman – salesperson, sales assistant; fireman – firefighter; congressman – member of Congress, weatherman – weather reporter, weathercaster; layman – layperson, fisherman – fisher; mankind – human kind, etc. Extremist constructions have proven to be quite useless and impractical, if not ridiculous. Note the following cases: history – herstory; hero – she-ro; human – hufem; woman – wofem, and etc. Disability-related modifications are used in order to avoid being offensive and insulting towards people who are physically disabled in a certain way (disease – condition; handicapped / disabled / cripple / invalid – people with disabilities; near -sighted – optically-challenged; far-sighted – optically-inconvenienced, etc.). Negro / nigger / black / coloured are such outdated and obsolete terms, as the new tendency is to use modifications related to race and ethnicity. That is, when referring to these people, there are terms African -Americans or Afro -Americans to be used; moreover, Native -Americans for Indians; Asian- Americans for Oriental; Latino for Hispanic, Mexican-American for Mexican, and so on. There has been also religious modification evident in the c hange of the words and expressions related to religion, more particularly, Christianity. There are again neutral terms proposed which would not have been found offensive by other religions worldwide. Some examples of this modification would be: Happy holidays instead of Merry Christmas, Before Common Era (BCE) instead of Before Christ (BC). 71 Other modifications include terms related to age, sexual orientation and other words which emphasize any particular type of difference, like: poor – economically underprivileged; elderly – senior citizens; foreign students – international students; prostitute – sex care provider, and so on. Needless to say, there is a powerful linguistic term used as an alternative to unwanted expressions in order not to lose not just one’s face but also not to threat en the hearer’s face. These inoffensive forms are embedded so deeply in language and they are known as euphemisms. The word euphemism comes from Greek and means ‘to speak well of’, ‘to use words of good omen’. They used to be practiced when placating the gods. Nowadays, they are used instead of offensive words to protect both speaker and hearer. S imply, euphemisms are: ‘… used as an alternative to a dispreferred expression, in order to avoid possible loss of face; either one’s own face or, through giving offence, that of the audience, or of some third party’ ( Allan and Burridge cited on www.personal.ecu.edu/iorioj/works/taboo_language.doc). It is often the case when one finds a taboo notion inappropriate and unacceptable in a certain situation that they engage themselves in euphemism creation and usage as to avoid the use of swearwords and generally being direct, harsh and unpleasant. Consequently, speaker realizes that there is some room for potential FTA and consciously chooses to avoid the FTA by using euphemisms. Euphemisms are created in several ways; either relying on figurative expressions, or more precisely metaphors (monthly 72 visitor = menstrua tion), through the process of remode lling (shucks = shit), through paraphrase or circumlocution (little boys’ / girls’ room = bathroom), through creating acronyms and abbreviations (SOB = son of a bitch, FUBAR = fucked up beyond all recognition). As it can be noted the most frequent euphemisms appear within sensitive and emotive issues, especially in realm of sexual body parts, functions and behaviour and references to human waste products and processes. It is noteworthy stating that above - mentioned ways of euphemism creation are just a couple of ways that speakers use as to avoid taboo language and establish a polite and morally acceptable conversational environment. What is more, in many situations euphemisms are used to persuade and deliberately mislead the hearer or audience rather than to inform them and tell the truth about something. Hence many linguists and researchers warn about the use of doublespeak, in which euphemisms serve as a tool for persuasion, deceit and misleading. … Doublespeak is language that only pretends to communicate, that makes the bad seem good, the negative appear positive, the unpleasant attractive, or at least tolerable. It is language that avoids, shifts, or denies responsibility, language that conceals or prevents thought… It alters our perception of reality. It deprives us of the tools we need to develop, advance and preserve our society, our culture, our civilization. It delivers us into the hands of those who do not have our interests at heart … (www.nisu.nodak.edu/research/euphemism_paper.pdf). The government, politicians, military and wealthy individuals are likely to use this doublespeak in order to mislead and cover up, distort and frame their actions as well as to 73 show their power and control. It is generally believed that powerless and ordinary individuals use them only for the purpose of being polite towards others. There are two examples of such doublespeak presented below: Example 1: ‘ The compan y has decided to put off plans for massive layoffs until after April 15th when it is expected to also decide on the number of employees to be sacked’ said the Nokia spokesperson this morning. Example 2: ‘My son has undergone an enhanced interrogation in t he police station’ complained the mother of the 19-year old young man from Belfast. Nevertheless, speakers sometimes use other alternative form instead of original swearword - dysphemism. Dysphemism has the identical aim as euphemism i.e. to avoid the use of tabooed term and swearword. It is defined as: ‘an expression with connotations that are offensive either about the denotatum or to the audience, or both, and it is substituted for a neutral or euphemistic expression for just that rea son’ (Allan and B urridge cited on www.personal.ecu.edu/iorioj/works/taboo_language.doc). Apparently it is known that dysphemisms could sound coarse and brutal to the audience, although it is often for the purpose of black humour and mockery that these are created. Dysphemisms are ‘starkly direct, macabrely metaphorical and gruesomely physical’ (Hughes, 2006: 142). There are many aspects of human experience generating a range of dysphemisms, such as death (to die = to snuff it, to croak, to push up daises), sex (bed- 74 pressing, belly -bumping, bum dancing, a squeeze and a squirt, a poke), stupidity (blockhead, bonehead, dickhead, lamebrain, not to have a full deck of cards, not to know one’s arse (ass) from one’s elbow, couldn’t organize a booze -up in a brewery), unattractiveness (a face to shatter glass, to stop a clock, to be something the cat dragged in), pregnancy (to have a bun in the oven), vomiting (to take a technicolor yawn down the great white telephone), and etc. In conclusion, when addressing the taboo issue it is up to speaker to select which type of language s/he is going to use and what kind of effect s/he is going to create within the audience. 4.2.5. Insults and Maledictions The very last category of bad language Allan and Burridge (2006: 79-88) introduce is the category of insults and maledictions. These are forms of direct abuse and attack on a hearer using the most contemptuous, direct and tabooed type of bad language. Their purpose is to deliberately wound the hearer or some other third party. As far as the form of insults and maledictions is concerned, these are intrinsically dysphemistic the target referring to a hearer’s physical appearance, mental ability, character, behaviour, beliefs and relations one is involved in. Insults and maledictions are evident among (Allan and Burridge, 2006: 79-88): a) comparisons of people with animals that are conventionally ascribed certain behaviours (a fox, cat, pig, cow, bitch, chicken, mouse, mule, rat, etc.); 75 b) epithets derived from tabooed sexual organs, functions and behaviour (asshole, shit, fucker, cock-sucker, wanker, whore, slut, etc.); c) epithets based on physical abnormality (fatty, baldy, four-eyes, short-arse, etc); d) epithets based on me ntal subnormality and derangement (retard, moron, idiot, fool, stupid, dickhead, fuckhead, shithead, etc.); e) epithets which invoke slurs on target’s character (arsehole / asshole, bastard, cunt, dick, faggot, nerd, perv(ert), queer, schmuck, scumbag, sissy, slut, SOB, tramp, etc.; f) other sexist, racist, speciesist, classist and ageist epithets (frog for a French person, chink for a Chinese, jap or nip for a Japanese, paki for a Pakistani, polak for a Pole, eyetie for an Italian, ayrab, towel head, dune coon a nd camel jockey for an Arab, kike or yid for a Jew, RGBs [rice gobbling bastards ] and UFOs [ugly fucking orientals] - for people from east and south-east Asia, etc.) To conclude, the boundaries among the categories of bad language discussed above are not clear and pr ecise. They are intertwined and changeable, varying in the degree of offensiveness and acceptance and tolerance shown by language users. 4.3. Sociolinguistic Parameters Relevant in Swearword Use There are several essential sociolinguistic parameters that do play a significant role in bad language usage, and more particularly swearword usage. Namely, those parameters influence the choice of bad language vocabulary and therefore the bad language style and swearing habits of interactants within particular situations. The parameters mentioned 76 are: gender of interactants, age of interactants, their class and social background. It is again of a great importance to stress that a constant assessment of interactions in relation to politeness norms is ever-present and deeply rooted in people’s minds. 4.3.1. Gender and Swearing There is a traditional belief that men swear more than women. The arguments for this statement are commonly evident in many literary and linguistic works. What is more, through many sociolinguistic works it has been proven that there exist some sal ient differences in gender speech . Such differences one may observe are determined by cultural factors. In general, women are considered to be gentler sex than men, therefore in need for protection from all violent activities and offensive expressions. Indeed, up to the 1970s7 swearing used to be considered a male -domain, working towards masculinity, absolutely forbidden in the presence of a woman as it was a taboo for a woman to swear at all. Women’s language style was based on indirectness, diffident, signal ling mitigation and hesitance, as opposed to men’s language style that was direct, forceful and confident. Not only were men allowed to swear, but they wer e also encouraged to do s o without limiting themselves in their coarse verbal behaviour. With the popularization of the feminist movement, swearing has generated into a powerful tool for females to linguistically negotiate their position in society. W omen today use more swearwords than they used before and they easily adapt to men’ language to affirm their position, especially professional women working in male -dominated professions. It could be assumed that there has been a shift in women’s swearing habits 7 If there were some instances of women swearers in the past mentioned in the literature, they were pure exceptions, never the rule. 77 due to the emancipation of women and social, educational and political equality of women with men in the 19 th and 20 th century. However, as Lakoff suggests, some swearwords are still reserved for male usage, especially stronger swearwords. Therefore, men and women, as McEnery (2006: 29) proposes in his analysis of the frequency of bad language word s (BLW), use gender -appropriate swearwords, i.e. some SWs are used typically by men (fucking, fuck, jesus, cunt, fuck er), whereas some by women (god, bloody, pig, hell, bugger, bitch, pissed, arsed, shit, pissy). H e posits a five -part scale of offensiveness classifying the BLW usage: CATEGORISATION BLWs IN THE CATEGORY very mild bird, bloody, crap, damn, god, hell, hussy, idiot, pig, pillock, sod, son-of-a-bitch, tart mild arse, balls , bitch, bugger, christ, cow, dickhead, git, jesus, jew, moron, pissed off, screw, shit, slag, slut, sod, tit(s), tosser moderate arsehole, bastard, bollocks, gay, nigger, piss, paki, poofter, prick, shag, spastic, twat, wanker, whore strong fuck very strong cunt, motherfucker Using this scale of offensiveness McEnery obtained the data regarding BLWs which indeed proved to be gender-specific i.e. males typically used stronger set of BLWs, rather than females. Again, the author is aware of the inevi table fact that the choice of bad language words always depends on context and setting and the gender of the hearer. It is 78 of a great significance to remember that gender variable cannot adequately be assessed in isolation from other relevant variables. 4.3.2. Age and Swearing Age is another significant parameter in the use of bad language words. Swearing publicly, especially in front of children, is banned (there is the French saying popular among parents: ‘pas devant les enfants’ – not in front of the children). Children are innocent and still vulnerable to concepts such as cruelty, violence, offensive language. Hence, there is little evidence of children swearing, regardless of gender . It is thought to be a learned form of behaviour as children are tau ght to swear at a very early stage. What is more, considerable amount of sociolinguistic research on children swearing conducted in the USA have shown that children learn to swear in schools in order to acquire behaviour of conformity within peers (Labov i n 1972, Jay in 1992). Swearing starts as an imitation usually among young boys just to later become a serious and taboo issue, usually around ages 11 -12. McEnery (2006: 38) shows that there is a positive correlation between age and the production of BLWs in that BLW use increases into the age range 25. Namely, at the age range 15 it is 2,500 of BLWs per million, then at the age range 25 it reaches its peak with almost 3,500 of BLWs per million. Nonetheless, after the age 25, there is a significant decline in BLW usage in both males and females. Older speakers start producing very weak forms of bad language, avoiding the direct use of BLWs and developing PC habits and the use of euphemisms. 79 To sum up, adolescent age range turns out to be quite bountiful and flourishing as far as BLWs use is concerned. Adolescents are, as a rule, attracted to the strongest forms of BLWs. In addition, age cannot be observed in isolation as there are some other parameters relevant for bad language use. 4.3.3. Social Class and Swearing The third variable, social class also influences BLW usage. There is a traditional stereotype that BLW usage is a habit of the lower class of every society, including English society as well. At many times that particular BLW usage is called ‘the language of the gutter’. On the other hand, it is even not a rare phenomenon to associate bad language with the upper class. Throughout history there could be found many instances of swearing within the upper class of English society. It is the fact tha t there are not too many written evidence for BLW usage in medieval period and earlier, but there are some credible evidence that swearing became a social feature of the upper class, especially in the Renaissance (Henry VIII, Edward VI and Queen Elizabeth I were said to swear freely on many occasions ) and in the modern times (the Duke of Edinburgh, his daughter Princess Anne, Prince Philip, Prince Charles, many British prime ministers as William Pitt, Charles James Fox, Sir Winston Churchill). In 1954 an ar ticle Linguistic Class - indicators in Present -day English, written by Allan C.S. Ross and revised in 1956 under the title U and Non- U: An Essay in Sociological Linguistics , introduced the issue of BLWs usage among the upper class. To be more precise, Ross ( Hughes, 2006: 474- 5) highlights an apparent distinction between the upper and non- upper (other class) norms, claiming that the upper class norms tend to be extremely direct, even blunt and 80 euphemism-free especially when dealing with sensitive and taboo iss ues. All other later works and dictionaries have confirmed Ross’s hypothesis that the upper class norms display a range of crude and colourful metaphors, politically incorrect words, the use of racist terms and other strong offensive words. In the USA general expectations do rely on the fact that the upper class, i.e. the leaders of the county will always speak with dignity and avoid BLWs per se. Yet, the truth is that BLWs are frequently used among classy people as well (President Richard Nixon was said to speak like a gangster, using BLWs like crap, bullshit, asshole, I don’t give a shit, a bunch of crap, etc; President Lyndon Johnson was said to utter BLWs like fuck and shit). As a matter of fact, McEnery (2006: 42- 45) also notices that the social class relates to BLW use in ways that is anticipated i.e. frequency of usage being inverse to height of social class, but also he proves that the social class relates to BLW use in ways that are not likely to be anticipated at all i.e. stronger BLWs are more com mon for the upper class. It is once again noteworthy to emphasize the importance of analyzing these above - mentioned parameters as a whole as these inevitably interact generating a special nature of relationship and therefore determining the choice of bad language. The idea that no gentleman ever swears is all wrong. He can swear and still be a gentleman if he does it in a nice and benevolent and affectionate way (Mark Twain cited in Leigh, Lepine, 2005: 54). In addition, there is this stereotypical assump tion that middle class people, especially women are the most polite people who never resort to swear ing as they mostly show a preference for refined language, civility, courtesy, good manners, good breeding, and a good upbringing. 81 4.3.4. Geographical Area and Swearing There is the last among the most relevant parameters which focuses on the conversational style of peoples according to their geographical location. It is of high importance to emphasize that one needs to be really cautious when it comes to generalizations and stereotypes associated with a particular country and particular nationality. According to Giles et al . (Hickey, Stewart , 2005: 08- 9) there are some ‘differences in conversational style between East and West – Westerners talk for affiliative purposes, and in order to fill silences which are deemed stressful, while Easterners talk primarily for instrumental purposes and can remain in comfortable silence in other cases’. There is also a common belief that northern Europe values privacy and individualism and is therefore more based on negative politeness, as opposed to southern Europe which regards privacy as less important, isolation as something negative and generally values generosity and compliments highly i.e. focus is kept on the positi ve aspect of face. Indeed, certain pragmatic tendencies are thought to be shared between different geographical groupings (Western Europe, Northern Europe, Eastern Europe, Southern Europe), although it is to be pointed out that these groupings might be a s omewhat loose concept. In fact, as Europe does change and transform itself every day so are the politeness systems of every European country bound to be changed. What is more, within the same country there might be the case that several different language communities coexist exhibiting different politeness systems typical for different geographical groupings, as for instance, Swiss politeness system is influenced to an extent by the individual politeness systems of France, Italy and Germany. There are also differences between urban and rural norms that need to be taken into consideration as well. 82 Nonetheless, politeness is the complex concept differently understood and estimated in different countries, different cultures and different languages. Being polit e in Germany varies from being polite in Norway, Estonia or Greece. One needs to be familiar with the fact that it is not just a behaviour that varies from country to country, or from culture to culture, but it is also the way that particular behaviour is assessed and perceived in relation to the value system that one county or culture supports. Still, there are no enough studies conducted on the politeness system(s) of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as on the politeness systems of the Balkans in general. The problem which is also fraught with difficulty is to determine whether swearing is a taboo concept in the politeness systems of above -mentioned geographical groupings and whether one could make some conclusions upon who would be the most and the least s wearing nationality. 4.3.4.1. Swearing in Bosnia and Herzegovina As it has been stated earlier, not too much data on swearing in Bosnia and Herzegovina could be found as the sources have been scarce and limited. There is a research conducted by a monk Ignacije Gavran (1962: 61- 65) who notices that swearing in the Balkans is a very common and widespread habit, making a difference between mild (mother, father, etc.) and strong swearwords (God, Lord, Jesus Christ, Mother of God, etc.). He also suggests that swearing might be inherited from the Hungarians, the Turks or the Mongolians. Swearing in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as Gavran believes, is enhanced and frequent due to a very unfavourable political position of Bosnian people, heavy life conditions for people and cattle, poverty and a display of different illnesses. 83 Almost three decades later there appear some seminal works upon the phenomenon of swearing in the Balkans. Vuletić (cited in Savić, 1995: 165) in 1988 alarms that swearing is three times more frequent than a common greeting, Savić (1995: 167) claims that swearing is strengthened due to the migration of people from rural to urban regions 8 and Šipka (cit ed in Savić, 1995: 168) does a pilot research on swearing in Bosnia and Herzegovina obtaining very important results. To be more precise, Šipka withdraws several conclusions finding the impact of variables highly relevant (gender, age, education, ethnic ba ckground and nationality). Of course, there are some other more or less important variables such as the presence of the third party, the familiarity (closeness) of the interactants, their status, social background, geographical area and so on. To summarize, it is obvious that the phenomenon of swearing has been addressed just a few times. Apparently, it has always been considered irrelevant and on the margins of standardized language. Needless to say, the strong means of censorship has also played a crucial role in collecting and exploring the swearing data. This paper and others alike will attempt are a contribution to sociolinguistics to further the understanding of swearwords. 8 Savić (1995: 167) elaborates on swearing as a category marked as impolite and inappropraite in rural areas. What is more, rural areas do not have a diversity of communication as urban areas do. 84 5. THE ROLE OF CENSORSHIP The issue of censorship including freedom of speech and publishing has had a long record in English literary history. Bad language has been morally offensive and generally caused linguistic offence from as early as the 14 th century. At that time there were many attempts in England to intro duce a law against swearing. But the practical censorship of bad language appeared just in the 16 th century as a generally and desperately needed protection for the English citizens. As ‘the suppression or prohibition of speech or writing that is condemned as subversive of the common ground’ (Allan, Burridge, 2006: 13) censorship prohibited the greatest English 16 th century swearwords, especially oaths and blasphemies containing the name of Lord. However, this period was marked and enriched with the appearance of minced oaths, being a newly -invented mechanism for substituting direct references to foul or profane terms (e.g. God’s blood  ‘sblood; God blind me  Gor blimey  blimey;). Throughout the 17 th and 18 th centuries censorship remained politically and economically motivated so the public representation of bad language was a rarity in the English society. The responsibility of the Government concerning the bad language use rose with the development of mass media in the 20 th century. Many attempts to impose censorship on broadcast and printed bad language are evident in that period (the establishment of the BBC, but also the establishment of the moral civic groups known as the VALA – the National Viewers’ and Listeners’ Association). Even though there exis ted strict laws, harsh penalties and lawsuits against swearing and swearers, the 20 th century retreat of censorship presented bad language proudly re - entering public life (Shaw’s Pygmalion and the popularity of the word bloody; Worker’s Challenge and the f requent use of words bloody, bugger, hell, damn, bleeding, bastard; Till Death Us Do Part and the multiple uses of bloody, even the word fuck; I’ll Never 85 Forget What’s’Name and the first fuck and cunt publicly uttered by a woman). It is believed that polit ical correctness has created ‘a climate of tacit censorship’ on the 21 st century swearing stage. Namely, Allan and Burridge (2006: 238) claim that ‘government and other institutions exercise censorship as a means of regulating the moral and political life of their people, controlling the media and communications between citizens against language deemed to be subversive of the common good’. The authors furthermore differentiate between censorship and censoring, the first being institutional practice only, but the second being both institutional and individual practice. It is thought that an ordinary person’s habit is to censor their own language and behaviour constantly. In other words, every person decides upon their statements in order to save or lose face, or to cause interactant’s loss of face or maintenance of face. The methods of censoring swearwords are usually applied through PC, euphemisms, less likely through dysphemisms. There are even six various methods most media editors use when censoring written swearwords nowadays (Leigh, Lepine, 2005: 280): a) vowel deprivation or dropping vowels (e.g. f_ck; c*nt; sh*t); b) dropping all the letters but the first – the convention of asterisk substitution (e.g. f_ _ _; s***); c) inserting the phrases (e.g. [expletive de leted], [vulgarity deleted ] or [blasphemy deleted]); d) changing the word or remode lling (e.g. hell  heck, hay; fuck  fudge; damned  darned, drat; shit  shivers, sugar, shoot); e) substituting all the letters but the first with an underline (e.g. c___; s___; f___); f) inserting dingbats (e.g. $%@#). 86 One could draw the tentative conclusion that swearwords seem to be more accepted and tolerated in spoken rather than in written language. They do sometimes get bleeped out, or it might occur that on e of the sounds f orming a swearword gets dipped, so that a listener would not exactly hear the offensive word being clearly mouthed by the other speaker (the most vivid example being: What the …!). What is more, Šipka (1999: 49-50) notices that a speaker might ask a sort of permission for uttering a swearword from the hearer themselves, using additional lexical unit (da prostiš, da oprostiš, oprostite, da izvineš, izvin’te gospođo / gospođe, kako naš narod kaže, što no kažu). In that way, speakers distance themselves from a swearword as if they haven’t uttered it at all. To sum up, cens orship and censoring play a crucial role in speech practice, yet these are believed to be doomed to fail as forbidden words continue to be of a perennial nature. 87 6. ON ATTITUDES The question of attitudes has been examined extensively within the field of sociology (as a social phenomenon being shaped by different aspects of society ), psychology (as a result of various psychological functions of thinking, memorizing, paying attention, motivating oneself, etc), social psychology (as a result of the above -mentioned fields, studying the thoughts, feelings and actions of people in social situations, but also the influence of others on those thoughts, feelings and actions ), linguistics (as being directly related to language, attitudes represent speaker’s affect that a speaker brings to un utterance), psycholinguistics (as a result of psychological and neurobiological factors that determine the acquisition, usage, comprehension and production of language) and sociolinguistics (as a result of a continu ous interplay of language and society, exploring attitude-behaviour relations in language ). The attitudes help people develop perceptions of their social and physical world. What is more, they may have a huge impact upon their overt behaviour. On the other hand, they might be contradicted by the behaviour in which people engage themselves. This phenomenon of attitudes resides at the intersection of language, mind and society focusing on hearer’s evaluative reactions to communicator ’s usage of, for instance, different phonological, lexical or syntactic features of a language. In general, a distinction can be made between two approaches dealt meticulously within social psychology and linguistics. These two approaches are precisely about language, providing features on the nature of attitudes (Fasold, 1987: 147-8): a) the behaviorist approach b) the mentalist (cognitive) approach 88 The main difference between these two competing theories is that behaviorists argue that all human activity is reduced to behavioural unit s. Attitude is seen as a dependant unit that can be inferred from the responses that an individual makes to social situations. A s unique structures attitudes are regarded ‘as internal sets or dispositions to act to an object or stimulus in a particular manner’ (Agheyisi, Fishman, 1970: 138-139). The behaviourist approach simply considers attitudes as direct behavioural responses which people make in certain social situations. Observation and analysis of the overly expressed behaviour are the crucial means i n investigating attitudes. This theory is mostly supported and preferred by social psychologists. On the other hand, mentalists consider at titude to be an inner and complex concept that cannot be directly observed. These are viewed as a state of readiness at a stimulus that affects an individual and an individual’s reaction to it. Williams defines attitude as ‘an internal state aroused by stimulation of some type and which may mediate the organism’s subsequent response’ (Fasold, 1996: 147). In other words, various psychological aspects are embodied within the notion of attitudes. 6.1. The Structure of Attitudes The way how attitudes are formed and the reasons why they are formed makes an interesting phenomenon to psychologists, philosophers and linguists as well. For instance, a person might enjoy acquiring English swearwords as s/he is really curious to learn the language to the bits or it may seem quite intriguing and fun to produce and apply the mentioned words on different occasions. On the other hand, other person may not necessarily want to acquire the swearwords as they do seem unnecessary, non-intriguing and marginal and that particular person may find it boring and time -wasting to learn such 89 words. Basically there are two different sources underlying the differentiation in attitudes. While the first person shows more ‘emotional’ attitude towards vocabulary acquisition and language learning in general, the second person exhibits a ‘rational’ attitude. The example presented shows that the basis of at titude formation can be emotion or affect. However, attitude can be based on beliefs or ideas, or some previous life experience. Therefore, attitude presents a complex structure , a tripartite model. It is also accompanied by the assumption that attitudes m ay be explicit and implicit. When attitudes are implicitly formed the attitude formation process is then automatically a response towards a targeted object or information. On the contrary, explicit attitudes are formed consciously using the cognitive stren gth. The tripartite model distinguishes between three dependable components: a) cognitive (knowledge, an idea or belief) b) affective (feelings, emotionally charged or evaluative component) c) conative component (behaviour, predisposing one to a type of action). Cognitive component refers to an individual’s beliefs and opinions about the world or, better to say, it refers to one’s general knowledge about a person / situation / topic and so on. The human mind undergoes cognitive processes of selecting, categorizi ng and storing information in the different compartments in the brain. Therefore, schema, as a mental structure in which our knowledge of the world is organized, is created and efficiently applied during the processes of thinking and conversing with others . Talking about schemata inevitably involves talking about stereotypes. Basically, stereotypes present ‘schemata which, though very general, are held with great conviction, so they provide the basis for unwarranted predictions about members of the stereoty ped category (which may 90 be defined in terms of culture, race, profession, age, sex, religion, etc.)’ (Spencer -Oatey, 2008: 67). On the contrary, Bugarski (2005: 45 -6) states that stereotyping should not be perceived as ‘black and white’ not ion. Bugarski defines stereotypes as a set of widely - held beliefs about actual or imaginary objects connected to cognitive component of attitude. He claims that stereotyping used to be understood as a result of a lack of knowledge about certain people, ideas, topics, etc. Conventional stereotypes were therefore rejected as fake, rather negative and detrimental. According to the author, stereotypes are relevant cognitive markers affecting the cognitive processes of categorization of the world allowing for the human mind to select and understand information in an easier and simple way, so the information is easier to be identified, processed and reacted to . Such a general understanding of a stereotype is extremely beneficial as it contributes to the individual’s overall orientation in the world. Stereotypes are inevitably formed any place, any time – between groups of people, between nations and what is more, people even form stereotypes about themselves (so called autostereotypes, one of the most extreme being linguistic self -hatred, in which native language is regarded as the most terrible and difficult language to acquire). Secondly, affective component refers to an individual’s feelings about the world or, better to say, it refers to one’s general feeling about a person / situation / topic and so on. It might range from positive expression of feelings to negative one – from complete adoration to total hatred. For instance, it is quite natural for a native speaker to feel most comfortable when conversing in their mother tong ue, as their language presents the most secure and relaxing surroundings; Kafka (Bugarski, 1986: 151) stated that individuals consider their mother tongue ‘the audible homeland’. Only when cognitive component is formed could this affective component be formed as well. 91 Conative component is influenced by the norms of a society. It refers to individual’s readiness to accept the world depending on a society’s beliefs and opinions. That type of individual’s predisposition to a certain object or situation strongly depends on the intensity of the component. It is, also, vital to mention that the three components of attitudes are tightly linked creating a relation between attitude and behaviour. Still, attitudes do not have to obligatorily entail all three compon ents, but they hardly ever include only one. Furthermore, it is understood that cognitive and affective components depend on personal experience, while conative is more collective, in a sense. Needless to say, there are some authors (Palmerino, Langer, McGillis, 1984) who claim that the role of context is also quite significant in the definition of attitude. They posit that an attitude should be defined as a relationship between a person, as one entity, and an object, as the second one, both of these entit ies becoming a part of an extended structure - the context’(Haapea, 1999:11). 6.2. Attitudes and Behaviour The relations between attitude and behaviour have been studied as to determine what kind of correlation exists between people’s attitudes and their overtly expressed behaviour. Obviously, there is a variety of personal, interpersonal and situational factors influencing the way a person behaves in certain situations. It is claimed that attitudes may predict a person’s future behaviour (Baker, 1992). Baker argues that once we know a person’s 92 attitude towards an object, there is a better chance of understanding and predicting the person’s future behaviour towards the referred object. However, it is to be highlighted that attitudes do influence a per son’s behaviour only to a certain degree. Behaviour is surely affected by other relevant factors as well. For instance, behaviour may be consciously or unconsciously designed to conceal and put the significance off an actual attitude. The factors influenci ng the a ttitude-determined behaviour vary, across different motives, individual differences, different abilities, presence of other people, normative proscriptions and some unpredicted social situations. So, if there is an intention to predict a person’s precise attitude-determined behaviour one must take into consideration other variables found within the stimulus situation. In addition, if there is just a slight change in circumstances within the stimulus situation, the reaction i.e. behaviour results in a change as well. 6.3. Attitude Formation and Change Attitudes shape people’s perception of other people, objects and events and influence their behaviour towards them. They are learnt and acquired through society. They could be also learnt from a per son’s previous experience. Changeable nature of society also influences the changeable nature of attitudes. In this sense, an attitude towards, for instance, our colleague at the faculty may be formed or changed whenever one encounters that particular colleague either directly or indirectly. Attitude change is usually the result of a change in a person, the object or the relationship between those two. Baker (1992) introduces the concept of attitude formation as human modelling. The concept itself refers t o imitating the attitudes of a role mo del, who is 93 usually a parent, sibling, teacher, peer or a friend. Baker (1992) states that the role models are quite often perceived as more valuable and more important than the content itself (forming an attitude towa rds an object, event, behaviour or other people). They really exhibit the most appropriate status. For instance, a student may form and / or change the attitude as his colleague does towards a new colleague at the faculty although s/he has never confronted the new colleague before. Needless to say, the status of the role model depends on several significant variables, such as age, speech, expertise, clothes, physical experience, race, nationality, mass media and so on. Age is a relevant factor influencing t he attitude formation. Obviously, person’s attitudes do alter with age, as people are getting more mature , wise and responsible. During the ir life-span a person meets other persons from different walks of life and re -evaluates the existing attitudes but also changes some attitudes. Baker (1992) suggests that age -related changes of attitudes are connected to social rather than psychological changes. A person’s speech is also a relevant factor influencing the attitude formation. Speech could at times suggest a person’s level of education and expertise and in that way influence other people’s attitudes. For instance, a doctor’s speech may influence a patient’s attitude towards a new medication or towards a necessary change that should be made in lifestyle and dieting. Physical appearance, in general, may act as a strong variable in attitude formation. Namely, many studies have proven that physical appearance plays an important role when applying for a job, for instance. It is believed that an applicant who is smartly - dressed has a better chance to be employed than the one who is poorly -dressed. Employers, in this case, do observe physical traits, clothes, shoes, hair style and they do form the attitudes about job applicants based on these particular features. 94 Experience is also a valuable factor in the formation of attitudes. Family members, grandparents and teachers do play an important role in the formation and change of attitudes. Younger generations are taught to show respect and good manners towards those older than them, and therefore they may appear to be more under the influence of their attitudes and ways of thinking and processing certain information. In addition, the educational system of a country could also leave a huge impact on younger generations accepting certain beliefs and views, thus operating the same way as the majority of society. Also, the effect of mass media (television, radio, the Internet) on public attitudes formation should not be minimized nor neglected. 6.4. Functions of Attitudes To explain an individual’s possible attitude changes Katz (1960) proposed a functional theory that includes four significant functions of attitudes. Those functions have important implications in attitude change, and these are: a) utilitarian, instrumental, or function of adjustment (attitudes may change if there is some kind of reward or punishment involved) b) ego-defensive function (attitudes may change deriving from the need to protect oneself) c) value-expressive function (people are likely to express attit udes mirroring their central values, and thus, if their central values change, their attitudes may change as well) 95 d) knowledge function (knowledge of the world provides a strong impact upon the forming and / or changing of attitudes). As mentioned above, to explain a person’s possible attitude change is never an easy task to do. Moreover, there are relevant factors affecting the attitude change, either of internal or external nature. Generally speaking, attitudes are not inherited but learned predispositions, model led by our experience. People make the sense of this world by structuring it into easily understandable bits and pieces. They form attitudes according to whether they like or dislike something / someone. Those attitudes vary in degree, from positive, neutral, to negative. Yet, one could have a relatively complex attitude, with both positive and negative attitudes towards an object / situation / topic. 6.5. Language Attitudes Language attitudes refer to attitudes people hold towards language. It is to be emphasized that language attitudes are quite beneficial in foreign language learning (FL), second language learning (L2), language planning and language policy. Language attitudes accompany two types of attitudes, the first ones being attitudes towards speakers of a certain language / dialect and the second ones, attitudes speakers have about language / dialect itself (Fasold, 1996: 148). They are dealt with within the scope of folk linguistics introduced by Hoenigswald in 1966. Bugarski defines the scope of folk linguistics as ‘a set of beliefs and attitudes ordinary people have towards languages, language varieties 96 and speech communities, regardless of the established definitions found within linguistics’ (Bugarski, 2005: 46). Hoenigswald (Niedz ielski, Dennis, 1999: 02) lays the importance of folk linguistics unveiling collections of the folk expressions for various speech acts, the folk terminology and the folk definitions of grammatical categories. He puts an emphasis on several folk accounts s uch as homonymy, synonymy, regionalisms, language varieties, social structures reflected in speech, language and speech styles, etc. What is sought in language attitude research is precisely that folk information about certain linguistic phenomena. The object of language attitudes resides upon the cognitive, affective and conative components that structure attitude (Fasold, 1996: 148-9): a) attitudes towards language itself – subjects in this study are asked, for instance, whether they consider a certain language variety beautiful, ugly, rich, poor, etc. – but also attitudes toward speakers of that language variety – whether they are considered harsh, friendly, polite, impolite etc. b) attitudes towards members of different ethnic groups – attitudes about langu age affects second-language learning c) language attitudes influence patterns of language behaviour or behaviour towards language. Hoenigswald (Niedzielski, Dennis, 1999: 25) simply describes the above -mentioned object of language attitudes within the triangle: a) what goes on b) how people react to what goes on 97 c) what people say about all this. Again, it is to be pointed out that language attitude study belongs to the domains of the first and second primarily, though the third one cannot be excluded when discussing language attitudes phenomenon. 6.6. Types of Language Attitudes First of all, there should be a distinction made between the types of language attitudes that correspond to monolingual settings or bi -/multilingual settings. It is vital that this distinction is made so languages are not evaluated against each other, as it used to happen in earlier works on language attitudes. Classification of language attitudes could be done in several ways, according to different dimensions, such as the object of s tudy, the manner of manifestation, type and effect they could produce (Bugarski, 1986: 112-3). a) as far as the object of the study is concerned, language attitudes may be divided into attitudes towards dialects / regionally accented speech styles, attitudes towards ethnic languages / ethnically accented speech styles, attitudes towards second / foreign languages / foreign accented speech styles / languages for specific purposes, attitudes towards convergent speech styles / mixed speech styles / lingua franca e / pidgin and creole languages, attitudes towards sex - and age-specific speech styles and attitudes towards phonetically / lexically / paralinguistically diversified speech styles 98 b) according to the manner of manifestation, language attitudes may be divided into conscious points of view and unconscious systems of values c) according to the type, there are several categories distinguished: aesthetic (e.g. Italian is considered pleasant and melodic), pragmatic (e.g. English, as a lingua franca, is considered valu able and functional nowadays, and therefore speaking it fluently presents richness) and moral (mother tongue is usually considered the best and most beautiful language) d) according to effect, they could be totally harmless to extremely dangerous ones (aesthetic types are usually harmless, pragmatic types could be dangerous, and moral ones are usually quite neutral). Language attitudes towards speakers of a language and towards language itself are transmitted through verbalized attitudes of utterances. They play a role in numerous situations from formal to informal ones, such as personnel interviews, educational settings, legal situations, etc. Language therefore presents not only a means of communication but also a powerful tool being a symbol of social and g roup identity. Indeed, language attitudes are not necessarily a stable category, so they are prone to change depending, as it has been mentioned earlier, upon several factors. However, it is beneficial to highlight that language attitudes can be measured a nd evaluated using their own attitude measurement techniques. 99 6.7. Measuring Attitudes There are three assessment techniques relevant to the study of language attitudes proposed by Ryan, Giles and Hewstone (Haapea, 1999: 18): content analysis of soc ietal treatment (observation), direct measurement and indirect measurement. The first one is not always mentioned in academic works when attitude measurement techniques are concerned for being too informal and quite unreliable as it is based upon autobiographical and observational data on societal treatment of language varieties. It is interesting that Agheyisi and Fishman do consider it as a direct measurement of attitudes (Fasold, 1996: 151). It is used to collect the most naturalistic data by observation . So the researcher’s task is based on recording people’s activities in different social situations. Behaviourists find this method quite adequate and appropriate for their research as opposed to mentalists who would have had to infer the respondent’s atti tudes on the basis of their behaviour as well. This method appears to be quite time -consuming and complex. On the other hand, the last two, direct and indirect methods are fairly common and popular. As for the direct measurement of language attitudes, it involves the use of a series of direct questions presented in written form to large groups (questionnaire) or in oral form interviewed individually (interview). Interviews present a direct way of eliciting information on language attitudes openly in oral form. Being widely applied, this method can be recorded in written form or on a tape recorder. For a well -conducted interview one must establish a direct contact with an interviewee so that they feel at ease, comfortable and relaxed. The risk of misunderstanding is limited since there is room left for any potential clarification of questions. However, this method has some drawbacks. First, interviewees can express 100 certain attitudes which so not necessarily predict their actual behaviour. That leads to potential inconsistency with a variety of diverse answers received from interviewees. Such results could be quite difficult to process statistically. Second, interviewees may want to please interviewer with their responses and present themselves in the best possible way. So, this method may be a good way to find out how people think they would behave in particular situations, but not how they behave in real interactions. Needless to say, such method is rather expensive and time-consuming. Questionnaires pre sent a direct way of eliciting information on language attitudes straightforwardly in written form. This method can be very efficient concerning the researcher’s time and effort. It is possible to obtain a great amount of information from a large group of participants in a relatively short period of time. Traditional questionnaires use a close-ended type of questions giving results which are statistically easy to process. Participants are offered answers in a yes / no format, multiple choice or ranking sche mes. This format is easier to deal with for both researcher and participant, as participants in a very simple way answer questions on the researcher’s terms. On the other hand, open- ended formats of questionnaires offer participants the opportunity to stat e their attitude freely. Such questionnaires do obtain more accurate and comprehensive responses, but also carry a risk of responses going astray from the subject. Fasold (1996: 152) believes that the perfect questionnaire format should be the one made of close- type questions after having conducted a pilot research with open-ended questions first. As for the indirect measurement of language attitudes, they emerged as a desire to develop new measurement methods. These indirect methods act as a disguise of t he intentions of the researcher and they may appear in various forms, ranging from sentence completion tests, participant observations to the matched -guise technique. The most 101 popular method is the Matched Guise Technique (MGT) developed in the 1960s by Lambert and his colleagues (Fasold, 1996: 150). The technique analyses respondent’s evaluational reactions to language and varieties i.e. a respondent with native -like proficiency in all languages and varieties under investigation is selected and provided with tape recordings of those investigated languages and varieties. He furthermore evaluates the taped speakers who use those languages and varieties, or better to say, he evaluates the intelligence and character of the taped speakers. Actually, what respond ents do not know is the fact that it is not the speakers who are taped, but only one speaker who is capable of speaking with native -like ability in various languages and varieties. Differences in judgments are attributed to differences in attitude towards language and / or variety. This method has been used for predicting personality judgments based on language and language varieties, though it has been criticized for a number of problems, such as, the choice of topic and alleged artificiality and unnatural setting of this measuring technique. In order to solve these problems, there should be a great control introduced over the subject matter i.e. the sample should present the taped speakers discussing the same general topic of non- controversial matter. Furthermore, the exactly same taped sample repeated several times could make listeners bored with the repetition and could make them feel that it is impossible to rate speakers on various personality scales. Bourhis and Giles tried to find a solution to the this problem and they succeeded in solving it by devising an MGT in which the subjects were totally ignorant of the fact that they were involved in language attitude experiment (Fasold, 1996: 155-7). Still, there is a question of applying other aspects and variables in the language attitude analyses, such as gender, age and occupational role, being commonly disregarded from the MGT. What is more, the stereotypes held by listeners towards languages and 102 language varieties will always have a strong impact on th e attitudes tested (Bugarski, 1986: 146-7). Semantic differential scales represent a technique developed by Osgood, Suci and Tannenbaum in the late 1950s designating several points (a 5- point, 7-point scales) for gradation of particular characteristics. A respondent is asked to indicate where on a scale of a particular characteristic a speaker falls – if a speaker sounds educated, a respondent will mark a point closes to the extreme ‘educated’; if he does not sound educated, a respondent’s mark goes to the opposite extreme of ‘uneducated’. The major disadvantage of this method is validity of the obtained data, especially of cognitive and affective attitudes (Fasold, 1996: 153). The problem is not so present in the case of conative attitudes – ‘if an attitude questionnaire shows that people have a predisposition to behave in a certain way, then all that must be done is to place them in a situation where that particular behavior is a possibility and see what they do’ (Fasold, 1996: 153). As a solution to the pr oblem of validity, Fishman (Fasold, 1996:153) proposed a commitment measure technique. In 1968 he conducted a research on attitudes of Puerto Ricans in New York about their ethnicity inviting the examinees to an evening of Puerto Rican dances. If they answ ered positively to invitation to the dance and they actually confirmed it with their presence, their answers were considered as valid ones (Fasold, 1996: 154). Other popular scales used are Lickert’s scale and Terston’s scale. The first one is based on a c oncept where an examinee is offer ed answers from total agreement, over agreement, over disagreement and finally to total disagreement with the claim. The second one is based on a concept where an examinee is offered five to seven supposedly equal intervals between two opposites of the claim. Such scales might at times be problematic due to the inadequate interpretation of the results. Namely, as the questioning is a form of speech communication that includes interpretation of meaning, there might 103 be some ro om for misinterpretation and misunderstanding of certain questions and answers. To sum up, it is essential to emphasize that language attitude techniques help researchers determine and describe the attitude as a volatile category prone to change. So, it is possible to track the change of attitudes towards language at any period of time. Many parameters should be taken into consideration when conducting such research: age, gender, education, social and cultural environment, as well as some other less popul ar variables used in sociolinguistic research. All of these socio- linguistic variables create and influence the language attitude either directly or indirectly so there is a possibility for researchers to analyze language attitudes phenomenon synchronically and diachronically. 104 7. LANGUAGE ATTITUDES ON POLITENESS / IMPOLITENESS Since the notions of politeness and impoliteness are always by their very nature a question of judgement and assessment, there is a logical and reasona ble link developed and established between the l anguage attitudes towards these particular notions and the notions themselves. The nature of (im)politeness appears to be an elusive concept since it is inherently linked to judgements on norms and standardiz ed social values. Due to its changeability attitudes are constantly negotiated and re- negotiated and they do change ultimately over time in every type of social interaction. What is more, language a ttitudes towards the notion of ( im)politeness differ syste matically across cultures, and within cultures across subcultures, categories and groups. In different languages (im)politeness is associated with different values within a society and thus will be defined accordingly and will function differently. What has often been considered within politeness research is the extent to which (im)politeness norms change. As Watts (2003) suggested, there is no linguistic behaviour that is inherently polite or impolite. There is nothing in the utterance itself that signals politeness or impoliteness. Therefore, it is quite often difficult to analyse and assess one’s personal attitude and the (im)polite utterances or be haviour that a person displays. The emphasis must, for that reason, be put on the analysis of people’s atti tudes toward (im)politeness and the way they relate to each others in conversations. The main problem in sociolinguistics has always been the nature of social values and the linguistic forms associated to them. Furthermore, what also needs to be taken into consideration is the fact that people may tend to provide stereotypical beliefs and generalizations, particularly in relation to sensitive issues, like politeness, impoliteness, taboo and swearing. Attitudes are then 105 obviously in a mismatch with what people really do or say in social interactions. On the other hand, people do sometimes display a conscious or subconscious tendency to present themselves as best cultural representatives obliged to present themselves and their culture in the best possible way. However, the role of stereotype should not be disregarded completely but rather handled with care. Mills (2003) argues that stereotypes must not be completely ignored in the production and reception of speech as the researchers will be unable to assess t he way people come to judgements about other people and their (im)polite speech, for instance. If we assume that stereotypes exist in a reified form which people simply accept or reject, we cannot account for the force of those stereotypes in people’s language production and reception, and in their negotiation of particular linguistic styles and subject positions. We also cannot account for change and difference in perceptions of stereotyping (Mills, 2003: 238). . Indeed, it is true that some acts are intrinsically threatening to face and people considered them rude, impolite and threatening. However, there should not be any generalisations formed upon polite and impolite acts. Utterances, which may seem at face value impolite, are not necessari ly face-threatening. There should be a speaker’s intention to be impolite involved in the impolite act as well to assert that there is some FTA committed in the ongoing social interaction. This ‘intention’ is measured and evaluated by different factors adding up to the impoliteness of the impolite act itself. So, impoliteness does not necessarily have to reside in the content or the massage of the utterance. It could be inferred that swearing is not necessarily an impolite act as well. Swearing does inclu de morphological variants that are likely to be FTA sensitive. 106 However, that fact does not imply that swearwords are always promoting FTAs. For that reason, impoliteness may be understood to have a ritual character as politeness itself does. Swearing could also be described as repetitive or pre -patterned behaviour associated with formulaic decorum. Formulaic decorum is defined by Watts as ‘highly conventionalized utterances, containing linguistic expressions that are used in ritualized forms of verbal inte raction’ (Watts, 2003). It is usually associated with the speaker’s desire to promote themselves . It is used as a means of entertainment and amusement, to impress or shock others, but also to make others pay attention. Of course, it can be used for referen tial and manipulative effects, to seduce or deceive. However, those formulaic, prefabricated language constructions are recreated and reproduced in particular social interaction and native speakers know and are able to work out exactly when those formulaic constructions are expected and accepted. The fact that people participate in so many social interactions on a daily basis makes them knowledgeable about the fact that the formulaic constructions are ritualized and institutionalized. What is more, the acce ptance of such formulaic usage is what creates a person’s politic behaviour. Watts defines politic behaviour as ‘socioculturally determined behaviour directed towards the goal of establishing and / or maintaining in a state of equilibrium the personal relationships between the individuals of a social group’ (Watts, 2003: 20). In addition, politic behaviour is a type of behaviour recognized, analysed and assessed by the members of a social group within the context of the ongoing social interaction . The rules regulating politic behaviour are not universal and general, but determined by members of a social group participating in a social interaction. The rules are rather specific and culturally relative, if not subculturally relative or group relative. What is more, they are never objective or only subjective since social practice is always an interactive process. 107 They are historically-determined as they may differ through different period of history, due to the past experiences of members of a social group. In order to recognize politic / polite / impolite behaviour one needs to carry out a sensitive and detailed analysis of the verbal interaction. As Watts suggested, researchers and participants of the verbal interaction need to have a ‘feel’ for the situation as to perceive and describe the notions. This research is going to determine the attitudes of young linguists -to-be towards formulaic usage of swearwords, being pragmaticalized expressions used sometimes automatically in response to the demands of politic behaviour. 108 8. THE SURVEY 8.1. Conducting the Survey The chapter 8 presents the results of the analysis of the data obtained for the research. As it has been mentioned at the beginning of the paper the data was obtained from an anonymous questionnaire conducted among the under -graduate students of English in four university towns in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Tuzla, Banja Luka, Zenica and Mostar from January to May 2011. The total number of students examined at English Departments at that period is 328, or to be more precise, there are 101 students examined in Tuzla (30.79%), 113 students examined in Banja Luka (34.45%), 73 students examined in Zenica (22.25%) and 41 students examined in Mostar (12.5%). It is presented in the Figure 3 below: Figure 3: Total Number of Students Examined in the Towns First of all, it has to be pointed out that it has been an arduous task to examine students at those mentioned English Departments, so the academic staff of the Departments was Tuzla Banja Luka Zenica Mostar 109 asked to perform the questionnaire during the classes and lectures. Not all the students enrolled in the English studies were examined, but only those who attended the class / lecture at which the questionnaire was conducted. Additionally, the questionnaire was not re-done at any time, as it could lose originality and perhaps the truthfulness in expressing the attitudes towards the delicate and tabooed topic. Secondly, it has to be admitted that not all the faculties have the same enrolment criterion and classes and lectu res organization. The intake of students at some faculties is greater and therefore the survey results in more students tested. On the other hand, some other factors might influence the survey performance indeed, as difference in classes and lecture organization (being more or less obligatory, depending from year to year), as well as other minor factors for not attending class / lecture as, for instance, student’s lack of interest in taking the survey. As a consequence, the total number of examinees varies at different departments; however, after the appropriate analysis of the data obtained it has become quite visible and crystal clear that there are some relevant issues worth stressing and discussing within the paper. Hence, the number of examinees is going to be taken into consideration, no matter how small the percentage of examinees is (cf. Mostar with 12.5% and Banja Luka with 34.45%). Besides, the paper itself is soon to prove that similar answers share the examinees in Mostar and Zenica, for instance (the percentage of examinees at these two departments is not as huge as the one compared with Banja Luka or Tuzla). In addition, it is also relevant to emphasize that there is not an equal number of male and female examinees (22.56% of male examinees as opposed to 77.43% of female examinees), as there is generally more female students enrolling an English language and literature faculty. The figure 4 displays percentages of examines according to gender: 110 Figure 4: Total Number of Males and Females Examined What also might appear to be quite relevant is the number of examinees per a year, which does not differ drastically from year to year (25.60% of first years = freshmen; 28.35% of the second years = sophomores; 23.78% of the third years = juniors and 22.26% of the forth years = seniors). Percentages of examinees according to the year of studies are displayed in the figure 5: Figure 5: Total Number of Students According to the Year of Study males females freshmen sophomores juniors seniors 111 When it comes to the age of examinees, it has to be pointed out that there have been six age groups introduced, as it could be seen in the figure 6: (1) eighteen and nineteen year old examinees, with a total of 48, or more precisely, 14.63%; (2) twenty year olds, with a total of 82 (25%); (3) twenty -one year olds, with a total of 68 (20.73%); (4) twenty -two year olds, with a total of 52 (15.85%); (5) twenty -three year olds, with a total of 36 (10.97%), and (6) twenty -four and above, which is 36 examinees or 10.97%. This particular category has been put forward as a parallel parameter that could make contributions in overall discussion and conclusion- making on swearword usage and the censorship. Figure 6: Six Age Groups Examined It is noteworthy that one category i.e. one question related to an examinee’s place o f birth has been disregarded from the analysis immediately at the very beginning of data - processing as it has been sensibly concluded that place of birth has a very vague and tiny influence on examinee’s linguistic expression. Namely, it is a well- known fact that some 18 & 19 year olds 20 year olds 21 year olds 22 year olds 23 year olds 24 year olds and above 112 children are born in other towns / cities due to several objective reasons as, for example, there is no hospital or appropriate conditions for delivering a baby in a hometown, or there are some other more or less spontaneous circumstances that may bring a mom to another town / city. Finally, the social class of examinee is also taken into consideration, with the special attention paid to the level of education of examinee and their parents. Figure 7: Examinee’s Educational Level It has been obtained that most examinees finished their secondary education within either a high school (64.32%), some technical type of school (18.90%) or some vocational type (13.41%). An extremely small number of examinees finished either artistic or religious type of school (3.04%). The figure 7 above displays the percentages related to the type of examinee’s secondary education. As for the parents, it turned out that fathers achieved a better schooling than mothers (observe the figure 8 and 9): 15.85% of father s had a tertiary education (4 year college) as opposed to mothers 10.97%; 17.07% of fathers had a tertiary education (2 year college) as opposed to mothers 10.97%; secondary education high school technical school vocational school artistic and religious schools 113 completed 61.58% of fathers and 63.41% of mothers; only primary schooling had 3.35% of fathers and 11.28% of mothers; The unknown level of education takes a few percents only, 2.13% on fathers and 3.35% on mothers. Figure 8: Educational Level of Fathers Figure 9: Educational Level of Mothers tertiary education (4 year) tertiary education (2 year) secondary school primary school unknow n tertiary education (4 year) tertiary education (2 year) secondary school primary school unknow n 114 8.2. Results and Discussion The analysis of the data relies on examining and discussing results obtained by statistical data-processing. There are four major categories according to which the results have been analyzed: gender, year of study, examinee’s educational level an d the university town they live in. There is a special attention paid to the results received after the cross - referencing of the major categories has been provided. Furthermore, there are several minor categories that played a supporting role to the major categories. Those minor are: age (how old they are), the educational level of father’s as well as of mother’s and place of residence. 8.2.1. Common Taboo Topics The first question examinees were asked to answer is related to taboo topics. There are ten taboo topic offered to examinees, starting with: (1) physical appearance of humans, (2) disease / illness, (3) death, (4) crime, (5) sexual organs and intercourse, (6) human flaws, (7) vices, (8) religion, (9) politics, (10) war. The table 1 below shows the taboo topics and their frequencies in 328 questionnaire samples observed: 115 Table 1: Frequency of Taboo Topics taboo topics frequency (out of 328) physical appearance 56 disease / illness 25 death 45 crime 49 sexual organs and intercourse 193 human flaws 26 vices 70 religion 92 politics 48 war 73 At first sight one may notice that the greatest taboo topic still belongs to the realm of sex. Namely, there are more than a half of the students examined (more than 60%) who stated that the topic of sex has still continued to be a strong taboo. Moreover, the topic of sexual organs and acts of sex has always been considered one of the greatest taboos, which this survey confirms over again. There are topics of religion and war following the topic of sex (28.04% and 22.25% respectively), but nothing is considered a greater taboo than sex. The least tabooed topics are topics related to sickness / illness and human flaws (7.62% and 7.92% respectively), which proves that examinees are quite open and rel axed when talking about those particular topics mentioned. Figure 10 visualizes the frequency of taboo topics: 116 Figure 10: Frequency of Taboo Topics However, results might be unusually surprising if there is a special attention paid to the frequency of taboo topics. Moreover, if one applies a comparison of column proportions test, results obtained could be showing interesting and significant differences in frequency of appearance of taboo topics. In order to explain this table in detail, it has to be stated that when cross -referenced taboo topic proportions coloured gold do show significant importance as p < 0.05, i.e. those TTs (taboo topics) display a great difference in frequency of appearance, as, for instance, TT 8 (religion) is significantly greater than TT 4 (crime) or TT 9 (politics). On the other hand, taboo topic proportions that are tanned do not provide as an important significance among taboo topics as those golden ones, i.e. p < 0.05 (note: TT 7 (vices) is not greater than TT 3 (death) or TT 4 (crime). White - coloured proportions are insignificant and irrelevant for any analysis. The table 2 below demonstrates those fine differences: 0 50 100 150 200 250 ph ysi ca l a pp ea ran ce dis ea se / il lne ss de ath cri me se xu al o rga ns an d i nte rco urs e hu ma n f law s vic es rel igio n po litic s wa r 117 Table 2: Comparison of Column Proportions: Frequency of Taboo Topics TT_1 TT_2 TT_3 TT_4 TT_5 TT_6 TT_7 TT_8 TT_9 TT_10 TT_1 1.00000 0.00025 0.23449 0.45631 0.00000 0.00043 0.16574 0.00082 0.39277 0.09541 TT_2 0.00025 1.00000 0.01167 0.00317 0.00000 0.88412 0.00000 0.00000 0.00443 0.00000 TT_3 0.23449 0.01167 1.00000 0.65593 0.00000 0.01723 0.01048 0.00001 0.73713 0.00456 TT_4 0.45631 0.00317 0.65593 1.00000 0.00000 0.00492 0.03374 0.00005 0.91245 0.01630 TT_5 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 1.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 TT_6 0.00043 0.88412 0.01723 0.00492 0.00000 1.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00680 0.00000 TT_7 0.16574 0.00000 0.01048 0.03374 0.00000 0.00000 1.00000 0.04680 0.02566 0.77674 TT_8 0.00082 0.00000 0.00001 0.00005 0.00000 0.00000 0.04680 1.00000 0.00003 0.08779 TT_9 0.39277 0.00443 0.73713 0.91245 0.00000 0.00680 0.02566 0.00003 1.00000 0.01209 TT_10 0.09541 0.00000 0.00456 0.01630 0.00000 0.00000 0.77674 0.08779 0.01209 1.00000 The results have become even more complex, flamboyant and sometimes quite appalling when other parameters are hybridized. Cross -referencing of gend er with taboo topics has shown results that have not really been expected. Namely, at first sight, there are no great surprises visible in the table 3 where the examinees of both sex have chosen the greatest taboos. The number of responses for every TT has not offered much at first as there has already been the expectation about TT 5 being the biggest and most frequent category. The statistically important difference appears only once there are some other finer tests applied. 118 Table 3: Cross-reference Presented in Percentages gender taboo topic M F TT 1 18.92% 16.54% TT 2 6.76% 7.87% TT 3 14.86% 13.39% TT 4 10.81% 16.14% TT 5 45.95% 62.60% TT 6 5.41% 8.66% TT 7 18.92% 22.05% TT 8 32.43% 26.77% TT 9 12.16% 15.35% TT 10 18.92% 23.23% Visual image of cross-referencing of gender with taboo topic does not also provide those fine and meticulous details. Here is the figure 11 presented: 119 Figure 11: Cross-reference of Gender with Taboo Topic However, if a closer look is taken at comparison of column proportions table, one would immediately notice that TT 5 exhibits some particular features. What is more, one instantly notices that the responses that refer to TT 5 are unexpectedly higher with male examinees than with female examinees (p < 0.05, i. e. p = 0.010). To sum up, although there is a higher number of female than male examinees, this particular closer examination and T-test application specially confirm an interesting piece of information: male examinees consider TT 5 a strong taboo (45.95%) , perceiving it even stronger than female examinees do (only 62.60%). That relevant fact also contributes to the conclusion that male examinees are more concerned with this particular taboo issue, TT 5. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% TT 1 TT 2 TT 3 TT 4 TT 5 TT 6 TT 7 TT 8 TT 9 TT 10 M F 120 Table 4: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Gender with Taboo Topics Comparisons of Column Proportions gender M F TT 1 0 (A) 1 (B) TT 2 0 (A) 1 (B) TT 3 0 (A) 1 (B) TT 4 0 (A) 1 (B) TT 5 0 (A) B 1 (B) A TT 6 0 (A) 1 (B) TT 7 0 (A) 1 (B) TT 8 0 (A) 1 (B) TT 9 0 (A) 1 (B) TT 10 0 (A) 1 (B) 121 Given the fact that an interesting and shocking piece of information has been revealed an urgent need has appeared to cross -reference other relevant parameters as well as to find other well-hidden features of the survey. The next step is to cross -reference taboo topic with the university towns examinees live in. As presented in table 5, and even better in figure 12 below, there is a diversity of responses when these two categories are cross -referenced. By the naked eye one may realize some different and important features concerning almost every taboo topic in every university town. However, only with comparison of column proportions and T -test application one could actually realize the exact and valid differences worth analysis. Table 5: Cross-reference of University Town with Taboo Topics (Percentages) university town Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica 113 41 101 73 TT 1 13.27% 9.76% 27.72% 12.33% TT 2 13.27% 7.32% 5.94% 1.37% TT 3 7.96% 17.07% 7.92% 28.77% TT 4 19.47% 19.51% 15.84% 4.11% TT 5 51.33% 43.90% 64.36% 71.23% TT 6 8.85% 14.63% 5.94% 5.48% TT 7 15.93% 41.46% 20.79% 19.18% TT 8 36.28% 4.88% 28.71% 27.40% TT 9 13.27% 24.39% 16.83% 8.22% TT 10 33.63% 21.95% 20.79% 6.85% 122 Figure 12: Cross-reference of University Town with Taboo Topics Comparison of column proportions illustrates that there are no extreme responses concerning that TT 1, 6 and 9. As for others, there are significant differences worth commenting. For instance, it is worth stating that there are more responses related to TT 2 from Banja Luka than from Zenica (p = 0.0052). On the other hand, the responses from Zenica are vividly higher when ta lking about TT 3 than the responses received in Banja Luka and Tuzla respectively (p = 0.0002 and p = 0.0004). Generally, it could be concluded that death is definitively a strong taboo in Zenica, whereas Tuzla and Banja Luka do not consider that taboo as a strong one. Next, the taboo topics related to diseases and illnesses are weaker in Zenica than in Banja Luka, for instance. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% TT 1 TT 2 TT 3 TT 4 TT 5 TT 6 TT 7 TT 8 TT 9 TT 10 Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica 123 Table 6: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Taboo Topics with University Towns university town Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica (A) (B) (C) (D) TT 1 0 1 TT 2 0 A 1 D TT 3 0 D D 1 A C TT 4 0 A B 1 D D TT 5 0 D D 1 A B TT 6 0 1 TT 7 0 B 1 A TT 8 0 A C D 1 B B B TT 9 0 1 TT 10 0 A 1 D Furthermore, responses related to TT 4 are greater in Banja Luka and Mostar than in Zenica (p = 0.0031 and p = 0.0086) as opposed to TT 5, which Zenica considers a huge taboo, perceived to be greater than in Banja Luka and Mostar (p = 0.0077 and p = 124 0.0048). To put it in a nutshell, Zenica is not open towards TT 5 (sexual organs and intercourse) and considers it a grave taboo, especially compared to the responses obtained from Banja Luka and Mostar. On the contrary, Banja Luka and Mostar also consider TT 4 (crime) among strong taboos, which is not the fact that could be confirmed in Zenica. The final three taboo topics are considered the greatest taboos along with the TT 5 among all the examinees. The fact is that there are still some differences in the perspective and acceptance of these taboos in different university towns. As for the TT 7 (vices), Banja Luka and Mostar differently perceive that taboo, i.e. for Mostar ex aminees TT 7 is stronger than for Banja Luka examinees (p = 0.0010). On the other hand, Mostar examinees do consider TT 8 (religion) a weak one, as opposed to all other university towns, Banja Luka, Tuzla and Zenica, respectively (p = 0.0002, p = 0.0022 and p = 0.0042). Finally, there is a significant difference in TT 10 (war), as Zenica examinees do comprehend TT 10 a weaker taboo than Banja Luka examinees really do (p = 0.0000). The third step is to cross-reference taboo topics with the year-of-study category. It is to be emphasized that this particular category seems to be more appropriate and handy when it comes to examination of university students than the age category, although it is not as completely different from it. The year -of-study category is more general, compact and easy to handle, as opposed to age category, which is divided into six sub- categories: 18 and 19 year olds, 20 year olds, 21 year old, 22 year olds, 23 year olds and 24 year olds and above. Age category has had a role of minor para meter which is taken into consideration, but the survey generally relied on the year -of-study category. However, there are both of the categories used at the beginning, so one could see if there are any major discrepancies presented. 125 First of all, year -of-study category has four different sub- categories, 1st-years, 2nd-years, 3rd-years and 4 th-years. When this category is hybridized with the category of taboo topics, there are no any particular surprising nor visible results received. Here is the table with data on cross -reference as well as the figure that presents the cross -referenced categories: Table 7: Cross-reference of Year of Study with Taboo Topics (Percentages) year of study 1 2 3 4 84 93 78 73 TT 1 13.10% 16.13% 19.23% 20.55% TT 2 4.76% 10.75% 8.97% 5.48% TT 3 17.86% 11.83% 8.97% 16.44% TT 4 17.86% 13.98% 20.51% 6.85% TT 5 57.14% 50.54% 57.69% 72.60% TT 6 13.10% 9.68% 5.13% 2.74% TT 7 23.81% 19.35% 14.10% 28.77% TT 8 22.62% 35.48% 33.33% 19.18% TT 9 16.67% 11.83% 16.67% 13.70% TT 10 26.19% 23.66% 19.23% 19.18% 126 Figure 13: Cross-reference of Year of Study with Taboo Topics Only after comparing the column proportions and applying T-test has it been obvious that there are some important, though tiny values related to the acceptan ce and understanding of taboo topics among examinees. To be more precise, the sophomores in Bosnia and Herzegovina do comprehend the TT 5 differently than their senior colleagues (p = 0.0045). Moreover, it has been confirmed that TT 5 is a taboo that weake ns extremely in the second year of study only to become stronger in the final year. It is to be thoroughly discussed now whether this phenomenon is a result of widespread awareness of social norms and boundaries, or it might be the fact that our students finally became adults. Secondly, in order to investigate this strange phenomenon that appeared when those two categories have been hybridized, there has been an additional, minor category involved, the age category. It has also confirmed the similar phenom enon occurring with the TT 7 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% TT 1 TT 2 TT 3 TT 4 TT 5 TT 6 TT 7 TT 8 TT 9 TT 10 1 2 3 4 127 (vices), especially after conducting the comparison of column proportions. Again, the same thing happens as 24 year olds and elder students (38.89%) do perceive vices from different point of view than their colleagues who are 21 years old (8.82%). The statistical difference between these two groups reaches p = 0.0003. In conclusion, one could observe the change in attitudes toward taboo topics with age as well. It might be assumed that examinees do change their attitudes as th ey enter the world of adults, finishing off with their studies and preparing for the fully -responsible adult life. Also, it could be guessed that examinees feel they will be blamed for not adapting to the new, adult world, its environment, its norms and its expectations after all. Finally, the last step is to cross -reference the category of educational level with the category of taboo topics. When it comes to educational level, there are three educational levels that have been taken into consideration: fa ther’s educational level, mother’s educational level and examinee’s educational level, i.e. type of secondary school an examinee finished. The main aim has been to find and observe every possible influence of this category on the choice of taboo topics. Although the expectations have been really high, the results obtained did not live up to them. There are few instances where one could observe the influence of the above - mentioned category in the selection of the greatest taboos. Indeed, there is just one instance of correlation between these two categories in TT 3, which is more conspicuous and therefore important for the analysis. In TT 3 there are two statistically relevant differences, the first one being between the second sub -category (those fathers wh o have tertiary education of 2 years) and the first one (fathers with tertiary education of 4 years) 128 at p = 0.0051 and the second one being between the second sub- category and the third one (fathers who have secondary education only) at p = 0.0001. As for the visual image, there is the figure 14 presenting the two categories hybridized with not statistically relevant results obtained. The exception would be only concerned with the TT 3 (death). Figure 14: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Father’s Educational Level with Taboo Topics The similar results were received when the category of mother’s educational level was hybridized with taboo topic category. The comparison of proportions indicates that statistically valuable data lies only within the TT 1 (physical appearance). In addition, the graph also reveals that interesting data related to TT 1. Namely, the fifth sub-category (mothers whose level of education is really low) proves to be of a great influence on the choice of taboo topics, especially when compared to the first three sub- 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% TT 1 TT 2 TT 3 TT 4 TT 5 TT 6 TT 7 TT 8 TT 9 TT 10 tertiary (4) tertiary (2) secondary primary other unknown 129 categories, referring to tertiary education (4 years), tertiary education (2 years) and secondary education respectively (p = 0.0058, p = 0.0026 and 0.0021). Figure 15: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Mother’s Educational Level with Taboo Topics Once these two levels have been analyzed, it is high time examinee’s level of education had been tackled. As mentioned above, some relevant results have been expected to be presented within this particular cross -reference. On the contrary, there are no statistically relevant data obtained that assert and promote that there is a correlation between the category of the educational level of examinee’s and the category of taboo topic. It appears that previous secondary education does not influence the choice of taboo topics once one enters a faculty. Therefore, this particular parameter has proved to be disappointing in this particular cross-reference. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% TT 1 TT 2 TT 3 TT 4 TT 5 TT 6 TT 7 TT 8 TT 9 TT 10 tertiary (4) tertiary (2) secondary primary other unknown 130 Figure 16: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Examinee’s Educational Level with Taboo Topics 8.2.2. Talking about Taboo Topics with Parents, Friends and Teachers Talking about taboo topics has always been a delicate issue, especially when discussed with parents and teachers, though sometimes with friends as well, especially more experienced ones. Hence, the next question focused on examinees giving the accurate answer on the frequency of conversations on those emotive issues. It could be put down that the results rece ived are the results that are more or less expected. First of all, the results obtained also show that taboo topics are generally mostly discussed with friends, and then with parents and teachers. Some 29.58% of male examinees argue about TT with their fri ends a lot, as opposed to 27.27% of female 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% TT 1 TT 2 TT 3 TT 4 TT 5 TT 6 TT 7 TT 8 TT 9 TT 10 high school technical school vocational school atristic school religious school 131 examinees who do the same with their friends. It has been obvious that male examinees do have little confidence in their parents and teachers when it comes to discussing TT (only 7.25% and 1.41% respectively). Fem ale examinees do trust their parents and teachers just a bit more than their male peers (5.51% and 3.17% respectively). Once T -test is applied for small samples one learns that there is a statistical difference between the proportions of male examinees replying on the frequency of conversations on TT with parents with ‘never’ and the proportions of female examinees replying with ‘sometimes’ at p = 0.0095. To be more precise, this represents that there is a great number of male examinees who are not eager t o discuss TTs with their parents at all (30.43%). On the other hand, the percentage of female examinees who never consult their parents on TTs is rather low (only 13.39%). As a consequence, the percentage of female examinees who replied with ‘sometimes’ on the same question is greater than the percentage of male examinees. However, it has to be pointed out that that percentage is close to the percentage of male examinees who never discuss TTs with their parents (31.88%). Figure 17: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Gender with Frequency of Taboo Topics with Parents 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00% 50.00% never rarely sometimes often a lot Frequency of TT w ith parents gender M gender F 132 There has been a need for T -test application for small samples required to examine the frequency of conversations on TTs with friends as well. It has turned out that there i s a statistical difference of p = 0.0004 between the proportions of male examinees replying with ‘never’ and the proportions of female examinees replying with ‘often’. Namely, it is relevant to stress that a very negligible percentage of female examinees ( 3.95%) never have any taboo brought up when taking a part in peer’s discussions. The percentage of male examinees is a bit higher (14.08%) which again proves males’ reluctance to converse on TTs even with their male peers. As it has been mentioned within t his chapter’s introductory part, both male and female examinees do often converse on TTs with their peer colleagues (22.54% and 36.36% respectively). Figure 18: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Gender with Frequency of Taboo Topics with Friends 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% never rarely sometimes often a lot Frequency of TT with friends gender M gender F 133 The third sub-category, frequency of conversations on TTs with teachers, however, does not require any further detailed examination as there are no vivid statistical differences presented in conducted Pearson Chi-square test. As far as other research par ameters are concerned, there have been no extreme statistical findings revealed when Pearson Chi -square test has been conducted, so there T -test has been rejected for these parameters as well. Instead, one might find some interesting data re garding the choice of taboo topic selected specifically for conversations with parents, friends and teachers. It is noteworthy that the most discussed taboo topic is TT 5 (sexual organs and intercourse) and it appears that it is discussed with friends mostly, but it is not a rare thing to hear some discussions on proposed topic at home and school. It has also been noticed that there is a huge discrepancy in the selection of taboo topics among male and female examinees. To be more precise, it turns out that male examinees do rarely participate in discussions concerning TT 5 with their parents as opposed to their female peers (p = 0.0003). There are just 10.81% of male examinees chatting on this particular issue with their parents. Females, on the other hand, do it three times more often (32.68%), as it is clearly presented in figure 19 below: 134 Figure 19: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Gender with the Selection of Taboo Topics Discussed with Parents After all, it is indisputable that f emale examinees do generally have more conversations tackling taboo topics than male examinees, which the figure 19 also clearly demonstrates. The exactly same results are received once T -test is applied for small samples with other variables. Again, ma le examinees have proven to be quite introverted and unwilling to discuss TT 5 with their friends, though the responses are this time a bit higher than those compared to the conversations on TT 5 with parents. At this point almost 30% of male examines do d iscuss TT 5 with their friends, and again female examinees do it almost two times more often (48.43%). The statistically relevant difference between TT 5 and the category of selection of TTs discussed with friends is p = 0.0024. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Parent - TT 1 Parent - TT 2 Parent - TT 3 Parent - TT 4 Parent - TT 5 Parent - TT 6 Parent - TT 7 Parent - TT 8 Parent - TT 9 Parent - TT 10 M F 135 Figure 20: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Gender with the Selection of Taboo Topics Discussed with Friends Finally, conversations on these TTs at school with teachers are not as common as with friends and parents. It is noteworthy that female examinees generally do discuss those delicate issues more, even the TT 10 (war). In fact, once the category of gender is cross - referenced with the selection of TTs discussed with teachers, there is a statistical difference between gender and TT 10 of p = 0.0091. The fig ure 21 below demonstrates that significant value obtained from the statistical calculation: 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% Friend - TT 1 Friend - TT 2 Friend - TT 3 Friend - TT 4 Friend - TT 5 Friend - TT 6 Friend - TT 7 Friend - TT 8 Friend - TT 9 Friend - TT 10 M F 136 Figure 21: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Gender with the Selection of Taboo Topics Discussed with Teachers The expectations also proved to be correct when the category of selection of taboo topics discussed with parents, friends and teachers is cross -referenced with the year -of- study category. Again, it has been proven that most conversations on delicate issues occur in company of friends. There are no particularly interesting statistical differences found when these two categories are hybridized except for the one of the sub -category, i.e. TT 7 (vices). 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% Te ac he r - TT 1 Te ac he r - TT 2 Te ac he r - TT 3 Te ac he r - TT 4 Te ac he r - TT 5 Te ac he r - TT 6 Te ac he r - TT 7 Te ac he r - TT 8 Te ac he r - TT 9 Te ac he r - TT 10 M F 137 Figure 22: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Year of Study with the Selection of Taboo Topics Discussed with Friends Namely, there has been a relevant statistical trace found when examinees discuss TT 7 with their friends. It has been discovered that sophomores (33.33%) do discuss TT 7 with their friends more than the ir junior colleagues (12.82%). The statistical difference between these particular categories equals p = 0.0021. Examinee’s educational level as a parameter has proved to be an unreliable one again. One may realize that the educational level of an exami nee’s confirms that most conversations on taboo topics are realized with friends, regardless of type of secondary school finished. This particular parameter does not influence the selection of taboo topics for discussion either. However, there are no significant differences in cross-referencing of these two categories. The closest values are again obtained with the category educational level hybridized with the selection of taboo topics discussed with friends, or more precisely, the choice of TT 5, in which there is a slight difference appearing between the 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% Friend - TT 1 Friend - TT 2 Friend - TT 3 Friend - TT 4 Friend - TT 5 Friend - TT 6 Friend - TT 7 Friend - TT 8 Friend - TT 9 Friend - TT 10 1 2 3 4 138 examinees who finished high school and those who finished artistic and religious type of school. Still, as the results received are of no statistical importance, there will not be any further comments on this type of cross-reference. And, finally, when the category of university town is hybridized with the category of the selection of taboo topics discussed, there is a significant difference in certain responses received, especially visible in the selecti on of taboo topics discussed with teachers. What is more, one may notice that examinees from Mostar do discuss TTs rarely with teachers, particularly TT 5 and TT 7. Figure 23: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of University Town with the Selection of Taboo Topics Discussed with Teachers This chapter ends with a general comment of how examinees feel when talking about taboo topics. There have been five different answers presented in a form of scale, starting with a quality of feeling r ather embarrassed to a quality of feeling rather 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% Te ac he r - TT 1 Te ac he r - TT 2 Te ac he r - TT 3 Te ac he r - TT 4 Te ac he r - TT 5 Te ac he r - TT 6 Te ac he r - TT 7 Te ac he r - TT 8 Te ac he r - TT 9 Te ac he r - TT 10 Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica 139 comfortable when TT starts. At first, one could not realize any particularly new and interesting findings, however, once T -test for small samples has been applied there appeared some valuable data. What has been discovered is that there is a statistical difference of p < 0.05 (p = 0.0291) in responses between female and male examinees, especially in the selection of the last offered answer (feeling totally relaxed and ready to converse on TT). It has been not iced that many female examinees still do not feel as comfortable as male examinees do. Values presenting male responses increase towards the comfort related to TTs. So, it is obvious that values presenting female responses reach a peak at the central value (of feeling a bit uncomfortable) and then start to decline on the scale of comfort related to TTs. The figure 24 also demonstrates this decline, which can perhaps be explained by the fact that the society of Bosnia and Herzegovina is still male- dominated and therefore women could feel more introverted and timid. Figure 24: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Gender with General Emotion Related to Taboo Topics 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00% -2 -1 0 1 2 How do you feel w hen TT starts? M F 140 Although there has been no ground-breaking results obtained with other parameters as the category of student’s year of study and the educational level, additional surprising data has been revealed with the help of T -test once the category of university town has been hybridized with the category of general emotion related to TTs. There might be some conclusions drawn as far as the differences between certain university towns are concerned. The evidence suggest that there is a statistical difference of p < 0.05 (p = 0.0049) between the responses received from Mostar and Tuzla regarding the third, central value (of feeling a bit uncomfortable) on one hand and the responses received from Mostar and Tuzla and Tuzla and Banja Luka regarding the last value (of feeling totally comfortable and relaxed). Statistical differences are p = 0.0068 and p = 0.0060 respectively. Figure 25: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of University Town with General Emotion Related to Taboo Topics 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00% 50.00% -2 -1 0 1 2 How do you feel when TT starts? Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica 141 The figure 25 shows that Mostar students do show some tenseness and discomfort when TTs are concerned. One can see that the values presenting Mostar responses reach its peak at the central value and declines further on the scale of comfort related to TTs. At the same time, it appears that Tuzla students are more comfortable and relaxed than Mostar students at chatting on TTs. Furthermore, the values allegedly present that Tuzla students are more comfortable and relaxed than Banja Luka students as well. This inevitably remains a point for further discussion in following chapters where some other attitudes and perspectives will be examined. 8.2.3. Common Swearwords After a thorough and consistent analysis of the attitudes of university students towards taboo topics, it is high time some attention was paid to swearwords themselves. Swearing, as it has been mentioned in earlier chapters, has been a common phenomenon in the Balkans, having its source in the range of taboo topics. Additionally, swearing is also determined by a range of circumstances in which people find thems elves in. Again, swearing var ies across time and place. Therefore, it is to be assumed that today’s swearwords are different from those used in the 19 th and 20 th centuries, and these are subject to change for the future generations. It is also hypothesized whether swearwords differ from generation to generation, whether swearwords used are the same in all parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina and whether there are some statistically relevant parameter influencing the swearword selection. 142 So, the introductory questions referring to swearwords are used to test student’s awareness of the existence and everyday usage of bad language words, as a form of more spoken and less written language. The results obtained from the very first question have shown that there is a variety of interesting and valuable answers presenting the clear differences between male and female examinees, between examinees of different year of study and certainly the most intriguing difference being the one between university towns. For instance, it is quite unusual to have Tuzla and Banja Luka examinees admitting that they often hear their friends uttering swearwords as well (answer 1), as opposed to Mostar and Zenica examinees who rarely admit that in the questionnaire. It has to be put down that there is statistical difference p < 0.05 between Tuzla examinees and Mostar examinees and Tuzla examinees and Zenica examinees. The same statistical results are obtained when T -test is applied to Banja Luka examinees and Mostar examinees and Banja Luka examinees and Zenica examinees as well. The figure 26 visually demonstrates the values obtained in every university town. On the other hand, there is a statistical difference of p < 0.05 worthy of every attention in answer 3, in which one may see that values received from Banja Luka ex aminees is the highest on the bar chart (58.41%), but still, the values obtained from other university towns are incredibly higher than expected: Mostar with 90.24%, Tuzla with 73.27% and Zenica with 87.67%. The exception in these T -test analyses is the st atistical difference between Mostar and Zenica which does not seem relevant at all. After all, the results inevitably form the conclusion that swearwords are mostly heard in the streets, but almost never directly from parents. 143 Figure 26: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of University Town with the Places for Swearword Occurrence The following questions were used to establish examinees’ attitudes towards the common usage of swearwords. The attitudes towards swearwords are almost the same between male and female examinees. The middle values show no statistical difference between male and female examinees, which means that they mostly agree upon the answers that swearwords belong to the realm of spoken language and specifically colloquial, off - record language. Contrastingly, more male examinees replied that they would use swearwords at any times, which creates a statistical difference of p = 0.0019 between male and female examinees (only 0.81% of female examinees agreed on this statemen t). At the same time, female examinees are prone to say that they consider swearwords offensive and that they would rather not to use them at all (compared to the percentage received by female examinees which runs to 33.20%, the percentage of male examinees is not drastically higher, just 20.83%, but worth statistical difference of p = 0.0456). 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% 100.00% friends parents street school media Where do you hear swearwords? Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica 144 Figure 27: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Gender with Attitudes towards Swearwords What has also been discovered is that the answers vary according to the parameter year of study. Interestingly enough, there are valuable statistical differences between certain years, especially between the first and third year related to the second answer (I would use swearwords in spoken language, but never in written one), and again the first and forth year related to the third answer (I would use swearwords in spoken and written language, but explicitly in informal environments). The figure 28 indeed shows that interesting varieties can be seen within th ese two middle values. As far as the second answer is concerned, there is a statistical difference of p = 0.0019 between freshmen and juniors’ attitudes. Freshmen generally (26.83%) share the opinion that swearwords are not to be used in spoken language only, as opposed to juniors who believe that swearwords should remain in the realm of spoken language (more than a half of them, more precisely 51.32%). Furthermore, the third answer also bears a statistical difference of p = 0.0049, in which 39.02% of freshmen state that swearwords are absolutely 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00% -2 -1 1 2 attitudes tow ards sw earw ords M F 145 harmless when used in informal contexts. It has to be said that 18.06% of seniors do disagree with this statement, claiming that swearwords should never be used in written language. This analysis might be comprehended as a shred of evidence towards the tolerance and swearword acceptability in everyday language that freshmen do expose. On the other hand, one could help but wonder whether students are less tolerant towards swearwords as they approach the end of studie s. This still remains a question for this research to provide the answer to. Figure 28: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Years of Study with Attitudes towards Swearwords Additionally, when other parameters are cross -referenced wit h the category of attitudes towards swearwords no particularly huge statistical differences could be obtained neither with Pearson chi -square test nor with T -test for small samples, except for one of p = 0.0017 related to the first answer. The first answer presents a rather extreme and 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% -2 -1 1 2 1 2 3 4 146 categorically strict attitude of regarding swearwords way too offensive as not to use them under any circumstances. It is evident that almost half of Mostar examinees (46.15%) do consider swearwords way too obscene and taboo, as opposed to Banja Luka examinees (19.82%) who would never claim that swearwords are too vulgar. Anyway, this is just the beginning of the analysis of the data collected. There are more statistically worthy data to come that would hopefully give the clea rer picture on students’ attitudes towards swearwords and therefore determine the status of it as well. 8.2.4. On Usage of Swearwords The following few questions students were to answer are mostly related to the common usage of swearwords, as well as a possible replacement of the mentioned in everyday contexts. The examinees were supposed to mark one of the five options ( -2 = absolutely disagree; -1 = disagree; 0 = not quite sure; +1 = agree; +2 = absolutely agree) in order to express their attitude towards the statements related to swearwords and their usage. First of all, examinees were supposed to reveal whether they believe swearwords deserve any attention at all. The results obtained have confirmed that fe male and male examinees do think alike, as well as the examinees categorized according to year of study. It has been once again proven that school category is a non- reliable one, at least for this type of research. However, there are some essential statistical differences once the category of university town has been cross-referenced. 147 Figure 29: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of University Town with General Attention Paid to Swearwords From the results received one may conclude that varieties of answers are quite extraordinary as far as the first, third and fifth answers are concerned. Inevitably Tuzla and Zenica examinees (22.00% and 19.18% respectively) hold that swearwords do not deserve attention generally, as opposed to Banja Luka examinees who do express that kind of opi nion so strongly (only 6.31%). Statistical differences of p = 0.0011 and p = 0.0079 demonstrate that this piece of information is not to be ignored. The third question, which presents the middle, central value referring to examinees truly showing that they are not sure what to do with swearwords, is the most likely choice for all of the examinees, except for the Mostar examinees. Moreover, the results obtained for the fifth answer confirm that it is the Mostar examinees who believe that swearwords deserve every possible attention (astonishingly 45.95%). These received results might be a bit puzzling and peculiar at the moment, especially the data on Mostar examinees and their attitude towards the swearwords. Yet, these 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00% 50.00% -2 -1 0 1 2 Do SWs deserve attention? Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica 148 surprising results might be understood as a case of forbidden fruit i.e. one might understand that examinees from Mostar wanted to state that attention towards swearwords is necessary and obligatory as younger generations would find it forbidden and therefore more appealing. Whether this argum ent holds water or not is the task to be performed within the research. On the question of whether to abolish swearwords or not there is a statistical difference p < 0.05 between male and female examinees. Namely, it has turned out that male examinees are either unsure of whether to abolish swearwords from usage or they claim that there is no need to drop them out of all conversations. Figure 30: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Gender with Possible Abolishment of Swearwords 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00% -2 -1 0 1 2 to abolish SWs? M F 149 On the contrary, the answers of female examinees have been contrary to the answers provided by male peers, as they are either not sure of whether to abolish swearwords or rather to abolish them completely. As far as other hybridized param eters are concerne d, there is essentially valuable data received when the responses towards this statement are analyzed according to the category of university town. The responses directly and precisely show that Mostar examinees do show a great passion towards the abolishm ent of swearwords (almost 45%), which confirms the argument on the previous page related to the paying more attention to swearwords. Their Banja Luka and Tuzla’s colleagues are vividly uncertain of the status of swearwords and its existence and usage generally. Figure 31: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of University Town with Possible Abolishment of Swearwords 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00% -2 -1 0 1 2 to abolish SWs? Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica 150 Nonetheless, when asked whether swearwords should be replaced by other milder words almost 60% of female examinees instantly affirmatively replied. What is more, sophomores also seemed to be quite certain that there are some other suitable equivalents which one could use to avoid a swearword (almost 70% of them stated so). Furthermore, when students were asked to provide those equivalents as to list a couple of them, the situation became quite complex and diverse. Obviously, examinees offered a variety of proposals as equivalents for swearwords. A great number of them replied with a simple ‘I do not know’ answer, which is a reply also taken into consideration. In order to manage and clearly present this complex question, there has been an urgent need to group the similar answers i.e. similar equivalents into similar groups. So, there have been six groups created, E1 = milder, les s offensive words (non-vulgar, additional apologizing, expletives), E2 = other swearwords (other swearwords that are just not as strong as the original one), E3 = non- verbal communication (being quiet, spit, mime, pray), E4 = ironic and sarcastic replies ( all sort of ironic and sarcastic replies suitable for a context), E5 = formal non- offensive dialogue necessary (using your sensibility as not to curse, communicating one’s ideas slowly and calmly) and E6 = I do not know. Once Pearson Chi-square test has been applied it could be seen that there are no statistical differences between male and female examinees (p > 0.05). Again, the parameter of educational level has proved to be unsuccessful and unreliable, so these two were dismissed immediately. On the othe r hand, one may notice some valuable statistical differences once this question of possible equivalents is cross -referenced with the next two categories, year of study and university town. 151 Figure 32: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Year of Study with Possible Equivalents for Swearwords The figure 32 demonstrates as well that the particularly interesting findings lie within several equivalent groups, especially groups E1 and E3. There is the statistical difference of p = 0.027 betwee n freshmen and juniors’ replies related to the first equivalent group. More juniors (50 %) offered a variety of milder and less offensive words as possible equivalents for swearwords. Freshmen might be said to be fresh and new in this area and therefore less experienced at suggesting appropriate milder equivalents (24.24%). What might be considered surprising is the fact that there are some differences among the four years in answers related to the third group, E3. Although most seniors (32.35%) provided m ilder equivalents for swearwords, it turns out that a great deal of them (23.53%) still proposes something else instead of swearing. They seem to be in favour of silence, not uttering a swearword at all, or rather replacing it with some kind of gesture, mime, or even a prayer to god so that the desire for cursing would yield. This particular 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00% 50.00% E_1 E_2 E_3 E_4 E_5 E_6 1 2 3 4 152 data seemed startling and unexpected and urgently required searching for more supporting evidence in the cross-reference with the category of university town. Cross-referencing the category of university town with the question of possible equivalents for swearwords definitively bore fruit. Figure 33: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of University Town with Possible Equivalents for Swearwords The figure above shows that there are tremendous differences among the four university towns in almost every equivalent group. As for the group E2, one may notice that Tuzla examinees (just 3.64%) would never opt for other strong swearwords as a substitute for a swearword, as would some other examinees in particular circumstances. There are some of the examinees who are in favour of ironic and sarcastic replacements in the group E4, as Mostar examinees are (13.04%). As for the total ignorance and avoidance of swearwords, using the common sense to communicate any kind of misunderstanding 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% E_1 E_2 E_3 E_4 E_5 E_6 Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica 153 between speakers is a proposal given by Mostar examinees (21.74%). However, the most intriguing results are obtained from the analyses of E3 and E6 with the largest statistical difference. What is more, it is confirmed that the largest number of examinees who propose something else instead of swearing is the number of Zenica examinees (18.92%). They would rather omit a swearword and urge praying to god instead of swearing . This revealed data is found to be quite new and shocking concerning this research. And, finally, as for the last group, E6, it is realized that Mostar examinees are the most determined examinees among all the examinees in four university towns. They would rarely rep ly with ‘I do not know’ answer (4.35%), always willing to suggest all the possible swearwords alternatives that could cross their mind. 8.2.5. Swearwords do Hurt? The following questions that examinees have to answer are created so that the examinees’ sensitivity towards swearwords could be determined. There are several research questions that either examined the examinees’ sensitivity towards friends, parents and teachers using swearwords in their company or there arose a question of whether a swearword in mother tongue hurts more than the one uttered in English. The examinees have also been required to state whether mother tongue or English is preferable when one want s to hurt other participants in social conversations. First of all, there is an emphasis put on the examinees’ sensitivity towards friends, parents and teachers usage of swearwords in their company. Examinees are to choose one among the five options to describe the level of their sensitivity towards other people’s swearword usage, i.e. - 2 = very uncomfortable, explicitly suggesting that to the utterer; - 1 = very 154 uncomfortable, suggesting nothing to the utterer; 0 = complete ignorance of such words; +1 = relaxed, such words make me laugh; +2 = very relaxed, encouraging oneself to use swearwords freely. No great statistical differences are conspicuous at first sight, especially when examined the sensitivity towards swearwords uttered by friends. Yet, the application of T -test for small samples has proved that there are statistical differen ces worth every attention. One of the examples in which there are some statistical differences determined is the difference between male and female examinees. The statistical calculations, and the figure below itself, do reveal that male examinees are more comfortable and relaxed when their friends use swearwords. Furthermore, there is statistical difference of p = 0.0164 obtained for answer 1, where it could be seen that male examinees (25.68%) feel more relaxed and comfortable than female examinees (only 13.83%). Figure 34: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Gender with Sensitivity towards Swearwords Uttered by Friends 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00% -2 -1 0 1 2 How do you feel w hen friends use SWs? M F 155 Cross-referencing other parameters with the notion of sensitivity towards swearwords uttered by friends brings other interesting findings to the surface. For instance, the category year of study showed that there are statistical differences of p < 0.05 among years in the perception of swearwords uttered by friends. 35.62% of seniors, as T -test confirmed, feel rather unco mfortable when friends use bad language words. Not only do they feel uncomfortable but they would also remain quiet about it , never explicitly suggesting that they are bothered by BLW usage. Moreover, only 8.22% of seniors find swearwords funny and amusing , as opposed to sophomores and juniors (20.65 % and 21.79% respectively) who seemed to be a bit easy - going. Figure 35: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Year of Study with Sensitivity towards Swearwords Uttered by Friends If the par ameter of university town is hybridized, the situation becomes even more flamboyant and diverse. The results received demonstrate that Mostar examinees 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00% -2 -1 0 1 2 How do you feel when friends use SWs? 1 2 3 4 156 (34.15%) feel rather uncomfortable with the ir friends using swearwords in social conversations, as oppos ed to Banja Luka examinees who rarely feel that way (3.54%). Mostar examinees would also explicitly explain to their friends that they do not like their BLW usage. What is more, 24.39% of Mostar examinees are not willing to ignore swearword usage, as oppos ed to other examinees in other university towns (Banja Luka with 43.36%, Tuzla with 46.00% and Zenica with 36.99%). In short, it could be pointed out that Mostar examinees tolerate swearword usage less than other examinees of other university towns. Figure 36: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of University Town with Sensitivity towards Swearwords Uttered by Friends How would examinees respond to their parents using swearwords is the next issue to be analyzed and examined. Again, releva nt parameters have been hybridized with examinees’ sensitivity towards swearwords uttered by parents what has given the results 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00% 50.00% -2 -1 0 1 2 How do you feel w hen friends use SWs? Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica 157 more or less similar to the ones obtained from the sensitivity towards swearwords uttered by friends. Figure 37: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Gender with Sensitivity towards Swearwords Uttered by Parents One may immediately realize that the tolerance towards parents’ swearword usage is rather low, or more precisely, it is definitively lower than the tole rance towards friends’ swearword usage. Both male and female examinees consider parents’ usage of swearwords unacceptable and intolerable and more than 30% of them would strongly object to it. There is a statistical difference of p < 0.05 between male and female examinees in the second answer where one may observe the female’s reluctance to state explicitly that they object to SW usage. On the contrary, male examinees would probably find parents ’ swearwords funny and prob ably entertaining (13.70%) while female examinees would rarely do feel the same way (4.51%). 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00% -2 -1 0 1 2 How do you feel w hen parents use SWs? M F 158 If the same category is hybridized with the category of year of study, seniors turn out again to be the most concerned with SW usage. Namely, the statistical difference observable in the second and third answer has proven that seniors feel rather uncomfortable with their parents uttering swearwords (more than half of them think alike). At the same time they are the smallest group among other years who would accep t and tolerate parents’ swearwords (8.57%). Figure 38: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Year of Study with Sensitivity towards Swearwords Uttered by Parents Statistical differences of p < 0.05 are observable once the category of university town has been hybridized. It is evident again that there are statistical differences p < 0.05 between Mostar examinees and for instance, Banja Luka examinees, in which Mostar examinees do strongly object to their parents’ swearwords. This time the value for Zenica examinees feeling uncomfortable in company of parents using swearwords (44.29%) is also higher than the value expressing discomfort in company of friends using swearwords (only 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% -2 -1 0 1 2 How do you feel when parents use SWs? 1 2 3 4 159 16.44%). It is also confirmed that Banja Luka examinees do not strongly criticize their parents using SWs (34.23%). Figure 39: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of University Town with Sensitivity towards Swearwords Uttered by Parents The results received when cross -referencing the well -known parameters with the third category of sensitivity towards swearwords uttered by teachers are also of a great importance. The results of the variable with the category of gender hybridized show that they are similar to the results of the variable referring to sensitivity towards swearwords uttered by parents. Thus, both male and female examinees consider teachers’ usage of swearwords unacceptable and intolerable and again approximately 30% of them would strongly object to it. There is statistical difference of p < 0.05 between male and fema le examinees in the second answer where one may observe the female’s reluctance to state explicitly that they object to teachers’ SW usage. On the contrary, male examinees would probably again find teachers’ swearwords funnier and more entertaining than pa rents’ 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% -2 -1 0 1 2 How do you feel when parents use SWs? Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica 160 swearwords, if one may say (18.06%). Female examinees do generally disapprove of teachers using SWs (5.81%). Figure 40: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Gender with Sensitivity towards Swearwords Uttered by Teachers The next variable involving the parameter of year of study has given almost the same results as those obtained when examining the sensitivity towards swearwords uttered by parents. 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00% 50.00% -2 -1 0 1 2 How do you feel when teachers use SWs? M F 161 Figure 41: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Year of Study with Sensitivity towards Swearwords Uttered by Teachers This time again statistical differences appearing in the second and third answer has confirmed that seniors indisputably feel discomfort with their teachers uttering swearwords (again, more than half of them, 53.62%). At the same time , the level of acceptance and tolerance of teacher’s use of SWs is rather low (5.80%). Finally, the figure 42 reveals the results of the variable that also demonstrates valuable statistical differences, this time those differences visible among different university towns. It is clearly seen that Zenica examinees this time show disturbance and discomfort with teachers’ using SWs. On the contrary, some 22% of Banja Luka examinees do consider it shocking. As a matter of fact, Banja Luka examinees are equally disturbed by both teachers and parents using SWs per se. This again explains the fact that Banja Luka shows the highest level of tolerance and acceptance of SWs uttered by teachers (some 25.69%), although it must still be emphasized that SWs are really less expected to be uttered by teachers than by parents (34.23%). 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% -2 -1 0 1 2 How do you feel w hen teachers use SWs? 1 2 3 4 162 Figure 42: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of University Town with Sensitivity towards Swearwords Uttered by Teachers The parameter of edu cational level has been excluded again as it has proved to be unsuccessful and irrelevant, bringing no useful findings for this particular research. Nevertheless, there are still some actual inquiries and dilemmas about the swearwords in mother tongue and swearwords in English to be investigated and explained. It is to be determined whether English swearwords are weaker or perhaps stronger than the swearwords used in mother tongue. The important question arises about the differences in the meaning and imp act of the English swearword and the meaning and impact of t he swearword coming from Bosniac / Serbian / Croatian speaking regions. The following two research questions now focus on the level of sensitivity towards swearwords in mother tongue and in English. The first question focuses on the impact of a swearword coming from Bosniac / Serbian / Croatian speaking regions. Examinees are to choose among five options to describe how 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% -2 -1 0 1 2 How do you feel when teachers use SWs? Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica 163 strong is a particular swearword and how much they feel hurt on the scale from: -2 = lesser hurt; -1 = less hurt; 0 = the same; +1 = more hurt; +2 = deeply hurt. It is revealed that male and female examinees show slightly different sensitivity levels concerning the impact of a swearword coming from Bosniac / Serbian / Croatian speaking regions. Generally, it has to be pointed out that examinees do agree upon the fact that a swearword is swearword, and that it cannot hurt more or less than it really aims to hurt. Figure 43: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Gender with Sensitivity towards Swearwords from B/C/S Speaking Regions However, there are statistical differences between male and female examinees in certain answers lesser than p < 0.0231. As it can be seen male examinees would rarely claim that the impact of a swearword coming from Bosniac / Serbian / Croatian speaking regions is stronger than the impact of other swearwords (less than 10%). Female examinees, on the other hand, do find these swearwords a bit stronger and effective than other swearwords, 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% -2 -1 0 1 2 The impact of SWs in B/C/S M F 164 so that it could be concluded that the level of sensitivity concerning the impact of a SW coming from B/C/S speaking regions is inevitably higher at female examinees. Among other research parameters, the category of university town has proven to be quite interesting. The results obtained are diverse. In general, it might be stated that examinees from all university towns consider a swearword offensive as it really is. Figure 44: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of University Town with Sensitivity towards Swearwords from B/C/S Speaking Regions Yet, both T -test for small samples as well as the figure 44 vividly demonstrate that Mostar examinees perceive a swearword coming from B/C/S/ speaking regions even stronger than any other (37.84%). It a ppears that Zenica examinees are also close to sharing this attitude with Mostar examinees (26.39%). The values received for other two towns, Banja Luka and Tuzla seem to be quite low (approximately 10%) suggesting that examinees from these towns do not re gard swearwords from B/C/S speaking regions neither stronger nor weaker than others generally. 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% -2 -1 0 1 2 The impact of SWs in B/C/S Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica 165 The second question focuses on the impact of an English swearword. Again, examinees are to choose one of the five options suggesting their attitude towards the s trength and /or weakness of swearwords uttered in English. This time there are significant statistical differences found when hybridizing relevant research parameters, gender and university town. Overall, English swearwords do hurt the same way as all othe r swearwords. Both male and female examinees opine that the impact of swearwords is as it is meant to be. It could be said that this variable correlates with the one showing the results for swearwords coming from B/C/S spea king regions. Nonetheless, it can be noticed that female examinees generally consider English swearwords weaker that those in mother tongue. Figure 45 shows that more than 33% of male and 33% of female examinees consider English swearword s weaker, therefore, not as hurtful as other s, for instance, mother tongue swearwords. Figure 45: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Gender with Sensitivity towards Swearwords from English 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% -2 -1 0 1 2 The impact of SWs in English M F 166 Interestingly enough, the attitudes towards the impact of English swearwords are diverse and not uniform for these four towns. What is really surprising is that Banja Luka examinees find English swearwords generally weaker than mother tongue swearwords. Furthermore, it could be noticed that Tuzla examinees do share this opinion as well. On the other hand, Mostar and Zenica examinees could be said to form the contrary opinion of regarding English swearwords as strong ones. However, if the impact of English swearwords is to be compared to the impact of mother tongue swearwords, it is crucial to stress that mother tongue swearwords prevail. Figure 46: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of University Town with Sensitivity towards Swearwords from English For the questions on the level of sensitivity towards English and mother tongue swearwords it is to be put down that other research parameters as year of study and level of education have not provided strong, uniform and concise evidence one could rely onto. 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% -2 -1 0 1 2 The impact of SWs in English Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica 167 Therefore, those parameters have been excluded from the analysis of these above- mentioned questions. Lastly, within this chapter there has been one more issue thoroughly analyzed. Having analyzed the impact of English and mother tongue swearwords on the examinees themselves, there has been a reverse question asked about what kind of swearwords to use when examinees themselves want to hurt the other speaker. It turns out that both male and female examinees (more than 85% of both respectively) agree upon the statement that mother tongue swearwords are stronger and definitively more appropriate when one wants to hurt the other speaker. They opine that , in that way, emotions are meticulously presented, that swearwords in mother tongue are characterized by that quality of achieving a powerful and tremendous impact. Moreover, all examinees from all university towns agree upon the statement that mother tongue swearwords belong to the first selected choice when one wants to hurt the other speaker (more than 87% respectively for all towns). The exception to this attitude is the attitude of Mostar examinees who also claim that mother tongue swearwords are the first selected choice. However, a shocking discovery might be the relatively high value for choosing English swearwords (33.33%) to hurt the other speaker. No other examinees showed that high interest in English swearwords (less than 13%). Other parameters, as year of study and educational level are again found to be unsuccessful and therefore disregarded from this analysis. 168 8.2.6. When to Use Swearwords? Being curious about the most common occurrence of swearwords resulted in a few inevitable and direct questions about it. Examinees are now to honestly answer the question whether they use swearwords when no one is present, as a spontaneous and presumably logical reaction to somethi ng negative that has just happened to them. They are also to describe these possible situations in which swearwords fit perfectly. It is revealed that both male and female examinees generally use swearwords when they are alone due to certain inadequate cir cumstances they find themselves in. The results obtained for this particular question show that the percentage is relatively high: 68.92% for male and 48.81% for female examinees. What is more, there is a statistical difference between male and female exam inees regarding this kind of swearing. It rises up to p = 0.0025. In other words, male examinees seem to be more willing and likely to use a swearword, whether alone or having company . On the other hand, just almost half of female examinees do admit swearing in presence of nobody. 169 Figure 47: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Gender with Using Swearwords when Being Alone It is noteworthy that statistical difference of p < 0.0045 is visible between the responses on this question received from different university towns, more particularly between Mostar and Banja Luka. Using SWs w hen no one is there? 1 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% M F M F 170 Figure 48: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of University Town with Using Swearwords when Being Alone As the statistical calculations show, Banja Luka examinees seem to be very careless when it comes to using swearwords. Almost 68% of them do swear freely, of course, when the acquired circumstance allows for. On the other hand, Mostar examinees do use swearwords the least; some 27% of examinees admitted that they use swearwords when they are alone. Again, the research could not rely upon the variables characterized by hybridization of other relevant parameters, such as level of education and year of study. Indeed, the results obtained so far cannot be said to show the genuine attitude of examinees towards swearwords as well as the general importance of swearwords in examinees’ lives. It is to be admitted th at one cannot conclude what a swearword really represents to a student. Yet, there are more additional questions related to swearwords and issues on censorship and censoring of swearwords introduced where one expects to 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica Using SWs w hen no one is there? 1 Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica 171 find some genuine findings as to provide a final and general evaluation on students’ attitudes towards swearwords. As for the possible swearing circumstances concerned, it could be stated that those are the situations that trigger the greatest amount of emotions to the surface. Those situations may involve one being nervous due to particular reason; one being angry at someone / something, it could be the case that one suffered a physical or psychological pain of some kind and so on. There are situations when examinees do get easily provoked by tiny , insignificant reasons. For this question, examinees are to provide the most common situations which inevitably trigger swearing. As they have offered the most typical swearing contexts, these mentioned contexts have been divided into seven different groups: S1 = being nervous; S2 = being angry; S3 = physical injury / harm; S4 = psychological injury / harm; S5 = various situations; S6 = a swearword (students find this particular question disturbing and frustrating, so a swearword itself is immediately triggered); S7 = I do not know. Generally, what triggers a swearing phenomenon seems to be a typical anxiety and stress towards the situations and things one does not have any influence upon at that particular moment. Most examinees opt for this particular situation S1. 54.90% of male examinees and 60.98% of female examinees chose S1 as the most frequent trigger of cursing. 172 Figure 49: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Gender with Swearing Contexts What is more, there is a statistical difference of p = 0.0031 between male and female’s responses related to S2. Namely, female ex aminees turn out to be more willing to describe the situation and exact emotions that come to the surface prio r to swearing. They seemed willing to make a difference between being nervous and being angry, what brought on this actual statistical difference between examinees themselves. Males, on the other hand, reply rather generally, either commenting that there are many situations which cause swearing or replying that they do not know the answer. Interestingly enough, there is a deal of male examinees who replied with a swearword itself. 5.88% of male examinees used a swearword to describe a situation that triggers swearing. Those swearwords are mother tongue swearwords (such as ‘jebiga’, ‘jebi ga’, ‘jebem ti’); yet there are a few English ones (such as ‘crap’, ‘shit’, ‘damn’, ‘WTF’). Just 1.63% of female examinees would reply with a swearword to this question. 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% S_1 S_2 S_3 S_4 S_5 S_6 S_7 M F 173 When other parameters hybridized, for instance, the parameter year of study, one may notice that no extreme results could be received. Indeed, there are similar responses received from freshmen, sophomores, juniors and seniors. Hybridizing the parameter level of education this time resulted in certain data that could be taken into consideration as having some significant value. It seems that those students who finished religious type of a secondary school would never know how to describe the swearing desire nor would they understand the situations that trigger swearing itself. On the other hand, those students who finished artistic type of a secondary school would always prescribe swearing to a state of anxiety. There is also a statistical difference of p = 0.0121 between students who finished high school and those who finished technical school when it comes to responses described as S1. It could be as sumed that the statistical difference between these two sub -categories suggests that high school students are prone to swearing when they are nervous and frustrated and that they perceive it as the most natural thing. 174 Figure 50: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Level of Education with Swearing Contexts It has been also determined statistically crucial for this research to analyze the variable that involves one of the most flamboyant parameters, the parameter of university tow n. Again, S1 appears to be the most common trigger for swearing in every university town in Bosnia and Herzegovina. More than 55% of examinees in every university town believe this statement to be true. What is more, Mostar examinees, more than other examinees, are quite certain about the fact that some other physical and psychological reasons could trigger swearing as well. It turns out that other examinees are not sure about psychological reasons, especially being among the strongest ones (less than 10% o f examinees confirmed that particular item of data). 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% 100.00% S_1 S_2 S_3 S_4 S_5 S_6 S_7 high school tech. school vocational atristic school religious school 175 Figure 51: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of University Town with Swearing Contexts There is a statistical difference between Zenica and Banja Luka examinees of p < 0.05 that conf irms that Zenica examinees believe that physical reasons are the most typical causes for swearing. All in all, it could be summarized that examinees are aware of the fact that there are some situations that could be closely related to swearing. They could be said to know and recognize the situations quite well (less than 20% seem to be ignorant of these situations that directly trigger swearing). Frustration and anxiety are stated to be blamed for the swearing phenomenon. 8.2.7. On Censorship and Censoring Finally, the research analysis has come to the most crucial and it could be said dramatic point that is expected to reveal the genuine students’ attitude towards swearwords, as well 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% S_1 S_2 S_3 S_4 S_5 S_6 S_7 Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica 176 as their acceptance in everyday written and spoken usage and possible censorship obstacles when the translation of English swearwords is concerned. As it has been mentioned earlier, censorship and censoring are described as ways of maintaining one’s face. They differ in the type of practice, the first being institutional, the second both institutional and individual. There is this constant question coming up to the surface related to censoring of language. People censor their language, behaviour and gestures all the time trying to accommodate to a new situation or circumsta nce surrounding ordinary events. The rules related to censoring and censorship have always been subject to change. They alter from generation to generation, from person to person. However, it needs to be emphasized that censorship rules are more of a norm and social obligation that an individual has to follow. Therefore, censoring turns out to be more flexible, changeable and again an ever-lasting linguistic and morale issue. The question of censorship and, more particularly, the question of censoring pose a challenge to our new generation of students as well. This research investigates whether there are any new findings or inconsistent findings related to the attitude towards censoring. What is more, students’ perception and comprehension of a swearword is undoubtedly emphasized as it is to make clear whether there are certain new waves introduced in censoring policies. In this last part of a questionnaire examinees are asked several questions on censorship and censoring. First of all, it appears to be rele vant to determine whether students adopt a stance toward censoring swearwords generally. They are asked whether they have any objections to censoring, or more precisely, whether the swearword censorship is really justified. There are three possible answers students are to choose: 1) yes, censoring 177 cleanses and purifies the language for future generations; 2) partially, as censoring hides the actual language use; 3) no, censoring appears to be unnecessary, irritating and funny for present generations. The results obtained point to an interesting trend. There are more than a half of male and female examinees respectively who opine that swearword censoring is partially justified (52.8% and 61.9% respectively). It is quite essential to claim that students are fa irly aware of the fact that a total and overall swearword censori ng could ruin language as well as the total lack of it. Even the application of T -test for small samples has not revealed any extreme new findings, which once again confirms that male and fem ale examinees think alike. Still, there is one tiny distinction between male and female responses concerning the statement that censoring is unnecessary and irritating. T he figure 52 could also present that small statistical difference of p = 0.035 that T -test revealed. Namely, female examinees appear to be more concerned with swearword censoring believing it to be crucial in standardized contemporary language preservation. Figure 52: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Gender with Justification of Censoring 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 1 2 3 Censoring justif ied? M F 178 As the same attitude is tested according to years of study, there are again some differences visible among the four years. It is undoubtedly true that swearword censoring is again partially justified. Figure 53: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Year of Study with Justification of Censoring Indeed, all four years have expressed a clear attitude towards swearword censoring. However, if a closer attention is paid to the difference among proportions for every single year, there are some statistical differences that show essential diversity in attitudes. That is to say, it is observable that 73.1% of juniors share a strong attitude toward the justification of censoring. That also leaves some room for statistical differences among years in attitudes towards regarding swearword censoring as irritating and funny. Juniors prove to be the smallest percentage in favour of censorship omission (only 6.4%). At the same time, on the basis of the results obtained it might be concluded that not all freshmen 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 179 are fond of swearwords censorship (23.2%). Interestingly enough, it has not been expected that 19.4% of seniors are to show a relatively high interest in censorship omission. It could now only be predicted that these findi ngs reflect unbelievably changeable nature of the attitude towards this subtle phenomenon of swearword censoring. Finally, when the last parameter is hybridized, there appear expected differences between the responses received from Tuzla students and those responses received from Mostar students and especially great differences between the responses received from Banja Luka and Mostar students. The figure 54 as well as the application of T -test for small samples proves that statistical difference reaches hi gh p values. Namely, there is the first difference between Banja Luka and Mostar students in the attitude that censoring cleans and purifies the language supported by 45% of Mostar students and only 21.62% of Banja Luka students. Therefore the statistical difference reaches up to p = 0.0053. Furthermore, statistical difference reaches extremely high values when the second attitude towards censoring is investigated, the attitude that censoring also functions as a cover -up for the actual language use. A relat ively low number of Mostar students (32.50%) believe that censoring is a real cover -up, as opposed to high percentages of 65% and 66.66% for Tuzla and Banja Luka students , respectively. As a consequence, the statistical difference have been rather high, p = 0.0006 for the comparison between Mostar and Tuzla responses and p = 0.0000 for the comparison between Mostar and Banja Luka ones. 180 Figure 54: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of University Town with Justification of Censoring Again, there are no soundly based conclusions on the results obtained using the parameter of educational level. The second question examinees are to answer is related to translational obstacles one student might encounter. Namely, students are asked how to trea t English swearwords when translating them into mother tongue. Again, there are three answers students may choose among: 1) yes, censorship is necessary by all means; 2) partially, some rather strong swearwords need to be censored; 3) no, translation must be a pure reflection of an original text. The results received provided some useful insights into the phenomenon of English swearword censoring. There is no doubt about male and female examinees being too radical and extreme. It has been noticed that 45.8% of male examinees and 64.3% of female examinees would allow for swearword usage generally, except for the strongest and most vulgar swearwords that should be censored right away. A very low percentage 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 1 2 3 Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica 181 of students would censor all the English swearwords f rom a certain context (less than 10% of male and female examinees, respectively). Figure 55: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Gender with Translation of English Swearwords On the other hand, if T -test for small samples is applied di gging for small distinctions between male and female responses, it could be revealed that male and female responses are characterized by certain visible and valuable distinctions. In addition, it is noteworthy that males are more laid -back concerning the English swearword censoring. It is true that male examinees (44.4%) prefer originality, rawness and robustness of swearwords more than female examinees (24.5%). This statement is supported by a statistical difference for this particular variable of p = 0.0011 obtained by T -test for small samples. To conclude, females are definitively more concerned with the issue of swearword censoring. The attitude towards the treatment of English swearwords and their equivalents has also been tested within freshmen, sophomores, juniors and seniors. Like the results obtained 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 1 2 3 Translation of SWs? M F 182 with parameter gender hybridized, this variable also illustrates that values received for the attitude on translation of English swearwords are also fairly moderate. More than 50% of students per year r espectively believe that English swearwords should not be censored in translated texts, except for the strongest and most obscene swearwords. It appears that almost 75% of juniors are quite enthusiastic about having those strongest swearwords omitted from contexts. If a closer look is paid to the figure 56, this interesting fact could also be noticed. However, the statistical calculations also witness the same phenomenon (there is statistical difference between freshmen’s and juniors’ responses of p = 0.019; then, sophomores’ and juniors’ responses of p = 0.036; and the most valuable statistical difference between juniors’ and seniors’ responses of p = 0.0026, what points at a very huge and essential statistical difference). Figure 56: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Year of Study with Translation of English Swearwords 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 183 Furthermore, as for the first answer of a strong censorship politics, statistical differences are observable between sophomores’ and juniors’ responses on one hand, and freshmen’ and seniors’ response on the other (p = 0.019 and p = 0.006 respectively). Yet, the responses for this particular answer are fairly low (less than 16%). Therefore, the answer number 3 could raise more interest when it comes to swearword cens oring. Namely, what causes our curiosity is the fact that seniors (more than other years) show great tolerance and acceptance of English swearwords and their translated equivalents. 38.6% of seniors turn to be open- minded and welcoming towards swearwords, ignoring the censorship politics for the sake of translating texts as they should be translated and having in mind that they should keep it genuine and original. Statistical differences among the years are not as huge as for the previous answers, but they are worth our attention, especially the difference between the third and forth year (p = 0.016). As for the last relevant and reliable parameter, the responses received from different university towns presented some intriguing results especially the responses related to ultimate censorship of SWs and their translations. 20.51% of Mostar students do strongly believe that censorship of swearwords is necessary by all means when translating them from English into mother tongue. On the contrary, there is no suc h extreme attitude towards censorship found in other university towns. Moreover, it has been revealed that students are not deeply concerned with SW censorship and that they do accept them in translations. In addition, there are only 5.5% of Banja Luka students being concerned with SW censorship. Therefore, when T -test is applied, there is a statistical difference of p = 0.0067 between the responses received from Banja Luka and Mostar. Once again, Mostar examinees have proven to be a bit more concerned with BLWs and SWs and their mother tongue equivalents as opposed to other students in Bosnia and Herzegovina. 184 Figure 57: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of University Town with Translation of English Swearwords It is essential to state aga in that above-mentioned parameters have been the most reliable and efficient ones in determining and evaluating the attitudes of students towards SW censorship. Needless to say, it would be quite inappropriate and disappointing if the issue of political correctness has been omitted from this research. As a stigmatized form of bad language usage, political correctness should mostly be perceived and comprehended by an individual, especially the one who is directly addressed. However, it is not a rare phenomenon that an individual misunderstands the real message and misses the BLWs and offensive language concealed under the cloak of political correctness. It has been a natural question to investigate whether our examinees understand the notion of political correctness, its functions and goals. In fact, examinees are asked to give their own opinion on political correctness serving the function of concealing bad language usage 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 1 2 3 Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica 185 and swearing. They are to choose among five options: - 2 = strongly disagree; - 1 = disagree; 0 = not sure; +1 = agree; +2 = totally agree. Cross-referencing well -known parameters with this particular statement has provided expected results, more to say. Indeed, it has been assumed that most examinees would reply with ‘not sure’ answer. Figure 58: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Gender with Political Correctness Issues In addition, there has been a strong feeling that not all students have been introduced to a notion of political correctness. Therefore, the expectanc e of ‘not sure’ answer proved to be correct as well. Almost 50% of male and female examinees were not sure of the features and f unctions of political correctness. However, it could be still concluded that the general picture is the positive one as almost 3 0 % of male and female examinees respectively still agree upon the main function of political correctness, the function of 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% -2 -1 0 1 2 political correctness issues 1 2 186 concealing offensive language. Statistical differences between male and female responses turn out to be greater than p > 0.05. When other parameters involved, the situation remains unchangeable. Again, more than 42% of every year respectively show uncertainty related to the function of political correctness. On the other hand, the variable illustrates higher values for the answers 1 and 2, which means that, if it is observed within different years of study, examinees acknowledge a better insight into the notion of political correctness. Statistical differences among years are minor and therefore omitted from this analysis. Figure 59: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Year of Study with Political Correctness Issues Finally, it is to be stated that no new findings are unveiled when the parameter university towns is used. It could be only learned that generally more th an 40% of students are not sure of whether political correctness conceals swearing. It is more likely that they have not acquired that notion at all. However, what has also been interesting is that Mostar students do express a strong agreement upon the sta tement that political correctness 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% -2 -1 0 1 2 political correctness issues 1 2 3 4 187 conceals the BLW usage and swearing i.e. more than 50% of Mostar students are aware that political correctness bears a function of hiding the real offensive message, swearing and overall BLW usage. It is to be noted that such phenomenon has not been registered in other university towns in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The findings obtained might seem a bit unusual and awkward, especially knowing that just approximately 35% of other students were aware of the political correctness issue. This might appear a pure coincidence, but also it a piece of information that should not be taken for granted. Figure 60: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of University Town with Political Correctness Issues 8.2.8. Examinees’ Strongest Mother Tongue / English Swearwords The primary aim of this research has been to analyze and explain the attitude and opinion students have on the actual sociolinguistic notions. It is to be underlined that this piece of research also attempts to test whether students have any prejudices and concerns in case 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% -2 -1 0 1 2 Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica 188 they have to present their knowledge on swearwords for the scientific i.e. linguistic purposes. Moreover, students are required to show their actual knowledge on bad language, in English and their mother tongue. This chapter proposes an interesting insight into the perception, understanding and application of swearwords. Namely, the very last part of the questionnaire focuses our attention on the most intriguing and challenging notion – the notion of concrete swearwords. Examinees are to write down clearly all strong swearwords they know in their mother tongue and English. This time examinees are not offered any choices whatsoever, but their task is to come up with the most obscene swearwords. Needless to say, the swearwords students provided were of various natures. There could be said to be three various categories of swearwords according to which all the swearwords have been organized. There are three categories for mother tongue swearwords and three categories for English swearwords. These are: descriptive swearwords (there is a description of what might be cursed, but never a swearword itself), original swearwords (a genuine swearword) and censored swearwords (students used one of the methods the media usually uses for censoring written swearwords). The categories are valid and applicable for both languages. What appears to be quite amazing is that the analysis has shown extraordinary results. Even t hough it has been clarified that the mother tongue swearword provision in that section is specifically to be designed for scientific purposes, and definitively not to offend anyone, the majority of examinees still opted for descriptive swearwords more than original swearwords. Descriptive swea rwords are used by 39.2% of male examinees and 38.2% of female examinees. The parameter year of study has also proved that more than 34% of examinees in every year use descriptive swearwords. Descriptive swearwords are 189 therefore believed to be genuine, though this cannot really be said to be the case. What is more, students meticulously explained that the most obscene swearwords would refer to cursing God, religion, family and members of family, especially mother and the deceased, then food, especially brea d, and other things and phenomena like sun, time passing by, physical appearance and so on. They would never , in any way , mention the swearword itself, but they would rather describe it in detail. Hence, it is the truth that these descriptive swearwords lack obscenity and directness of a real, genuine and original swearword. Original mother tongue swearwords could be, on the other hand, divided into several categories starting with the smallest to the largest category: profanity (religious cursing: da bog da te …), epithets (different types of slurs usually referring to sexuality, ethnicity, appearance: kretenu, idiote, pederu, pizderu, vole, konju, seljak, stoko, majmune), obscenities related to anal domain (sranje, govno, jedi govna) and finally obscenitie s related to sexual domain (the obvious prevalence of the verb ‘jebati’ – usually used in imperative and present and future simple verb forms). When it comes to the most obscene mother tongue swearwords i.e. original mother tongue swearwords, the results show that male responses differ from female responses. There is the statistical difference of p = 0.00182 between these two categories suggesting that the difference between these two proportions is quite huge and hence important. It turns out that 37.8% of male examinees would write down an uncensored obscene mother tongue swearword as opposed to 20% of female examinees. Knowing this particular fact, the further step has been to test whether there are any differences between other parameters. The chi -square test of all parameters overall has not given the results worth attention. However, once T -test for small samples has been introduced there appeared some 190 differences between proportions that might be important and intriguing. There is a statistical difference of p < 0.05 when the parameter year of study has been hybridized. That is to say, there is a difference between the proportions of responses received from freshmen and seniors related to the censored mother tongue swearwords. It is clear that freshmen are not really acquainted with the censorship phenomenon so they rarely opt for this particular choice (just 6% of them). On the contrary, seniors might be said to be well - taught and fond of censoring, so they are more likely to provide that type of swear word. 16.4% of them could be said to like censoring. Censoring is mostly conducted by some of the well-known rules suggested by Leigh and Lapine like: vowel deprivation or dropping vowels (e.g. JBM, JBT, JBG), dropping all the letters but the first, or the first two (e.g. k****, j***, pi***) or changing the word(s) or remodel ling (e.g. pička materina  P.M.). Interestingly enough, the results obtained within the analysis of English swearwords show that descriptive swearwords are no longer the most numerous among the above - mentioned categories of swearwords. This time original English swearwords appear to be the most numerous and popular. 37.8% of male examinees turn out to be in favour of original English swearwords as well as 30.7% of female examinees. Mor e than 30% of examinees in every year appear to be familiar with the most obscene swearwords. This type of data also suggests that original English swearwords are more frequent and common than original mother tongue ones. Original English swearwords could also be, divided into several categories starting with the smallest to the largest category: profanity (religious cursing: go to hell, drop dead), epithets (different types of slurs usually referring to race, sexuality, gender, appearance: nigga, faggot, i diot, morone, imbecile, bastard), obscenities related to anal domain (eat my shit, holy shit, shithead, dumbass, 191 asshole, kiss my ass) and finally obscenities related to sexual domain (the obvious prevalence of the verb ‘to fuck’ – usually used in imperati ve: fuck you / yourself, fuck off, but also as a noun phrase: motherfucker). Having in mind the colourful variety of responses received, it might be said that there ha ve been some expectations related to the differences among proportions of answers. Yet, C hi-square test and T -tests for small samples have not revealed any statistically valuable differences neither between male and female examinees nor among the answers received from different years. Descriptive English swearwords are the second common catego ry. As it has been the case with descriptive mother tongue swearwords it also appears that descriptive English swearwords would refer to cursing family and members of family, religion and God, nationality and physical appearance. It is also essential to me ntion that examinees have a better knowledge in original English swearwords and that they rarely opt for describing a swearword itself. Only 16.2% and 17.3 % of male and female examinees respectively put descriptive swearwords as a reply to this question. Other parameters have also shown that descriptive swearwords are not the first choice of every year of study in every university town. In the end, when it comes to English swearwords censoring the obtained results show that censoring is not as common as mother tongue swearwords censoring. There is a huge difference between mother tongue and English censored swearwords received generally. Namely, it turns out that students are poorly acquainted with the process of censoring English swearwords. Censored mothe r tongue swearwords appeared three times more often than censored English swearwords. Censored English swearwords do, as it was the case with mother tongue censored swearwords , refer to obscenities related to sexual domain generally. Again, censoring is conducted by Leigh and Lapine’s well -known censoring rules: dropping all the letters but the first (e.g. f***, f*** off, f*** you) or 192 dropping all the letters but the first and the last (e.g. f**k) and using acronyms for certain expressions (e.g. what the fuck  WTF). In addition, it is to be pointed out that there is a valuable statistic al difference observable among responses received from students of different years. The statistical difference reaches the value of p = 0.00423. So, it is relevant to put an emphasis on the fact that freshmen’s responses differ from seniors’ responses as far as responses related to censored English swearwords are concerned. Indeed, freshmen happen to be vaguely taught or better to say ignorant of the existence of censored Engl ish swearwords. On the other hand, 9.6% of seniors could be said to be aware and knowledgeable about censored English swearwords. As other parameters have not provided this kind of valuabl e statistical difference among proportions of responses they have been excluded from the paper due to the research limitations in length and content. 8.2.8.1. The Frequency of Mother Tongue / English Swearwords Observing all the mother tongue and English swearwords together provides an incredible insight into the most a nd least common swearwords students in Bosnia and Herzegovina know and use today. As it has been already mentioned, there are three categories within mother tongue and English swearwords: descriptive, original and censored swearwords. Among each of these categories for both mother tongue and English swearwords there are certain differences in frequencies of swearwords that could be noticed. Pearson Chi - square test also shows that swearwords differ variably reflecting the wide selection of swearwords students know and possibly use. 193 Descriptive mother tongue swearwords differ from descriptive English swearwords. Note the wide selection of the things that are cursed in the figure 61: Figure 61: Descriptive Mother Tongue Swearwords On the other hand, our st udents believe that descriptive English swearwords are not as colourful and strong as descriptive mother tongue swearwords. They believe that the strongest English swearwords refer to cursing someone’s family members, especially mother, cursing god and per son’s nationality. It is of a great importance to place an emphasis on the fact that there are some 9% of students who would claim that there are no strong English swearwords. Or, to be more precise, some 9% would reply that no English swearword could repl ace a mother tongue swearword. The figure 62 illustrates the division of proportions of descriptive English swearwords: god, religion (35%) family members (32%) mother (10%) the deceased (5%) food (bread) (4%) nationality (3%) physical appearance (3%) other (5%) sexual connotation (2%) all (1%) 194 Figure 62: Descriptive English Swearwords Having taken a look at original swearwords in English and mother tongue, one may observe the following points. First of all, students seem to be fairly acquainted with sexual obscenities in mother tongue (82%) rather than sexual obscenities in Englis h (only 50%). On the other hand, it appears that students present a stronger knowledge on ana l obscenities and epithets in English rather than in mother tongue (note that they know 38% of English epithets and 9% of anal obscenities in English, and only 10% of mother tongue epithets and 6% of anal obscenities in mother tongue). god, religion (25%) family members (30%) mother (9%) the deceased (4%) nationality (9%) physical appearance (8%) sexual connotation (4%) all (4%) nothing (7%) 195 Figure 63: Original Mother Tongue Swearwords Figure 64: Original English Swearwords Religious cursing is almost equally distributed i.e. students express the equal amount of knowledge on English and mother tongue religious curses. religious cursing (2%) epithets (10%) anal obscenities (6%) sexual obscenities (82%) religious cursing (3%) epithets (38%) anal obscenities (9%) sexual obscenities (50%) 196 Lastly, being aware that the sexual obscenities are among the strongest swearwords students exhibit a fair knowledge on rules related to censoring swearwords, both in mother tongue and in English. However, it could be stated that the knowledge on English censored swearwords is somewhat limi ted, especially when compared to mother tongue censored swearwords. The survey brought a couple of instances of censored swearwords: a) mother tongue sexual obscenities with a vowel deprivation (e.g. JBM, JBT, JBG); b) mother tongue sexual obscenities with dropping all the letters but the first, or the first two (e.g. k****, j***, pi***); c) remodelled mother tongue sexual obscenities (e.g. pička materina  P.M.); d) English sexual obscenities with dropping all the letters but the first (e.g. f***, f*** off, f*** you) or dropping all the letters but the first and the last (e.g. f**k); e) English sexual obscenities as acronyms (e.g. what the fuck  WTF). 197 Figure 65: Censored English and Mother Tongue Swearwords As it could be seen from the figure 65, there is a smaller percentage of overall English censored swearwords (22%) as opposed to overall mother tongue censored swearwords (78%). As far as mother tongue censored swearwords are concerned, the major group is the mother tongue sexual obscenities with dropping all the letter, or most of them (34%), which is followed by mother tongue sexual obscenities wit h a vowel deprivation (26%) and finally the smallest group of remodelled mother tongue sexual obscenities (18%). On the contrary, English censored swearwords are mostly sexual obscenities with dropping all the letters but the first, or some of them (21%). mother tongue sexual obscenities with a vowel deprivation mother tongue sexual obscenities with dropping all the letters but the first, or the first two remodeled mother tongue sexual obscenities English sexual obscenities with dropping all the letters but the first or dropping all the letters but the first and the last English sexual obscenities as acronyms 198 9. CONCLUSION The major incentive for carrying out the present study was to explore and describe the attitudes of the under-graduate students of English towards swearwords from English and Bosniac / Croatian / Serbian speaking regions. O ne could state that addressing the matter of swearwords generally has not been easy at all. Understood as irrelevant, degrading and vulgar in many societies , a phenomenon of swearword s has proved to be difficult to investigate and describe. Furthermore, the present study confirms the fact that swearing is still co nsidered a tabooed conc ept despite the reported democrati zation of modern life mirroring the more relaxed use of swearwords . Language attitudes students expressed in the questionnaire still serve ego -defensive and value- expressive functions. This may explain the explicit stand towards swearing as students felt that they were in need to protect and separate themselves from this ‘ vulgar phenomenon ’ and that they truly believed that swearing does not belong to their verbal repertoire and the domain of speech practice. Furthermore, there are some attitudes that do not have any direct connection with speech practice, but they inevitably indicate that their root lies within conservational stereotypical constructs – some students believe that god will punish them if they use swearwords, so they recommend praying, seeking for peace of their soul. On the other hand, an issue of language culture is quite a sensitive as well as a tricky one. Language culture truly promotes ideal and accurate standardized norms in speech and writing. However, language is not an unchangeable and limited category and it cannot be isolated from society and vice versa. Language culture therefore represents and illustrates a constant dynamics of different processes and changes within both language and society. Therefore, it could be stated that language attitudes on certain issues are also subject to change reflecting a temporary linguistic environment within society regardless of the 199 established definitions that linguistics and sociolinguistics provided. Those attitudes reside upon volatile folk accounts, most commonly for the issues such as homonymy, synonymy, regionalisms, language varieties, social structures reflected in speech, language and speech styles, etc. In addition, the claim is that even those who do personally identify their speech and writing practices with language culture are nonetheless familiar with the phenomenon of swearing . It could be definitively discussed that everyday social situations do carry a greater load of swearwords that one could have imagined it. There is a great load of swearwords found within spoken informal, but sometimes even spoken formal domain. Thus , obtaining the straightforward, accurate and realistic attitude tow ards this matter really turns out to be the Watts’s many-headed hydra. Still, this thesis attempts to provid e a comprehensive overview, analysis and interpretation of taboo expressions and swearing. It has been based on nine hypotheses, all of the m being supported by the statistical data that shed light on students’ language attitudes. There have been other aims of the study included in the research such as identifying and analyzing the taboo word usage, examining and describing the relation between the taboo word usage and linguistic behaviour of an individual, surveying the under-graduate students of English at four universities in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Tuzla University, Banja Luka University, Zenica University and Mostar University) and describing their attitudes towards swe arwords from English and Bosniac / Croatian / Serbian speaking regions, investigating their attitudes towards euphemisms, addressing the most common swearword selection in relation to various parameters as well as tackling the issue of swearword censorship. 200 According to the results obtained, there are several general conclusions on attitudes towards the taboo word usage within English and Bosniac / Croatian / Serbian speaking regions that could be made: 1. Swearword nowadays could be said to possess the status of a less tabooed concept than ever before. As it has been seen from the research most examinees have shown an eagerness to answer the questions related to such a delicate topic. Indeed, it might be perceived that there is a sense of tenseness and discomfort present within different genders, different university towns as well as different age groups when it comes to discussing swearword phenomenon. However, all examine es appear to be familiar with both swearwords from Eng lish and Bosniac / Croatian / Serbian speaking regions. In addition, they were willing to admit that they would use them in informal contexts, especially when with friends and peers. Still, it cannot be claimed that the examinees were completely and thorou ghly involved and introduced to the censorship process and rules. Especially great was the problem concerning the auto-censorship of English swearwords. 2. Taboo words turn out to be an inevitable part and parcel of linguistic environment. As the strongest taboo topics still lie within the sexual realm there is the refore an apparent tendency to use taboo words related to sexual domain. Taboo words are mostly used when conversing with friends, and less with parents and teachers. It is to be emphasized that certain groups of examinees still feel as uncomfortable when discussing taboo matters. However, there is a phenomenon of certain taboo issues re -appearing after some period of time. To be more precise , it has been noticed that the variable age is tightly connected to taboo topic notion. Namely, it has been revealed that certain taboos appear 201 to be active after some time – it could be seen from the research that senior examinees start avoiding the direct use of BLWs. Indeed, they do develop PC habits and insist on the use of euphemisms. From the research analysis one could comprehend that TT5 weakens in the second year of study only to become greater and stronger in the fourth year. Adolescents are proved to be more attracted to taboo words making their language bountiful, flourishing and free from restrictions whatsoever. But, once the adulthood is entered people do adopt the role of a silent swearer who is aware of the existence of swearwords but reluctant to use them and utter freely and carelessly. 3. Alt hough the most typical function is thought to be sheer offence and violence, swearwords may actually assume various functions in various contexts. Swearing may not necessarily appear as a violent and offensive type of behaviour. On the contrary, swearing is found to be amusing and entertaining at times, especially when one listens to a friend us ing BLWs in relaxed circumstances . Many male examinees also find their parents using swearwords amusing and entertaining , probably realizing that every one is only a human who cannot be taboo- controlled all the time. Female examinees though rarely share that opinion. Also, students in many university towns find SWs to be rather popular and entertaining revealing therefore a high level of tolerance towards BLW usage. It turns out that the attitude towards swearwords is not as harsh as it might be expected. What is more, most male examinees replied that they would use SWs at any time. It could be inferred from the obtained results that this mode of linguistic behaviour has become canonical and appropriate to a certain interactive event. This is what Watts calls politic behaviour, an inter-subjective and historically determined type of social practice. Being socially reproduced by repeated habitual interactions with others, it becomes i nstitutionalized and functions as a marker indicating procedural meaning in 202 verbal interaction. Swearwords are therefore especially welcome in spok en informal language. They are believed to deserve our attent ion as they are an intimate part of language and speech community. 4. A euphemism cannot completely replace swearword. It does alter and re -direct the expressive effect of original swearwords, but it can not produce the same effect as swearword does. The study has shown that female examinees turn out to be more concerned with the abolishing of swearwords and using appropriate replacements for the mentioned ones. When it comes to proposing appropriate replacements, sophomores and juniors offer far more replacement proposals than freshmen and seniors, the first being quite inexperienced, the latter offering silence, a gesture or a mime, the elements of non - verbal communication, as the best replacement for a swearword. There are some other interesting end essential proposals received from Mostar examinees, for instance, like the introduction of irony and sarcasm as swearword replacement. 5. Sociolinguistic parameter gender influences the choice of bad language vocabulary and swearing habits within particular situations. Namely, there are so me gender-based differences that have been expected and those proved to be correct and valid among the newer generations of students. Female examinees find swearwords quite offensive and do feel discomfort and inconvenience when these are used, a s opposed to male examinees, being more relaxed and comfortable when swearwords pop up in a social interaction . Males even find their parents’ swearword usage quite entertaining and funny, while females present a strong objection towards their parents’ usage of swea rwords. Both males and females agree that mother tongue swearwords are stronger and more effective when one wants to achieve a powerful impact of a swearword. Still, only females argued 203 that English swearwords are to be weaker than mother tongue ones. Furt hermore, both would even use a swearword when alone, especially, when nervous and angry, but it turns out that about 40% of males would actually use an original mother tongue swearword, as opposed to 20% of female examinees. As for the English swearwords t aken into consideration, both male and female examinees do feel a bit more comfortable when writing an original swearword down (again about 40% of male and this time 30% of female examinees would not mind writing down an English swearword). On the contrary, there are certain unexpected issues found within the research. Precisely , male examinees do consider certain issues to be greater taboos that it has generally been expected, as, for instance, TT 5 with 45.95% of male examinees perceiving it even stronger than female examinees (only 62.60%). It has been also proven that male examinees do generally discuss taboo topics with friends and parents more than female examinees do (29.58% of male examinees talk about taboos with their friends; 27.27% of female t alk about taboo topics with their friends; 7.25% of male examinees talk about taboos with their parents; 5.51% of female talk about taboos with their parents). Females are generally expected to talk more about emotive and sensitive issues, however, the research results proved that males do like to talk about these particular issues, even more than it has been believed and expected. 6. Sociolinguistic parameter age influences the choice of bad language vocabulary and swearing habits within particular situa tions. As it has been stated earlier, the variable age is tightly connected to taboo topic notion as well as BLW usage. Adolescents appear to be more attracted and attached to BLW usage, as opposed to freshmen, who seem to be a bit shy and frightened by the new circumstances they find themselves in. On the other hand, seniors appear to be familiar with BLWs but they also expose strong unwillingness 204 to use these words, or they either turn to be quite unwilling to admit that they use them now and then. They opine that on no condition should SWs be used in written l anguage. Their proposals for SW replacements are in the form of non -verbal communication, gestures, mimes, or even a prayer. Censorship is also encouraged and supported by seniors, in both mother tongue and English. 16.4% of seniors know how to censor mother tongue swearwords and 9.6% of them are familiar with censored English swearwords, which cannot be said for other years. Sophomores and a majority of juniors are in favour of SWs, either descriptive or original swearwords, but they are also proposing many SW replacements and euphemisms. It can be concluded, therefore, that sophomores and juniors prefer their language limitless, bountiful and free of censorship. 7. Sociolinguistic parameter social class has not proved to be reliable and credible parameter that would exhibit a strong influence on the choice of bad language vocabulary. This research proved that swearing habits are not necessarily connected to the social class of a particular speaker. To be more precise, there have been no reliable indications that low -class and mid -class students use more BLWs than high- class students. On the contrary, the responses received have been of various contents and qualities and therefore could not have deli vered an accurate and precise argument in favour of this parameter. There have been many attempts to prove that educational levels of examinees’ are relevant as well as the educational levels of examinees’ parents. But not once has it been seen that this particular parameter does not influence either the selection of taboo topics or the attitude towards swearing or any of the tested issues. 8. Sociolinguistic parameter geographical area influences the choice of bad language vocabulary and swearing habits. It has been generally determined that attitudes towards 205 swearwords and BLW choice overall differ in different regions of Bosnia and Herzegovina. What has been noticed is that Zenica and Mostar students are more concerned with taboos as opposed to Banja Lu ka and Tuzla students who feel more relaxed and comfortable when using BLWs. It is essential to place an emphasis on the fact that a great majority of Mostar examinees believe SWs do deserve every possible attention. Better to say, what Mostar examinees tr uly believe is that a great attention should be paid to swearwords so people would generally use less of this obscene vocabulary, especially younger generations. Mostar and Zenica examinees also perceive mother tongue swearwords stronger than any other. On the other hand, 68% of Banja Luka examinees added that they would use a swearword without any taboos as a result of their nervousness or anger. It is noteworthy to claim that taboos related to BLW usage are less in the northern parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Tuzla and Banja Luka) rather than in southern parts of Bosnia and Hezegovina (Zenica and Mostar). 9. Political correctness reflects as well as alters the changes in society, determining a tacit agreement on the norms and future of censorship. The research has shown that swearword censoring is partially justified (52.80% of male and 61.9% of female share this opinion). Female examinees seem to be more concerned with swearword censoring believing it to be crucial in standardized contemporary lan guage preservation. Again, it could be seen that juniors are more tolerant towards SWs than seniors, who, on the other hand, show an intriguing interest in censorship. Furthermore, Mostar examinees believe that censoring purifies the language and therefore prefer the omission of an actual swearword. English swearwords also have the same treatment. Still, it is revealed that a very small number of examinees would censor the English swearwords from a certain context. Originality, rawness and robustness of Eng lish swearwords (with the exception 206 of the most vulgar ones) are very much tolerated and preferr ed by both males and females. Again, 20.51% of Mostar examinees would approve of English swearword censorship when translating English swearwords into mother tongue. Banja Luka examinees seem to be less concerned with the swearword censoring once again as only 5.5% of examinees insisted on English swearword censorship. Even though the issue of political correctness is not a newly -born concept, it turns out that only 30% of examinees have actually known what it means and what functions it has. Therefore it cannot be confirmed whether examinees do comprehend that the 21 st century swearing stage is regulated by the government and other relevant institutions. Censorship does function as a means of regulating the moral and political life of people, controlling the media and communications among people. Nevertheless, e xaminees appear to have a habit of censoring their own language and behaviour constantly primari ly due to a taboo impact. In other words, taboos are strongly taught within the family, bred at kinder gardens and schools and encouraged and constantly reminded of at every other institution later in life. In conclusion, this thesis has attempted to examine, analyze and demonstrate the common features of sociolinguistic theories with the aim to focus on the volatile phenomenon of language usage or, more precisely, the use of taboo language and swearwords. Conducting this body of research with the aim to provide descriptions of particular speech practices and actual language attitudes towards the matter has provided some linguistic evidence contributing to understanding of language – social life interface. Namely, some highly ‘interactional’ aspects of lan guage have been considered revealing real cultural norms and values of under -graduate students in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It turns out that all the students do share the knowledge about swearing as a speech practice, 207 which presents that typical ethno- pragmatic common knowledge of swearwords. However, speech practices do vary from speaker to speaker. Societies are primarily of heterogeneous character so all students do not express the same language attitudes and do not promote their language identity in the same way. What is more, they do promote their ethno-pragmatic scripts concerning culture -specific ‘ways with words’ in their own way. The avoidance of taboo words / swear words illustrates an individual’s cultural values and belief system according to which the individual forms attitudes and judgments related to the nature of the mentioned words. On the other hand, the acceptance and usage of taboo words / swear words also illustrates an individual’s cultural values and belief system reflecting a high level of tolerance of such words and creating a ‘distinctive’ speech style. Needless to say, all cultures do have some notion of face and some notion of politeness. Sometimes it is a social need of an individual that motivates politeness, sometimes a normative orientation in social interaction, or even marking place in a social relationship – the notion of fa ce and motivation for politeness varies across cultures. The same is valid for impoliteness, being seen as an assessment of a participant’s action. N ot all utterances that seem impolite are face-threatening. The intention to be impolite has to be recognized as well as the intention to threat to the face of the listener. And indeed, there are some s alient parameters playing an important role in recognition of these impolite intentions. Surely, human communication is a notion that could be differently perceived and comprehended, not only relying upon universal principles but also a set of complex cultural-internal notions. From a sociolinguistic point of view, s wearing and BLW usage incorporates general socio-cultural knowledge and attitudes related to that matter. Swearing is believed to be a universal phenomena characterized by the usage of non- literal taboo words which reflect 208 the speaker’s state of mind. It i s formulaic, taught, stored and retrieved from memory when necessary. It embodies more or less accepted ways of responding verbally to a variety of situations that cause certain feelings that trigger the use of swearwords. It is puzzling that even speakers are not sometimes aware of the real and exact nature of those feelings. However, formulaic nature of swearwords leaves a strong impact on swearwords acting as a pragmatic marker in expressing the speaker’s attitude and their reaction to a certain stimulus . Formulaicity in swearwords functions as a means of social control leaving a choice for speakers to converge to the style of others in order to attain social approval or diverge to achieve subjective group distinctiveness. Generally speaking, it would be methodologically correct and appropriate to regard and discuss this phenomenon in its real proportions, without being too favourable of swearwords or unfavourable of the mentioned. The statistical data obtained from the research has illustrated the actual speech practice as it is. The examinees expressed their attitudes to wards several relevant notions, such as: taboo topics, swe arwords from English and Bosniac / Croatian / Serbian speaking regions, euphemisms, the impact of an English and mother tongue sw earword and the role of censorship. Through statistical analysis of their attitudes and with the regard of the significant sociolinguistic parameters one could learn that speech practice and the choices people make within the framework of speech practice a re by nature context -dependant and social -dependant. There is also a great influence of other variables, above all, there is a strong influence of stereotypes and prejudices people have against certain, usually ‘other’ verbal repertoires, language varieties, different registers and styles. Yet, the present study clearly illustrates a great democratization and freedom in speech practice choice of young people (there is a high level of tolerance of swearwords found especially in informal contexts). Cultural a nd 209 linguistic survival of swearwords therefore is still visible in 21 st century mirroring vivid and colourful ethnolinguistic vitality of language. It is to be admitted that there are certain limitations and weaknesses of the present study . As the corp us appears to be quite huge and complex, all the results and details found in the statistical analyses could not have been presented. The primary focus was to examine the status of the principal hypothesis and supporting hypotheses with the most interesting and appealing facts related to examinees’ attitudes towards the taboo word usage and swearing within English and Bosniac / Croatian / Serbian speaking regions. All the sociolinguistic parameters served their purpose and bore fruit except for the sociolinguistic parameter social class that was found to be useless and therefore dismissed as an unreliable one. To conclude with, t he swearword mechanism remains to be a sociolinguistic area of a great interest. A volatile and unlimited category, language does change illustrating a constant dynamics of different processes within society. The society is also changed due to certain linguistic dynamics of different processes. The same works for swearing mechanisms in all societies. Everyday real -life situations and social interactions do carry a certain load of swearwords as ritual, formulaic utterances serving as a ‘ background norm’, a guideline or model for ways of thinking, acting, feeling and speaking in a particular cultural context. The background norm current ly refers to spoken informal contexts. Still, one must never take swearing at face value. Constant monitoring and evaluation of speech practice through various measurements of attitudes will give socio - linguists a real status of swearword phenomenon . Nonet heless, it is just important to pinpoint that one should never let a taboo stop them from investigating such a legitimate, linguistically valuable and significant and a rather delicate topic. 210 REFERENCES Agheyisi, Rebecca · Fishman, Joshua (1970). Language Attitude Studies: A Brief Study of Methodological Approaches. Antropological Linguistics 12, pg 137 – 157 Allan, Keith · Burridge, Kate (2006). Forbidden Words . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Ayto, John · Simpson, John (1992, 2005). The Oxford Dictionary of Modern Slang. Oxford: Oxford University Press Baker, Colin (1988). Key issues in bilingualism and bilingual education. UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd. (1992). Attitudes and Language. UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Barker, Martin · Petley, Julian (1997). Ill effects: The Media / Violence Debate . London · New York: Routledge Battistella, Edwin L. (2005). Bad Language: Are Some Words Better than Others? Oxford: Oxford University Press Bogdanović, Nedeljko (1998). Opscena leksika: zbornik radova. Niš: Prosveta – Niš (2003). I ja tebi: Izbor iz psovačke frazeologije. Niš: Prosveta - Niš Bousfield, Derek (2008). Impoliteness in Interaction. Amsterdam · Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company Brown, Penelope · Levinson, Stephen C. (1978). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Bugarski, Ranko (1986). Jezik u društvu. Beograd: Prosveta 211 (2002). Nova lica jezika: sociolingvističke teme. Beograd: Biblioteka XX Vek (2003). Žargon: lingvistička studija. Beograd: Biblioteka XX Vek (2005). Jezik i kultura. Beograd: Biblioteka XX Vek Cameron, Deborah (1995). Verbal Hygiene. London · New York: Routledge Coates, Jennifer (2004). Women, Men and Language. England: Pearson Education Limited Coleman, Julie (2008). A History of Cant and Slang Dictionaries . Volume 1: 1567-1784. Oxford: Oxford University Press (2008). A History of Cant and Slang Dictionaries . Volume 2: 1785- 1858. Oxford: Oxford University Press Crystal, David (1997). English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Diamond, Julie (1996). Status and Power in Verbal Interaction: A Study of Discourse in a Close-knit Social Network. Amsterdam · Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company Eelen, Gino (2001). A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome Fairman, Christopher M. (2009). Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties. Naperville, Illinois: Sphinx Publishing Fasold, Ralph (1987). The Sociolinguistics of Society 1 & 2. Blackwell Publishers Limited 212 Félix- Brasdefer, J. César (2008). Politeness in Mexico and the United States. Amsterdam · Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company Fishman, Joshua A. (1978). Sociologija jezika: Interdisciplinarni društvenonaučni pristup jeziku u društvu. Sarajevo: IGKRO Svjetlost Gavran, Ignacije (1962). Bludna psovka: povijesno-psihološka studija. Sarajevo Goffman, Erving (1967). Interaction Ritual. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Granić, Jagoda (2007). Jezik i identiteti. Zagreb · Split: HDPL, pg 627 – 635 Hickey, Leo · Stewart, Miranda (2005). Politeness in Europe. Clevedon · Buffalo · Toronto: Multilingual Matters Ltd Holder, R.W. (2003). A Dictionary of Euphemisms: How not to Say What You Mean. Oxford: Oxford University Press Holmes, Janet · Stubbe, Maria (2003). Power and Politeness in the Workplace. England: Pearson Education Limited Hudson, Richard A. (1996). Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Hughes, Geoffrey (2006). An Encyclopedia of Swearing: The Social History of Oaths, Profanity, Foul Language and Ethnic Slurs in the English-speaking world. New York · London: M.E. Sharpe Ignjačević, Anđelka (1998). Stavovi o engleskom jeziku u srednjem i visokom obrazovanju u Beogradu, Magistarski rad, Filološki fakultet, Beograd 213 Jay, Timothy (2000). Why we Curse. Amsterdam · Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company Johnson, Sterling (1995). English as a Second F*cking Language. New York: A Thomas Dunne Book, St. Martin’s Griffin Kramsch, Claire (1998). Language and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press Leech, Geoffrey, N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London · New York: Longman Leigh Mark · Lapine Mike (2005). Advanced Swearing Handbook. UK: Summersdale Publishers Ltd Levinson, Stephen C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Ljung, Magnus (2011). Swearing: A Cross-cultural Linguistic Study. Palgrave: McMillan Lucas Freitas, Elsa Simões (2008). Taboo in Advertising. Amsterdam · Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company McEnery, Tony (2006). Swearing in English. London · New York: Routledge McKay, S.L. · Hornberger, N.H. (1996). Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Mesthrie, Rajend (2001). Concise Encyclopedia of Sociolinguistics . UK: Elsevier Science Ltd Mills, Sara (2003). Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 214 Montague, Ashley (1967). The Anatomy of Swearing, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press Napoli, Donna Jo (2003). Language Matters. Oxford: Oxford University Press Niedzielski, Nancy A. · Dennis, R. Preston (1999). Trends in Linguistics: Folk Linguistics. Mouton de Gruyter Palmerino, M. · Langer E. · McGilis, D. (1984). Attitudes and Attitude Change: mindlessness – mindfulness perspective in J. Richard Eiser (ed.) Attitudinal Judgment. New York: Springer – Verlag 179 – 195. Paulston, Cristina B. · Tucker, Richard G. (2003). Sociolinguistics: The Essential Readings. Blackwell Publishing Limited, pg 177 - 229 Pinker, Steven (2007). The Seven Words You Can't Say on Television. UK · USA: Penguin Group Savić, Svenka · Mitro Veronika (1998). Psovke!!! Novi Sad: Futura Publikacije Scollon, R. · Scollon, S.W. (2001). Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Inc. Spears, Richard A. (2001). Slang and Euphemism: A Dictionary of Oaths, Curses, Insults, Ethnic Slurs, Sexual Slang and Metaphor, Drug Talk, College Lingo, and Related Matters. New York: Signet, New American Library Spencer-Oatey, Helen (2008). Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness The ory, London · New York: Continuum International Publishing Group 215 Spolsky, Bernard (1998). Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press Šipka, Danko (1999). Obscene reči u srpskom jeziku. Beograd: CPL Beograd & Prometej Novi Sad Tannen Deborah (1999). The Argument Culture: Stopping America’s War of Words. New York: The Ballantine Publishing Group Ting-Toomey, S. · Cocroft, B.A. (1994). Face and Facework: theoretical and research issues. In Ting-Toomey (ed.) The Challenge of Facework. New York, State University of New York Press, pg: 307-340 Trudgill, Peter (2000). Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society. England: The Penguin Group Wajnryb, Ruth (2004). Language Most Foul, Australia: Allen&Unwin Watts, Richard. J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Yule, George (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press Collins Cobuild Advanced Learner’s English Dict ionary (2003). Great Britain: HarperCollins Publishers 216 Electronic Sources: Eliason, Steve. Language and the Social Construction of Reality: Spinning Social Reality with Euphemisms. www.nisu.nodak.edu/research/euphemism_paper.pdf , accessed on September 2006 Haapea, Riina (1999). Attitudes toward Varieties of the English Language and their Speakers held by Finnish Students, doctoral thesis, www.jyx.jyu.fi , accessed on September 2012 Iorio, Josh. Taboo Language in Context: How Speakers Address the Taboo. www.personal.ecu.edu/iorioj/works/taboo_language.doc , accessed on September 2006 Karjalainen, Markus (2002). Where Have All the Swearwords gone?: An Analysis of the Loss of Swearwords in Two Swedish Translations of J.D.Salinger’s Catcher in the RyeURN:NBN:fi-fe20021495. www.ehtesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/hum/egla/pg/karjalainen/wherehave.pdf , accessed on September 2006 Linfoot-Ham, Kerry (2005). The Linguistics of Euphemisms: A Diachronic Study of Euphemism Formation. Journal of Language and Linguistics Vol 4 No 2, ISSN1475-8989. www.shakespeare.uk.net/journal/4_2/linfoot_ham.pdf , accessed on September 2006 Sapolsky, B.S. · Kaye, B.K. (2005). The Use of Offensive Language by Men and Women in Prime Time Television Entertainment. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 13(4), 292-303, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. www.leaonline.com/doi/pdf , accessed on September 2006 217 QUESTION NAIRE ‘The Attitudes of Newer Generation of Students of English towards the Taboo Word Usage within English and B/C/S Speaking Regions’ This is an anonymous questionnaire conducted among the undergraduate students of the English language and Literature for scientific purposes only! Please fill out the questionnaire and express your attitude by circling the appropriate answer(s) and completing certain statements. Sex: M F Age: Year of Study: I II III IV Place of Birth: Place of Residence: Secondary school Grammar Technical Vocational Artistic Religious 1 2 3 4 5 Educational Level of Fathers Tertiary (4) Tertiary (2) Secondary Primary Other Unknown 1 2 3 4 5 6 Educational Level of Mothers Tertiary (4) Tertiary (2) Secondary Primary Other Unknown 1 2 3 4 5 6 What are common taboo topics? Physical appearance Disease / Illness Death Crime Sexual organs and intercourse 1 2 3 4 5 Human flaws Vices Religion Politics War 6 7 8 9 10 How often do you discuss taboo topics with parents/family members Never Rarely Sometimes Often Quite often 1 2 3 4 5 What are the taboo topics: How often do you discuss taboo topics with friends Never Rarely Sometimes Often Quite often 1 2 3 4 5 What are the taboo topics: 218 How often do you discuss taboo topics at school Never Rarely Sometimes Often Quite often 1 2 3 4 5 What are the taboo topics: How do you feel when a taboo topic starts Rather embarrassed, mostly listening to what others discuss Embarrassed, hinting a few comments Slightly uncomfortable, but you are trying to participate in a discussion Relaxed, those topics you discuss from time to time Totally relaxed, willing to discuss those at length 1 2 3 4 5 Where do you hear swearwords From friends From parents In the street At school Written and electronic media 1 2 3 4 5 What is your attitude towards swearwor ds Offensive words I would never use Would use them in spoken language, but never in written Would use them in spoken and written language, but explicitly in informal environments Would always use them, as the need arises 1 2 3 4 Do swearwords deserve attention -2 -1 0 1 2 Should swearwords be abolished -2 -1 0 1 2 Could swearwords be replaced by other words at a particular moment YES If YES, what are the words / substitutions NO How do you feel when swearwords are used by very uncomfortable, explicitly suggesting that to the utterer very uncomfortable, suggesting nothing to the utterer complete ignorance of such words relaxed, such words make me laugh very relaxed, encouragin g oneself to use swearwords freely Friends 1 2 3 4 5 219 Parents 1 2 3 4 5 Teachers 1 2 3 4 5 Do mother tongue swearwords hurt more -2 -1 0 1 2 Do English swearwords hurt more -2 -1 0 1 2 Which swearword to use to hurt Mother tongue swearwords Which of these do describe emotions best Mother tongue swearwords English swearwords English swearwords Do you use swearwords when alone YES If YES, what are the situations NO Is swearword censorship justified Yes, censoring cleanses and purifies the language for future generations Partially, as censoring hides the actual language use No, censorship appears to be unnecessary, irritating and funny for present generations 1 2 3 How to treat English swearwords when translating them into mother tongue Yes, censorship is necessary by all means Partially, some rather strong swearwords need to be censored No, translation must be a pure reflection of an original text 1 2 3 Does political correctness serve the function of concealing bad language usage and swearing -2 -1 0 1 2 What are, in your opinion, the strongest swearwords: From B/C/S speaking regions From English speaking regions Thank you! Hvala! 220 ANKETA ''Stavovi novijih generacija studenata engleskog jezika prema upotrebi tabu izraza sa engleskog i b/h/s govornog područja'' Ovo je anonimna anketa i sprovodi se isključivo među studentima dodiplomskog studija engleskog jezika i književnosti u svrhu naučnog istraživanja! Molimo da unesete sve tražene podatke, da zaokruživanjem brojeva i dopunjavanjem odgovorite na sva pitanja i date svoje mišljenje. Spol: M Ž Starosna dob: Godina studija: I II III IV Mjesto rođenja : Mjesto prebivališta: Završena srednja škola Gimnazija Tehnička Stručna Umjetnička Vjerska 1 2 3 4 5 Stepen školske spreme oca Visoka (VSS) Viša (VŠS) Srednja (SSS) Niža (NSS) Ostalo Nepoznato 1 2 3 4 5 6 Stepen školske spreme majke Visoka (VSS) Viša (VŠS) Srednja (SSS) Niža (NSS) Ostalo Nepoznato 1 2 3 4 5 6 Koje su to, po vašem mišljenju, tabu teme Tjelesne i fizičke osobine čovjeka Bolest Smrt Zločin Seks 1 2 3 4 5 Mane Poroci Religijska vjerovanja Politika Rat 6 7 8 9 10 Razgovarate li često o tabu temama s roditeljima Nikada Par puta Ponekad Često Vrlo često 1 2 3 4 5 Koje su to tabu teme: Razgovarate li često o tabu temama s prijateljima Nikada Par puta Ponekad Često Vrlo često 1 2 3 4 5 Koje su to tabu teme: 221 Razgovarate li u školi o tabu temama Nikada Par puta Ponekad Često Vrlo često 1 2 3 4 5 Koje su to tabu teme: Kako se osjećaš kada se započne neka od tabu tema neprijatno i postiđeno, najčešće šutiš i slušaš šta drugi o tome imaju da kažu neprijatno, potkadkad prokomentariš eš nešto i ubrzo mijenjaš temu pomalo nelagodno obzirom da o takvim temema ne govoriš često, ali ipak se trudiš da učestvuješ u razgovoru opušteno, obzirom da su to teme o kojima se redovito govori totalno opušteno i spremno na razgovor u bilo kojem trenutku 1 2 3 4 5 Gdje najšečće čuješ psovke Od prijatelja Od roditelja Na ulici U školskim ustanovama U pisanim i elektronskim medijima 1 2 3 4 5 Kako možeš opisati svoj stav prema psovkama to su riječi koje nikada ne bih koristio/la, uvredljive su to su riječi koje bih koristio/la u govornom jeziku, ali nikako ne u pisanom to su riječi koje bih koristio/la u govornom i u pisanom jeziku, ali isključivo u neslužbenim situacijama to su riječi koje bih koristio/la uvijek, to su riječi kao i sve ostale 1 2 3 4 Treba li davati pažnju psovkama -2 -1 0 1 2 Treba li psovke ukinuti iz upotrebe -2 -1 0 1 2 Postoje neke druge riječi koje bi mogle zamijeniti psovku u datom momentu DA Ako DA, koje bi, po vašem mišljenju, to bile riječi NE Kako se osjećaš kada psovke upotrebljavaju vrlo nelagodno, naglašavam sagovorniku da su takve riječi nekulturne i zabranjene nelagodno, protivim se upotrebi takvih riječi, ali ništa ne govorim sagovorniku o tome uopće ne pridajem pažnju značaju tih riječi opušteno, takve me riječi nasmijava ju vrlo opušteno, čak i sam/sama počnem koristiti iste 222 prijatelji/ice 1 2 3 4 5 roditelji 1 2 3 4 5 profesori 1 2 3 4 5 Osjećaš li se više povrijeđenim ako je psovka izgovorena na b/h/s jeziku -2 -1 0 1 2 Osjećaš li se više povrijeđenim ako je psovka izgovorena na engleskom jeziku -2 -1 0 1 2 Koji bi jezik koristio da povrijediš b/h/s Na kojem su jeziku emocije jače opisane b/h/s engleski engleskom Koristiš li psovke kad si sam DA Ako DA, koje bi to situacije bile NE Je li cenzura psovki opravdana Da, cenzurom dobivamo besprijekorno čist i ispravan jezik za naredne generacije Donekle, cenzurom samo prikrivamo istinski jezik kojeg zapravo koristimo Ne, cenzura je bespotrebna, iritirajuća i smiješna za današnje generacije 1 2 3 Da li prijevod psovki sa engleskog jezika treba biti cenzurisan Da, cenzurom dobivamo besprijekorno ispravan jezik Donekle, neke teške psovke bi trebalo cenzurisati, a neke pak psovke ne treba prevoditi zbog ostavarivanja istinskog efekta iz originala Ne, prijevod treba da ostane vjeran originalu u svakom pogledu 1 2 3 Da li se političkom korektnosti prikriva uvredljivi jezik i psovanje -2 -1 0 1 2 Koje bi, po tvom mišljenju, bile najteže psovke sa: b/h/s govornog područja engleskog govornog područja 223 List of figures and tables Figure 1: Lakoff's Rules of Pragmatic Competence 29 Figure 2: Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Strategies 36 Figure 3: Total Number of Students Examined in the Towns 108 Figure 4: Total Number of Males and Females Examined 110 Figure 5: Total Number of Students According to the Year of Study 110 Figure 6: Six age Groups Examined 111 Figure 7: Examinee’s Educational Level 112 Figure 8: Educational Level of Fathers 113 Figure 9: Educational Level of Mothers 113 Figure 10: Frequency of Taboo Topics 116 Figure 11: Cross-reference of Gender with Taboo Topics 119 Figure 12: Cross-reference of University Town with Taboo Topics 122 Figure 13: Cross-reference of Year of Study with Taboo Topics 126 Figure 14: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Father’s Educational Level with Taboo Topics 128 Figure 15: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Mother’s Educational Level with Taboo Topics 129 Figure 16: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Examinee’s Educational Level with Taboo Topics 130 Figure 17: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Gender with Frequency of Taboo Topics with Parents 131 Figure 18: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Gender with Frequency of Taboo Topics with Friends 132 224 Figure 19: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Gender with the Selection of Taboo Topics discussed with Parents 134 Figure 20: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Gender with the Selection of Taboo Topics discussed with Friends 135 Figure 21: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Gender with the Selection of Taboo Topics discussed with Teachers 136 Figure 22: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Year of Study with the Selection of Taboo Topics discussed with Friends 137 Figure 23: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of University Town with the Selection of Taboo Topics discussed with Teachers 138 Figure 24: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Gender with General Emotion Related to Taboo Topics 139 Figure 25: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of University Town with General Emotion Related to Taboo Topics 140 Figure 26: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of University Town with the Places for Swearword Occurrence 143 Figure 27: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Gender with Attitudes towards Swearwords 144 Figure 28: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Year of Study with Attitudes towards Swearwords 145 Figure 29: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of University Town with General Attention paid to Swearwords 147 Figure 30: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Gender with Possible Abolishment of Swearwords 148 225 Figure 31: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of University Town with Possible Abolishment of Swearwords 149 Figure 32: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Year of Study with Possible Equivalents for Swearwords 151 Figure 33: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of University Town with Possible Equivalents for Swearwords 152 Figure 34: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Gender with Sensitivity towards Swearwords uttered by Friends 154 Figure 35: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Year of Study with Sensitivity towards Swearwords uttered by Friends 155 Figure 36: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of University Town with Sensitivity towards Swearwords uttered by Friends 156 Figure 37: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Gender with Sensitivity towards Swearwords uttered by Parents 157 Figure 38: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Year of Study with Sensitivity towards Swearwords uttered by Parents 158 Figure 39: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of University Town with Sensitivity towards Swearwords uttered by Parents 159 Figure 40: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Gender with Sensitivity towards Swearwords uttered by Teachers 160 Figure 41: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Year of Study with Sensitivity towards Swearwords uttered by Teachers 161 Figure 42: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of University Town with Sensitivity towards Swearwords uttered by Teachers 162 226 Figure 43: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Gender with Sensitivity towards Swearwords from B/C/S Speaking Regions 163 Figure 44: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of University Town with Sensitivity towards Swearwords from B/C/S Speaking Regions 164 Figure 45: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Gender with Sensitivity towards Swearwords from English 165 Figure 46: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of University Town with Sensitivity towards Swearwords from English 166 Figure 47: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Gender with Using Swearwords when being Alone 169 Figure 48: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of University Town with Using Swearwords when being Alone 170 Figure 49: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Gender with Swearing Contexts 172 Figure 50: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Gender with Swearing Contexts 174 Figure 51: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of University Town with Swearing Contexts 175 Figure 52: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Gender with Justification of Censoring 177 Figure 53: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Year of Study with Justification of Censoring 178 Figure 54: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of University Town with Justification of Censoring 180 227 Figure 55: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Gender with Translation of English Swearwords 181 Figure 56: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Year of Study with Translation of English Swearwords 182 Figure 57: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of University Town with Translation of English Swearwords 184 Figure 58: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Gender with Political Correctness Issues 185 Figure 59: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Year of Study with Political Correctness Issues 186 Figure 60: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of University Town with Political Correctness Issues 187 Figure 61: Descriptive Mother Tongue Swearwords 193 Figure 62: Descriptive English Swearwords 194 Figure 63: Original Mother Tongue Swearwords 195 Figure 64: Original English Swearwords 195 Figure 65: Censored English and Mother Tongue Swearwords 197 Table 1: Frequency of Taboo Topics 115 Table 2: Comparison of Column Proportions: Frequency of Taboo Topics 117 Table 3: Cross-reference Presented in Percentages 118 Table 4: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Gender with Taboo Topics 120 Table 5: Cross-reference of University Town with Taboo Topics (Percentages) 121 228 Table 6: Comparison of Column Proportions: Cross-reference of Taboo Topics with University Towns 123 Table 7: Cross-reference of Year of Study with Taboo Topics (Percentages) 125 229 Comparisons of Column Proportions gender M F TT 1 0 (A) 1 (B) TT 2 0 (A) 1 (B) TT 3 0 (A) 1 (B) TT 4 0 (A) 1 (B) TT 5 0 (A) B 1 (B) A TT 6 0 (A) 1 (B) TT 7 0 (A) 1 (B) TT 8 0 (A) 1 (B) TT 9 0 (A) 1 (B) TT 10 0 (A) 1 (B) Comparisons of Column Proportions year of study 1 2 3 4 (A) (B) (C) (D) TT 1 0 1 TT 2 0 1 TT 3 0 1 TT 4 0 1 TT 5 0 D 1 B TT 6 0 1 TT 7 0 1 TT 8 0 1 TT 9 0 1 TT 10 0 1 year of study 1 2 3 4 84 93 78 73 TT 1 13.10% 16.13% 19.23% 20.55% TT 2 4.76% 10.75% 8.97% 5.48% TT 3 17.86% 11.83% 8.97% 16.44% TT 4 17.86% 13.98% 20.51% 6.85% TT 5 57.14% 50.54% 57.69% 72.60% TT 6 13.10% 9.68% 5.13% 2.74% TT 7 23.81% 19.35% 14.10% 28.77% TT 8 22.62% 35.48% 33.33% 19.18% TT 9 16.67% 11.83% 16.67% 13.70% TT 10 26.19% 23.66% 19.23% 19.18% gender taboo topic M F TT 1 18.92% 16.54% TT 2 6.76% 7.87% TT 3 14.86% 13.39% TT 4 10.81% 16.14% TT 5 45.95% 62.60% TT 6 5.41% 8.66% TT 7 18.92% 22.05% TT 8 32.43% 26.77% TT 9 12.16% 15.35% TT 10 18.92% 23.23% age 18-19 20 21 22 23 24-above 48 82 68 52 36 36 TT 1 12.50% 15.85% 14.71% 23.08% 25.00% 16.67% TT 2 6.25% 9.76% 10.29% 3.85% 8.33% 5.56% TT 3 16.67% 17.07% 11.76% 9.62% 2.78% 22.22% TT 4 14.58% 18.29% 19.12% 15.38% 5.56% 8.33% TT 5 62.50% 53.66% 51.47% 67.31% 72.22% 52.78% TT 6 10.42% 12.20% 8.82% 5.77% 2.78% 2.78% TT 7 22.92% 25.61% 8.82% 17.31% 22.22% 38.89% TT 8 18.75% 32.93% 27.94% 26.92% 36.11% 22.22% TT 9 12.50% 13.41% 22.06% 15.38% 8.33% 11.11% TT 10 22.92% 25.61% 32.35% 19.23% 13.89% 11.11% 230 father's educational level tertiary (4) tertiary (2) secondary primary other unknown 52 56 202 11 3 3 TT 1 17.31% 16.07% 16.83% 9.09% 33.33% 33.33% TT 2 9.62% 5.36% 6.93% 27.27% 0.00% 0.00% TT 3 9.62% 32.14% 10.40% 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% TT 4 9.62% 12.50% 16.83% 18.18% 33.33% 0.00% TT 5 51.92% 67.86% 58.42% 54.55% 100.00% 0.00% TT 6 9.62% 5.36% 7.92% 18.18% 0.00% 0.00% TT 7 25.00% 26.79% 20.30% 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% TT 8 21.15% 30.36% 29.21% 27.27% 33.33% 33.33% TT 9 9.62% 8.93% 17.33% 9.09% 33.33% 33.33% TT 10 23.08% 21.43% 22.77% 9.09% 33.33% 33.33% examinee's previous education high school technical school vocational school atristic school religious school 211 62 44 2 8 TT 1 17.54% 14.52% 20.45% 50.00% 0.00% TT 2 5.69% 12.90% 6.82% 50.00% 12.50% TT 3 14.22% 14.52% 11.36% 0.00% 12.50% TT 4 15.64% 12.90% 15.91% 50.00% 0.00% TT 5 60.19% 54.84% 54.55% 50.00% 87.50% TT 6 6.16% 8.06% 9.09% 100.00% 25.00% TT 7 21.80% 25.81% 15.91% 0.00% 12.50% TT 8 27.96% 25.81% 34.09% 50.00% 12.50% TT 9 16.59% 14.52% 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% TT 10 23.70% 20.97% 22.73% 0.00% 0.00% mother's educational level tertiary (4) tertiary (2) secondary primary other unknown 36 36 208 37 6 3 TT 1 13.89% 11.11% 16.83% 18.92% 66.67% 0.00% TT 2 8.33% 16.67% 5.29% 13.51% 0.00% 0.00% TT 3 8.33% 22.22% 13.94% 13.51% 0.00% 0.00% TT 4 19.44% 5.56% 15.87% 13.51% 16.67% 0.00% TT 5 47.22% 52.78% 60.58% 62.16% 83.33% 66.67% TT 6 11.11% 11.11% 5.77% 10.81% 33.33% 0.00% TT 7 11.11% 19.44% 22.12% 27.03% 16.67% 66.67% TT 8 30.56% 44.44% 25.96% 24.32% 16.67% 33.33% TT 9 16.67% 11.11% 14.90% 13.51% 33.33% 0.00% TT 10 25.00% 22.22% 23.56% 16.22% 16.67% 0.00% 231 Comparisons of Column Proportions father's educational level tertiary (4) tertiary (2) secondary primary other unknown (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) TT 1 0 1 TT 2 0 1 TT 3 0 B B 1 A C TT 4 0 1 TT 5 0 1 TT 6 0 1 TT 7 0 1 TT 8 0 1 TT 9 0 1 TT 10 0 1 232 Comparisons of Column Proportions mother's educational level tertiary (4) tertiary (2) secondary primary other unknown (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) TT 1 0 E E E 1 A B C TT 2 0 1 TT 3 0 1 TT 4 0 1 TT 5 0 1 TT 6 0 1 TT 7 0 1 TT 8 0 1 TT 9 0 1 TT 10 0 1 university town Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica 113 41 101 73 TT 1 13.27% 9.76% 27.72% 12.33% TT 2 13.27% 7.32% 5.94% 1.37% TT 3 7.96% 17.07% 7.92% 28.77% TT 4 19.47% 19.51% 15.84% 4.11% TT 5 51.33% 43.90% 64.36% 71.23% TT 6 8.85% 14.63% 5.94% 5.48% TT 7 15.93% 41.46% 20.79% 19.18% TT 8 36.28% 4.88% 28.71% 27.40% TT 9 13.27% 24.39% 16.83% 8.22% TT 10 33.63% 21.95% 20.79% 6.85% Comparisons of Column Proportions examinee's previous education high school technical school vocational school artistic school religious school (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) TT 1 0 1 TT 2 0 1 TT 3 0 1 TT 4 0 1 TT 5 0 1 TT 6 0 1 TT 7 0 1 TT 8 0 1 TT 9 0 1 TT 10 0 1 place of residence urban less urban rural 190 94 33 TT 1 18.95% 12.77% 24.24% TT 2 7.37% 8.51% 9.09% TT 3 18.42% 7.45% 6.06% TT 4 14.74% 19.15% 9.09% TT 5 63.16% 56.38% 48.48% TT 6 5.79% 9.57% 15.15% TT 7 25.26% 18.09% 15.15% TT 8 28.42% 30.85% 12.12% TT 9 17.89% 9.57% 9.09% TT 10 20.53% 29.79% 15.15% 233 Comparisons of Column Proportions university town Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica (A) (B) (C) (D) TT 1 0 1 TT 2 0 A 1 D TT 3 0 D D 1 A C TT 4 0 A B 1 D D TT 5 0 D D 1 A B TT 6 0 1 TT 7 0 B 1 A TT 8 0 A C D 1 B B B TT 9 0 1 TT 10 0 A 1 D 234 Comparisons of Column Proportions place of residence urban less urban rural (A) (B) (C) TT 1 0 1 TT 2 0 1 TT 3 0 A 1 B TT 4 0 1 TT 5 0 1 TT 6 0 1 TT 7 0 1 TT 8 0 1 TT 9 0 1 TT 10 0 1 235 gender year of study school university town M F 1 2 3 4 high school tech. school vocational artistic school religious school Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica 74 254 84 93 78 73 211 62 44 2 8 113 41 101 73 Parent - TT 1 1.35% 5.51% 4.76% 4.30% 2.56% 6.85% 4.27% 3.23% 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% 4.42% 4.88% 4.95% 4.11% Parent - TT 2 4.05% 8.27% 4.76% 10.75% 8.97% 4.11% 8.06% 6.45% 2.27% 50.00% 12.50% 7.96% 7.32% 8.91% 4.11% Parent - TT 3 4.05% 5.51% 3.57% 6.45% 7.69% 2.74% 5.69% 4.84% 4.55% 0.00% 0.00% 4.42% 4.88% 5.94% 5.48% Parent - TT 4 8.11% 9.84% 10.71% 7.53% 12.82% 6.85% 10.43% 11.29% 4.55% 0.00% 0.00% 13.27% 7.32% 11.88% 1.37% Parent - TT 5 10.81% 32.68% 27.38% 30.11% 20.51% 32.88% 30.33% 20.97% 27.27% 0.00% 12.50% 28.32% 12.20% 27.72% 35.62% Parent - TT 6 1.35% 6.69% 8.33% 6.45% 2.56% 4.11% 4.27% 6.45% 9.09% 50.00% 0.00% 8.85% 7.32% 2.97% 2.74% Parent - TT 7 20.27% 21.26% 20.24% 25.81% 12.82% 24.66% 18.96% 29.03% 22.73% 0.00% 12.50% 24.78% 17.07% 20.79% 17.81% Parent - TT 8 10.81% 16.93% 13.10% 19.35% 17.95% 10.96% 18.01% 8.06% 15.91% 0.00% 12.50% 16.81% 9.76% 15.84% 16.44% Parent - TT 9 6.76% 12.20% 10.71% 8.60% 14.10% 10.96% 12.32% 9.68% 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% 11.50% 14.63% 11.88% 6.85% Parent - TT 10 5.41% 12.60% 10.71% 11.83% 6.41% 15.07% 12.80% 9.68% 6.82% 0.00% 0.00% 11.50% 14.63% 12.87% 5.48% Friend - TT 1 10.81% 15.35% 20.24% 15.05% 8.97% 12.33% 13.27% 14.52% 18.18% 0.00% 12.50% 17.70% 9.76% 11.88% 15.07% Friend - TT 2 8.11% 11.81% 11.90% 13.98% 8.97% 8.22% 11.37% 12.90% 4.55% 0.00% 12.50% 10.62% 7.32% 12.87% 10.96% Friend - TT 3 8.11% 11.02% 11.90% 15.05% 6.41% 6.85% 10.90% 9.68% 4.55% 0.00% 25.00% 9.73% 2.44% 9.90% 16.44% Friend - TT 4 14.86% 12.20% 15.48% 15.05% 10.26% 9.59% 13.27% 12.90% 6.82% 0.00% 25.00% 15.04% 2.44% 12.87% 15.07% Friend - TT 5 28.38% 48.43% 36.90% 45.16% 43.59% 50.68% 48.34% 32.26% 45.45% 0.00% 12.50% 44.25% 26.83% 45.54% 50.68% Friend - TT 6 10.81% 14.96% 20.24% 15.05% 11.54% 8.22% 13.27% 17.74% 9.09% 0.00% 25.00% 16.81% 9.76% 11.88% 15.07% Friend - TT 7 24.32% 24.41% 25.00% 33.33% 12.82% 24.66% 23.22% 27.42% 22.73% 0.00% 37.50% 24.78% 17.07% 24.75% 27.40% Friend - TT 8 16.22% 24.80% 19.05% 27.96% 23.08% 20.55% 25.12% 19.35% 15.91% 0.00% 25.00% 23.01% 9.76% 21.78% 31.51% Friend - TT 9 16.22% 16.14% 17.86% 17.20% 15.38% 13.70% 16.11% 17.74% 13.64% 0.00% 12.50% 15.04% 12.20% 16.83% 19.18% Friend - TT 10 13.51% 16.93% 17.86% 21.51% 7.69% 16.44% 17.06% 16.13% 9.09% 0.00% 25.00% 20.35% 12.20% 14.85% 13.70% Teacher - TT 1 1.35% 6.30% 1.19% 6.45% 3.85% 9.59% 6.16% 1.61% 4.55% 0.00% 0.00% 5.31% 4.88% 3.96% 6.85% Teacher - TT 2 2.70% 5.51% 3.57% 5.38% 2.56% 8.22% 5.21% 3.23% 4.55% 0.00% 0.00% 5.31% 2.44% 2.97% 8.22% Teacher - TT 3 2.70% 3.15% 0.00% 4.30% 1.28% 6.85% 2.84% 3.23% 2.27% 0.00% 0.00% 4.42% 0.00% 0.00% 6.85% Teacher - TT 4 5.41% 7.87% 7.14% 9.68% 5.13% 6.85% 8.06% 3.23% 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% 9.73% 4.88% 2.97% 10.96% Teacher - TT 5 16.22% 25.59% 21.43% 16.13% 26.92% 31.51% 23.70% 20.97% 25.00% 50.00% 12.50% 28.32% 2.44% 23.76% 27.40% Teacher - TT 6 4.05% 5.91% 3.57% 8.60% 3.85% 5.48% 5.69% 4.84% 2.27% 0.00% 12.50% 6.19% 9.76% 1.98% 6.85% Teacher - TT 7 16.22% 13.39% 13.10% 17.20% 7.69% 17.81% 12.80% 12.90% 20.45% 0.00% 12.50% 22.12% 4.88% 6.93% 16.44% Teacher - TT 8 10.81% 15.75% 10.71% 19.35% 11.54% 16.44% 15.64% 11.29% 13.64% 0.00% 12.50% 15.93% 4.88% 11.88% 21.92% Teacher - TT 9 5.41% 13.39% 9.52% 11.83% 7.69% 17.81% 12.80% 9.68% 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% 10.62% 9.76% 9.90% 16.44% Teacher - TT 10 4.05% 15.75% 13.10% 15.05% 7.69% 16.44% 13.27% 12.90% 11.36% 0.00% 12.50% 15.04% 7.32% 9.90% 17.81% 236 Comparisons of Column Proportions gender year of study school university town M F 1 2 3 4 high school tech. school vocational atristic school religious school Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (A) (B) (C) (D) Parent - TT 1 0 1 Parent - TT 2 0 D 1 C Parent - TT 3 0 1 Parent - TT 4 0 A 1 D Parent - TT 5 0 B D 1 A B Parent - TT 6 0 D 1 A Parent - TT 7 0 1 Parent - TT 8 0 1 Parent- TT 9 0 1 Parent - TT 10 0 1 Freind - TT 1 0 1 Friend - TT 2 0 1 Friend - TT 3 0 1 Friend - TT 4 0 1 Friend - TT 5 0 B 237 1 A Friend - TT 6 0 1 Friend - TT 7 0 B 1 C Friend - TT 8 0 1 Friend - TT 9 0 1 Friend - TT 10 0 1 Teacher - TT 1 0 1 Teacher - TT 2 0 1 Teacher - TT 3 0 1 Teacher - TT 4 0 1 Teacher - TT 5 0 A C D 1 B B B Teacher - TT 6 0 1 Teacher - TT 7 0 A 1 C Teacher - TT 8 0 1 Teacher - TT 9 0 1 Teacher - TT 10 0 B 1 A 238 gender year of study school university town M F 1 2 3 4 high school tech. school vocational artistic school religious school Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Frequency of TT with parents never 30.43% 13.39% 19.28% 20.65% 16.67% 10.00% 13.94% 20.00% 18.18% 50.00% 62.50% 19.82% 14.63% 18.37% 12.33% rarely 18.84% 16.14% 20.48% 9.78% 20.51% 17.14% 17.31% 15.00% 15.91% 0.00% 25.00% 13.51% 24.39% 11.22% 24.66% sometimes 31.88% 48.03% 44.58% 39.13% 39.74% 57.14% 44.71% 50.00% 43.18% 50.00% 0.00% 45.95% 39.02% 43.88% 46.58% often 11.59% 16.93% 9.64% 18.48% 19.23% 15.71% 19.23% 8.33% 13.64% 0.00% 0.00% 17.12% 19.51% 19.39% 6.85% a lot 7.25% 5.51% 6.02% 11.96% 3.85% 0.00% 4.81% 6.67% 9.09% 0.00% 12.50% 3.60% 2.44% 7.14% 9.59% gender year of study school university town M F 1 2 3 4 high school tech. school vocational artistic school religious school Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Frequency of TT with friends never 14.08% 3.95% 8.33% 6.52% 7.79% 1.41% 6.70% 8.33% 0.00% 0.00% 12.50% 8.18% 4.88% 7.00% 2.74% rarely 2.82% 6.72% 8.33% 5.43% 5.19% 4.23% 4.78% 10.00% 6.82% 0.00% 0.00% 9.09% 7.32% 1.00% 6.85% sometimes 30.99% 25.69% 27.38% 28.26% 27.27% 23.94% 23.44% 30.00% 34.09% 50.00% 50.00% 30.91% 39.02% 23.00% 19.18% often 22.54% 36.36% 27.38% 27.17% 44.16% 36.62% 36.36% 28.33% 29.55% 0.00% 12.50% 29.09% 14.63% 41.00% 39.73% a lot 29.58% 27.27% 28.57% 32.61% 15.58% 33.80% 28.71% 23.33% 29.55% 50.00% 25.00% 22.73% 34.15% 28.00% 31.51% gender year of study school university town M F 1 2 3 4 high school tech. school vocational artistic school religious school Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Frequency of TT with teachers never 26.76% 22.62% 26.51% 21.74% 27.27% 18.31% 22.97% 20.34% 29.55% 0.00% 37.50% 28.83% 22.50% 22.22% 17.81% rarely 26.76% 32.94% 38.55% 32.61% 22.08% 32.39% 32.06% 25.42% 34.09% 100.00% 37.50% 33.33% 32.50% 26.26% 35.62% sometimes 33.80% 31.75% 28.92% 31.52% 36.36% 32.39% 31.58% 44.07% 22.73% 0.00% 25.00% 26.13% 40.00% 33.33% 35.62% often 11.27% 9.52% 4.82% 11.96% 10.39% 12.68% 10.53% 8.47% 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% 9.01% 5.00% 13.13% 9.59% a lot 1.41% 3.17% 1.20% 2.17% 3.90% 4.23% 2.87% 1.69% 4.55% 0.00% 0.00% 2.70% 0.00% 5.05% 1.37% 239 Comparisons of Column Proportions gender year of study school university town M F 1 2 3 4 high school tech. school vocational artistic school religious school Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (A) (B) (C) (D) Frequency of TT with parents never B A rarely sometimes A often a lot Frequency of TT with friends never B rarely sometimes often A B B a lot Frequency of TT with teachers never rarely sometimes often a lot gender year of study school university town M F 1 2 3 4 high school tech. school vocational artistic school religious school Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica 84 91 78 72 209 61 44 2 8 How do you feel when TT starts? -2 2.78% 2.37% 2.38% 3.30% 1.28% 2.78% 2.39% 3.28% 0.00% 0.00% 12.50% 2.68% 2.50% 3.00% 1.37% -1 4.17% 5.14% 4.76% 2.20% 6.41% 6.94% 2.87% 8.20% 9.09% 0.00% 12.50% 5.36% 5.00% 4.00% 5.48% 0 25.00% 35.97% 34.52% 27.47% 37.18% 36.11% 31.58% 36.07% 36.36% 50.00% 50.00% 39.29% 47.50% 23.00% 31.51% 1 27.78% 29.64% 23.81% 35.16% 28.21% 29.17% 32.06% 29.51% 18.18% 0.00% 12.50% 28.57% 27.50% 28.00% 32.88% 2 40.28% 26.88% 34.52% 31.87% 26.92% 25.00% 31.10% 22.95% 36.36% 50.00% 12.50% 24.11% 17.50% 42.00% 28.77% 240 Comparisons of Column Proportions gender year of study school university town M F 1 2 3 4 high school tech. school vocational artistic school religious school Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (A) (B) (C) (D) How do you feel when TT starts? -2 -1 0 C 1 2 B A B gender year of study school university town M F 1 2 3 4 high school tech. school vocational artistic school religious school Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica 74 254 84 93 78 73 211 62 44 2 8 Where do you hear sws? friends 47.30% 39.37% 39.29% 43.01% 39.74% 42.47% 38.39% 43.55% 54.55% 50.00% 25.00% 53.10% 24.39% 50.50% 19.18% parents 4.05% 1.97% 3.57% 1.08% 2.56% 2.74% 1.42% 3.23% 4.55% 0.00% 0.00% 1.77% 0.00% 3.96% 2.74% street 68.92% 74.80% 71.43% 73.12% 70.51% 79.45% 74.88% 70.97% 63.64% 100.00% 100.00% 58.41% 90.24% 73.27% 87.67% school 17.57% 9.45% 10.71% 11.83% 8.97% 13.70% 10.43% 9.68% 20.45% 0.00% 0.00% 13.27% 0.00% 12.87% 12.33% media 10.81% 5.12% 4.76% 4.30% 6.41% 10.96% 8.06% 3.23% 4.55% 0.00% 0.00% 7.96% 2.44% 5.94% 6.85% gender year of study school university town M F 1 2 3 4 high school tech. school vocational artistic school religious school Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica 206 59 43 2 8 111 39 98 71 attitudes towards sws -2 20.83% 33.20% 29.27% 35.96% 25.00% 30.56% 29.13% 33.90% 25.58% 0.00% 75.00% 19.82% 46.15% 32.65% 35.21% -1 37.50% 41.30% 26.83% 38.20% 51.32% 47.22% 42.23% 35.59% 39.53% 100.00% 12.50% 48.65% 41.03% 33.67% 36.62% 1 34.72% 24.70% 39.02% 25.84% 23.68% 18.06% 27.67% 27.12% 30.23% 0.00% 0.00% 27.93% 12.82% 31.63% 26.76% 2 6.94% 0.81% 4.88% 0.00% 0.00% 4.17% 0.97% 3.39% 4.65% 0.00% 12.50% 3.60% 0.00% 2.04% 1.41% 241 gender year of study school university town M F 1 2 3 4 high school tech. school vocational artistic school religious school Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica 83 90 76 72 206 60 44 2 8 Do SWs deserve attention? -2 20.27% 12.55% 13.25% 15.56% 13.16% 15.28% 15.53% 10.00% 9.09% 50.00% 25.00% 6.31% 8.11% 22.00% 19.18% -1 9.46% 12.15% 12.05% 11.11% 11.84% 11.11% 8.25% 18.33% 18.18% 50.00% 0.00% 12.61% 8.11% 13.00% 9.59% 0 35.14% 31.58% 37.35% 32.22% 34.21% 25.00% 32.52% 36.67% 29.55% 0.00% 25.00% 42.34% 16.22% 27.00% 32.88% 1 24.32% 26.72% 22.89% 27.78% 31.58% 22.22% 27.18% 18.33% 36.36% 0.00% 12.50% 31.53% 21.62% 25.00% 21.92% 2 10.81% 17.00% 14.46% 13.33% 9.21% 26.39% 16.50% 16.67% 6.82% 0.00% 37.50% 7.21% 45.95% 13.00% 16.44% gender year of study school university town M F 1 2 3 4 high school tech. school vocational artistic school religious school Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica 82 88 76 73 206 59 43 2 8 to abolish SWs? -2 25.68% 12.24% 14.63% 10.23% 11.84% 26.03% 16.99% 13.56% 9.30% 50.00% 12.50% 10.71% 25.71% 17.17% 15.07% -1 12.16% 13.06% 13.41% 13.64% 14.47% 9.59% 13.11% 11.86% 13.95% 50.00% 0.00% 17.86% 5.71% 7.07% 16.44% 0 40.54% 28.16% 36.59% 34.09% 28.95% 23.29% 32.04% 28.81% 30.23% 0.00% 25.00% 38.39% 5.71% 34.34% 27.40% 1 8.11% 17.96% 8.54% 12.50% 25.00% 17.81% 13.11% 18.64% 27.91% 0.00% 0.00% 16.96% 20.00% 13.13% 15.07% 2 13.51% 28.57% 26.83% 29.55% 19.74% 23.29% 24.76% 27.12% 18.60% 0.00% 62.50% 16.07% 42.86% 28.28% 26.03% gender year of study school university town M F 1 2 3 4 high school tech. school vocational artistic school religious school Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica 73 250 82 91 77 73 208 60 44 2 8 112 40 98 73 replacement 1 38.36% 56.80% 40.24% 69.23% 51.95% 46.58% 52.40% 48.33% 54.55% 50.00% 75.00% 49.11% 57.50% 56.12% 50.68% gender year of study school university town M F 1 2 3 4 high school tech. school vocational artistic school religious school Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica 210 62 44 2 8 How do you feel when friends use SWs? -2 6.76% 15.02% 11.90% 16.30% 11.54% 12.33% 12.38% 14.52% 11.36% 0.00% 37.50% 3.54% 34.15% 13.00% 16.44% -1 17.57% 22.53% 20.24% 14.13% 17.95% 35.62% 22.86% 24.19% 11.36% 0.00% 25.00% 19.47% 31.71% 17.00% 24.66% 0 39.19% 40.71% 40.48% 41.30% 44.87% 34.25% 39.52% 38.71% 47.73% 50.00% 25.00% 43.36% 24.39% 46.00% 36.99% 1 25.68% 13.83% 14.29% 20.65% 21.79% 8.22% 17.62% 12.90% 18.18% 50.00% 0.00% 26.55% 4.88% 13.00% 12.33% 2 10.81% 7.91% 13.10% 7.61% 3.85% 9.59% 7.62% 9.68% 11.36% 0.00% 12.50% 7.08% 4.88% 11.00% 9.59% 242 gender year of study school university town M F 1 2 3 4 high school tech. school vocational artistic school religious school Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica 204 60 43 2 7 How do you feel when parents use SWs? -2 30.14% 30.74% 21.43% 39.53% 32.47% 28.57% 31.86% 25.00% 32.56% 0.00% 42.86% 22.52% 32.50% 29.17% 44.29% -1 26.03% 40.16% 36.90% 24.42% 37.66% 51.43% 36.27% 45.00% 27.91% 50.00% 42.86% 31.53% 57.50% 35.42% 35.71% 0 26.03% 22.95% 30.95% 29.07% 23.38% 8.57% 22.06% 23.33% 32.56% 50.00% 0.00% 34.23% 7.50% 26.04% 12.86% 1 13.70% 4.51% 7.14% 5.81% 5.19% 8.57% 7.35% 5.00% 4.65% 0.00% 14.29% 9.01% 2.50% 6.25% 5.71% 2 4.11% 1.64% 3.57% 1.16% 1.30% 2.86% 2.45% 1.67% 2.33% 0.00% 0.00% 2.70% 0.00% 3.13% 1.43% gender year of study school university town M F 1 2 3 4 high school tech. school vocational artistic school religious school Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica How do you feel when teachers use SWs? -2 30.56% 29.88% 30.12% 25.58% 33.33% 31.88% 31.03% 23.73% 36.59% 50.00% 14.29% 22.02% 31.58% 30.21% 41.43% -1 23.61% 48.55% 31.33% 38.37% 50.67% 53.62% 41.38% 49.15% 39.02% 50.00% 42.86% 41.28% 52.63% 38.54% 45.71% 0 25.00% 15.77% 22.89% 27.91% 12.00% 5.80% 18.72% 16.95% 14.63% 0.00% 28.57% 25.69% 7.89% 20.83% 7.14% 1 18.06% 5.81% 14.46% 8.14% 4.00% 7.25% 8.87% 8.47% 7.32% 0.00% 14.29% 9.17% 7.89% 10.42% 5.71% 2 2.78% 0.00% 1.20% 0.00% 0.00% 1.45% 0.00% 1.69% 2.44% 0.00% 0.00% 1.83% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% gender year of study school university town M F 1 2 3 4 high school tech. school vocational artistic school religious school Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica 81 90 78 72 207 61 42 2 8 The impact of SWs in B/C/S -2 29.73% 19.84% 28.40% 25.56% 14.10% 19.44% 21.74% 18.03% 28.57% 100.00% 12.50% 34.82% 0.00% 15.00% 23.61% -1 1.35% 5.67% 2.47% 5.56% 3.85% 6.94% 3.86% 4.92% 7.14% 0.00% 12.50% 4.46% 8.11% 1.00% 8.33% 0 55.41% 38.46% 37.04% 42.22% 55.13% 34.72% 42.51% 47.54% 30.95% 0.00% 62.50% 41.07% 29.73% 58.00% 29.17% 1 5.41% 16.60% 13.58% 11.11% 16.67% 15.28% 14.49% 11.48% 19.05% 0.00% 0.00% 10.71% 24.32% 15.00% 12.50% 2 8.11% 19.43% 18.52% 15.56% 10.26% 23.61% 17.39% 18.03% 14.29% 0.00% 12.50% 8.93% 37.84% 11.00% 26.39% gender year of study school university town M F 1 2 3 4 high school tech. school vocational artistic school religious school Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica 207 59 43 2 8 The impact of SWs in -2 35.14% 32.93% 35.80% 33.71% 24.36% 40.28% 35.75% 23.73% 37.21% 100.00% 12.50% 48.21% 13.89% 26.00% 30.56% -1 5.41% 11.38% 8.64% 11.24% 16.67% 2.78% 9.18% 10.17% 13.95% 0.00% 12.50% 10.71% 8.33% 7.00% 13.89% 243 English 0 52.70% 37.80% 35.80% 43.82% 51.28% 33.33% 40.10% 49.15% 32.56% 0.00% 62.50% 34.82% 25.00% 61.00% 31.94% 1 5.41% 12.20% 13.58% 5.62% 7.69% 16.67% 10.14% 11.86% 11.63% 0.00% 12.50% 4.46% 36.11% 4.00% 16.67% 2 1.35% 5.69% 6.17% 5.62% 0.00% 6.94% 4.83% 5.08% 4.65% 0.00% 0.00% 1.79% 16.67% 2.00% 6.94% gender year of study school university town M F 1 2 3 4 high school tech. school vocational artistic school religious school Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica 66 242 79 85 75 69 200 57 41 2 7 106 39 95 68 SWs to hurt? 1 92.42% 85.12% 94.94% 80.00% 86.67% 85.51% 85.50% 82.46% 95.12% 100.00% 100.00% 88.68% 66.67% 87.37% 94.12% 2 7.58% 14.88% 5.06% 20.00% 13.33% 14.49% 14.50% 17.54% 4.88% 0.00% 0.00% 11.32% 33.33% 12.63% 5.88% gender year of study school university town M F 1 2 3 4 high school tech. school vocational artistic school religious school Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica 70 244 81 87 76 70 201 58 44 2 8 108 37 98 71 power of emotions 1 88.57% 94.26% 93.83% 88.51% 97.37% 92.86% 92.54% 94.83% 90.91% 100.00% 100.00% 92.59% 97.30% 90.82% 94.37% 2 11.43% 5.74% 6.17% 11.49% 2.63% 7.14% 7.46% 5.17% 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% 7.41% 2.70% 9.18% 5.63% gender year of study school university town M F 1 2 3 4 high school tech. school vocational artistic school religious school Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica 84 93 77 72 209 62 44 2 8 Using SWs when no one is there? 1 68.92% 48.81% 52.38% 51.61% 58.44% 51.39% 52.15% 50.00% 70.45% 50.00% 12.50% 67.86% 26.83% 53.47% 45.83% Comparisons of Column Proportions gender year of study school university town M F 1 2 3 4 high school tech. school vocational artistic school religious school Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (A) (B) (C) (D) 0 A C A C 1 B D B D Where do you 0 1 244 hear 0 B D 1 A A sws? 0 1 0 1 attitudes towards sws 1 A A C A 2 A 3 D 4 B A Do SWs deserve attention? -2 A A -1 0 B 1 2 C A C D to abolish SWs? -2 B -1 0 B B B 1 A A A 2 A A replacement 0 B B B 1 A A D How do you feel when friends use SWs? -2 A C A -1 B 0 1 B B 2 How do you feel when parents use SWs? -2 A -1 A B A 0 D D B D 1 B 2 How do you feel when teachers use SWs? -2 A -1 A A 0 D D D 245 1 B 2 The impact of SWs in B/C/S -2 C -1 0 B B D 1 A 2 A A C A The impact of SWs in English -2 B C -1 D 0 B A B D 1 A C A C 2 A C SWs to hurt? 1 B B B B 2 A A C D power of emotions 1 2 Using SWs when no one is there? 0 A C A C A 1 B E B D B gender year of study school university town M F 1 2 3 4 high school tech. school vocational artistic school religious school Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica S_1 54.90% 60.98% 59.09% 56.25% 57.78% 64.86% 64.22% 38.71% 61.29% 100.00% 0.00% 56.58% 54.55% 57.41% 69.70% S_2 3.92% 22.76% 15.91% 12.50% 26.67% 13.51% 16.51% 25.81% 9.68% 0.00% 0.00% 17.11% 36.36% 14.81% 15.15% S_3 9.80% 9.76% 9.09% 6.25% 15.56% 8.11% 9.17% 6.45% 16.13% 0.00% 0.00% 5.26% 18.18% 7.41% 21.21% S_4 3.92% 10.57% 9.09% 6.25% 13.33% 5.41% 11.01% 3.23% 6.45% 0.00% 0.00% 10.53% 27.27% 5.56% 3.03% S_5 7.84% 2.44% 2.27% 6.25% 2.22% 5.41% 4.59% 6.45% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.26% 0.00% 3.70% 3.03% S_6 5.88% 1.63% 2.27% 6.25% 0.00% 2.70% 2.75% 0.00% 6.45% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 7.41% 3.03% 246 S_7 15.69% 11.38% 13.64% 16.67% 13.33% 5.41% 9.17% 22.58% 12.90% 0.00% 100.00% 17.11% 9.09% 14.81% 0.00% Comparisons of Column Proportions gender year of study school university town M F 1 2 3 4 high school tech. school vocational artistic school religious school Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (A) (B) (C) (D) S_1 0 A 1 B S_2 0 B 1 A S_3 0 1 S_4 0 1 S_5 0 1 S_6 0 1 S_7 0 1 gender year of study school university town M F 1 2 3 4 high school tech. school vocationa l artistic school religiou s school Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica 74 245 82 88 76 73 206 59 43 2 8 112 35 99 73 to abolish SWs? - 2 25.68 % 12.24 % 14.63 % 10.23 % 11.84 % 26.03 % 16.99 % 13.56 % 9.30% 50.00% 12.50% 10.71 % 25.71 % 17.17 % 15.07 % - 1 12.16 % 13.06 % 13.41 % 13.64 % 14.47 % 9.59% 13.11 % 11.86 % 13.95% 50.00% 0.00% 17.86 % 5.71% 7.07% 16.44 % 0 40.54% 28.16 % 36.59 % 34.09 % 28.95 % 23.29 % 32.04 % 28.81 % 30.23% 0.00% 25.00% 38.39 % 5.71% 34.34 % 27.40 % 1 8.11% 17.96% 8.54% 12.50 % 25.00 % 17.81 % 13.11 % 18.64 % 27.91% 0.00% 0.00% 16.96 % 20.00 % 13.13 % 15.07 % 2 13.51 28.57 26.83 29.55 19.74 23.29 24.76 27.12 18.60% 0.00% 62.50% 16.07 42.86 28.28 26.03 247 % % % % % % % % % % % % gender year of study school university town M F 1 2 3 4 high school tech. school vocationa l artistic school religiou s school Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica 73 250 82 91 77 73 208 60 44 2 8 112 40 98 73 replacemen t 1 38.36 % 56.80 % 40.24 % 69.23 % 51.95 % 46.58 % 52.40 % 48.33 % 54.55% 50.00% 75.00% 49.11 % 57.50 % 56.12 % 50.68 % gender year of study school university town M F 1 2 3 4 high school tech. school vocationa l artistic school religiou s school Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica 28 142 109 29 24 1 6 E_1 1 28.57% 38.73 % 24.24 % 38.10 % 50.00 % 32.35 % 34.86 % 37.93 % 41.67% 0.00% 50.00% 36.36 % 52.17 % 32.73 % 35.14 % E_2 1 17.86% 9.15% 9.09% 9.52% 12.50 % 11.76 % 11.01 % 6.90% 12.50% 0.00% 16.67% 16.36 % 4.35% 3.64% 16.22 % E_3 1 17.86% 7.04% 6.06% 7.94% 0.00% 23.53 % 7.34% 13.79 % 8.33% 0.00% 16.67% 0.00% 4.35% 12.73 % 18.92 % E_4 1 3.57% 2.82% 0.00% 4.76% 2.50% 2.94% 4.59% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.82% 13.04% 1.82% 0.00% E_5 1 7.14% 9.15% 18.18% 7.94% 5.00% 5.88% 10.09 % 6.90% 8.33% 0.00% 0.00% 3.64% 21.74 % 10.91 % 5.41% E_6 1 25.00% 33.80 % 42.42 % 31.75 % 30.00 % 26.47 % 33.03 % 34.48 % 29.17% 100.00 % 16.67% 41.82 % 4.35% 40.00 % 24.32 % Comparisons of Column Proportions gender year of study school university town 1 2 1 2 3 4 high school tech. school vocational artistic school religious school Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (A) (B) (C) (D) to abolish SWs? -2 B -1 0 B B B 1 A A A 2 A A 248 Comparisons of Column Proportions gender year of study school university town M F 1 2 3 4 high school tech. school vocational artistic school religious school Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (A) (B) (C) (D) replacement 0 B B B 1 A A D Comparisons of Column Proportions gender year of study school university town M F 1 2 3 4 high school tech. school vocational artistic school religious school Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (A) (B) (C) (D) E_1 0 1 E_2 0 1 E_3 0 1 E_4 0 1 E_5 0 1 E_6 0 A C 1 B B gender Year of study School University Town 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica 74 247 83 90 76 72 206 60 44 2 8 111 37 100 73 Do Sws deserve attention - 2 20.27 % 12.55 % 13.25 % 15.56% 13.16 % 15.28 % 15.53 % 10.00 % 9.09% 50.00% 25.00% 6.31% 8.11% 22.00 % 19.18 % - 1 9.46% 12.15 % 12.05 % 11.11% 11.84 % 11.11 % 8.25% 18.33 % 18.18 % 50.00% 0.00% 12.61 % 8.11% 13.00 % 9.59% 249 0 35.14% 31.58 % 37.35 % 32.22% 34.21 % 25.00 % 32.52 % 36.67 % 29.55 % 0.00% 25.00% 42.34 % 16.22 % 27.00 % 32.88 % 1 24.32% 26.72 % 22.89 % 27.78% 31.58 % 22.22 % 27.18 % 18.33 % 36.36 % 0.00% 12.50% 31.53 % 21.62 % 25.00 % 21.92 % 2 10.81% 17.00 % 14.46 % 13.33% 9.21% 26.39 % 16.50 % 16.67 % 6.82% 0.00% 37.50% 7.21% 45.95 % 13.00 % 16.44 % gender Year of study School University Town 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica 74 253 84 92 78 73 210 62 44 2 8 113 41 100 73 Sws and friends 1 6.76% 15.02% 11.90 % 16.30% 11.54 % 12.33 % 12.38 % 14.52 % 11.36 % 0.00% 37.50% 3.54% 34.15 % 13.00 % 16.44 % 2 17.57% 22.53 % 20.24 % 14.13% 17.95 % 35.62 % 22.86 % 24.19 % 11.36 % 0.00% 25.00% 19.47 % 31.71 % 17.00 % 24.66 % 3 39.19% 40.71 % 40.48 % 41.30% 44.87 % 34.25 % 39.52 % 38.71 % 47.73 % 50.00% 25.00% 43.36 % 24.39 % 46.00 % 36.99 % 4 25.68% 13.83 % 14.29 % 20.65% 21.79 % 8.22% 17.62 % 12.90 % 18.18 % 50.00% 0.00% 26.55 % 4.88% 13.00 % 12.33 % 5 10.81% 7.91% 13.10 % 7.61% 3.85% 9.59% 7.62% 9.68% 11.36 % 0.00% 12.50% 7.08% 4.88% 11.00 % 9.59% Gender Year of Study School University Town 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica 73 244 84 86 77 70 204 60 43 2 7 111 40 96 70 Sws and Parents 1 30.14% 30.74 % 21.43 % 39.53% 32.47 % 28.57 % 31.86 % 25.00 % 32.56 % 0.00% 42.86% 22.52 % 32.50 % 29.17 % 44.29 % 2 26.03% 40.16 % 36.90 % 24.42% 37.66 % 51.43 % 36.27 % 45.00 % 27.91 % 50.00% 42.86% 31.53 % 57.50 % 35.42 % 35.71 % 3 26.03% 22.95 % 30.95 % 29.07% 23.38 % 8.57% 22.06 % 23.33 % 32.56 % 50.00% 0.00% 34.23 % 7.50% 26.04 % 12.86 % 4 13.70% 4.51% 7.14% 5.81% 5.19% 8.57% 7.35% 5.00% 4.65% 0.00% 14.29% 9.01% 2.50% 6.25% 5.71% 5 4.11% 1.64% 3.57% 1.16% 1.30% 2.86% 2.45% 1.67% 2.33% 0.00% 0.00% 2.70% 0.00% 3.13% 1.43% Gender Year of Study School University Town 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica 72 241 83 86 75 69 203 59 41 2 7 109 38 96 70 Sws and Teachers 1 30.56 % 29.88 % 30.12 % 25.58% 33.33 % 31.88 % 31.03 % 23.73 % 36.59 % 50.00% 14.29% 22.02 % 31.58 % 30.21 % 41.43 % 250 2 23.61% 48.55 % 31.33 % 38.37% 50.67 % 53.62 % 41.38 % 49.15 % 39.02 % 50.00% 42.86% 41.28 % 52.63 % 38.54 % 45.71 % 3 25.00% 15.77 % 22.89 % 27.91% 12.00 % 5.80% 18.72 % 16.95 % 14.63 % 0.00% 28.57% 25.69 % 7.89% 20.83 % 7.14% 4 18.06% 5.81% 14.46 % 8.14% 4.00% 7.25% 8.87% 8.47% 7.32% 0.00% 14.29% 9.17% 7.89% 10.42 % 5.71% 5 2.78% 0.00% 1.20% 0.00% 0.00% 1.45% 0.00% 1.69% 2.44% 0.00% 0.00% 1.83% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Gender Year of Study School University Town 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica 74 247 81 90 78 72 207 61 42 2 8 112 37 100 72 Mother tongue Sws hurt? - 2 29.73 % 19.84 % 28.40 % 25.56% 14.10 % 19.44 % 21.74 % 18.03 % 28.57 % 100.00 % 12.50% 34.82 % 0.00% 15.00 % 23.61 % - 1 1.35% 5.67% 2.47% 5.56% 3.85% 6.94% 3.86% 4.92% 7.14% 0.00% 12.50% 4.46% 8.11% 1.00% 8.33% 0 55.41% 38.46 % 37.04 % 42.22% 55.13 % 34.72 % 42.51 % 47.54 % 30.95 % 0.00% 62.50% 41.07 % 29.73 % 58.00 % 29.17 % 1 5.41% 16.60% 13.58 % 11.11% 16.67 % 15.28 % 14.49 % 11.48 % 19.05 % 0.00% 0.00% 10.71 % 24.32 % 15.00 % 12.50 % 2 8.11% 19.43% 18.52 % 15.56% 10.26 % 23.61 % 17.39 % 18.03 % 14.29 % 0.00% 12.50% 8.93% 37.84 % 11.00 % 26.39 % Gender Year of Study School University Town 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica 74 246 81 89 78 72 207 59 43 2 8 112 36 100 72 English Sws hurt? - 2 35.14 % 32.93 % 35.80 % 33.71% 24.36 % 40.28 % 35.75 % 23.73 % 37.21 % 100.00 % 12.50% 48.21 % 13.89 % 26.00 % 30.56 % - 1 5.41% 11.38 % 8.64% 11.24% 16.67 % 2.78% 9.18% 10.17 % 13.95 % 0.00% 12.50% 10.71 % 8.33% 7.00% 13.89 % 0 52.70% 37.80 % 35.80 % 43.82% 51.28 % 33.33 % 40.10 % 49.15 % 32.56 % 0.00% 62.50% 34.82 % 25.00 % 61.00 % 31.94 % 1 5.41% 12.20% 13.58 % 5.62% 7.69% 16.67 % 10.14 % 11.86 % 11.63 % 0.00% 12.50% 4.46% 36.11 % 4.00% 16.67 % 2 1.35% 5.69% 6.17% 5.62% 0.00% 6.94% 4.83% 5.08% 4.65% 0.00% 0.00% 1.79% 16.67% 2.00% 6.94% gender Year of Study School University Town 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica 66 242 79 85 75 69 200 57 41 2 7 106 39 95 68 251 To hurt a speaker? 1 92.42% 85.12 % 94.94 % 80.00% 86.67 % 85.51 % 85.50 % 82.46 % 95.12 % 100.00 % 100.00 % 88.68 % 66.67 % 87.37 % 94.12 % 2 7.58% 14.88% 5.06% 20.00% 13.33 % 14.49 % 14.50 % 17.54 % 4.88% 0.00% 0.00% 11.32 % 33.33 % 12.63 % 5.88% Gender Year of Study School University Town 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica 70 244 81 87 76 70 201 58 44 2 8 108 37 98 71 Which Sws describe emotions? 1 88.57% 94.26 % 93.83 % 88.51% 97.37 % 92.86 % 92.54 % 94.83 % 90.91 % 100.00 % 100.00 % 92.59 % 97.30 % 90.82 % 94.37 % 2 11.43% 5.74% 6.17% 11.49% 2.63% 7.14% 7.46% 5.17% 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% 7.41% 2.70% 9.18% 5.63% Comparisons of Column Proportions Gender Year of Study School University Town 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 Banja Luka Mostar Tuzla Zenica (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (A) (B) (C) (D) Do Sws deserve attention -2 A A -1 0 B 1 2 C A C D Sws and friends 1 A C A 2 B 3 4 B B 5 Sws and Parents 1 A 2 A B A 3 D D B D 4 B 5 Sws and Teachers 1 A 2 A A 3 D D D 252 gender Year of study School Place of residence M F 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 210 60 43 2 8 189 92 32 Censoring justified? 1 25.0% 25.8% 22.0% 32.6% 20.5% 26.4% 23.8% 25.0% 27.9% 0.0% 62.5% 24.3% 30.4% 15.6% 2 52.8% 61.9% 54.9% 57.6% 73.1% 54.2% 59.5% 66.7% 58.1% 100.0% 25.0% 59.3% 59.8% 68.8% 3 22.2% 12.3% 23.2% 9.8% 6.4% 19.4% 16.7% 8.3% 14.0% 0.0% 12.5% 16.4% 9.8% 15.6% gender Year of study School Place of residence M F 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 209 60 42 2 7 188 90 33 Translation of SWs? 1 9.7% 11.2% 9.6% 16.7% 5.1% 11.4% 8.6% 16.7% 9.5% 0.0% 42.9% 9.6% 14.4% 9.1% 2 45.8% 64.3% 56.6% 58.9% 74.4% 50.0% 59.8% 63.3% 57.1% 100.0% 42.9% 59.0% 61.1% 69.7% 3 44.4% 24.5% 33.7% 24.4% 20.5% 38.6% 31.6% 20.0% 33.3% 0.0% 14.3% 31.4% 24.4% 21.2% 4 B 5 Mother tongue Sws hurt? -2 C -1 0 B B D 1 A 2 A A C A English Sws hurt? -2 B C -1 D 0 B A B D 1 A C A C 2 A C To hurt a speaker? 1 B B B B 2 A A C D Which Sws describe emotions? 1 2 253 gender Year of study School Place of residence 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 204 58 43 2 8 185 88 33 political correctness issues - 2 12.5% 9.4% 9.6% 9.1% 13.3% 8.6% 11.8% 8.6% 2.3% 50.0% 0.0% 10.3% 10.2% 9.1% - 1 6.9% 4.9% 2.4% 6.8% 6.7% 5.7% 4.9% 3.4% 7.0% 0.0% 25.0% 5.4% 5.7% 6.1% 0 51.4% 48.0% 56.6% 42.0% 48.0% 48.6% 47.5% 50.0% 55.8% 0.0% 50.0% 47.0% 50.0% 48.5% 1 19.4% 25.4% 20.5% 30.7% 18.7% 25.7% 24.0% 22.4% 25.6% 50.0% 25.0% 26.5% 21.6% 21.2% 2 9.7% 12.3% 10.8% 11.4% 13.3% 11.4% 11.8% 15.5% 9.3% 0.0% 0.0% 10.8% 12.5% 15.2% gender Year of study School Place of residence 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 74 254 84 93 78 73 211 62 44 2 8 190 94 33 NDP_desc 39.2% 38.2% 38.1% 43.0% 37.2% 34.2% 39.3% 30.6% 38.6% 50.0% 75.0% 37.4% 41.5% 42.4% NDP_orig 37.8% 20.1% 28.6% 17.2% 26.9% 24.7% 24.2% 16.1% 34.1% 50.0% 12.5% 24.2% 20.2% 33.3% NDP_cens 6.8% 12.2% 6.0% 9.7% 12.8% 16.4% 10.0% 12.9% 15.9% 0.0% 0.0% 11.1% 13.8% 6.1% NEP_desc 16.2% 17.3% 14.3% 21.5% 16.7% 15.1% 17.5% 12.9% 11.4% 50.0% 62.5% 18.9% 18.1% 6.1% NEP_orig 37.8% 30.7% 34.5% 30.1% 32.1% 32.9% 33.6% 24.2% 43.2% 0.0% 0.0% 33.7% 28.7% 36.4% NEP_cens 2.7% 4.7% 0.0% 4.3% 3.8% 9.6% 5.2% 4.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.3% 1.1% 3.0% NDP11 NDP12 NDP13 NDP14 NDP15 NDP16 NDP17 NDP18 NDP21 NDP22 NDP23 NDP24 NDP_Cens NDP11 1.000 0.013 0.134 0.899 0.854 0.238 0.440 0.044 . . 0.343 . 0.850 NDP12 0.013 1.000 0.526 0.008 0.870 0.870 0.543 0.000 . . 0.343 . 0.465 NDP13 0.134 0.526 1.000 0.552 0.391 0.622 0.763 0.552 . . 0.708 . . NDP14 0.899 0.008 0.552 1.000 0.503 0.503 0.857 0.643 . . . . . NDP15 0.854 0.870 0.391 0.503 1.000 0.333 0.763 0.503 . . . . 0.206 NDP16 0.238 0.870 0.622 0.503 0.333 1.000 0.748 0.503 . . . . 0.408 NDP17 0.440 0.543 0.763 0.857 0.763 0.748 1.000 0.835 . . . . . NDP18 0.044 0.000 0.552 0.643 0.503 0.503 0.835 1.000 . . . . . NDP21 . . . . . . . . 1.000 0.090 0.026 0.001 0.837 NDP22 . . . . . . . . 0.090 1.000 0.291 0.427 0.016 254 NDP23 0.343 0.343 0.708 . . . . . 0.026 0.291 1.000 0.332 0.217 NDP24 . . . . . . . . 0.001 0.427 0.332 1.000 0.334 NDP_Cens 0.850 0.465 . . 0.206 0.408 . . 0.837 0.016 0.217 0.334 1.000 NEP11 0.000 0.372 0.281 0.252 0.839 0.671 . 0.925 . . . . 0.386 NEP12 0.472 0.001 0.848 0.042 0.431 0.207 . 0.042 . . . . 0.386 NEP13 0.202 0.790 0.574 0.005 0.359 0.117 . 0.487 . . . . . NEP14 0.891 0.595 0.606 0.524 0.000 0.078 . 0.524 . . . . 0.386 NEP15 0.671 0.393 0.775 0.006 0.642 0.775 . 0.724 . . . . . NEP16 0.891 0.124 0.606 0.524 0.401 0.606 . 0.002 . . . . . NEP17 0.487 0.069 0.160 0.452 0.102 0.543 . 0.364 . . . . 0.083 NEP21 0.268 0.865 0.632 0.632 0.492 0.229 . 0.632 0.751 0.108 0.232 0.473 0.362 NEP22 0.545 0.614 0.706 0.706 0.588 0.588 . 0.706 0.878 0.048 0.630 0.957 0.299 NEP23 0.679 0.270 0.796 0.796 0.711 0.711 . 0.796 0.419 0.419 0.766 0.551 0.694 NEP24 0.590 0.201 0.413 0.413 0.751 0.070 . 0.413 0.823 0.053 0.572 0.003 0.758 NEP_Cens 0.937 0.205 . . 0.404 0.347 . . 0.026 0.621 0.026 . 0.000 NEP11 NEP12 NEP13 NEP14 NEP15 NEP16 NEP17 NEP21 NEP22 NEP23 NEP24 NEP_Cens NDP11 0.000 0.472 0.202 0.891 0.671 0.891 0.487 0.268 0.545 0.679 0.590 0.937 NDP12 0.372 0.001 0.790 0.595 0.393 0.124 0.069 0.865 0.614 0.270 0.201 0.205 NDP13 0.281 0.848 0.574 0.606 0.775 0.606 0.160 0.632 0.706 0.796 0.413 . NDP14 0.252 0.042 0.005 0.524 0.006 0.524 0.452 0.632 0.706 0.796 0.413 . NDP15 0.839 0.431 0.359 0.000 0.642 0.401 0.102 0.492 0.588 0.711 0.751 0.404 NDP16 0.671 0.207 0.117 0.078 0.775 0.606 0.543 0.229 0.588 0.711 0.070 0.347 NDP17 . . . . . . . . . . . . NDP18 0.925 0.042 0.487 0.524 0.724 0.002 0.364 0.632 0.706 0.796 0.413 . NDP21 . . . . . . . 0.751 0.878 0.419 0.823 0.026 NDP22 . . . . . . . 0.108 0.048 0.419 0.053 0.621 NDP23 . . . . . . . 0.232 0.630 0.766 0.572 0.026 NDP24 . . . . . . . 0.473 0.957 0.551 0.003 . NDP_Cens 0.386 0.386 . 0.386 . . 0.083 0.362 0.299 0.694 0.758 0.000 NEP11 1.000 0.031 0.166 0.379 0.302 0.749 0.012 . . . . . NEP12 0.031 1.000 0.156 0.496 0.122 0.002 0.000 . . . . . NEP13 0.166 0.156 1.000 0.744 0.586 0.285 0.187 . . . . . 255 NEP14 0.379 0.496 0.744 1.000 0.618 0.327 0.227 . . . . . NEP15 0.302 0.122 0.586 0.618 1.000 0.586 0.502 . . . . . NEP16 0.749 0.002 0.285 0.327 0.586 1.000 0.187 . . . . . NEP17 0.012 0.000 0.187 0.227 0.502 0.187 1.000 . . . . . NEP21 . . . . . . . 1.000 0.156 0.049 0.044 1.000 NEP22 . . . . . . . 0.156 1.000 0.144 0.714 0.445 NEP23 . . . . . . . 0.049 0.144 1.000 0.472 0.445 NEP24 . . . . . . . 0.044 0.714 0.472 1.000 0.593 NEP_Cens . . . . . . . 1.000 0.445 0.445 0.593 1.000 gende r Year of study school Place of residence 1-2 1-2 1-3 1-4 2-3 2-4 3-4 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 2-3 2-4 2-5 3-4 3-5 4-5 1-2 1-3 2-3 NDP11 0.605 0.623 0.57 0 0.51 8 0.56 5 0.51 4 0.47 7 0.62 2 0.68 5 0.42 0 0.05 7 0.58 6 0.37 6 0.05 3 0.40 1 0.05 5 0.04 1 0.49 3 0.08 2 0.06 9 NDP12 0.062 0.219 0.07 8 0.21 9 0.20 5 0.96 3 0.20 5 0.53 2 0.39 2 0.09 1 0.43 0 0.43 3 0.09 8 0.47 7 0.07 9 0.35 7 0.08 5 0.78 4 0.49 6 0.53 4 NDP13 0.465 0.133 0.08 6 0.13 1 0.35 2 0.65 2 0.34 5 0.81 9 0.88 5 0.77 4 0.29 7 0.83 4 0.74 5 0.29 2 0.78 6 0.29 9 0.28 5 0.66 1 0.22 0 0.21 5 NDP14 0.212 0.043 0.11 6 0.11 7 0.19 6 0.19 9 0.88 6 0.33 2 0.57 1 0.65 5 0.52 4 0.33 0 0.36 3 0.30 9 0.65 1 0.52 1 0.59 1 0.02 3 0.17 4 0.03 4 NDP15 0.813 0.264 0.03 5 0.07 5 0.05 5 0.12 2 0.01 8 0.25 8 0.06 9 0.27 5 0.18 8 0.12 4 0.61 0 0.37 1 0.13 1 0.09 3 0.39 9 0.88 3 0.86 2 0.87 9 NDP16 0.308 0.084 0.01 3 0.07 0 0.05 5 0.38 2 0.04 6 0.44 2 0.38 4 0.47 9 0.30 8 0.47 3 0.61 0 0.37 1 0.51 3 0.32 5 0.39 9 0.38 3 0.56 9 0.49 3 NDP17 0.597 0.192 0.46 6 0.52 9 0.18 5 0.20 3 0.50 3 0.57 8 0.59 8 0.67 6 0.63 4 0.61 0 0.69 3 0.64 8 0.72 4 0.67 4 0.78 7 0.42 4 0.52 4 0.51 4 NDP18 0.045 0.242 0.26 2 0.80 7 0.11 3 0.25 3 0.27 4 0.33 2 0.57 1 0.65 5 0.52 4 0.33 0 0.36 3 0.30 9 0.65 1 0.52 1 0.59 1 0.40 7 0.30 3 0.36 9 NDP21 0.898 0.087 0.18 1 0.16 0 0.11 6 0.10 4 0.21 9 0.30 7 0.63 8 0.72 3 0.72 3 0.26 5 0.28 4 0.28 4 0.56 9 0.56 9 0.63 3 0.57 8 0.20 5 0.25 5 NDP22 0.209 0.418 0.11 9 0.47 7 0.12 9 0.54 0 0.14 2 0.01 9 0.21 2 0.67 3 0.67 3 0.00 9 0.01 9 0.01 9 0.20 9 0.20 9 0.65 7 0.04 8 0.07 8 0.08 1 NDP23 0.700 0.106 0.44 1 0.50 5 0.12 2 0.13 4 0.63 5 0.10 2 0.13 4 0.66 8 0.66 8 0.02 8 0.09 5 0.09 5 0.12 5 0.12 5 0.58 8 0.59 3 0.56 6 0.60 0 NDP24 0.096 0.144 0.30 3 0.28 6 0.21 2 0.20 1 0.45 5 0.78 2 0.87 7 0.77 1 0.77 1 0.75 5 0.69 1 0.69 1 0.74 5 0.74 5 0.68 3 0.01 0 0.14 8 0.03 3 NDP_Cen 0.948 0.027 0.04 1 0.04 1 0.38 2 0.39 1 0.86 7 0.36 9 0.01 5 - 0.26 0 0.01 0 - 0.16 4 - 0.00 8 - 0.25 6 0.13 6 0.14 0 NEP11 0.961 0.017 0.01 6 0.00 1 0.79 4 0.01 7 0.01 7 0.77 4 0.49 3 0.15 9 0.73 0 0.48 9 0.15 8 0.72 1 0.12 3 0.47 3 0.15 4 0.30 3 0.03 4 0.04 2 256 NEP12 0.709 0.091 0.40 8 0.15 8 0.14 1 0.06 2 0.25 2 0.61 0 0.13 2 0.28 2 0.23 5 0.11 2 0.23 5 0.19 8 0.06 4 0.05 5 0.11 0 0.04 7 0.05 9 0.04 6 NEP13 0.622 0.098 0.17 8 0.17 6 0.28 8 0.28 5 0.64 2 0.20 4 0.27 7 0.43 5 0.39 5 0.17 3 0.25 7 0.23 7 0.35 5 0.32 4 0.52 7 0.12 0 0.33 8 0.14 9 NEP14 0.452 0.775 0.14 3 0.23 8 0.14 9 0.24 9 0.06 5 0.16 1 0.39 8 0.53 6 0.35 3 0.14 2 0.17 7 0.12 9 0.45 0 0.30 5 0.39 6 0.38 0 0.44 9 0.40 7 NEP15 0.452 0.453 0.33 6 0.23 4 0.43 9 0.29 6 0.22 8 0.53 9 0.04 6 0.73 1 0.60 6 0.04 0 0.56 4 0.48 8 0.04 7 0.04 3 0.63 7 0.31 3 0.50 0 0.39 7 NEP16 0.622 0.098 0.15 8 0.15 3 0.25 4 0.24 5 0.43 9 0.27 8 0.58 9 0.00 8 0.38 7 0.23 7 0.00 4 0.17 3 0.00 7 0.32 4 0.00 5 0.26 9 0.37 3 0.31 5 NEP17 0.466 0.785 0.33 6 0.41 1 0.32 3 0.39 4 0.20 9 0.38 5 0.14 3 0.40 5 0.48 3 0.16 3 0.48 1 0.58 8 0.16 9 0.19 4 0.62 9 0.09 1 0.21 0 0.14 0 NEP21 0.215 0.058 0.18 9 0.30 0 0.07 0 0.10 5 0.38 4 0.45 8 0.66 7 - - 0.51 0 - - - - - 0.12 7 0.06 8 0.09 6 NEP22 0.056 0.053 0.12 9 0.11 8 0.22 7 0.20 5 0.69 9 0.25 1 0.11 4 - - 0.15 6 - - - - - 0.01 9 0.14 9 0.01 5 NEP23 0.353 0.294 0.40 1 0.39 6 0.52 2 0.51 5 0.86 6 0.18 7 0.41 8 - - 0.23 9 - - - - - 0.36 4 0.34 1 0.19 6 NEP24 0.552 0.276 0.67 4 0.22 0 0.26 8 0.11 0 0.21 4 0.47 5 0.24 2 - - 0.30 6 - - - - - 0.09 6 0.13 1 0.03 0 NEP_Cen s 0.766 0.07 1 0.07 8 0.06 8 0.57 3 0.46 2 0.53 1 0.27 6 0.22 0 - 0.32 9 0.24 9 - 0.37 7 - 0.29 5 - 0.05 4 0.24 0 0.11 0 257 Prilog 1. lzjava o autorstvu Potpisana Jelena llic Broj upisa lzjavljujem da je doktorska disertacija pod naslovom The Attitudes of Newer Generation of Students of English towards the Taboo Word Usage within English and Bosniac I Croatian I Serbian Speaking Regions • rezultat sopstvenog istrazivackog rada, • da predlozena disertacija u celini ni u delovima nije bila predlozena za dobijanje bilo koje diplome prema studijskim programima drugih visokoskolskih ustanova, • da su rezultati korektno navedeni i • da nisam krsila autorska prava i koristila intelektualnu svojinu drugih lica. Potpis doktoranda U Beogradu, 2012. godine 258 Prilog 2. lzjava 0 istovetnosti stampane i elektronske verzije doktorskog rada lme i prezime autora Jelena llic Broj upisa Studijski program Anglistika, predmet Engleski jezik Naslov rada The Attitudes of Newer Generation of Students of English towards the Taboo Word Usage within- English and Bosniac I Croatian I Serbian Speaking Regions Mentor doc.dr. Ivana Trbojevic Milosevic, docent Potpisana ___ __ lzjavljujem da je stampana verzija mog doktorskog rada istovetna elektronskoj verziji koju sam predala za objavljivanje na portalu Digitalnog repozitorijuma Univerziteta u Beogradu. Dozvoljavam da se objave moji licni podaci vezani za dobijanje akademskog zvanja doktora nauka, kao sto su ime i prezime, godina i mesto rodenja i datum odbrane rada. Ovi licni podaci mogu se objaviti na mreznim stranicama digitalne biblioteke, u elektronskom katalogu i u publikacijama Univerziteta u Beogradu. Potpis doktoranda U Beogradu, 2012. godine 259 Prilog 3. lzjava o koriscenju Ovlascujem Univerzitetsku biblioteku "Svetozar Markovic" da u Digitalni repozitorijum Univerziteta u Beogradu unese moju doktorsku disertaciju pod naslovom: The Attitudes of Newer Generation of Students of English towards the Taboo Word Usage within English and Bosniac I Croatian I Serbian Speaking Regions koja je moje autorsko selo. Disertaciju sa svim prilozima predala sam u elektronskom formatu pogodnom za trajno arhiviranje. Moju doktorsku disertaciju pohranjenu u Digitalni repozitorijum Univerziteta u Beogradu mogu da koriste svi koji postuju odredbe sadrzane u odabranom tipu licence Kreativne zajednice (Creative Commons) za koju sam se odluCila. 1. Autorstvo 2 .Autorstvo - nekomercijalno 3. Autorstvo- nekomercijalno - bez prerade 4. Autorstvo- nekomercijalno- deliti pod istim uslovima 5. Autorstvo - bez prerade 6. Autorstvo- deliti pod istim uslovima Potpis doktoranda U Beogradu, 2012. godine