CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.

uk
Provided by Göteborgs universitets publikationer - e-publicering och e-arkiv

ENGLISH

Bad Language in Reality

-A study of swear words, expletives and gender in reality
television

Anna Fälthammar Schippers

Supervisor:

Mats Mobärg

BA thesis Examiner:

Fall 2013 Joseph Trotta

Abstract

Title: Bad Language in Reality – A study of swear words, expletives and gender in reality
television

Author: Anna Fälthammar Schippers

Supervisor: Mats Mobärg

Abstract: This essay is a study on swearing in modern English on television from a

sociolinguistic point of view, taking into account the effect that variables such as nationality,
social class and gender might have on the expletive usage in the examined material. After a
general discussion of expletives and their functions, the question of whether there is a
relationship between gender and the use of expletives is addressed. A review of previous
research on the subject suggests a difference in opinion between traditional sociolinguistic
studies, in which the differences between male and female speech have often been
highlighted, and where female speech has been characterized as more polite, aiming for
standard language and avoiding expletives, while modern feminist critics argue that these are
stereotypes perpetuated through the ages which have little support of empirical evidence. The
second half of the paper reports the results from an investigation on the use of expletives in
two reality television programs with the same basic features; one American – Jersey Shore,
and one British – Geordie Shore. The results of this investigation seem to contradict the
stereotypical notions of women as less prone to use expletives than men. Possible reasons for
this, including group identity and social class, are discussed.

Keywords: Swearing, swear words, expletives, covert prestige, gender, reality television

2
Contents

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 4
1.1 Aim and scope..................................................................................................... 5
1.2 Defining expletives ............................................................................................. 5
1.3 The language of swearing ................................................................................... 7
1.3.1 Word formation .......................................................................................... 7
1.3.2 Motives for swearing .................................................................................. 8
1.3.3 Syntactic functions of swearing.................................................................. 9
2. Theoretical framework and previous research ............................................................. 10
2.1 Swearing and identity ....................................................................................... 11
2.2 Gendered swearing ........................................................................................... 12
3. Material ........................................................................................................................ 14
3.1 Jersey Shore and Geordie Shore ....................................................................... 15
3.2 Data collection and Swear word selection ........................................................ 17
3.3 Reliability, Validity and Representativeness..................................................... 17
4. Results .......................................................................................................................... 19
4.1 Swear words – frequency and different types ................................................... 19
4.2 Comparison between nationalities and sexes .................................................... 20
4.3 Taboo areas ....................................................................................................... 22
4.4 Word classes ..................................................................................................... 24
4.5 Situations........................................................................................................... 27
4.6 Censoring .......................................................................................................... 27
4.7 Euphemisms ...................................................................................................... 28
5. Discussion .................................................................................................................... 29
5.1 Word choices and their characteristics ............................................................. 29
5.2 Similarities and differences between the American and British speakers ........ 30
5.3 Gendered swearing............................................................................................ 31
5.4 Bleeps and censorship ....................................................................................... 32
6. Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 33
7. References .................................................................................................................... 35
8. Appendix ...................................................................................................................... 37

3
1. Introduction
Swearing is an interesting aspect of language, one that involves both emotional and linguistic
expression. It exists in most people’s repertoire, but is also accompanied by a certain degree
of taboo. Unlike language in general, swearing is not typically taught by authority figures in
the usual sense (parents, school), but is rather picked up from peers or figures with a different
kind of authority (for example idols in sports or show business). To most people, swearing has
negative connotations and is seen as bad language; something ugly, not appropriate, and is
associated with low social class and low prestige. Despite this, some researchers suggest that
swearing has an important role in children’s cognitive and social development and therefore
should be encouraged within the right contexts (Andersson & Trudgill, 1992). Swear words
and the act of swearing have long been the objects of research within a variety of disciplines
including linguistics, neurolinguistics, psycholinguistics and developmental psychology,
sexuality, education, history, sociology, social psychology, women’s studies and nursing
(Thelwall, 2008:84; Crystal, 2003:364), which tells us that an analysis of swearing can
provide insights on many levels. Linguistic studies on the subject have nonetheless been
infrequent, and the pioneers within this field were often met with the attitude that swearing
and bad language do not belong in academic studies. Other problems working against
swearing as an object of study is that expletives are typically found in spoken language, and
are far less common in written language for social and functional reasons. Such a study has
been difficult in the past, due to the absence of corpus resources, but the production of the
British National Corpus (BNC) has facilitated studies of this kind, which can be seen in, for
example, research projects like that by McEnery and Xiao (2004).
How frequently one swears and how strong swear words one uses are habits strongly
tied to gender roles and culture. The expressions that are used in swearing involve elements
that are in some way taboo or stigmatized, and studying swearing can teach us something
about values and expectations in society. Swearing has often been pointed out in previous
studies as something that distinguishes male speech from female speech, in that male speakers
use more and stronger swear words (McEnery, 2005). However, recent feminist criticism has
suggested that the majority of these studies lack empirical evidence for their claims, or appear
to highlight the differences for the sake of keeping in line with the common dichotomy of
inherent differences between the sexes (Hughes, 1992, de Klerk, 1991, Stapleton, 2003).
Since swearing traditionally has been seen as something manly and tough, men have also been
said to be unique in earning a positive response to their expletive usage; something

4
sociolinguists call covert prestige, which I will discuss in more detail in section 2.1.
Especially among members of the working class, swearing could sometimes be demanded of
people wishing to show their solidarity and sense of belonging to this group. Some
researchers have suggested that the concept of earning covert prestige from swearing also
includes women to a certain degree, especially in some specific groups (Trudgill, 1972 in
Hughes, 1992). As an example, the informants of Hughes’ study (1992) on a group of
working class women seem to fit this description.
In this essay I take a closer look at swearing in two reality television shows, taking into
account the effect that variables such as nationality, social class and gender might have on the
expletive usage in the examined material. I use the cover term expletive to refer to taboo or
swear words in general and alternate between the terms expletive and swear word, which are
regarded as synonyms throughout this essay.

1.1 Aim and scope

The aim and scope of this study is to give an account of expletives occurring in two reality
television programmes and if possible to find answers to the following questions:
What types of swearing are represented? What areas of taboo and word classes do the
different expletives used belong to, and in what situations are expletives prevalent? Is there a
difference in expletive usage between male and female speakers? What differences can be
seen between British and American speakers in their choice and use of expletives? What
influence does the medium of television have on the speech choices of the participants? And
finally, can any conclusions about gendered swearing in these two nationalities be drawn from
the results?

1.2 Defining expletives

Andersson and Trudgill (1992) have defined swearing as “a type of language use in which the
expression (a) refers to something that is taboo and/or stigmatized in the culture; (b) should
not be interpreted literally; (c) can be used to express strong emotions and attitudes”. The
word shit can be used as a representative example; it literally refers to a tabooed item,
excrement. However, when the word is used for swearing, the literal and referential meaning
is lost. Instead it is used in an emotive sense, to express feeling and attitudes (1992:53). Thus,
words have to be used in a figurative sense, and include taboo elements, to be classified as
swear words. They are emotive formulas which get their meaning from their generally

5
accepted status as, precisely, formulas and not “normal language”. This is also what makes
many words and expressions interchangeable as expletives; they convey a general emotive
code (Ljung, 1984:23ff, 36).
Swearwords belong in the area of linguistic taboo, but as they form part of a continuum,
they are not always easily distinguishable from slang. It is particularly hard to differentiate
between mild swearing and slang when the latter is used in an abusive context. Crystal (2003)
draws a distinction between the language of taboo, the language of abuse (invective) and the
language of swearing, though the three may overlap or coincide: “obscenity, which involves
the expression of indecent sexuality – ‘dirty’ or ‘rude’ words; blasphemy, which shows
contempt or lack of reverence specifically towards God or gods; and profanity, which has a
wider range, including irrelevant reference to holy things or people”. Furthermore, Crystal
underlines that the term swearing often is used as a “general label for all kinds of ‘foul-
mouthed’ language, whatever its purpose” (2003:173).
Swearing can be used to show strong emotions, but it does not have to be “emotional”.
Swearing has important social functions that seem as important as the aggressive one, such as
being an identity marker and to show either social distance or social solidarity. Swearing can
also be used for its shock value or to create a certain stylistic effect. Emotional swearing is
often instinctive, as a reaction to annoyance or stress of some sort, such as when pain is
inflicted or a strong reaction of anger or disappointment is provoked. In these situations it has
actually been shown that swearing can have a stress reducing, and even pain reducing,
function (Crystal, 2003:173). In other cases, where the speaker has more control over the
situation and is not solely acting out of instinct, swear words can range from being emotive
constructions to purely stylistic expressions (Ljung, 1984:12).
Whether intended or coincidental, swear words convey a certain stylistic effect, the
impact of which can be very different depending on the hearers and situation (Ljung,
1984:18). Expletives vary in force from very mild to very strong, their likeliness to cause
offence being subject to variables such as context, levels of formality, relationships, age,
culture and social class. The class aspect of swearing is highlighted by McEnery while loosely
defining swearing as the use of a word or phrase which is likely to cause offence when it is
used in “middle class polite conversation” (2005:2). The perceived strength of an expletive is
determined by the intensity of the taboo associated with it. What is seen as taboo differs with
the above mentioned variables, and expletives are subject to inflation; overuse tends to
diminish their effect, and their likeliness to cause offence tends to decrease over time as new
words gradually take their place. As an example, religious swear words have gone from very

6
strong to mild in our present day secularized western societies. Still, the most typical forms of
swearing in English involve blasphemic utterances, bodily functions, and sex. This can be
explained by the fact that it has long been considered taboo to profane religious matters and
that sex and excretion have been seen as unmentionable, especially in western societies
(Ljung, 1984:25-29; 2006:38).
Expletives are realized by taboo words or by euphemisms for such; a word or
expression that is milder or less direct than the intended term. There is a set of “standard”
euphemisms for most known swearwords, and a plenitude of more or less creative
alternatives. Previous research has often shown that female speakers use more euphemisms
for expletives than male speakers, which supports the assumption that women are prone to use
more standard language than men (McEnery, 2005). Euphemisms can be seen as a form of
self-censoring, where the speaker controls the intended use of an expletive in situations where
such an utterance is deemed to be inappropriate.

1.3 The language of swearing

Frequent swearers are often accused of having a poor and insufficient vocabulary. However,
perhaps contrary to popular belief, the language of swearing is rich in diversity, and to a
certain degree innovative in word choices and usage, and productive in derivation and
compounding. A closer look at swearing from a grammatical point of view shows an aspect of
language that has its own anatomy with distinctive syntactic and morphological patterns. A
brief review of said patterns follows below.

1.3.1Word formation
The syntactic and morphological patterns of swearing are outlined by Andersson and Hirsch
(1985:1.35-49), using the following grammatical hierarchy over the different elements in
which swearing can appear:
1, As separate utterances,
2, as “adsentences” ,
3, as major constituents of a sentence,
4, as part of a constituent of a sentence, or
5, as part of a word.

The first type of construction is very common, and includes for example expletives like “shit!,
fuck!, hell!”, and abusives like “you bastard!, you motherfucker!”. Constructions within this
category can be elaborated and varied endlessly; especially when it comes to abusive

7
swearing and name-calling, and most taboo-categories can appear here. In the second type,
swearing expressions are loosely tied to a sentence, and occur as complements before or after
ordinary grammatical sentences. These expressions serve several communicative functions,
the primary one being to contribute to the expressive and evocative functions of the utterance.
They can occur either in initial position, like in the example “shit, I forgot my keys!”, or final
position, as in “shut up, you bastard!”. The third type of swearing expressions function as
major constituents of a sentence; namely subject, object, or predicate. Most abusive
expressions and name-calling can be used as subjects and objects, as in the two examples
“that bastard doesn’t know anything” and “throw that shit away!”. Verbal functions are not
common, but do occur, as in the examples “he fucks up everything!”.
In the fourth group, swearing expressions function as modifying elements; like
adjectival modification, adverbs of degree or modifying a question word. Here we find two
other functions of the word fucking; as adjectival modification, which can be seen in the
example “That fucking train is always late”, and as adverb of degree in constructions such as
“We saw a fucking good film!”. A question word can also be modified by a swearing
expression to add extra emphasis as in “Who the hell has taken my books? Expressions in the
last level of the hierarchy include swearing elements that are combined with another word;
occurring before the word as prefixes, inside the word as infixes or after the word as suffixes.
Prefixing and suffixing are both common processes in productive word formation, which can
be illustrated using the examples shit as in “shitfaced”, and ass as in lame-ass. Infixing a
swearword is a more peculiar construction, which seems to be restricted to nouns, adjectives
and adverbs, a representative example being “abso-fucking-lutely!”. This last group shows
taboo items combined with non-taboo items creating compound swear words. Swear words
can appear as solid compounds, where the different morphemes appear as one word, either
morphed together or hyphenated. They can also appear as loose compounds, where the
morphemes are not connected but still form a unit, either together with other swear words, or
with non-taboo items where the association with taboo items create swearing expressions.

1.3.2 Motives for swearing

Andersson and Hirsch have (1985:1.6) listed two fundamental types of motives which could
potentially elicit swearing behaviour; the first motive, ‘because of’, causes behaviour in a
reactive sense, while in the second one, ‘in order to’, the behaviour is active and goal-
oriented. Swearing in the reactive category can typically be classed as expressive language

8
use, while in the active category it is primarily evocative language use, however, there is some
overlap between the two categories. The different motives have been summarized in the
following figure (Andersson & Hirsch, 1985:1.8):

Motives

Because of In order to
(Expressive language function) (Evocative language function)
Violation of expectations or norms Social goals
Functional (frustration) Contact
Ethical Group identity (solidarity)
Aesthetic Dominance
Religious Intimacy
Emotional and psychological states Psychological goals
Pain Arousal – interest
Anger Interpersonal attitudes
Fear Memory
Joy .
Grief .
Disgust .
Surprise – wonder .

Figure 1 – The different motives of swearing

1.3.3Syntactic functions of swearing

Expletives used for the purpose of expressing irritation or surprise are very common
emotional swearing functions. Expressions of this kind are not directed at anyone, but
function as a commentary on the speaker’s situation, and often take the form of exclamations
that work independently as a separate utterance (Ljung, 2006:40-43). Swearing directed at
someone else can be called invectives or abuse; such items include using unfriendly
imperatives and expressions of dislike, directly addressing or mentioning somebody in a
derogatory or pejorative way by using a taboo word which has lost its original meaning in the
circumstances (Lindhe,1994:12-24).
When used for the purpose of achieving a stylistic effect, swearwords are often markers
of emphasis or expressions of negativity. However, the same words can be used for
expressing the opposite sentiment, and some swearwords can be used both as general

9
expletives and as insults. This is clearly seen in Hughes (1992), where all informants reported
that they used the same words differently when happy or annoyed, and that the same words
could be considered “just words” in general conversation or be used in an abusive way. They
also stress that they would be offended by a word only when it is used as abuse, and that they
use the same words as terms of endearment as well as insults. Her conclusion from these
results is that “…swearwords only become powerful when used as swearwords. In general,
they are used as adjectives or for emphasis, in which case they lack power for the user”
(Hughes, 1992:298).
Common swearing functions have been categorized by McEnery (2006:32), and can be
seen in the model here below:

 Predicative negative adjective: ‘the film is shit’

 Adverbial booster: ‘Fucking marvellous’ ‘Fucking awful’
 Cursing expletive: ‘Fuck You!/Me!/Him!/it!’
 Destinational usage: ‘Fuck off!’ ‘He fucked off’
 Emphatic adverb/adjective: ‘He fucking did it’ ‘In the fucking car’
 Figurative extension of literal meaning: ‘to fuck about’
 General expletive: ‘(Oh) Fuck!’
 Idiomatic ‘set phrase’: ‘fuck all’ ‘give a fuck’
 Literal usage denoting taboo referent: ‘We fucked’
 Imagery based on literal meaning: ‘kick shit out of’
 Premodifying intensifying negative adjective: ‘the fucking idiot’
 ‘Pronominal’ form with undefined referent: ‘got shit to do’
 ‘Reclaimed’ usage – no negative intent, e.g. Niggers/Niggaz as used by African
American rappers
 Religious oaths used for emphasis: ‘by God’

2. Theoretical framework and previous research

Swearing and using expletives is usually associated with breaking language rules, as most
people would regard swearing as “bad language”. The common stereotype is that frequent
swearing suggests that the speaker has an inadequate vocabulary, is uneducated, and belongs
to the working class. However, sociolinguists view the use of expletives as a complex social
phenomenon. McEnery points out that taboo language has gained its power through a process
of stigmatisation, and the development of attitudes that lead to a society problematizing and
making inferences about the users of such language (2006:1). Andersson and Trudgill argue
that although sometimes people swear because they want to be offensive, insulting etcetera,

10
there is more to it than that, and that what is often referred to as “bad language” may only be
so in certain contexts or in certain respects. These distinctions are closely tied to cultures and
ideologies deciding and evaluating what is good and bad. The sort of swearing and the types
of words that are used in a language can, therefore, tell us something about the beliefs and
values of its speakers (1992:14).

2.1 Swearing and Identity

The concept of prestige is central to sociolinguistic analysis. Speech habits and language
variations are assigned a positive or negative value, and this is in turn applied to the speaker.
Through the different choices of speech acts, which can be subconscious or conscious,
speakers show what groups in society they identify themselves with. RP English and accents
like this have overt prestige; they are associated with social power, education and wealth,
which explains why so many people strive to follow this language norm (Ljung, 2006:95).
But the concept of prestige is far from uncomplicated. Language is an important part of group
identification and solidarity and can also be an effective sign of difference, including or
excluding people from a particular group. In this respect standard language forms might not
always be the most valued in certain contexts. This seems to be especially true of working
class vernacular, which has been studied by researchers such as Hudson and Newcastle-born
Milroy, who have pointed to psychologist research showing that low prestige ethnic and
social groups everywhere see their language as a powerful symbol of group identity, and that
it is important for them to maintain this group identity, despite the social benefits that might
be gained from adopting standardized code (Hughes, 1992:295). The use of standard language
within these groups can even be seen as arrogant, snobbish and unnatural (Ljung, 1984:19).
Swearing is usually associated with very informal language or lower-class speakers.
That swearing to a great extent is associated with working class speakers generally makes the
usage of this kind of language outside of what is seen as appropriate (middle class) polite
conversation, something that is regarded as negative and connected with low prestige.
However, swearing can, in the right circumstances, be associated with positive values and
earn the speaker a different kind of prestige. The term covert prestige was coined by Labov,
and is an important notion in sociolinguistic analysis (Andersson & Trudgill, 1992:8).
Trudgill has in his research found that many British middle class men, who do not have a
natural working class pronunciation, often would claim to have it for the sake of seeming
tough and strong: it has covert prestige. This is probably also true when it comes to the use of

11
expletives where informants might be prone to over-report their usage for the sake of gaining
covert prestige (Ljung 2006:95). McEnery argues that swearing or “bad language words” can
be considered markers of distinction, rather than simply markers of difference when
discussing non-prestige forms of language, which can explain the frequent expletive usage in
working-class vernacular (2005:29).
Earning covert prestige from frequent expletive usage is generally said to be more
common among men, as this kind of language has often been associated with toughness,
strength and manliness. However, some researchers have found that this concept might also
be applicable for the expletive usage in young working-class females (Trudgill, 1972, in
Hughes, 1992:295). Milroy noted that for many women within these groups “feminine”
speech may not be an issue, and that the maintenance of class group identity, rather than
adhering to so called “correct” female behaviour might be what is important to these women,
and Hughes concludes that the women in her study are not breaking any language “rules”
prescribing that women should use less slang and expletives than men, but that they are
simply using their language and their norm, which appears to be previously unaccounted for
in linguistic studies (1992: 300). Previous research has shown that, in contrast to traditional
stereotypes on female speech, working class women swear more and use stronger swearwords
than middleclass men. The variable of social class or group membership could, therefore, be
seen as a significant determinant of swearing behaviour, more so than gender.

2.2 Gendered swearing

The classic sociolinguistic pattern is the assumption that there are fundamental differences in
the way men and women speak, and to highlight these differences in linguistic studies. The
main differences that have previously been pointed out are that women are said to use more
formal language and polite forms, and generally aim to come closer to a standard speech norm
than men. These ideas have been reinforced by a number of influential linguists such as
Trudgill (1974) and Lakoff (1975) (in Stapleton, 2003:22), and it has been concluded that
women are more aware of the social impact that language has than men, and that they
therefore adapt their speech by using more correct forms than men in their attempting to come
close to standardized speech norms (Ljung, 2006:93). When it comes to expletive usage, the
gender differences that have been emphasized have been that men use more, and stronger,
more offensive, expletives than women, but that women use milder swear words with a higher
frequency than the men. It has also been shown that both genders are more comfortable with

12
expletive usage in same-sex groups, but that men are more likely to swear in public than
women (Jay & Janschewitz, 2008:274).
However, this traditional view has been criticized by feminist researchers, who see the
classic sociolinguistic pattern, in which women are more polite in their speech than men, as an
overgeneralization. The supposed differences between male and female speech are criticized
for being stereotypical and not supported by empirical evidence. These critics stress that other
factors, such as social networks, social status, age, and education influence female language
use as much as they do male, and older linguistic research involving women is challenged for
being biased, and that results obtained thereof have been distorted, since male forms are taken
as norm and female forms as deviant, and that researchers have failed to support their
hypotheses about sex differences in speech with reliable empirical results. The critics point
out that it is the difference that is emphasized and that overlap is ignored, and that the
characteristics attributed to women often tend to be overgeneralized, when they are only
partially true. The descriptions of women’s more frequent use of polite language are
questioned for being prescriptive rather than descriptive, aiming to prescribe how women
ought to talk, and the traditional assumption, that women and men differ in their use of
swearwords and other taboo words, is criticized for the lack of firm evidence to confirm or
deny this (Hughes, 1992, de Klerk, 1991, Stapleton, 2003).
Although this criticism is not very recent, studies attempting to show a more nuanced
view on female speech and expletive usage have been few and infrequent. Naturally, such a
study will encounter the same obstacles as other studies on the subject, for example that
sufficient research material is hard to find. Nevertheless, there are a few exceptions, all
attempting to show a more complex picture of male and female speech, and to account for
variables that might be more determining factors than simply the gender of the speaker. This
research is presented briefly here below, starting from the oldest and moving onwards to the
most recent among the found examples: de Klerk (1991) highlights the relationship between
social power and expletive use. Based on the results from her study involving160 adolescents
she determines that the stereotypical expectations of non-swearing females are not upheld.
She concludes that the hypothesis of expletive use being connected to social power seems to
be correct, in that expletives are often condoned in males but condemned in females and that
women are socialized into being less verbally aggressive and that they are therefore perceived
as using linguistic behaviour that is weak and powerless. The variable of social class is
explored by Hughes (1992), where she draws the conclusion that aspects such as class and
economic situation, and not simply their sex, are defining factors for women’s swearing and

13
use of strong expletives. For her informants, albeit a small group, swearing is an integral part
of their everyday language. These women are proud of their swearing, but show a strong
sense of morality in where and when it is appropriate to do this.
In more recent research, by for example Stapleton (2003), the relationship between
gender and swearing has been suggested as being more complex and context-specific than has
previously been supposed, and that women’s expletive usage can in some ways be seen as a
transgression of cultural stereotypes and expectations of femininity and a socially accepted
means of constructing a masculine identity. Results of these studies have been that there is a
noticeable difference in frequency of swearing, with men swearing slightly more than women.
The previous notion of a gender difference in the strength of expletives used, however, has
been refuted, as no significant difference of this kind has been recorded. Thelwall (2008)
argues that there is a cultural difference between American and British swearers in terms of
gendered swearing; According to his comprehensive research on Internet based social media
pages (MySpace), women in the UK now use as many strong swear words as the men, while a
clear difference between the sexes can still be seen in the USA. He argues that this could be
indicative of a fundamental difference in gender roles and expectations between these two
countries, and that this paradigmatic shift in the UK could be attributed to the growing so
called “Ladette culture” there. As this subculture engages in binge drinking and gender
reversal behaviour, this could potentially influence women to close in on language behaviour
previously perceived as stereotypically male, including frequent expletive usage. However, it
is not clear what kind of impact the liberating Internet effect might have had on these results.

3. Material
To examine the use of swear words and expletives in modern spoken English, research
material has been collected from the medium of reality television. These types of programs,
with their various settings and subject matter, all have in common that they provide a source
of unscripted dialogues (and often monologues) which are likely to come close to the genuine
speech patterns of the speakers involved.
Reality television is a programme genre documenting unscripted situations and actual
occurrences, often featuring a previously unknown cast and highlighting personal drama and
conflict more than other unscripted television shows such as documentaries. The genre has a
variety of standard tropes including “confessionals”, where cast members express their
thoughts, which are often used as the show´s narration. Reality television began in the 1990’s

14
and exploded as a phenomenon in the early 2000’s. Today various global television channels
are dedicated to the reality format, the most famous one being MTV - the former music video
channel, which since the early 2000’s mainly produces programs of the reality television
genre. Many television channels in the United States use censure, or bleeping, on strong
language subjects, and traditionally follow a list of banned words called “the Dirty Seven”
(Seven dirty words 2013, Wikipedia [online]). MTV is a channel that does not use censoring
or bleeping, which is a prerequisite for my research and the reason why programs from this
channel have been used as material.

3.1 Jersey Shore and Geordie Shore

In order to facilitate comparison between swearing in American and British English two
programs mirroring each other have been chosen; the American original Jersey Shore and the
English remake Geordie Shore. Both programs are known for exhibiting strong language and
uninhibited behaviour in their cast members, which makes them suitable as materials for a
study of swear words. The two reality shows have the same fundamental conditions and basic
features: a group of people in their early twenties, four male and four female, previously
unknown to each other, are placed in a house together and have to coexist peacefully for a
limited amount of time (a month). Obstacles against this being possible is the clash of the
various colourful personalities being cramped together under pressure and a constant and
large amount of freely flowing alcoholic substances which tend to loosen the inhibitions of
everybody involved. The viewed portion of the programs consists to a large extent of free
activities and dialogue, mixed with a commentary of individual confessionals. However, there
are also some prearranged activities in which the cast have to take part; for example the cast
of Jersey Shore have to take turns to work shifts in a t-shirt store and the cast of Geordie
Shore get chosen in pairs to complete different assignments for a promotions company. Apart
from the regularly arranged situations, the members of the cast seem to be free to do what
they want, as long as it is visible to the audience. As such, these two programs have a very
free format, even compared to other shows in the reality genre.
Jersey Shore, created by SallyAnn Salsano, is the original programme and is situated in
Seaside Heights in New Jersey, USA. Season one of this series was first broadcasted in 2009
and six seasons have been aired in total until the show was cancelled in 2012. The eight cast
members are all Americans with Italian ancestry, which seems to play a significant role in
their group identification. This is stereotypically a macho culture with an expected image for

15
the men to be very masculine in appearance and behaviour. Geordie Shore is set in the city of
Newcastle in Northern England, whose inhabitants and dialect are traditionally nicknamed
Geordie. The “shore” refers to the Tyne, the river on whose bank the city is built (Newcastle
upon Tyne 2013, Wikipedia [online]). This is a typical working class city, and its inhabitants
show a strong sense of solidarity and group identification within their local culture. The series
started in 2011 taking after the American model, and the sixth season is currently being
broadcasted. For the purpose of comparison between the American and the English version of
the show, I have selected material from season three from Jersey Shore and season one from
Geordie Shore, which coincide in time with each other (in 2011). A corpus consisting of six
programs from either country has been collected as research material. Six programs constitute
season one of Geordie Shore and therefore provided a natural delimitation to the material
available. Jersey Shore has longer seasons (around 13 episodes), which is why episode one to
episode six have been selected to match the Geordie Shore full season one. Each episode is
approximately forty minutes in length (Jersey Shore/Geordie Shore 2013, TV.com and MTV
US [online]). The Jersey Shore cast speak (to a larger or smaller degree) with an accent which
is common to Americans with Italian roots, which includes linguistic features that differ
slightly from General American, mainly in pronunciation, but also in occasional usage of non-
standard grammatical forms and frequent use of slang expressions. The Geordie dialect is a
strong Northern English accent which is very characteristic in its linguistic features and
sometimes includes non-standard grammatical forms and vocabulary specific to the region.
As my aim is only to investigate swearing and no other forms of non-standard language, I will
only consider the potential implications this might have concerning expletive usage of the
people included in this study. One such implication that could be relevant to this investigation
is when it is hard to determine if a word should be counted as a swearword or a euphemism
due to said word being spoken in a strong accent. Some variations of swearwords could be
seen as either dialectal variation or euphemisms. I discuss this problem in more detail in
section 4.8. Based on previous research, it is also likely that the people of both the
investigated groups are influenced by their working class background and culture in their use
of expletives, and that this could be a significant identity marker for both parties to show their
membership and solidarity with their respective social groups or subcultures.

16
3.2 Data collection and Swear word selection
Swear words found in dialogue and monologues of the selected six programs from each
country of the two reality television series Jersey Shore and Geordie Shore have been
excerpted. All encountered swear words matching the chosen principles for selection have
been recorded in a table according to frequency of occurrence, word forms and variations,
word class, if uttered by an American (Jersey Shore) or British (Geordie Shore) speaker, and
a male or female speaker. Numbers have been checked and recounted both digitally and
manually and the process has been repeated three times for all sums. The words have then
been categorized according to the different taboo areas they belong to, and the most common
situations in which they occur in the material. Solid compounds have been counted as one
swear word, while loose compounds comprised of two different swear words have been
counted as two words. Non-taboo elements in loose compounds or idiomatic expressions have
not been counted into the sum.
A list of swear words was compiled from a combination of sources to be used as a basis
in the selection process: the official British Broadcasting Corporation guidelines concerning
offensive language (Millwood-Hargrave, 2000, see Appendix), the unofficial list known as
“The Dirty Seven”, corresponding to words that are excluded from American broadcast
television (censoring enforced by the Federal Communications commission), and a small
addition of known swear words and common word variants. As previously stated, words have
to be used in a figurative sense to be classed as swear words (Crystal (2003), Ljung (2006),
Andersson & Trudgill (1992)). All taboo words conveying a literal meaning found in the
material, for example words referring to actual body parts or actions of a taboo nature (sexual,
bodily functions) using taboo words in a literal sense, have therefore been excluded. Swear
words only appearing once in the material have also been excluded from the result.

3.3 Reliability, validity and representativeness

It is common to discuss the terms validity and reliability pertaining to empirical studies,
namely if the results presented fulfil the aim of the study, and if it can be repeated by another
researcher with the same results. For these reasons I have attempted to be as transparent as
possible about the execution of this study and comprehensive in the presentation of the results
thereof. Another relevant term for discussion is the representativeness of the study in
question. This material represents the speech patterns of two specific groups during a certain
period of time. I am well aware that based on the small material in this study, results cannot

17
be generalized to the greater population. However, it might show language variations from
groups that are rarely included in linguistic studies, and it might also be possible to notice
tendencies which could potentially be of a more general nature.
There are some potential obstacles when conducting academic studies on the subject of
swearing, one that has been pointed out by Thelwall (2008:84) is the difficulty to collect a
large corpus or material, as swear words are usually excluded from text. With the exception of
the recent studies by McEnery and Xiao (2004) using The BNC corpus, previous research has
mostly been done by method of interviewing a small number of people or on material
collected from over-heard free speech of schoolchildren. Material collected from interviews
has the problem of Observer’s paradox, where speakers are compelled, with any level of
transparency, to modify their behaviour as a result of the unnatural situation they find
themselves in when being observed. This is likely to have an even stronger effect when it
comes to swearing and different forms of taboo language, since we are all indoctrinated with
how we should speak and what is standard and appropriate in different situations. The method
of using questionnaires in collecting data has the implication that results depend on the
limited extent to which you can trust a person’s reports on their own behaviour, and these too
are likely to be subject to a certain extent of modification when it comes to expletive usage.
Thelwall (2008), the author of the most recent large-scale study on the subject, brings up the
lack of abusive forms of swearing in his own research, as the MySpace pages he has analysed
consist of personal testimonials and messages between invited friends only.
My research can show abusive forms of swearing and the swearing you might not as
easily put into writing. Reality television with its unscripted form comes close to genuine
speech patterns. In a sense the problem of the Observer´s paradox might apply to this study,
as the participants are obviously being observed and it is hard to determine to what degree
they are adapting their speech for the benefit of the viewer or following instructions from the
producers, since the details of how the shows are cut and constructed are not disclosed on any
of the official websites. However, taking into account the large amount of swear words that
occur in the shows and very little censure thereof, I judge the outside control on the cast
members to mostly concern how scenes are cut, and consequently how the action therefore is
being portrayed, and not in any significant way influencing their linguistic behavior.
Furthermore, since this is an observation study on an existing material over which I as
researcher have no influence, I deem my own role as an objective and detached observer.

18
4. Results
The results of the investigation into the swear words used in the two reality shows Jersey
Shore and Geordie Shore, are presented in the following order: Firstly, a list of the top
ranking swear words in the material is presented and commented on. Secondly, it is shown
how all the encountered swear words are distributed over the British and American speakers
and over male and female speakers in the material. Thirdly, the encountered swear words are
presented divided into their various taboo categories and word classes, or word class
functions, and the most common situations in which they occur. Lastly a brief overview is
given on the few instances of censoring of swear words found in the material, as well as
euphemisms for swear words that the speakers occasionally use. These euphemisms are not
included in the total swear words count.

4.1 Swear words – frequency and different types

41 different types of expletives are represented by 1202 tokens in this material. In table 1, the
most commonly occurring swear words in the material, with over 10 instances, are listed in
order of frequency (see Table 1: Appendix for the complete list). As stated in the principles of
selection, only words appearing twice or more in the material have been included. The word
fuck counts as several different lexemes in its different forms and is therefore presented in all
recorded forms separately. A vast majority of the encountered swear words in the material are
the different forms of the word fuck. The most common usage is in adjectival form, either as
premodifying intensifying negative adjective, as seen in the example “the fucking idiot”, or
emphatic adjectival filler, as in “in my fucking bed”. However, the form fucking is not used
exclusively as a negative intensifier but is quite often used in positive contexts, as in the
example “we’re like a fucking family”. The adverbial form of fucking ranks as a close second
in the list, and typical usage here include forms where the word is used as emphatic filler, in a
positive context as in the example “I fucking love you” or a negative one as in “I’m fucking
sick of you”. Other common forms are when the word is used as an adverbial booster, either
underlining a positive message as in the example “fucking awesome”, or a negative one as in
“you’re fucking crazy”. The third form in the ranking order is fuck in noun form, where
representative instances of usage include examples like “what the fuck?” and “I don’t give a
fuck”. Number four in the list is fuck in verbal form, where typical usage often has the form of

19
a particle verb with destinational usage1 as in “fuck off”, or as cursing expletives paired with
personal pronouns like “fuck you/me/him/them/it”. The following expletive in the list is the
noun form of shit, which is often used as a noun of vague reference, as in the example “I’m
sick of this shit”, or prefaced with indefinite article a- becoming a synonym for nothing, as in
“I don’t give a shit!”. Most of the words at the bottom of the list belong to the category of
abuse, however bitch can be found high in the list due to the word being common both as an
insult and in a reclaimed sense.

Table 1: Swear words overview

The 14 most common individual expletives are here ranked according to frequency:
Expletive Number of tokens
1. Fucking adj. 236
2. Fucking adv. 220
3. Fuck n. 117
4. Fuck v. 116
5. Shit n. 88
6. Bitch 82
7. God 49
8. Shit interj. 45
9. Fucked 30
10. Hell 29
11. Shit/-ty 21
12. Fuck interj. 19
13. Ass 13
14. Piss n. 11

4.2 Comparison between nationalities and sexes

Table 2 shows how the 41 different types of expletives found in the material are distributed
between British and American swearers and male and female swearers. The first column
marked “UK”, shows all swear words found in Geordie Shore, the second column, marked
“US”, shows all swear words found in Jersey Shore. The last two columns, marked “male”
and “female”, show a collective score for both shows but all swear words uttered by a male or
female speaker presented separately in their respective columns. There is a noticeable
difference in usage between the two different nationalities, more so than between the two
sexes. This can be seen on many levels; firstly, in what swearwords are used, where there are
some words that are only used in one of the countries and not the other. A slight majority of
these country-specific words are used by the British speakers, including arsed, bastard,
1
I use the definition from McEnery’s model (p. 10), when refferring to these phrasal verbs.

20
dickhead, piss n., prick, slag, slut, twat and wanker, while the words asshole, Christ, cunt,
damn, fucker, jerk-off, motherfucker and whore are uttered exclusively by American speakers.
Some words are used exclusively by either a male or female speaker, where the female
speakers are alone in using several derogatory forms traditionally used for a man; dickhead,
fucker, jerk-off and prick, but also some derogatory forms which are traditionally used for a
woman, like slut, twat and whore. Only Christ is used exclusively by a male speaker. Overall
there seems to be little difference in how often the women and men in the material swear, and
how strong swear words they use.
Secondly, there is a difference in how swear words are used between the two
nationalities in the material. For example, there is not much difference in how often British
and American speakers use fuck in noun form (64/53) or verbal form (61/55), however, the
British speakers commonly use fuck as an indefinite noun, as in the expressions “I don’t give
a fuck”, while the American speakers more often use this word as a definite noun, as in “what
the fuck” and “get the fuck out”. In verbal form the British speakers choose expressions with
destinational usage, as in “fuck off”, while the American speakers more commonly choose
cursing expletives like “fuck you”.
Lastly, there seems to be a difference in the apparent level of insult swear words cause
when directed at somebody. Then same words seem to have a different impact depending on
which country you live in or if the word is spoken by a male or female speaker. Derogatory
terms in a reclaimed sense are to a greater extent used by the American speakers, and these
words are used almost exclusively by female speakers. The example bitch is the most
common, and ranks rather high in the list of used expletives, but it is used in almost equal
measures as an insult and as a term of endearment. Naturally this word scores higher in the
female column, as primarily women can use it in the reclaimed sense. Other words that are
used both as abuse and in a reclaimed sense or terms of endearment include whore, slut,
motherfucker and asshole, where the first two are mainly used in this way by female speakers,
and the last two are exclusively used by men as terms of endearment. The word scoring the
highest in the British Broadcasting ranking order of strong swearwords (see list in Appendix)
is cunt. As this word is never heard in Geordie Shore it can be presumed to have been
censored in this show. The word cunt seems to have the strongest impact even in the
American show, where it appears 9 times as an insult, but never as a term of endearment.

21
Table 2: Comparative overview
The 14 most common expletives listed according to swearers’ nationality and gender:
Expletive UK US Male Female
1. Fucking adj. 118 118 122 114
2. Fucking adv. 102 118 93 127
3. Fuck n. 64 53 52 65
4. Fuck v. 61 55 54 62
5. Shit n. 25 63 50 38
6. Bitch 9 73 14 68
7. God 13 36 12 37
8. Shit interj. 27 18 14 31
9. Fucked 3 27 11 19
10. Hell 18 11 18 11
11. Shit/-ty adj. 8 13 11 10
12. Fuck interj. 12 7 15 4
13. Ass 1 12 3 10
14. Piss n. 11 0 8 3

4.3Taboo areas
Here follows a presentation on the taboo categories2 encountered in the examined material. It
is not always clear cut in which category expletives belong since some idiomatic expressions
or (loose) compound swear words belong to two different categories as in the examples “Holy
shit”(religion and excretion), and “fucking Hell” (sexuality and religion).The numbers of
types and tokens within each taboo area are presented in alphabetical order to simplify
reading:

2
Categories are partly adapted from Lindhe (1994).

22
Table 3: Sexuality
Expletive Number of tokens
Arsed 4
Ass 13
Asshole 6
Balls 5
Bastard 3
Bitch 82
Bitching 3
Cunt 9
Dick 8
Dickhead 4
Fuck n. 117
Fuck v. 116
Fuck interj. 19
Fucked 30
Fucker 3
Fucking adj. 236
Fucking adv. 220
Fucking v. 3
Jerk-off 6
Motherfucker 2
Prick 4
Pussy 2
Slag 5
Slut 3
Twat 2
Wanker 3
Whore 7

There are 27 types of sexual expletives with 915 tokens in this material. This is the most
common of the taboo areas represented in the material, both counted in types and tokens. The
word fuck in its different forms makes up a very large portion, and this is the only word that is
used in many different expressions and functions. Most of the remaining expletives belong in
the category of abuse, of which a small number (bitch, slut, whore, and motherfucker) also
appear in a reclaimed sense with no negative intent or as terms of endearment.

23
Table 4: Excretion, bodily functions and filth
Expletive Number of tokens
Bullshit 8
Piss n. 11
Piss v. 7
Pissed 5
Pissing 2
Shit n. 88
Shit interj. 45
Shit/-ty adj. 21
Shitting 9

There are 9 types represented by 196 tokens. These words are rarely used with a positive
meaning, but are all of a negative character as expletives. A possible exception is shit in the
form of an interjection, which is occasionally used in expressions of positive surprise.

Table 5: Religion
Expletive Number of tokens
Christ 2
Damn 7
God 49
Hell 29
Jesus 4

5 types of religious expletives are represented by 91 tokens in this material. This is by far the
least occurring category in the examined material. The word God however, is used rather
frequently, usually in exclamations like “Oh my God!”, and in situations having to do with
some kind of shock or surprise. Hell is also ranking high due to its frequent use as a
compound expletive paired with fucking, as in “fucking hell”.

4.4Word classes
The different word classes in which expletives in this material occur are listed below, and the
expletives within each word class are presented with a few representative instances. It is not
always clear whether a word form should be counted into one word class or another, which is
why I use both the definitions word class and word class function to categorize the expletives.

24
Table 6: Nouns/ Nominal functions
Expletive Number of tokens
Ass 13
Asshole 6
Balls 5
Bastard 3
Bitch 82
Bullshit 8
Christ 2
Cunt 9
Dick 8
Dickhead 4
Fuck n. 117
Fucker 3
God 49
Hell 29
Jerk-off 6
Jesus 4
Motherfucker 2
Piss n. 11
Prick 4
Pussy 2
Shit n. 88
Slag 5
Slut 3
Twat 2
Wanker 3
Whore 7

This is by far the largest category in terms of different types, which could be explained by the
fact that most derogatory terms are found in this word class. Due to this abundance in
variation, most abusive terms do not score very high, with the exception of words which have
a reclaimed usage (bitch being the most common). Other forms include expletives occurring
in expressions like “I don’t give a fuck/shit”, and “are you taking the piss?”. In this material
there are 26 different nouns with 475 tokens. They are as follows in alphabetical order:

25
Table 7: Verbs/Verbal function
Expletive Number of tokens
Arsed 4
Bitching 3
Damn 7
Fuck v. 116
Fucked 30
Fucking v. 3
Piss v. 7
Pissed 5
Pissing 2
Shitting 9

These10 types of words with verbal function have been found in the material and there are
186 tokens. A majority of these are cursing expletives paired with personal pronouns, as seen
in the expressions “fuck you/me/him/them/it”, and particle verbs as in the examples “fuck
off”, “piss off”, “fucked up”, and “you’re fucking with my head”.

Adjectives/Adjectival function
Only 2 different adjectives occur in the material: Fucking (236) and Shit/-ty (21) represented
by 257 tokens. Shit and shitty have been counted together, since shitty would probably be the
grammatically correct form when used as an adjective. However, there are a few instances in
the material where the form shit is used instead, as in the examples “I’ve had a shit day” and
“we had a shit time”. Occasionally shit is also used as a predicative negative adjective, as in
“this is shit”.

Adverbs/Adverbial function
There are 220 instances of adverbs in the material, but only 1 type, fucking, is represented.
The swear words used as adverbs most commonly have the function of emphatic fillers or
adverbial boosters, as previously stated, and a representative example here would be “are you
fucking kidding me?”.

Interjections
In this category all swear words used in syntactic isolation have been listed. There are 6
different types of interjections occurring in the material; Christ!, fuck!, God!, Hell!, Jesus!,
and shit!. In these cases the swear words are always used as general expletives and
exclamations. However, only the most common interjections fuck and shit have been counted

26
as separate tokens (and have been presented with their own headings in the tables above),
while the rest of these expletives have been counted into the word class nouns, although
depending on usage (expression of sudden emotion, occurring in syntactic isolation) they
sometimes belong to this category. As an example Hell, as a loose compound with fucking
(fucking hell!), is a commonly occurring interjection, but as loose compounds are counted as
separate parts, this expression has been counted as a noun modified by an adjective.

4.6 Situations
Expletives usually occur in certain situations, which have been categorized by Andersson and
Hirsch (1985:1.14-34). Following this categorization, the most common situations that give
rise to swearing in the examined material are: “Indignation, contempt, showing disgust for
someone”, with 224 recorded instances; “Surprise” (neutral, joyful or fearful), with a
combined sum of 140 items; “Psychic pain-disappointment-anger-frustration-irritation”, with
132 instances recorded; “Quieting someone”, represented by 52 instances ; “Appreciation,
wonder, praise, endearment” and “Rejection- disapproval”, which both have 49 instances;
“Defensive attitude: fear- anger”, which represents 45 instances; “Threatening someone”,
with 44 recorded instances; and “Encouraging someone to do something”, which has 37
items. I refrain from giving excerpts from dialogue since it is difficult to see the difference
between the examples when taken out of context.
In general there is little difference in what swear words are used in which situations, as
most words seem to be flexible and can be used in many different ways depending on the
context. The meanings of the words have to be inferred from the overall context or interpreted
from paralinguistic cues such as intonation, body posture, gestures, and facial expressions.
The only noticeable exception is that religious expletives are more common in situations of
surprise, both as joyful exclamations and as a kind of appeal to higher powers in fearful
situations; for “help” during the occurrence or expressing thankful relief when it is over. The
most common situation when expletives are uttered in this material, “Indignation, contempt,
showing disgust for someone”, also has the most variation in swear words used, most of them
belonging in the insult and abuse category.

4.7 Censoring
There are 15 instances of bleeping in the material. 6 of these occur in Jersey Shore and the
remaining 9 in Geordie shore. There is a male speaker in 7 and a female speaker in 2 of the

27
instances in Geordie shore. In Jersey shore the number is evenly distributed between the
sexes, with 3 instances each. The few examples of bleeping encountered in the material will
be illustrated with an example or extract from the surrounding dialogue (the first number in
brackets refers to a male speaker, and the second one refers to a female speaker):

The 9 instances where a word is bleeped from the British show are seen in these examples, all
except one occur in heated arguments:

A little daft *bleep* (1-0, GS 1:6); The daft *bleep*(0-1, GS 1:3); Daft *bleep* (2-0, GS 1:6);
Daft fucking *bleep*(1-0, GS 1:5); Fucking daft *bleep* (1-0, GS 1:2); Two faced *bleep*
(1-0, GS 1:6); Fucking two faced *bleep* (1-0, GS 1:6); Your fucking hard *bleep* (0-1, GS
1:6).

The 6 instances of censoring by bleeping in the American show occur in the following
examples. In all these cases even the subtitles contain bleeping with *** and initial and final
letter. All instances seem to be concerning graphic sexual imagery:

Eat *bleep*(1-0, JS 3:5), (He said you/I never said I) wanted to l-*bleep* his a-*bleep* (2-2,
JS 3:5) (written as l**k a*****e in the subtitles); *bleep*vag-*bleep*(0-1, JS 3:4).

4.8 Euphemisms
One some rare occasions in the material a euphemism is used instead of a swear word. These
have not been included in the total sum of swear words, but should still be mentioned briefly
as they can be seen as representatives for stronger swear words. It can sometimes be difficult
to determine if a word should be counted as a euphemism or as a dialectal version of the
actual swear word. For example there are some instances in Geordie Shore where a speaker
utters words sounding like feck, fecking and shite. In these cases the words have been counted
as fuck, fucking and shit, as the above mentioned forms come close to the Irish English
pronunciation of these words. The words that have been determined as being euphemisms for
swear words in this material are: Frick, fricking, Gosh and Cricket, which probably stand for
fuck, fucking, God and Christ. However, these forms are so rare in the material that all words
appear only once, except for fricking, which appears 6 times. All euphemisms occur in Jersey
Shore and are uttered by female speakers.

28
5. Discussion
As being warned in the intro of each program, all episodes of both Jersey Shore and Geordie
Shore contain strong language to a very high degree. Swear words apparently constitute a big
part of these people’s vocabulary and have multiple functions that vary from neutral language
fillers and positive or negative emphasizers to aggressive and abusive language with the
option of a certain degree of reclaimed usage, where the same words are used both as insults
and as terms of endearment. Previous research has often underlined the main function of
expletives as being used for expressing irritation and negativity, but in this material I find that
they are very often used in clearly positive contexts. This shows that the words themselves are
not denoting any one meaning, but are flexible and have potential to be used in a variety of
contexts. In other cases swear words do not really seem to mean anything at all, but are used
with a similar function as small words and conversational fillers (Andersson & Trudgill,
1992:18). These findings point to a form of usage verging on routine where, as in Hughes’
study (1992), swear words seem to lack power when used in for example adjectival form. In
these cases the swear words take on the form which Ljung (1984:21) describes as “word class
marker” before (most commonly) a noun, but have ceased to signify something more than
that.

5.1 Word choices and their characteristics

The swear words selected (invectives not included) seem to move towards becoming more
homogenous, based on the results where fuck and fucking appear to have replaced variants
that have previously been very common (such as bloody in British English, which only
appeared once in the whole material). Still, this is not surprising as many researchers
(Andersson & Trudgill (1992), Andersson & Hirsch (1985), and Ljung (1984, 2006)) have
pointed out the expletive fuck as the most common swear word in both British and American
English, and the fact that it has spread enormously even outside the English-speaking world.
McEnery (2005) attempts to explain the ruling position of the word fuck in modern day
English with it being a very versatile swear word that can be used in a wide variety of ways
and placed in several different word classes. This is a description that fits well with the results
of the present study, where fuck appears in very many forms and functions. Another versatile
swear word that ranks high in the list is shit. This word usually signifies something negative,
as a synonym for “bad” in adjectival form, but as a noun of vague reference this can also be a
synonym for either “stuff/things”, “behavior/circumstance” or “anything/nothing”.

29
 Some swear words can have both positive and negative connotations depending on the
tone with which they are delivered (fuck, fucking, shit, God, Hell), while others are purely
used to convey a negative message (piss, damn, bullshit and most invectives). The words can
also come across as varying in strength depending on the tone, relationship between the
speakers and the situation in which they are uttered. In some expressions the swear words that
can be used are interchangeable, an example being the expression “I don’t give a
fuck/shit/damn/rat’s ass”. Sexual swear words are overrepresented in this material overall,
and are clearly dominating in all categories from emotive swearing and abuse to emphatic
fillers. Cunt is described as the strongest taboo word in English (Ljung, 2006:109), and this
description seems to be confirmed by the results of this study, where this word is only used as
abuse and is presumably censored in Geordie Shore. The usage of religious swear words
appears, on basis of the results of this investigation, to be decreasing, and these words also
come across as very mild on a comparative scale. However, religious expletives are still the
most common in situations of fear and relief, where expletives are usually reactive, emotional
and intuitive, and as such they are mostly interjections.

5.2 Similarities and Differences between the American and British speakers
Both the British and the American speakers included in this investigation swear very
frequently and use strong swear words, and swearing is clearly a large part of the vocabulary
for both groups. These people also seem to have a strong sense of belonging to a group, where
a specific image has to be maintained and a certain way of expressing yourself might be seen
as mandatory. It can, therefore, be assumed that the swearing behaviour exhibited in these
people is both accepted in, and expected from, the group of which they consider themselves to
be members, and that this kind of expletive usage earns the speaker a portion of covert
prestige (Andersson &Trudgill, 1992:8). This seems to be true for both male and female
speakers in the material. The frequent usage of the word fuck, where it might have lost its
power as an expletive, serves instead as a significant marker of distinction for the vernacular
of both these groups.
Although the swearing frequency is similar in the British and American speakers in this
study, there is a noticeable difference in the swear words and forms used. An interesting
example is the word piss, which has both different functions and meanings for the two groups.
The British speakers use expressions like “piss off”, “we’re getting pissed” and “are you
taking the piss”, where the word in question stands for, respectively: an imperative for

30
someone to go away, getting drunk, and teasing somebody. The Americans, on the other hand,
only use this word in expressions such as “you piss me off” and “I’m pissed at him”, where
the meaning is always synonymous with angry. Derogatory terms in a reclaimed sense are
more common among the American speakers, and among females, and bitch is the most
common example. However, British speakers of both genders frequently use directional
phrasal verbs “fuck off” and “piss off”, both in aggressive terms and in a cordial way, while
these forms are never used by the American speakers.

5.3 Gendered swearing

Contrary to the traditional stereotypes of male versus female speech, there is no noteworthy
difference in either frequency or strength in expletives used between male and female
speakers in this material. If anything can be concluded from the results, the women in this
study swear more, and often use stronger swear words, than their male counterparts. A
possible factor that should be considered is that the women in the material appear to speak
more in general than the men, which could potentially affect the results. However, this is a
rough estimate which has not been accurately determined by timing the speakers, so this
reason is merely speculative. One plausible explanation is that the women in this study seek to
assert themselves and their position in the group by using strong language. Contrary to the
common descriptions of women being more prone to using what de Klerk calls “powerless”
language (1991:156), these women use high-intensity and aggressive speech styles which are
usually associated with powerful language, and are most often described as stereotypically
masculine. The frequent expletive usage might as such be seen as a matter of self-promotion
and breaking of a social taboo (Stapleton, 2003:22).
Another reason might have to do with the composition of the groups. Both genders have
been known to swear more in same-sex groups than in mixed-sex company, and men are
known to use softer swear words in the presence of women (Jay & Janschewitz, 2008:274). It
might be that the men in this study adjust their expletive usage for the benefit of the women in
the group, as tradition commands, while the female speakers do not make any such
considerations. However, the fact that the groups are mixed-sex does not seem to deter either
party from swearing to any great extent, judging from the large amount of expletives
encountered in the material, and there appears to be no significant difference whether a male
or female person is addressed in the strength of swear words used. If anything, there seems to
be a tendency for female speakers to use strong derogatory terms for other females, while the

31
male speakers rarely used the strongest swear words relating to women. A likely explanation
could also be that the people in this material all belong to the working class, a group whose
linguistic features have been studied rather frequently in the past, and which is often
distinguished against other speech styles for the frequent use of strong language.
Nevertheless, the women of this group have often been overlooked in past studies and
results have been generalized based on male speech or assumed to be in a certain way that has
been supported with very little empiric evidence. The results of this study seem to be in
agreement with those of researchers such as Hughes (1992) on working class women, where it
seems that the speech styles presented in these programs are not too far divorced from the
natural informal speech, including frequent expletive usage, which you might expect from this
group.

5.4 Bleeps and Censorship

Among all the instances of heavy swearing it is interesting to see when euphemisms and
bleeping do occur and what words are being censored. My findings are that there is a
noticeable difference in the British and the American shows. You can surmise from the
context, and the otherwise overall lack of the word, that the one censured word in the British
version is cunt, whereas this word occurs rather frequently in the American material.
However, the American show also has a few instances of bleeping, which I surmise has more
to do with the graphic and taboo nature of the subject than the actual words used (probably
lick and asshole), since the same words are used frequently throughout the material without
being bleeped (lick is clearly not a swear word but is probably censored anyway due to the
context). In reality, these attempts at censoring are not so effective, as it is possible to lip-read
and be able to determine what the missing word is.
Using euphemisms can be seen as a form of self-censoring, but this is something that
very seldom occurs in the material. If any conclusions can be drawn from the small amount of
data, it would be that the female speakers use more euphemisms, that the American speakers
use more than the British speakers, and that the situations in which euphemisms for
swearwords are most common is when the speaker has more time to think about what is being
said, i.e. they are not so spontaneous and/or emotional as the actual swear words.
Euphemisms are used more frequently in non-loaded situations, where the speaker is self-
correcting his or her language and can refrain more easily from using strong expletives. The
recorded euphemisms often occur in the confessionals, and it can therefore be assumed that

32
the speakers think more about what they say in these situations, as it is so obvious that they
are being watched and talking to an audience. This makes it a more formal situation, and
some of the speakers therefore react with using slightly more formal speech, which includes
substituting swear words for a milder form, a euphemism.

6. Conclusion
In this essay an attempt was made to investigate the expletive usage in two reality television
shows from a sociolinguistic point of view, taking into account the effect that variables such
as nationality and gender might have on the expletive usage in the examined material. An
overview of all encountered expletives in the material has been given, and the collected data
has been presented in different categories, including taboo areas, word classes or word class
functions, and the most common situations in which swear words occur. As the examined
group of people is small, this study makes no claims on how the results can be generalized to
the greater public. Nevertheless, there is a noticeable tendency that is in accordance with
previous researchers such as Thelwall (2008) and McEnery (2005), which is that the British
women swear as much and choose as strong swear words as the men. In addition to this, the
results of the present investigation indicate that the previous statement is also true for the
American women in the material. If these results could be explained by these women being
part of a social group that has rarely been seen in previous research, or if they point to female
swearing behaviour evolving with passing time and changes in society, remains to be
determined. As this study is limited in its volume and time, any further investigations on this
subject were beyond the scope of this essay. I would therefore like to point to some
suggestions of areas where further research would be beneficial:

 A deeper investigation into the subject of gender and swearing on a large-scale

research material where more sociocultural variables are represented could provide
more conclusive evidence of the seemingly evolving nature of female speech, and
make an attempt to settle accounts with the past where outdated notions and
stereotypes are concerned.
 The most common expletive in this study is fucking used as emphatic filler. Further
investigations into the usage of this word could determine if it has begun to move past
the point where it can be defined as an expletive, since it has seemingly begun to take
on such a different linguistic function that another term might be more appropriate.

33
 The reality programs in this investigation seem to be of a new breed in the reality
genre, and non-scripted and little directed programmes such as these would lend
themselves well as objects for a more comprehensive study, both in terms of a gender
perspective and from a linguistic point of view.
 I have only briefly touched upon aspects such as the role language plays in the process
of identity formation, covert prestige, and image and expectations relating to typically
macho cultures and for female members of the working class, but these areas would be
interesting topics that deserve further examination.
 The various situations that give rise to swearing would also benefit from a more
detailed study, as such an investigation was too comprehensive for the limited space of
this essay.

34
7. References

Andersson, L.-G. and R. Hirsch. (1985) Swearing report no1, A project on Swearing: A
Comparison between American English and Swedish. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg,
Department of Linguistics.

Andersson, L.-G. and P. Trudgill. (1992) Bad Language. London: Penguin.

Crystal, D. (2003) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language (2). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

De Klerk, V. (1991) Expletives: Men only?, Communication Monographs 58 (2), pp. 156-
169.

Hughes, S. (1992) Expletives of lower working-class women, Language in Society 21, pp.
291-303.

Jay, T. and K. Janschewitz. (2008) The pragmatics of swearing, Journal of Politeness

Research 4, pp. 267-288.

Lindhe, B. (1994) Expletives and the language of swearing: A survey of how expletives are
used in two novels by Dennis Potter. Scripta Minora 21.

Ljung, M. (1984) Om Svordomar: I svenskan, engelskan och arton andra språk. Stockholm:
Akademilitteratur.

Ljung, M. (2006) Svordomsboken: Om svärande och svordomar på svenska, engelska och 23

andra språk. Uddevalla: Nordstedts Akademiska förlag.

McEnery, T. (2005) Swearing in English –Bad language, purity and power from 1586 to the
present. Oxon: Routledge.

McEnery, T. and Z. Xiao. (2004) Swearing in modern British English: the case of fuck in the
BNC, Language and Literature 13 (3), pp. 235-68.

Millwood-Hargrave, A. (2000) Delete expletives? London: Advertising Standards Authority,

British Broadcasting Corporation, Broadcasting Standards Commission, Independent
Television Commission.

Stapleton, K. (2003) Gender and swearing: a community practice, Woman and Language 26
(2), pp. 22-33.

Thelwall, M. (2008) Fk yea I swear: cursing and gender in MySpace, Corpora 3 (1), pp. 83-
107.

35
Internet references:

Jersey Shore. 2013. In TV.com. Retrieved September 19, 2013, from

www.tv.com/shows/jersey-shore

Geordie Shore. 2013. In TV.com. Retrieved September 19, 2013, from

www.tv.com/shows/geordie-shore

Newcastle upon Tyne. 2013. In Wikipedia, The free encyclopedia. Retrieved September 23,
2013, from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcastle_upon_Tyne

Reality television. 2013. In Wikipedia, The free encyclopedia. Retrieved September 23, 2013,
from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_television

Seven dirty words. 2013. In Wikipedia, The free encyclopedia. Retrieved October 11, 2013,
from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_dirty_words

Jersey Shore. 2013. In MTV US. Retrieved December 2, 2013, from

www.mtv.com/shows/jersey_shore/season_6/series.jhtml

Geordie Shore. 2013. In MTV US. Retrieved December 2, 2013, from

www.mtv.com/shows/geordie_shore/series.jhtml

Editorial Guidelines: Harm and Offence, Language. 2013. In BBC. Retrieved December 28,
2013, from

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/page/guidelines-harm-language/

36
8. Appendix
Table 1: All individual expletives are here ranked according to frequency:

Expletive Number of tokens

1. Fucking adj. 236
2. Fucking adv. 220
3. Fuck n. 117
4. Fuck v. 116
5. Shit n. 88
6. Bitch 82
7. God 49
8. Shit interj. 45
9. Fucked 30
10. Hell 29
11. Shit/-ty 21
12. Fuck interj. 19
13. Ass 13
14. Piss n. 11
15. Cunt 9
16. Shitting 9
17. Dick 8
18. Bullshit 8
19. Damn 7
20. Piss v. 7
21. Whore 7
22. Asshole 6
23. Jerk-off 6
24. Balls 5
25. Pissed 5
26. Slag 5
27. Arsed 4
28. Dickhead 4
29. Jesus 4
30. Prick 4
31. Bastard 3
32. Bitching 3
33. Fucker 3
34. Fucking v. 3
35. Slut 3
36. Wanker 3
37. Christ 2
38. Motherfucker 2
39. Pissing 2
40. Pussy 2
41. Twat 2

37
Table 2: Expletives according to swearers’ nationality and gender are here listed in
alphabetical order:

Expletive UK US Male Female

Arsed 4 0 2 2
Ass 1 12 3 10
Asshole 0 6 3 3
Balls 1 4 2 3
Bastard 3 0 1 2
Bitch 9 73 14 68
Bitching 2 1 2 1
Bullshit 1 7 5 3
Christ 0 2 2 0
Cunt 0 9 1 8
Damn 0 7 6 1
Dick 4 4 4 4
Dickhead 4 0 0 4
Fuck n. 64 53 52 65
Fuck v. 61 55 54 62
Fuck interj. 12 7 15 4
Fucked 3 27 11 19
Fucker 0 3 0 3
Fucking adj. 118 118 122 114
Fucking adv. 102 118 93 127
Fucking v. 1 2 2 1
God 13 36 12 37
Hell 19 11 18 11
Jerk-off 0 6 0 6
Jesus 2 2 2 2
Motherfucker 0 2 1 1
Piss n. 11 0 8 3
Piss v. 4 3 6 1
Pissed 3 2 4 1
Pissing 1 1 0 2
Prick 4 0 0 4
Pussy 1 1 1 1
Shit n. 25 63 50 38
Shit interj. 27 18 14 31
Shit/-ty adj. 8 13 11 10
Shitting 3 6 1 8
Slag 5 0 3 2
Slut 3 0 0 3
Twat 2 0 0 2
Wanker 3 0 2 1
Whore 0 7 0 7

38
BBC wordlist strong swearword ranking order:
Cunt
Motherfucker
Fuck
Wanker
Nigger
Bastard
Prick
Bollocks
Arsehole
Paki
Shag
Whore
Twat
Piss off
Spastic
Slag
Shit
Dickhead
Pissed off
Arse
Bugger
Balls
Jew
Sodding
Jesus Christ
Crap
Bloody
God

The “Dirty Seven” original list of words:

Shit
Piss
Fuck
Cunt
Cocksucker
Motherfucker
Tits

39