Looking Out for Number One: Euphemism and Face

Abstract

Communicators have two possible motives for referring to a distasteful topic euphemistically: to minimize threat to the addressee's face and to minimize threat to their own. The experiment reported here investigated the influence of these interrelated but distinct face motives on euphemism use. Participants described a series of photographs, one of which depicted a distasteful stimulus (e.g., dog urine), in electronic messages they sent to a fictitious remotely located recipient. Some participants were led to believe they would meet the recipient at the experiment's conclusion, whereas others believed they would not meet and therefore remain anonymous to the recipient. Euphemisms were used to describe the distasteful stimuli more frequently among participants who believed their identities would be disclosed to the recipient. These results suggest that communicators are inclined to use euphemisms more for self-presentational purposes than out of concern for their addressees' sensibilities.In polite conversation, we might excuse ourselves to use the restroom even though we have no intention of resting there, remark that two friends are sleeping together when they have never jointly dozed, or credit a bun in the oven to a colleague with neither the time nor inclination to do any baking. We employ such euphemisms when we are reluctant to utter more semantically transparent terms (urinate, sex, pregnancy) for certain unsettling topics. However, given that we feel the need to raise unsettling topics on occasion, what do we gain from using euphemisms to describe them? Lexicographers have traditionally characterized euphemism as a linguistic substitution strategy (e.g., substitution of use the restroom for urinate) motivated by a communicator's reluctance to offend an addressee

The future of veterinary communication: Partnership or persuasion? A qualitative investigation of veterinary communication in the pursuit of client behaviour change

“…Euphemism was used to avoid discomfort over recommendations and discussions of disease, for example substituting the term ‘lameness’ with ‘lagging behind’. By using euphemism in social interaction, communicators either seek to minimise potential discomfort in an addressee [29] or, more frequently, use this language as self-preservation to appear more sympathetic or considerate [30]. Metaphor use also supported the building of rapport by generating a shared understanding of advisory recommendations; veterinarians shaped and strengthened farmer perception of advice by evoking a host of multiple meanings [31].…”

“Special needs” is an ineffective euphemism

“…Linfoot-Ham (2005, p. 228) believes that euphemisms “protect the speaker/writer, hearer/reader, or all of the above.” Bowers and Pleydell-Pearce (2011, p. 2) believe that euphemisms “allow speakers (and listeners) to think about issues that might otherwise be avoided.” Allan and Burridge (1991, p. 11) believe that euphemisms “avoid possible loss of face: either one’s own face or … that of the audience.” However, laboratory studies demonstrate that euphemisms are more likely to be produced in service of saving the producer’s face rather than the recipient’s face (McGlone & Batchelor, 2003). …”

Euphemistic strategies in politeness and face concerns.

“…related to the pragmatic variables which affect conversational encounters. In this sense, McGlone and Batchelor (2003) have proved that euphemistic use basically serves a selfpresentational purpose, protecting the speaker's positive face without much concern for the addreessee's discomfort.…”