The American Dialect Society

The American Dialect Society
Cultural Sensitivity and Political Correctness: The Linguistic Problem of Naming

Author(s): Edna Andrews
Source: American Speech, Vol. 71, No. 4 (Winter, 1996), pp. 389-404
Published by: Duke University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/455713
Accessed: 27-09-2015 15:07 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Duke University Press and The American Dialect Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to American Speech.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 150.135.239.97 on Sun, 27 Sep 2015 15:07:37 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CULTURAL SENSITIVITYAND
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS:
THE LINGUISTIC PROBLEM
OF NAMING
EDNA ANDREWS
Duke University
Recent research has shown that tabu has been known in all
communities and at all times and that it plays an impor-
tant role also in our language.
-Louis Hjemslev (1963, 65)
THIS ESSAY some of the linguistic concepts that underlie the

ADDRESSES
political and highly sensitive issue of what is referred to by English
speakers today as "cultural sensitivity" (CS) or "political correctness" (PC).1
The current issue of "correct speech," particularly in the realm of naming,
focuses on how language and, in particular, naming should be used pub-
licly and in other socially determined contexts. However, emotional reac-
tions to the issue and its high visibility in the press have allowed many of the
essential linguistic questions to be misrepresented or ignored. An enor-
mous amount of generalized speculating in the air might be called "linguis-
tic" in nature. For example, many pronouncements about which terms are
preferred imply or even insist that a person who uses the so-called SENSITIVE
form will become sensitized to issues of equality and move away from the
dominant white Protestant male stereotypical point of view in American
society. Thus, speakers of American English are advised to use woman as
opposed to girl; hearing impairedas opposed to deaf; in academic circles,
chair as opposed to chairman; for third-person pronominal usage, such
forms as he/she, [s]he, or they; pro-choice, not pro-abortion; pro-life, not anti-
abortion (this list could continue for many pages and still remain incom-
plete). Such vocabulary management necessarily raises questions about the
potential connection between language and thought, as well as speculation
that word usage in some fashion may control or change behavior. Further-
more, it lumps together under one rubric various types of phenomena.
In order to deepen our understanding of the linguistic basis of CS/PC,
this study explores CS/PC phenomena in connection with the category of
linguistic taboo.2 Does taboo play a role in defining the linguistic proper-
ties of cultural sensitivity and political correctness? Is taboo a reality in all
languages, or is it an outdated linguistic construct? What are some of the
possible consequences of taboo forms in a given language?
389
390 AMERICANSPEECH 71.4 (1996)
Within an ordinary sign-based definition of language, one would not

necessarily see the need to include the question of taboo. Perhaps Hjemslev
(1963) exaggerates in his statement of the ever present role of linguistic
taboo. However, if, indeed, linguistic maintenance of taboo is one of the
factors that plays a role in determining the appropriateness of names-
including common and proper nouns and pronominals-then taboo sys-
tems in English and other languages can be a starting place. By analyzing
the semiotic nature of linguistic taboo, it will be possible to determine
whether or not the current discussion involving cultural sensitivity and
political correctness is an example of linguistic taboo at work. In order to
begin the discussion, we must turn first to the available data to be analyzed.
The terminology that will be applied in this analysis is based both in
semiotic and sociolinguistic theory. I use the term semiotics to refer to
those approaches in linguistics and language theory that argue for the
equal importance of both the COMMUNICATIVE
and SIGNIFICATE
aspects of
language-based sign systems. Within the semiotic paradigm, SIGNIFICATION
represents the internal structure of the sign system, its morphology and
grammar, while COMMUNICATION refers to the interactive aspect of sign
systems via a series of interpreters (speakers and hearers) and interpretants
(a sign or rule that mediates interpretation and gives meaning to the
signifier/signified sign complex). The semiotician/theoretician whom I
find to be the most insightful is Charles S. Peirce (1931-58). I specify
Peirce's name to make the point that my analysis will be more Peircean
than Saussurean in that the types of sign categories on which I base my
analysis are necessarily triadic in nature and not simply the binary signified/
signifier sign type explicated by Saussure.
CULTURALLYSENSITIVE (OR POLITICALLYCORRECT) TERMS
Table 1 is a short, selective list of the more well-known and popular

examples and is intended to be representative of the range of terms
presently considered CS/PC. I have not included strongly pejorative terms.
Where appropriate, items are given in pairs. In some instances, these terms
will vary in their degree of sensitivity and the speech community in which
they are potentially used. As table 1 shows, the so-called CS/PC terms make
use of typical English terms in a new set of combinations to avoid explicit
reference to gender, race, sexual preference, disabilities, and ethnicity.3
Thus, these newer CS/PC terms seem to function as euphemisms of
alternative names that have become taboo.
The items listed in table 1 pertain to a wide range of cultural and social
issues and serve as a microcosm of more deeply rooted issues. First reac-
CULTURALSENSITIVITYAND POLITICAL CORRECTNESS 391
TABLE 1
Alternative Common and Proper Nouns and Noun Phrases
Not CS/PC CS/PC
girl, lady woman, womyn
sex gender
negro, colored, black, Afro-American African-American
waiter-waitress waitperson, server, waitron
steward-stewardess flight attendant
mailman mail clerk, letter carrier
fireman fire fighter
salesman sales person, sales clerk
blind visually impaired
physically/mentally handicapped physically/mentally challenged
black college historically black college (HBC)
chairman-chairwoman chair, chairperson
Congressman-Congresswoman (Congressional) Representative
The Ukraine Ukraine
Serbo-Croatian language Serbian and Croatian or Croatian and
Serbian (language)
Oriental Asian
(American) Indian Native-American
actor-actress actor
poet-poetess poet
Note: god-goddess would not fit in a table such as this.
tions to such a list might include the following questions: (1) Why do we
need to make these changes? (2) Who has determined that these changes
are necessary? (3) What makes the terms on the right hand side less
offensive or more neutral than the terms on the left and hence euphemis-
tic? (4) What is the linguistically definable difference between the two sets
of lexemes?
The question of why is perhaps the most complex. The nonlinguistic
issues involve racial, ethnic, gender-based, and other tensions in our mod-
ern world, which are the result of prejudice, inequality, oppression, and
other forms of injustice in contemporary American society. These are real
and serious problems that deserve serious solutions. However, there is
another question that must be addressed in this context-does a linguistic
response, lexical substitution, solve the extralinguistic problems in our
society or even facilitate future solution of such problems? One possible
answer to this question necessarily evokes a discussion of the relationship
between language and thought. Does lexical usage determine or bias the
manner in which a speaker views the extralinguistic world? Does language
organize or control thought? Questions of this nature have been discussed
throughout the history of philosophy and include the fields of linguistics,

psychology, anthropology, and semiotics.
LANGUAGEAND THOUGHT
The usage of CS/PC terms is overtly connected to the position that

language represents thought and may even control thought. If a speaker is
no longer allowed to refer to a female as girl and, instead, must use the
word woman,then that speaker is more likely to view the female as an equal
to her linguistic counterpart, man. Note that it is likewise important to
consider the role of the hearer, who is equally impacted as a participant of
a narrated event. Furthermore, if younger speakers and hearers are taught
to use only the word woman,one would expect success in the perception
and legislation of equality among the sexes. The assumed STRONGconnec-
tion between language and thought is absolutely central to this line of
reasoning, which holds that changing linguistic behavior will lead to reduc-
ing social inequality.
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in anthropological linguistic theory claims
that each language creates a grid of reality that impresses some restrictions
on the speaker's perception of external (or extralinguistic) reality. The
restrictions in perception by the speaker are defined by those linguistic
categories that are nondistinctive in the speaker's language. For example,
English speakers customarily have difficulty in perceiving and producing
palatalized consonants in Russian. The importance of distinctiveness ap-
plies to all levels of language, including phonology, morphology, seman-
tics, and syntax (Sapir 1921, 13-18; 1933; Whorf 1950).
In contradistinction to the Sapir-Whorf view on language and thought
is Charles S. Peirce's, where language is viewed as a vehicle for scientific
inquiry, giving equal emphasis to signification and communication (Peirce
1931-58, 2: 93, 2: 227-29, 2: 293-304; Eco 1976, 32-47; Andrews 1990,
44-64). Peircean semiotic theory gives a framework that allows language
to be perceived as one of many potential sign systems that serve to organize
perceptions of the world around us. In other words, Peircean theory
defines language as a semiotic system that is necessarily derived from and
defined within the context of a larger, nonlinguistic sign system. In this
way, Peirce's theory of language as semiotic provides a methodology for
developing an integrated theory of culture (Hookway 1992, 119-20). It is
important to note that the emphasis is on organization, not restriction or
inhibition. The Peircean view is similar, in this sense, to Vygotsky's claim
that language ORGANIZESthought (Vygotsky 1978, 31-33). From this point
of view, it becomes clear that since language can be used to determine
categories and define types, then language can also be inhibiting in

inducing change as it is also, most recognizably, a system of conventions
in the Saussurean and Peircean sense. Therefore, although language is
both separable and separate from thought (cf. Saugstad 1989, 44),
linguistic usage can template extralinguistic reality in a somewhat rigid
fashion. Thus, initiating cultural change via linguistic change is a reason-
able deduction.
The relationship between language and thought is necessarily of a
relative nature. Supporters of the strong connection between language and
thought claim that modified lexical usage of common and proper names
will most certainly change perception within the targeted speech commu-
nity. Likewise, it would seem that one of the reasons for the vocal negative
reaction by some groups AGAINST using CS/PC terms puts these groups into
the same camp vis-a-visthe nature of language-that is, they, too, seem to
be convinced that there is a very strong implicational relationship between
language and thought. Therefore, they reject these new terms in the fear
that (1) these terms may eventually change the social order or that (2) they
will not change the social order, but the use of euphemism in these
instances is a form of social or political punishment and infringement of
individual rights.4
THE LINGUISTICSOF NAMING AND THE POWER OF THE WORD
The types of words that fall under the purview of the CS/PC discussion
are, for the most part, common and proper nouns or noun phrases. All
definitions of a noun evoke some notion of "naming"as the essence of the
nominal part of speech. Adjectives, which are descriptive units, may also
function as names. Since overt part of speech markings are very often
absent in English, only by means of usage can one determine the part of
speech of certain lexemes (e.g., workin workplace, mywork,I work).
Generally speaking, names are divided into two categories: common and
proper. In CS/PC terms, both categories are involved. However, in what
manner does a name differ from other functions? Jakobson (1957, 131)
refers to proper names as examples of "code referring to code" (C/C). The
referent of any proper name may shift its referent in any given speech or
narrated event. For example, Whatis a "Tom"?seems impossible to answer
referentially. However, Whatis a "dog"?can be answered fairly easily. More-
over, the distinction between common and proper names is often obliter-
ated in both form and function (e.g., He's a real Hitler). Thus, we see a
potential qualitative difference in the referential variability of proper ver-
sus common nouns and the category of naming in general. However,
referential variability does not explain the shift from one group of substan-
tival terms considered non-CS/PC to CS/PC terms (see table 1). The
answer must be sought elsewhere-in how the speakers of a given speech
community PERCEIVE these linguistic signs. Let's begin with a look into the
past to see if the current CS/PC debate has a parallel in America's linguistic
history.
SPEAKING OF THE DEVIL: TABOO IN SOCIETY5
Dirtywordsare in. No topic is taboo.

-Donna WoolfolkCross (1979, 139)
Words are often very strongly associated with superstition, religion,
myth, social status, and manners. The "word"has been, and continues to be
in most societies, perceived as a powerful instrument that may evoke evil
spirits, make bad things happen, sexually arouse, and instigate to violence
and revolution and numerous other activities. Many people believe that
"holy scriptures" (e.g., the Bible, Talmud, Koran) include the actual words
of God. Nations throughout history have been known for persecuting
writers and controlling access to the printed word, believing that "the pen
is mightier than the sword." Because of the strong belief that words lead to
action, human history is filled with tales of fear and veneration of the
"word." The existence of rhetoric as a discipline is an example of the
importance of such beliefs.
The term taboo (ta meaning 'mark', bu meaning 'exceedingly') is of
Polynesian origin, specifically from Tongan, where it denotes anything
linguistic and nonlinguistic that is prohibited or forbidden (Adler 1978,
34). In linguistic theory, taboo refers to "the situation in which a word or
name can be used in a community only under special conditions, whether
only by certain persons or only in certain circumstances" (Hjemslev 1963,
65).
It might be useful to repeat some of the most notable statements about
taboo. Language has been and continues to be closely tied to the exog-
enous world around us. One of the most common types of linguistic taboo
is found in naming phenomena that are connected with sex and digestive/
excretive processes. Many people are convinced that the use of a taboo
word can cause misfortune to occur. In various societies, taboos include the
use of the Lord's name in vain, reference to death and dying, curses
pronounced against other people, and the reading of certain holy books by
nonbelievers or other inappropriate persons or social groups. It is no
coincidence that many linguists have devoted much of their career to
continually pointing out the DIFFERENCE
between language and reality,
between the world of names and the world of things (e.g.,Jakobson 1957,
Bolinger and Sears 1981, Cassirer 1944, 1946, 1957).
However, there is also evidence that use of taboo terms in periods of
crisis and hardship is an important emotional compensation for those
speakers and hearers who dare to break the taboo. This type of behavior,
which is often considered to be the sign of a disfavored social group, is
quite common, for example, in military service and in prison and prison-
camp settings.6 In any case, taboo exists in all societies, ranging from the
most primitive to the most civilized and modern (Adler 1978, 56). Yet,
beyond the broad guidelines referred to above, who determines which
terms are to be considered taboo? Adler contends that taboo in modern
society is "dictated by the upper, the ruling class" (1978, 40). For current
CS/PC usage, it is not clear who, if any one group, is indeed dictating
usage. Perhaps it is this lack of clarity of source that evokes objections from
particular groups, or perhaps objections arise because the source is per-
ceived to have originated in a context that does not intersect with the group
of speakers who object to CS/PC terms.
TABOO IN CONTEMPORARY
STANDARDENGLISH
Tabusof indecency do not seem to lead to obsolescence;

the tabu forms are excluded in manyor most social situa-
tions, but by no means avoidedin others.
-Leonard Bloomfield (1933)
The English language is full of folk wisdom, much of which is contradic-
tory in nature, about the power of words, including "speakof the devil" and
the children's expression "sticksand stones may break my bones but words
will never harm me." The proverbs and sayings in English regarding word
usage yield no coherent "folk"view of words. Nevertheless, most speakers
continue to believe that word usage makes a difference. This is certainly
true in academic circles, where the essence of our scholarship is tied
inextricably to the "word."Be that as it may, word usage changes over time,
and, although the notion of taboo seems to be a universal for all times and
places, specific items of linguistic taboo most certainly change over time, in
some instances with great rapidity.
American English of the eighteenth century was very resistant to the use
of any of the titles used in England (e.g., Sir,Lord), making these terms a
mild sort of taboo. In place of these titles, it was acceptable to sparingly use
terms like honorable,Mr., Miss, or Madam (Read 1934a, 205-07). In some
instances, awkward combinations occurred that were considered comical
even by the speakers of that time (Read 1934a, 206). Apparently, British
visitors were sometimes dismayed and confused by the difference in mean-

ing of terms like farmer and sir in American English (Read 1934a, 207).
Clearly, the sociological differences between America and England led to a
divergence in terminology specifying the ranks of persons.
The most commonly acknowledged group of taboo words is obscenities.
It is not difficult to remember when American dictionaries of English did
not print any of the so-called obscene terms and it was unacceptable to use
these terms in public, in print, or in other media sources. In 1939 the
utterance of a "curse"word damn by Clark Cable at the end of Gonewith the
Wind became a cause celebre.In a relatively short period of time, it has
become possible in American culture not only to see or hear so-called
obscene words in films, television, radio, and literature, but it has become
possible to use these words in a larger range of public situations. There are
degrees, however, of censorship not only in contemporary American me-
dia, but also in educational systems, where not only are teachers restricted
in their speech, but literary works (including Salinger's Catcherin the Rye
and Orwell's 1984) are banned from the classroom. Groups who advocate
classroom censorship are usually different from those who support in-
creased cultural sensitivity. The reasoning behind the exclusion of such
works from the classroom generally entails a belief that the "word"is so
powerful that an inappropriate one can harm innocent children and
destroy public morals.
Both Read (1934b) and Adler (1978) categorize types of taboo. Read
distinguishes between (1) taboo of concept, (2) taboo of word, and (3)
projected taboo. For Read, taboo of concept is "simple avoidance of a
subject that is felt to be not suitable to the occasion," while taboo of word
occurs when a particular topic is considered valid for discussion, but
euphemistic terms are required. Read claims that one of the important
characteristics of word taboo is the "titillating thrill of scandalized pertur-
bation" (1934b, 264). If a word does not have the force of an authentic
word taboo, yet its usage evokes a lesser degree of perturbation (cf. nine-
teenth-century usage of leg (vs. limb), stomach,corset,trousers,sweat,sneeze[vs.
nose spasm], etc.), Read calls this PROJECTED. Later in his analysis, Read
relativizes the distinction between different types of taboo further when he
notes that the taboo of "four-letterwords" is different from the tendency to
use euphemisms (1934b, 267). Obviously, the taboo prohibiting use of
four-letter words was powerful enough in 1934 that Read's article, which
includes an analysis of the English word fuck, fails to ever explicitly mention
the word itself and gives historical forms (Old Dutch ficken and MHG
vicken) only in a footnote (1934b, 268nl5).
In contrast to Read's categories, Adler (1978, 46) gives special status to

the taboo phenomenon in which the speaker uses a taboo term in order to
experience a thrilling emotional sensation. He calls this type INVERTED
TABOO. Adler claims that "the only way that a taboo can be actually broken is
to use the word unemotionally in its simple literal sense" (46). This type of
differentiation can become quite problematic in determining which usages
TABOO.All discussions
are REAL TABOOand which are merely INVERTED
concerning linguistic taboo generally agree that taboo words do not disap-
pear from a lack of usage because (1) taboos are maintained or broken by
speakers from all classes of society, (2) taboos constantly change, some-
times quite rapidly,7and (3) some taboos are self-imposed due to particular
stereotypes (Steadman 1938, 13-18). Alternatively, the power of linguistic
taboo is so strong in some societies that the taboo leads to significant
linguistic change (Adler 1978, 52).
The failure to use CS/PC terms shares salient properties with various
types of taboo.
WHAT IS A SPEECH COMMUNITY?
Clearly, the primary determining factor in specific instances of taboo

usage and definition is the social situation and the type of speech commu-
nity involved in social interaction. One of the more complicated termino-
logical issues to be found in contemporary linguistic theory concerns the
inability to give an unambiguous and widely accepted definition to the
term SPEECHCOMMUNITY.
Generally defined, SPEECHCOMMUNITYrefers to a
group of people who share language in a particular way. This sharing may
or may not take place in a bounded area, depending on how the types of
speakers who identify with the community are classified. Weinreich begins
his work on language contact by emphasizing the fact that no linguistic
community is ever "homogeneous and hardly ever self-contained" (1968,
vii). Bolinger and Sears (1981) attempt to give a broadly based definition of
a speech community by relating its definition to the difficulty in defining
social variation in general. Bolinger and Sears's suggested solution entails
differentiating between AREAL and NON-AREAL communities (1981, 192,
195-211).
The notion of a speech community, which finds its fuzzy parallel in the
inability of linguists to define the difference between language and dialect
or of mathematicians to give a rigorous definition to the concept of SET,is
critical in any argument that would claim that perhaps CS/PC is not a
monolith and actually is a phenomenon that encompasses a broad range of
related, but separate, issues. On the macro level, users and nonusers of
CS/PC terms are part of the speech community of English speakers living
in the United States. We share a common langue and are able to communi-
cate to such a degree that most people would agree that we share a
common language-English. Within this common language, there are
multiple sub-groupings that range from dialects to sub-dialects to more
specifically defined speech communities and, of course, idiolects. On the
micro level, the speech community is the group of persons who identify
with each other and consider themselves to be representative of "one"
group. The defining parameters of the micro speech community may
include age, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic standing, education, sexual
preference, or other criteria.
Any attempt to define micro speech communities exclusively or prima-
rily in terms of CS/PC usage proves futile. Yet, one might posit that, due to
ever increasing differentiation of various types in American society, some
groups are attempting to more forcefully draw the lines distinguishing
their communities from those around them. One way that these differ-
ences may be accentuated is through language usage. Numerous socio-
linguistic studies have focused on differentiation of discourse, including
Labov (1994) and Wolfram and Schilling-Estes (1995; 1997). How speakers
and hearers view themselves vis-a-vismore broadly defined communities
involves, to some degree, rules concerning who can use certain terms
within a given group. For example, it is generally the case that females may
refer to each other as girls, but usage of this term by males or other people
outside of the community is inappropriate and insulting. The same can be
said for terms used within any community by its members, as opposed to
those same terms being used, but with a different referential force, by those
outside of the community. The most prominent current example is that in
some contexts African Americans can call each other names that can never
be used appropriately in naming outside the African-American community.
The focal point is that the SHIFTin meaning is determined directly by the
speaker/addressee relationship. This case requires a notion of language
that accounts for the potential shifting in reference depending upon the
actors in the speech situation.
What is essential to acknowledge are the fuzzy boundaries that define
and divide discrete speech communities. These boundaries are not neces-
sarily explicit, nor are they defined by a single type of component.
Specifically, the defining characteristics of a speech community are both
linguistic and social. Given the democratic tradition and the absence of an
academy in determining literary norms in contemporary American En-
glish, speech community membership is determined predominantly by the
individual's speech, which is determined by a series of variables, including

education, socioeconomic status, religion, and ethnicity. Code switching
within and between different speech communities is one important conse-
quence of such diversity in the defining properties of speech communities
in general. The successful maintenance of a set of CS/PC terms presup-
poses a more broadly defined public speech community than exists in the
United States today.
WHO DETERMINESWHAT WE SHOULD CALL EACH OTHER?
Obviously, not all CS/PC terms are equal. Some of these terms address
broadly defined norms, while others are relevant only in very restricted
social circles. In some instances, a CS/PC term is one of many synonymous
alternatives (cf. waitperson,waitron, server). Clearly, not only are some of
these terms restricted to groups with changing constituencies, but the
terms themselves are not linguistic equals. In other words, some CS/PC
terms are distorted and awkward, while others are simple and stylistically
elegant.
Of those terms with a more restricted range of social salience, consider
the set chairman, chair,chairperson.The controversy over these terms is very
much alive in American academia. In fact, I have personally witnessed
highly emotional (and even irrational) discussions on why, on the one
hand, some insist on being called chairmanand not chair,while on the other
hand, others reject the word chairpersonand insist on being called a chair.In
one such heated debate, certain professors, who refuse to be called chair,
have offered the term presidentas a solution to the dilemma. This case is
generally restricted to the Academy, although other examples are featured
with great frequency in the media (e.g., Ukraine,not The Ukraine).In spite
of the fact that I recognize, along with other linguists, the power of the
media and the so-called ruling class and their potential effect on speech
communities and defining taboo (cf. Adler 1978, 40; Butters 1989, 180),
there are other linguistic factors that demonstrate how difficult it is to
dictate linguistic usage in what is generally recognized as "democratic"
society. Consider, for example, the failure of the French Academy to
prevent large numbers of foreign borrowings from entering French.8
Any definitive statements concerning the actual status of CS/PC terms
in contemporary English require a rigorous quantitative study of the
perception and usage of these terms in a wide range of communities. These
groups would necessarily be defined by the same principles that serve to
differentiate the groups where (1) usage of CS/PC terms is perceived
positively, although (2) within a specific micro speech community, CS/PC
usage may be suspended (e.g., use of the term "girl"by women), or (3)
usage of CS/PC terms is perceived negatively. It may be the case that a
quantitative study of speakers will show that the CS/PC phenomenon is
much less monolithic than many extremists from both sides would believe.
Using Read's terminology, I would suggest that certain patterns of CS/PC
usage can be treated as the consequence of both concept and word taboo.
INTENTIONALITYIN LANGUAGEUSE
If CS/PC can be characterized as a phenomenon linked to taboo and

euphemisms, then non-CS/PC terms behave in certain settings as taboo
words and, as such, allow certain predictions about the kinds of linguistic
behavior to expect. The non-CS/PC words, as taboowords, will be used in
some social settings. In fact, it may become the case that the more taboo a
particular word becomes, the more likely it will survive in alternative social
settings. Second, we can be certain that taboo terms will change over time.
Some linguists have ventured to predict what, depending on the type of
social change encountered, these changes might look like. For example,
Adler observes that the more egalitarian a society is, the less strenuous the
taboo on sexual terms. Adler claims that there is a strong correlation
between puritanism and a rising mercantile middle class (1978, 49-50).
The current situation in the United States seems to challenge Adler's
correlations by being very open to public usage of sexually based obsceni-
ties but very reluctant to permit public naming that unambiguously evokes
previously established differences between groups of people.
Instead of attempting to predict the future, one might pose a different
type of question: What is the purpose of using or failing to use CS/PC
terms? In more technical terminology, what is the role of speaker/hearer
INTENTIONand MOTIVATIONin usage and/or nonusage of CS/PC terms?
Using the sign-theory approach to language, it becomes possible to
articulate the concept of MOTIVATIONas one aspect of the GOAL-ORIENTED
SIGN. The Peircean definition of FINALINTERPRETANT
is the rule-like interpre-
tation of a sign that is inherently goal-oriented and can serve as a primary
mechanism for codifying linguistic change. Peirce specifically refers to the
final interpretant as the ultimate "self control" (Peirce 1931-58, 8: 372;
Andrews 1993, 213ff.; Andrews 1994, 15). The final interpretant exhibits
regularity (or law) and is intentional, yielding "the one Interpretative result
to which every interpreter is destined to come if the Sign is sufficiently
considered (Peirce 1931-58, 8: 184; Hardwick and Cook 1977, 111). Also,
the notion of final interpretant, and interpretant in general, ensures that
the importance of communication of signs will not be overshadowed by
strictly signification-based questions. Thus, Peircean sign theory necessar-

ily incorporates a notion of intentionality in sign production and usage. In
the issue of CS/PC, the linguistic mechanism for incorporating these terms
into contemporary English is quite powerfully described in the Peircean
model, where the linguistic sign is fully triadic and explicitly requires the
dynamic role of the INTERPRETER.It is only via the interpreter (here, speaker
and hearer) that the meaning of CS/PC terms can be realized and estab-
lished. There is nothing intrinsic to the linguistic form in the abstract
without its realization in the speech act.
WHYCS/PC Now?
One would imagine that many of the current CS/PC terms have arisen
as suggestions given by those particular speech communities where persons
of the types listed would be found. In many instances, these communities
will overlap and involve multiple subsets of communities. It makes sense
that it would be persons who chair departments that decided what they
would like to be called or members of the fire department who decide what
they would like to be called. However, it probably is not the case that the
majority of persons who chair departments or the majority of members of
the fire department or postal service decided which name is CS/PC.
Perhaps the proposal came from a small, but vocal, minority. This may well
be the case with some of the CS/PC terms listed. It is the question of origin
of these terms that, in some instances, raises heated debate. What if I prefer
to be called a waiteror waitressand I dislike strongly being called a server?
What if I prefer to be called blackand I dislike being called African Ameri-
can?
We find ourselves becoming ensconced in a macro speech community
that is rapidly breaking down into smaller and smaller micro speech
communities. The evolution of micro speech communities is very much
like, and is probably related to, an even more powerful sociocultural
movement that in many parts of the world is called NATIONALISM.Perhaps
American society is also struggling with a new type of "ism"that requires a
more powerful linguistic identification for micro communities and, in the
struggle to retain one's identity, a rejection of larger macro communities.
One manifestation of the creation of smaller micro speech communities
can be seen in the rise of specific types of group identifying vocabulary or
slang.
The usage of CS/PC terms is, in this regard, a reaction to and an
attempted solution for reincorporating into our society those persons who
have become increasingly alienated as the parameters of inequality in-
crease and deepen. The multifaceted problems associated with CS/PC

show the dynamic interplay of linguistic signs as they act and react within
the constantly changing social context.
NOTES
1. Throughout the essay, I will use the abbreviation CS/PC to refer to the terms
"cultural sensitivity" and "political correctness." There is no attempt to differenti-
ate these terms, only to analyze the phenomena to which they apply.
2. The alternative spelling for the word "taboo"is "tabu."For more information
on the origins of the word, see Adler (1978, 34-36).
3. There are multiple examples of ethnic CS/PC terms, but the non-CS/PC
term is often more generally perceived as pejorative than in the other examples
(Polak/Pole, CoonAss/Cajun, etc.). It is interesting to note that in some of these
examples, the pejorative term is neutral in the source language (e.g., Polak is the
standard word for a male Pole in contemporary Polish).
4. Because of the diversity of CS/PC opponents, it is important to note that
some groups argue against the use of a CS/PC term as a "corruption" of the literary
language.
5. I will restrict my remarks to American English with the understanding that
these examples are generally representative of taboo phenomena in other lan-
guages.
6. The release of tension and psychological pressure through specific types of
language usage is not a new idea. Adler also mentions the use of taboo words to
relieve tension (1978, 61-62). Of those linguistic utterances that contribute to
relief of tension, one could add joking and bantering. For more information on the
correlation between taboo-breaking and satisfaction, see Evans-Pritchard (1929,
311-31) andJerushalmy and Zbignieuw X (1992).
7. For a very interesting discussion on the correlation between euphemism and
taboo, see Braun (1988, 59).
8. Beyond the level of the power struggle in determining linguistic convention
in naming, there is another concept that might facilitate our discussion and
potential definition of CS/PC terms-Labov's notion of LINGUISTIC PROFIT.The
notion of linguistic profit is not new to sociolinguistic theory. Since Labov intro-
duced this measuring device in 1980, it has played a significant role in determining
the importance of linguistic differences between dialects (372). The principle of
linguistic profit claims that structural characteristics (i.e., generally phonetic/
phonemic and grammatical features that may combine with other features) are
more important in defining the speech community than lexical characteristics.
The CS/PC phenomenon does not coincide with Labov's principle precisely
because it is a phenomenon that requires a macro, not micro, speech community.
On the other hand, if one assumes a more global validity of Labov's notion,
perhaps this would mean that CS/PC terms will not achieve their linguistic goal
precisely because they are NOTstructurally defined, but rather restricted to the
lexicon. For a discussion on the more controversial aspects of Labov's LINGUISTIC
PROFIT, see Butters (1989, 180-87).
REFERENCES
Adler, Max K. 1978. Naming and Addressing:A Sociolinguistic Study. Hamburg:

Helmut Buske Verlag.
Andrews, Edna. 1990. MarkednessTheory:The Union of Asymmetryand Semiosis in
Language. Durham: Duke UP.
. 1993. "Interpretants and Linguistic Change: The Case of-x in Contempo-
rary Standard Colloquial Russian."Journal of Slavic Linguistics 1: 199-218.
. 1994. 'The Interface of Iconicity and Interpretants." The Peirce Seminar
Papers2: 9-28.
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York:Holt.
Bolinger, Dwight, and Donald A. Sears. 1981. Aspectsof Language. 3rd ed. New York:
Harcourt.
Braun, Friederike. 1988. Termsof Address:Problemsof Patterns and Usage in Various
Languages and Cultures.Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Butters, Ronald R. 1989. The Death of Black English: Divergenceand Convergencein
Black and WhiteVernaculars.Frankfurt am Main: Lang.
Cassirer, Ernst. 1944. An Essay on Man: An Introductionto a Philosophyof Human
Culture.New Haven: Yale UP.
.1946. Language and Myth. New York: Harper.
. 1957. ThePhilosophyof SymbolicForm.Vol. 1. New Haven: Yale UP.
Cross, Donna Woolfolk. 1979. WordAbuse.New York:Coward.
Eco, Umberto. 1976. A Theoryof Semiotics.Bloomington: Indiana UP.
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. 1929. "Some Collective Expressions of Obscenity in Africa."
Journal of theRoyalAnthropologicalInstituteof GreatBritain and Ireland59: 311-31.
Hardwick, Charles S., with James Cook, eds. 1977. Semioticand Significs: The Corre-
spondencebetweenCharlesS. Peirceand Lady VictoriaWelby.Bloomington: Indiana
UP.
Hjemslev, Louis. 1963. Language:An Introduction.Madison: U of Wisconsin P.
Hookway, Christopher. 1992. Peirce.London: Routledge.
Jakobson, Roman. 1957. "Shifters, Verbal Categories, and the Russian Verb." Se-
lectedWritings.Vol. 2. The Hague: Mouton, 130-47.
Jerushalmy, S. and R. Zbignieuw X. 1992. "The PC Manifesto." E-Mail Post.
Labov, William. 1980. "IsThere a Creole Speech Community?" TheoreticalOrienta-
tions in CreoleStudies. Ed. Albert Valdam and Arnold Highfield. New York:
Academic, 369-88.
. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change: Internal Factors. Cambridge, MA:
Blackwell.
Peirce, Charles S. 1931-58. The CollectedPapers of CharlesSanders Peirce. 8 vols.
Cambridge: Harvard UP.
Read, Allen Walker. 1934a. 'Words Indicating Social Status in America in the 18th
Century." AmericanSpeech9: 204-08.
. 1934b. "An Obscenity Symbol." AmericanSpeech9: 264-78.
Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language. New York:Harcourt.
. 1933. 'The Psychological Reality of Phonemes." SelectedWritings46-60.
Berkeley: U of California P.
Saugstad, Per. 1989. Language:A Theoryof Its Structureand Use. Oslo: Solum.
404 AMERICAN SPEECH 71.4 (1996)
Steadman,J. M.,Jr. 1938. "Affected and Effeminate Words."AmericanSpeech13: 13-

18.
Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society:TheDevelopmentof HigherPsychologicalProcesses.
Cambridge: Harvard UP.
Weinreich, Uriel. 1968. Languages in Contact:Findings and Problems.The Hague:
Mouton.
Whorf, Benjamin Lee. 1950. "AnAmerican Indian Model of the Universe." Interna-
tionalJournal of AmericanLinguistics16: 67-72.
Wolfram, Walt, and Natalie Schilling-Estes. 1995. "Moribund Dialects and the
Language Endangerment Canon: The Case of the Ocracoke Brogue." Language
71: 696-721.
. 1997. Hoi Toideon the Sound Soide: The Storyof the OcracokeBrogue.Chapel
Hill: U of North Carolina P.

The American Dialect Society

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The American Dialect Society

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The American Dialect Society

Cultural Sensitivity and Political Correctness: The Linguistic Problem of Naming

THIS ESSAY some of the linguistic concepts that underlie the

Within an ordinary sign-based definition of language, one would not

CULTURALLYSENSITIVE (OR POLITICALLYCORRECT) TERMS

Table 1 is a short, selective list of the more well-known and popular

throughout the history of philosophy and include the fields of linguistics,

The usage of CS/PC terms is overtly connected to the position that

categories and define types, then language can also be inhibiting in

THE LINGUISTICSOF NAMING AND THE POWER OF THE WORD

SPEAKING OF THE DEVIL: TABOO IN SOCIETY5

Dirtywordsare in. No topic is taboo.

Tabusof indecency do not seem to lead to obsolescence;

visitors were sometimes dismayed and confused by the difference in mean-

In contrast to Read's categories, Adler (1978, 46) gives special status to

WHAT IS A SPEECH COMMUNITY?

Clearly, the primary determining factor in specific instances of taboo

individual's speech, which is determined by a series of variables, including

WHO DETERMINESWHAT WE SHOULD CALL EACH OTHER?

If CS/PC can be characterized as a phenomenon linked to taboo and

strictly signification-based questions. Thus, Peircean sign theory necessar-

crease and deepen. The multifaceted problems associated with CS/PC

Adler, Max K. 1978. Naming and Addressing:A Sociolinguistic Study. Hamburg:

Steadman,J. M.,Jr. 1938. "Affected and Effeminate Words."AmericanSpeech13: 13-

You might also like