Glenda Thompson's CU

Hell’s Language:
An Historical, Social, and Linguistical Look at Cussing

Glenda Thompson

            You taught me language; and my profit on’t is, I know how to curse.
                                                                                     -Caliban, The Tempest
                                                                                      William Shakespeare

Academic Setting

This curriculum unit has been developed for students at Freedom High School in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Freedom is an alternative school for “at risk” students within the Albuquerque Public Schools system. Most of the students at Freedom have either dropped out of school and returned or are in danger of dropping out. There is no “typical” Freedom student; there are as many kinds of kids at Freedom as there are kids. Many of our students have children; many live on their own or assist in supporting their families; some have had legal problems or drug problems and have consequently gotten behind in school; and many have suffered social or emotional problems and need the small, personal environment which we provide. Academic levels vary greatly, but for the most part our students tend to be very bright. They often have been frustrated or bored in their regular schools.

            Freedom is ethnically and socioeconomically diverse. Our kids come from all over Albuquerque, and many come from the outlying areas. We usually have many students who drive in from the neighboring Indian reservations and the East Mountain areas. We have students from every high school in APS, and many students from home school or private school backgrounds.

            Most students who enter Freedom arrive with very low gradepoint averages. A prejudiced viewer might assume that means our students are low functioning. On the contrary, most of those averages are low due to lack of attendance, being dropped from classes, and consequently receiving F’s. Once students begin working at Freedom, their true abilities show through. We have monitoring for special education students, but we are not equipped to take special education students who are not capable of full inclusion. All special education students function successfully within the regular classroom. We usually have many students who are academically at an enriched, honors, or AP level. The broad range of abilities within any given classroom make teaching at Freedom exceptionally challenging.

            We use many tactics at Freedom to keep kids in school. We have an advisor system which insures that every kid has an advisor who knows and looks out for them. Advisors do the practical work of scheduling, academically advising, monitoring attendance, and maintaining the transcripts of their advisees. They also do the down and dirty work of knowing where the student is living (or not “living” as is often the case), counseling on a personal level, being aware of their drug and alcohol use, maintaining family contact if appropriate, and being available for any other needs that may arise. Many students say the advisor system is the one most important factor at Freedom which helps them to succeed. We also work very hard to make sure that students are being appropriately challenged. It is my own opinion that most students in public school are sorely underchallenged, and many students cite this as being a major factor in their having done poorly in school. We work our students hard, challenge them intellectually, and encourage them to always reach way above their current level.

            In order to keep kids engaged we choose materials and develop lessons which are relatable to the students. This does not mean that we choose easy material. For example, any student is capable of understanding that Frankenstein is an analogy of man’s relationship to God, and that it poses many philosophical questions of an existential nature. Students can understand this through a deep analytical reading of the text, lots of practice in abstract thinking, and understanding their own existentialist feelings. Lots of philosophical discussions and writing exercises can help students to understand the material, and also to begin to revel in their own intellectual abilities. We also do lots of cross curriculum coordinating. For example, students in advanced English may read Darkness at Noon while connecting this to lessons in their government, economics, and world history classes.

            This curriculum unit is developed to help kids become more conscious of their own language use. Cussing will not be approached in a moralistic manner; however, we (I must include myself in this ) will attempt to become more aware of our own cussing, when and why we do it, and to perhaps attempt to curb it a bit. Mostly though, I want students to gain an understanding of language in a way they may not have thought of before. Do we ever think about why we use the words we do? Do we know where they came from? Do we understand the sociological implications of our language use? What makes a “bad word” a bad word? How many of the novels we read in class have been banned? Why? What do the Supreme Court and the United States Constitution have to say about freedom of speech regarding literature? Regarding cussing? This unit will be challenging, fun, and a little bit controversial (permission slips will be signed for this unit). I believe kids will learn a great deal, be intellectually challenged, and come away understanding that learning can be fun and satisfying.

Context and Background

            Indeed, the study of swearing, in spite of the nastiness of this habit, is one
            of the very greatest interest and importance, in our attempts to trace the
            graduations of motion, thought, and language.

                                                                                    Hughlings Jackson    -1866

Cussing Defined

What is cussing? Certainly, it is a relative term; however, it is as universal as prayer. Every known language in the world today has cussing, and linguists agree that it is probably as old as language itself (Hartogs 21). The word “cussing” will be used in this paper to refer to language which might fall into the following classifications: cursing, profanity, blasphemy, taboo, obscenity, vulgarity, epithets, insults and slurs, scatology and some slang. Classifying dirty words into categories allows us to better understand the importance of context and purpose in cussing. Cursing in America, by Timothy Jay, provides us with clear differentiation of the categories:

Cursing

Cursing, as a verb, means to call upon a divine power to send injury upon. As a noun, it is a prayer or invocation for injury to come. There was a time when the idea of cursing was a powerful one. Most Americans today do not truly believe that harm or injury can be brought to another through the use of language, but we still do plenty of cursing. A religious curse would directly call upon a deity or power to bring harm:

            d*mn you,     g*dd*mn you,      to hell with you

Non-religious cursing does not involve a higher power, but does call for injury to another:

            Eat sh*t and die.     I hope you rot in jail.

In both religious and non-religious cursing, the speaker’s words invoke harm upon another. (Many of us are guilty of cursing, especially while driving!) Whether we literally desire harm to befall the other person or not, cursing is one of the most common forms of cussing.

Profanity

To be profane is to treat something sacred or reverent with disrespect or abuse, to be “unholy,” or to be unconcerned with religion or religious purposes. Jay goes on to say:

            Profanity is based on a religious distinction. To be profane means to be
            secular or behaving outside the customs of religious belief. To be profane
            means to be ignorant or intolerant of the guidelines of a particular religious
            order (3).

            Examples of profanity would include words or phrases which show an ignorance of religious ideas or indifference to them:

            J*s*s H. Christ, I’m tired!     Does the pope sh*t in the woods?

Blasphemy

Blasphemy and profanity are very closely related. While profanity reflects an ignorance or indifference to religious matters, blasphemy seeks to purposefully show disrespect or disdain for God or religion:

            Scr*w the Pope!     Religion sucks!

Blasphemy and cursing were used widely through the Victorian era, but by World War II, blasphemy was replaced largely by obscenity (Flexner 173).

Taboo

Taboo words are magical words. All cultures have or have a history of taboo words or phrases. Taboo words are those which are designated as having some sort of dangerous supernatural power. To utter them is to risk danger for the self or one’s cultural group. The word taboo originated in Polynesia, and carries with it the idea of risk (Dooling 41). Captain Cook introduced the word from Tongan into English in 1777.    Early Polynesians feared reprisal from their gods for uttering certain words.   In many religions, such as Brahmanism, Judaism, and Islam, direct mention of the name of God is taboo. Some Christian religions consider it a sin to mention God’s name in vain. In parts of Africa the word for snake is never mentioned, but instead phrases like “the stick we saw this morning” are creatively employed (Dooling 43). Geoffrey Hughes, in Swearing, explains taboo:

            The word has power of its own; it is a means of bringing things about...
            Language in its primitive function is to be regarded as a mode of action
            rather that as a countersign of thought... . In the early stages of a culture
            verbal taboos are greatly intensified, and also very complicated, largely
            because language in that social setting is highly charged (8).

            Taboo in America has become weak and is sometimes very subtle. Our use of euphemism is in many ways a reflection of our fear of uttering dirty words. In many ways, however, it is much more obvious. The use of passed away or met his maker reflect a fear of uttering the words died or death. In the sport of hockey, players may not say shutout during a scoreless game. It is tradition that while Shakespeare’s play Macbeth is in production, the name may not be uttered. While we still do have some rather intense taboo words such as c*nt, incest, and mother f*cker, we have come to use the word taboo to mean any word which is thought of as dirty or inappropriate.

Obscenity

The Supreme Court of the United States designates five categories of unprotected speech. One category, and certainly the most controversial category, is that of obscenity. The Supreme Court has had a long and curious relationship with the very idea of obscenity. Literally thousands of court cases in the United States have addressed the question of where the line falls between obscenity and freedom of speech. In order for obscenity to be outlawed, it must be defined. After decades of attempts at defining obscenity, Justice Potter Stewart once gave up and said simply, “I know it when I see it.” If only it were that easy. The accepted legal definition of obscenity today is based on the famous three prong test from Miller v. California (1973). Each prong must be met in order to be defined as obscene:

            1) The average person, applying contemporary community standards
            would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest

            2) The work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically               defined by the applicable state law

            3) The work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Hmmmmmm. Who is the average person? What defines a community? Who determines literary value? Our difficulties with Darwin point out the problems with defining scientific value. And what about prurient? Prurient can be defined as “having a tendency to excite lustful thoughts” (Dooling 60). What might excite lustful thoughts in one person may not in another. Legally, we are left with an uneasy feeling. Personally, I guess we know it when we see it. For our purposes of defining cussing we will say that obscenity is obscene if the speaker intends a sort of shock-value based on a desire to upset cultural rules.

Vulgarity

Vulgar is typically defined as that which is common, uncultivated, and of a crass or course nature. Vulgar words and terms may not always be defined as obscene or taboo (although many are), but are generally regarded as distasteful:

            snot,     up yours,     on the rag,     kiss my a**

Perhaps, in some cases, the weakening of obscenity through frequent use shifts that which is regarded as obscene to the category of vulgarity.

Epithets

Epithets are “brief but forceful bursts of emotional language” (Jay 1992 7). Epithets are what we yell when we stub our toe, or do “something stupid or frustrating.” They may fall into other categories of cussing, but tend to stand alone and are typically directed at no one in particular:

            d*mn,     son of a b*tch,     J*s*s,     f*ck

Insults and Slurs

Insults and slurs are words which are directed at another person and intended to cause some sort of emotional or social harm. They may point out physical characteristics or behavioral tendencies. They may be derogatory to ethnicity or race, or sexual orientation. They may be true or untrue. As teachers, we hear many more of these on our playgrounds and in our halls than we would like:

            pig,     dog,     b*tch,     jacka**,     fatty
            wh*re,    sl*t,
            n*gg*rr,     sp*c,     f*g

            Directing these epithets at members of certain ethnic or social groups is considered an insult. However, many groups tend to reclaim these words as a means of reclaiming power and dignity. As controversial as it is and as uncomfortable as it may make us feel, the word n*gg*r has become accepted among many black communities in the United States.

Scatology

Scatology is the study of excrement or the interest in obscene matters related to excrement. Some of us may find it amazing that this is even common enough to have its own word, but Sigmund Freud and many other psychoanalysts seem to believe that much neurosis is based on just such obsessions. They also believe that cussing is a symptom of those neuroses (this will be discussed later in this paper). Scatological terms and words fall into many cussing categories, and many are terms used by children:

            sh*t,     cr*p,     t*rd,     p*ss,     ca ca,     poop,     fart

            Clearly, most all words or terms which we would define as cussing fall into two or more categories. Most scatological terms could be called vulgar. Many people would also define them as obscene or taboo. Most curses are intended also as insults. Context is everything.

Slang

Slang is defined as language “peculiar to a particular group: an informal nonstandard vocabulary composed typically of coinages, arbitrary changed words, and extravagant, forced or facetious figures of speech” (Jay1992 6). Not all slang, by any means, is cussing. But a great deal of cussing is slang. People often use slang to identify or communicate with a certain group of people. Teenagers are notorious for their use of and creation of slang terms. Contemporary teenage slang includes many words with which teachers are very familiar:

            sick,     rockers,     dope (as an adjective),    ill

There is also much teenage slang which could be considered cussing:

            bee-yotch (or biatch),     pimp,     biznatch,     skank,     ho

            Slang is a rich and wonderful study in itself. Carl Sandburg said, “Slang is language with its sleeves rolled up.”   In other words, slang can get down and dirty; it can get the job done. The job of language is to articulately communicate ideas. Some would argue, myself included, that we only have the term slang because we have adopted the notion of a standardized language. Language naturally evolves and grows. New words are formed every day. Many fall out of fashion, while others are adopted into the lexicon. Our lexicon is overwhelming and plentiful; and our cussing lexicon is quite impressive. The English cussing lexicon will be discussed in depth later in this paper.

The Universal Nature of Cussing

Every language in the world has cussing. In Cursing in America, Timothy Jay quotes the famous anthropologist Ashley Montague:

            I believe that the evidence so far considered strongly suggests that
            swearing is a culturally acquired way of expressing anger. Anger is
            a complex emotion the expression of which may take the form of a
            hostile response--it may be an oath, it may be a lampoon, it may be
            a laugh and one hundred and one other behaviors. Whatever the truth
            may be, it is clear that different emotions call forth different forms of
            anger and that one of these forms of anger, the desire to swear, as a
            learned form of response, occurs in some cultures or segments of a
            culture but not others (74).

Jay disagrees with Montague, and notes that Montague does not indicate which cultures do not cuss. He also appears not to have considered utterance of taboo words, as all cultures clearly have taboo. Montague wrote this view in 1947. Most anthropologists and sociologists since that time have discarded the noble savage perspective which may have led him to believe that there were cultures which did not cuss. Renatus Hartogs, in Four-Letter Word Games, claims that anthropological work supports the notion that “ [cussing] is universal”:

            Obscenity, in short, may be viewed as the counter-code to whatever
            orthodoxy prevails. It is a defensible assumption that obscenity is as
            old as language itself. Language is the chief means of socializing the individual...Obscenity               thus emerges as the natural idiom of rebellion...[and] sexuality is the predominant theme (20,               21).

Another predominant theme is excrement. In Angola, Africa, the greatest insult is, “Go and eat sh*t.” The Cheyenne of 1878 were recorded as having a phrase which translated to mean “sh*t mouth.” The Bedouins of the same time period used the phrase natsi-viz, which also translates to sh*t mouth.   The Ponca and Sioux called each other “eaters of dog dung” (Bourke 257). Our mothers would might react to our use of these terms by keeping with the metaphor: “You eat with that mouth?”

            Every culture and language group cusses. If that cussing stems from a reaction against the culture, then one might speculate that each culture would develop its own definitions of cussing. Surprisingly (or not) cussing, its definition and uses, are fairly universal. Our lexicons, however, are varied and quite interesting.

The English Lexicon of Cussing

Cuss Words

George Carlin is famous for many things, among them his seven-dirty-words monologue. In 1978 the oft times radical New York radio station WBAI aired his monologue about words “you definitely wouldn’t ever say” on the air: “sh*t, p*ss, f*ck, c*nt, c*cks*ck*r, motherf*ck*r, and tits”(Dooling 68). Try as they might, the Supreme Court ruled that the monologue was indeed indecent, but couldn’t legally deem it obscene, as it did not pass the three-prong test in that it was not deemed prurient. Ask any teenager in your classroom today to recite this monologue, and most of them can, they just don’t know it. The contemporary band Blink182 upped it to ten-dirty-words and turned it into a catchy little song which most of them know. There are no other words in the song. Lovely.
            The English lexicon of cussing is comprised of much more than ten dirty words. I won’t bother with any sort of list as most of us are very familiar with a good chunk of that lexicon. Even those of us who don’t cuss know these words and learned them at an early age (that will be covered later). How does a child know when a cuss word is a cuss word? What makes a cuss word a cuss word? We do:

            There is, of course, no logical reason why f*ck, scr*w, make...,
            or any other term should be “dirty,” shocking, or taboo, no logical
            reason why they should be considered any different than such synonyms as copulate, sexual               intercourse, or feces. It’s a matter of conditioning and etiquette (Flexner 157).

K. Aaron Smith, as well as Renatus Hartogs and many other linguists, would argue that there are no synonyms. “F*ck,” says Hartogs,

            ...is an honest and necessary word. It has no synonyms, only prudish
            paraphrases like “making love,” “having intercourse,” or “being intimate.”
            The lack of a workable sex language deprives our culture of free expression in an area               where social and personal values are now being redefined [1967] (38).

This lack of synonyms and cultural conditioning leaves us with a long list of “honest and necessary” words. Because cuss words are cuss words based on cultural conditioning, then as our culture changes, so does our lexicon. While some of our cuss words have only recently been thought of as such, many others of have been with us for hundreds of years.

            We’ll start with f*ck. This is probably the first cuss word any kid (or even most adult learners for that matter) looks up in the dictionary, so it’s a good place to start. The word has been around for a long time. Many people can tell you that the word originated in early England and is an acronym for fornication under command of the king. This is entirely untrue. Language and etymology myths abound, and this is probably one of the most well known. The word f*ck has a long history that is not without some disagreements. Robert McCrum, in The Story of English, tells us the word came out of the Renaissance and is a borrowing from the “Low Dutch” word fokking, which “probably derived from Latin” (77). Middle Dutch had the word fokken which meant to thrust. Norwegian, fukka, to copulate, and the Swedes had focka, to strike or copulate. Stuart Flexner tells us that f*ck first appeared in English in the fifteenth century. Geoffrey Hughes bemoans the word’s uncertain etymology:

            [An] etymological conundrum concerns the relations between f*ck
            (recorded only from Early Modern English) and its Continental
            semantic partners, French foutre and German ficken, ‘to strike.’
            [There is much to make] of the relationship between Latin futuere
            (The root of French foutre) and Latin battuere, to strike. The curious
            forms windf*cker (for windhover) and Scots f*cksail (for
            foresail) suggest yet another potential root in [Old Norse] fukja,
            ‘to drive,’ in this case ‘to be driven by the wind.’

            Sh*t is probably the second cuss word most people would look up. Richard Dooling tells us, in Bluestreak, that “sh*t is inextricably bound up with almost everything” (130). Cuss words meaning sh*t show up everywhere around the world. Whole schools of thought in psychoanalysis have been obsessed with the substance, the act, and the word. The word in English is quite old (if not overused):

            scite                 Old English
            scitte                Old English
            schit                 13^th century
            schyt                14^th century
            schit                 16^th century
            sheitt                16^th century
            scheitt             16^th century
            sheitte             16^th century
            scheitte             16^th century
            shite                 16^th century to present
            sh*t                   16^th century to present (Aman 31)

            While sh*t has not always been a four-letter-word, it has always been a cuss word. In Opus Maledictorum, Reinhold Aman goes on to say:

            The Oxford English Dictionary (OED), 1933, Vol.IX, shows that
            in earlier centuries there were different forms for the noun and the
            verb, including its past tense and participle. Since the 19^th century,
            however, the single form sh*t has been used interchangeably for all
            these functions (24).

The evolution, and yet consistency of the word, reflects the fact that it is very commonly used or at least commonly known. Many cuss words in current use have not been around for very long; they are the slang cuss words - words which reflect contemporary trends and will probably fall out of use:

            hoochie,    ho,       biznatch

            The good old stand-by cuss words which we all know will probably continue to be around for a long time because 1)we have not come up with “synonyms” which are any better, and 2) they still hold their emotional weight. F*ck and sh*t are perfect examples. Each has no real synonyms for particular usages. For example, “F*ck you” is pretty perfect for its usage. It conveys to the recipient disdain and anger. So does, “Eat sh*t,” but the f-word holds more, it’s weightier, meaner, more at gut level. “Eat sh*t” has its place as well. It conveys disdain, but also disregard. It’s almost as if the recipient isn’t worth the emotional effort of a “F*ck you.” Used as epithets, “Oh, f*ck” or “Oh, sh*t” each also still holds its own. Each can mean “Oops,” “I can’t believe this is happening,” or “Wow” (among others). The f-word still carries more weight and has a slightly different connotation. Used as a verb, the f-word is coarser than scr*w, nastier than do it, and less fun than bonk. Sh*t, as a noun, is filthier than cr*p and smellier than poo�poo. Each has shifted slightly in use over the years, but still have a place in the cussing lexicon. They have, however, begun to lose their potency.

Bleaching

In 1971 my grandmother washed my sister’s mouth out with soap for using the epithet crap. My sister swore that to her the word meant the junk that builds up around the kitchen sink. My grandmother would have no crap of either sort in her house. The word today has lost almost all of its weight as a cuss word. It can still refer to the same substance as is sh*t, but falls closer in weight to poop. Remember h-e-double-toothpicks? The word hell can be heard now in television commercials. Huckleberry Finn had a hell of a time with the word:

            Then she told me all about the bad place, and I said I wished I was
            there. She got mad, then, but I didn’t mean no harm. All I wanted
            was to go somewheres; all I wanted was a change, I warn’t particular.
            She said it was wicked to say what I said; said she wouldn’t say it for
            the whole world; she was going to live so as to go to the good place.
            Well, I couldn’t see no advantage in going where she was going, so
            I made up my mind I wouldn’t try for it.

Mark Twain did so much more for American literature than can be said. One thing he did was address honestly a lot of the ideas and prejudices we have about language. Hell is still a cuss word, but is “probably the most acceptable swearword, tolerated even in polite conversation, especially in the Couth and Midwest” (Dooling113). Richard Dooling tells us, “There’s no telling from age to age what kind of hate speech qualifies someone for damnation.” He goes on to quote John Cardi, a translator of Dante’s Inferno:

            It has often seemed to me that the offensive language of Protestantism
            is obscenity; the offensive language of Catholicism is profanity or
            blasphemy: one offends on a scale of unmentionable words for
            bodily functions, the other a scale of disrespect for the sacred. Dante
            places the Blasphemous in Hell as the worst of the Violent against
            God and His Works, but he has no category for punishing those
            who use four-letter words (117).

            Mark Twain would be relieved.

            Widow Douglas and my grandmother would both be outraged at a billboard for barbeque which I saw recently in Albuquerque: “Scr*w the designer kitchen.” Scr*w has become less offensive in recent years, but to my own sensibilities it still doesn’t belong on a billboard. Where does that shift in sensibilities come from? How does a word lose its cuss power? K. Aaron Smith says,”Words are like clothes. If you wear them too often, they wear out.”   He says that when a word becomes overused it begins to “bleach out.” One aspect of this bleaching is that it can be used in a wide variety of contexts due to its generalized semantics.   Eventually, the power of the word fades away.

            Cuss words have been used widely throughout the history of the English language. Due to social conventions and religious pressures, a “blackout” of recorded cuss words occurred from the eighteenth century through the 1940's; in other words, the words were censored out or weren’t written. Thanks to World War I and World War II cussing became more and more prevalent in English speech. As it became more accepted, it began to slowly creep into literature. When Pygmalian first hit the stage in England in 1914 the use of the word bloody was scandalous. When it came to New York the word, “failed to cause any stir”(Hughes 187). Soon after, J.D.Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye and especially Lady Chatterly’s Lover, by D.H.Lawrence, shocked America. But we read them.

            The media have played a tremendous role in the advancement of verbal liberation. The average popular American film between 1939 and 1960 had almost no cuss words. Rebel Without a Cause of 1955 had only one. By 1969, numbers still averaged low: The Graduate had 13, The Odd Couple had 10, and believe it or not Easy Rider had only 12. There were others of the decade, however, which broke ground for future creative speech: In Cold Blood had 33, Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolfe had 46, and Midnight Cowboy had a whopping 107. The content and raw portrayal of American culture was also new to popular film. The seventies and eighties produced relatively equal average numbers of cusswords: Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore (1975), 69; Coming Home (1978), 121; One Flew Over the Cukoo’s Nest (1975), 54. The eighties gave us Terminator (1984), 29; Repo Man (1984), 184; and On Golden Pond (1981), 80. These are average films. The seventies and eighties also each gave us a few more hard-core popular films: North Dallas Forty (1979), 234; Last Detail (1973), 221; Streamers (1983), 280; and the number one popular cuss word film ever: Scarface (1983), 299!   (Jay1992 231-233).

            Famous linguists Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf theorized that just as our thought and thought processes affect our language, our language affects our thought and thought processes (Ellis 55). I believe that this is socially analogous to cussing in the media: Just as our media affects our use of language, our use of language affects our media. We all know that media affects the words we use and find acceptable. Renatus Hartogs observes:

            At this stage in our cultural development [1967], we are experiencing
            a weakening of sexual taboos that parallels the weakening of
            religious taboos of a generation or so ago. As a result, four-letter
            words of all types are increasingly becoming part of the accepted
            vocabulary, giving us a popular language eminently suited for
            the expression of value change and value conflict in broad
            cultural shifts...Seen in the total context of cultural change, there
            no longer is any moral issue involved. Neither religion nor sexuality
            is structured along traditional precepts. Consequently, what was
            formerly profane and obscene can no longer do any real social
            harm. Rather than deplore the proliferation of four-letter words in casual usage,
            I regard it as a rising index of spiritual freedom (38, 39).

            Just as culture evolves, language evolves. As our traditional views change, so does our use of language. What were once strictly forbidden words can now be used as terms of endearment. “You son of a b*tch” and “you little sh*t” can both be used to mean , “My, how thoughtful of you,” or, “What a nice surprise.” Their tougher meanings, however, reveal why it is we cuss in the first place.

Why We Cuss

            Let us swear while we may, for in heaven it will not be allowed.
                                                                                              -Mark Twain

David Bohm was a British physicist. He was also a philosopher. Through his close friendships with both Albert Einstein and J. Krishmamurti he developed ground-breaking views on language, human consciousness, and matter. He asked such questions as, “Is a thought a thing?” In Wholeness and the Implicate Order, Bohm tells us,

            The study of origins of words may be regarded as a sort of archeology
            of our thought process, in the sense that the traces of earlier forms of
            thought can be found by observations made in this field. As in the
            study of human society, clues coming from archeological inquiries can
            often help us to understand the present situation better (54).

The present situation. Hartogs told us that our present situation is one wherein cuss words have become accepted and are no longer a “moral issue.” Certainly, when we see how the use of words has changed over time, we see how we have changed over time.   But that doesn’t explain why we cuss? Why have we cussed? Why did we ever first cuss? If we cuss in rebellion against our Puritan roots, and yet if we no longer need to, then will we continue to cuss? Let’s start with why.

The Freudian Perspective

Why do we cuss? Theories abound. Sigmund Freud’s theories have, whether we like it or not, tremendously affected the field of psychology. Having worked at the turn of the last century, many of his views are now seen as outdated, and yet most psychologists, therapists, and counselors in America cut their teeth on Freud. Sandor Ferenczi, a noted psychoanalyst working in the middle part of the twentieth century tells us:

            Ever since Freud’s work we regard as the fundamental cause of every
            act of mental representation the wish to put an end to an unpleasantness
            due to privation, by means of repeating an experience of gratification once enjoyed (138).

Freud’s theory holds that if the act can not be repeated literally, then the act “becomes regressively engaged and maintained in a hallucinatory way. The idea is thus treated as equivalent to the reality.” In other words, if you can’t commit the act, you can think about it or talk about it. Ferenczi concludes that our sexual and anal repression begins at the same time that our speech is beginning. This repression is transferred into our speech and remains “primitive” (144-145). He said that Freud viewed the uttering of an obscene word as feeling “equivalent to a sexual aggression” (141). Freud said,

            Through the utterance of obscene words, the person attacked is forced
            to picture the parts of the body in question, or the sexual act, and is
            shown that the aggressor himself pictures the same thing. There is no
            doubt that the original motive...was the pleasure of seeing the sexual
            displayed (Legman 12).

Another Freudian, Robert Reisner, tells us:

            In the fourth or fifth year of life, a period is interpolated between
            the relinquishing of the infantile modes of gratification and the
            beginning of the true latency period...characterized by the impulse
            to utter, write up, and listen to and read obscene words (203).

            Thank goodness modern inquiry into the nature of cussing is being conducted by linguists, sociologists, and neurologists. Psychologists views, consequently, are becoming broader and more open to non-Freudian possibilities.

Neurological Disorders

Steven Pinker is noted as saying that cussing in certain situations is not “genuine language” (Jay2000 46):

            Human vocalizations other than language, like sobbing, laughing,
            moaning, and shouting in pain, are... controlled subcortically.
            Subcortical structures even control the swearing that follows the
            arrival of a hammer on a thumb, that emerges as an involuntary tic
            in Tourette’s syndrome, and that can survive as Broca’s aphasics’
            only speech.   Genuine language...is seated in the cerebral cortex,
            primarily the left perisylvian region (46).

            Many persons having Tourette’s syndrome, Broca’s aphasia, Alzheimer’s disease, and survivors of stroke are known to cuss involuntarily, known as coprolalia (Jay2000 74, and Bickerton 78). This phenomena and the related neurological study are fascinating. For the purposes of this paper, we will only look at voluntary cussing (although we sometimes “speak before we think,” cussing outside of neurological disorders is considered voluntary). It is interesting to note, however, that one reason these patients access cuss words is because they are stored deeply in the brain at a very early age. Timothy Jay quotes A.K.Shapiro: “We postulate that there is a functional neurological system that stores socially unacceptable or obscene sounds, words, sentences, concepts, or motor acts.” Because we categorize our memories (Ellis 35-37), we consequently store these words not only in the memory banks of our acceptable lexicon ( in the cerebral cortex), but additionally in an “unacceptable” category (in the subcortex). We learn cuss words as early as we learn language. We also learn their power, their taboo, their mystery. Why do we use them?

Emotion

Pinker’s description fails to account for those cuss words which are stored in the cerebral cortex. Timothy Jay argues that there is indeed an acceptable lexicon of cuss words. And they are genuine language: “Well, then, what is language? Curse words are words, words with semantic meanings and syntactic constraints...They are expressed in grammatically correct, propositional statements.” (Jay 2000 254). K. Aaron Smith also points out that cussing follows grammatical rules and logic, as well as having an additional rule which modern English no longer has in any other context: infixing. He says, “Some curse words, especially ‘f*ck,’ are involved in morphosyntactic patterns found nowhere else in the English language.” Modern English makes fantastic use of prefixes and suffixes, but only uses infixes in cussing. Infixing is to place a morpheme or affix in the middle of a word, instead of at the beginning or the end: halle-f*ckin-luiah or kanga-f*cking-roo. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language claims “English has no system of infixes, but people do from time to time coin words...while swearing or being emphatic.” I would argue that this is a system of infixing. But it is an emotional one, which leaves many grammarians uneasy including it in a standard description of language use.

            Cuss words have great emotional value. “Humans are emotional, sexual, and aggressive animals. Because we have strong emotions and speech we learn to use cursing to express our emotions” (Jay2000 243). “Expression of anger is the primary emotional use for cussing” (55). Jay goes on to say that roughly two thirds of our cussing is done in anger (56). Expressing our emotions verbally may prevent us from expressing our emotions physically. It is better to yell at people than to hit them: “our society allows infinite aggressions, by everyone and against everyone” (Legman 9). When a speaker slings dirty insults at a listener, the speaker is satisfying a desire to harm the listener. The speaker intends to dehumanize the victim by reducing them to body parts (d*ck, c*nt, etc...), their unattractive qualities (cow, wimp, etc...), or alledged devient behavior (motherf*cker). The speaker is satisfied: “curse words are found to communicate emotional states more accurately than primitive cries and shrieks” (Jay 2000 53).

            It is when we use cussing as a reaction to pain (stubbing one’s toe or hitting one’s thumb with a hammer) that it feels most as if it were involuntary. Cussing feels good. It is an emotional release. It is sometimes sudden, but it is nevertheless conscious. It is where we stub our toe that may determine our choice of words. If we stub our toe in a biker bar on Friday night we will react with different lexical gems than if we stub our toe in church on Sunday morning. If cussing is a release of anger and aggression, our toe might feel better in the biker bar.

Hate

Hate is certainly an emotion, but these days it requires a category all its own. “Hate crimes” abound. They always have, but now we have a word for it. Much of cussing is hateful. Much of it is sexist, anti-gay, racist, classist, or ageist. Many linguists have examined the abundance of sexism in cussing (Hughes 206). Generate a list of derogatory words you might use towards men. Now generate a list of words you might use towards women. You will note that many of the words towards women probably insinuate her loose sexuality or of not being “nice:” sl*t, b*tch, wh*re, etc... Your words towards men may contain words which not only insinuate that he is like a woman, but which insult his mother (a woman) as well: p*ssy, w*ss, son of a b*tch, motherf*cker. It may even contain the word “woman.” In fact, many words which once used to mean female, such as “hussy,” have come to be pejorative terms. “Hate words” are ugly, but Richard Dooling would argue their importance:

            Once the word police succeed in making it illegal to call someone
            a b*tch, a n*gg*r, a bastard, an old fart, a queer, a wetback,
            a klutz, a fatty, a cripple, or a kike, the next logical step is to
            make it illegal to call someone a worthless piece of sh*t. And then what? (38,39).

While bleaching has taken a toll on the f-word and the s-word, hate is still strong enough to leave the c-word and the n-word firmly in first place for the most powerful, and ugly, words in the current English lexicon of cussing.

Rebellion and Power Struggle

There is disagreement in studies of linguistics and sociology as to whether the poor cuss more than the rich. Many argue that they do, and with good cause. We all know that teenagers cuss more than adults. No disagreement there. The question is why would either of these groups of people cuss more than anyone else?

            One of the reasons adolescents curse more frequently than speakers
            at other ages is because they have so little to lose by cursing. The
            situation for teenagers is similar to that for the lower working class
            and the politically disenfranchised; they have no power, and so they
            have nothing to lose by cursing (Jay2000 163).

He says that children in particular “swear to express frustration, to provoke adults, to disrupt activities, to speak in a manner consistent with their peers, and to express themselves” (117). Cursing used to be listed as a symptom of oppositional defiant disorder (ODD). Recently the symptom was removed from medical handbooks on the grounds that swearing is done frequently by many adolescents (71).

            PKs, or “preachers’ kids,” have been accused of cussing more than most teenagers. Renatus Hartogs views this as their way of “Getting Back at Daddy” (30). He continues:

            Jean-Paul Satre called murder the supreme existentialist act because,
            more than anything else, it expresses the complete autonomy of the
            individual will. Profanity as the compulsive breaking of taboos is
            related to that kind of ultimate and absurd freedom. The four-letter
            words stand for the wanton smashing of icons and idols (31).

He calls obscenity the “counter-code to whatever orthodoxy prevails...the language of anti�value ” (20).

            When one is a disenfranchised member of a society, it becomes all the more important to find acceptance within a sub-group. We all know the powers of peer pressure on our students (and on ourselves for that matter). Language matters. One’s identity is realized through our choice of language. “Cursing is an emotional element of language that alters the way we view ourselves and others” (81). The identities we develop are reflected in the language we use. Teenagers, especially, closely identify with the choice of words and “style” of language which they use. Their music reflects this. Jay assures us that they abandon these attachments as they grow up (175). I would argue that, due to the media and popular culture, it is taking longer for kids to do so.

Literature, Cussing, and Censorship

            Thus swyved (f*cked) was the carpenter’s wyf...
                                                                  _Chaucer
                                                                                        The Canterbury Tales

Chaucer cussed liberally. It has been estimated that there are two hundred different oaths used many time in Chaucer’s work (Hughes 63). He was allowed to. As a medieval poet, he was allowed liberal use of the lexicon without fear of reprisal. Due to the traditions of his time, cussing flourished until the mid-sixteenth century (3). But by the time Shakespeare arrived, the “Master of the Revels” was curbing artists’ free use of language. “Profanity on the Stage” was a no-no. This tradition lasted into the twentieth century. From an historical perspective, the twentieth century could be seen as a “boom” period in cussing. Language was liberated.

            Good authors do not cuss gratuitously. They use language in such a way as to make their characters believable and real. It has been noted that Chaucer “...created a very sharp differentiation on the basis of character, and that a clear, though subtle, judgement is being made by the author...on the basis of their oaths and ‘brode’ language(63).

            In Henry V, by Shakespeare, Pistol conforms to the role of the lower class, lovable scoundrel (III. Vi. 60-2)l:

            Pistol                Die and be damned! And figo for thy friendship!
            Fluellen           It is well.
            Pistol                The fig of Spain!

            Modern literature provides us with many more examples of cussing. Words and characters become much more coarse than Pistol’s “damn.” It can be difficult for teachers to navigate the maze of what’s appropriate, what’s available, and what can my students learn from all of this. Of Mice and Men, by John Steinbeck, is one of the most moving and lovely pieces of American literature. It should be read by every eighth grader. Yet, many schools still find it objectionable. It is one of the most commonly banned books in the history of the American public schools. Slaughterhouse Five, by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. is an anti-war novel which should be read by all high school juniors. Another problem. We are all familiar with the difficulties J.D.Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye has faced. The history of censorship in the schools is long and fascinating.

            The Supreme Court has had a lot to say about this. In Board of Education v. Pico (1982) the court addressed the removal of several books from the shelves of New York schools. The court found that the schools had the right to remove the books, but that the “removal must not be carried out in a narrowly partisan or political manner” (Dooling 71). In Mailloux v. Kelly (1970) a teacher was sued for writing the word f*ck on the board and opening a discussion about the use of the word and changes in society, all in relation to the novel they were reading. Another case, Keefe v. Geanakos arose when a senior class read an article in the Atlantic which contained the word motherf*cker, while studying protest and dissent in America in the 1970's. Teachers must be very careful in their use of literature. They must also be brave. While it would be inappropriate to read Lady Chatterly’s Lover in a high school class, the right to use Vonnegut, Bradbury, Salinger, Steinbeck, Hurston, Walker, and all the rest of those glorious users of words, should be fought for. There is much to learn from realistic and creative literature which portrays us as we are.

Can We Change?

            While in a sense we are free to say whatever we want, in practice
            our linguistic behavior conforms closely to statistical expectations.

                                                                                    -D. Crystal

One purpose of this unit is to make students more aware of their own cussing, why they do it, and to start to explore the question of whether we can “reduce our use.” Jay might question our desire to reduce our use of cussing:

            The real problem with cursing is that it has everything to do with
            power and context. Those who want to prohibit cursing most
            adamantly are those who have something to lose by letting others
            curse. Perhaps they fear loss: loss of their sense of control, their
            sense of authority, or their respect within a group. Cursing is most
            problematic for the middle class, those with enough power to want
            to protect their lifestyle and the inability to ignore what others
            think or say. The rich and the poor can ignore these worries (2000 257).

            Many people, teachers especially, believe that teenagers use cussing because they are “lazy” with language or simply lack the education to come up with a “better” word. If this were true, people would use cuss words to replace all words they were at a loss for. People cuss because it serves a purpose: it is effective.

            A desire to limit our cussing must come from somewhere other than shame, other than a desire for a greater vocabulary; it must come from some other perceived need. I am hoping that through the examination of the phenomenon of “code-shifting,” and an understanding of their own shifting status in society (from “kids” to adults), a desire to have greater power may give us the desire to cuss less and to become more socially articulate. We need cuss words. We have emotions which must be expressed, physical aggression which must be replaced, and social needs to belong and express ourselves. We also need, however, to not be disenfranchised, to have power, and to be in control and be appropriate based on setting, context, and company.

Implementation

Teaching at Freedom High School provides me with certain teaching freedoms. I teach English, also known as language arts and literature   I follow the state and district standards very strictly and challenge my students with high level materials and class work. As long as I am following and meeting the standards, I am free to be very creative with my choice of materials and topics. I like to choose materials which I know will intrigue my students and keep them engaged. I teach several different courses, each of which takes a different approach. I typically teach an honors level analysis of literature class, a lower level literature based class, a “regular” junior/senior class, a creative writing class, and a class called Advanced Reading Seminar for which this unit was designed. Students may be enrolled in any or all of these classes or in classes offered by our other English teacher. Each class runs for six weeks. A student’s advisor will see that over the course of a year the student is taking a variety of these classes. By doing this, the student is meeting the standards required to earn their English credits.

            Advanced Reading Seminar focuses on contemporary issues, controversial topics, and challenging short works of literature. Good examples of literature covered would include Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal, excerpts from Mark Twain’s Letters From the Earth, or Helen Keller’s socialist and feminist writings. Thematic units might range from student rights, to satire, to “radical” poetry.

            Advanced Reading Seminar meets Monday, Wednesday, and Friday for eighty minutes. We will cover in three days what would take five in a regular school schedule. Lessons are written to fill eighty minutes.

Standards and Benchmarks

This Unit will cover many New Mexico standards and benchmarks for senior language arts, but will focus primarily on the following:

Strand I

Benchmark I-B Locate and use a variety of resources to acquire information across the curriculum

12.3: Demonstrate increasing sophistication in selection and use of resources

Benchmark I-C Demonstrate critical thinking skills to comprehend written, spoken, and visual information

12.3: Analyze the effects of a text on the attitudes and values of the period when it was written

Benchmark I-D Acquire Reading Strategies

12.2: Demonstrate understanding of a variety of different cultural perspectives through selected literary works

Strand II

Benchmark II-A Demonstrate competence in speaking to convey information

12.3: Organize and deliver an argument so that an intended audience will respond by:

            -wording the claim clearly
            -specifying convincing reasons to support claim
            -adopting a stance and appropriate toward the issue

12.4: Design and apply criteria for evaluating oral presentation and arguments before delivering them

Benchmark II-B Apply grammatical and language conventions to communicate

12.I: Demonstrate ability to comprehensively, coherently, and concisely expound upon ideas

Benchmark II-C Demonstrate competency in the skills and strategies of the writing process

12.3: Analyze own work for:

            -consistency of facts, tone, voice
            -development of argument
            -clarity and conciseness

Benchmark III-A Use language, literature, and media to gain and demonstrate awareness of cultures around the world

12.1: Analyze and interpret the significance of literary movements as indicators of societal movements and perspectives

12.2: Demonstrate how concepts and perspectives depicted in literature and media relate to the life of the student

Unit Plan

Unit Overview

The culminating project for this unit will be a presentation by each student to the class. Ideas and information from all materials, exercises, and writing assignments will be used as resources for the writing of the presentation. Students will keep notes on all materials read, class discussions, etc. The presentation will include the student’s well supported views and opinions; visual presentation of graphs, charts, and statistical information; and a reading of the students final writing project. The writing project will be a hypothetical Supreme Court ruling as to whether or not a “cussing code” in a middle school is constitutional. Lessons leading up to the final presentation will include lots of reading of linguistical, sociological, and psychological views on cussing; surveys, interviews, and self assessment regarding the use of cuss words; an examination of the use of cussing in literature throughout history; an examination of censorship and the Supreme Court’s view of censorship in schools; and an examination of case law regarding the Court’s opinions.

            This unit will be lots of hard work and will use challenging materials. It will also be controversial in nature due to its subject matter. Permission slips will be issued for student’s under eighteen and must be signed for participation in this unit. Students who do not have permission may enter another English class for the six weeks grading period. The permission slips will include a unit overview and an explanation of goals and objectives.

Lessons

*note: unless otherwise noted all reading in class is done together, out loud, taking turns; students take notes on all readings and lecture using the Cornell method.

Day One

Materials:

* Miller v. California (Supreme Court Case)- This famous case includes the “three prong test” previously discussed in this paper.

*Chapter Four: “The Rules of Engagement” in Blue Streak by Richard Dooling-This chapter discusses the “three prong test,” lots of Supreme Court cases regarding free speech, and ideas on censorship.

Instruction:

*Teacher briefly explains the Supreme Court case Miller v. California
*Students read together the “three prong test” section of Miller
*Students attempt to write thorough definitions and provide examples for each of the following words from the “three prong test”:

            -average person
            -community
            -contemporary standards
            -prurient
            -patently offensive
            -literary value
            -artistic value
            -political value
            -scientific value

*Students read Blue Streak.

Day Two

Materials:
*Blue Streak, students’ notes, and students’ definitions from Day One
*“Cussing Defined” (the section of this paper which explains the different types of cussing: blasphemy, vulgarity, etc.)
*Survey forms: Survey forms will ask students to reveal what cuss words they use, how often, at whom they are directed, in what situations they are use (or never used), emotion involved, casual usage, etc.
*Butcher paper, hung on wall where it is visible and may be written on, and markers

Instruction:
*Students discuss Blue Streak and share definitions. Hopefully, students will express their frustration at attempting the definitions, and will begin to understand the complexity of the issues of free speech.
*Students take cussing survey privately. This may be done anonymously if students wish.
*Assign students who will tally survey results. Next, students place results in chart form on the butcher paper. Class can be creative in deciding how to organize the chart, but it should make it easy to determine which words are used most often, when people use cuss words most often, to whom are the words most often directed at, etc.
*Discuss out of class assignment:

            1)Students will survey people outside of class using the same survey form.

2)Students will keep track of the use of cuss words in film, television, media, etc., using the same criteria as in the survey form.

            3)Students will observe other people, especially at school, and keep track of cussing behaviour.

**Extra credit assignment:

          Students may check out a tape recorder and tape from the school. They are to             interview at least three persons over the age of forty. They are to ask questions             regarding the person’s cussing (use survey form), how the acceptance of cussing has             changed in their lifetime, how cussing itself has changed, and anecdotal stories they             may have about cussing as a kid, etc. Students will write a formal short paper and            compile statistics. Their results will be added to our class chart and reported to the             class.

Day Three

Materials:
*Supreme Court Cases: Miller v. California, and Cohen v.California, and federal case Mailloux v. Kelly,

Instruction:
*Read court cases.
*Students take notes focusing on rulings and how the justices justified their decisions. Also note justifications in dissenting justices comments. Discuss as issues and questions arise.

Day Four

Materials:
*Letter from Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. to a school board in California
*Excerpts from various literature. I will use Catcher in the Rye by J.D.Salinger, Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck, Chaucer, and Shakespeare. I will also use any literature we might be planning to read during the year which contains questionable words.
*Students movie, television, and media survey results and observations.
*Cursing in America by Timothy Jay, pages 2231-233 - section on films.

Instruction:
*Read Vonnegut
*Read literature excerpts and discuss each. Thoroughly explain the context of the cuss words in each so that students understand the author’s intentions and purpose. Discuss the history of the banning of these works, attitudes and actions taken at the time they were written and since, and current attitudes towards the work.
*Discuss the concept of “bleaching” of words.
*Look at student survey data, especially the extra credit work regarding persons over the age of forty and films and television.
*Read Cursing in America.
*Present students with a hypothetical situation wherein the local school board has reissued a new list of books which are not to be read in the district. This list contains all of the works from which we read excerpts. On the list also, however, are some works which even we might find objectionable.
*Students are to write a formal letter to the school board regarding the banned books. They are to include information on each of the works with which they are familiar, and they are to educate the school board members on the concept of bleaching. They are to provide the board with alternative ideas such as allowing individual schools discretionary power, removing certain books from the list, etc.

Day Five
Materials:
*Copies of background to hypothetical Supreme Court case

Instruction:
*Review all compiled data and statistics on cussing. At this point all outside data should have been collected and should be reflected on the chart or other additional charts which the students may have created.
*Present the students with a hypothetical Supreme Court case. In the case, a middle school in New Mexico issued a school code against cussing. All cussing in any context, situation, or choice of words are strictly forbidden, and suspension is the resulting consequence of cussing. A parent whose child was suspended for telling a fellow student that another student is, “f_cked up,” has challenged the code as being unconstitutional.
*Inform students that eventually they will be writing a Supreme Court ruling on this case. It will be formal and written as if it were a genuine ruling. They will use the notes they have compiled throughout this unit to use as resource information, and they will refer to the rulings which were read in class for style, tone, and depth.
*Students discuss issue as a class.

Day Six
Materials:
*Why We Curse by Timothy Jay, pages 253-260 - section on myths of cussing
*Copies of this paper, section on “Why We Cuss”(Thompson)

Instruction:
*Have students discuss why they believe people cuss. Refer to data compiled and personal experience and opinion.
*Read Jay and discuss.
*Read Thompson and discuss.
*Students write a one page summation of why people cuss.

Day Seven
*Materials:
*Students should all have unit notes, class data and statistics, Court rulings read, and hypothetical case background.

Instruction:
*Students write ruling for hypothetical case.

Optional Ideas:
*Students will conduct a formal debate.
*Students will conduct mock Supreme Court procedures.

Days Eight and Nine
Materials:
*Students have all materials and personal writings for unit thus far

Instruction:
*Students prepare individual presentations. Presentation will be to the class. It will include explanation of the case and their ruling, justification of their ruling based on notes and data, visuals with data supporting their ruling, and a reading of their ruling.

Days Ten and Eleven
Formal Presentations

Day Twelve
Optional Exercise:
The school nurse and counselor will conduct informal anger management session focusing on verbal aggression. Note: The nurse and counselor at our school regularly hold anger management classes and group sessions. They have experience with this issue and the students highly respect their methods.

Assessment
*Assessment is based on how closely the students’ performance of an assignment aligns with the expectations set forth in the standards and benchmarks. A grade will be received for each activity assigned. The following are examples of work assigned in this unit and the criteria for their assessment:

Reading- Student pays attention, asks questions when needed, shows an understanding of ideas and context.

Notes- Notes follow the Cornell method when appropriate. Student has noted critical information, cited source (page number, etc), and clarified meaning, context, etc.

Discussion- Student participates fully, pays attention to the flow of conversation, contributes input and asks questions, respectfully responds to peers.

Informal Writing- Content is thorough, ideas are articulate, flows and makes sense.

Formal Writing- Same as above, also graded for grammar, spelling, mechanics, voice and tone. Supreme Court ruling follows style and voice of a formal ruling, accurately refers to other precedent cases, etc.

Collection of Data- Student work shows effort, conscientiousness regarding accuracy and depth, is complete.

Whole Class and Cooperative Activities- Student is respectful, contributes a fair share of effort, contributes to the positive tone of the class and the activity.

Presentation-Materials are presented in a logical sequence; materials are thorough, accurate, and well supported; voice is clear and strong; eye contact is made; pace is even; ruling is supported and understandable; overall presentation is interesting and engaging.

Documentation

Bibliography

Aman, Reinhold. Opus Maledictorium: A Book of Bad Words. New York, NY:
            Marlowe and Company, 1996.

Bickerton, Derek. Language and Human Behavior. Seattle, Washington: University             of Washington Press, 1995.

Bohm, David. Wholeness and the Implicate Order. New York, NY: Routeledge, 1980.

Bourke, Captain John G. Scatalogic Rites of All Nations. New York, NY: American             Anthropological Society, 1934.

Crystal, David. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. Cambridge:             Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Dooling, Richard. Blue Streak: Swearing, Free Speech, and Sexual Harassment.             New York, NY: Random House, 1996.

Ellis, John M. Language, Thought and Logic. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University              Press, 1993.

Ferenczi, Sandor M.D. Sex in Psychoanalysis. Volume One. New York, NY: Basic               Books, Inc., 1950.

Flexnor, Stuart Berg. I Hear America Talking: An Illustrated History of American             Words and Phrases. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1976.

Hartogs, Renatus, M.D., Ph.D. with Hans Fantel. Four-Letter Word Games: The
            Psychology of Obscenity. New York, NY: Delacorte Press, 1967.

Hughes, Geoffrey. Swearing: A Social History of Foul Language, Oaths and
            Profanity in English. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell, 1991.

Jay, Dr. Timothy. Cursing in America. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing             Company, 1992.

Why We Curse: A Neuro-Psycho-Social Theory of Speech. Philadelphia, PA: John              Benjamins Publishing Company, 2000.

Legman, G. Rationale of the Dirty Joke: An Analysis of Sexual Humor. New York,             NY: Grove Press, 1968.

McCrum, Robert, William Cran, and Robert MacNeil. The Story of English. New             York, NY: Penguin, 1986, 1992.

Reisner, Robert. Grafitti: Two Thousand Years of Wall Writing. Chicago, IL:
            Henry Regnery Company, 1971.

Smith, K. Aaron. The Story of English: Seminar. Albuquerque Teachers’ Institute,               University of New Mexico: Summer 2002. Notes from lecture and seminar                discussions.

Case Law

Supreme Court Cases

Board of Education v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982)

Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)

Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, 938 U.S. 726 (1978)

Miller v. California, 418 U.S. 915 (1974)

Federal Court Cases

Keefe v. Geanakos, 305 F.1091 (1969)

Mailloux v. Kelly, 323 F. Sup.1387 (1971)

note: All court cases may be access at www.megalaw.com