The teaching of taboo language (TL) in second language (L2) classrooms is controversial. Not only is there contention regarding whether teaching TL is feasible and beneficial to L2 learners, but there is also a question of whether it is appropriate for teachers to broach a topic that has such potential to offend and create awkwardness.

Despite these controversies, it remains a possibility for L2 learners to find themselves in social situations where TL is present. It is our contention that by avoiding the pedagogical treatment of TL (or, at best, by addressing it in an ad-hoc manner if and when brought up by students), ESL teachers are doing a disservice to their students, who are left unaware as to when TL is deemed appropriate or inappropriate and when it may or may not be expected of them. Inaccurate judgments of appropriateness can lead to devastating social consequences for L2 learners. Thus, we argue for the integration of TL into adult ESL curricula. Although TL lessons would be beneficial for ESL and EFL learners alike (especially in the era of widespread Internet-mediated communication), ESL learners’ need for TL instruction is imperative in order to best prepare them to participate in communicative acts with other English speakers.

What Does Taboo Language Mean for ESL Learners?

Almost every language has its own linguistic repertoire of taboo expressions (Mercury, 1995; Mouat, 2004). How TL is used and manifested in society differs from language to language, and indeed from individual to individual, making it difficult to characterize. Dewaele (2004) defines taboo words as “multifunctional, pragmatic units, which assume, in addition to the expression of emotional attitudes, various discourse functions” (p. 205). These discourse functions include, as Dewaele notes, emotional expression, organization of the social position of interactional participants as well as the information being exchanged, and the binding of social relationships and intimacies.

As is seen from these descriptions, it is important to realize that TL is not always taboo in the sense that it is avoided by speakers of each respective language. Instead, it is language imbibed with social connotations—knowing when to use it, when not to use it, and for what purposes is necessary for understanding the meanings and nuances of TL. Notably, TL is not always—and perhaps not often—used for offensive purposes. Although in some cases TL can be directed toward a person with whom or situation with which the speaker is angry, it can also be used to express emotion—both positive and negative—to reinforce existing social bonds and to signify group membership while simultaneously marking exclusion of nongroup members (Dewaele, 2004; Holster, 2005; Mouat, 2004). Furthermore, Jay and Danks (1977) remark that because TL is largely used to express emotion, its meaning is significantly connotative rather than denotative. This means that literal definitions of taboo terms and expressions are not of much use when evaluating TL in discourse. In order to accurately interpret the meaning of TL, listeners and interlocutors are required to understand the full context of the utterance.

Many ESL teachers can provide countless examples “of their students being the targets of verbal bigotry and not understanding what it signifies” (Mercury, 1995, p. 32). Thus, it would appear that ESL learners are at a significant disadvantage when involved in interactions with other English language users in which TL is present. Dewaele (2004) has found that L2 learners perceive the emotional force of TL in the L2 to be much lower than the emotional force of TL in their L1s. While this does not predict whether or not learners perceive the full implications of its use and/or choose to use it, it does mean that they are more at risk to unknowingly use TL that can be highly offensive to their interlocutors. Accordingly, they may be falsely perceived as rude, uncouth, unintelligent, or racially prejudiced. In addition, a particular word that might be considered taboo in the L2 might not be so in the students’ L1 (e.g., consider the word negro in Spanish).

Dewaele (2004) also points out that incomplete knowledge of the social consequences of TL might deter learners from making use of TL at all, even in situations in which it is expected. According to Mercury (1995), even though “non-taboo words can be substituted for taboo expressions (e.g. making love for fucking)” (p. 28), the connotative meanings differ significantly from one another, even though the denotative meanings could be considered synonymous. Dewaele (2004) argues that this might make learners’ speech seem bland, because they are not able to make use of language that would accurately get their point across in the connotative way they may intend.

Finally, Mouat (2004) found that the L2 learners in his study believed they were at a disadvantage when communicating with native speakers because they did not have the contextual skills to identify meaning and force of TL. Importantly, the learners felt their lack of taboo knowledge impeded their ability to effectively socialize with native-speaking peers. TL is often used to mark shared experience, and thus contributes to the establishment and/or strengthening of social ties with native speakers.

Why Is Taboo Language Potentially Problematic in ESL Classrooms?

Holster (2005) identified seven reasons why ESL teachers often refrain from including TL in their teaching, regardless of whether or not they believe that teaching TL is valuable for their students. First, she found that her ESL teacher participants had simply never given serious consideration to integrating taboo English lessons into their syllabus. Second, teachers felt “inhibited using [taboo] language in the classroom” (p. 158), worrying that their use of TL might jeopardize their professional relationship with their students. Third, they expected their students to naturally acquire TL through out-of-class interactions. Holster’s (2005) fourth and fifth reasons are that teachers fear their students will be uncomfortable or even offended during such lessons. Sixth, some teachers feared reproach from their colleagues and supervisors and were unclear about institutional policies regarding the teaching and use of TL in the classroom. Finally, the seventh reason Holster (2005) extends is that there is a lack of materials that teachers can use to teach TL.

Furthermore, Holster (2005) found that teachers who were adamantly against teaching TL felt the way they did because their syllabi were already packed with teaching other communicative functions—functions they felt were more important. One teacher heatedly questioned why she should teach TL, which “[cluttered] the vocabulary with profanities” (p. 132), when learning what she termed “decent” language was enough of a challenge. However, upon critical examination, if politeness is considered important for L2 learners, it should necessarily be complemented by lessons of what constitutes impoliteness in order to empower students to identify, react to, and be impolite when it is contextually necessary and/or they choose to do so (Mercury, 1995).

How Should Taboo Language Be Approached in the ESL Classroom?

Based on the literature and our experience as ESL teachers, we argue that it is imperative that ESL instructors provide students with a knowledgeable foundation of TL so that they can judge its (in)appropriateness, significance, and contextual intent. Importantly, we believe that the goal of instruction is to provide students with the necessary sociopragmatic awareness (i.e., learners’ capacity to use linguistic elements under the affordances and constraints of social structure) of the implications of TL so that they can choose whether they want to be associated with the use of TL, and if so, in which contexts.

Unfortunately, L2 teachers are faced with a variety of obstacles when considering TL. More research needs to be undertaken so that they are better informed about how to sensitively and knowledgeably approach TL in the classroom. We believe that the latest research on instructed learning suggests that many, if not most, elements in pragmatics can be taught in class through a combination of explicit instruction and frequent contextualized practice.

Explicit instruction on TL pragmalinguistics may present some challenges, as the results of Holster (2005) show. A corpus-informed, language awareness–oriented instructional intervention can be a beneficial pedagogical approach to TL. ESL teachers can use this approach to provide opportunities to increase learners’ TL awareness in context and promote their critical exploration within the context of naturally occurring interactions. We recommend activities that encourage the exploration of language as a system (the form TL takes in a particular society), draw attention to the functions of TL in discourse, and increase learners’ awareness of its sociopragmatic dimension (how TL can be used to construct identity positions in discourse). Although these options present various challenges for teachers and students, they do offer a starting point for charting the next stage in their development—professional development opportunities for teachers and prospects of achieving advanced levels of proficiency for their students.

References

Dewaele, J. (2004). The emotional force of swearwords and taboo words in the speech of multilinguals. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 25(2/3), 204–222.

Holster, D. (2005). An investigation of ESOL teachers’ attitudes towards teaching about taboo English in the second language classroom (Unpublished master’s thesis, Auckland University of Technology).

Jay, T., & Danks, J. (1977). Ordering of taboo adjectives. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 9(6), 405–408.

Mercury, R. (1995). Swearing: A “bad” part of language; a good part of language learning. TESL Canada Journal, 13(1), 28–36.

Mouat, C. A. (2004). Pragmatic knowledge and subjective evaluation in the acquisition of English taboo language (Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Florida).

Hillary Gale is a master’s student in the Teaching English as a Second Language program at Northern Arizona University. Her research interests include second language pragmatics and L2 conversational strategies.

Julieta Fernandez is assistant professor of applied linguistics in the Department of English at Northern Arizona University. Her research interests include second language pragmatics and L2 development and pedagogy.