Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-pztms Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-18T10:16:27.649Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Just for the hell of it: A comparison of two taboo-term constructions1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2008

JACK HOEKSEMA  and
DONNA JO NAPOLI
JACK HOEKSEMA*
Affiliation:
University of Groningen
DONNA JO NAPOLI*
Affiliation:
Swarthmore College
*
Authors' addresses: Department of Dutch Language and Culture, Faculty of Letters, University of Groningen, P.O. Box 716, 9700 AS Groningen, The Netherlands. j.hoeksema@rug.nl
Department of Linguistics, Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, PA 19081, U.S.A.dnapoli1@swarthmore.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The two English constructions exemplified in Let's get the hell out of here (type G) and They beat the hell out of him (type B) differ both syntactically and semantically, but in both the taboo expression has the force of an intensifier. History (through a corpus investigation) reveals that the B-construction started as a literal exorcism (beat the devil out of someone), where the hell substituted for the devil, and semantic bleaching ultimately made the literal sense give way to simple emphasis, with any taboo term jumping in. The G-construction may have developed simultaneously, always as an intensifier – or, perhaps, later, on analogy with B. Our analysis suggests that the use of taboo terms as intensifiers spread from wh-constructions to these constructions and, finally, to degree intensifier constructions. These two uses of taboo terms as intensifiers are best characterized in terms of constructions and thus offer evidence against theories lacking any notion of constructions as basic building blocks. Further, they give us information about language change: a pragmatically unified but semantically disparate class of expressions (namely, taboo terms) can extend its distribution in parallel.

Private Carr: God fuck old Bennett.He's a whitearsed bugger. I don't give a shit for him.(James Joyce, Ulysses)

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , July 2008 , pp. 347 - 378
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

[1]

We thank Swarthmore College for awarding Jack Hoeksema the Cornell Visiting Professorship in 2005–2006, which allowed us to begin this work. We also thank the anonymous JL reviewers and Orin Gensler for help through to the final draft.

References

REFERENCES

Allan, Keith & Burridge, Kate. 1991. Euphemism and dysphemism: Language used as shield and weapon. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Andersson, Lars & Trudgill, Peter. 1990. Bad language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Baayen, Harald. 1991. Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. In Geert, E. Booij & Jaap van, Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1991, 109–149. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Baker, C. Lee. 1970. Double negatives. Linguistic Inquiry 1, 169–186.Google Scholar
Bland, Susan Kesner. 1996. Intermediate grammar: From form to meaning and use. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brame, Michael K. 1978. Base generated syntax. Seattle, WA: Noit Amrofer.Google Scholar
Cameron, Paul. 1969. Frequency and kinds of words in various social settings, or what the hell's going on? The Pacific Sociological Review 12.2, 101–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carleton, William. 1845. Valentine M'Clutchy, the Irish agent. Dublin: James Duffy, London: Chapman and Hall & Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Christie, Agatha. 1940. And then there were none. New York: St. Martins Press. [Reprint.]Google Scholar
Cohen, Leonard. 1966. Beautiful losers. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart Ltd.Google Scholar
Cunningham, Allan. 1826. Paul Jones. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Daintrey, Laura. 1885. The king of Alberia: A romance of the Balkans. London: Methuen & Co.Google Scholar
de Baere, Cyriel. 1940. Krachtpatsers in de Nederlandsche volkstaal: Een verzameling oudere en jongere bastaardvloeken. Antwerp: N. V. de Nederlandsche Boekhandel.Google Scholar
de Jager, Arie. 1858. De versterkte ontkenning in onze taal, vooral bij de middelnederlandse schrijvers. In Arie de, Jager, Latere verscheidenheden uit het gebied der Nederlandsche taalkunde, 59–154. Deventer: A. ter Gunne.Google Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel & Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2002. From hell to polarity: ‘Aggressively non-D-linked’ wh-phrases as polarity items. Linguistic Inquiry 33.1, 31–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dundes, Alan. 2002. Much ado about ‘sweet bugger all’: Getting to the bottom of a puzzle in British folk speech. Folklore 113, 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emonds, Joseph E. 1976. A transformational approach to English syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1985. Syntactic intrusions and the notion of grammatical construction. In Mary, Niepokuj, Mary, VanClay, Vassiliki, Nikiforidou & Deborah, Feder (eds.), The Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 73–86. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Kay, Paul & O'Connor, Mary Catherine. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64, 501–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freud, Sigmund. 1913. Totem und Tabu: Einige Übereinstimmungen im Seelenleben der Wilden und der Neurotiker. Leipzig & Vienna: Hugo Heller.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1998. Polarity sensitivity as (non)veridical dependency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hamilton, Steve. 2001. Winter of the Wolf Moon. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack. 1996. Zeg het met rozen: Een vergelijking van drie idiomatische uitdrukkingen. Tabu 26.3, 129–149.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack. 2001. Rapid change among expletive polarity items. In Laurel, J. Brinton (ed.), Historical linguistics 1999: Selected papers from the 14th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Vancouver, 9–13 August 1999, 175–186. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack. 2002. Minimaliseerders in het standaard-Nederlands. Tabu 32.3/4, 105–174.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack, Rullmann, Hotze, Sánchez-Valencia, Víctor & Wouden, Ton van der (eds.). 2001. Perspectives on negation and polarity items. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1989. A natural history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 2001. Flaubert triggers, squatitive negation and other quirks of grammar. In Hoeksema, et al. (eds.), 173–202.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 2004. Spitten image: Etymythology and fluid dynamics. American Speech 79.1, 33–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James & Ochi, Masao. 2004. Syntax of the hell: Two types of dependencies. In Kier, Moulton & Wolf, Matthew (eds.), North Eastern Linguistic Society (NELS) 34, 279–293. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistics Student Association, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1973. The base rules for prepositional phrases. In Stephen, R. Anderson & Paul, Kiparsky (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, 345–356. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1917. Negation in English and other languages. Copenhagen: Videnskabenes Selskab.Google Scholar
Joyce, James. 1922. Ulysses. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Reprint 1998.]Google Scholar
Kehayov, Petar. 2006. Taboo-intensifiers as polarity items: Evidence from Estonian. Ms., University of Tartu.Google Scholar
Lambek, Joachim. 1958. The mathematics of sentence structure. American Mathematical Monthly 65, 154–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, Richard K. 1985. Bare-NP adverbs. Linguistic Inquiry 14, 595–621.Google Scholar
Laurents, Arthur. 1949. Home of the brave. New York: Dramatists Play Service, Inc.Google Scholar
Lee, Harry. 1948. Sir and brother. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lexow, Clarence & Cantor, Jacob A.. 1895. Report and proceedings of the Senate Committee Appointed to Investigate the Police Department of the City of New York. Albany, NY: J. B. Lyon.Google Scholar
Markus, Manfred. 1998. A-adjectives (asleep, etc.) in postnominal position: Etymology as a cause of word order (corpus-based). In Antoinette, Renouf (ed.), Explorations in corpus linguistics, 135–146. Amsterdam & Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1988. Adverbial NPs: Bare or clad in see-through garb? Language 64.3, 583–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKechnie, Jean L. (ed.). 1983. Webster's deluxe unabridged dictionary, 2nd edn.Cleveland, OH: Dorset and Baber.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2002. Swiping in Germanic. In Jan-Wouter, Zwart & Werner, Abraham (eds.), Studies in comparative Germanic syntax, 295–311. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2006. Sluicing. In Martin, Everaert & Henk van, Riemsdijk (eds.), The syntax companion, 269–289. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1987. Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In Eric, Reuland & Alice, G. B. ter Meulen (eds.), The representation of (in)definiteness, 98–129. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 2005. Suppose (if only for an hour) that negative polarity items are negation-containing phrases. Ms., New York University.Google Scholar
Postma, Gertjan. 1995. Zero semantics: A study of the syntactic conception of quantificational meaning. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Leiden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postma, Gertjan. 2001. Negative polarity and the syntax of taboo. In Hoeksema, et al. (eds.), 283–330.Google Scholar
Pott, August F. 1833. Etymologische Forschungen auf dem Gebiete der indo-germanischen Sprachen, vol. 1. Lemgo: Meyer.Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher & Roeper, Thomas. 2006. The narrowing acquisition path: From expressive small clauses to declaratives. In Ljiljana, Progovac, Kate, Paesani, Eugenia, Casielles & Ellen, Barton (eds.), The syntax of nonsententials: Multi-disciplinary perspectives, 183–201. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London & New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Rollins, Bryant. 1967. Danger song. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Seuren, Peter A. M. 1985. Discourse semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Simpson, John A. & Weiner, Edmund S. C. (eds.) 1989. The Oxford English dictionary, 2nd edn., vol. 4: Creel-duzepere. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Slocum, Joshua. 1900. Sailing alone around the world. New York: The Century Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprouse, Jon. 2005. The accent projection principle: Why the hell not? In Aviad, Eilam, Tatjana, Scheffler & Joshua, Tauberer (eds.), Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 12.1, 349–359.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 2004. Positive polarity – negative polarity. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22, 409–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Wouden, Ton. 1997. Negative contexts: Collocation, polarity, and multiple negation. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Van Sterkenburg, Piet G. J. 2001. Vloeken: Een cultuurbepaalde reactie op woede, irritatie en frustratie, 2nd edn.The Hague: Sdu Uitgevers.Google Scholar
Walker, Daniel. 1968. Rights in conflict: The violent confrontation of demonstrators and police in the parks and streets of Chicago during the week of the Democratic National Convention of 1968. New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
Zwarts, Frans. 1995. Nonveridical contexts. Linguistic Analysis 25.3/4, 286–312.Google Scholar