“Bad” Words are Good Words: Teaching Origin and History of ...



“Bad” Words are Good Words: Teaching Origin and History of Derogatory Language

Kelly D’Angelo

Bradley University

Table of Contents

Page

I. CHAPTER I- INTRODUCTION 3

A. Introduction 3

B. Summary 3

C. Research Problem 4

D. Purpose of Study 4

E. Research Disclosure 5

F. Method 5

G. Significance 5

II. CHAPTER II- LITERATURE REVIEW 6

A. Review of the Literature 7

B. “ Dangerous” Words 7

C. Seeking the Linguistic Truth 9

D. Cultural Considerations 11

E. Taboo 13

F. How Obscene? 14

G. Summary 15

III. CHAPTER III- METHODS 16 A. Methods 16

B. Research Question 16

C. Participants 16

D. Design and Procedures 16

E. Analysis 17

F. Verification 18

G. Human Subjects 18

REFERENCES 19

APPENDIX A 20

APPENDIX B 21

Chapter I

“Bad” Words are Good Words: Teaching Origin and History of Derogatory Language

Introduction

We have all heard the adage “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me”. From “Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings” (1996) by Gregory Y. Titelman (Random House, New York, 1996). And, it is likely we have similar reactions as Karen Keely does as she states “Yeah, right. Those of us who have survived the verbal exchanges of the playground, the cafeteria, and perhaps even the faculty room know all too well how wounding words can be, and we don’t believe for a minute this platitude about the innocuousness of language. Words are powerful, and that power can be used for good or ill” (2011, p. 55).

The power of speech is incredibly potent and, as Keely (2011) pointed out, this potency can be wielded for good or for bad. Language is a beauty and a beast- enabling communication for the masses, yet unforgiving in its exploits and vulgarities. It is also an enigma in that it is so widely used and understood; yet, further exploration into the darker corners of language reveals that this understanding of language, especially of its “bad” parts, is incredibly superficial.

Summary

Shit. Damn. Ass. Bitch. Bastard: Men report first using them before entering high school; women report using them within early years of high school. Cunt. Cock. Prick. Suck. Fuck. Screw: Men and women report having used these words frequently by the time they graduate high school (Fine & Johnson, 1984). Regardless of whether an individual is part of the population who chooses to use these words in his or her daily lexicon, chances are he or she has been exposed to these words. If they are being spoken, they are being heard. This, however, is not the biggest issue. The issue lies in the fact that they are being heard and misunderstood. It is the inherent duty of a teacher to correct misunderstanding and remedy ignorance and in this case, it is our duty to educate our students of the histories and origins of these pejorative terms in order to make these words meaningful, not mean.

Research Problem

In his 2009 song “Fuck Bow Wow”, Soulja Boy Tell ‘Em serenaded us with the line “fuck dat ol bitch ass nigger” (Soulja Boy Tell ‘Em, 2009). Translated literally, Soulja Boy was telling us to engage in coitus with that old female dog of an ancestor of the donkey member of a dark-skinned race (Agnes, 2002). It doesn’t seem as glamorous when “translated” into traditional English, does it? Yet, this lyric, along with millions of other lyrics, script lines, jokes, insults, and exclamations, is indicative of how freely we use and accept, without thinking, “bad” words in our language. The problem is not rap music and the problem is not “bad” language. The problem is the lack of understanding regarding what bad language is, where it comes from, what it means, and how and why and when and where it should and should not be used. “Bad” language is a part of our culture, whether we like it or not and we are far past the days of reasonably telling ourselves and others that certain words are “bad” and simply should not be said. This telling needs to be replaced with educating, as education cures ignorance. After all, aren’t “bad” words just a sign of one’s ignorance? Not necessarily.

Purpose of Study

The purpose of this study is to examine how the instruction and study of the origin and history of “bad” words deter high school students from using pejorative terms inappropriately, thus lessening academic and social consequences.

Researcher Disclosure

This researcher has taught high school English in to a variety of populations: a predominately black, impoverished, high-risk population; a black, white, and Hispanic, middle- income, medium-risk population; and a predominately white, mostly impoverished, high-risk population.

In these three diverse academic settings, the researcher has noticed trends of language inherent to each group, in addition to a trend that spanned all groups: the blind use of “bad” language. This “bad” language has been observed in the form of insults, jokes, casual conversation, exclamations during physical fights, signs of frustration, and reactions to pain or surprise.

The researcher herself has been the recipient of “bad” language from two students, having been called a [fucking bitch] and endured [fuck you, you fucking bitch]. Currently, the researcher is a high school English teacher in the latter, aforementioned population: predominately white, mostly impoverished, high-risk. The researcher teaches Etymology courses, which focus on the Greek and Latin formation of words, in addition to the study of idioms, colloquialisms, and other linguistic phenomena. The researcher intends this research study to broaden not only the course offerings, but to also broaden students’ understanding of commonly and loosely used “bad” words, in hopes of curbing their inappropriate use.

Method

How will administration and parents respond to the instruction and research of ‘bad” words? What is the current rate of school-administered consequences incurred by students as a result of inappropriate language use? How are these consequences affecting a student’s academic exposure? Will instruction of the origin and history of “bad” words curb inappropriate usage, ultimately reducing language-oriented consequences? This study will take a qualitative approach to answer these research questions, focusing on case studies and interviews in order to encourage a participatory view. The purpose is to gain an understanding of current issues caused by inappropriate language use and to explore the reception and effectiveness of the instruction of “bad” language. Pekin Community High School administrative personnel and parents of students enrolled in the Etymology course will be randomly interviewed to gain an understanding of their perspectives. Discipline personnel will be interviewed to gain an understanding of linguistic impact on student behavior and consequences. Etymology students will be surveyed to gain an understanding of their current linguistic choices and reactions to potential “bad” word instruction.

Significance

Appropriate or inappropriate, language is ubiquitous. The utterances of students are out of our control: once they are spoken, there is no taking them back. This phenomenon leaves teachers, administrators, and even other students seemingly powerless. While it is out of our control to stop an individual from saying inappropriate words, it is very much within our control to take a preventative approach to “bad” language: teach it. If teaching “bad” language yields positive results, the significance would be enormous for parents, teachers, administrators, and of course, for students. A decline in language-related discipline issues would keep a student in the classroom more, allow a teacher to teach and not punish, and certainly give students a sense of ownership and pride regarding their linguistic choices. The significance of this study is enormous and hold promising to all parties involved.

Chapter II

Review of the Literature

The environments, curriculums, and pedagogies continue to be incredibly dynamic aspects of our public schools. Changes take place drastically and frequently, yet there are a few aspects that remain constant. One of these is bad language: it is not allowed, it is not tolerated, it is against the rules, and it is just plain bad. Anyone who has been in a classroom, or even in the hallways of a school, may have noticed that just because the language is “bad” and the rules say “no”, the usage is not curbed. One has to question if there is a better, more effective approach to educating about bad language and how it may affect usage. A review of current literature makes a strong case for the research and instruction of “bad ” American English: profanity, obscenities, and derogatory terms and phrases, in our very own public classrooms.

“Dangerous” Words

Karen Keely (2011) understands the power of words and that regardless of whether they are good or bad, they are going to be used. Thus, she created a student-led research assignment that allowed and challenged students to come to their own understanding regarding the power of language, bad language. In her segment, she outlines the how’s and the why’s of incorporating derogatory term education into an English curriculum. As she crafted her assignment and later submitted it for approval, she kept the sensitivity and backgrounds of all students in mind. Keely acknowledges that the project gave students from oppressed groups an opportunity to fight back, intelligently, against forces seemingly against them. For students of privilege, the project allowed them to discover a new lens through which to view and understand discrimination. In either case, all students enjoyed a sense of ownership and pride in regards to their research.

The project was originally inspired by the over 200 appearances of the word nigger in Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. As an English teacher, Keely wanted her students to question his use of the word, rather than just accept it as what the author wanted to do. A conference Keely later attended solidified her conviction that it was her duty to incorporate this into her curriculum. Conference presenter Ann Ryan, troubled by the casual dismissal of complaints lodged against Huck Finn in high schools, argued a scenario in which the word “nigger” was replaced by the word “cunt”, 232 times. Simulating the seemingly nonchalant attitude schools take towards “nigger” in Huck Finn, she posed a hypothetical situation in which it was decided to teach a novel that used the word cunt 232 times. She challenged the audience to consider the ramifications of defending this cunt-laden novel by arguing it as a novel of liberation, one that is arguing for women’s freedoms, with the main character just doing the best she can, given the social contexts. Ryan continued to compare every appearance of the word cunt with punching each female in the room in the gut. It was this powerful statement that served as the definitive catalyst for Keely and her creation of this assignment.

Keely’s assignment was introduced while reading Huck Finn. Of course, she cleared it with her department and administration, in addition to relying heavily on the trust she and her class had built throughout the semester. The assignment was entitled the “Dangerous Words” assignment. Each student was to write a personal, researched essay that included thoughtful reflections on their research and their own personal experiences with a “dangerous word”, a vulgar slur about ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual identity, religion, or other category. Their essays were to explore the history, usage, and connotations of the word and make an argument about if and how it should be used in the contemporary world. Students were encouraged to choose their own word, with the warning not to choose anything that was too threatening to their comfort level. In these situations, students went with safe words such as lame or nerd. More daring choices included: nigger, retard, faggot, pussy, slut, whore, Jap, wetback, darkie, and kike. The project required students to research, to draw from personal experiences, to create and defend logical arguments, and certainly to demonstrate maturity and a sense of community. Some students even incorporated interviews and polls with family members of different generations in order to get their perception of the word’s usage from a different time period. This further gave students a sense of ownership and pride in their work.

Keely (2011) states that ultimately, the assignment enabled students to understand the power of words and was “deeply intellectual and at the same time unapologetically personal and political” (p. 60). Her hope was for students to be able to make connections between education and their relationship to the society in which they live. Her rationale to administration argued that if students have been taught historically, culturally, and linguistically about derogatory language, they would be enabled to make responsible life decisions when derogatory language is thrown at them. Keely put it best as she stated “If one of our goals as teachers is to prepare young people to take their place in the world, it is paramount to recognize that, for most of them, the world contains vulgarity as well as poetry…” (p. 60).

Seeking the Linguistic Truth

Adams (2002) considers the instruction of “bad” American English to be integral to the truth we as educators seek to provide through education. He states “If education is pursuit of truth, then study of “bad” American English is necessary to overtaking it, as truth by its nature isn’t partial” (p. 355).

In addition to satisfying the pedagogical need for truth, Adams gives three reasons for teaching “bad” English. First, he claims it to be intellectually irresponsible to teach only a part of a subject in efforts to be polite. Second, “bad” American English is used frequently and thoughtlessly and thus, is a subject that needs to be addressed in classrooms for both social and intellectual reasons. Third, many react to these “bad” words in an equally thoughtless way and incorrectly attempt to change their histories or obstruct their use for the wrong reasons. Language, good or bad, is a formal and cultural phenomenon that is territory of every speaker.

In his article, Adams examines the social constructs with which “bad” language is associated, comparing it to a piercing or a tattoo: something low-class and stigmatized. He connects this to characters in fictional literature who, from Chaucer and Shakespeare to Twain and Hemingway, are often portrayed through their linguistic prowess, or lack thereof. Adams points out the irony that exists in the fact that we readily accept profanity and vulgarities from fictional characters, but will not accept it from the mouths of the actual people we encounter. Yet, those fictional characters are supposedly representative of actual people. Thus, there is a breakdown in the language perception and words which are perceived as taboo, remain taboo, especially when portrayed by lower-class characters. Adams (2002) argues “All this ignoring of language compounds into ignorance, and only education can balance American culture’s bright red account and bring us out of embarrassment into intellectual solvency” (p. 355). Just as we don’t omit the morphology of sexual organs from biology classes, nor can we responsibly teach American English without considering all of its aspects, good and bad.

Thus far, it seems as though the teachers may benefit the most from the instruction of “bad” English, in terms of completing scholarly duties with integrity and responsibility. Students, too, benefit from the instruction of “bad” English. Adams argues that its instruction enables students to better understand the origins and consequences of their own and others’ choice to use “bad” words and “bad” language, in addition to linguistic constructs in general. Of course, expecting students’ understanding of “bad” words won’t solve social ills, as there is not such a clear-cut relation between linguistic behaviors and social consequence. However, there is significant social misunderstanding that arises when “bad” words are used and due to ignorance regarding them. Thus, individuals often wrongly or impulsively react. He reiterates that teaching “bad” English does not justify the frequent use and/or misuse of pejorative words. Rather it encourages more educated choices using the words in the right times and places, as well as reacting in a more responsible way. In most interpersonal interactions, each speaker and each auditor must decide what to say and why or how to react. Adams argues that the better informed and more thoughtful the speakers and auditors are (in this case, how educated they are about “bad” words), the more likely they will be to make educated decisions about their use.

Inspired by the freedoms he feels are enjoyed through exploration and use of language, Adams (2002) designed a course on “bad” words at the college at which he teaches. It was called “Maledicta: Profanity, Underworld Slang, and Other Bad Words”. The course description was as follows:

Bad words are interesting phenomena: some words are bad from the beginning, while others begin their lives as good words, only to become bad over time. What makes a bad word bad? Can we do without bad words? This course is an introduction to linguistics and to the history of English that focuses on bad words and how they got that way, their legitimate and illegitimate uses, and the ways in which they reflect and contribute to the surrounding language and culture. We will consider processes of word-formation (some of which are unique to bad words, others general); borrowing form one language to another; problems in semantics (how bad words mean), defining (what bad words mean), and syntax (how bad words influence sentence structure and sentence meaning); word history; the importance of sound in bad words (and words generally); the nature of euphemism, dysphemism, and pejoration; and the cultural politics that determine which words are appropriate, and when, and where. (pp. 358-359).

The course, drawing enough students for a full class and then some, sought to incorporate morphological term and methodology, as well as argument, into a quest for greater linguistic freedom and understanding. It advocated for the understanding and use of slang as a means of relinquishing allegiance to a social system and embraced the semantic usages in areas of sex, drinking, narcotics, racing, athletics, popular music, crime, and others. Not only was the course a success, but the ideas for t-shirts were, too.

Cultural Considerations

Mercury (1995) presents her advocacy for the instruction of “bad” language in a different scenario: ESL/EFL courses. It may seem surprising that this would be considered for non ESL/EFL classrooms and more so, that teaching “bad” words would be considered part of the language instruction. In reference to the former, this research advocates for the instruction of “bad” language for sociolinguistic importance and examination of its perception by natives. In reference to the latter, the author reiterates that teaching taboo language to language learners is not giving them license nor encouragement to swear, rather an understanding of what constitutes obscene language in North American contexts, why native speakers choose to use it, and what is signifies in a sociolinguistic manner.

The author begins by focusing on non-taboo and taboo words and the necessity to differentiate between connotation and denotation. This lends itself well to English classrooms as even native English speakers often confuse or misuse connotative and denotative meanings of words. Because connotations of obscene words are products of sociolinguistic rules, they shape the speech, verbal behavior, and message between a speaker and a listener. She explains that examinations of connotative and denotative meanings reveal quite a bit about our language and the culture that surrounds it (consider words such as asshole, cocksucker, and bastard). With this in mind, “taboo language could prove to be pedagogically useful” (Mercury, 1995, p. 29). She explains that because obscene language is so widespread among native language speakers, both language speakers and learners could benefit from the examination of obscene language in broadly based contexts.

Mercury (1995) continues to provide an excellent definition of terms based on the functions the words and/or expressions serve. The focus here is pragmatic, rather than grammatical or etymological, in order to highlight the social constructs of the language. Interestingly, each “curse event” demonstrates a sense of coherency by fulfilling specific types of needs and intentions of both the speaker and the listener. The definitions are not of specific “bad” words in themselves, rather the types: cursing, profanity, blasphemy, taboo or obscenity, vulgarisms, and expletives. The author highlights the fact that not only do language learners struggle with misuse and misunderstanding of these terms, but so do native speakers, as they are so closely related and so widely and freely used.

The article discusses the expected, derogatory terms that are bound to arise in an ESL/EFL classroom: chink, nigger, wop, Jap, FOB, etc. What usually does not come up, unless an instructor brings it up are non-racial sociolinguistic terms such as: dyke, faggot, and fairy. To teach these more bigoted terms, the author calls for an instructional program that is well-trained and equipped with effective materials and methods. Obscene language is considered by the author to be linguistically universal, with sociological, psychological, and cultural roots. Thus, she reminds of the importance of handling each term with extreme care.

Mercury (1995) continues to discuss the nonlinguistic variables: user discretion, settings of usage associated with cursing, and gender factor. She considers nonlinguistic variables a goldmine in relevance to studying and understanding obscene expressions. In reference to discretion, she outlines the social restrictions placed on obscene word usage and how users of words in taboo situations are perceived. Of course, this is a valuable lesson not only for ESL/EFL students, but also for students who often too freely use “bad” words in appropriate situations. The article continues to address successful swearers and nonsuccessful swearers in terms of societal perception, grammatical use, and characterization of self and others. Moreover, in order to be a successful swearer in these aspects, one must be taught how.

Taboo

Bens (1971) takes a look at the taboo, or not taboo, nature of…taboos in the English language. To him, “the English teacher’s trade is communication and language is the tool” (1971p. 216). Just as a doctor cannot turn his or her back on a wound or illness just because it is undesirable does not mean it does not exist and does not mean that it cannot be treated. On the same token, just because there are taboo parts of the English language that are undesirable does not mean that we can ignore them and does not mean that it cannot be instructed.

This article is unique in that it includes some personal encounters the author, a then English teacher, had with language and his students, and how these arose from misunderstanding of “bad” language. He discusses “a black student- intelligent, militant, and with a marvelous sense of humor…he’d had difficulty in the military service because of language. The term motherfucker was almost as regular in his speech as are beauty and truth” (1971). While this quote is somewhat entertaining, it is also telling in the fact that “bad” language, used in the wrong situations, carries with it “bad” consequences. The author continues to point out irony between the lack of tolerance for the term motherfucker and the fact that the army sergeant frequently disciplining this student often referred to him as a son of a bitch.

The author challenges the reader to consider what is taboo: obscene words, obscene phrases, or just downright inappropriate sayings? And in this case, who is to determine which is which. Take for example the aforementioned scenario and compare it to a book published by Noonday Press entitled “The Life and Loves of Mr. Jiveass Nigger”. Or, how about an ice cream parlor in Oakland, California named “The Magnolia Thunder Pussy”? Last, consider a joke told at a dinner party of sophisticated guests which warrants the repetition of the word fucking several times, with the punch line comparing the word fucking to a city in China. The author presents these scenarios, in light of the aforementioned scenario to challenge us to consider what really is taboo and what is just “bad” language.

With these examples, the author contends that it seems as though lines are not being drawn in regards to the use of taboo language. He discusses instances in which stenographers transcribing space conversations delete the offensive word choices of astronauts and a San Francisco deejay was fired for playing the song “I’m Not Getting Any Nooky”. The author’s point in discussing these occurrences is that there is a certain strictness regarding the censorship of taboo phrases, but they seem to be inconsistent and ultimately, making the task of defining taboo and not taboo even more convoluted.

Bens (1971) concludes his article by making the connection between taboos that occur in society and taboos that occur in the classroom. To no one’s surprise, this connection is notably clear except for the fact that avoiding or ignoring taboo words in society is far easier to do than to avoid or ignore them in the classroom. In fact, Bens argues that by merely forbidding their use in the classroom is a great way to open up discussion. His focus is not just on “bad” language, but also on taboos that are relevant to various cultures, societies, and traditions. The article presents the difficulties and discomfort regarding taboos as an advantage, something that offers an element of surprise in an unexpected setting.

How Obscene?

Smith (1971) takes an approach that examines just what makes an obscenity an obscenity and how this can and should be related to censorship. This article was composed based on the author’s experience at a workshop that gathered to discuss obscenity and censorship. Within the first moments of its gathering, participants were unable to agree on a term for “obscenity” and thus, Smith was prompted to research further.

After much deliberation, the chairman of the workshop accepted a definition that all participants could somewhat agree on the meaning of obscenity to indicate anything that offends our sense of dignity. Of course this sounds good in theory, but the problem lies in that dignity comes from some sense of indoctrination and the origins of those indoctrinations.

The author explores one participant’s contribution: that most individuals’ sense of dignity initially comes from the Bible, which is then corrupted into politically or sexually motivated charges. To this, an outraged participant interjected that the “[Bible is obscene by such standards, for it is full of mother-fuckers- God and his mother literally]” (Smith, p. 276). It became clearer that an agreement on a definitive term for obscenity was far from being reached when an audience member interjected that “[it is the crutch of the inarticulate mother-fucker]” (Smith, p. 276)

As definition of the term “obscenity” seemed to grow further away, focus shifted towards the motive of defining what it was. The author discusses that language is often manipulated within the classroom in order to meet and abide by the social demands outside of the classroom. Thus, the problem of “obscenity” seemed to shift from meaning, towards the need for decorum and the motive behind that need for decorum.

Smith writes about student contribution to the workshop. A group concluded that it was the adult world that had created a conspiracy regarding the silence of obscenity and cited the following purposes: to control young people by keeping them ignorant and to suppress our own impulses (namely sexual). Oddly, the adult professors participating in the forum voiced little opposition. Ultimately, the forum was humbled by their heated discussion regarding the definition of obscenity and thus, never reached a decision regarding censorship. Smith concluded that the inability to decide speaks volumes in and of itself regarding what is actually obscene and thus, unacceptable.

Summary

A review of the current literature strongly advocates for the instruction and research of “bad” language in our classrooms. It is a matter of intellectual development and pedagogical responsibility. Language, good or bad, is a part of the everyday life of the everyday American. As it is inescapable, would it not be better to address what is a glaring part of our culture, rather than sweep it under the rug?

Chapter III

Methods

A review of the literature reassures the prevalence of “bad” words in our language and calls for a revival of truth in our pedagogies. It is clear that some work has been done in deepening linguistic knowledge and that there is far more work ahead. The purpose of this study was to examine how education and research of the origin and history of “bad” words may lead to less inappropriate usage, thus curbing disciplinary issues. The study took place at Pekin Community High school and surveyed administrative personnel, parents, and students.

Research Questions

1. How will administration and parents respond to the instruction and research of ‘bad” words?

2. What is the current rate of school-administered consequences incurred by students as a result of inappropriate language use?

3. How are these consequences affecting a student’s academic exposure?

4. Will instruction of the origin and history of “bad” words curb inappropriate usage, ultimately reducing language-oriented consequences?

Participants

The researcher received permission from the superintendent of School District #303 and Pekin Community High School administration to survey administrative personnel, discipline officers, parents of students in Etymology, and Etymology students. The researcher randomly selected 50 parents of Etymology students and 50 Etymology students who would likely be the recipients of this instruction.

Design and Procedures

The research design features a qualitative approach to answering the proposed research questions, focusing on case studies and interviews, in addition to encouraging a participatory view. Allowing the participants to respond to open-ended questions will provide the researcher with further insight into participants’ thoughts. A constructivist approach allows the research to pursue an authentic understanding, solicit multiple participant meanings, consider social and historical contexts and ultimately, generate a theory (Creswell, 2009).

To gather data, this researcher first sought permission from the superintendent of Pekin Community High School’s District, District #303 to survey staff, parents, and students. At the commencement of the process, administrative personnel were interviewed to measure their perception of the frequency of inappropriate language use and its impact on a student’s academic and social progress.

Next, discipline officers were interviewed to target their experience with students first hand. Inquiry was limited to incidents that were language-related. The discipline officer’s responses were intended not only to gain an understanding of language-related discipline offenses, but also to gain perspective of how students viewed and responded to these consequences upon their issue.

A total of 50 parents of students in Etymology were randomly selected and contacted via mail. The letter included five open-ended questions that surveyed their perceptions of linguistic issues (See Appendix A). Emphasis was placed on encouraging an honest response, as well as ensuring participant anonymity. Parents who did not respond within one week were sent the letter via email. Parents who still did not respond within a total of three weeks were sent another reminder in the mail to respond within seven days of receipt of mentioned letter.

Lastly, a total of 50 students in Etymology were randomly selected and given a written survey to complete during their advisory period (See Appendix B). The survey focused on their definition of “bad” words and motives and consequences for use. Again, anonymity was ensured. Students filled out the their responses in class and submitted them before leaving the room. Absent students were given the survey upon their return.

Analysis

Interviews were used with administrative personnel and discipline officers. An open-ended questionnaire was used with parents of students in Etymology classes, as well as with Etymology students themselves. The interviews sought to introduce the topic at hand and provide guidance, but ultimately let interviewees dictate the direction of their responses. The questionnaires for both the parents and the students consisted of five open-ended questions each. The parent questionnaire questions varied from the student questionnaire questions, with the exception of two questions. Participants were encouraged to respond in a complete and honest manner with the reassurance of anonymity.

The researcher took detailed notes during the interviews and organized the information into categories. The researcher read all responses of both the parent and student questionnaires and transcribed them into a legible record of information. In the occurrence of illegibility, the researcher consulted the faculty adviser to converse about any disagreement and arrive at a conclusion. Student responses were categorically arranged and reviewed, as were parent responses categorically arranged and reviewed. Interview information categories were reviewed to conclude what role “bad” language is playing in the culture of the school and how it may affect the academic and social success of the student. Questionnaire categories were reviewed to evaluate perception of “bad” language, its prevalence in households, associated consequences, and connections to attitude about its instruction.

Verification

When all data has been received, it will be subject to two sources of verification. First, a senior faculty advisor from the College of Education and Health Sciences at Bradley University will review data collection, transcription, and interpretation processes to ensure accuracy and ethical conduct. Second, this research study will be audited by an unaffiliated, external source to validate its contents and procedures.

Human Subjects

Prior to its commencement, the Bradley University Institutional Review Board, specifically the Committee on the Use of Human Subjects in Research, will review the proposal to turn “bad” words into good words by teaching origin and history of derogatory language.

References

Adams, M. (2002). Teaching “bad” american english: profanity and other “bad” words

in the liberal arts setting. Journal of English Linguistics, 30(4), 353-365.

doi: 10.1177/007542402237883

Agnes, M. (Ed.). (2002). Webster’s new world dictionary (2nd ed.). Cleveland, OH: Wiley

Publishing.

Bens, J.H. (1971). Taboo or not taboo. College Composition and Communication, 22(3),

215-220.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Press.

Fine, M.G. & Johnson, F. L. (1984). Female and male motives for using obscenity.

Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 3(1), 59-74.

Doi: 10.1177/0261927X8431004

Keely, K. (2011). Dangerous words: recognizing the power of language by

researching derogatory terms. English Journal, 100(4), 55-60.

Mercury, R. E. (1995). Swearing: “bad” part of language; good part of language

learning. Tesl Canada Journal. 13(1), 28-36.

Smith, G. W. (1971). Obscenity and censorship. College Composition and

Communication, 22(3), 276-277.

Soulja Boy Tell ‘Em. (2009). Fuck bow wow. On iSouljaBoyTellem [CD]. Santa Monica,

CA: Interscope Records.

Titleman, G. Y. (1996). Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings.

New York: Random House.

Appendix A

Dear Parents,

On behalf of Pekin Community High School and Bradley University, I would like to ask you to take a few moments to respond to the questions below. You have been selected at random, with the only qualifying variable being that your child is enrolled in an Etymology course for the 2012-2013 school year. Below, you will find five questions. Please answer all questions honestly and fully: don’t hesitate to use the words that come to your mind. Use more space, if needed; space given is not indicitative of expected response length. Your anonymity will be ensured as there is no requirement to disclose your identity. Please use the enclosed envelope to submit your response. Thank you again for your time.

Sincerely,

Kelly D’Angelo

Etymology Instructor

English Department

Pekin Community High School

1. What, if any, issues do you have with your child and the language he or she chooses to use?

2. To what do you attribute these issues, or lack of issues?

3. To you, what is “bad” language? Feel free to use examples.

4. What are the consequences of using “bad” language in your household?

5. How would you feel if your child were instructed about and/or performed research on the origin and history of “bad” language, this year in Etymology class? Why?

Appendix B

Dear Students,

On behalf of Pekin Community High School and Bradley University, I would like to ask you to take your advisory period to respond to the questions below. You have been selected at random, with the only qualifying variable being that you are enrolled in an Etymology course for the 2012-2013 school year. Below, you will find five questions. Please answer all questions honestly and fully: don’t hesitate to use the words that come to your mind. Use more space, if needed; space given is not indicitative of expected response length. Your anonymity will be ensured as there is no requirement to disclose your identity. Please do not consult with any other individuals while responding to this survey. Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Kelly D’Angelo

Etymology Instructor

English Department

Pekin Community High School

1. To you, what is “bad” language? Feel free to use examples.

2. Do you choose to use “bad” language? Why or why not?

3. What are the consequences of using “bad” language in your household?

4. Have you ever gotten in trouble at school for using “bad” language? Explain.

5. How would you feel if you were instructed about and/or performed research on the origin and history of “bad” language, this year in Etymology class? Why?

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download