• Home
• /
• Shashi Tharoor's World of Words
• /
• Lifestyle

From 'shrink' to 'disabled': Why you need to avoid the following English terms

Dysphemisms involve the deployment of derogatory or offensive language in place of inoffensive expressions

Dysphemism is the antithesis to euphemism, tracing its roots to the Greek words dys, meaning “bad” or “abnormal” and pheme, meaning “utterance” or “speech”. This rhetorical device, first documented in 1884, involves the deployment of derogatory or offensive language in place of inoffensive expressions, as well as the substitution of negative terms for positive ones. Instances of dysphemism include the colloquial use of “shrink” to refer to a psychiatrist and “loony bin” or “nut house” to describe a mental hospital, and as these expressions suggest, are unpleasant words used to degrade or humiliate those referred to.

Some people habitually employ dysphemism as a way to express their frustration or annoyance when referring to individuals or objects. The use of derogatory terms and name-calling aimed at others is intended to insult, belittle or hurt them. For instance, calling someone’s extravagant mane a “mop” is to reduce their hairstyle to something you would use to clean up a messy kitchen floor. Calling someone’s statement a “lie” or a “falsehood” is a dysphemism; suggesting he has “misrepresented the facts” is a euphemistic way of saying the same thing. (Winston Churchill once accused an opponent of “terminological inexactitude”; by the time he realised he had been called a liar, the speaker had moved on.) Yet dysphemisms are commonly used in literature, political speeches, and everyday language.

Occasionally, a word may be considered a dysphemism in one cultural context but not in another. For instance, calling a welfare recipient a “queen” is not meant to be a compliment in the US – it is a dysphemism in American culture, where "welfare queen" is a derogatory term employed to stereotype individuals receiving welfare benefits, insinuating laziness, fraudulent behaviour, and reliance on government aid. However, in other countries, there is no such connotation, and the word “queen” would not carry the same negative associations.

The process of pejoration also results in words that were once regarded as euphemisms transforming into dysphemisms. The term “retarded” was introduced as a more considerate alternative after the preceding terms like “idiot” and “moron” began to be regarded as dysphemistic; however, over time, “retarded” itself has evolved into a dysphemism. Now you would be expected to use “mentally challenged”. Similarly “handicapped” was a euphemism that became seen as a dysphemism, and was replaced by “disabled”; but that too got regarded as dysphemistic, and was transformed via “persons with disabilities” to “differently-abled” instead.

In the cultural context of the United States, expressions such as “coloured” and “Negro” were formerly viewed as euphemisms but are now seen as dysphemisms, and have now been substituted with terms like “Black” and “African-American”. Occasionally, minor modifications to dysphemistic terms can render them more acceptable. For instance, while “coloured people” is perceived as dysphemistic, the phrase “people of colour” is seen as avoiding the negative connotations associated with the former.

In Geoffrey Hughes’ book, An Encyclopedia of Swearing, the author explores the various euphemisms associated with death, such as “passed away”, “passed on”, “departed this life”, and “gone to meet his Maker”. Parallel dysphemisms would be “snuffed it”, “croaked”, “he’s six feet under” and “he’s pushing up the daisies”, which vividly and harshly refer to the physical aspects of death and burial. Of course, context is all. Keith Allan and Kate Burridge, in the book Euphemism and Dysphemism, propose that addressing death humorously is considered dysphemistic only if the listener is likely to find it offensive. For example, if a physician were to inform a grieving family that their relative passed away using a colloquial expression like “pegged out” or “bit the dust” during the night, it would naturally be deemed dysphemistic. However, in an alternative context with a different set of people involved, the same expressions, when used by a friend, might be characterised as affectionately euphemistic.

While dysphemisms are frequently employed to shock or provoke, they can also function as markers of closeness. Referring to a child as a rat is undeniably a dysphemistic expression. However, when the term “rug rat” is used to refer to children, it is usually accompanied by a sense of affection. But if you use it for someone else’s toddler, their parents might consider it offensive. The basic rule of thumb remains: avoid dysphemism as much as possible. Politeness pays!

wknd@khaleejtimes.com