Indecent is a socially offensive language, which can also be called abstract words, abusive words, abusive language, bad language, strong language, rough language, rough language, dirty language, bad words, oaths, blasphemy language, vulgar language, obscene language, choice words, or swearing. The use of the language is called swearing, condemning, or cursing.
Used in this sense, profanity is a part of the lexicon of language which is generally regarded as extremely rude, abusive or offensive. It can indicate a person's anxiety or something, or show strong emotions. Linguistically, profanity takes the form of words or verbal expressions that fall into the category of formula language.
In a longer and more literal sense, "indecent words" refers to a lack of respect for things that are considered sacred, implying anything inspiring to be respected, as well as behaviors that show the same disrespect or cause of religious offenses.
Video Profanity
Etimologi
The term "profane" comes from the classical Latin "profane", literally "before (outside) the temple." It carries the meaning of "tarnishing what is sacred" or "secularly" as early as the 1450s. Wrong words represent a secular ignorance of religion or religious leaders, while religious blasphemy is a more offensive attack on religion and religious leaders, considered to be sinful, and a direct violation of the Ten Commandments. In addition, many Bible verses speak out against cursing.
Indecent words, in the original sense of obscene dirty words, are part of an ancient tradition of comic cult that laughs and mocks gods or gods. An example of Gargantua and Pantagruel is "Christ, look at you, it is Mere de ... merde ... bad luck, Mother of God."
English
In English, curse words and curse words tend to have German, not Latin etymology. "Shit" has German roots, like, possibly, "making love". More technical alternatives often come from Latin, such as "bowel movements" or "defecation" and "adultery" or "copulation" respectively.
Maps Profanity
Research
The conversational recording analysis reveals that on average about 80-90 words a person speaks every day - 0.5% to 0.7% of all words - are abusive words, with usage varying from 0% to 3.4%. In comparison, the first plural pronoun we us , us , us ) forms 1% of the spoken words.
The three-country poll conducted by Angus Reid Public Opinion in July 2010 found that Canadians more often swear than Americans and English when talking to friends, while Britons are more likely than Canadian and American to hear foreigners swear during the conversation.
Oaths perform certain psychological functions, and use certain linguistic and neurological mechanisms; all this is the way of research. A functionally similar behavior can be observed in chimpanzees, and may contribute to our understanding, notes the author of the New York Times, Natalie Angier. Angier also notes that swearing is a widespread but perhaps unappreciated technique of anger management; that "Men generally condemn more than women, unless women say they are in a student association, and the university is provoking more than just the librarian or member of the university's center staff."
Keele University researchers Stephens, Atkins, and Kingston found that swearing eased the effects of physical pain. Stephens said, "I would advise people, if they hurt themselves, to swear". However, excessive curse words tend to reduce this effect. The Keele team won the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize for their research.
A team of neurologists and psychologists at UCLA Easton Center for Alzheimer's Disease Research suggested that swearing can help distinguish Alzheimer's disease from frontotemporal dementia.
Neurologist Antonio Damasio notes that despite the loss of language due to damage to brain language areas, patients can still swear often.
A group of researchers from Wright State University learn why people swear in the online world by collecting tweets posted on Twitter. They found that cursing was associated with negative emotions such as sadness (21.83%) and anger (16.79%), thus showing people in the online world mainly using curse words to express their sadness and anger towards others.
An interdisciplinary team of researchers from the University of Warsaw investigates bilingual oaths: why is it easier to swear in a foreign language? Their finding that bilingualism reinforces the profanity of profanity when they switched to their second language, but softened as they switched to their first language, but both were statistically significant only in the case of ethnophaulisms (ethnic humiliation) leading scientists to the conclusion that switching to a second language frees bilingual of social norms and barriers (both owned or socially imposed) such as political correctness, and makes them more likely to swear and offend others.
The perceived severity
The relative severity of various English dirty words, as perceived by the public, was studied on behalf of the UK Broadcasting Standards Commission, the ITC, the BBC, and the Advertising Standards Authority; the results of this study were commissioned published in December 2000 in a paper called "Remove the oaths?". It listed profanities in order to decrease the severity.
A similar survey was conducted in 2009 by New Zealand, the Broadcasting Standards Authority. The results were published in March 2010, in a report called "What Not to Swear". According to the Authority, the findings "measure how acceptable the public finds use of abusive words, blasphemies and other curses in broadcasting".
Type by destination
According to Steven Pinker, there are five possible swearing functions - though others (eg, Salmani Nodoushan) have reduced them to three main functions:
- Abusive abuse, intended to offend, intimidate, or cause emotional or psychological disturbance
- The cathartic vow, used in response to pain or misfortune
- Artificial oaths, used to convey that speakers think negatively about the subject matter, and make the listener do the same
- Artificial oath, intended to draw additional attention to what is deemed worthy of attention
- The Idiomatic Oath, used without any special purpose, but as a sign that the conversation and the relationship between speaker and listener is not formal
Legality
Australia
The three Australian states (New South Wales, Queensland, and Victoria) have laws against the use of "harsh language" in public. This violation is classified as a summary violation. However, if the court is satisfied that the person has "reasonable reasons to behave in such manner", no violations are committed. In Australia's remaining states and territories, vows are not illegal per se , but depending on circumstances may be an orderly conduct or a breach of peace.
Brazil
In Brazil, the Criminal Code does not contain public indirect penalties. However, a direct violation of a person may be considered a crime against honor, with a one to three month imprisonment or a fine. Analysis of violations is considered "subjective", depending on the context of the discussion and the relationship between the parts.
Canada
Section 175 of the Canadian Criminal Code makes it a criminal offense to "cause disturbance in or near public places" by "swearing [...] or using offensive or obscene language". Provinces and municipalities may also have their own laws against public prohibition. For example, Toronto City Code prohibits "profane or rough" language in public parks. In June 2016, a man in Halifax, Nova Scotia, was arrested for using profane language in a protest against Bill C-51.
New Zealand
In New Zealand, the Summary of Violations Act 1981 makes it illegal to use "profanity or obscenity in or hear from public places". However, if the defendant has "reasonable reasons to believe that his words will not be heard" then no offense is committed. Also, "the court must pay attention to all circumstances related to material timing, including whether the defendant has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to whom the words are addressed, or whomever they may hear, will not be offended."
Philippines
Unlike in Western culture, where certain words can never be accepted in all but the most informal context, in the Philippines Tagalog's indecency is context-sensitive: words that are considered profane or insulting in one context are often accepted in one context.
United Kingdom
- In public
Swearing, in and of itself, is not usually a criminal offense in the UK although in context it can be a component of crime. However, this may be a criminal offense in Salford Quays under the Public Space Protection Order which prohibits the use of "dirty and abusive language" without specifying any further components for violations, although it seems unclear whether all and every instance swore shut. The City Council of Salford claims that the defense of "reasonable reasons" allows all circumstances to be taken into account. In England and Wales, publicly vowing where it appears to be causing harassment, alarm or distress can be an offense under sections 5 (1) and (6) of the Public Order Act 1986. In Scotland, similar violations of similar violations issues that include peace cause alarm and public distress.
- In the workplace
In the UK, swearing at work can be a serious offense in certain situations. In particular, this is the case when vowing to accompany defiance of a superior or insult to a subordinate's employees. However, in other cases it may not be the reason for the instant dismissal. According to an English website on work etiquette, "the fact that swearing is a part of everyday life means that we need to navigate our way through the day in office without offending anyone, while still appreciating that people swear.Of course, there is a kind of vow which is different and, without spelling it, you really have to avoid the 'worst words' regardless of who you are talking to.In relation to swearing among coworkers, this site explains that "although it sounds weird, the [swear] [swear] ] [...] is strongly influenced by the industry you are in and the people you work with. "The site goes on to explain that, even in the workplace where vows are the norm, there is no need to participate in. The site emphasizes that swearing, in general, is more problematic in asymmetric situations, such as in the presence of senior management or clients, but also mentions that the attitude is "more holy than a you "to the client may be problematic.
The Guardian reported that "36% of the 308 senior managers and managers of England have responded to sworn surveys as part of the work culture," but warned against the use of certain inappropriate oaths such as when discriminating or part of behavior bullying. This article concludes with an excerpt from Ben Wilmott (Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development): "Employers can ensure professional language in the workplace by having well-designed policies on bullying and harassment that emphasize how bad language has the potential for harassment or bullying."
United States
In the United States, the courts generally decide that the government has no right to judge a person solely for the use of profanity, which would be a violation of their right to freedom of speech enshrined in the First Amendment. On the other hand, they have upheld the conviction of people who use profanity to incite riots, harass people, or disturb the peace. In 2011, a North Carolina law that made it illegal to use "indecent or indecent language" in "loud and boisterous" in the hearing of two or more people on public roads or highways was beaten as unconstitutional.
Broadcasting
In countries where it is illegal to broadcast profanity in the media such as television or radio, pre-recorded programs or broadcast delay devices may be used to filter, and possibly remove, profanity by bleeping or turning it off before the broadcast. Indecent songs should be edited before they are broadcast on the radio. However, some minor examples of profanity, such as "shit", "hell", and the usual or disrespectful use of the name of every Divine member, may not be filtered or deleted.
Whipsuit
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments