Cover not available
Article published In:
Cognitive Linguistic Studies
Vol. 3:2 (2016) ► pp.316–346

A cognitive linguistic approach to Dholuo sexual euphemisms and dysphemisms

| The Technical University of Kenya
| Garissa University (Kenya)

Cognitive linguistics as a disciplinary school of thought concerns itself with investigating the relationship between human language, the mind and socio-physical experience. It sees language as embedded in the overall cognitive capacities of man, places special emphasis on topics such as the structural characteristics of natural language categorization including, but not limited to, prototypicality, systematic polysemy, cognitive models, mental imagery, and metaphor. This study examined sexual euphemisms and dysphemisms in the Kenyan Dholuo within the framework of Cognitive Linguistics, specifically anchoring itself on Conceptual Integration Theory (Fauconnier and Turner 2002). The study had two objectives: to identify and explain the sex-related dysphemistic words and phrases in Dholuo and to account for the cognitive processes in the creation of sex-related euphemisms. To achieve its objectives, the study used a descriptive design in which the researcher identified the sex-related dysphemisms by asking native Dholuo speakers to name the male and female sexual organs and sex- related physiological processes associated with both males and females. In addition, the respondents were asked to give the alternative terms that were used to refer to the sex-related dysphemistic terms mentioned. The euphemisms collected were analyzed using Conceptual Integration Theory. They were mapped into the different kinds of conceptual mappings (also known as the mental spaces). The study found out that Conceptual Integration Theory adequately and appropriately accounted for the euphemisms in Dholuo in terms of their interpretation. It provides solid tools for understanding, interpreting and accounting for the euphemisms in Dholuo. It is also demonstrated that not only is there a gendered usage of both euphemisms and dysphemisms, but also that their use is socially and culturally constrained. It is concluded that, just like in other languages, Dholuo euphemisms and dysphemisms are analyzable from a cognitive linguistics perspective

Keywords: dysphemisms, cognitive linguistics, euphemisms, Dholuo, conceptual integration theory.
Published online: 3 March 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.3.2.07och
References
Agyekum, K
(2002) Menstruation as a verbal taboo among the Akan of Ghana. Journal of Anthropological Research, 58(3), 367–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Allan, K., & Burridge, K
(2006) Forbidden words: Taboo and the censoring of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bousfield, D
(2007) Never a truer word said in jest: A pragmastylistics analysis of impoliteness as banter in Shakespeare’s Henry IV. London: Phoebus Publisher.Google Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S.C
(1978) Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena . In E. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Burridge, K
(2004) Blooming English: Observations on the Roots, Cultivation and Hybrids of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cameron, D
(1995) Naming of parts: Gender, culture and the terms for the penis among American college students. In Terry Lovel (Ed.), Feminist cultural studies II. Cheltenham.Google Scholar
Coates, J
(1997) One-at-a-time: The organization of men’s talk. In S. Johnson & U.H. Meinhof (Eds.), Language and masculinity (pp. 107–129). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Coulson, S., & Oakley, T
(2002) Blending basics. Cognitive Linguistics, 11(3), 175–196.Google Scholar
Dare, S.A
(2005) Sexual discourse in Niyi Osundare’s poetry: A sociolinguistic reading. African Study Monographs, 26(2), 89–97.Google Scholar
Domínguez, P., & Benedito, F
(2000).Lo que nunca se aprendio en clase. Eufemismos y disfemismos en el lenguaje erotico ingles. Granada: Comares.Google Scholar
Duda, B
(2011) Euphemisms and dysphemisms: In search of a boundary line. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación, 451, 3–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Esperas, M.V
(2010) Braving the waters: The ups and downs of metaphorical concepts in language learning. US-China Foreign Language Journal, 81.Google Scholar
Evans, V
(2006) Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(4), 491–534. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, V., & Green, M
(2006) Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Farghal, M
(1995) Euphemisms in Arabic: A Gricean interpretation. A Journal of Anthropological Linguistics, 37(3), 366–378.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M
(2002).The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fernández, E
(2008) Sex-related euphemism and dysphemism: An analysis in terms of conceptual metaphor theory. Journal of the Spanish Association of Anglo American studies, 32 (2), 95–110.Google Scholar
Gathigia, M
(2010) A cognitive linguistic approach in the study of euphemisms in Gĩkũyũ. Unpublished master’s thesis, Kenyatta University, Nairobi.Google Scholar
Grady, J.E., Oakley, T., & Coulson, S
(1999) Blending and metaphor. In R. Gibbs & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics, (pp. 101–124). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, J
(1982) Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hughes, G
(2000) A history of English words. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jay, T
(2000) Why we curse: A neuro- psycho-social theory of speech. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Katamba, F
(1994) English words. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kelinger, F.N
(1969) Research in Education. In R. Ebel, V. Noll, & R. Bauer (Eds). Encyclopedia of Educational Research (4th ed., pp. 1127–1134). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kövesces, Z
(2000) Metaphor and emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kramsch, C
(1998) Language and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M
(1980/ 2003) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mugenda, O., & Mugenda, A
(1999) Research methods: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Nairobi: African Centre for Technology Studies Press.Google Scholar
Rawson, H
(1981) A dictionary of euphemisms and other double-talk. New York: Crown Publishers.Google Scholar
Risch, B
(1987) Language in society. Women’s derogatory terms for men: That’s right, dirty words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Santaemilia, J
(2005) The language of sex: Saying and not saying. Dipòsito Legal: Universitat de València.Google Scholar
Stanley, P.J
(1977) The prostitute: Paradigmatic woman. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P
(1974) Sociolinguistics: An introduction to language and society. Harmond Sworth: PeBooks Ltd.Google Scholar
(1983) Sociolinguistics. London: Penguin Group.Google Scholar
Ullman, S
(1981) Semantics: An introduction to the science of meaning. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Valenzuela, J., & Soriano, C
(2005) Conceptual metaphor and empirical methods. Barcelona English Language and Literature Studies, (BELLS) 141, 1–19.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Nganga, Simon Wanjala
2023. Creative uses of language to invoke sex-related taboos in Churchill Raw comedy shows. The European Journal of Humour Research 11:2 ► pp. 88 ff. DOI logo
Orwenjo, Daniel Ochieng
2023. ‘Chips Funga’. Sociolinguistic Studies 17:1-3 ► pp. 67 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 march 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.