Forbidden Words: Taboo and the Censoring of Language

Taboo, naming and addressing 143
degrading them. Rites of passage (and going into showbusiness) are often
marked by the adoption of a new name to match the new identity. It is this
correlation between name and self that leads to taboos on names. Knowing a
person’s name is felt to be similar to having possession of the name-bearer’s
soul. This is why, in many communities, a person has a secret name that
captures his/her true identity and is known only to very few intimates, and a
public name which can be put off like an article of clothing. Calling a name
can be harmful to the name-bearer and the caller: it may be that the attention
of a malevolent force is drawn to the name-bearer; the caller too is put at risk
of malevolence falling upon him/her. All kinds of malevolent forces may
strike: humans, devils, deities, ghosts, dangerous animals, sickness, death. In
our society, a good name is jealously preserved and may be defended in a
court of law. This is evidence of the strong taboo against bringing someone’s
name into disrepute.
Proper names are subject to censoring behaviour and are therefore usually
chosen with care. Many communities have constraints on naming and most
have some names peculiar to the community. Part of any individual’s identity is
shared with the clan, tribe, nation or religion. Consequently, a person is
stigmatized by his/her name, a fact that may have either positive consequences
among in-groupers, or negative consequences as a result of -IST stereotyping
of the individual. -IST dysphemisms have the common property that they fail to
demonstrate respect for some personal characteristic which is important to the
hearer-or-named’s self-image and his/her public image, too. Very few names
are truly unique, though there are often constraints against two people holding
the same name within a given community. In all human communities, most
personal names distinguish males from females. And whereas common names
differ greatly from one language to another (unless these are related), proper
names tend to be transferred between languages, though phonological and
morphological standardization is usual; for example London is French
Londres, Tohono O’odham Cuk S ˙ on was the basis for Tucson, Kirinyaga was
the basis for (Mount) Kenya, the plural suffix in Athēnai gets picked up in
Athens, aristotél B is anglicized to Aristotle.
We discussed styles of naming and addressing, as affected by the perceived
role and status within the context of the talk exchange of the speaker and the
person addressed or named. We discussed ways in which the speaker demonstrates
disaffection, disdain or anger with the hearer-or-named by using a style
at the opposite pole of formality from the one normally required to mark the
proper social distance between the hearer-or-named and the speaker. Because
this will affront the hearer-or-named’s self-image, such behaviour is
dysphemistic. Normally, though, politeness is preserved by appropriate use
(i.e. censoring) of names and forms of address.