Jesus! vs. Christ! in Australian English: Semantics, Secondary Interjections and Corpus Analysis

Laughter Interjections

“…NSM analysis has played an important role in interjection studies, given that NSM scholars were among the first to call attention to the comparative and typological study of interjections (Wierzbicka 1991;Ameka 1992). 8 In more recent times, NSM work on interjections has focused primarily on describing emotive interjections (Goddard 2014), swearwords (Goddard 2014b;Goddard 2015) and on exploring the semantics-psycholinguistics interface (Gladkova, Vanhatalo, and Goddard 2016). To my knowledge, there are no examples of semantic explications for laughter interjections, and in the following, I will make the first attempts to provide semantic explications for laughter interjections, focusing on the Danish laughter interjections tøhø and haehae.…”

“Swear words” and “curse words” in Australian (and American) English. At the crossroads of pragmatics, semantics and sociolinguistics

“…For researchers in the Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM) approach (Bromhead 2009;Goddard 2011a;Wierzbicka 2002, 2014;Levisen 2012;Peeters 2006;Wierzbicka 1996;Wong 2014;Ye 2004Ye , 2007; and other works), expressive meanings are seen as belonging to semantics proper (i.e., there is no assumption that semantics deals only with referential meaning), and contextsensitive meanings are tractable under NSM methods, i.e., it is possible to separate stable semantic invariants from contextual effects and to state the semantic invariants in a precise and testable fashion. A number of NSM studies have argued that individual swear word expressions can be assigned specifiable expressive meanings (Goddard 2014b;Hill 1992;Kidman 1993;Stollznow 2002;Wierzbicka 1992Wierzbicka , 1997Wierzbicka , 2002. The present study will build on these works by proposing semantic explications for a dozen English swear/curse words and formulas.…”

“…The reaction components differ between the two explications and account for their different range of use. These aspects have been dealt with in a previous study (Goddard 2014b), so I will not go into them further here. 10 Instead I would like to draw attention to the metalexical awareness section, because it shows something very interesting about the status of the words Jesus and Christ as religiousor, more accurately, sacrilegiousswear/curse words.…”

“…, sociolinguistics (Coates 2003;Holmes and Stubbe 2003;Stapleton 2010;Taylor 1975), social history (Hughes 1998;McEnery 2006), descriptive linguistics (Ameka 1992;Goddard 2014b;Ljung 2011), psycholinguistics (Jay 1992(Jay , 2000Van Lancker and Cummings 1999), and the philosophy of language (Blakemore 2014;Croom 2014a). Naturally, swearing has featured prominently in studies of dysphemism, taboo words and bad language (Allan andBurridge 1991, 2006), and it is sometimes mentioned in the context of folk pragmatics and language ideologies (Niedzielski and Preston 2007).…”

La fórmula de rechazo¡Vete a … !en español peninsular. Una propuesta de análisis desde la Metalengua Semántica Natural (NSM)

“…Asimismo, la NSM presenta la ventaja de que integra el contenido semántico y pragmático, de manera que resulta la herramienta más adecuada para el análisis de expresiones de naturaleza etnopragmática. Así se ha demostrado en numerosos trabajos desde los años noventa hasta la actualidad (Wierzbicka, 1991;Goddard, 2014aGoddard, , 2014bGoddard, , 2015; Goddard y Ye, 2014; entre otros). Las 'explicaciones semánticas' (semantic explications) formuladas en NSM no solo unen la expresión lingüística con su representación semántica, sino que además explican lo que un hablante puede querer decir con esa expresión y cómo el oyente puede interpretarla, por lo que incluyen cuatro elementos en el análisis: un hablante hipotético, una expresión lingüística, una representación semántica y un potencial oyente (Wierzbicka, 2006, p. 5).…”