profanity, language that is considered socially offensive due to being vulgar, obscene, or irreverent. The term profanity is often used in a religious sense to refer to language that is blasphemous, sacrilegious, or sometimes merely secular. In a broader sense, profanity is often referred to as expletives, swearing, oaths, cursing, or cussing and by a variety of euphemisms, including four-letter words and foul language. Profanity is often used to offend or insult, but it can also be used to express strong feelings of all kinds and as a general intensifier. Profanity is a significant subject in the study of law, particularly law related to freedom of speech.

(Editor’s Note: This article is about profanity and, as such, contains profanity. It may not be suitable for all audiences.)

In its more general sense, profanity is language that violates norms of social decency. Profanity may be considered sacrilegious, vulgar, or obscene, but not all sacrilegious, vulgar, or obscene language is profanity. The words considered profane are not merely offensive due to their meaning but are considered taboo in and of themselves. A small child who uses the word shit in a classroom is likely to cause offense, even if they are using the word as a synonym for stuff rather than as a reference to excrement. Due to the taboo nature of certain profane words, use or even mention of the word may be considered offensive, regardless of whether its contextual meaning is offensive. In some cases, a profane word may have a specific context in which it is appropriate, even though it may be considered offensive in other contexts.

Synonyms may be substituted for profane words to reduce or eliminate their offensiveness. This has led to the phenomenon of “minced oaths,” which are words used in place of profanities, generally having such similar sounds and structures that the original swear word is unambiguous. For example, someone may substitute gosh for God or fudge for fuck, or they may employ more creative options, such as cheese and rice for Jesus Christ. For example, in the sentence, “I lost my damn keys,” the word damn might be considered profanity. However, substituting the word darn, a minced oath of damn, is typically viewed as inoffensive.

Profane words can become taboo in various ways. Some words, such as damn, are considered profane in the literal sense, being sacrilegious or blasphemous. In some religions, there is a particularly strong taboo against using the names of religious figures, particularly in a way that could be deemed trivial or insulting. Other words, such as shit, develop a taboo because of their association with concepts considered obscene, generally sexual or scatological subjects. Still others, such as bastard, become taboo as a result of their use as insults or slurs.

While not all obscenities, slurs, or blasphemous words develop strong taboos around them, those that do become a uniquely powerful kind of language. Some theorists define such swear words not only by their relationship to a taboo domain, but by their ability to create a cathartic effect in the user. The act of swearing is often tied to the expression of negative emotions, helping to manage stress and provide emotional relief. Neurological studies have shown that swearing can have physiological effects on a speaker not shared by other expressions. Swearing need not be tied to negative emotions. It can also serve to intensify positive ones.

Swearing can also have social impacts. Profanity is by definition offensive and can make a communicator appear more hostile, angry, or negative. Swearing can intensify either the semantic or emotional stakes of a statement, often by including insulting or abusive statements. But, paradoxically, because profanity is taboo, use of swear words can also build trust. A demonstrated willingness to swear casually in front of someone can imply a more friendly, less formal relationship or can simply diffuse social tensions, and swearing is strongly associated with expression of honest feelings. Properly applied profanity can increase the user’s social standing. However, when norms around the use of profanity are not observed, the reverse effect can occur, and opinions of the user can fall. People who swear in situations where it is not expected, such as in formal settings, are often perceived as less intelligent or trustworthy. Some researchers have even suggested that the concept of profanity is used by upper classes to delegitimize or even criminalize the views of common people.

Are you a student?
Get a special academic rate on Britannica Premium.

Because of its power to cause offense, profanity has often been restricted or regulated by governments and other organizations. Many countries have laws defining blasphemy, obscenity, or hate speech, all of which may have impacts on common profanities. In the U.S., legal regulation of profanity has been the subject of debate. In 1971’s Cohen v. California decision, the Supreme Court ruled that profane words could not be broadly banned. Otherwise, Justice John Marshall Harlan suggested, “governments might soon seize upon the censorship of particular words as a convenient guise for banning the expression of unpopular views.” However, the Supreme Court has determined that profane words can be banned in certain circumstances, such as when such language threatens or incites violence.

Stephen Eldridge
Table of Contents
References & Edit History Related Topics

linguistics, the scientific study of language. The word was first used in the middle of the 19th century to emphasize the difference between a newer approach to the study of language that was then developing and the more traditional approach of philology. The differences were and are largely matters of attitude, emphasis, and purpose. The philologist is concerned primarily with the historical development of languages as it is manifest in written texts and in the context of the associated literature and culture. The linguist, though he may be interested in written texts and in the development of languages through time, tends to give priority to spoken languages and to the problems of analyzing them as they operate at a given point in time.

The field of linguistics may be divided in terms of three dichotomies: synchronic versus diachronic, theoretical versus applied, and microlinguistics versus macrolinguistics. A synchronic description of a language describes the language as it is at a given time; a diachronic description is concerned with the historical development of the language and the structural changes that have taken place in it. The goal of theoretical linguistics is the construction of a general theory of the structure of language or of a general theoretical framework for the description of languages; the aim of applied linguistics is the application of the findings and techniques of the scientific study of language to practical tasks, especially to the elaboration of improved methods of language teaching. The terms microlinguistics and macrolinguistics are not yet well established, and they are, in fact, used here purely for convenience. The former refers to a narrower and the latter to a much broader view of the scope of linguistics. According to the microlinguistic view, languages should be analyzed for their own sake and without reference to their social function, to the manner in which they are acquired by children, to the psychological mechanisms that underlie the production and reception of speech, to the literary and the aesthetic or communicative function of language, and so on. In contrast, macrolinguistics embraces all of these aspects of language. Various areas within macrolinguistics have been given terminological recognition: psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, anthropological linguistics, dialectology, mathematical and computational linguistics, and stylistics. Macrolinguistics should not be identified with applied linguistics. The application of linguistic methods and concepts to language teaching may well involve other disciplines in a way that microlinguistics does not. But there is, in principle, a theoretical aspect to every part of macrolinguistics, no less than to microlinguistics.

A large portion of this article is devoted to theoretical, synchronic microlinguistics, which is generally acknowledged as the central part of the subject; it will be abbreviated henceforth as theoretical linguistics.

History of linguistics

Earlier history

Non-Western traditions

Linguistic speculation and investigation, insofar as is known, has gone on in only a small number of societies. To the extent that Mesopotamian, Chinese, and Arabic learning dealt with grammar, their treatments were so enmeshed in the particularities of those languages and so little known to the European world until recently that they have had virtually no impact on Western linguistic tradition. Chinese linguistic and philological scholarship stretches back for more than two millennia, but the interest of those scholars was concentrated largely on phonetics, writing, and lexicography; their consideration of grammatical problems was bound up closely with the study of logic.

Certainly the most interesting non-Western grammatical tradition—and the most original and independent—is that of India, which dates back at least two and one-half millennia and which culminates with the grammar of Panini, of the 5th century bce. There are three major ways in which the Sanskrit tradition has had an impact on modern linguistic scholarship. As soon as Sanskrit became known to the Western learned world, the unravelling of comparative Indo-European grammar ensued, and the foundations were laid for the whole 19th-century edifice of comparative philology and historical linguistics. But, for this, Sanskrit was simply a part of the data; Indian grammatical learning played almost no direct part. Nineteenth-century workers, however, recognized that the native tradition of phonetics in ancient India was vastly superior to Western knowledge, and this had important consequences for the growth of the science of phonetics in the West. Third, there is in the rules or definitions (sutras) of Panini a remarkably subtle and penetrating account of Sanskrit grammar. The construction of sentences, compound nouns, and the like is explained through ordered rules operating on underlying structures in a manner strikingly similar in part to modes of modern theory. As might be imagined, this perceptive Indian grammatical work held great fascination for 20th-century theoretical linguists. A study of Indian logic in relation to Paninian grammar alongside Aristotelian and Western logic in relation to Greek grammar and its successors could bring illuminating insights.

Hand with pencil writing on page. (handwriting; write)
Britannica Quiz
Word Nerd Quiz

Whereas in ancient Chinese learning a separate field of study that might be called grammar scarcely took root, in ancient India a sophisticated version of this discipline developed early alongside the other sciences. Even though the study of Sanskrit grammar may originally have had the practical aim of keeping the sacred Vedic texts and their commentaries pure and intact, the study of grammar in India in the 1st millennium bce had already become an intellectual end in itself.