1887
Volume 12, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2211-3770
  • E-ISSN: 2211-3789
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Following a critical discourse-analytic approach, this study explores the role of euphemistic language in a corpus of titles of pornographic films designed for heterosexual male consumption that were nominated and awarded in the different categories of the AVN (Adult Video News) Awards, also known as “Oscars of Porn”, from 2015 to 2020. The analysis demonstrates that provocative euphemism contributes to the discursive representation of gender and sexual stereotypes that fall under a dominant heteronormative discourse in which female characters are represented both as victims of male dominance and as perverted, sex-crazed animals. This study also reveals that in the context of male supremacy that straight pornography seems to exalt, the sexist and misogynistic connotations that euphemistic references carry are used with a strategic purpose intended to attract the interest of pornography consumers, stimulate their curiosity, and ultimately make them buy, rent or stream the film.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jls.21001.cre
2023-02-02
2024-05-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Allan, Keith
    2016 Pragmatics in language change and creativity. SpringerPlus5(342). https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40064-016-1836-y (January 22, 2020)
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2019 Taboo words and language: An overview. InThe Oxford Handbook of Taboo Words and Language, Keith Allan (ed), 1–27. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Allan, Keith & Burridge, Kate
    2006Forbidden Words: Taboo and the Censoring of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511617881
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511617881 [Google Scholar]
  4. Attwood, Feona
    2002 Reading porn: The paradigm shift in pornography research. Sexualities5(1): 91–105. 10.1177/1363460702005001005
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460702005001005 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2004 Pornography and objectification: Re-reading “the picture that divided Britain”. Feminist Media Studies4(1): 7–19. 10.1080/14680770410001674617
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14680770410001674617 [Google Scholar]
  6. Attwood, Feona & Smith, Clarissa
    2014 Porn studies: An introduction. Porn Studies11: 1–6. 10.1080/23268743.2014.887308
    https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2014.887308 [Google Scholar]
  7. Attwood, Feona, Maina, Giovanna & Smith, Clarissa
    2018 Conceptualizing, researching and writing about pornography. Porn Studies5(1): 1–5. 10.1080/23268743.2018.1444008
    https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2018.1444008 [Google Scholar]
  8. Barcelona, Antonio
    2003 Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within cognitive linguistics: An update. InMetaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast, René Dirven & Ralf Pörings (eds), 207–277. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bivona, Jenny & Critelli, Joseph
    2009 The nature of women’s rape fantasies: An analysis of prevalence, frequency, and contents. Journal of Sex Research46(1): 33–45. 10.1080/00224490802624406
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490802624406 [Google Scholar]
  10. Brown, Peter & Levinson, Stephen C.
    1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  11. Brunskell-Evans, Heather
    2016 Introduction. InThe Sexualized Body and the Medical Authority of Pornography: Performing Sexual Liberation, Heather Brunskell-Evans (ed), 1–17. Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Burridge, Kate
    2012 Euphemism and language change: The sixth and seventh ages. Lexis: Journal in English Lexicology71: 65–92. 10.4000/lexis.355
    https://doi.org/10.4000/lexis.355 [Google Scholar]
  13. Cameron, Deborah & Kulick, Don
    2006 Heteronorms. InThe Language and Sexuality Reader, Deborah Cameron & Don Kulick (eds), 165–168. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203013373
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203013373 [Google Scholar]
  14. Casas Gómez, Miguel
    2012 The expressive creativity of euphemism and dysphemism. Lexis: Journal in English Lexicology71: 43–64. 10.4000/lexis.349
    https://doi.org/10.4000/lexis.349 [Google Scholar]
  15. Cawston, Amanda
    2019 The feminist case against pornography: A review and re-evaluation. Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy621: 624–658. 10.1080/0020174X.2018.1487882
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2018.1487882 [Google Scholar]
  16. Clark, Jodie
    2012Language, Sex and Social Structure: Analysing Discourses of Sexuality. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137283986
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137283986 [Google Scholar]
  17. Coates, Jennifer
    2007 ‘Everyone was convinced that we were closet fags’: The role of heterosexuality in the construction of hegemonic masculinity. InLanguage, Sexualities and Desires: Cross-Cultural Perspectives, Helen Sauntson & Sakis Kyratzis (eds), 41–67. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230625136_3
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230625136_3 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2013 The discursive production of everyday heterosexualities. Discourse & Society24(5): 536–552. 10.1177/0957926513486070
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926513486070 [Google Scholar]
  19. Connell, Raewyn W. & Messerschmidt, James W.
    2005 Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society19(6): 829–859. 10.1177/0891243205278639
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243205278639 [Google Scholar]
  20. Connell, Raewyn & Pearse, Rebecca
    2014Gender in World Perspective. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Corcoran, Hannah & Smith, Kevin
    2016 Hate Crime, England and Wales, 2015/16. Home Office Statistical Bulletin11(16), 13 October 2016.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Crespo-Fernández, Eliecer
    2015Sex in Language: Euphemistic and Dysphemistic Metaphors in Internet Forums. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 2018 The axiological and communicative potential of homosexual-related metaphors. InLinguistic Taboo Revisited: Novel Insights from Cognitive Perspectives, Andrea Pizarro Pedraza (ed), 35–53. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110582758‑003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110582758-003 [Google Scholar]
  24. 2019 Taboos in speaking of sex and sexuality. InThe Oxford Handbook of Taboo Words and Language, Keith Allan (ed), 41–60. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Downs, Donald Alexander
    1989The New Politics of Pornography. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Dworkin, Andrea
    1985 Against the male flood: Censorship, pornography and equality. Harvard Women’s Law Journal81: 69–98.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Fairclough, Norman
    2001 Critical discourse analysis as a method in social scientific research. InMethods of Critical Discourse Analysis, Ruth Wodak & Michael Meyer (eds), 121–138. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Fernández Smith, Gerard & Casas Gómez, Miguel
    2018 From lexicon to discourse in the linguistic expression of taboo: Configuring new social realities. InTaboo in Discourse: Studies on Attenuation and Offence in Communication, Eliecer Crespo-Fernández (ed), 25–52. Bern: Peter Lang. 10.3726/b13073
    https://doi.org/10.3726/b13073 [Google Scholar]
  29. Gabriel, Karen
    2017 The subject of porn research: Inquiring bodies and lines of resistance. InBodies in Resistance: Gender and Sexual Politics in the Age of Neoliberalism, Wendy Harcourt (ed), 307–323. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑47780‑4_15
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-47780-4_15 [Google Scholar]
  30. Genette, Gérard
    1988 Structure and functions of the title in literature. Critical Inquiry14(4): 692–720. 10.1086/448462
    https://doi.org/10.1086/448462 [Google Scholar]
  31. Hearn, Jeff & Hall, Matthew
    2019 “This is my cheating ex”: Gender and sexuality in revenge porn. Sexualities22(5–6): 860–882. 10.1177/1363460718779965
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460718779965 [Google Scholar]
  32. Hines, Caitlin
    1999 Foxy chicks and playboy bunnies: A case study in metaphorical lexicalization. InCultural, Psychological and Typological Issues in Cognitive Linguistics, Masako K. Hiraga, Chris Sinha & Sherman Wilcox (eds), 9–23. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.152.04hin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.152.04hin [Google Scholar]
  33. Jensen, Robert & Dines, Gail
    1998 The content of mass-marketed pornography. InPornography: The Production and Consumption of Inequality, Gail Dines, Robert Jensen & Ann Ruso (eds), 65–100. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Koller, Veronika
    2015a The subversive potential of queer pornography: A systemic-functional analysis of a written online text. Journal of Language and Sexuality4(2): 254–271. 10.1075/jls.4.2.04kol
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jls.4.2.04kol [Google Scholar]
  35. 2015b No ordinary boy: Language, masculinities and queer pornographies. InLanguage and Masculinities: Performances, Intersections, Dislocations, Tommaso M. Milani (ed), 156–173. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 2019 Critical discourse studies of language and sexuality. InThe Oxford Handbook of Language and Sexuality, Kira Hall & Rusty Barrett (eds), https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com (September 11, 2020) 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190212926.013.5
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190212926.013.5 [Google Scholar]
  37. Kövecses, Zoltán
    1988The Language of Love: The Semantics of Passion in Conversational English. London: Bucknell University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 2002Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Krzyżanowski, Michal & Forchtner, Bernhard
    2016 Theories and concepts in Critical Discourse Studies: Facing challenges, moving beyond foundations. Discourse and Society7(3): 253–261. 10.1177/0957926516630900
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926516630900 [Google Scholar]
  40. Lakoff, George
    1993 The contemporary theory of metaphor. InMetaphor and Thought, Andrew Ortony (ed), 202–251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013 [Google Scholar]
  41. Leap, William L. & Motschenbacher, Heiko
    2012 Launching a new phase in language and sexuality studies. Journal of Language and Sexuality1(1): 1–14. 10.1075/jls.1.1.01lea
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jls.1.1.01lea [Google Scholar]
  42. LeFranc, Ghislaine
    2017 Lust in Language: The Reading, Writing and Translation of Erotic Literature. (Unpublished) PhD Dissertation, Concordia University.
  43. Lisková, Katerina
    2007 Pornography as language: From discourse of domination to heretical subversion. InSexual Politics of Desire and Belonging, Nick Rumens & Alejandro Cervantes-Carson (eds), 41–56. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. MacKinnon, Catharine
    1987Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Marko, Georg
    2008Penetrating Language: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Pornography. Tübingen: Gunther Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Martin, Karin A.
    2009 Normalizing heterosexuality. American Sociological Review741: 190–207. 10.1177/000312240907400202
    https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240907400202 [Google Scholar]
  47. Martin, James R. & White, Peter R. R.
    2005Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230511910
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910 [Google Scholar]
  48. McKee, Alan, Byron, Paul, Litsou, Katerina & Ingham, Roger
    2019 An interdisciplinary definition of pornography: Results from a Global Delphi panel. Archives of Sexual Behaviour491: 1–7.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. McNamara, Tim
    2019Language and Subjectivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108639606
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108639606 [Google Scholar]
  50. Mills, Sara
    2008Language and Sexism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Motschenbacher, Heiko
    2014 Focusing on normativity in language and sexuality studies: Insights from conversations on objectophilia. Critical Discourse Studies11(1): 49–70. 10.1080/17405904.2013.836113
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2013.836113 [Google Scholar]
  52. Mullholland, Monique
    2013Young People and Pornography: Negotiating Pornification. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137326195
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137326195 [Google Scholar]
  53. Murphy, Peter F.
    2001Studs, Tools, and the Family Jewels: Metaphors Men Live By. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Nissim, Mayer
    2018 Transvestite, transsexual, transgender: Here’s what you should actually call trans people. https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/03/19/transsexual-transgender-transvestite-what-should-you-call-trans-people/ (September 17, 2020)
  55. Paasonen, Susana
    2006 Email from Nancy Nutsucker: Representation and gendered address in online pornography. European Journal of Cultural Studies9(4): 403–420. 10.1177/1367549406069065
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367549406069065 [Google Scholar]
  56. Penley, Constance
    2006 Crackers and whackers: The white trashing of porn. InPornography: Film and Culture, Peter Lehman (ed), 99–117. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Queen, Robin
    2014 Language and sexual identities. InThe Handbook of Language, Gender and Sexuality, Susan Ehrlich, Miriam Meyerhoff & Janet Holmes (eds), 209–219. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118584248.ch10
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118584248.ch10 [Google Scholar]
  58. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco J.
    2000 The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. InMetaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads, Antonio Barcelona (ed), 109–132. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco J. & Galera Masegosa, Alicia
    2014Cognitive Modeling: A Linguistic Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.45
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.45 [Google Scholar]
  60. Sloan, Jennifer
    2017 Sex doesn’t matter? The problematic status of sex, misogyny and hate. Journal of Language Discrimination1(1): 61–83.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Smolak, Linda & Striegel-Moore, Ruth
    2002 Body image concerns. InEncyclopedia of Women and Gender, Edith Worrel (ed), 201–210. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Steen, Gerard
    2011 The contemporary theory of metaphor – now new and improved!Review of Cognitive Linguistics9(1): 26–64. 10.1075/rcl.9.1.03ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.9.1.03ste [Google Scholar]
  63. van Dijk, Teun A.
    1997 The study of discourse. InDiscourse as Structure and Process: Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, Teun A. van Dijk (ed), 1–34. London: Sage. 10.4135/9781446221884.n1
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446221884.n1 [Google Scholar]
  64. 2016 Critical discourse analysis: A sociocognitive approach. InMethods of Critical Discourse Analysis, Ruth Wodak & Michael Meyer (eds), 62–86. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Watts, Richard J.
    2003Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511615184
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615184 [Google Scholar]
  66. Williams, Linda
    1999Hard Core: Power, Pleasure, and the “Frenzy of the Visible.”Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. 2004 Proliferating pornographies on/scene: An introduction. InPorn Studies, Linda Williams (ed), 1–23. Durham: Duke University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Wodak, Ruth & Meyer, Michael
    2016 Critical discourse studies: History, agenda, theory and methodology. InMethods of Critical Discourse Studies, Ruth Wodak & Michael Meyer (eds), 1–22. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jls.21001.cre
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jls.21001.cre
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error