Euphentisation as a Politeness Strategy in Arabic Screen

Translation, with a Special Roý, rence to 'Friends'

A thesis submi(ted to tile tIlli%1el-.

sity fdMancliester ff)r tile degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in (lie Faculty ofilumanities

2009

Amer Sained Abd Abu Orabi Al-Adwan

Centre for Translation and Intercultural 'Studies (C'I'ls)

School of Languages, Linguistics and Cultures
 Table of Contents

List of Figures and Tables 4

........................................................................................
Abstract 5
......................................................................................................................
Declaration 6
.................................................................................................................
Copyright Statement 7
.................................................................................................
Dedication 8
...................................................................................................................
Acknowledgements 9
....................................................................................................

Chapter One: Introduction

1.1 Theoretical Framework 10

.....................................................................................
1.2 Data and Methodology 19
.....................................................................................
1.2.1 General Overview of Friends 23
...................................................................
1.3 ResearchQuestions 27
.............................................................................................
1.4 Organisation of the Study 28
...................................................................................

Chapter Two: Euphemisation as a Politeness Strategy in Brown and Levinson's

Model

2.1 Introduction 31
.......................................................................................................
2.2 Defining Politeness 32
............................................................................................
2.3 Key Approaches to Politeness 35
...........................................................................
2.4 Brown and Levinson's Politeness Theory 41
.........................................................
2.5 Critique of Politeness Theory 66
............................................................................
2.6 Conclusion 76
.........................................................................................................

Chapter Three: Euphemisation as a Politeness Strategy: A Translation-

Oriented Model of Analysis

3.1 Introduction 78
......................................................................................................
3.2 What is Euphemism? 79
.........................................................................................
3.3 What is Euphemised? 87
........................................................................................
3.3.1 Sex 88
...........................................................................................................
3.3.2 Religion 92
....................................................................................................
3.3.3 Distasteful Topics: Disease, Death and Insults 93
.......................................
3.4 Towards a Model of Analysis .......................................................................... 97

2
 3.4.1 Williams' Semantic Processesof Euphernisation 102
..............................
3.4.2 Warren's Model of Euphernisation 108
....................................................
3.4.3 Towards a Politeness-Theory- Oriented Model of Euphemisation in
Subtitling III
.....................................................................................................
3.5 Conclusion 120
....................................................................................................

Chapter Four: Euphemising Sexual References

4.1 Introduction 122

.................................................................................................
4.2 Sexual References 123
........................................................................................
4.2.1 Widening 127
.............................................................................................
4.2.2 Implication 137
..........................................................................................
4.2.3 Metonyms 147
...........................................................................................
4.2.4 Semantic Misrepresentation 153
................................................................
4.2.5 Omission 158
.............................................................................................
4.3 Conclusion 163
................................................................................................... .

Chapter Five: Euphemising References Related to Distasteful Topics

5.1 Distasteful References 166

.................................................................................
5.1.1 Semantic Misrepresentation 168
................................................................
5.1.2 Widening 176
.............................................................................................
5.1.3 Implication 184
..........................................................................................
5.1.4 Demetaphorisation 188
..............................................................................
5.1.5 Omission 193
..............................................................................................
5.2 Conclusion 197
....................................................................................................

Chapter Six: Findings and Conclusion

6.1 Main Findings 197

.............................................................................................
6.2 Issues Arising From the Analysis 206
...............................................................
6.3 Suggestions for Future Research 209
................................................................
Appendix I 211
.......................................................................................................
Appendix 2 222
.......................................................................................................
Bibliography 228
..................................... ...............................................................
Word count: 56,341

3
 List of Figures

Figure 1. Classification of FTAs Based on Brown and Levinson (1987.- 65-67) 46

Figure 2. Possible strategiesfor doing FTAs (Brown and Levinson 1987.-69) 66

Figure 3. A visual representation of Williams'model of euphemisation 103

Figure 4. Warren's devicesfor constructing euphemisms 109

Figure 5. A visual representation of a politeness theory-oriented model of euphemisation 112

List of Tables

Table 1. Levels of Euphemisation 64

Table 2. Sexual Referencesand Semantic Processesin SelectedEpisodes 126

ofFriends and their Arabic subtitles

Table 3. Distasteful Referencesand Semantic Processes in Selected Episodes 168

of Friends and their Arabic Subtitles

Table 4. Euphemisms of sexual and distasteful references and theirftequency

in the corpus 203

4
 Abstract

This study examinesthe use of euphemisationas a politeness strategy in subtitling the

American sitcom Friends into Arabic. It draws on core concepts of Brown and

Levinson's theory of politeness, such as the notion of face, face-threatening acts and

redressive strategies, to explain subtitlers' choices in rendering sequences which are

potentially offensive to an Arab audience. The study sets out to examine the extent to

which a modified and extended model of euphernisation as a strategic output of

politeness can be productively applied in the field of audiovisual translation, and

specifically to subtitling from English into Arabic. This involves a critical examination

of the treatment of euphemisation in Brown and Levinson's theory in the first instance.

A new and more eclectic model of euphemisation is then proposed. The new model

draws mainly on two existing models developed outside politeness theory, by Williams

(1975) and Warren (1992). To account for euphemistic expressions identified in the data

and not covered by the categories proposed in Williams and Warren's studies, two

further categories are introduced, namely, semantic misrepresentation and omission.

Applying the new, extended model to the data enables the themes and topics most

commonly euphemised in the Arabic subtitles to be identified. The model has also

proved helpful in capturing recurrent strategies of euphernisation employed by Arab

subtitlers in dealing with a range of face-threatening acts, especially sexual references

and utterances related to certain distasteful topics such as death, disease and bodily

functions.

5
 Declaration

No portion of the work referred to in the thesis has been submitted in support of an

application for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or other

institute of learning.

6
 Copyright Statement

1. The author of this thesis (including any appendicesand/or schedulesto this

thesis) owns any copyright in it (the "Copyright") and s/he has given The
University of Manchester the right to use such Copyright for any
administrative, promotional, educationaland/or teachingpurposes.

2. Copies of this thesis, either in full or in extracts, may be made only in

accordance with the regulations of the John Rylands University Library of
Manchester. Details of these regulations may be obtained from the
Librarian. This page must form part of any such copies made.

The ownership of any patents, designs, trade marks and any and all other
intellectual property rights except for the Copyright (the "Intellectual
Property Rights") and any reproductions of copyright works, for example
graphs and tables ("Reproductions"), which may be described in this thesis,
may not be owned by the author and may be owned by third parties. Such
Intellectual Property Rights and Reproductions cannot and must not be made
available for use without the prior written permission of the owner(s) of the
relevant Intellectual Property Rights and/or Reproductions.

4. Further information on the conditions under which disclosure, publication

Copyright Intellectual Property
and exploitation of this thesis, the and any
Rights and/or Reproduction described in it is
may take place available from
the Head of School of Languages, Linguistics and Cultures (or the Vice-
President) and the Dean of the Faculty of Life Sciences for Faculty of Life
,
Sciences' candidates.

7
 Dedication

To my lovely family we did it.

...
 Acknowledgments

I would like to express my sincerest thanks and deepestgratitude to all those who

helped make this study possible. First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor

Professor Mona Baker for her support, constant guidance and invaluable editorial

assistancethroughout the writing process.

I am also extremely grateful for the guidance of my second supervisor Dr. Luis Perez-

Gonzalez for his invaluable comments and suggestions. I have extremely benefited from

his experiencein the field of screentranslation.

would also like to extend my gratitude to Dr. Philip Sadgrove for offering further

information and insightful comments and suggestions throughout the writing process,

particularly with respect to the Arabic aspect of the study.

I would like to thank my family for their support, patience and understanding during the

writing process of this thesis. My deepest gratitude goes to my father, Samed and

mother, Fayzeh. Without their love and encouragement, this work would have never

been completed. I would also like to extend my appreciation to a special person, Milena

Kotwa, who has always been there for me along with her endless love and support.

Thank you for everything.

Finally, my thanks are due to the following friends and family members for their help,

dear grandparents, Prof Abdullah Alshunnaq, Ahmad Abu

cooperation and support: my

Orabi, ShargeelKhalid, BassamAlouzy and Dr. Matthew Maltby.

9
 Chapter One

Introduction

Subtitling is the most prevalent type of screen translation (Diaz Cintas 2004, Bartolom

and Cabrera 2005). It first appeared during the time of the silent movies (Ivarsson 1992)

and can be broadly defined as

a translation practice that consists of presenting a written text, generally on the

lower part of the screen, that endeavours to recount the original dialogue of the
speakers, as well as the discursive elements that appear in the image (letters,
inserts, graffiti, inscriptions, placards, and the like), and the inforination that is
contained on the soundtrack (songs, voices off). (Diaz Cintas and Remael 2007: 8)

The current study is concerned specifically with interlingual subtitling, where "the

subtitler crosses over from speech in one language to writing in another, thus changing

mode and language" (Gottlieb 1998: 247).

Subtitling is often viewed as a complex genre that poses more challenges to translators

than any other form of translation. Nornes, for instance, assertsthat "nothing is simple

it to
when comes subtitles; every turn of phrase, every punctuation mark, every decision

the translator makes holds implications for the viewing experience of foreign

spectators" (1999: 17). According to Hatim and Mason (1997), the complexity of this

process stems mainly from the constraints of the medium, which can be summarised in

four general points. The first concernsthe shift in mode from oral dialogue to written

text. This results in an inevitable loss of certain features of speech that cannot be

reflected in the subtitles, like the use of different dialects, levels of register and

intonation. The second concerns the spatial and temporal constraints of the medium.

Subtitlers are limited to using a certain number of characters (usually up to 43

10
charactersover a maximum of two lines)' that remain on screenfor a specific period of

time, often in synchrony with the original images and dialoguesof the sourcematerial.

Therefore, subtitlers usually aim to produce a simple translation which is likely to be

read and comprehended quickly by target viewers. In addressing this issue, Smith

(1998) argues that the language of subtitles is normally:

less sophisticatedthan that of a written translation which is intended to be

in
read printed form. And it will always, or should always, be built on simple
sentencestructures.This rules out the excessiveuse of subordinateclauses,
for example, and it means that digressions should be kept to a minimum.
And it positively dictates that even the most tortuous explanationsmust be
broken down into readily digestible chunks. The audiencewill clearly find
the subtitles more palatable if each of them forms a logical unit in itself.
(ibid.: 140)

Third, temporal and spatial constraints inevitably entail a reduction of the original

source dialogue. This requires extra effort from the translator to ensure that the subtitles

remain coherent and sufficiently close to the original despite this reduction. Finally, the

need to match the subtitles to the moving visual images poses an additional challenge

and makes the task of maintaining coherence particularly demanding.

The above constraints aside, interlingual subtitling plays a vital role in the ongoing

evolution of the film industries and remains a powerful tool for promoting

multiculturalism and diversity. In investigating the importance of the media in current

global communication systems,Pettit points out that

The introduction and subsequent boom in satellite television, plus the

internet, has made the world a much smaller place, allowing different
people, cultures and languages to interact more frequently. The "screen" is a
primary vehicle for this interaction and as a result the audio-visual translator
has an increasingly important role to play. (2004: 25)

1This convention is also followed in subtitling audiovisual material into Arabic.

II
The digital revolution of the 1990s,
especially after the advent of the DVD (Digital

Versatile Disc), has significantly promoted and expandedthe

profession of subtitling,

with a sharp increasein the production and circulation of foreign audiovisual material

and a similarly sharp increasein the demand for subtitlers. Subtitled films, seriesand

documentaries on DVD can contribute to the circulation and

promotion of other nations'

life-styles and cultural values among target viewers. Diaz Cintas

argues that the

importanceof audiovisual translation lies in three areas:

The large number of viewers it attracts, especially through television;

The large volume of materials circulated among different cultures;

- Its immediate impact on the target audience, particularly through DVDs,

television and cinema. (2004: 50).

In this sense, it can be argued that subtitling plays a pivotal role in the context of

intercultural communication.

The industry of subtitling is expanding dramatically in the Arab World. This can be

clearly seen in the number of successful satellite channels which depend primarily on

broadcastinginternational films, sitcoms, documentaries,talk shows and so on. These

audiovisual materials, which are largely subtitled rather than dubbed into Arabic,

potentially have a major impact on Arab viewers. The dominance of subtitling rather

than dubbing in this particular context may be at least partly explained by the fact that

Arabs use a wide variety of dialects in different regions, many of which are not

mutually intelligible. Subtitling circumvents this problem by using StandardArabic, the

formal variety of Arabic which is widely understood across the region. However,

despite the important role that subtitling plays in the Arab World, research on both the

practical and theoretical aspects of this industry is still relatively scarce. One of the

12
goals of this study is to contribute to the evolving scholarly literature on screen

translation in the Arab World.

A recent article by Gamal (2008) sets out to trace the developmentof the audiovisual

translation industry in Egypt starting in the 1930s,2 with particular emphasis on

subtitling and dubbing. He argues that much of the literature addressing screen

translation and which focuses mainly on the linguistic dimension, is available in the

form of MA theses and remains unpublished. For Gamal, this is one of the main

problems which hinder the scholarly developmentof the discipline in the Arab World.

Gamal (ibid.: 2) also argues that subtitling is more commonly used than dubbing in the

region for two principal reasons. First, it helps to promote the local film industry by

reducing potential competition imposed by dubbed materials; dubbing foreign materials

is frequently viewed as a very competitive activity, given the technical superiority of

English films and their sophisticatedand well-presentedthemes.His secondpoint is that

subtitling is more efficient, requiring less labour (financial costs) and time. In terms of

3
the diglossic context of Arabic, Gamal confirms that although 'ammiyya (vernacular

Arabic) is increasingly being used in commercials and children's literature, fusha

(Standard Arabic) is still the preferred choice for all types of translation, including

4
interpreting, subtitling and dubbing. Interestingly, however, there are recent attempts

by the Media City in Dubai to localise audiovisual products; for example, 'ammiyya is

used in dubbing American sitcoms, like Friends, which are then aired on Arabic

satellite channels.Furthermore, Gamal (ibid. ) toucheson the issue of censorshipand its

impact on the language of subtitling:

2 In 1936, Egypt had its first subtitled film into Arabic, namely Children of the Rich.
3 It is worth mentioning here that within the Arabic-speaking world, each region has its own
version of 'ammiyya.
' Using fusha in the Arabic subtitles is sometimes problematic, given that a number of Arabic
do fully understand it.
speakers not
13
 Swearwords had to be sanitized,
sexualreferencesdeletedand blasphemous
referencesexpunged.The way subtitlers dealt with this triad of taboos,
relied
on certain lexical items and syntax that was odd and stilted. Not only is the
spoken foreign languagetranslated into written Arabic but also the spoken
dialogue was read in a form of languagethat formal but also
was not only
refined.

Despite its shortcomings and its limited scope, Gamal's

contribution is valuable in that
it raises several important issues that are
worth exploring in more depth and with an

enhanced rigour and Garnal's work represents a useful point of departure for this current

study. To the best of my knowledge, no detailed and sustained studies of any aspect of

audiovisual translation in the Arab World have yet been undertaken.

1.1 Theoretical Framework

The main objective of this study is to examine the use of euphernisation as a linguistic

politeness strategy in the Arabic subtitled version of Friends. Brown and Levinson's

politeness theory, with its focus on face management, offers a suitable starting point to

explore euphernisation -a strategy that Brown and Levinson (1987) consider as being

representative of negative politeness and off-record strategies. Although various models

of politeness are discussed in the literature, Brown and Levinson's politeness theory has

proved to be the most influential theoretical model in the field (Eelen 2001b; Mills 2002

Watts 2003 and Kasper 1990). Atawneh and Sridhar argue that "with the growing

interest in pragmatics in general and in politeness in particular, research to date has

shown that Brown and Levinson's (1978) politeness theory is the most comprehensive

and applicable to cross-cultural research" (1993: 279). A detailed account of the theory

is offered in Chapter Two of this study.

14
Despite the significance of Brown
and Levinson's theory of politeness to the medium of

subtitling, no published studies appear to have focused specifically on investigating

euphernisation as a politeness strategy in translating English audiovisual material into

Arabic. This study attempts to addressthis gap in the literature and also to extend the

scope of Brown and Levinson's theory of politeness by developing one specific aspect

of it, namely euphemisation, and testing its applicability using episodes of the American

sitcom Friends subtitled into Arabic as data (see section 1.2 for further details about the

data).

Few studies have so far investigated aspects of politeness in translation, and none have

investigated euphernisation in screen translation in general or subtitling in particular.

Hatim and Mason (1997) were among the first scholars to addressthe issue of pragmatic

politeness in screen translation. In their groundbreaking study (which consists of one

chapter of a book that engages with different genres), they set out to illustrate and

demonstrate "how politeness is almost inevitably underrepresented in this mode of

translating and to suggest what the effects of this might be" (ibid.: 79). Their use of

politeness draws predominantly on the major tenets of Brown and Levinson's (1987)

account and understanding of the phenomenon. Their data consists of sequencestaken

from the Engli sh-subtitled version of the Frenchfilm Un Coeur en Hiver. After carrying

out a comparative linguistic analysis, using Brown and Levinson's super strategies of

(see Chapter Two, section 2.4), Hatim and Mason (1997: 96) assert that "it
politeness

is difficult for the target language auditors to retrieve interpersonal meaning in its

In some cases, they may even derive misleading impressions of characters'

entirety.

directness or indirectness". Hatim and Mason (ibid. ) are aware that some elementsof

meaning are inevitably sacrificed during the subtitling process, given space constraints,

they make it clear that the main objective of their study is to explore which types of
and

15
meaning seem to be most frequently omitted and what impact this might have on the

target audience. They further suggest that, in order to extend the

conclusions derived
from their consideration of interpersonal
meaning and politeness to other audiovisual

material in other languages, a wider range of empirical research needs to be carried out.

Zitawi (2004) also addressesthe phenomenon of politeness, but this time in different
a

mode of translation. Unlike the current study, Zitawi's thesis is predominantly

concerned with politeness in written texts. Drawing on Brown and Levinson's (1987)

theory of politeness, Zitawi attempts to explain how Disney comics can be perceived as

potentially face-threatening to the face of Arab readers. She points out that negative

images of Arabs and Muslims who "are drawn with strikingly stereotypical Middle

Eastern features, such as large, rounded noses, creepy eyes, and beards" in this written

genre greatly influence the way Arab readers, especially children, perceive Arab

identity (2004: 17). The study also attempts to test politeness theory by examining the

applicability of Brown and Levinson's model to this challenging genre in the Arab

world and to determine whether it can provide a credible account of the types of

politeness strategies employed by translators to save the face of target readers. After

carrying out a linguistic analysis of her corpus, which consists of a set of Disney comic

stories published by Dar al-Hilal in Egypt, al-Fattaim in Dubai in

and al-Qabas Kuwait,

Zitawi (ibid. ) arguesthat Brown and Levinson's theory needsto be refined before it can

be made applicable to the corpus of her study, especially because Disney comics depict

complex types of face-threatening acts. Finally, Zitwai concludes that the identified face

threats to Arab readers are usually triggered by "negative images and stereotypical

representationsof Arabs, verbal and/or visual signals that can be consideredtaboo or at

16
least unpalatableto Arab readers,addressterms identifications
and other status-marked
that may be employed in an offensive or embarrassing way... " (ibid.: 18).

Another interesting study which explores the connection between translation and

linguistic politeness in written texts is that conducted by House (1998). She first

attempts to define the term politeness before introducing the main approaches to this

phenomenon and their applicability to translation studies. House believes that although

the social-norm view of politenesshas attractedlittle academicattention, it seemsto be

important for translation, arguing that "looking at politeness as a set of behaviour

patterns preprogrammed as social norms leads us to consider the wider social functions

of politeness, e.g. in educational systems, prescriptive grammars and translation

practices" (ibid.: 55). She also argues that the maxim-and-principle view proposed by

Lakoff (1973) is particularly worth engaging with. In this approach, Lakoff (1990)

points out that pragmatic competence can be achieved by following two rules: (1) Be

clear (based on Grice's maxims); and (2) Be polite. The latter usually involves three

strategies of politeness, namely do not impose, give options and be friendly. On the

other hand, House claims that the face-saving view, especially Brown and Levinson's

model of politeness, is "not easily or usefully applied to translation, where the

interaction between the human beings involved (author, readers,translator) is hidden

indirect such that psychosocial inferential processesare extremely difficult, if not

and

impossible, to assess" (1998: 5 8). However, as I have mentioned above, this position is

challenged by recent studies which examine the phenomenon of politeness, such as

Hatim and Mason (1997), Zitawi (2004) and the current study, all of which demonstrate

Brown Levinson's theory of politeness in an adapted form can be usefully

that and

applied in investigating translation.

17
House's contrastive analysis of different types
of English texts and their German

translations (ibid. ) concludesthat politenessis one of the factors

which have to be taken
into consideration in evaluating translation interpersonal
and accomplishing

equivalence. House (ibid) demonstratesthat some aspects of the English texts are

changed in the German translation, where interlocutors usually seem more direct,

explicit and undiplomatic. She further explains that

The style level in the German translation is more formal, the social distance
markedly greater, and along the parameter Medium the translation is much
less involved, considerably toned down, flattened in its perlocutionary force
and altogether more sober and factual than the original. Due to the lack of
those emotive and rhetorical devices characterising the original, the
translation is also more monologous. (ibid.: 69).

In a further attempt to address politeness in translation, Hickey (2001) focuses on

Brown and Levinson's two types of face, namely negative face (freedom of action and

freedom from imposition)5 and positive face (the desireto be appreciatedand approved

of by others), in translating between English and Spanish. He examines how Spanish

interlocutors, who are positive-face-oriented in Brown and Levinson's terms, react

when they come across a literal Spanish translation of English texts which are oriented

towards negative face. In his analysis, he reports on a small experiment with a limited

scope of materials and participants. Six extracts taken from the English novel Therapy

by David Lodge are presentedto a group of English university students,who are asked

to discuss the types of interlocutors involved and their behaviour. The corresponding

Spanish translation of the six extracts (taken from Terapia) is subsequently presented to

a group of Spanish university students. Finally, Hickey presents the original six English

' Imposition often occurs when the speaker expects the hearersto do something for him/her or
behave in a certain way when they do not want to, or when it is inconvenient for them.

18
extracts to a group of Spanish students, who speak both English and Spanish. The

analysis shows that not only are some literal manifestations of negative politeness

markers not recognised as such by Spanishreaders,but they are also not identified as

polite utterances at all. Hickey further explains that negative politeness is identified as

politeness by English readers but not by Spanish readers, probably because for the latter

group, "it does not easily fit into any categories or classifications pre-existing in their

mind" (2000: 238).

The above studies all suggest that linguistic politeness, especially Brown and

Levinson's account of this phenomenon, can be productively employed to examine a

range of aspects and issues related to different modes of translation. The current study,

which examines the phenomenon of euphernisation (as a politeness strategy) in

subtitling between two unrelated languages, English and Arabic, hopes to contribute to

expanding the scope of the available literature in

on politeness translation studies.

1.2 Data and methodology

The data used in this study consists of eleven episodes of the American television

sitcom Friends. Friends is a unique phenomenon in the history of the television series,

attracting millions of viewers acrossthe world. In addition to its global fame, Friends

has also attracted some academic interest that has led to the investigation of different

elements of the show (see e.g. Dore 2008; Ross 1998 and Walte 2007).

19
 The D VD Cover for the Tenth Season of Friends

6
Friends has been selected for the purposes of this case study for four principal reasons.

First, and most importantly, the nature of this series makes it ideal for studying aspects

of linguistic politeness. The main characters of the series rely heavily on a diverse and

intensive use of verbal exchanges in establishing, maintaining and enhancing their

interpersonal relationships. Concentrating on a group of distinct characters (three men

and three women) in their late twenties, the series depicts a wide range of real life

6 The official website of Friends is: http: //www2. wamerbros. com/friendstv/index. html
(last accessedon 5 March 2009.

20
situations, fashioned under the guise of comedy. Among the topics that are frequently

dealt with in the show are dating, fashion, job hunting, socialising and so forth. In

examining humour in the Italian dubbed version of Friends, Dore commentson this

issue, pointing out that "the fictional world within which the charactersact shares

common features with many Western societies. The situations the characters talk about

or are involved in could be similar to those that members of the target audienceare

likely to experience in their lives" (2008: 93). There is scope here for explaining how

the Arabic subtitles participate in representing the dynamics of the relationships

between these characters to the target viewers, and also examining the politeness

in 7
strategies employed rendering various taboo references.

The second reason is the vast success that Friends achieved over the period during

it
which was broadcast, between September 1994 and May 2004. The series, one of the

highest ever-ratedshows in terms of viewer numbers,attractedmillions of viewers on a

global basis, including in the Arab world. It is widely regarded as one of the great icons

of the American sitcom show and has received numerous national and international

8. It received thirty three Emmy Award nominations, including four for

awards

Outstanding Comedy Series (Weinraub 2003)9. Entertainment Tonightlo, for instance,

reported that the series finale was the biggest TV moment in the United States in 2004,

attracting at least fifty two and a half million viewers in the United States alone. In the

' Allan and Burridge (2006: 27) define a taboo as "a proscription of behavior for a specifiable
community of people, for a specified context, at a given place and time".
8 It is interesting to note that NBC issued a report in which it anticipated, basedon the showing
the initial episodes of Friends, that the series would achieve little success if not prove a
of
complete failure. A copy of this is
report available at:
http: //www. thesmokinggun. com/archive/0510041friends4. html (last accessed on 06 March
2009).
9 http: //que]l. nyiimes. com/gst/fullpage. html? res=9FO4EIDF1439F930AI575ACOA9649C8B63
The New York Times (last accessedon 15 February 2009).
.10 Tonýght is that is daily, is of the world's
Entertainment a website updated and considered one
for news on Hollywood celebrities, television shows and events.
most comprehensive sources
The official address of the website is: http: //www. etonline. com

21
Arab world, the sitcom has also attracteda following
substantial of fans from different

age groups and backgrounds.This is particularly evident from the considerablenumber

of Arabic satellite channelsthat broadcastFriends subtitled into Arabic (theseinclude,

inter alia NBC, MBC2, MBC4, One TV). Furthermore, the sitcom has led to the

establishmentof several online Arabic forums and blogs, where devoted fans have the

chance to discuss and expresstheir opinions of the series; these include (F.r.i. e.n.d.s

,ý15
--i-) Fans of Friends, J3ý) House of Friends" and Friends
-- -
12
Series.

Thirdly, selecting Friends as data for my research arises from my personal interest in

the show over the last ten years. Watching the initial seasonsof the series in English and

later managing to obtain the final seasonssubtitled into Arabic has drawn my attention

to the complexity of the subtitling medium and the types of challenges facing Arab

translators. This has consequently encouraged me to carry out a comparative linguistic

analysis of the material as part of my research. How subtitlers approach and transfer

various face-threatening acts, as well as reflect the interpersonal relationships between

the main charactersof a highly challenging sitcom into a different culture and language

is a matter of considerableinterestto me.

11The website addressof House of Friends'forum is:

http: //www. aljwad. com/showthread.php?p= 17271 (last accessedon 10 November 2006).
12The website address of Fans of Friends' forum is:
http: //www. leblover. com/vb/printthread. php?s=Of73Ob3bl 64147d27e6cfdaa97f3]2dO&threadid
(last accessedon 10 November 2006).
=37465&pen2age=46

22
Finally, in using Brown and Levinson's theory
of politeness to analyse the subtitled

version of Friends, 13 1 endeavour to bring to light the ways in which

asPectsof
politeness and related cultural issuesdiffer in Western and Arab contexts. I attempt to

highlight most particularly the importance

of euphemisationas a powerful tool that

subtitlers commonly employ to transfer or to mitigate sexual references and other

referencesthat are perceivedas 14

distasteful. The various episodesfrom the tenth season

of Friends provide a wealth of relevant and interesting material through which issues of

euphernisation as part of the subtitling process can be examined.

In the following section, I offer a brief overview of Friends by introducing eachof the

six main characters. This is helpful for facilitating and complementing the reader's

comprehension of the selected extracts examined in Chapters Four and Five.

1.3 General Overview of Friends

Created by David Crane and Marta Kauffman, Friends is an American sitcom which

portrays the life of six close friends (Ross, Monica, Chandler, Rachel, Joey and Phoebe)

living in Manhattan, New York. Each individual in the group is a unique personality,

and it is this diversity of characterswhich subsequentlydraws in a wide array of

audienceswith differing tastes.The seriesshows us how these six friends, all of whom

are approaching their thirties, manage their lives and, most importantly, interact with

each other in a very familiar and informal way, which is based on the closeness of their

relationships. Their experiences are wide and varied, and the depiction of these

experiences necessarily covers a wide range of topics and situations that are a regular

13The original scripts of Friends are available at:

http: //livesinabox. com/friends/scripts. shtml (last visited: 10 January 2009).

14Distasteful usually refersto somethingthat interlocutorsfind unpleasantor immoral in a

given context.
23
part of the characters' everyday lives. The show, which was originally aired on NBC

channel, consists of ten seasonsand two hundred and thirty six episodes; each episode

lasts betweentwenty and twenty two minutes.

Below, I present a brief description of each character:

1. Ross (actor: David Schwimmer): is the most educated person

in the group, holding a PhD degree in Palaeontology. He is

known for being an anxious and shy yet articulate person, the

apple of his parents' eye. Although he is an established and

successful University lecturer, he has experienced many

misfortunes, specifically in love, having been married and divorced three times; his first

wife Carol, a lesbian, is the mother of their son, Ben. Despite this, he loves Rachel truly

and deeply, an attachment which he forged at high school when Rachel was Monica's

best friend, and tries to be with her throughout the show. Eventually, he and Rachel

have a baby girl and decide to settle down together in Ross's flat (formerly inhabited by

'Ugly Naked Guy') opposite Monica and Chandler.

2. Monica (actor: Courteney Cox): is Ross's younger sister and

the most conservative and up-tight of the three women. She is

known for being obsessedwith neatness, cleanliness and order in

her life. Working as a chef at different restaurants throughout the

show, Monica is perceived by her friends as stubborn, bossy and

freak. She dates a few people in the show, but none prove right for her. While
a control

in London for Ross's second wedding, she starts a secret romantic relationship with

in
Chandler, which successfully ends up marriage. Unable to conceive children, Monica

24
becomes fixated on the idea of adopting a baby. In the final episode this becomes
a

reality as the couple bring home newly adopted baby twins.

3. Chandler (actor: Matthew Perry): is a laid-back person who

works as a data processor. Later in the first season, he gets a

promotion and becomes manager of the Statistical Analysis and

Data Reconfiguration department. His parents' divorce while he

was a young child and his unconventional family life has

evidently altered his to

outlook and approach relationships; his father is a drag-queen

and his mother a pornographic novelist and 'celebrity'. As a result, he suffers from

anxiety when attempting to ask girls out on dates and ends the relationships soon

afterwards. His friends often tease him about his dry wit and sarcasm. Chandler and

Monica date secretly for a while, before eventually deciding to get married and to live in

Monica's flat.

4. Rachel (actor: Jennifer Aniston): is, at the start of the show, a

jobless, spoiled rich girl, who is completely dependent on her

father. However, after calling off her arranged marriage, Rachel

decides to become more self-reliant and starts wor ing as a

waitress in the Central Perk coffee shop, the venue for much of

the action during the series. She leaves this job and pursues her true ambition in fashion,

Coordinator of the Women's Collection at Ralph Lauren. She gets married

working as a

to Ross drunken whim in Las Vegas and later gives birth to a daughter called
on a

Emma. After experiencing several problems with the relationship Rachel and Ross

decide to break up, but they later move in together to raise their child.

25
 1 5. Joey (actor: Matt LeBlanc): is an as-oirinv-actor with little

professional good fortune, seemingly destined to playing minor

roles; his one and only break came when he played Dr. Drake

Ramoray in Days of Our Lives. He is known for being rather slow

on the uptake, far from the quick-wittedness of the likes of

Chandler, but is nonetheless presented as a womanising, but nonetheless playful and

loving person. Although he has dated many girls, he has never had a long term

relationship. At one stage, he develops strong feelings for Rachel, but decides to step

back once he discovers that his best friend Ross (Rachel's ex-boyfriend) is unhappy

about it.

6. Phoebe (actor: Lisa Kudrow): is the most 'alternative' and

unpredictable person in the group. After her mother committed

suicide, Phoebe moved to New York City alone, working as a

in
masseuse a private spa and also as a singer/guitarist in Central

Perk. She repeatedly claims that she can read other people's

thoughts and sense the presence of dead friends and family. She has a brother, Prank

(she becomes to his triplets) 15 a twin sister, Ursula Pamela, with

a surrogate mother , and

whom she maintains a consistently poor relationship. Towards the end of the show,

Phoebe meets Mike; they begin dating and eventually get married.

15Phoebe conceives the triplets through artificial insemination and gives them to her brother to
raise.
26
The data for this study consists of eleven episodes Friends taken from
of the tenth
' 6
season of the series. The corpus of episodes, which is accompanied by Arabic

subtitles, is produced and distributed in DVD format17 Releasedbetween September

.
2003 and December 2004, the tenth seasoncomprises Friends' final
episodes,which

conclude this successfulten-year long hit. The eleven subtitled episodesalongsidetheir

original air datesare listed below:

1. The one after Joey and Rachel kiss (25/9/2003)

2. The one where Ross isfine (2/10/2003)
3. The one with Ross's tan (9/10/2003)
4. The one with the cake (23/10/2003)
5. The one where Rachel's sister babysits (30/10/2003)
6 The one with the home study (13/11/2003)
7. The one with the late Thanksgiving (20/11/2003)
8. The one with the birth mother (8/1/2004)
9. The one where Chandler gets caught (15/1/2004)
10. The one where the stripper cries (5/2/2004)
11. The one with Phoebe's wedding (12/2/2004)

1.3 Research Questions

This research employs Brown and Levinson's theory of politeness to analyse

conversational sequences in the American sitcom Friends, focusing on the use of

euphemismsas a politeness strategy in the Arabic subtitles. The researchattemptsto

answerthe following broad question:

To what extent can Brown and Levinson's theory ofpoliteness explain the use of
euphemisation as a translation strategy in the Arabic subtitles of Friends?

This can subsequentlybe broken down into the following sub-questions:

16The tenth seasonof Friends consists of eighteen episodes.

17The selected episodes are on three DVDs.

27
 How adequately does Brown and Levinson's theory treat euphemismas a
politeness strategy?

Can a robust model of euphemisationas a politeness strategy be elaborated

within the overall context ofpoliteness theory?

What topics tend to trigger instances of euphemisation in the Arabic subtitles?

What strategies of euphemisation can be identified in the Arabic version of

Friends?

The first two sub-questions are addressed primarily in Chapters Two and Three. I

address the last two questions in the analytical chapters: Chapters Four and Five.

1.4 Organisation of the Study

This thesis consists of six chapters, as follows:

The current chapter is followed by Chapter Two, which offers a critical overview of

the phenomenon of politeness as discussed in the literature. It pays special attention to

Brown and Levinson's theory of politeness, which is used as the general framework for

data. The is divided into four main sections. The first attempts to
analysing the chapter

define and examine the term politeness and the it

way will be used in the context of this

study. The chapter then briefly introduces the most influential theories of pragmatic

for the major bulk of the literature on linguistic politeness;

politeness, which account

these approachesinclude: the conversational-maxim view, the face-saving view, the

view and the pragmatic scale view. The third section offers a
conversational contract

detailed account of Brown Levinson's theory of politeness and its conceptual

and

including face, face-threatening acts and politeness strategies. I

apparatus, the notion of

focus here on how adequately Brown and Levinson treat the concept of euphemisation

28
as a strategic output of politeness. The chapter ends with a critical summary the
of
theory, including a considerationof someof its main shortcomings.

Chapter Three investigates the phenomenon of euphemisation. It

starts with a

discussion of the motivations and mechanismsof euphemisation,

as well as the role of

euphemisms in communication. A definition of euphernisation which integrates the

main aspects of Brown and Levinson's theory of politeness is adopted for use in the

context of this study. This chapter also discusses the topics and areas that are most

commonly euphemised in interaction; these include sex, religion and distasteful topics,

such as diseaseand death. The secondpart of the chapteroutlines a modified model of

euphernisation that can successfully account for all the euphemistic expressions

identified in the Arabic subtitles of the American sitcom Friends. This politeness

theory-oriented model is developed after presenting and merging two existing accounts

of euphemisation, proposed by Williams (1975) and Warren (1992).

The first analytical chapter, Chapter Four, focuses on the application of the proposed

model of euphemisation to a range of sexual references identified in Friends. It

identifies the strategies of euphemisation used by subtitlers and their frequency in

dealing with sex-related utterances. It also suggests potential motivations for adopting

these strategies and the impact of employing euphemisms in the Arabic subtitles within

the context of the original dialogue and representationof characters.

The second analytical chapter, Chapter Five, concentrates on investigating the use of

euphernisation as a politeness strategy in treating references related to various

distasteful topics. This is also carried out by applying the model of euphemisation

in Chapter Three. The analysis in this chapter identifies recurrent distasteful

proposed

topics and areasthat are frequently euphernisedin the Arabic version of Friends, and

29
the strategies of euphemisation used to mitigate them as face-threatening acts in the

Arab context. Where appropriate,the discussionconsidersthe impact of the strategies

used on such issuesas register, humour, and so forth.

In the final chapter, I present the findings and the conclusions of the study and suggest

somenew directions and topics for future research.

30
 Chapter Two

Euphemisation as a Politeness Strategy in

Brown and Levinson's Model

2.1 Introduction

Vilkki (2006: 325) suggeststhat most of the researchconductedin the field linguistic
of
politeness since the 1987 reissue of Brown and Levinson's theory "may be

characterized as somehow related to Brown and Levinson's theory". An extensive

volume of literature on politenesshas indeedbeengeneratedover the last three decades,

examining several empirical and theoretical issues. Additionally, within this literature,

Brown and Levinson's politeness theory remains the most influential theoretical

framework upon which linguistic politeness is fashioned. The theory, initially

introduced in 1978, constitutes the backbone of the available literature on the

phenomenon of 'linguistic politeness', and continues to attract a great number of

adherents and supporters. Nonetheless, Brown and Levinson's theory has also attracted

considerable critique, which has questioned the validity of its major components as well

as some of its basic assumptions.

The main objective of this chapter is two-fold. First, it aims to investigate how Brown

and Levinson's theory (1987) approaches and examines the phenomenon of linguistic

politeness and its various strategies. Second, it aims to explore the extent to which

Brown and Levinson addresseuphemismas a key strategic output of politeness.I start

with a brief account of the term 'politeness' in general, with a particular emphasis on

'linguistic politeness' and its nature, as established in the literature. This section is

followed by an overview of some of the most significant theories of pragmatic

politeness that have generated the main bulk of the literature on politeness. Against this

31
background, I then present a detailed
analysis of Brown and Levinson's theory of

politeness, discussing its key concepts and principles, with a particular emphasis its
on

treatment of euphemism, followed by a critique that challenges

and questionsseveral
aspects of the theory. Finally, having taken account of its weaknesses,I attempt to shed

more light on the phenomenon of euphemism as a strategic output of negative politeness

and off-record strategies, which, I argue, is inadequately treated in Brown and

Levinson's theory of politeness.

2.2 Defining Politeness

Language is commonly viewed as a way of transmitting and sharing information among

people through the establishment and development of various channels of

communication. According to many scholars, however, language has more than one

function. Brown and Yule (1983), for instance, pinpoint two functions of language,

namely the transactional function (transferring information) and the interactional

function (preserving social relationships). They argue that the main objective of the

former is to communicate information between participants in an accurate and lucid

way, whereas the aim of the interactional function is to create and reinforce friendly and

amicable relationships with, and between, others. Spencer-Oatey (2000: 2) stressesthe

same point, stating that people understand communication "as 'the transmission of

information' but, as many authors have pointed out, communication also involves the

18
management of social relations".

18 Spencer-Oatey (2000) suggests that the title of her book, Culturally Speaking.- Managing
Rapport Through Talk Across Culture, reflects the social communicative function of language.
She states that the "speaking" element of the book's title concentrates on "a specific aspect of
the of social relations" (ibid.: 2). She further coins a new term for
communication: management
this specific aspect of language; namely "rapport management" (ibid.: 12).

32
One of the major constituents
of social interaction that plays a pivotal role in

establishing and adjusting interpersonal relationships is politeness. People tend to

communicate and achieve their needsby following certain patterns of interaction that

are viewed as polite, such as employing euphemisms'9, hedges, metaphors and in-group

identity markers (Brown and Levinson 1987). Being

polite is usually understood by the

lay person as behaving in a way that facilitates communication

with other interlocutors

by showing respect, concern and good manners. Several English dictionaries, including

Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary (2003), define being polite as "behaving in

a way that is socially correct and shows awareness of and caring for other people's

feelings". Politeness might thus be associated with many terms such as

4appropriateness', 'civility', 'tact' and the 'acceptance of social norms'.

Over the last three decades,various researchershave attempted to define and explain the

term politeness in more rigorous ways, focusing on types and strategies of politeness.

Nevertheless, some scholars do not provide a clear definition of the term politeness in

their proposed models, even as they elaborate complex sets of politeness strategies

(Fraser, 1990). Meier, for instance, points out that "although Brown and Levinson

devote an entire book to politeness,the conceptis never actually defined" (1995: 346).

In this respect, she argues that the lack of clarity in defining the phenomenon of

politeness "can only lead to increased perplexity about what politeness actually entails"

(2004: 7).

The notion of 'politeness' has attractedan increasing number of scholarsfrom different

fields of knowledge, especially pragmatics, "to such an extent that politeness theory

'9 A detailed account of the phenomenon of euphernisation is presented in Chapter Three.

33
could almost be seen as a sub-discipline of pragmatics" (Thomas, 1995: 149). At the

same time, the term 'linguistic politeness' has generatedan extensive debateover the

exact nature of the concept, leading to the emergence of various models of politeness.

Nwoye, however, arguesthat although one unified definition of linguistic politenesshas

not been reachedyet, "there is generalagreementthat it [linguistic politeness]involves

verbal strategies for keeping social interaction friction free" (1992: 309). Within the

literature on politeness, scholars tend to agree that this phenomenon comprises various

acts that may vary from one culture to another, or even from one group to another

within the is
same culture; what seen as polite by certain groups might be judged as rude

or unacceptable by others. However, the existence of certain types of behaviour that are

considered polite in particular circumstances tends to be treated as a universal

phenomenon. In other words, each group, it is widely argued, seems to have its own

polite practices that might be similar to or different from those of other groups.

While politeness markers, including the use of euphemisms, may thus vary, the

motivations for their use are largely universal. Moreover, I

as attempt to demonstrate in

is
this study, euphemisation one of the most important and widespread linguistic devices

that interlocutors constantly employ to achieve a maximum level of politeness, to the

extent that the use of euphemistic language is often equated with politeness (Brown and

Levinson 1987: 216).

A considerable volume of literature on and interest in the phenomenonof politeness

have been generatedsince the emergenceof Brown and Levinson's theory of politeness

in 1978/1987. This is evident from the establishmentof various research

organisations,

that investigate various theoretical and empirical issuesrelated to

groups and journals

34
politeness, such as the Journal of Pragmatics and the International Journal of the

Sociology of Language. Among these groups is the Linguistic Politeness Research

Group which was establishedin 1998to bring togetherresearchersand scholarswho are

interested in investigating the phenomenon of linguistic politeness. The group's

contribution in the field of linguistic politeness is significant; its members have

dedicated, for instance, a whole volume of essays online to discussing and analysing

linguistic politeness in relation to context. Furthermore, they have established an

intemational joumal (Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture),

issued twice a year, to discuss and explore a wide range of studies on politeness. They

also host conferences, seminars and symposia on linguistic politeness and have

organised the conference on Politeness and Power which took place at Loughborough

University on September 14th, 2002.20

2.3 Key Approaches to Politeness

Before engaging with Brown and Levinson's theory of politeness (see section 2.4), 1

believe that their account can be better understoodif read againstthe backdropof other

influential linguistic approaches to this phenomenon. Therefore, following Thomas

(1995), 1 present below a brief overview of four major pragmatic approaches to the

phenomenon of politeness, classified as follows: the conversational-maximview, the

face-management view, the conversational- contract view and the pragmatic scale view.

20The Linguistic Politeness Research Group is by

sponsored a number of British Universities:
Sheffield Hallam, Nottingham, Leeds, Loughborough, York St. John and Nottingham Trent.
The official website addressof the group is: http: //www. lboro. ac.uk/departments/ea/politeness/
(accessedon November 13,2006). The website features links to various forthcoming events,
and resources in the arena of linguistic politeness.
publications
35
 Each view is illustrated with
referenceto its most influential model. The name of the
last approach (the pragmatic
scale view) was coined by Thomas hersele'.

The conversational-maxim derives

view mainly from the cooperative principle of

Grice. Grice (1975) argues that participants

attempt to produce their statements in a

way that can be comprehended by others. To explain this cooperative principle, he

proposes four major maxims that participants usually follow during their conversations:

Maxim of Quality (make your contribution in the verbal interaction true; do

not say
what you believe to be false); Maxim of Quantity (be informative; provide otherswith

the required information); Maxim of Relevance(be relevant to the subject of the verbal

interaction; do not provide misleading information) and Maxim

of Manner (provide

others with clear information; do not be ambiguousor obscure).If the speakerviolates

any one of these maxims, however, the hearer is motivated to make an extra effort to
22
deducethe intended messageor implicature .

Leech (1983) was among the first scholars to elaborate a model of pragmatic politeness

based on Grice's cooperative principle. He introduces the politeness principle, which

consists of a series of maxims, to explain how politeness is achieved in verbal

exchanges. The maxims, he argues, explain why participants tend sometimes to be

indirect in communicating their intended message,and therefore infringe the Gricean

" In the first three approachesof her classification, Thomas (1995) draws on Fraser's review of
four approaches to politeness: the social-norm view, the conversationaI-maxim view, the face-
saving view and Fraser's own approach, the conversational-contract view. According to Fraser
(1990: 221), the social-norm view has received little attention in the literature, attracting "few
adherents among current researchers".
22The conversational implicature is the actual implied meaning of the speaker's utterance. The
hearer cannot decode this deep messageby only analysing the surface level of the utterance. In
other words, conversationalimplicature is the way in which hearersinfer and the
understand complete
messageeven when a speakermeansmore than exactly what they say (Grice 1978).A good example,
for instance, is the question "Have you got any change?", when the speaker really wants to
implicate the following meaning: "Can you lend me some money?"

36
cooperative principle. The maxims proposed by Leech are: Tact maxim (the speaker

minimises cost and maximises benefit to other), generosity maxim (the speaker

minimises benefit and maximises cost to self), approbation maxim (the speaker

minimises dispraise and maximises praise of other), modesty maxim (the speaker

minimises praise and maximises dispraise of self), agreement maxim (the speaker

minimises disagreement and maximises agreement between self and other) and

sympathy maxim (the speaker minimises antipathy and maximises sympathy between

self and other).

The second approach, the face-saving view, is mainly represented by Brown and

Levinson's theory of politeness (1978,1987), which I discuss in greater detail below in

23
section 2.4 . According to Brown and Levinson, each person's face is a public self-

image that can be threatened, maintained or enhanced by others. They explain that

certain verbal acts may threaten the face of the speaker, the hearer or both. In this

respect, Brown and Levinson (1987) share the same view as Leech (1983) in that they

consider threats to specific face wants and "the accruement of costs and benefits,

respectively, as inherent properties of illocutionary acts" (Kasper, 1990: 197). However,

whereas Leech (1983) argues that some verbal acts may express impolite values, while

others do not, Brown and Levinson (1987), by contrast, assume that any illocutionary

act is a source of potential threat to face (which other scholars conceive as

impoliteness). Brown and Levinson's claim is arguably unrealistic: not every

forms an imposition on the face of either the speaker or the

communicative act

addressee(see section 2.5).

23Brown and Levinson's major publication, Politeness.- Some Universals in Language Usage,
essay entitled 'Universals in Language Usage: Politeness
originally appeared as an
Phenomenon' in Goody Esther (ed.), Questions and Politeness.- Strategies in Social Interaction.
New York, Cambridge University Press, 1978. (56-289)

37
In carrying out any face-threatening act, the
speaker usually attempts to redress the

potential face threat by taking into consideration a set of social variables. Based on

his/her assessment of these variables, the speaker tends to select the

most appropriate

linguistic strategy in communicating the intended message.Brown and Levinson (ibid. )

propose a set of linguistic strategies which are mainly based on Grice's cooperative

principle and maxims, explaining that some of these strategies conform to his maxims,

whilst others violate them. Furthermore, they argue that a rational choice of an

appropriate strategy to save one's face is a universal phenomenon. This proposition,

r,
however, has received heavy criticism from scholars who have supported their

arguments with several examples derived from different cultures and languages,

especially non-Western societies such as Japanese and Nigerian, as we will see later

(section 2.5).

Politeness has also been approached from a Conversational Contract point of view.

This approach was originally proposed by Fraser (1975) and Fraser and Nolen (1981).

As in Brown and Levinson's model (1987), Fraser (1990: 232) states that this approach

adopts "Grice's notion of a cooperative principle in its general sense" and recognises

"the importance of Goffman's notion of face". In this view, each participant in any

conversation formulates a certain understanding of "some initial set of rights and

that govern the nature of their relationship with others (ibid. ). However,
obligations"

this preliminary conversational contract established between participants may change as

time passes or when a contextual change takes place.

38
According to this model, the essenceof a conversationalcontract lies in
understanding

the dimensions which determine the constraints on verbal interactions. Some

interlocutors may find themselves forced to follow certain routines in their

conversations with others in order to adhere to accepted conventions. These conventions

are often viewed by interlocutors as common rules that are subject to little or no

negotiation. Other constraintsare applied by the social institutions which have a stakein

the verbal interaction. Speakers, for instance, are supposed to speak only in whispers

during religious ceremonies, e.g. during church services. Other constraints may be

established and determined by previous encounters and the particulars of the situation.

In this case, unlike the first two conditions, the speakersare given a chance to negotiate

the terms of the interaction by taking into consideration"factors such as the status,the

power, and the role of each speaker, and the nature of the circumstances"(ibid.).

Accordingly, each participant may expect a certain content and force in communicating

the message of the interaction. A manager, for instance, does not expect a secretary to

give him/her orders.

In light of this model, Fraser (ibid. ) in

argues that politeness exists every conversation.

Speakers are perceived by their interlocutors as polite only if they recognize and fulfil

In other words, participants employ a certain degree

their obligations under this model.

of politenessaccording to the terms and conditions of the contract

conversational of any

verbal interaction.

from 'pragmatic scale' point of view. In this

Finally, politeness has been approached a

Spencer-Oatey (2000) attempts to develop a model that addressescritiques of

approach,

by Brown and Levinson (1987) and Leech (1983) in

the politeness models proposed

39
relation to their claimed universality. Acknowledging that face is a universal

phenomenon, i. e. each society has the same basic "face concerns", Spencer-Oatey

(2000: 12) nonethelessstatesthat "culture can affect the relative

sensitivity of different

aspects of people's face, as well as which strategies are most appropriate for managing

face". She thus argues that the notion of face (as something the individual
speaker

possesses) can be applied successfully in Western societies, where the emphasis lies

mainly on the personal needsof individuals. On the other hand, this application of face

theories has proven inadequate when it comes to cross-cultural communication,

especially the analysis of interaction between Asian and Western participants. Some

Asian societies, such as the Japanese and Chinese, place more weight on the role of

i.
groups, e. 'social identity', than on individuals (ibid.: 13). Therefore, the main thrust of

this approachis to compensatefor the deficiency of other models and tackle the issueof

cultural diversity by introducing three sets of dimensions: the need for consideration,

the need to be valued and the need for relational identity. In considering these

dimensions, "individuals will select the point on the scale according to their cultural

177)24.
values and the situation within which they are operating" (Thomas 1995:

In her proposed model, Spencer-Oatey (2000: 13) replaces the term 'face management'

the term 'rapport management' (which refers to "the management of harmony-

with

disharmony among people"). She explains that rapport management encourages both

'face management' and the 'management of sociality rights'. In defining 'face

builds on Goffman's account of face, stating that the term face refers
management', she
for himself [sic] by the line
to "the positive social value a person effectively claims

he has taken during a particular context" (ibid. ). On the other hand, she
others assume

" For more information about this model, see Spencer-Oatey(1992: 2000).

40
explains that the 'management of sociality rights' involves the "management of
social

expectancies5',where individuals believe that they possessthe right to effectively claim

"personal/social entitlements" for themselves

while communicating with others (ibid. ).

Consequently, Spencer-Oatey concludes that the term 'face' in

other models is

predominantly concerned with the speaker (self), whereas the term 'rapport' goes

beyond this narrow view, creating a balance between the self and the other. In this

respect, the 'pragmatic scale' view seems to be more comprehensive, covering a wider

spectrum of issues; it investigates "the way that language is used to construct, maintain

and/or threaten social relationships and... includes the management of sociality rights as

well as of face" (ibid.: 12).

Having introduced some of the most significant linguistic approaches to the

I
phenomenon of politeness, present in the following section a detailed account of

Brown and Levinson's theory of politeness, with a particular emphasis on their

investigation of the phenomenon of euphemisation.

2.4 Brown and Levinson's Politeness Theory

This study attempts to demonstrate that euphemisation is an important politeness

strategy of the face management view, mainly represented by Brown and Levinson's

model of politeness. It is thus important to begin with Brown and Levinson's account of

linguistic politeness and attempt to outline its main components, especially their five

in order to elaborate the relationship between these super-

so-called super-strategies,

the and comprehension of various types of euphemisms, as I

strategies and production

describe them in Chapter Three.

41
 Locher and Watts (2005: 9)
rightly stress that "the Brown and Levinson theory has

towered above most others and has servedas

a guiding beaconfor scholarsinterestedin
teasing out politeness phenomena from examples human interaction". For
of this reason,
in spite of its weaknesses and the
strength of alternative models such as that of Spencer

Oatey, it is important to continue to

engage with it and adapt it to explain politeness in

new media and different cultural settings.

Brown and Levinson's politenesstheory was first introduced in 1978,

and then revised
in 1987. It has since captured the attention of
a great number of scholars, working in

different terrains of knowledge; including pragmatics, anthropology and

sociolinguistics. It has also been employed as a theoretical model to inform and develop

a wide spectrum of empirical and theoretical research in various languages. Despite its

extensive appeal, however, Brown and Levinson's theory has generated considerable

controversy, attracting a significant amount of critique over the last two decades(Eelen,

2001b). And yet, Brown and Levinson continue to be acknowledged as pioneers in the

field of politeness; their names are "almost synonymous with the word 'politeness'

itself... " (Eelen 2001b: 3).

The main aim of the theory is to offer possible answers to the problem as stated by

Brown and Levinson, namely what are the key principles in formulating universal

strategies of politeness? In order to identify a fixed set of recurrent strategies, Brown

and Levinson largely restrict themselves to communicative verbal exchangescarried out

by a 'Model Person' (MP), without paying much attention to non-verbal interaction; a

particularly serious weakness in the context of this study. Non-verbal interaction is

42
mentioned only in passing by Brown and Levinson. Each individual
agent (Model
Person) is assumed to be a
cooperative fluent speaker of a natural language and to

possess two special properties; rationality and face. Brown and Levinson (1987: 58)

define rationality as "the availability to

our Model Personof a precisely definablemode

of reasoning from ends to the meansthat will achievethose ends". By the term 'face',

they mean a very specific value that consists of two basic

wants, "the want to be

unimpeded and the want to be approved of in certain respects" (ibid.: 58). These two

ýwants' will subsequently be explained through the

course of this chapter.

Brown and Levinson ascertainthat there are three basic concepts

which are neededto

elaborate a theory of politeness, namely the notion of face, face threatening acts and

politeness strategies. These notions play a significant role in creating and maintaining

various systematic uses of language by all Model Persons who cooperate to satisfy the

face wants of each other to greater or lesser degrees.

Generally speaking, the term 'face' encompasses many notions and values, such as

honour, reputation, public image, dignity and prestige. Spencer Oatey stressesthat face

is a concept which is "intuitively meaningful to people, but one that is difficult to define

precisely" (2000: 12). Brown and Levinson, on the other hand, define the term 'face' as

"the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself' (1987: 61). They

argue that this understandingof the term is based on Goffman's account of 'face', but

this claim can be easily contested.Goffman defines the notion of 'face' as "the positive

social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has

43
taken during a particular contact" (1967:5)25 Goffman's definition implies that
. a
participant's face in any social interaction is accorded to him/her by his/her

interlocutors. In this respect, Watts (2003: 105)

argues that 'face', in Goffman's

framework, "cannot be the image that an individual wishes to have

acceptedby the

other participants". A person's face during any verbal interaction is a social and

interpersonal attribute. In other words, in Goffman's model (unlike Brown

and

Levinson's), each participant negotiates for himself an image that his/her interlocutors

participate in establishing in and through the verbal exchange. Thus, Goffman views

each person as part of a social machine, with limited control over choosing acts that

may enhance his/her own face. In other words, society tends to cast participants in

certain moulds, socialising them into assigned sets of behaviour, including verbal

behaviour. Holtgraves (1992: 142) also stressesthe same point, suggesting that the term

'face' in Goffman's model tends to be "a social rather than a psychological construct".

He further explains that Goffman concentrateson the social surrounding of verbal

interactions in which individuals take part rather than the participants themselves. This

implies that each person's face has "meaning" or value "only during social interactions"

(ibid.).

By contrast, Brown and Levinson view 'face' as an intrapersonal quality that a

possesses prior to his/her involvement in any social interaction.

participant already

Therefore, what a participant actually attempts to achieve in the interaction is to get

by
his/her own self-wants recognisedand appreciated other interlocutors (Watts: 2003).

This leads to the production of two major types of face, namely 'positive face', which

" Goffman describes 'Line' as "a pattern of verbal and nonverbal acts by which he [a
his view of the situation and through this his evaluation of the
participant] expresses
himself' (1967: 5). He that person pursues a particular line
participants, especially argues every
in various social interactions, whether he/she intends to do so or not.

44
reflects the need for others' appreciation and approval of a person's wants, and

'negative face', which requires freedom of action without any impingement. Brown
and

Levinson therefore take Goffman's notion of 'face' and 'face work' as a

point of
departure and attempt to develop their own understanding of Goffman's key
concepts

into a wide range of politeness strategies that might be used in various verbal

encounters,focusing primarily on the individual (model person) rather than the wider

context of social interaction. Brown and Levinson explain their version of the term

'face' and face wants in more detail. Negative face implies the desire of the Model

person to perform his/her actions freely without being obstructed by other participants.

On the other hand, positive face refers to the desire of the Model Personto havehis/her

wants appreciated, respected or perceived as "desirable to at least some others" (Brown

and Levinson 1987: 62). Preserving these two types of face constitutes the essenceof

Brown and Levinson's politeness model, offering Model Persons the option to use

certain strategic outputs in their interactions.

Brown and Levinson assume there to be a sort of mutual agreement between

participants in an interaction in order to save each other's public self-image. Therefore,

Model Person is expectedto maintain his/her addressee'sface and satisfy his/her

each

in defend their desired self-image. In other words, this

wants order to and achieve own

the basis of 'an eye for an eye'; if someone has threatened or

relationship operates on

face, you are expected to react in the same way. Consequently, participants
saved your

tend to pursue a practical reasoning to avoid committing face-threatening acts or to

impact in to maintain their own face. Accepting that different

minimise their order

factors influence the specific formation of 'face' in different cultures, Brown and

Levinson nevertheless claim that the to

attempts preserve others' "public self-image or

45
face, and the social necessityto orient oneself to it in interaction,
are universal" (1987:
62).

Any act that might conflict with one or both of the above face wants of either the

speaker (S) or the addressee/hearer(H) is considered to be a face-threatening act (FTA).

Brown and Levinson argue that this face-threateningact could be "verbal or non-verbal

communication" (ibid.: 65). Nonetheless, they pay scant attention to non-verbal

communication in their theory. Focusing wholly on verbal acts, they distinguish various

face threatening acts according to the kind of face threatened, categorising them into

acts threatening the negative face and those threatening the positive face of the

addressee.The following chart shows their classification of face threatening acts, with a

few examples of each type:

Acts that predicate some Orders and requests

future act of S Suggestionand advice

To negative face
Acts that predicate positive
future act of S toward H Offers and promises

Acts that predicate some Compliments and

desire of S toward H or H's
expressionsof envy
goods or admiration
FTAs

Acts that show that S has a Expressionsof

disapproval, criticism,
negative evaluation of some insults
H's positive face contempt and
aspectsof
To positive face

Irreverence, mention
Acts that show that S does not
of taboo topics
care about H's positive face
Use of addressterins

Figure]. Based on Brown and Levinson (1987: 65-67)

46
Another way in which Brown and Levinson categorize face threatening acts is by

distinguishing between threats to the hearer's face, as explained above,versusthoseto

the speaker's, the latter resulting in the following types of face threatening acts:

);ý- Acts that threaten the speaker's negative face, such as expressing thanks, acceptance

of the hearer's thanks, apology or offers and unwilling promises, where the speaker

does not want to show the hearer his/her unwillingness and therefore threatenhis/her

positive face.

)ý, Acts that directly damage the speaker's positive face, such as apologies,

confessions, admissions, emotion leakage, etc. (ibid.: 67-68).

A good example that illustrates the status and importance of positive face from a lay

persoWs point of view in any culture is the following extract taken from the American

Friends. The is Central Perk26(Joey is sitting on the sofa, eating a cookie,

sitcom scene

Phoebe walks in wearing a fancy, revealing dress, and stands before Joey):
when

Example 2.1

Joey: (impressed) Wow! You look... (drops the cookie)... stop-eating hot! Which is like
the highest level of hotness!

Phoebe: Are you sure? Because I'm really dreading going to this party.

Joey: Then don't go!

I'm if I don't show up he'll think it's becauseof him!

Phoebe: Mike knows coming, and
And I don't to lose face! That's a very serious thing in my culture.
want

that you pretend to be over Mike. And

Joey: Alright, then you go to party and
to and I'll get you good and drunk!
afterward you come my place

" Central Perk is a coffee shop situated in Greenwich Village in New York City.

47
Phoebe: You got it! OK. But not
on the wine that you made, OK, becauseI just don't
want to go back to the Emergency Room".

(Joey gives Phoebe a thumbs-up, while

she is walking out)

In this scene, Phoebe is hesitant to attend the party following her recent break-up with

Mike (the reason being that Mike does not want to marry her), but she finally decides to

in
go order to preserve her 'face', the idea being that her absencecould be interpreted as

a sign that she is heart-broken and unable to be around her former lover. She attempts to

save, or rather minimise, the damage already done to her public self image by deciding

to go since, in her words, "Mike knows I'm coming, and if I don't show up he'll think

it's because of him! ". Goffman's notion of poise as "the capacity to suppress and

conceal any tendency to become shamefaced during encounters with others" (Goffman

1967: 9) seems particularly productive in explaining Phoebe's behaviour here. By

maintaining her poise she not only protects her face but also avoids others being

embarrassedas a result of her own embarrassment.

2' This scene is taken from episode number 22 The one with the donor of the ninth seasonof
Friends.

48
Brown and Levinson argue that any Model Person tends
to cooperate with other

participants and attempts to maintain their face wants either by not carrying out the

above-mentioned threats or by adopting certain strategies to mitigate any potential

damage to face if they do perform an FTA. Choosing an decision depends

appropriate

on taking into considerationvarious variables;theseinclude the desireof the speakersto

savetheir hearers' face to somedegree,the needto be preciseand urgent and the desire

to communicate the face-threatening act. Accordingly, Brown and Levinson (ibid.: 69)

propose the following five super-strategiesin relation to face threatening acts:

1. Don't do the FTA.

2. Do the FTA off record.

3. Do the FTA on record with redress (negative politeness).

4. Do the FTA on record with redress (positive politeness).

5. Do the FTA baldly without redress.

They further argue that all Model Persons will employ the same strategy to deal with

any particular face-threatening act if they have been exposed to the same circumstances.

In employing a particular strategy, Model Persons will take into consideration two main

factors, namely the advantages that the agent will achieve from using the chosen

strategy and the calculation of the seriousness of the face threatening act. Brown and

Levinson state that the Model Persons' assessmentof the latter factor in most cultures

depends primarily on calculating three sociological variables: social distance (D),

(P) ranking of imposition in the particular culture (R). The

relative power and

(Wx) the face threatening act is assessedon the basis of the following
weightiness of

formula (ibid.: 76):

Wx = D(S, H) + P(H, S) + Rx

49
In explaining the above-mentioned
super-strategies,Brown and Levinson subdivide

each strategy into several strategic outputs, illustrating their argument

with numerous

examples, drawn primarily from three different languages: Tamil, Tzeltal and English.

They also occasionally mention examples from

other languages and cultures in order to
further support their argument. Each
strategy is explained below, with a few examples,

progressing rom strategies that pose a lesser degree of threat to face to conclude with

those which pose a higher degree of threat.

Strategy No. 1: Don't do the FTA

The first potential strategy, 'Do not do the FTA', means that the speaker avoids

committing the face-threatening act altogether. Brown and Levinson give little attention

to this strategy in the discussion of their model, arguing that by employing it, Model

Persons do not carry out any verbal acts that can be examined. Consequently, this

strategy does not receive further elaboration in Brown and Levinson's model. However,

Zitawi argues that silence may function as a threatening act in communication,

suggesting that "silence is far more than a mere absenceof speech and thus a symbol of

powerlessness and passivity" (2004: 148). She further suggests that the 'Don't do the

FTA' strategy is not only limited to verbal interactions, but extends to "written

discourse, taking the form of 'don't write the FTA' or even 'don't translate the FTA"' if

the original text is likely to threaten the face of the target readers (ibid.: 148). She

supports this argument by demonstrating how Arab translators depend heavily on this

strategy in translating Disney Comics from English into Arabic, where omission of the

original FTA in the source text is a common feature of the translations.

The extensive use of the 'Don't do the FTA' strategy in translating written texts may

the field of audiovisual translation. This study proposes that the use of
also characterise

50
 the 'Don't do the FTA' strategy, as an extreme form
of euphemisation, is one of the

recurrent trends in subtitling English films and sitcoms into Arabic, and its findings
may
strengthen Zitawi's argument in this respect. A good example is the following
extract
from the Arabic version of the American Friend
28
The scene is
-subtitled sitcom S
.
Central Perk, Chandler and Joey are reading
a magazine and Monica is chatting with

Ross. Monica tells Ross how thrilled she was to

see him lecture at the University (They

kiss and she starts to leave).

Example 2.2

Monica: Oh hey, thanks again for showing me your semi-precious

stone collection. It

was amazing! (She leaves.)

Chandler: My God! You must be good in bed! (Chandler addressesRoss here)

Arabic subtitle:

Monica: Z61. AJ.21 ;Iý=

Thanks for displaying your semi-precious stone collection. It was amazing!

Chandler: ý
V43)
My God!

The subtitler omits the English sentence'You must be good in bed' in the aboveextract.

Being aware of the fact that this utterance communicates an explicit sexual messagethat

threatensthe face Arab 29the subtitler has chosenthe 'Don't do the FTA'
of viewers,

strategy in transferring some aspects of the original English message into Arabic.

Omissions of this type may be treated as an extreme form of euphemisation, where

28This extract is taken from the eighth seasonof Friends; episode number 8 The one with the
Stripper.
act in the
29It could be arguedherethat this sexualreferencemay alsobe viewedasa face-threatening
original.
51
interlocutors attempt to mitigate an offensive element in the discourse by not uttering it

at all. This practice inevitably affects the original representation of characters and their

interpersonalrelationships,but it doesavoid threateningthe Arab viewer's face.

Strategy No. 2: Do the FTA Off Record

Following the 'Off record' strategy means that the speaker communicates his/her

message indirectly, without attributing a definite intention to his/her utterance. In this

case, the speaker tends to escape the responsibility of carrying out his/her

communicative act by providing the hearer with an utterance that may carry more than

one possible interpretation. Consequently, the speaker can easily deny committing any

face-threatening act if challenged, by explaining that he/she did not intend a particular

interpretation. The 'Off record' strategy, then, is used by the speaker to mitigate any

potential threat to either his/her own face or to the hearer's. For example, if the speaker

says: 'Well, I am experiencing a financial problem', he/she may be implying that he/she

wishes to request an amount of money from the hearer. However, the employment of

this strategy gives the hearer the option to minimise the threat to his/her face and

decline helping the speaker by simply ignoring this indirect request without being

At the same time, this strategy gives the speaker the option to
viewed as uncooperative.

his/her face and deny this indirect intention if the hearer decides to threaten the
save

face by to offer financial help. Brown and Levinson explain

speaker's openly refusing

face-threatening act off-record can be achieved by either producing a

that carrying out a

is open to more than one interpretation, or an ambiguous

very general verbal act which

different from its surface realisation, as in the use of irony and

act that carries a meaning

Accordingly, Brown and Levinson argue that off-record strategiesviolate the

metaphor.

52
essence of Grice's theory by violating his four maxims for achieving maximum

conversationa efficiency 30
.

The speakerviolates the Maxim of Relevanceby providing the hearer

with an utterance
that is not directly relevant to his/her intended messagein a particular context, thereby

urging the hearer to search for the original intention. This generates a number of

strategic linguistic outputs of the 'Off record' strategy, such as giving hints, as in: 'What

a long day' (let's have a break).

Violating the Maxim of Quantity involves providing the hearerwith a lesseror greater

amount of information than the verbal interaction requires, leading the hearer to search

for the original incentive behind the speaker's infringement. One linguistic output

attributed to this type of violation is the 'understate' strategy, as in: 'It is a little bit

nippy outside'.

In violating the Maxim of Quality, the speakerprovides the hearerwith an utterancethat

is lacking in sincerity or truthfulness. This violation urges the hearer to figure out an

interpretation of the verbal act that "preservesthe Quality assumptionwhich is perhaps

the most basic principle of language usage" (Brown and Levinson 1987: 221). Among

the strategic outputs that emerge from this violation is in

explicit contradiction, as the

following example:

A: Are you happy about the new procedures?

B: I am and I am not.

" Violating Grice's maxims leads to the production of 15 strategic outputs. Brown and
Levinson explain these outputs in detail (1987: 211-227).

53
Finally, the speaker may violate the Maxim of Manner by
communicating his/her

messagethrough an ambiguous or unclear utterance.In other words, the speakergoes

off-record in carrying out the face-threatening act by employing strategies in which

his/her "communicated intent remains ill-defined" (ibid.: 225). This violation in

results

a number of strategic moves, such as: being ambiguous, being vague, over-generali sing,

displacing the hearer and using incomplete utterances and ellipsis. A good example to

illustrate the last strategy, 'use of ellipsis', for instance, is the following utterance: 'If

you do not do your homework, I will In this example, the speaker goes off-record

by providing the hearer with an incomplete utterance; leaving the face-threatening act

"hanging in the air" (ibid.: 227).

Strategy No. 3: Do the FTA on record with redress (negative politeness)

In undertaking the face-threatening act and mitigating it with negative politeness, the

speaker orients him/herself towards the hearer's negative face (the desire to act freely

without any imposition or obstruction). Brown and Levinson indicate that negative

politeness constitutes the essenceof social respect among all Model Persons, where it is

to
used minimise the degree of threat to face by showing regard for the hearer's privacy

and freedom of action. Unlike is

positive politeness, negative politeness usually viewed

as 44a
social brake", functioning as a means of drawing or increasing social distance

between the interlocutors during the course of any verbal interaction (Brown and

Levinson 1987: 130). Moreover, negative politeness tends to be more precise and

in the sense that it attempts to mitigate the very threat that the face-threatening
specific,

face In this respect, Culperer argues that

act poses to the participant's negative want.

64
one might say that positive politeness attempts to provide the pill with a sugar coating,

to
but that negative politenessattempts soften the blow" (2001: 244).

54
Brown and Levinson introduce five major mechanismsthat may lead to one or more

strategic outputs of negative politeness: be direct, do not presume or assume, do not

coerce the hearer, communicate the speaker's desire to not impinge on the hearer, and

address other wants of the 31

hearer With regard to the first mechanism, Brown
. and

Levinson argue that the speakerexperiencesa clash of needs,the needto communicate

the message baldly on-record (following the fifth super-strategy explained below) and

the wish to redress any potential face-threatening act the verbal act may generate. A

compromise of these two opposing options leads to the production of the first strategic

output of negative politeness, namely: "Be conventionally indirect" (Brown and

Levinson 1987: 132). This strategy enables the speaker to utter the messageon-record

and show other participants at the same time his/her willingness to A

go off-record. very

common example to illustrate this strategy, for instance, is the following indirect

question: 'Can you please open the windowT. In fact, this question conveys a

content which is different from its literal meaning. The idea is not to ask
propositional

the hearer can physically open the window. Rather, the function of this
whether or not

is to indirectly ask the hearer to open the window (indirect request). This
question

is
interpretation reinforced by the insertion of the word 'please' in the middle of the

The thus manages to partially satisfy two opposing wants in carrying

question. speaker

out this utterance;being direct and indirect at the sametime.

Concerning the second mechanism, 'Do not presume or assume', Brown and Levinson

argue that by employing this strategy, the speaker tends to avoid presuming or assuming

hearer desires believes in any aspect of the verbal act that might pose a threat
that the or

31 These five mechanisms of negative politeness result in 10 outputs (Brown and Levinson
1987: 129-211).
55
to face. The speaker hedges any possible assumptionsthat be
may attributed to the
hearer, such as assumptions concerning his/her 32
needs, wants or beliefs good
.A
example of this strategy is an utterance, such as: 'I am pretty sure I have put the book on

the table'.

The third mechanism,'Do not coercethe hearer', involves redressingany potential face-

threatening act by avoiding forcing the hearer to respond to certain verbal acts, more

specifically acts that require the hearer's assistanceor acceptance. 'Be pessimistic', for

instance, is one of the most common strategic outputs of this mechanism. By employing

this strategy, the speaker articulates concern regarding the possibility of achieving

his/her wants, as in: 'I do not suppose you would mind passing me the keys'. Another

strategy that illustrates the efforts of the speaker to minimise potential threat to the

negative face of the hearer is the use of euphemisms. An example of this strategic

output is the following extract from the Arabic- subtitled version of the English film

Braveheart, by Ridley Scott (1995)33 The scene is a Scottish wedding party. Musicians
.

suddenly stop playing and attendants stop dancing and drinking as a group of armed

English horsemen approach. An English nobleman stops in front of the bride and

his 'prima 34
groom, claiming noble right of noctes':

32Brown and Levinson define a 'hedge' as "a particle, word, or phrase that modifies the degree
of membership of a predicate or noun phrase in it
a set; says of that membership that it is
partial, or true only in certain respects, or that it is more true and complete than perhaps might
be expected (note that this latter senseis an extension of the colloquial senseof 'hedge"' (1987:
145).
" Braveheart depicts supposedly true events that took place in the thirteenth century, portraying
the story of a Scottish hero, William Wallace, whose father and brother were killed by the
English army. He returns after twenty years to his village and leads a revolt against English
motivated in particular by the murder of his wife, whom he had married secretly.
soldiers,
William Wallace eventually dies whilst fighting the English in defence of his country's liberty
and its people's dignity.
34Prima noctes or 'first night' gave English noblemen sexual rights to any common Scottish
bride on the night of her wedding as a way of oppressing the Scots and expelling them from
their lands.
56
Example 2.3

"As lord of these lands, I will bless this marriage by taking the bride into my bed on the

first night of her union"

Arabic Subtitle: llu]-9111

44 ý&L I
.- r. -3-)l
4i
Back translation: "As lord here [of these lands], I will bless this marriage by taking the

bride on her first night"

In this extract, the English phrase 'into my bed' is omitted from the Arabic subtitle. As

this phrase constitutes an explicit sexual reference that threatens the negative face of

Arab viewers, the subtitler chooses to mitigate the threat by employing the euphemism

'by taking the bride on her first night'. The use of euphemism here
-311
does not completely eliminate the communicated threat (the Arabic subtitle still

communicates the same message indirectly), but it does mitigate the threat to some

extent.

In employing the fourth mechanism, 'Communicate the speaker's desire to not impinge

the hearer', the speaker partially attends to the hearer's negative face by stressing
on

recognition of it in communicating the intended message. The speaker

awareness and

indicates to the hearer that any impingement on the latter's face wants is explicitly

taken into consideration.This mechanismleads to strategiessuch as

acknowledgedand

ýapologizing', which allows the speaker to express reluctance to impinge on the hearer's

face to amend any potential damage to it, as in: 'Sorry to

negative wants and willingness

bother you, but could you help me fix the table').

Finally, Brown Levinson argue that in the fifth mechanism, 'redress other wants of
and

hearer', to mitigate the threat of the verbal act by partially

the the speaker attempts

57
compensating a narrow spectrum of the hearer's wants. This mechanismleads to the

production of the last strategic output of negative politeness, namely to "go on record as

incurring a debt, or as not indebting H" (ibid.: 2 10).

Strategy No. 4: Do the FTA on record with redress (positive politeness)

In explaining positive politeness, Brown and Levinson argue that this strategy is

oriented towards the hearer's positive face wants (the desire to have his/her actionsand

values appreciated and respected). They identify three major mechanisms that

potentially lead to the production of various positive politeness outputs. These

mechanisms are: claiming common ground, conveying that the speaker and the hearer

are co-operators and satisfying the hearer's want for some acts. By following the first

mechanism, the speaker attempts to establish a mutual relationship with his/her

interlocutor by showing that they "both belong to some set of persons who share

specific wants, including goals and values" (ibid.: 103). Speakers usually pursue three

major ways to achieve this common ground: 'convey that the act is admirable or

interesting', 'claim in-group membership with the hearer' and 'claim common opinions,

attitude, and knowledge'. The secondmechanism, 'cooperation between interlocutors',

implies that the speaker acts cooperatively with the hearer in certain domains and

stresses that they both share the same objectives. This mechanism results in three

strategies which the speaker may follow: 'expressing awareness of the hearer's wants

taking them into account', 'claiming reflexivity' and 'claiming reciprocity'. Finally,
and

by choosing the third mechanism, 'satisfying some wants of the hearer', the speaker

58
shows that he/shedesiresthe hearer's wants for the hearer by satisfying someof these

in
wants, as giving the hearer gifts35

A good example to illustrate one of the strategic outputs of 'positive politeness' is the

'Be optimistic' strategy, as in the following: 'You will lend me your car tomorrow, I

hope'. In this example, the speaker assumes that the hearer will cooperate and help

him/her in attaining the desired want. Employing optimistic expressions such as 'I hope'

in the above example contributes to mitigating any potential threat or damage to the

hearer's face. Brown and Levinson (ibid.: 103) stress that positive politeness operates

"as a kind of social accelerator", besides its function as a redressto the face threat,

where the speaker attempts to establish or extend a degree of intimacy with other

interlocutors. Positive politeness thus functions as a tool for overcoming potential

barriers between interlocutors, thereby strengthening their relationship within different

social interactions.

Another example that illustrates the heavy use of various strategic outputs of positive

in
politeness screen dialogue is the following sequencetaken from the American sitcom
6:
FriendS3

" These three major mechanisms of positive politeness result in 15 strategic outputs that the
speaker may use in redressing any potential threat to positive face. These strategic outputs
include strategies such as 'Exaggerate (interest, approval or sympathy with H', 'Intensify
interest to H', 'Seek agreement', 'Joke', 'Offer, promise', 'Give (or ask for) reasons', 'Assume
and 'Include both S and H in the activity'. These outputs are explained in
or assert reciprocity'
detail on pages 94-129.
36This extract is taken from episode number 16, The one with a cop, of the fifth season.

59
Example 2.4

(Joey is asleep and dreaming. In his dream, he is imagining that he is doing

the crossword
puzzle with Monica)

(1) Monica: You know, I love doing crosswordpuzzles

with you honey!
(2) Joey: Aww, me too. Now let's finish this and go to bed.

(3) Monica: Okay! There is only one left, three letter

word, not dog but

(4) Joey: Cat.

(5) Dream Monica: Yes! You are so smart! (Kisses him) I love
you.

(6) Joey: I love you too.

(They hug.)

This is an instanceof intimate interaction betweenlovers, with a clear preferencefor the

use of positive rather than negative politeness strategies. As outlined in Brown and

Levinson's theory of politeness, positive politeness takes the form of sub-strategiessuch

as 'Assert common ground' (the use of You know in Monica's speech line 1), which

enables her to draw Joey's attention to the topic of the conversation, and therefore

establish and develop a mutual relationship. Monica also uses another positive

politeness strategy, namely 'Use in group identity markers', addressing Joey as honey.

In this turn, she employs this generic term of endearment to emphasise intimacy with

and affection for Joey. Other strategic outputs involve the 'Include both S and H in the

activity' strategy, Lets finish this and go to bed in Joey's speech. The use of the

inclusive 'we' form, let's, when he really means 'you', enableshim to indirectly seek

Monica's agreement to stop doing the crossword puzzle and go to bed with him. In

terms of the 'Seek agreement' strategy, Brown and Levinson explain that "the more S

knows about H, the more close to home will be the safe topics he can pursue with H"

60
(1987: 112). In the same turn, Joey uses the euphemism go to bed as another
positive

politeness strategy, more precisely as a strategic output of 'Minimize the imposition'

(ibid.: 177). This euphemistic expressionindirectly communicatesJoey's wish to have

sex with Monica, without explicitly imposing on her (if necessary, he can claim that he

only meant that they should go to sleep, thus minimising the threat to his own face as

well as hers). The use of the 'Exaggerate (interest, approval, sympathy with H)' strategy

is evident in Monica's tum (5), You are so smart. She attendsto and enhancesJoey's

positive face by inserting the intensifying modifier so before the adjective smart,

although Joey's performance in this conversation is arguably normal. Finally, the

'Pre suppose/raise/assert common ground' positive politeness strategy is employed by

Joey in turn (6) where he assures Monica that he loves her too; as this example

demonstrates, positive politeness is very much the preferred strategy of and pervades

intimate interaction.

Strategy No. 5: Bald-on-record

Finally, the bald-on-record strategy operates according to Grice's basic conversational

maxims that constitute the essential principles of his 'cooperative principle': "make

is
your conversational contribution such as required, at the it
stage at which occurs, by

the accepted purpose or direction in

of the talk exchange which you are engaged" (Grice

1975: 67). Despite Brown and Levinson's reliance on Grice's 'cooperative principle'

and its Maxims in explaining 'the bald-on-record' strategy, they argue that one of the

for not following the Gricean maxims is "the desire to give some attention to
reasons

face" (1987: 95). This assumption constitutes the backbone of their argument,namely

that 'politeness' is "a major source of deviation from such rational efficiency, and is

by that deviation" (ibid.: 95).

communicatedprecisely

61
Model Persons use the bald-on-record
strategy when they need to perform a face
threatening act with maximum efficiency, rather than satisfying the face
wants of the

addressee.Brown and Levinson propose two categories under the bald-on-record

strategy, according to the circumstances in which the participants operate. These

categories are "cases of non-minimization of the face threat", where both the speaker

and the hearer realise that maximum efficiency is more important than face redress,and

"cases of FTA-oriented bald-on-record usage", such as welcomings, farewells

and

offers (ibid.: 95-101). A good example to illustrate the former category is the

employment of attention-getters within the course of everyday verbal interactions, as in:

'Listen to me, what I am trying to say is In this example, the speaker uses the

phrase 'listen to me' as if maximum efficiency were needed to emphasise the

importance of what he/she is saying. In employing this strategy, speakers order their

interlocutors to listen to what they are trying to say, without any attempt to mitigate the

potential damagethat the verbal act might causeto the addressee'sface.

Another potential strategic output that can be categorised under 'bald on record' is

dysphemism. The opposite of euphernisation, dysphernisation leads to the production of

a term with a negative association (dysphemism), commonly defined as "an expression

with connotations that are offensive either about the denotatum or to the audience,or

both, and is substitutedfor a neutral or euphemisticterm for just that reason"(Allan

...
and Burridge 1991: 26). In investigating euphemistic language in the obituary pages of

37 Fernandez (2006: 117) points out that euphemisms and dysphemisms do

newspapers ,

not represent clear-cut categories, arguing that "particular references to taboo topics

37The data of Ferndndez's study consists of 228 samples of obituaries extracted from the funeral
two Irish newspapers, namely The Connaught Journal (1840) and The Cork
sections of
Examiner (1847). These two newspaperswere selected for investigation becausethey belonged
to the same historical phase, the Victorian era.

62
display degrees of membership to
one category or the other depending on contextual

and pragmatic considerations". Allan and Burridge also stress the same point, arguing

that dysphemism, like euphemism, "is not necessarily a property

of the word itself, but

of the way it is used" (1991: 28).

Although Brown and Levinson (1987: 97) point out that non-redressive
acts might

occur in some cases becausethe speaker "wants to be rude, or doesn't care about

maintaining face", they do not directly mention or investigate the phenomenon of

dysphemisation and its role in human communication. For my current purposes, it is

useful to locate dysphernisms in relation to different degrees of euphernisation, along a

continuum which has dysphernisation at one extreme and 'Don't do the FTA' (as an

extreme form of euphemism) at the other. However, it should be noted here that not

every bald-on-record act should necessarily be perceived as a dysphernism, since

interlocutors might communicatetheir messagebaldy on-record without meaningto or

being considered rude or offensive, as in cases of emergency, for instance. In such

situations, the interlocutors' priority is to communicate the intended message bluntly,

with maximum efficiency and little attention paid to face.

Brown and Levinson's five super-strategiescan thus be successfullyusedin the current

study as a scale to measure the strength of various types of euphemisation. Euphemisms

are often employed and perceived differently by interlocutors, and their impact in

the threat to both negative and positive face therefore varies from one
minimizing

individual to another. The table below shows how Phoebe's

one message, turn, in the

following extract from Friends could be in

expressed various ways according to Brown

Levinson's linguistic strategies, starting from those that pose a higher degree
and main

of threat to face and incorporating, where possible, the use of euphemisms:

63
Example 2.5

Participants: Amanda, Monica and Phoebe.Contextual information: Amanda tells

Monica that Phoebe was trying to cut her out from her life whilst they
were at school.

Amanda realises that Monica did not know about this, and regrets what she has just

said:
Amanda: Oh! Bugger. Should I not have said that? I feel like a perfect arse!

Phoebe: Yeah well, in America you are just an asS38.

In America you are just an ass. (dysphemism)'9

1. Bald-on-record

Hey honey, in America you are an idiot.

2. Positive politeness

3. Negative politeness I am sorry to tell you this, but in America you are a bit silly.
4. Do the FTA off You are so clever (ironic, communicating indirectly that Phoebe is
record stupid).
5. Don't do the FTA Here there is no linguistic production. (extreme form of
euphemisation)

Table 1. Levels of Euphemisation

The same message,you arejust an ass, can be expressedeuphemistically (or otherwise)

with different levels of indirectness, starting from producing it baldly on-record without

any mitigation (dysphemisation)40 and ending with the most extreme form of

euphemisation, namely don't do the FTA, where interlocutors refrain from generating

any linguistic output.

In broad terms, then, Brown and Levinson (1978-1987) propose a set of universal

linguistic strategies that, they argue, are likely to be operative in most cultures and

languages. They further argue that these universal strategies are an outcome of certain

38This extract is taken from the tenth season,episode The one with Ross'tan.
39 Not all bald-on-record utterances are dysphemistic. E.g. 'open the window'.

64
motivations and reasoning adoptedby interlocutors in different verbal encounters.All

participants in any social interaction are assumed to be rational, cooperative and aware

of the vulnerable nature of each other's face. In other words, each rational agent is

expected to uphold and maintain the other's positive and negative face. Given that

selecting an appropriate strategy to redress the potential threat to face relies

predominantly on calculating the weightiness of the face-threatening act by taking into

consideration the three sociological variables formulated by Brown and Levinson

(social distance, relative power and ranking of imposition), assumedmutual knowledge

between Model Persons in any interaction is vital for satisfying the negative/positive

wants of either the speakeror the hearer,or both.

if
To sum up, the speaker decides to commit a face threatening act, he/she may carry it

out either on-record, where the communicatedmessageof the verbal act is clear, or off-

record, where the communicated message is ambiguous (i. e. the verbal act may

entertain more than one interpretation). The former option subsumes two major

strategies, namely doing the FTA on-record with redressive action oriented towards the

hearer's positive face (Positive Politeness) or doing the face-threatening act on-record

to the hearer's negative face (Negative Politeness). The

with redressive action attributed

following figure illustrates these super-strategies:

65
 1. withoutredressiveaction,baldly

on record 4 2. positivepolitness
with redressiveaction
Do the FTA
3. negativepolitness
4. off record

5. Don't do the FTA

Figure. 2 Possible strategiesfor doing FTAs (Brown and Levinson 1987:69)

Having offered a detailed account of Brown and Levinson's theory of politeness, I

present below a critique of the major aspects of the theory that have been widely

addressed and scrutinised by various scholars across different fields. The critique

focuses on issues that are particularly relevant in the context of this study.

2.5 Critique of Politeness Theory

In spite of the considerable influence that Brown and Levinson's theory has exercised

its inception, different notions and principles of the theory have come under
since

they have been challenged, modified and criticized in different fields of

scrutiny;

in the fields of pragmatics and cross-cultural communication. In this

enquiry, especially

I these critiques, which vary from questioning minor elements

section, consider some of

to and even sometimes rejecting, some of its major

of the theory challenging,

The discussion below addresses four main aspects of this

assumptions and principles.

issues definition, the nature of the model and the use of short de-
critique: of speaker-led

66
contextualised extracts, reliance on a restricted range of examples and Brown and

Levinson's claim of universality.

Some scholars have indicated that Brown and Levinson fail to provide a concrete

definition of the phenomenon of 'linguistic politeness', which constitutes the core

of

their proposed model (Fraser 1990, Kasper 1990, Watts et al., 1992). Meier (1995), for

instance, argues that although Brown and Levinson dedicate a whole book to explaining

and examining the phenomenon of politeness, the term politeness is never directly

defined. He further argues that Brown and Levinson's (and other scholars') failure to

determine the exact nature of politeness "has ineluctably given rise to dubious research

conclusions and has weakened comparability among empirical studies" (ibid.: 345).

Watts (2003: 50) stressesthe same point, arguing that a definition of the term politeness

is absentin Brown and Levinson's model and that readersthereforehave to "infer from

the theoretical principles" of the model how the phenomenon of 'politeness' is likely to

be approached and defined. What he infers from this model is that politeness in Brown

and Levinson's terms refers to the available strategies that interlocutors often employ in

communication "to defuse the danger to

and minimalise the antagonism" (ibid.: 5 1).

Locher and Watts (2005) address two further criticisms of Brown and Levinson's

theory. First, they argue, Brown and Levinson present a theoretical model that illustrates

how interlocutors may follow several strategies in redressing face-threatening acts

than the phenomenon of politeness itself. Watts also makes this claim,
rather addressing

that "what Brown and Levinson offer is indeed a theory of facework, rather than
stating

(2003: 97). Secondly,the theory doesnot considernormal verbal

a theory of politeness"

in face-threat redressis not an urgent need, "nor does it cover social

exchanges which

67
 behavior considered to be 'appropriate', 'unmarked'
or 'politic' but which would hardly

ever be j udged as 'po Iite "' (ibid.: 10).

Locher and Watts (2005) arguethat politeness be

cannot approachedand comprehended
by merely examining the mitigation of face-threatening
acts because"politeness is a
discursive concept" (ibid.: 9). In other
words, scholars and analysts cannot anticipate

what constitutes polite or impolite practices, and therefore, "researchers should focus on

the discursive struggle in which interactants engage" (ibid. ).

Another important point argued by several scholars in the literature is that Brown
and
Levinson focus on the role of the speaker and ignore that of the addresseein
introducing

and illustrating their politeness strategies. In criticising this aspect, Watts points out that

Brown and Levinson normally refer to the speaker when they use the term 'Model

Person', and the only reasonthe hearer is mentioned in the model is "in order that the

MP can assess which is the most appropriate politeness strategy to use in the

circumstances" (2003: 85). Furthermore, Brown and Levinson do not offer any account

to illustrate how the hearer may react to certain politeness strategies employed by the

speaker. Eelen asserts that the heavy emphasis on the role of speaker utterances in

communication "causes not only the hearer to disappear from view, but also the hearer's

evaluative practice, which is turned into scientific observation" (2001b: 106-7).

This limitation is remedied in other models of politeness. By contrast to Brown and

Levinson's, Fukushima's approach is first and foremost hearer-led. She argues that

"since the focus has been placed on S (speaker) in most politeness research in the past,

the focus on H (hearer) represents an innovation" (2004: 38 1). Fukushima's view is that

68
 any body of behaviour needs to be treated contextually
and as a "three-dimensional
whole" which incorporates the speaker and the hearer simultaneously,
rather than
focusing on the speakeralone. The implication here is
that hearing and accountingfor
the speaker's words alone is not enough to
explain the dynamics of interaction.
Essentially, Fukushima calls upon
contemporary politeness scholars to break with their

predecessors by admitting, rather than omitting, the hearer's voice. She

starts by
dividing dialogue into four stages:
stage one is the speaker's utterance; stage two starts

when the speakertakes into account the hearer's response;stagethree is the hearer's

decision of how to respond to the speaker;

and stage four is the hearer's actual response.

Fukushima argues that previous theorists, a group to

which she allocates Brown and

Levinson, place sole emphasis on stage one, while bypassing the three
remaining vital

phases. In contrast, Fukushima proposes to focus on stagestwo, three and four, thereby

allowing these neglected dimensions of interaction to take centre stage and

consequently a more comprehensive image of the roles assumed by both the speaker

and the hearer during any conversational act to emerge.

Chen (2001) addressesanother aspectof linguistic politenessthat researchers,including

Brown and Levinson, have neglected in the course of elaborating their theories, namely

self-politeness. In building his model of self-politeness, he proposes a set of super-

strategies which subsume several strategic verbal outputs that speakers might use in

communication, drawing heavily on Brown and Levinson's framework of politeness.

Chen arguesthat his model takes cognisanceof the fact that the face of the speakercan

be vulnerable in social interaction. This vulnerability of face arises mainly from two

aspects of interaction. First, speech acts might threaten the face of the speaker just as

they threaten the hearer's. Second,the hearer can attack the face of the speakerjust as

69
the face of the hearer can be attackedby the speaker(ibid.: 89). Yet, Chen arguesthat

existing literature largely focuses on the hearer's 'politeness to others', and marginalises

the status of the speaker's 'politeness to self in investigating the phenomenon of

41
politeness . Most politeness theories, including Brown and Levinson's, have thus failed

to provide "a systematic framework [of self-face] for us to use in our study of language

i.
use-, e. they do not explicate or anticipate how the speaker will react when his/her face

is attackedby the hearer (ibid.: 92). In his model, Chen defines self-politenessas "cases

in communication where the need to protect and enhanceone's own face influences

what one says and the it"

way she says (ibid.: 88).

Chen claims that his model can complement Brown and Levinson's theory of politeness

by involving the two main participants' (the speaker and the hearer) speech acts in the

study of politeness. Within the context of this research,Chen's addition to Brown and

Levinson's theory of politeness, like Fukushima's, makes it easier to analyse and unveil

the dynamics of producing several speech acts over long stretches of verbal interactions.

In other words, Chen's contribution can allow us to explain what is unfolding during

social interactions.

This brings us to a further aspect of Brown and Levinson's model that has been

the employment of short verbal extracts to illustrate the various

criticised, namely

linguistic strategies that may be used to mitigate face-threatening acts. Brown and

Levinson's examples are restricted to sentence-level politeness. Many scholars have

41Chen (2001: 88) argues that the existing literature on politeness can be divided into three
major categories:
I. Literature that constructs theories of politeness.
2. Literature that studies and investigates various cultural-specific terms and strategiesof
politeness.
Literature that theories of politeness to data from various cultures and
3. applies existing
contexts.
70
stressedthe needto move beyond the sentenceto the discourselevel in order to obtain a

more comprehensive account of politeness (Usami 2002, Fukushima 2004)42.

Spencer-

Oatey further argues that "speakers are judged to be polite or rude, depending on
what

they say in what context" (2000: 3). In other words, the context of an utterance plays a

pivotal role in determining how interlocutors perceive the speaker. Yet, Brown and

Levinson tend to extract examplesout of their contexts in order to illustrate individual

strategic outputs.

Remaining with the issue of examples, but focusing specifically on the question of

representativeness, Watts criticizes Brown and Levinson's use of a particular set of

examples, derived predominantly from English, Tzeltal and Tamil, to illustrate their

strategies of politeness. He argues that their selected examples might "have been chosen

by a process of introspection precisely becausethey appear to support their argument of

universality" (Watts 2003: 98). In order to test the theory's claim of universality, Watts

calls for a more detailed examination of various "examples of real verbal interaction in

all three languages" (ibid. ), stressing that Brown and Levinson's use of a limited range

of examples drawn mainly from the three above-mentioned languages means that any

claim of a universal model of politenessis "grossly overstated"(ibid. ).

Watts (2003) is in questioning the claims of universality in Brown and

not alone

Levinson's model, which is basedon their own understandingof the notion of 'face'. In

their model, Brown and Levinson argue that 'face' and its two major components;

face face, or what O'Driscoll (1996) calls 'face dualism" (italics

negative and positive

42Usami has coined the term 'discourse politeness', defined as "the dynamic whole of functions
in both linguistic forms and discourse-level phenomena that play a part
of various elements
the politeness of a discourse" (2002: 4).
within pragmatic
71
in original), are two universal human attributes. However, this understanding
of

politeness (and of face) is arguably ethnocentric, devoted as it is mainly to aspects of

it
politeness as operates in Western cultures, and more specifically in an American and

British context. Many non-Western scholars have paid particular attention to Brown and

Levinson's treatment of 'negative face' and have questioned the scope of its validity,

arguing that this concept has proved inapplicable in the context of their own, non-

Anglo-American cultures (Gu 1990, Mao 1994, Nwoye 1992, Matsumoto 1988, de Kadt

1998).

Several Chinese researchers have challenged Brown and Levinson's claim of

universality on similar grounds. Mao (1994: 452), for instance, argues that face in

Brown and Levinson's model focuses on individualism, whereas face in Chinese is

centred upon "group identity". In other words, the Chinese tend to place more emphasis

on the importance of collectivism in forming and perceiving the public image of each

participant. In establishing his argument, Mao draws on an empirical comparative

analysis between the components of 'face' in Chinese and the components of 'face' as

envisaged by Brown and Levinson. The results of his analysis indicate that Brown and

Levinson's understanding of the notion of 'face' is "empirically inadequate" (ibid.:

45 1). He concludes that their theory fails to provide a valid universal framework that

be
can applied to other non-Westerncultures, including those of China and Japan.Mao

Brown and Levinson, that face and politeness in Chinese do not hold
also argues, unlike

a means-endsreasoningrelationship, but insteadgo hand in hand.

In a similar vein, Japanese researchers have critiqued Brown and Levinson9s

face. Matsumoto, for example, how

demonstrates the "preservation of
understandingof

72
face in Japaneseculture is intimately bound up with showing recognition of one's

relative position in the communicative context and with the maintenanceof the social

ranking order" (1988: 415). She argues that Brown and Levinson's notion of negative

face assumes an individualistic view in representing the public self-image of

participants and explains that this account of negative politeness does not suit the nature

of Japanesesociety, since politeness in Japanesetends to focus more on "recognition of

the interpersonal relation than mitigating impositions on freedom of action" (ibid.:

...
421).

In the context of African cultures, Nwoye (1992) illustrates how the notion of face

among the Igbo of Nigeria is conceptualized differently from the way that Brown and

Levinson formulate it. Politeness in Igbo culture is "a form of a social contract existing

between the group, as a whole, and the individual members of the group" (ibid.: 3 10).

Nwoye further explains that individuals are forced to pursue certain predetermined

patterns of behaviour in their interaction in order to be perceived as polite by members

of society. In other words, individuals in Igbo society tend to sacrifice some aspects of

their freedom of action in favour of their group interest, a pattern of behaviour which

into the universality of negative face (the want to act freely without
calls question

imposition). Nwoye (ibid.: 327) concludes that "Igbo politeness differs from politeness

in Western societies", and that Brown and Levinson's claim of universality therefore

lacks validity in the context of Igbo society.

Brown and Levinson's claim of universality in relation to their understanding of the

'face', has the attention of many scholars from different

notion of then, attracted

Western and non-Western cultures. The claim has been widely addressed and

73
challenged "on the basis that what constitutes face wants can vary among cultures as

can the way to meet these wants" (Meier 1995: 350).

Finally, one of the aspects that the current study criticises in Brown and Levinson's

theory of politeness is their inadequate treatment of euphemisation as a potential

strategy of politeness. In explaining positive politeness, Brown and Levinson propose a

number of strategic outputs that a Model Person in

may use mitigating potential damage

to the addressee's face. In this context, euphemism is discussed very briefly under

strategy number four, 'Minimize the imposition', as a universal linguistic phenomenon;

they mention, for example, the use of the euphemistic word taste in "Could I have a

taste (c.i. slice) of that cake?" (Brown and Levinson 1987: 177). Thus, the phenomenon

is
of euphernisation not adequately elaborated as a significant strategy of politeness in

their theory. At the same time, many scholars argue that the main purpose of

is
euphemisms to save face, a notion which lies at the heart of Brown and Levinson's

theory of politeness. Chen, for instance, points out that the is

use of euphemisms often

ý4
a typical way of being vague about things which society has decided not to name

explicitly. Since explicit naming of these things will damage the face of the speaker,

have become a useful tool to avoid such self-face loss" (2001: 102).
euphemisms

Furthermore, in their limited attempt to illustrate the Brown

processof euphemisation,

Levinson (1987) offer a number of examples that are difficult to recognise as

and

One such example is mentioned under strategy number twelve of off-

euphemisms.
'be vague' (ibid.: 226):
record politeness, namely

I'm going down the road for a bit. (i. e. to the local pub)

74
In this example, down the road is said to be a euphemism,usedto refer to 'a local
pub'.
However, according to the conventional account of the processof euphernisation(see

Chapter 3), this example cannot be clearly seen as a type of euphemism, since the

substituted word does not intrinsically communicate an offensive or rude value in a

typical context.

Another aspect of Brown and Levinson's theory that remains unconvincing is their

treatment of all verbal acts as inherently face-threatening, always impinging on either

the negative or the positive face of interlocutors. Based on their account, every

politeness strategic output could be qualified or treated as a euphemistic expression.

However, it should be pointed out that not every single verbal act of communicationis

likely to threaten face; some might be used simply to establish and maintain social

relations. Eelen argues that Brown and Levinson's list of utterances threatening

interlocutors' face includes items "such as 'offers', 'promises', 'compliments',

expressions of admiration' or 'raising dangerously emotional or divisive topics, e.g.

politics, race, religion, women's liberation', all of which are highly unlikely to be

spontaneously qualified as impolite in everyday situations" (2001b: 51). Consequently,

their theory has been widely viewed as extremely pessimistic in interpreting human

interaction, which "becomes an activity of continuous mutual monitoring of potential

threats to the faces of the interactants"; the theory thus "could rob social interaction of

all elements of Pleasure" (Nwoye 1992: 311).

75
2.6 Conclusion

Although Brown and Levinson's theory of politeness has generated considerable

criticism in the literature, it still remains the most pervasive model and one which

provides researchers with a more comprehensive account of the phenomenon of

politeness than any other. As Chen puts it, Brown and Levinson's theory of politeness

"is fundamentally correct and is still the best tool we have in the investigation of

politeness" (2001: 88).

I have attempted to demonstrate in this chapter that Brown and Levinson's theory of

politeness offers a sound starting point and context for the study and investigation of the

process of euphemisation. Euphemisms and politeness share the same motivations,

namely mitigating potential friction, producing smoother communication and

establishing friendly relations between interlocutors. However, Brown and Levinson

(1987) pay very little attention to the process of euphernisation as a potential strategy of

politeness and to its impact on communication. They arguably underestimate its role in

human interaction in elaborating their theory; they are not clear, for instance, about

what they mean by euphemistic expressions, do not offer any categories of analysis

under this strategy and generally do not demonstrate the importance of euphemism as a

crucial politeness device in communication. The current study, on the other hand,

argues that euphemisms lie at the heart of linguistic politeness, and undoubtedly play a

central role in fostering a polite form of communication. Moreover, euphemism as a

politeness is a common strategy used by subtitlers in mitigating a

strategic output of

face-threatening acts, as the data analysis will illustrate in Chapters Five

wide range of

Six. In the following chapter, I attempt to offer a more detailed account of

and

76
euphemisms and their vital role in communication, before proceeding to investigate

their use in the Arabic subtitles of Friends.

77
 Chapter Three

Euphemisation as a Politeness Strategy:

A Translation Oriented Model of Analysis

3.1 Introduction

In Chapter Two, I briefly introduced euphemism as a potential strategy of politeness

often employed by interlocutors to save, maintain or enhance their face. Allan and

Burridge stress the importance of this phenomenon in determining the relative levels of

politeness employed by interlocutors, pointing out that "discussion of taboo and

censoring of language naturally leads to a consideration of politeness and impoliteness,

and their interaction with euphemism (sweet talking), dysphemism (speaking

offensively) and orthophernism (straight talking)" (2006: 29). This draws a direct link

between potential face-threateningacts (such as sexual and distasteful references)and

euphernisation as the data analysis illustrates in Chapters Four and Five. Therefore,

prior to investigating the use of this phenomenon in the Arabic subtitles of Friends, it is

useful to address a number of issues relating to the various types of euphemisms and the

devices that generatethem, as discussedbroadly in the available literature both in and

outside politeness theory. I start by defining euphemism as a linguistic phenomenon

(section 3.2) before discussing the types of topics and areas that are most commonly

euphemised (section 3.3). 1 then explore the various semantic processes that generate

by looking mainly at two existing models proposed by Williams (1975)

euphemisms

and Warren (1992). Finally, I offer a modified version of thesetwo models, which will

be used in Chapters Four and Five to analyse euphemistic expressions employed in

Friends (section 3.4.3). Examples taken from English language films and sitcoms are

usedwhere relevant.

78
 3.2 What is Euphemism?

The word euphemism derives from the Greek

word euphemismos,which, in its turn
derives from the word euphemizein,referring to the
use of "a good or auspiciousword
for an evil or inauspicious one" (Foster 1966: 53). It initially
referred to a word or an

expression which replaced a religious word which could not be articulated aloud.

Enright states that the word euphemism was first documented in English in "Thomas

Blount's Glossographia (1656), where it is defined

as 'a good or favourable

interpretation of a bad word"' (1986: 13). Euphemismhas been

generally defined as a
"rhetorical device" that has a "concrete meaning", with
slight differences of definition

among various dictionaries and encyclopedias (Enright 1986: 13). The Oxford

Advanced Learner's Dictionary, for example, defines euphemism

as "an indirect word

or phrase that people often use to refer to something embarrassing or unpleasant,

sometimes to make it seem more acceptable than it really is". The MSN Encarta

Encyclopaedia similarly defines euphemism as a "less offensive synonym: a word or

in
phrase used place of a term that might be considered too direct, harsh, unpleasant, or

offensive" (original emphasis).

Euphemismshave been extensively reviewed and researchedby scholarsand linguists,

generating dozens of definitions (see inter alia: Neaman and Silver, 1995; Enright,

1986; Makin, 2003; Greene, 2000; Huang, 2005). Among these is Warren's account of

euphemism argues that a euphemism occurs "if the interpreter perceives the use of some

word or expression as evidence of a wish on the part of the speakerto denote some

sensitive phenomenon in a tactful and/or veiled manner" (1992: 135). Warren points out

that there are three essential elements involved in the construction of this definition.

First, the connotation attachedto the original word is viewed as sensitive, accounting

79
 for why the use of euphemisms is
very commonly associated with specific topic areas,

such as sex, insults, death, embarrassingbodily functions and so forth. Second,the

substituting word (euphemism) is less blunt or offensive than other potential

alternatives. Finally, the interpreter is aware that the speaker's choice of a particular

expressionis motivated by his/her considerationof the face wants of the interpreterand

the desire to avoid using an expressionthat may threaten his/her face. Moreover, this

definition hints at the fact that introducing objective

criteria for deciding what

constitutes a euphemism is practically impossible. Like Warren (1992), Allan and

Burridge approach and define the use of euphemisms as

a politeness strategy, arguing

that "a euphemism is used as an alternative to a dispreferred expression,in order to

avoid possible loss of face: either one's own face or, through giving offence, that of the

audience, or of some third party" (199 1: 11, original emphasis). They further ascertain

that the notion of face, as defined by Brown and Levinson, is extremely important in

discussing any aspects of politeness, pointing out that:

Social interaction is generally oriented towards maintaining (saving face).

Just as we look after our own face (self-respect), we are expected to be
considerate of, and look after, the face-wants of others. Those who are
skilled at this are said to have social savoir faire; they are said to be
perceptive and diplomatic. (Allan and Burridge 2006: 33)

Euphemism as "a shield against the offensive nature of taboo expressions"(Agyekum

2002: 372), then, generally refers to a speaker's use of a less offensive or disturbing

substitute. In other words, a euphemistic expression attempts to disguise unpleasant or

embarrassing meanings of a word or an expression by using an alternative form which

still communicates the same messagebut in a less explicit way. Thus, McGlone and

Batchelor point out that people usually use euphemisms when they are "reluctant to

utter more semantically transparent terms (urinate, sex, pregnancy) for certain unsettling

topics" (2003: 25 1). This suggests that speakers use euphemistic expressions

80
deliberately in a particular context to disguise
sensitive aspectsof the messagewithout

projecting their reluctance to engage in the interaction. However, interlocutors

sometimes use a deliberately strong form of language in communication to undermine

the public image of others; this linguistic phenomenonis referred to in the literature as

dysphemism. By contrast to euphemism, dysphemism refers to the

employment of
n I, language, than
abusive or offensive rather masked expressions, to offend and threaten

the face of others. A common example of dysphemism is the word cow in British

English, which can be used as a derogative term for a woman who is thoroughly

disliked.

It is necessary to define the term euphemism as it will be used for the purposes of the

current study in order to avoid any potential confusion during the analytical Chapters

Four and Five. In the context of this study, the definition of euphemism needs to be

consistent with politeness theory in general and the face saving model in particular.

Considerable emphasis will thus be placed on Brown and Levinson's key concepts and

principles, especially the concept of face which plays a central role in explaining which

and how types of lexical items are euphemised in the Arabic subtitles of Friends. A

precise definition of euphemismwill be offered towards the end of this section,prior to

the data analysis, after a detailed account of this phenomenonand its importance in

is
communication put forward.

The use of euphemisms in oral and written communication is generally associatedwith

patterns of politeness and social norms that govern the in

contexts which interlocutors

For example the verb piss (urinate) might be viewed as a rude word in a formal
operate.

context (e.g. academic class), but may be evaluated as humorous in a casual context

81
(e.g. interaction between friends). Euphemism as a linguistic
phenomenon thus plays a

crucial role in establishing and developing relationships between interlocutors.

McGlone and Batchelor stress the significance of the role played by euphemism in

successful communication, and point out that various factors determine both the

strengthand the in
way which the messageis uttered:

When an unsettling topic is raised (be it bad news or some other unpleasant subject),
the form of the message(bald or euphemistic) and the manner in which it is conveyed
(blithely or reluctantly) may be motivated by the communicator's empathy (i. e.
concern for the addressee's positive face) or self-presentational goals (concern for
oneýsown positive face). (2003: 25 1)

Over time, some euphemistic expressions acquire the taboo value of the items they

substitute and may lose their impact in concealing the offensive or uncomfortable

meaning of the relevant word or expression. Warren (1992) thus argues that the frequent

use of euphemisms in language often leads to their death, explaining that that

"euphemistic force is simply a matter of strength of the associative link between a word-

form and its taboo referent i. e. the stronger the link, the weaker the euphemisticforce

and vice versa" (ibid.: 136). As a result, many have

researchers arguedthat euphemisms

have negatively affected the way in which interlocutors normally communicate in many

settings. Barnes (1993: 8), for instance, points out that "critics suggest that the recent

and growing use of euphemisms to avoid 'offensive' terminology smacks of calculation

and compromise, robs us of more direct and colourful words, and rarely has a lasting

becausenew words and phrasesquickly take on old meanings". However, he also

effect
interlocutors
argues that whenever a euphemistic expression gains a new negative value,

have to search for an alternative euphemistic expression that conceals this recently

acquired connotation "until there is no need to do so" (ibid. ). For example, the word

toilet has been widely used in English as a euphemism for the place of urination and

defecation. Having been extensively used in this context, some people have now re-

82
 associated it with its original negative value and have therefore started to
avoid using it
in public. As a result, new words have been
coined to euphemise the newly acquired

negative connotation attached to the word toilet, for example bathroom, later replaced

by restroom and W C.43

On the other hand, McGlone et. al point out that there instances
are many of
euphemisms that "have exhibited an extended shelf life in the vernacular" (2006: 265),

and offer as examples expressions such as sleep together and pass away, which are still

commonly used as euphemisms for having sex and dying. They further argue that these

two expressions "date back to the early history of the English language; in fact, both

appear in old English versions of Venerable Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English

People, completed around 731 AD" (ibid. ). McGlone et. al suggest that the widespread

use of a group of euphemistic expressions should enforce rather than undermine their

euphemistic status, since "reductions in the cognitive capacity the expression recruits in

turn lead to a diminution of its saliencein discourse"(ibid.: 266).

Determining the exact nature of euphemism and its effectiveness (success) in toning

down unsettling expressions in a particular context remains problematic. Many scholars

have offered various definitions of euphemism,as mentionedabove,but in generalhave

agreed upon its main function in language; they also tend to agree that understanding

is
whether an expression used euphemistically or not remains a highly subjective matter.

Linfoot-Harn stresses this specific point, stating that "objective euphemism

classification is a grey area, and judgments may differ from person to person" (2005:

" From the online dictionary Encarta:

http: //encarta.msn.com/dictiona! y I 861609379/euphemism.htmi (last accessedon
06/February/07). It is worth mentioning here that these euphemisms are mainly used in
American English.

83
229). In a similar vein, Allan and Burridge highlight the fact that "there
are cultural
differences with respect to the use of euphemism and dysphemism, but
they are
differences in degreerather than differences in kind". This
meansthat certain types of

universal human behaviour and topics, such as referencesto sex, death,

religion, and
body parts for example exist in almost every society across the but they give rise
world,

to various types of euphemismsthat might vary from one culture to another. Makin

accepts Allan and Burridge's (199 1) argument, stressing that "the use of euphemism is

inextricably linked to the perceived offensiveness or taboo nature of the underlying

topic; thus it is subject to cultural variability" (2003: 52). At the same time, she argues

that the avoidance of sensitive topics in establishing and maintaining polite conversation

is a common phenomenon shared by most cultures, as several anthropological studies

have suggested. Accordingly, a potentially euphemistic expression may elicit various

impressions and inferences among different people; some might perceive an expression

as euphemistic, while others might perceive it as unmasked, or even offensive. The

cultural setting of interlocutors thus determines roughly what the hearer might

understandfrom a given euphemisticexpressionand how he/sheis likely to respondto

it.

A good example to illustrate the vital role of cultural variability in producing and

responding to various euphemistic expressionsis the existence of different norms in

these expressions in the field of medicine. In England, for instance, the use
employing

is common in discussinghealth issuesby both doctors and patients

of euphemisms very

in medical institutions, whereas 'straightforward', uneuphemisedlanguageis generally

the prevailing norm in dealing with such issues in the United States (Berlyne 1993;

Johnson and Murray 1985). Consequently,attempting to draw a clear-cut line between

84
what qualifies as a euphemismand what doesnot seemsto be unrealistic, though shared

politeness patterns and social practices do of course ensure a certain level of inter-

subjectivity in this regard.

Makin (2003: 58) demonstrates the importance of the three social variables proposed by

Brown and Levinson in determining when and how often interlocutorsuseeuphemisms.

After conducting several experiments on the impact of social variables on the use of

euphemistic expressions, she concludes that her results support Brown and Levinson's

theory of politeness and reports that:

A speaker would use more euphemism when the addresseewas older or had a
higher job status than the speaker. It was also expected that euphemism would be
used more frequently when there was a greater social distance between the
speaker and the addressee.(ibid.: 59)

Makin's predictions hold only if interlocutors are willing to be guided in their behaviour

by Brown and Levinson's social variables, but even a Model Person can ignore one or

more of these variables, whether intentionally or not. Makin seems to be aware of this

when she arguesthat violating these social variables "could in

result either a consistent

or variable level of politeness, depending on the speaker's comfort with discussing

specific taboo topics, but the use of euphemism would not be expected to vary

systematically with the Brown and Levinson (1987) politeness variables" (ibid.: 59).

A good example that illustrates the use of euphemism in casual conversation is the

following extract from the American sitcom Friends:44

44This extract comes from seasonten, episode five: The one where Rachel's sister babysits.

85
Example 3.1

Participants: Monica and Chandler (Joey and Phoebe are present). Contextual

information: Phoebe enters Central Perk where she tells Monica, Chandler, Phoebe
and
Joey that she and Mike (her boyfriend) are celebrating their
one-year anniversary and

they are going to watch a football match to mark the occasion.When Joey tells her that

is
she overdressed,Phoebeis furious and tells everyonepresentthat shehas never had a

one-year anniversary in her life and thus she will wear her best jewellery and clothes and

have sex with Mark in a public toilet as well. Hearing Phoebe's plan to have sex in the

toilet, Monica and Chandler engage in the following dialogue:

Monica: You guys do that? Chandler won't even have sex in our bathroom!

Chandler: That's where people make number two!!

45
In this extract, Monica uses the expression have sex as a euphemism to refer to the act

of engaging in sexual intercourse in a relatively mitigated way, though have is

sex still

relatively explicit. In the sameturn, she also usesanother euphemisticword, bathroom

for lavatory, which refers to both the place where people urinate and defecate and to the

place where people bathe, thus euphemistically deflecting attention from the act of

defecation specifically. In an attempt to protect and save his face, which has been

publicly threatened by Monica, Chandler employs the euphemistic expression make

number two (used especially by or with reference to children) to refer to the act of

defecating, arguing that bathroom is mainly used for this purpose rather than having

In doing Chandler acknowledgesthe face wants of his (to

addressees have their
sex. so,

" Compared to the more explicit screw1fuck,for instance.

86
public self image respected),by showing reluctanceto articulate a direct referenceto a

distasteful act that might, as it happens, also threaten his positive face
and consequently

embarrass him in public. Euphemismis thus commonly usedin humancommunication,

whether consciously or not, in order to interact in a more polite and inoffensive way,

taking into accountthe face wants and needsof interlocutors and of the speaker.

Having briefly introduced the notion of euphemism, a specific definition of this

phenomenon should be adopted here, in order to identify and determine what items

qualify as euphemisms in Friends. After considering a number of definitions in the

available literature, Allan and Burridge's account of euphemism, which reflects the

basic principles of Brown and Levinson's theory of politeness, seems to be the most

applicable and useful for the purposes of this study. In their definition, euphemism is

associated with the theory's major concepts, namely face and face threatening acts,

suggesting that "a euphemism is used as an alternative to a dispreferred expression, in

order to avoid possible loss of face: either one's own face or, through giving offence,

that of the audience, or of some third party" (1991: 11, original emphasis). This

definition seems the most appropriate to adopt in the context of politeness theory.

3.3 What is Euphemised?

Apart from understanding how potentially offensive references might be euphemised,

to examine the types of topics that can cause interlocutors offence or

we also need

discomfort in order to arrive at a workable method of analysis.

Euphemism, as a linguistic device, is primarily associated with taboo words related to

human communication, where interlocutors attempt to mask the

sensitive areas of

87
offensive or embarrassing value of such expressions, and thus make them less

unsettling. Rawson stresses that euphemistic expressions constitute essential blocks of

everyday human interaction, pointing out that such expressions usually:

Conceal the things people fear the most death, the dead, the They
- supernatural.
cover up the facts of life - of sex and reproduction and excretion... and they are
embedded so deeply in our language that few of us, even those who pride
themselves on being plainspoken, ever get through a day without using them.
(Rawson 1981: 1)

Euphemisms are therefore used in various types of encounters and relate to several

aspects of human life; these include the following phenomena and types of human

behaviour: sexual behaviour, death, religion, disease,specific body parts associatedwith

sex or defecation, among other things. Needless to say, these categories of euphemism

often overlap with each other, and it is therefore difficult to draw a clear-cut line

between these classifications, especially as some euphemisms can involve elements that

have to do with more than one topic, and as a result can be grouped under more than

one heading. For example, the euphemism AIDS can be listed and discussed under two

possible headings, namely sex and disease. In this study, the areasthat are likely to pose

a higher threat to the face of Arab viewers of Friends include sex and insults (the latter

discussedunder distasteful topics). In the Arab context, referenceto sexual activity is

particularly offensive both in its own right and as an important facet of religious culture.

3.3.1 Sex

Discussing sex is one of the most sensitive yet often one of the most common subjects

in human communication, despite the it

embarrassment might cause to speakersor

involved in the interaction. As a result, a large number of euphemistic

writers

have been introduced in this area to mitigate the threat or damage triggered
expressions

to
by sexual taboo words and allow communication proceed more smoothly. Linfoot-

88
Ham arguesthat "if the size of the euphemism
collection indicatesthe size of the taboo,

as suggested by Rawson (1981), the area of sexual taboo is greater than any other"

(2005: 229). Linfoot-Ham's claim appears to be sustainable in view of the evidence

presentedin this study (see Chapter Four for the data analysis of sexual references)

and sexual references are the most pervasive topic that threatens the public face of Arab

viewers of Friend S46.

Talking about sexual issues is a universal phenomenon common to all human cultures.

However, the scale of using euphemistic sexual expressions varies from one culture to

another and/or from one region to another, as well as with the type of sexual activity

discussed. Habib, for instance, explains the way in which sexual topics are discussed in

Arabic and the nature of the language used in this context, stressing that "in the Middle

East, discussion of sexuality in general has become heavily laden with secrecy and

reticence, and depictions of homosexuality necessarily suffer from such rising

conservatism" (2005: 202). In the course of explaining how issues and references to

sensitive topics such as religion, sex, and politics pose serious problems to translators,

Baker (1992) specifically mentions the difficulty of handling differences in expressive

meaning between English and Arabic in relation to homosexuality. In many Western

societies, homosexuality is widely accepted, to the extent that gay relationships are

increasingly recognised either in the form of civil partnership, as in the United

Kingdom, or institutionalised as an actual marriage, as in Belgium, the Netherlands and

Spain. On the other hand, Baker (ibid.: 24) argues that the equivalent expression for

this word in Arabic is "shithuth finsi (literally: 4sexual perversion)", which is

" There are many more instances in the data where references to religious festivals like
Thanksgiving are replaced with a local to
reference a Muslim festival, e.g. Eid but I do not treat
these as euphemisms but more as cultural adaptation.
89
"inherently more pejorative and would be quite difficult to use in a neutral
context

without suggesting strong disapproval'547 Baker's account of the linguistic treatment of

.
homosexuality in Arabic indicates that it is a particularly sensitive topic and
suggests

that a blunt referenceto any aspectof homosexualbehaviour would be perceivedas a

seriousthreat to face in the Arab context. The recent crackdown on homosexualsby the

Egyptian government supports this assessment. In his attempt to justify the

government's actions, the Egyptian chief government spokesman argued that what the

authorities have done is not against human rights, "but actually an interpretation of the

norms of our society, the family values of our society. And no one should judge us by

their own values. And some of these values in the West are actually in decay" (BBC
48
World News: 6 March 2002).
.

The sensitivity surrounding homosexuality in the Arab World is also evident in the

published translation of a widely controversial book, namely Unspeakable Love: Gay

and Lesbian Life in the Middle East by Brian Whitaker. The book, which boldly

addresses the suffering of the gay community in the Middle East, was translated into

Arabic in 2006 as 1--Yýl 4&&U s4Lx Interestingly, the Arab

-Y

translator is acknowledgedonly as F. Ibrahim on the cover and title page,and

no further information is provided about him/her. The use of initials, is

which very

in
uncommon writing the namesof authors and translatorsin Arabic, is understandable

in this setting given that translators who deal with such a divisive topic could be

by the public. After conducting several interviews with gay and lesbian
stigmatised

Arabs, Whitaker (2006) arguesthat:

47It is interesting that some Arab writers and translators now reject this term in favour of a more
neutral neologism, namely LD, (based
941'" on cý- for 'alike').
4' http: //news. bbc.co.uk/l/hi/programmes/crossing continents/ I 858469.stm (last accessed07
February 2007).

90
 Parental ignorance is a large part of the problem: the lack of
public discussion
about homosexuality results in a lack of level-headed and scientifically accurate
newspaper articles, books and TV programmes that might help relatives to cope
better. The stigma attached to homosexuality also makes it difficult for families to
seek advice from their friends. Confronted by an unfamiliar situation, and with no
idea how to deal with it themselves, the natural inclination of parents from
a
professional background is to seek help from another professional such as a
psychiatrist. (ibid.: 21)

Dejong et al. (2005) raise similar issues in the context of recent efforts to promote

sexual awareness among young Arabs, especially the attempt to reach young people

who consider discussing sexual issues a taboo, but who need sexual and reproductive

health counselling. Dejong et al. (ibid. ) add that the Middle East region is currently

witnessing the establishment of confidential hotlines on various sexual issues, especially

HIV/AlDS. These organisations have become successful in the region because of the

confidential service they offer, which takes into consideration the fragile and sensitive

status of the Arab face when discussing sexual issues to

and attempts reduce face threats

to a minimum. A number of HIV/AIDS hotlines in the region, for instance, report

receiving 1000 calls a month at their peak, mainly from young and unmarried people.

The success of these programmes is explained in terms of their being "particularly

suitable to the cultural context in the region where face-to-face communication about

sexual and reproductive health issues is difficult, especially for women" (ibid).

Euphemistic sexual expressions cover a wide range of sexual references and activities:

(e.
these include the act of sex g. to sleep with someone, meaning to have sexual

intercourse); the body organsassociatedwith the (e.

act of sex g. the use of the Mexican

'the bird' to to
refer a penis ( Foster 1966), or melons in English to
expression elpayaro

refer to breasts (Rawson, 1981: 38)); types of clothes that cover relevant areasof the

body; sexual practices or orientations (e.g. homosexual, referring to a gay person) and

sexual disease(e.g. social disease,for venerealdisease).

91
Sexual referencesthen seemto pose higher threatsto the face of interlocutorsthan
other
types of sensitive topics, leading them to mitigate this threat by coining and employing

various types of euphemistic expressions. Linfoot-Ham thus stressesthat "the subject of

sex, being a major concern in human life and one that is likely to elicit embarrassment,

is a potent source of euphemism for western people of most ages and walks of life"

(2005: 229). Episodes from Friends, which constitute the data for this study, are

particularly rich in potentially face-threatening sexual references.

3.3.2 Religion

Religion is once again becoming an increasingly sensitive and key aspect of everyday

life in various cultures across the world. Due to the central role that religion plays in

organising and guiding the life of its advocates, and its psychological impact on them,

people tend to be particularly careful in their use of language when discussing various

issues associated with it, generally employing indirect and polite forms of language.

Depending on the particular religious culture to which they belong, interlocutors often

avoid explicitly uttering words and expressions that refer to the symbols or pillars of

their religion (e.g. God, messengers, holy books, etc.), "because any threat to their

power endangers the entire society they dominate" (Allan and Burridge 1991: 36). A

recent example that demonstrates the level of sensitivity attached to religion is the

extreme reaction provoked by Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses in the

Muslim World, where he was accused of blasphemy in relation to the Prophet

Mohammed and his wives, with a number of religious leaders and groups even

demanding his execution. A similar incident that shows the importance of religion and

its symbols in society is the recent wave of demonstrations and boycott campaigns

instigated against Danish goods following the publication of the Danish cartoons

92
depicting the Prophet Muhammad49 Muslims consider portraying images of God
. any

and his Prophet, Muhammad, a taboo topic which overtly threatensand attacks their

own face. However, these cartoons, which first appeared in a Danish newspaper, not

only portray images of the Prophet, but moreover mock him by showing him in a very

negative light; "one of the cartoonsshows Muhammad wearing a bomb-shapedturban"

(BBC World News: 6 February 2006)50 This incident therefore demonstrates how
.
images, and not only words, can be highly offensive and threatening to the face of the

addressee,an issue in
not addressed Brown and Levinson's politeness theory.

The use of religious euphemisms has a long history in all languages. A good example of

an old religious euphemism is the expression Bless in

You, used response to someone

to
sneezing, which was originally said prevent the devil from entering the body. In this

euphemistic expression, the subject God is clearly omitted to avoid any direct mention

of the deity or one of His symbols (Allan and Burridge 1991: 37).

3.3.3 Distasteful Topics: Disease, Death and Insults

Other than sex and religion, what counts as a distastefultopic varies from one culture or

community to another; each community seems to identify certain topics which evoke a

sense of embarrassment or effrontery. However, there are particular topics which are

universally recognised as distasteful in the sense that they pose a similar source of

discomfort or difficulty to interlocutors in approachingor discussing issuesrelated to

them, regardless of the cultural setting. As a result, various euphemistic expressions

49The publication of these provocative newspaper cartoons "led to violent protests in which
than 50 people died in Muslim countries" (BBC News 9 October 2006).
more
http: //news. bbc.co.uk/l/hi/world/europe/6033075. stm. (Last accessed 10 April 2007).
5' http: //news. bbc.co.uk/l/Iii/world/south asia/4684652.stm. (Last accessedI April 2007).

93
have evolved in relation to thesetopics, in order to minimise the degree
of apprehension

or offence that might be attachedeither to the speakeror the hearer,or both of them.

Certain types of disease and related symptoms are consideredto be a taboo topic in

many communities. Lettau discusses the way in which terms and expressions denoting

certain types of disease gain popularity at some point and become widely accepted

among the lay public, then "eventually die of causes varying from disuse, atrophy to

political incorrectness" (2000: 734). Among the factors that contribute to the

disappearance of these words and expressions, which now exist only in medical

dictionaries and past medical reports and research, is the introduction of various

euphemistic expressions. One of the examples that Lettau (ibid. ) is

mentions the term

venereal disease, which "has almost been eradicated" and is now replaced by the

transmitted disease51
euphemistic expression sexually .

In the field of medicine, the employment of euphemistic expressions is mainly

motivated by two factors. The first is the irrational fear among some speakers that by

overtly talking about or referring to a serious disease, they might catch it; for example,

the euphemism died after a long illness to mean that someone died of
many people use

direct reference to this fatal disease (Allan and Burridge 1991: 182).
cancer, avoiding

Foster (1966) similarly indicates that people of the Spanish-speaking village of

Tzintzuntzan in Mexico employ euphemistic expressions in discussing

normally

disease.He further explains that "people have a morbid fear

tuberculosis and venereal

former, it is that a person known to or suspected of having

of the so not surprising

is to be de la espalda ("ill in the upper back")" (ibid.: 58).

tuberculosis said enfermo

51 Lettau, (2000: 734) states that this substitution is "likely promoted by the Valentine's Day
flower and greeting card lobbies".

94
The second factor is the desire on the part of speakersto
protect the face of othersand

attempt to eliminate any elementsof communication that might causethem humiliation

or disturbance. Allan and Burridge suggest this in arguing that "the

euphemistic
language of disease and illness is sometimes
motivated by politeness conventions. We

prefer to hint at an indecorous and embarrassing illness rather than to name it

directly... "(1991: 192). Consequently, examples of

euphemisms designed to avoid the

unpleasantconnotations of words and expressionsdenoting diseaseare very common.

Thus, diarrhea is commonly referred to as the runs or the trots in English, being
sick

replaces the unpleasant vomiting and blood-poison is a common substitute for syphilis,

to mention only few euphemisms commonly in use.

A related and similarly distasteful topic for many people is the universal phenomenon of

death. In referring to death, people often conceal the unpleasant or sad aspect of the

event by employing various euphemistic expressions. These euphemisms include

expressions and words such aspass away, lose, perish andfade away, among others.

According to Allan and Burridge, the taboo attached to death is mainly motivated by the

following types of fear: fear of the loss of close and loved people, fear of the decay and

"disintegration" of the body, fear of the mystery surrounding what comes after death

and fear of the "malevolent" spirits or souls of the dead (1991:153). Another motivation

for using euphemisms in this area is interlocutors' desire to take into consideration

others' feelings of sorrow and sadnessduring their ordeal, by attempting to cushion

references which might directly evoke their grief

95
In the Arab World, Arabs continue to speakof death and the dead indirectly
whenever

possible, although many strongly believe in the idea of another life afterwards.Racy

interestingly states that "[a]t any time that death becomes

a subject of serious
discussion, two phenomenaoccur: God is mentioned in one form
or another, and a

euphemism is substituted for the word "death". Often the term used is an ingenious

condensation of the two" (1969: 872, original emphasis). In everyday life, Arabs

employ a wide range of euphemistic expressions derived mainly from religion in

dealing with this distasteful topic (insults in Arabic are also derived mainly from

religion as the data analysis in Chapter Five shows, see section 5.2.1). A dead person,

for instance, is referred to as '-tl 'one forgiven'; 'one who passedto God's

mercy' or -i"V, 'the precious lost'.

Finally, insults and swear words are another area of vocabulary that explicitly threatens

the public image of interlocutors. Insulting language threatens personal autonomy. Like

other types of euphemisms, whether an expression is offensive, and the extent to which

it may be considered offensive, is culturally and linguistically specific. For example, if

someone says "what you are saying is nonsense", some people would perceive this

utterance as a severe form of criticism, concluding that the purpose of the statement is to

threaten their face, to undermine them, it

whereas others may understand as a request

for more clarification.

Euphemisms serve to mitigate the negative impact of insults that are triggered by

taboo terms. Allan and Burridge argue that violation of taboo terms in some
various

"automatically causesharm (even death) to the violator and perhapshis/her

contexts

fellows euphemism can be quite literally a matter of life or death" (2006: 237). In
...

96
Britain, for instance,up to the seventeenthcentury peoplewho
utteredinsulting or taboo

words against religion and who were subsequently convicted of blasphemy, were

punishedby burning.

To conclude this section, in conversational encounters, interlocutors usually attempt to

communicate politely and avoid committing face threatening acts that may jeopardise

the public image of either the speaker or the hearer. When a potential threat is evoked,

euphemism as a politeness strategy is one of the most important and common

mechanisms for establishing and maintaining a friction-free encounter. As Enright puts

it, euphemisms are "alternatives to dispreferred expressions, and are used in order to

avoid possible loss of face" (1986: 14). He further explains that these unsettling

expressions are usually evoked by stimuli that might be taboo, fearsome, distasteful, or

by expressions that are intrinsically loaded with negative connotations which prevent

the speaker from communicating his/her intention on a given occasion. Hasegawa sums

up the importance of euphemism in human communication thus:

There are various styles in which a person expresseshis/her own perceptions. If

we do not consider the forms of the language we apply, we can easily offend
others. On the other hand, manipulating various language forms skilfully can
enhance satisfactory relationships with others. Languages have euphemisms to
protect a speaker from being offensive and/or to create harmony between
interlocutors. (Hasegawa 2001)

3.4 Towards a Model of Analysis

Having introduced and discussed what typically motivates the use of euphemisms and

topic I
euphemised, attempt in this sectionto developa model
what areasare commonly

that the various types of euphemismsidentified in the

of analysis can effectively address

Arabic subtitles of Friends.

97
A limited number of models for analysing
euphemismsas strategiesof politeness,in

particular strategies linked to specific topics (i. e. sexual references

and distasteful
topics) have been introduced and elaboratedin various languages,including English
and
Arabic (see e.g. Williams 1975, Warren 1992, Farghal 1995, Linfoot-Ham 2005).

Unlike the present study, these models are designed to investigate

euphemistic

expressions within a single language, rather than to account for this phenomenon in the

context of translation.

Very little research has been conducted on investigating the

way euphemisms are

rendered in translation, particularly between English and Arabic. Mohammed (2007)

adopts a prescriptive approach in investigating the errors that translators commit in

rendering various euphemistic expressionsin the Holy Qur'an and argues that these

ýwrong' translations sacrifice the intended meaning of the Arabic text and disrupt

readers' understanding of the message. The scope of his study is very limited.

Mohammed's findings are based on the analysis of two English translations of a limited
52
number of examples .

In a more comprehensive study, Farghal (1995) proposes a model in which he examines

euphemism as a pragmatic phenomenon by analysing various examples drawn mainly

from Standard Arabic and colloquial Jordanian Arabic. He argues that euphemisms in

Arabic flout one or more of the maxims of conversation outlined by Grice (1975),

which consequently leads to the communication of specific implicatures. Farghal also

suggests that Arab speakers adopt four main strategies in producing euphemisms,

" The two English translationsare Zidan's The Glorious Quran Textand Translationand
Pickthall's TheMeaning of the Glorious Koran.
98
namely the use of figurative expressions, circumlocutions, remodellings and
53
antonyms

As Farghal (1995) points out, figurative expressionsare responsiblefor the production

of most euphemisms in natural language. He argues that death and its derivatives are the

most commonly euphemised words in Arabic, that "most native speakers of Arabic

frequently shun the neutral lexical verb ýLL.

- 'to die' when making reference to the

occurrence of death, in favour of one of a multitude of figurative euphemisms referring

to the same thing" (ibid.: 369). One example offered by Farghal that illustrates this

strategy is the following Modem Standard Arabic euphemism-

J.

intaqala ila rahmat-i-l-lah

Transferred (he) to mercy-GEN-DEF-God
'He transferred to the mercy of God'.
(ibid.: 370)

Needless to say, the use of this (and is

other) euphemistic expressions predominantly

context dependent.

According Farghal, many in Arabic are also generated by

to euphemisms

He that this device involves "the breaking down of neutral or

circumlocutions. argues

their or, more technically, subjecting these terms to

taboo terms to atomic concepts,

therefore downplaying the force of their obvious

componential analysis", and

Under this heading, Farghal offers several examples of circumlocutionary

connotations.

frequently in Modem Standard Arabic, together with their taboo

euphemisms used

equivalents, as in the following example:

53These devices will be explained later in this chapter.

99
 A. ba'ia-t-u hawan a Z-jLj (bayyait hawa)54
,o
seller-FEM-NOM love
6aseller of love'
B. sharmutat-un (sharmutah)
4aprostitute'
(ibid. 373-75)

The euphemistic expression a-o Z-;L.,(a seller of love) successfully conceals the negative

connotation of the highly offensive term (a prostitute). Its use may be motivated

by speakers' attempt to be more polite, or to improve the social representation of

prostitutes "by highlighting the positive aspectsof their jobs" (ibid: 273). Farghal (ibid. )

argues that circumlocution is not only restricted to taboo words, but may also be

employed to mitigate a wide range of negative expressions in Modern Standard Arabic,

as the following example reveals:

A. Wada'a hadd-an li-hayat-ih-i Ljý LIM,

put (he) limit-ACC to-life-his-GEN

'He put an end to his life'.

B. Intahara
'He committed suicide'.

The euphemism in sentence (A) mitigates the reference to a shocking way of dying,

to mention it in a relatively more positive

committing suicide, and allows a speaker

It the impact of the reference by emphasizing the doer's choice to

way. reduces negative

to his/her life, thus distracting interlocutors from the painful aspects of the
put an end

event itself

by Jordanian Arabic
54These Modem Standard Arabic expressions are followed their colloquial
equivalents in brackets.
100
Euphernisationin colloquial rather than StandardArabic
may also be achievedthrough
remodellings, defined as "the substitution of a semantically
unrelated or nonsensical
word for an offensive or a dispreferred one" (ibid.: 375). It is usually
essentialfor
44remodelings[to] rhyme with the words they
replace, thus functioning as graphic

reminders of the taboo words" (ibid.: 376). The following example offered by Farghal

clearly illustrates this process:

A. Yil'an dik-ak
May He damn rooster-your
'Damn your rooster'

B. YiPan din-ak ý
14) ý.:
May He damn religion-your
'Damn your religion'
(ibid.: 375)

The Arabic word 4-) 'your religion' in sentence B. is replaced by the semantically

unrelated word (euphemism) in sentence A., namely 4. j 'your rooster'. Though it

encodes a completely different semantic content, 4-) functions as a euphemism here,

softening the impact of the original insult. It has a similar rhyme to the original and

hence recalls it, but simultaneously allows speakersto avoid bluntly uttering the insult,

is
which perceived as a serious threat to the face of most Arabs.

Finally, euphemisms in Arabic can be generated by the use of antonyms. In this process,

interlocutors replace the taboo or undesirable word with its opposite equivalent. Farghal

argues that antonymous euphemisms "effectively implicate the speaker's wishes and

hope that the negative state in question will be replaced by its positive counterpart"

(ibid.: 376). Thus the negative term 'ill' can be replaced by its antonym, ý"

'healthy' in certain contexts in order to "express sympathy and solidarity with the

101
addresseeand/or referent via implicatures" (ibid. ), and thus maintain and enhance

his/her public image. Employing this antonymous implies that the speaker
euphemism

is assuringthe addresseethat he/shewill recover soon, despitethe fact that this

may not
be necessarilytrue. However, it should be mentionedhere that both the
speakerand the

addresseeare normally aware of the strategic use of such euphemismsand the social

functions they fulfil in a genuine situation.

Unlike other models of euphemism, such as Williams' (1975) and Warren's (1992), the

scope of Farghal's account of this phenomenon seems to be relatively narrow and

exclusively restricted to Arabic. Farghal (1992) generalises the findings of his study by

drawing only on four devices illustrated and supported by a few examples. As a result,

this model fails to offer a solid theoretical basis that can explain the majority of the

euphemisms examined in my data. Nevertheless, specific aspects of Farghal's model

may be incorporated in the model proposed for the current study where appropriate.

In order to examine the phenomenon of euphemism productively in this it

study, seems

more useful to introduce and discuss in more detail the two models of euphemism

by Williams (1975) and Warren (1992). In practice, these overlap, but

proposed

together they offer a better basis for a productive model of analysis than Farghal's and

that are limited in scope, and offer few, decontextualised examples.

similar models

3.4.1 Williams' Semantic Processes of Euphemisation

In explaining how formed, Neaman and Silver (1995) suggest that all
euphemisms are

draw and linguistic features and follow the

euphemisms on the same psychological

development, their cultural and historical setting. This

same pattern of regardless of

is employed by participants across

implies that euphemisation a universal phenomenon

102
several languages. Williams points out that "euphemism is such a pervasive human

phenomenon, so deeply woven into virtually every known culture, that one is tempted to

claim that every human has been pre-programmed to find ways to talk around tabooed

subjects" (1975: 198). In investigating this linguistic phenomenon, Williams (1975:

200-2) argues that euphemisms (whatever the cultural and historical setting) may be

formed through five major semantic processes, as shown in Figure 3 below. This

diagram is followed by a brief description and a few examples to illustrate the nature

and the mechanismof eachdevice:

Figure 3.- A visual representation of Williams' model of euphemisation

103
Williams suggests that euphemisms
are most commonly created by borrowing (1975:

200). If a word or an expression is

associated with negative or sensitive meanings,

interlocutors may substitute it with a word

or expression from another language that

communicatesthe same messagebut avoids the negative connotation of the domestic

item. Avoidance of such unsettling items communicatesthe intended

meaning while

causing less embarrassment,and thus eliminates possible threats to interlocutors'

positive face. A good example of this semantic process is the word lingerie, which is

often used as a euphemism in English to refer to items of intimate apparel worn by

women. The word was originally introduced into English from French as a euphemism

55
to avoid potential embarrassmentwhen referring to women's underwear.

Another semantic process that generates various euphemistic expressions is widening

(Williams 1975: 200; see also Ullmann 1963, Warren 1992, Newman and Silver 1995).

This process often results in mitigating the unpleasant meanings of some words by

blunting "the impact of the semantic features being communicated in a single word by

moving up one level of generality to name the subordinate set, usually omitting the

specific feature that would unequivocally identify the referent" (Williams 1975: 200).

The Oxford Companion to the English Language defines generalisation as: "A process

that widens the meaning of a word, phrase, or lexeme". Widening

of semantic change

thus involves replacing a negative or an embarrassinglexical item with a more general

(and hence less one; a good example is the use of

negative or embarrassing)

'satisfaction' as a euphemism for orgasm. Needless to say, the employment of this

55It is worth noting here that lingerie nowadays is highly sexually loaded.

104
vague form of language (satisfaction) results in
masking the undesirable or

embarrassingconnotation attachedto the more specific item (orgasm).

Williams (1975: 200-1) discusses another process that generates various types
of

euphemisms, namely semantic shift. This is similar but not identical to widening.

Here, an utterance naming a specific part of the general process substitutes the central

distasteful reference, which relates to it metonymically, as in the use of back to refer to

buttocks and go to bed with to refer to having a sexual relationship with someone.In

illustrating this process, Williams (ibid.: 201) discusses the use of a grief therapist,

arguing that this euphemistic expression focuses on the emotions of the bereaved,

although the main task of this person is to dispose of the body. He further explains that

46aname for an element within the larger process diverts attention from the central

element in the complex of dealing with dead people" (ibid. )

Euphemistic expressions can also be created by metaphorical transfer (Williams

1975:201). In this process, speakers transfer a quality associated with one thing to

another metaphorically (usually comparing unlike things). The euphemisms established

by this process are often romantic and poetical expressions. Gibbs argues that

ý4 is for how people communicate about abstract, difficult-to-talk-

metaphor essential

ideas, of ordinary experience. In this way, metaphor is indeed

about and about aspects

just (1999: 44). Neaman and Silver (1995: 10)

necessary and not nice or ornamental"

this type of euphemism the use of blossom to refer to a pimple

offer as an example of

(comparing one flowering to another metaphorically).

105
Finally, euphemisms can be coined by a semantic process known as phonetic

distortion (Williams 1975: 201-2), where interlocutors reluctant to

utter certain words

may pursue various linguistic means that fall under this device. In approaching phonetic

distortion, Williams seems to be content with naming only a few processes

accompanied by some examples, without providing any further definitions nor

explaining the mechanism of each process. Below, I briefly introduce each of these

processes and attempt to illustrate 56

them with some examples :

1. Abbreviation: this processresults in the production of a new, shortenedword that

consists of a number of letters taken from the original word or phrase. An example

of a euphemism generated by abbreviation is 'ladies", is

which a shortened form of

the phrase'ladies' room'.

2. Apocopation: this is a process in which a new word is generated by deleting one

or more sounds from the end of the original word, especially if these sounds are

unstressed. For example, the euphemism 'vamp', used to refer to a seductive

is
woman, a shortened form of vampire.

3. Acronyms: this involves formulating new words from the initial letters of existing

For the acronym 'JC' stands for Jesus Christ and 'STD'
words or phrases. example,
57
standsfor Sexually Transmitted Disease

4. Back-formation: this is "the reverseof affixation, being the analogicalcreation of

from word falsely assumed to be its derivative"

a new word an existing

(Encyclopaedia Britannica). In other words, this process leads to the coinage of new

from (the of one part of speech for another) on the

words existing words substitution

56For a brief account of these processessee also Neaman and Silver (1995: 9-12).
5' An acronym is an abbreviation consisting of the first letters of each word in the name of
as a word (Cambridge Dictionary).
something, pronounced
106
 false assumptionthat the existing words are a derivative of the new ones.Williams

offers the example of the verb 'to burgle' being formed from the noun 'burglar' and

the noun 'creep' being derived from the adjective 'creepy'.

5. Reduplication: this involves producing a new euphemistic word by repeating a

letter or a syllable of the original word. An example of a euphemism generatedby

this device is 'pee-pee' for 'piss'. This euphemistic expression is formed by

repeating the first letter of the verb 'piss' (Williams 1975: 202).

6. Phonetic distortion: in this process, new words are constructed by changing a

in
sound the original word or phrase. For instance, the euphemism 'Gosh' is derived

from 'God'.

7. Blending: is a word-formation process that involves coining new words by

least two words. For example, 'satphone' is formed by fusing:

merging parts of at

6satellite' and 'telephone', it is used to refer to a mobile phone , which is directly

connected to orbiting communications satellites. An example of a euphemism

formed by blending is 'gezunda' meaning a chamber pot, an object which goes

under the bed (Neamanand Silver 1995: 11).

8. Diminutive: this process involves producing new words by shortening existing

that signals affection or smallness. Thus, the

words or phrases and adding an affix

'Heinie' is diminutive 'hind end', usedto refer to 'buttocks' (ibid. ).

euphemism a Of

its treated in passing in Williams' (1975:

Phonetic distortion and various processes are

does feature in the data explored in the current study

201-2) model. The device also not

and will thus be excluded from the proposed model of analysis.

107
Williams' model, however, does not fully account for all the examples of euphemisms

detected in the Arabic subtitles of Friends, and it is thus necessaryto modify and

complement some aspectsof this model. Warren (1992) outlines a helpful model that

may inform a more comprehensivemodel of analysisto be elaboratedin section3.4.3.

3.4.2 Warren's Model of Euphemisation

Warren (1992) predominantly focuses on how word forms can be related to sets of

referents in a particular context to generate various novel meanings. She claims to offer

a "more detailed and exhaustive" classification of euphemismsthan previous models

(ibid.: 134). She examines 500 examples drawn predominantly from Spears' (1981) A

Dictionary of Slang and Euphemisms (400 examples), with a further 100 examples

from Neaman and Silver's (1983) A Dictionary of Euphemisms. In analysing

extracted

Warren that there are four main devices that account for the
these euphemisms, argues

(ibid.: 134-157). Figure 4 below, outlines these

majority of the examples examined

devices and their sub-processes,and is followed by a brief descriptionwith a number of

examples to illustrate each heading.

108
 Euphemisms

1. Word 2. Phonemic 3. Loan words 4. Semantic

formation devices innovation
modification

I. Compounding 1. Back slang 1. Particularization

2. Derivation 2. Rhyming slang 2. Implications
3. Blends 3. Phoneme replacement 3. Metaphors
4. Acronyms, etc 4. Abbreviation 4. Metonyms
5. Onomatopoeia 5. Understatements
6. Overstatements
7. Reversals

Figure 4.- Warren's devicesfOr constructing euphemisms

Under Word formation devices, Warren includes several ways of producing

euphemisms, such as compounding (as in 'restroom'), acronyms (FBI), blends

('brunch' and 'motel'), etc. Although Warren lists blends as a potential way of

generating euphemisms, she does not explain how the device operates nor does she give

any examples of this process. Linfoot-Ham identifies this as a weakness in Warren's

model in his investigation of the way sexual euphemisms are formed, suggesting that

this device "can be probably removed from the model until evidenceof its validity is

produced" (2005: 242). As far as this study is concerned, the entire category of word

formation devices, including blends, seems irrelevant; it does not account for any

109
euphemistic expressionsdetectedin the data. I therefore proposeto exclude it from the

model of analysisto be adoptedin the current research(seesection3.4.3).

Phonemic modification: Warren mentions several processes under this heading, such

as back slang (e.g. 'epar' for the word 'rape'), phoneme replacement (e.g. fug for the

abusive 'fuck'; another good example is the well known fashion brand Fcuk)58rhyming
,
slang (e.g. peanut butter for 'nutter') (1992: 133). Phonetic modification is similar to

Williams' category ofphonetic distortion (see Figure 3 above).

Loan words (similar to Williams' category of borrowings): in this process, foreign

words are imported from other languages. Warren includes some examples in English,

including calaboose from Spanish to refer to 'jail' and sativa from Latin to refer to

'marijuana'. She also suggeststhat 'classical loans' are particularly preferred in English,

"since they imply learnedness and matter-offactness and so elevate 'the tone' of the

word" (ibid.: 132). Examples of classical loans include rectum, urine andfaeces.

Semantic innovation: this process generatesa new sensefor some established words or

phrases. Warren (ibid.: 134) divides this heading into seven main processes,and offers

following for 59('growth' for cancer), implications

the examples each: Particularizations

('go to the toilet' for defecate/urinate), metaphors ('blossorn' for pimple), metonyms

('back' for bum), reversals ('blessed' for damned), ('drug

understatements habit' for

drug addiction) and overstatements('sanitary engineer' for garbageman and 'visual

engineer' for window cleaner). In analysing her data, Warren places special emphasis

heading (some these will be discussedin more detail later in this

on this of processes

chapter).

58Fcuk stands for the designer label 'French Connection United Kingdom'.
59This process is discussed in Williams' model under Widening.
110
For the purposesof this study, I will exclusively draw
on Warren's last device, namely

semantic innovation, in discussing and analysing the data derived from Friends. Word

formation devices and phonemic modification be disregardedin this study, since

will

most of the processes listed under them seem to be unproductive in generating

euphemisms in the medium of subtitling, as my data analysis will subsequently

illustrate.

The two models of euphemisation outlined by Williams (1975) and Warren (1992)

demonstrate how various word formation devices, loan words and phonemic
and

semantic processes contribute to the production of several types of euphemism.

However, many euphemistic expressions identified in the data do not fall clearly or

systematically under the set of categories outlined in one or the other model. Moreover,

neither model was designed to account for euphemisms in the context of translation or

any kind of cross cultural communication. In the following section, therefore, I attempt

to combine and supplement the two models presented above in order to elaborate a more

comprehensive model that can specifically account for euphemistic expressions detected

in the data.

3.4.3 Towards a Politeness Theory-Oriented Model of Euphemisation in Subtitling

Given that Williams' (1975) and Warren's (1992) models frequently overlap but cannot

separately address all types of euphemisms identified in my data, common processes

by both models, which might be labelled differently in each account, are

addressed

grouped together under unified headings. New devices are added to this streamlined

they prove productive in investigating my data. Devices and sub-processes

model where

do feature in the current corpus and are not likely to be relevant in the context
which not

III
of translation, and especially in the medium of subtitling, will be included in the
not
revised model.

Figure 5 below outlines the main components

of the revised model of euphemisation,
followed by a description and examples
of each device:

Figure 5: A visual representation of a politeness theory-oriented model of euphemisation

Widening: this involves the use of a general term to replace a more specific one in a

particular context, or the replacement of a specific cause with a generalised effect.

Therefore, euphemistic phrases under this heading need to be particularised in a given

context in order to provide interlocutors with logical connotations. Williams (1975),

who labels this device as widening in his model, also that

stresses it accountsfor many

euphemistic expressions. Linfoot-Ham (2005: 232) mentions a number of euphemisms

formulated by this process, including satisfaction to refer to 'orgasm' and innocent to

These examples demonstrate that the way in which general terms are
mean virginal'.

4particularised' is highly dependant. For example, satisfaction might be

context

through means, not exclusively through 'orgasm'. The term

achieved a variety of

112
functions as a euphemism of
orgasm only in specific contexts that allow interlocutors to

decode it as such. Finally, widening

may sometimes produce euphemisms by splitting

the general features between two words. Among the

examples that Williams offers in

explaining this process is, for instance, the euphemism criminal

assault, which might

possibly cover a wide range of acts, but by convention usually refers to

rape (1975:
200). He further argues that ý4
spreading semantic components across several words

rather than delivering them in a single word lessensthe impact" of the original referents

(ibid.)

1. Implication (semantic shifts): This strategy features in Warren's model

under

implication and in Williams' as semantic shifts. Opting for implication rather

than semantic shifts allows me to introduce the category of semantic

misrepresentation (a new category I introduce and discuss as Strategy 6 below)

without risking confusion with the term semantic shifts. Implication is not as

simple and straightforward as widening; it involves two propositions, where the

is
second usually a logical consequence of the first. Euphemisms generated by

this process suggest their meaning implicitly, forcing the addressee to make

some effort before identifying their implied value. Warren (1992: 143) explains

that a euphemism is viewed as an implication if "the connection between the

conventional and novel sets of referents is that of an antecedent to a

in
consequent", other words if X is valid, then Y is valid too; if the conventional

is
sense valid then the euphemistic sense is valid too. A good example offered

by Warren is the euphemism loose, which conventionally means 'unattached',

the potential novel interpretation (sexually easy/available).

and which generates

Thusý'unattached' as an establishedmeaningof loose is that

an antecedent leads

113
 to the construction of that novel contextual consequent.Nonetheless,in
some
euphemistic expressions, the established meaning may represent the consequent

and the novel sensethe antecedent.A good examplethat illustrates this caseis

the euphemismbend an elbow, when referring to drinking (alcohol). Needlessto

say, the establishedsenseof this euphemism,curve one's arm, is the antecedent

and the new euphemistic sense,drinking, is the consequent; if drinking is valid,

then bending the elbow is probably valid too. Therefore, implication in this

study involves producing a euphemism associated with a taboo term through

antecedent-consequent relationship; when a euphemism is uttered, interlocutors

indirectly retrieve its implied associatedmeaning.

2. Metonyms: This process is similar to widening: both result in general

substitutions. However, metonyms, as the term suggests, are metonymically

related to the items they substitute. Tymoczko (1999: 42) defines metonymy as

44 figure of speech in which an attribute or an aspect of an entity substitutes for

a

the entity or in which a part substitutes for the whole". However, it should be

here that euphemisms produced by the process of metonymy

pointed out

the specific parts or attributes. In other words,

represent whole which conceals

the direction of the relationship between the whole and specific parts or

by Tymoczko, is reversed in euphernising taboo words (the

attributes, as offered

the whole entity, which stands for specific part or

euphemism represents

Metonymy, then, broadly refers to using a

attribute, not the other way around).

that for another entity associated to it in a whole-part

word or phrase stands

Yet, in her analysis, Warren (1992: 149-151) argues that metonyms

relationship.

divided into four according to the relations between the

can be groups,

114
 establishedand novel referents: (a) Casualrelation,
e.g. ashesas a metonymic
euphemism of 'marijuana', (b) Whole-part relation,
e.g. dressfor sale, which
refers metonymically to 'prostitute', (c) Locative relation, in
as groin, which
metonymically refers to 'pubic area' (that which is at the
groin), and (d)
Equative relation, e.g. silver when
usedto refer to 'cutlery' (that which is made

of silver).

To avoid potential confusion and overlap with other

categories, metonyms will

be limited in this study to the investigation of

euphemisms which hold a whole-

part relationship between their established and novel referents.

3. Demetaphorisation: in principle, demetaphorisation is primarily based on the

process of metaphorisation as discussed in Williams under metaphorical transfer

in
and Warren as a device of semantic innovation, specifically under metaphors.

In both models, this device generates euphemisms that conceal the offensive or

undesirable associations of the original items, by referring to something that is

seen as possessing similar features to the relevant person or object. In other

words, metaphorical transfer relies on establishing a comparison between two

unrelated sets of referents that share one important thing. Examples of

metaphors that are frequently in

used our daily conversation include phrases like

'time is money', 'a heart of stone', 'a blanket of snow', 'I am screwed up', and

'he is a fox'. Nearnan and Silver argue that euphemisms formulated by this

device "are often romanticizings, poeticizings and softenings of the original

word" (1995: 10). In her account, Warren (1992) points out that metaphorisation

is a vital processof creating meaning,which has beenextensivelyaddressedand

115
 examined in the literature. Furthermore,shearguesthat metaphorshavereceived

more attention than other linguistic devices, including particularisation,

implication and metonyms, probably because

of "the intriguing character of

metaphoric meanings", which makes this device "more conspicuous"

(ibid.: 147). In employing this linguistic device, interlocutors

are usually faced

with many possible interpretations (properties) that "connect the two referent

sets and so the interpreter cannotbe certain that (s)he has retrievedthe intended

one or ones"

However, demetaphorisation, as the term suggests,differs from metaphorisation

in the direction of formulation. In other words, following this process results in

defusing the metaphorical sense (distasteful, offensive or inappropriate) of a

given utterance, usually generating a euphernised alternative. Consequently, this

device is specifically introduced in this model to account for several examples of

euphemisms identified in a particularly challenging mode of translation, namely

subtitling. As the data analysis reveals, this strategy is used in subtitling to

neutralise metaphorical expressions which are often employed by interlocutors

as dysphernismsto expresstheir anger,frustration or dissatisfaction,

such as ass

in Example 5.14 and we are screwed in Example 5.15.

4. Borrowing (loan words): Listed as borrowing in Williams' model and as loan

in Warren's, this is one of the major devices for generatingeuphemisms

words
for adding new words to a language. In this process,
and a significant source

interlocutors import words (euphemisms) from other languages to refer to

116
 offensive or inappropriate elements, and it is the foreign initial
origin and

unfamiliarity of the borrowed item that allows it to mitigate potential offence.

Finally, two new categorieswhich do not appearin Williams'

or Warren's models,need
to be integrated into the modified model, namely semantic
misrepresentation and

omission (Don't do the FTA).

5. Semantic misrepresentation: this process relies crucially on shifts across

various semantic fields in a particular context, leading to the production of a

type of euphemism that is very specific to the context of translation. This device

sacrifices the semantic content of the offending item in favour of a substitute,

often derived from a different semantic field, which completely avoids the

offensive reference. In other words, employing semantic misrepresentation leads

to the production of semantically inaccurate or even a false representation of the

original reference, by replacing the relevant (offensive) items with a

semantically non-equivalent content (euphemisms). To demonstrate how

euphemisms might be produced by this device, I discuss below one example

from Friends. The following extract is from the tenth season, episode number

one, The one after Joey and Rachel kiss:

Example 3.2

Participants: Monica and Chandler. Contextual information: Ross has invited his

friends (Chandler, Monica, David, Phoebe,Joey and Rachel) to attend his speechat a

is taking in Barbados. In the following extract, Monica and

conference which place

117
Chandler are back in their room in ParadiseHotel, Barbados,
after Chandlerhas beaten
Mike at Table tennis.

Monica: Oh, the way you crushed Mike at Monica:

ping pong was such a turn-on.
You wanna ? (hinting at having [The way you overcame Mike in
...
sex) ping pong was amazing do you
want to ...? ]
Chandler: You know, I'd love to, but I'm a Chandler: - LU3
;
little tired. [I would like to but I am tired]

Screenshot] Screenshol 2

In this extract, turn-on,, a direct sexual reference in English, is replaced by

4arnazing', in the Arabic subtitles. The subtitler here sacrifices the semantic content of

the original utterance, offering viewers an acceptable non-equivalent term that can pass

as appropriate in the given context. This euphemism consequently results in

downplaying the sexual content of the scene and minimises the threat to the face of

Arab viewers. However, it is still obvious from the way Monica is playing with her

finger on Chandler's chest in 1 2

screenshots and and from the question she leaves

60,
'do ?,
that she is hinting at having sex with Chandler.
unfinished, you wanna...

Monica's intention is indirectly communicated by employing one of the strategic

60Asfar as Brown and Levinson's theory of politeness is concerned, this strategy achieves
face-threatening act that is "half undone", where the speaker
politeness through generating a
"can leave the implicature 'hanging in the air"' (1987: 227).

118
outputs of the off record strategy, namely 'Be incomplete, use ellipsis', which violates

Grice's Maxims of Quantity and Manner. The sexual dimension is further reinforced

shortly afterwards when Chandler acceptsMonica's invitation; we seethem both about

to lie down in bed when they are unexpectedly interrupted by Phoebe.

In investigating the nature of euphemism in Arabic, Farghal (1995: 375), as discussed

above (section 3.3), proposes a similar device of euphemisation, namely remodelings.

However, it must be noted that, unlike semantic misrepresentation, this process

generates 'funny sounding' euphemisms that to

often serve remind interlocutors of the

undesirable words. Thus, sound rhyming between the taboo term and its mitigated

is in
counterpart essential generating remodelings, but it is completely irrelevant to the

concept of semantic misrepresentation.

6. Omission (Don't do the FTA): this strategy is normally employed when the

calculated weight of the verbal act is very high. If a taboo or uncomfortableitem

is deemed to be seriously offensive or face threatening (if it cannot be tolerated),

interlocutors tend to mitigate the strength of the message by refraining from

the item/message at all, thus eliminating the threat altogether. This

uttering

thus represents the extreme end of the processes of euphemisation; the

strategy

the be softened or euphemised any further.

offensive content of original cannot

Unlike Brown and Levinson, who do not associate 'Don't do the FTA' with

this that 'Don't do the FTA' is a vital strategy of

euphemisation, study argues

linguistic Politeness that is followed by Arab subtitlers in euphemising many

terms, the data analysis will illustrate in Chapters

offensive or unpalatable as

Four and Five.

119
3.5 Conclusion

In this chapter, I have explored

various issues related to the phenomenon of

euphemisation as a politeness strategy and its significant impact on human

communication, as discussedbroadly in the literature. After discussing

a number of
accountsof euphernisation,I adoptedAllan and Burridge's (1991: 11) definition the
of
phenomenon,which incorporatesthe main tenets of Brown and Levinson's theory
of
politeness, especially the notion of face. In 3.3 1 illustrated the types of topics and areas

that are most commonly euphemised by interlocutors in human interaction; these

are

sex, religion and distasteful topics.

After testing Williams' (1975) and Warren's (1992) models of

euphemisms against

several examples extracted from the Arabic subtitles of Friends, I proposed a modified

version of the two models, which draws on the major components of Brown and

Levinson's politeness theory, namely the notion of face, face threatening acts and

politeness strategies. However, given that Williams' (1975) and Warren's (1992)

devices of euphernisation are primarily designed to operate in monolingual settings, it

was further necessary to introduce new strategies to strengthen the effectiveness of the

model, and consequently expand its applicability, beyond the boundaries of a single

language, to the medium of subtitling. To achieve this end, two new strategies, namely

semantic misrepresentation and omission (a strategy inspired by Brown and Levinson's

(1987) super-strategy 'Don't do the FTA') have been introduced and integrated in the

model. This politeness-oriented model is employed, in the next two chapters, as a

framework for conducting a pragmatic analysis of the Arabic -subtitled version of the

American sitcom Friends. The model, which is specifically designedto accountfor all

120
types of euphernisationidentified in the corpus, consistsof seven strategies:widening,

implication, metonyms,demetaphorisation,borrowing, semanticmisrepresentationand

omission.

121
 Chapter Four

Euphemising Sexual References

4.1 Introduction

Having identified the areas which often threaten interlocutors' face

and proposeda
modified model of analysis based mainly on Williams' (1959) and Warren's (1992)

models of euphemisationin the previous chapter, this chapter investigatesthe role of

in
euphemisms signalling politeness at appropriate levels in the Arabic- subtitled version

of Friends. I attempt to demonstrate here that the employment of euphemisms as a

strategic output of 'Do the FTA on record with mitigation', more specifically as a

negative politeness strategy as outlined in Brown and Levinson's theory, is one of the

most common strategies followed by translators in subtitling this sitcom into Arabic.

Moreover, drawing on Brown and Levinson's theory of politeness and the model of

euphernisation elaborated in Chapter Three, I illustrate how subtitlers' awarenessof

politeness can inform the choice of wording in the Arabic subtitles. I also attempt to

establish, here and in the following chapter,the extent to which Brown and Levinson's

theory of politeness can be applied successfully in translation studies, more particularly

in the medium of subtitling, using the subtitled sitcom Friends as a case study. The

various examples of face-threatening acts are categorised under two main headings;

namely sexual references (this chapter), which include the bulk of the examples

discussed, and distasteful topics, which include disease,death and insults (Chapter

Five). The examples are further divided according to the semantic process that

generates the euphemism in each instance. In other words, the semantic processes

in
introduced the previous chapter (section 3.4.3) will be usedas a structuring device to

classify and analysethe for

examplesselected analysis.

122
The main objective of analysing the
examples in this chapter and in Chapter Five is not

to list every single euphemism that might be detected in the data, but
rather to explore

what types of euphemism tend to be used by Arab subtitlers in rendering

particular

sensitive references, in an attempt to protect and maintain the face of their target

viewers.

4.2 Sexual References

Sex is a complex and taboo topic in the Arab World, one

which cannot be explicitly

discussed in public without evoking a sense of embarrassment discomfort for

or most

interlocutors 61 Needless to say, sexual references cover a wide range of broad topics
.
that give rise to embarrassment or apprehension in the context of a highly religious

region such as the Arab World; these include romantic and sexual relationships, body

parts (especially organs related to sex) and sexual orientation.

In exploring Arabs' attitudes towards sex, El-Noshokaty (2006) reports on Riham

Shebl, an independent researcher interested in female genital mutilation and other forms

of gendered violence, who points out that "though Arab culture stressessensuality, and

though Islam discusses the details is

of sexual practices openly, sex still frowned on in

Arab society". DeJong et al. draw a similar conclusion after observing several attempts

to raise people's awareness of sexual and reproductive health issues in the Middle East

North Africa, arguing that "cultural taboos are major obstacles to informed
and

discussions about sexual and reproductive health issues, particularly with regard to

in
61While sex may also be a taboo (or distasteful) topic many other cultures, it is particularly
interlocutors (Khalaf Gagnon 2006). This is therefore
threatening to the face of most Arab and
ultimately a question of degree of threat.

123
young people. Premarital sexual relationships are forbidden,
and talking about them or

about sexuality in general is often considered taboo" (2007: 1).

Brown and Levinson point out that "taboo topics, including

those that are inappropriate

in the context" (1987: 67) constitute face threatening

acts that impinge on the

addressees' positive face. Sexual references appear to pose a greater threat to the face
of
Arab viewers than any other topic of communication in Friends. This
threat stems

predominantly from the nature of the sitcom, which relies heavily on sexualhumour in

achieving its success. The social and religious background of most Arab viewers often

clashes with these openly discussed sexual topics, and they are thus perceived as taboo
62
signals that damage their public self image (positive face) Many explicit referencesto
.

sex and sexual organs in Friends are thus mediated in the subtitles, as we shall see,

especially since they often violate the basic principles and rules of Islam, such as

refraining from having sex before marriage and from showing particular parts of the

body in public. Needless to say, deviation from these established rules does take place

in some communities in the Arab World, and some Arabs do talk explicitly about sex,

not strictly following Islamic teachings. A recent example of addressing sexual taboos

publicly in the Arab World is 'The Big Talk' show in Cairo, in which an Arab

sexologist, Dr. Heba Kotb, openly presents and tackles sexual issues without the usual

constraints that apply broadly in Arab societies. Dr. Kotb starts the promo of her show,

aired after three years of negotiation, by saying "Sex. Don't be afraid. Join me to talk

about sex without shame". The responseto this extraordinary show has been muted:

women on the streetsof Cairo seemto be reluctant to discussit and men are "less than

enthusiastic about the subject", a response described by the CNN reporter Raman as an

" it is worth highlighting that in history, sexual referencesare much more prevalent in Arabic
(e.g Abu Nawas' poetry) than in English. It is only in modem times that things changed.

124
"expected sign of just how sensitive the topic of sex is in the Muslim
world" (Raman
2007). After five years practising as a sexologist in the Arab World, Dr. Kotb "managed

to broaden the social margin by giving sex educationcoursesto adults,married couples

and teens as well as professionals working in family health, psychologists and

sociologists" (EI-Noshokaty 2006). Nevertheless, exceptions such as Dr. Kotb's

programme aside, it is fair to say that sex remains a highly contentious and sensitive

issue throughout the region.

A comparative linguistic analysis of the selected English episodes of Friends and their

Arabic subtitles yields thirty seven examples of sexual euphemisms in the latter. Table

2 below shows the distribution of these sexual euphemisms in relation to the semantic

process that generates each instance. The distribution of euphemisms in Table 2 is fairly

even across the examined episodes, signalling the importance of this device as a

in
common strategy protecting and maintaining the face of Arab viewers.

As mentioned above, the following sections deal with the examination of these various

sexual euphemisms according to the processes that generate them. Each euphemism is

discussed in its original sequence after presenting the characters involved and providing

brief contextual information on the relevant scene, in addition to screenshots where

for to understandthe verbal A

exchanges. number of issuesrelatedto
necessary readers

the spatial and temporal constraintsof the medium of subtitling will also be highlighted

their impact on the production of the Arabic subtitlesdiscussed.

where appropriate,and

125
 Number of
Title of Episode Widening Implication Metonyms Demetaphor Semantic
euphemisms isation Borrowing Omission
t ation
misrepresen
Theoneafter
Joeyand Rachel
4 1
kiss 3

Theonewhere
Rossisfine I I

Theonewith
Ross'tan 8 5 2 1

Theonewith the
cake 6 1 1

Theonewhere
Rachel'ssister
4
babysits

Theonewith the
homestudy 0

Theonewith the
late
2
Thanksgiving

Theonewith the
birth mother I

Theonewhere
thestrippercries 6 5

Theonewhere
Chandlergets
2 1
caught

Theonewith
Phoebe's 3 2
wedding
Total 37 17 7 4 0 0 6 3

Table 2. Sexual References and Semantic Processes in Selected Episodes of Friends and their
Arabic subtitles.

Five main strategies are adopted by Arab subtitlers to maintain the face wants of their

target viewers and mitigate any sexual references that might threaten their public self

image. These strategies are: widening, implication, semantic misrepresentation, use of

metonyms, and omission. The analysis below is ordered according to the frequency of

each strategy in the current data, starting with the strategy that yields the most

examples.

126
4.2.1 Widening

Widening is the first semantic process in the

proposed model of euphemisation
discussed in Chapter Three (section 3.4.3). Widening in
results extending the scope of

the original meaning, where "a wider set of referents gradually appear[s] to
... expand

the semantic space" of a word or expression (Williams 1975: 175). However, it could be

fairly safely assumed that widening results in some loss of

semantic features, making it

harder for interlocutors to understand the specific meaning out

of context, as the

examples below will illustrate. In other words, widening generates euphemisms that

conceal the impact of the original words by moving up the scale of abstraction

(generalisation), "usually omitting the specific feature that would unequivocally identify

the referent" (ibid.: 200).

Table 2 above shows that this strategy generates seventeen euphemisms in the Arabic

subtitles of Friends. To start with, the is in

strategy clearly employed translating the title

of the eleventh episode The one when the stripper cries. This title is rendered into

Arabic as u. 'The dancer is crying'. The act of stripping, which involves taking
vs--.

off one's clothes to entertain others, would naturally be considered taboo activity in the

Arab world. Unlike in the West, where a stripper could be hired to celebratespecial

hen 63 stag and birthday parties, this phenomenonis almost

occasions such as nights ,

non-existent in the Arab culture. Clashing with the cultural values and religion of most

Arabs as it does, if translated literally into Arabic this term could evoke a senseof

for viewers. The subtitler opts here to downplay the sexual

shame or embarrassment

by substituting it with the more general word 'the dancer', a

meaning of stripper

63'Hen night' is mainly used in the United Kingdom and Ireland, while the is
same event called
in the United States, to a party organised for a woman who is
'bachelorette party' referring
about to get married.
127
term which refers to a person who performs
any type of dancing, including strip

dancing, ballet, ballroom and belly dancing. The

word stripper also occurs in the
following extract from the sameepisode, it is treatedin a similar fashion:
where

Example 4.1

Participants: Phoebe, Monica and Rachel (other women are also

attending the party).

Contextual information: the scene is Monica's apartment, where Monica and Rachel

are organising a bachelorette party (hen night) for Phoebe, who is getting married to

Mark. Having recently found out that Phoebe is expecting (or hoping) to have
a stripper

at her party, Monica and Rachel hire a male stripper over the phone. Shortly afterwards,

the stripper arrives; unexpectedly, he turns out to be an old and unattractive man.

Phoebe is upset and disappointed.

Phoebe: All right, Rachel? Phoebe: yj. L-)

[Rachel]
Rachel: Yeah? Rachel: ?1ý
[Yes]
Phoebe: Are you kidding? Phoebe: L-6
[Are you kidding?]
Rachel: We didn't know you wanted a stripper, Rachel: "L ý-ý
so we got the phone book and... got the
first name we could find OU4-3e. 1J-31
U-)1-11
-9
[We did not know that you
wanted a dancer/ so we
brought the phone book and
picked the first name we
found]

In this extract, stripper is again subtitled into Arabic as 'a dancer'. The choice

of widening as a means of euphernisationhere reflects the subtitler's of

awareness the

sensitivity of the concept of stripping in the Arab context.

128
The word stripping in Example 4.2 is similarly euphernizedin the Arabic
subtitle, again
by means of widening. Because of his age, the old stripper can no longer
perform

adequately,and Phoebeattemptsto help him think of how he might changehis career.

Example 4.2

Phoebe: Or you could teach stripping. Phoebe: j

CIX5 'LL<-'ý -91
You know, share your gift, pass -)-ý4

the torch [Or you could teach dancing

shareyour gift/ passthe torch]

In this extract,, stripping is transferred into Arabic as 'oekP, i. e. 'dancing'. The

subtitler conceals the sexual connotations of the original word by it

substituting with a

more general one. This recurrent choice of a widening strategy eliminates any potential

threat to the face of Arab viewers.

Another clear example of widening occurs in the following extract from the first episode

The one after Joey and Rachel kiss:

Example 4.3

Participants: Phoebe and Mike. Contextual information: Mike decides to break up

his Precious, to back to his ex, Phoebe. Mike leaves Phoebe in

with girlfriend, and go

his apartment and goes to he is supposed to meet Precious to end

a restaurant where

However, Precious does not show up, and Mike calls Phoebeto tell
their relationship.

her what happened.

Phoebe: J3;- U&U-

Phoebe: Hi, Mike's place. . -)IQ
[Hi this is Mike's house]
Mike: ýLuUt ..LJQ
Mike: Hey, it's Mike.
[Hi this is Mike]
Lý IýA
Phoebe: Ooh, that was fast. Phoebe: LD-
[That was fast]
JA - nw,

Mike: Oh, err... no, she's not here yet. Mike:

know, I think JýLst
F111 LA-
You -14a

129
 gonnatake off and break up with
her over the phone... [No sheis not hereyet I think I
will leaveand breakup with her
over the phone]
Phoebe: Yeah, you can't do that! Oh, Phoebe: J, ý a! IAý ýýi aL<-.
ý V
-)ý, "Qý
come64on Mike, strap on a LZ ý3ý1 ;ýLD lu.;. 4 U-1a
ull
pair Why don't you just tell r
her that we got back together?
You know, women appreciate [You cannot do that/ that is -ýýT
honesty. We also appreciate snobbish why don't you tell her
gentle spanking once in a while. that we got back together/ women
Just F.Y. I. appreciate honesty we also
appreciate gentle slapping/ from
time to time for your knowledge]

The subtitler here recognises the word spanking as a source of threat to viewers' face,

and therefore avoids translating it literally into Arabic. Spanking, in the English context,

refers to gentle slaps on the bottom to get or offer a feeling of sexual pleasure. The

subtitler translates this face-threatening reference to a taboo activity as

literally 'slaps'. Although the subtitler manages here to mask the sexual value of the

term, he/she a substitute that is likely to evoke a different meaning for

original produces

the target viewers. One possible interpretation could be that women sometimes like and

(being by men), which is very different from the intended

approve of violence slapped

here, in itself constitute a different face-threatening act, especially

meaning and could

for women viewers. In it

this sense, could be argued that this is also an example of

though it relies on widening to mitigate the perceived

semantic misrepresentation, even

threat to face.

through the process of widening occurs in the

Another face threatening act mitigated

The one where Ross isfine:

secondepisode,

64This example will be further discussed under semantic misrepresentation.

130
Example 4.4

Participants: Chandler, Monica, Colleen and her husband, Bill. Contextual

information: the scene is Bill and Colleen's
apartment. Chandler and Monica are

visiting the couple to get an idea of how they have managed to adopt
a child.
Attempting to explain the procedures of adopting
a child, Colleen is showing Monica,

is
who obsessedwith cleanness,a big white binder that is perfectly in order:

Colleen: It's pretty much all the Colleen: Jý

information you need. ýýl .!JU3bLJ1
[All the information which you
need]
Monica: Oh my god! Monica:
[Oh my God]
Colleen: Everything is broken down Colleen: JJI-Iz,?"L:P.Jua
,J Lýl ý-ý ;ý,
V.
into categories, and then j_ýýl J USýýl
cross-referenced, and then Vi ýJJSIJI
colour-coded to correspond [Everything is broken down into
with the forms in the back. headings and then tables and
references also the colours stand
for the meanings mentioned in the
end]
Monica: Thank you. (To Chandler.) I Monica: ýýl 1_ýý
think I just had a tiny orgasm [Thanks I think I feel happy]

The phrase had a tiny orgasm is subtitled into Arabic as 111','1 feel happy'.

This sexual reference, which can admittedly also pose a threat to the face of some

English viewers, would be perceived by most Arab viewers as highly inappropriate and

embarrassing. Substituting this problematic phrase with a wider euphemistic alternative

softens the potential threat it poses considerably. However, with no knowledge of

English, it would be impossible for the Arab to

viewers grasp the humour of Monica's

by the happiness could be achieved through

utterance, triggered word orgasm, since

Furthermore, by employing the strategy of widening in this instance,

many other ways.

Arab subtitlers communicate to their viewers a blander version of the original, since

in
'had a tiny orgasm I is specifically used this context to signal and emphasiseMonica's

131
obsessionwith cleanliness.Consequently,Monica's characteris perceiveddifferently in

the Arabic version of Friends.

A very similar example is offered by Warren, where she arguesthat

satisfactioncould
be employed as a euphemism for orgasm (1992: 139). She suggeststhat
specification of

the euphemistic meaning "typically involves retrieving some particular argument(s)"

and "may also involve retrieving the manner in which somethingoccurs or is enacted"

(ibid.: 138).

A closer analysis of the data reveals that Arab subtitlers repeatedly employ a few

general items to minimise the strength of some romantic and sexual references. These

common euphemistic expressions are usually regarded as safe and suitable substitutes to

sensitive utterances deemed inappropriate for Arab viewers. Among these, for instance,

is the word 's-Al', 'excitement', which is usedthree times in the Arabic subtitles in my

data as a widening device, to mask the sexual value of a range of English words. The

following extract from the third episode, The one with Phoebe's wedding, illustrates this

use of 'excitement':

Example 4.5

Participants: Chandler and Monica (Rachel and Phoebe are present). Contextual

information: the scene is Central Perk, where Rachel is helping Phoebe dress up prior

her Shortly Chandler and Monica enter the caf6 to double check
to wedding. afterwards,

is to inform her that Chandler is the person who will be

that Phoebe ready and also

her As organiser of the wedding, Monica

walking up the aisle. an enthusiastic

the location the who are participating in the event, using a

constantly checks of people

132
black microphone and head set. Observing Monica carefully, Chandler
seemsto be
impressedby the strict and well organisedway sheis running the
event.

Monica: Okay. (in her microphone) Monica: j-)ýl Jý ;xýu,L4.31

U."
It's zero hour. All teams L..ýý J. -ý
execute on my count. (to ;ý'V-qA
all) Let's get this bad boy [Okay it is zero hour all teams
on the road. work, when I give a signal.
Lets make these bad people
work]
Chandler: (to Monica) Is it okay that I Chandler: ?
to wear that head
want you 65 [Could you wear the head set
set in bed tonight? tonight?]
Monica: (checking her clipboard) I Monica: 2300 ;x-Ul 4.ri UýW -ýr- Lj-ý
-ý-
[I have an appointment of
have you scheduled for
nudity at 2300 hours. excitement at 2300]

Chandler: Oh yeah! (Monica walks Chandler: ýIj

(!
outside) [Wonderful]

66
Chandler is turned on by the firm and sexy way his wife, Monica, refers to Mike on

her microphone ('let's get this bad boy on the road'). He asks her to wear the head set in

bed later that night, and Monica humorously agrees to schedule him for nudity, writing

it down on her clipboard. Given that the word nudity communicates a sexual value that

the cultural norms of Arab viewers, the subtitler translatesit as 'ýP%

clashes with

'excitement'. The subtitler thus maintains and protects the face of the target viewers by

generating a more abstract substitute (a

widening the meaning of nudity and

euphemism). Furthermore, the subtitler clearly employs another strategy of

in Chandler's turn, omitting the phrase in

euphemisation, namely omission, modifying

bed to ensure that the word is not heavily chargedor explicitly connectedwith

sexual connotations.

6' This example will be discussed under omission.

66Mike is Phoebe's fianc6, who is about to get married to her.

133
The subtitler similarly draws on
widening by using the words 'the exciting', and
excitement', in translating the word sex in the following two
examples:

Joey: No, I do sex things 67

0 U 'I [No I do
ý-Ol exciting
things].
2. Chandler: I am about to have the
68 most organized sex anyone has ever
had
J_9. UA-L--ý ýýý SJLýI jj-ýI ý J
-,, =--JI ýDiAý IAL-j
JýSi ý,

[I am about to have the most organized

excitement anyone could get]

As in Example 4.5, the seemingly more innocent word is chosen in the above two

extracts as an appropriate equivalent to the more embarrassing sex, which generally

triggers a sense of unease in Arabic. Since "the referents of the euphemistic sensemust

be a subcategoryof the referentsof the dictionary sensefrom which it derives" (Warren

1992: 138), viewers here must particularize 'excitement', in order to retrieve the

source item it replaces.

Finally, in investigating the process of widening, I have identified a particular trend that

subtitlers draw on in euphemising sexual references in Friends, namely the use of

empty words. These are words like something, thing, it, etc. which make little sensein

the Arabic subtitles, since they may be interpreted in many different ways. One example

that demonstrates the employment of this type of widening occurs in the following

scene,taken from the third episode,The one with Ross'tan.

THE
JOHN RYUkkiC
UNiVERSffy'
Joey's turn is taken from The one with Ross'tan episode.
68Chandler's turn is taken from The one with Phoebe's wedding episode.

134
Example 4.6

Participants: Joey and Rachel. Contextual information:

the scene is Joey's flat, where

he and Rachel have just come back from date. After deciding to sleep together,
a

although they find it extremely difficult to move from being friends to being lovers,

they start caressing and kissing each other passionately. Shortly afterwards, Joey tries to

undo Rachel's bra but fails. After trying several times without success,Joey decides to

give up, leaves the couch and tries furiously to explain the situation to Rachel.

screellshot I Screenshot2

Joey: I'm (He stands up) This Joey: JI-I's IýA", ý-ý Li
sorry! J
(ý- ý-e-
4Sý L+,Iý 10 3A 1ý k3l
never happened to me before! I'm ý77'ý'
,-f, "i
bras! I L3-3 ý71ý1 4
an expert at taking off can LP,-- L1171a
do it with one hand! I can do it U-,-J Lý-
with my eyes closed! One time I [I am sorry this is never happened to
just looked at one, and it popped me before I am a professional in taking
off these things I can take them off
open!
with one hand I can do it with my eyes
closed one time I just looked at one
it
and opened]

The subtitler recognises the word bras as a potential face-threatening act and hence

it literally into Arabic. The sexual reference is substituted with a more

avoids rendering

in the Arabic subtitle, namely 'these things'. This general

abstract utterance

135
substitute (euphemism),which can potentially refer to an unidentified range
of objects,
eliminates the threat of the original utterancelinguistically, and thus savesthe face
of
the target viewers. However, on the visual level, the scene still constitutes
a serious
threat to viewers' face (Joey is repeatedly shown trying to take off Rachel's bra). The

above screenshots suggest that viewers would find it extremely easy to relate what is
au

written on the screen to what they can see, and would therefore realise that Joey is

referring to 'bras' when reading the euphemistic oýA%'these things', in the

subtitle. Consequently, the subtitler's attempt to conceal the threat posed by 'bras'

seemsfutile in this context.

Another example that illustrates the use of empty words as a strategy of euphemisation

occurs in the following extract from the eleventh episode, The one where the stripper

cries.

Example 4.7

Participants: Joey (Gene and a game show presenter are present). Contextual

information: is
the scene taking place at the Pyramid game show's studio, in which

Joey is selected to be a celebrity guest. Unexpectedly, Joey reaches the final round of

the show, along with another participant, Gene. However, Joey seems to be unable to

the questions in the final stage of the game, and therefore starts telling
answer most of

Gene strange and very personal stories.

In high school, I once had sex Joey: 4ýý ;u -Ul

Joey:
in the middle [In high school I did it with a girl
with a girl right
in the middle of ?]
of the... ...

136
The sexual reference had sex with is
recognized as a potential source of threat to the
face wants of Arab viewers. As
a result, the processof widening is employed here to

mitigate this direct sexual reference;had sex with is translatedinto Arabic "AZ4
as
'I did it with'. Needless to say, the empty
pronoun it can generally refer to a vast

number of possible things, including sexual activities. However, the context in which

this euphemism occurs (Joey did something with a girl), whether in English in
or
Arabic, insinuates that Joey is talking about 'having sex'. Most Arab
viewers will thus

almost certainly recover the sexual reference the euphemism attempts to conceal.

The above examples suggest that widening plays a significant role in constructing

euphemistic expressions for various sexual references detected in the English script of

Friends. As Table 2 shows, this is the most common strategy, one that is repeatedly

used by subtitlers in most of the selected episodes as a means of saving and maintaining

the face of Arab viewers.

Having investigated the role of widening in this section, I turn now to the examination

of the second most frequent strategy of euphemisation, namely implication.

4.2.2 Implication

Table 2 shows that the process of implication generates seven euphemistic expressions

and that these are evenly spread across six of the episodes examined. Implication is thus

the second most commonly employed strategy of euphemisation in mitigating the

strengthof taboo sexual utterancesin the Arabic data.

It should be noted, as mentioned earlier in Chapter Three, that in implication "the

between the conventional and the novel setsof referentsis that of antecedent
connection

(if X is then Y is (probably) valid too)" (Warren 1992: 143). This

to a consequent valid,

137
process therefore involves two main variables in producing euphemisms,namely the

conventional sense (implying) and the novel sense (implied). An example of a

euphemismgeneratedby this process,accordingto Warren (ibid.), is the utteranceto go

home in a box, when usedto imply the novel senseto be dead.

My data analysis shows that the word 'a relationship', is the most common

euphemism falling under implication. This common euphemism in Arabic substitutes

words and expressions of different degrees of sexual explicitness. The following extract

from the tenth episode, The one where Chandler gets caught, illustrates the use of this

euphemism.

Example 4.8

Participants: Chandler and Joey. Contextual information: The scene is Chandler and

Monica's flat, where Chandler has just received a phone call from the estate agent,

Nancy, who informs him that his request to buy the house has not been approved

becausethe owner of the house is not willing to lower the asking price. Before Chandler

received this news, Ross, Phoebeand Joey had been trying to convince Chandler and

Monica to change their mind about buying this new house, because they would like

them to continue to live near them. They all leave Monica and Chandlers' flat

expressingtheir sorrow for hearing the news:

Joey: You know, I'm really Joey:

sorry I was not more
before. [I am really sorry because I was
supportive
not more supportive before]

Chandler: V
Chandler: That is okay, we
[It is A we understand]
understand.

138
Joey: And about this Nancy Joey: ýu jh
vlrý ý)z
thing... If you're not ?Aý U1J-il J+i 14-AL4
sleeping with her, should [And regarding this Nancy if you
I? are not in a relationship with
(Chandler gives Joey her her should I do this?]
business card, which he
eagerly grabs and he leaves).

In this example, the subtitler replaces the utterance sleeping with with the
euphemistic

in a relationship with, thus toning down a direct reference to a specifically sexual

activity that is perceived as a face threat by Arab viewers. To have or be in a

relationship with someone can imply sleeping with them, but not necessarily. The

euphemistic expression used here may mislead the target viewers by communicating a

different message from what Joey has in mind; viewers may understand that Joey is

hinting merely at establishing contact with the estate agent, or engaging with her on

more friendly terms. Therefore, avoiding direct transfer of reference to the sexual act of

sleeping in this extract may result in an inaccurate representation of Joey's character,

is
who repeatedly depicted as a womanizer in Friends.

The euphemism 'ýZý, 4a relationship', is also used in the following extract from the
,

third episode, The one with Ross'tan, to replace a more explicit sexual expression.

Example 4.9

Participants: Amanda and Monica (Phoebe is present). Contextual information: the

is Monica's flat. Amanda used to live in Monica's building before she decidedto
scene

England. After a few years away, Amanda is back in the Stateswith a

move to spending

British Monica Phoebe detest. Amanda, who tends to brag about

new accent, which and

famous has with, enthusiastically decides to visit Monica and

all the people she slept

Phoebefor a chat.

139
Amanda: Oh! Gosh! This is brilliant. Gosh, Amanda: 4ý /d7sljIýA
VIIJýl 1.3
it's just like old times. I'm so I"

happy you two are friends again!

[Oh my God this is wonderful it
is like old days I am so happy
you two are friends again]
Monica: When were we not friends? Monica: ? ýýLý ,a..
[And when were we not -$
friends?]
Amanda: WeII5 it was 1992, and I Amanda: 1992 Lý
-)5J i/ ýDIS
-1
remember because that was the ý:-Ljl ýwl L3 ý Aý
Vi
year I had sex with Evel Knievel PLis Jivo
(She starts laughing very [It was in 1992 and I remember
proudly). this becauseI had a
relationship with Evel Knievel]

In this example, had sex with is translated into Arabic as -ýka

AS ':-Lýi% 'had a

relationship with'. The subtitler implies here that Amanda was engaged in a sexual

activity with Evel Knievel, but without explicitly saying so. Employing the process of

implication in this example does not completely conceal the sexual value of the original,

since Arab viewers are still likely to conclude that this relationship involves a sexual

dimension.

Another interesting example that demonstrates how Arab subtitlers are keen to conceal

in
sexual references their translation is the following extract from the third episode, The

one with Ross'tan.

Example 4.10

Participants: Rachel, Chandler and Joey. Contextual information: frustrated after

failed attemptsto sleepwith each other, Joey and Rachel sit on the couch,trying
several

from having Being aware of the fact that they

to find out what really preventsthem sex.

have been friends for long, Joey and Rachel find it extremely difficult to move
close so

from being friends to lovers. While they are still chatting, Chandler,who has managed

Monica (who to be his friend) and got married to her

to go out with used close

afterwards, entersthe room.

140
Rachel: Hi! Hey, listen, can we ask You
a Rachel: ý1ýý.ALI
question? When you and Monica
first hooked up, was it
weird
going from friends to... more
than that? [Wait can I ask you a question
when you and Monica started
your relationship was it strange
going from friends to more than
that?]
Chandler: Kind of.. you know, sneaking Chandler: 14V1 /4a 3L,,
ýl trý
; ý)Lý 'L. j
around, having to hide from you -5
guys... [Kind of, sneaking and hiding
from you]
Rachel: No, no, no, no, I mean... Rachel: L.,
A-ý=l %y - vv
sexually... [No no no, I mean physically]

Joey: Yeah, was there a part of you Joey: : iw

'1.1 J"
J JX ;
LDýS J6
LýLs "U
that... felt like it was... really TUQ-X
'kJ LDJ4

wrong'? [Yes, was there a part of you felt

like what you are doing is
wrong]
Chandler: Actually, no. No, it felt right. Chandler: ý4ý1
4ý
You know, it felt like uhm... I
can't believe we haven't69 been [In fact no, we felt that we are
doing this the whole time. doing the right thing]

The explicit reference sexually is toned down in the Arabic subtitles of this extract.

Arab subtitlers normally translate this word into Arabic as ', 'physically', which is
.

not as bluntly related to sex as sexually; any sexual connotation attached to it depends

on the context and how the expression is qualified. Although Arab viewers will be

aware of the fact that the word 'physically', most likely signals sexual

involvement between two people (Joey and Rachel in this extract), subtitlers tend to

use it in order to mitigate the explicit sexual reference. Moreover, the scene preceding

the above extract, which shows Joey and Rachel continuously attempting to have sex,

the sexual connotations of in the mind of Arab

establishes and reinforces

viewers.

69In translating Chandler's turn, the subtitler has omitted the filler 'you know' and the rest of
is to achieve a greater level of clarity and
the sentence,which a redundant phrase, perhaps
brevity.

141
It should be mentioned here that the weakening or loss of the
euphemisticstrengthof
51
'U ý,

physically', is a natural result of the frequent use of the word as a typical

ý1-

,,,

substitute for sexually. In investigating the strength and impact of euphemismsin

language, Warren argues that "if a euphemism is used so frequently as designator

a of a

taboo phenomenonthat strong associationsare formed betweenthis word andthe taboo

referents, its euphemistic force will disappear" (1992: 136).

The interpretation of euphemisms produced by the process of implication in the data

discussed above depends heavily on the context in which they occur, which allows them

to communicatetheir intended sexualvalue indirectly. In other words, subtitlerstend to

leave the target viewers to work out the intended meaning of some euphemisms by

observing related signals, whether linguistic or visual information, which facilitate

access to the source meaning. This can be clearly seen in the following extract from the

eleventh episode, The one where the stripper cries.

Example 4.11

Participants: Chandler and Ross. Contextual information: the sceneis a flashbackto

1987. Chandler and Ross, who have 80s hair style and clothes, are hanging some flyers

for their band on the wall at school. While they are doing so, their beautiful colleague,

Shortly Missy leaves, they both

Missy, enters the room asking about the event. after

intentions to her on a date. This leads afterwards to a heated

express their ask out

who will be asking her out. However, realising that this quarrel will
argument over

their friendship, Ross decidesto tone things down.

certainly affect

142
Screenshot I Screenshot2

Ross: She is gone. Ross: 11

-,
[She is gone]
Chandler: I know it. You know, I'm Chandler: 6 i
ý.
totally going to ask her out. "11.L
[I know. I will certainly ask her
out]
Ross: Dude, I was going to ask her Ross: A3 ýý3L C:. 6
1: 131
out. [I was going to do that]
Chandler: I said it first, bro. Chandler:
[I said it before you, my
brother]
Ross: Well, I thought it first, Holmes. Ross:
[I thought about that before
you my friend]
Chandler: (angrily) Look, if you did... Chandler: 4ýýIj U,!
-ýl
[Listen if you date her]
Ross: Woha! Wait... What are we Ross:
_>1ý11
doing? What we have is too sui
important to mess it up over
1->ý -3
some girl. I mean, we can get [Wait, what are we doing?
laid anytime we want. What we have is too important
to mess up over a girl. We can
date anytime we want]

Chandler: Totally. I had sex'O in High Chandler: LLZ

school...
[Definitely I did that in high
school]
Ross: Me too. I'm good at it. Ross: L.,! Uj
[And m too, I am good at that]

'0 The rendering of I had sex as 'I did that' is a euphemism generatedby the processof
widening.
143
In this extract, the phraseget laid is subtitled into Arabic 'to have a date'. By
as

employing the euphemism 'date', which suggests that Ross is referring to

a

romantic meeting that would not necessarily involve sex, the subtitler avoids

articulating the explicit sexual value encoded in the original scene. However, the

context in which this mitigated substitute is used contributes strongly to strengthening

the sexual connotations of the euphemism. As the above screenshots show, Chandler

and Ross are clearly attracted to Missy, and can be seen making flattering remarks and

staring admiringly at her, which undoubtedly give the target viewers the impression

that they are aiming for a sexual relationship. This sexual intention is further

emphasised by Ross' facial expressions and his soft tone of voice. Consequently,

despite the subtitlers' attempt to conceal the sexual threat of get laid, viewers will most

probably conclude that 'date' in this context makes little sense,since it does not

perfectly match their expectations based on the sexual input of the scene,whether

verbally or visually. Therefore, the antecedent-consequentrelation between 'date' and

'get laid' is likely to prove too obvious to be masked in this context, which is heavily

chargedwith sexual references.

Another sexual reference which is mitigated by the use of implication can be easily

in Phoebe's turn in the following extract from the fifth episode, The one
recognised

where Rachel's sister babysits:

Example 4.12

Participants: Phoebe Mike. Contextual information: Phoebe and Mike are

and

Knicks Madison Square Garden. Phoebe secretly plans to surprise

watching a match at

him in front the crowd. During the break, the

Mike by proposing to publicly of entire

144
announcerasksthe crowd to pay attention to the big screenon the scoreboard,declaring

that there is someonewho has a special question to ask. Suddenly Phoebe

and Mike
appear on the screen. At this moment, Phoebe kneels in front of Mike, asking him to

marry her. Mike feels embarrassedand tries to hide his face so that no one can

recognise him. Shortly afterwards, the announcer comments sarcastically

on the
incident, saying we know now who the man is in this family. The following scenetakes

in
place a restaurant where Phoebe and Mike discuss what happenedat the Stadium.

Phoebe: That woman at the game Phoebe: A.Ir. Il ýIh

L. il ý
-), ýýg
didn't know what she was a3lC..;,l p 4u
- LýA.
talking about. Mike, [That woman did not know what
obviously you have balls. she was talking about Mike.
Obviously you are a man.]

Mike: But please, let's just forget the Mike: L,

uý
whole thing. [Pleaselet's just forget what
happened.]

Phoebe tries to calm Mike down by saying obviously you have balls. This slang phrase,

which makes a direct reference to male sexual organs, would generate a sense of

discomfort and embarrassment to Arab viewers and therefore poses a threat to their

Consequently, the subtitler translates this phrase into Arabic as ' ". 'i
U
public self-image.

J--; 54 to transfer the intended message(Mike being a man)

ý you are a man', choosing
ý-,

the literally. The subtitler draws here on the process of

rather than translating phrase

implication to downplay if the sexual threat of you have balls altogether;

not eliminate

if someone is a man then he (literally) has balls, and vice versa. Needless to say, the

this in Arabic depicts a slightly different representation of

employment of euphemism

deliberately in this context to produce a funny

Phoebe's words, which are selected

Consequently, a more neutral (softened) version of the original

reaction. offering

does the intended humour, but also

utterance, 'you are a man', not only sacrifice

145
confusesthe Arab viewers, who will find it almost impossible to find a logical
reason
for the background cannedlaughterthey can hear71

Some processes of euphernisation overlap with

each other, to a greater or lesser degree.

In the previous chapter, I mention that the process

of widening can be very similar to

implication in redressing various types of face threats. However, unlike im lication

p

widening often involves novel referents which "must be properly included in the

conventional set of referents" (Warren 1992: 145). The resemblance between the two

strategies is evident in a number of examples identified in my data, in which the two can

be easily confused.The following extract from the ninth episode,Theone with the birth

mother, for instance, illustrates this type of overlap.

Example 4.13

Participants: Rachel and Phoebe (Chandler and Nancy, a state agent, are present).

Contextual information: Rachel and Phoebe are sitting next to the window in Central

Perk. Rachel starts showing Phoebe pictures of her daughter, Emma, when Phoebe

suddenly spots Chandler, is

who married to Monica, standing and talking to a blonde

woman on the streetoutside the Coffee shop:

?; J-)L2
Z4-41Lipl OýA 4ýw
Rachel: Oh. Who is the blonde, she is Rachel:
pretty? [Who is this blonde? She is pretty]

Phoebe: Oh! He is having an affair. Phoebe: AJ

[He is having a relationship]

Rachel: He is not having an affair! Rachel:

[He is not having a relationship]

" Cannedlaughterrefersto recordingsof laughteraddedto humoroustelevisionor radio

when something amusing has been said or done.
programmes
146
The euphemistic utterance 'A'3'N-r-
'42, 'to have
eu, a relationship', is available in both
English and Arabic. But whereasEnglish has a
separateexpression'to have an affair'

which specifically signals 'a sexual relationship', Arabic does not (apart from the
more

explicit 'have a sexual relationship') which can be employed as a substitutefor having

an affair. Although the word affair doesnot particularly communicatea seriousthreatto

the face of Arab viewers, the subtitler here opts to tone it down further. As for the

process by which this euphemism is produced, it could equally be classed as widening

or as implication. It could be argued that this euphemism is generatedthrough widening,

since 'a relationship' is a broad term that covers a wide range of different types

of relationships, including an affair. It could also be argued(as I have optedto do here)

that relationship in this context is produced through the process of implication, since the

relationship between Chandler (who is married) and Nancy, a state agent, communicates

an implied novel sense,namely having an affair.

I now turn to examining how the strategy of metonyms generates a number of

euphemisms that significantly minimise the threat of some sexual references depicted in

Friends.

4.2.3 Metonyms

The examination of this strategy corresponds principally to Warren's treatment of

that the use of metonyms"involves violating at least one

euphemisms,which assumes

the defining features forming part of the established meaning, which causes the
of

interpreter to think of the new referent as an unorthodox referent and the new meaning

transferred or figurative" (ibid.: 151-2). However, although may

Metonyms a
generate
as

types of euphemismbasedon the relationship betweenthe established

range of possible
in Chapter Three (section 3.4.3), this section
and novel referents as mentioned earlier

147
examinesonly those euphemismswhich involve a whole-part
relationshipbetweentheir
referents. In other words, metonymy in this study is treated
as a figure of speech, but

one in which an attribute, aspect or part of an entity is substituted by the

whole, rather
than the more common definition (e.g. Tymoczko 1999, Warren 1992)
of the whole
being substitutedby the part.

Table 2 above shows that the process of employing

metonyms produces four

in
euphemisms the Arabic subtitles of Friends. A clear example occurs in the following

extract taken from the eighth episode, The one with the late Thanksgiving:

Example 4.14

Participants: Rachel, Phoebe and Ross (Joey, Monica and Chandler are present).

Contextual information: this scene takes place in front of the door of Monica and

Chandler's flat. After being pressed to host Christmas this year, Monica makes a

considerable effort to prepare a Christmas dinner, which Joey, Rachel, Ross and Phoebe

are supposed to attend. However, they are all about forty five minutes late for dinner.

Extremely annoyed, Monica and Chandler thus decide to punish them by not letting

them in. Consequently, Joey, Rachel, Ross and Phoebe are standing outside, trying to

make up a plausible excusefor being late.

Rachel: Alright, enough, enough, come on. Rachel:

Let's just all go in at the sametime. [Alright, lets all get in at
the sametime.]
Alright, okay. (Phoebe reachesfor the All: L.,. L.
All: -I
door, and tries to open it but it's locked) Wright alright]
j5" A.31
Phoebe: It is locked. Phoebe: .

[It is locked]
Ross: What? Oh sure, now they lock it, but Ross:
having 72 on the &4.=
when they are sex
it is like: come on in, my butt is
couch,

72This euphemism is discussed under semantic misrepresentation.

148
 surprisingly hairy.
[What? Of coursethey
locked it. When they were
playing around on the
couch, as if they were
saying: come in all of a
suddenI have hair on my
body. ]

In this example, the word butt poses a potential face threat,

and is transferred into
Arabic as ', 'my body'. In eliminating this threat, the subtitler relies on the
useof

metonymy, producing the euphemism ', 'my body', with which 'butt' is connected

in a part-whole relationship. Needless to say, the employment of a metonym here

sacrifices the humour triggered by Ross' original utterance and offers the target viewers

an account that makes little sensein this context, given the laughter in the background.

Another sexual reference which is also masked in Friends by the use of a metonym can

be seen in the following extract from the fourth episode, The one with the cake.

Example 4.15

Participants: Jack, Judy, Ross and Monica (Rachel, Chandler and Joey are present).

Contextual information: the scene is Rachel and Joey's flat, where both Rachel and

Ross are celebrating the first birthday party of their daughter Emma. Ross is recording

is While
this event from the start so that Emma can watch the video when she eighteen.

he is doing this, his parents,Jack and Judy, arrive at the flat.

Jack and Hi. Jack and

Judy: [Hello]
Judy:
Ross: ýW
Ross: (points the camcorder towards them to .
Hey. [Welcome]
record their entrance)
Monica: So glad you came! Monica:
[I am so glad you came.]

149
Jack: I can't believe Emma is already one! Jack:

can't believe that

Emma is one].

Judy: (to Monica) I remember your first Judy: jjý

birthday! Ross was jealous of all the ij, ýý JX-,, DýS
ýDý -J
attention we were giving you. He if al 12yz- ýI JS
LS ýDLSeLZA
pulled on his testicles so hard! We sa, ý? A-IL
-Zý
had to take him to the emergency
ýI 42i3
room! .
[I remember
your first birthday Ross
wasjealous of all the
attention you got he hurt
himself badly. We had to
take him to the hospital]
Ross: (pointing the camcorder at himself) Ross: r
There's something you didn't know
about your dad! [You did not know this
thing about your dad]

The word testicles communicates a direct reference to a sexual organ and could cause

embarrassment in Arabic. The subtitler substitutes it with a more general term, namely

'himself. Instead of being specific in signalling that Ross hurt a particular organ

his body (his testicles), the substitutes the reference with the 'whole' in a
of subtitler

The metonymy mitigates the face threat that the use of testicles
part-whole relationship.

Once the this euphemism in the above exchange leaves the

may evoke. again, use of

laughter in the background; Judy's

Arab viewers wondering about the source of

hurt himself, instead his testicles, does not constitute a funny

comment that Ross of

in
utterance this situation.

based metonymy occurs in the following scene,

A similar example of euphemism on

fifth The one where Rachel's sister babysits.

taken from the episode,

150
Example 4.16

Participants: Phoebeand Mike. Contextual information: Phoebe Mike

and aredining

at a restaurant.While being servedcake, Phoebeattemptsto make Mike feel betterafter

he was humiliated by the way she proposed to him in the stadium (see Example 4.12).

However, Mike is still furious about this incident, and asks Phoebeto forget the whole

issue.

Phoebe: (The waiter puts a piece of cake Phoebe: I A. l U1

*_ýý ý.,
on the table) I would love it. [I love it. ]
Consider it forgotten.
Mike: Thank you. Mike: A
[Thank you. ]
Phoebe: But just so you know... Phoebe: L-34-J JL- ýJll ý
-)J21J-; ý,
however and whenever you SL 4.5ýýalrýl
decide to propose, I promise I'll v
-31
say yes. Whether... whether, ; al.
_,
you know, it is in a basketball
game, or in sky writing, or you j&
know, like some lame guy in a [But you know however and
cheesy movie who hides it in whenever you decide to propose
the cake. (Mike's face changes to me, I promise you I will say
from happy to sad, and he looks yes. Whether in a basketball
the cake, disappointed. ) It's match or if you write it with a
at
in the cake, isn't it? plane's smoke or like the lame
man in that bad film who hides
the ring in the cake. It is in the
is
cake, not it?
Mike: (puts on a fake smile) Where Mike:
lame Mr. no balls [And where could it be since I
else would
hide it? (he takes the ring from hid it]
the cake, and cleans it with a
napkin)

In this exchange, the phrase no balls constitutes an explicit sexual reference that could

image target viewers. Given that this phrase bluntly

pose a threat to the public self of

to a metonym, translating 'no balls'

refers to a male sexual organ, the subtitler opts use

into Arabic as 'J', T. By doing so, the subtitler eliminates any potential source of

balls' the time producing a functional translation that

threat that 'no may evoke, at same

intended meaning of the original. The target viewers are unlikely

transfers the semantic

151
to perceive any discontinuity in the scene or to suspect that the
original script has been

modified in order to suppress a sexual reference.

A final example of metonyms occurs in the following

exchange between Joey and

Chandler,taken from the third episode,The one with Ross'tan.

Example 4.17

Participants: Chandler and Joey. Contextual information: the scene is Joey's flat.

Known for being a womaniser, Joey is relaxed about having a date with his friend

Rachel today. Chandler is astonished to see Joey, who is eating Pizza before his date,

so relaxed and confident.

Chandler: How can you be so confident? Chandler:

[How can you be

confident to this extent? ]
Joey: Well, I... I know exactly what I am Joey: jiiL, 4: ýI U /ULZ ýal U1
going to do! [I know exactly what I
am going to do. ]
U--
Chandler: Really? Like you have a routine? Chandler: 'Jý'-Z JIA
->J
[Really do you mean it
is a routine matter?]
Joey: No, no no no no. See. Each woman is Joey: ýij.J Jýj 4'-ýj 4L V
different. You have to appreciate their j 4L ý)MLaL-,J'
uniqueness. LýAa'ý'
[No you have to know
that eachwoman is
different from any other
you have to appreciate
their uniqueness

Chandler: Really? Chandler:

[Really?]
No, I do sex things! First, I look deep Joey: ot+Jý ý-O U, V
Joey:
in her eyes. Then, I kiss her. Next I ap
take my hand I
and softly graze her
ka >3
thigh. -
[No I do exciting things
first I look deep in her
eyes then I kiss her then
I move my hand and
touch her softly]

152
In this dialogue, the phrasegraze her thigh is translatedinto Arabic
as 'touch
her'. Metonymy is once again used to mitigate the
sexual strength of the original

phrase, replacing the specific part thigh with reference to the 'whole', namely her

[body]. While the subtitler managesto avoid threat to face through this
choice, what
he/she loses is a feature of Joey's character, namely his
explicit sexual approach with

girls, which is toned down considerablyin the Arabic version.

Finally, in examining these examples of euphemisms produced by the

use of

metonyms, we note that Arab subtitlers often use this strategy when translating

references to sexual organs or related body parts. As can be seen in Examples 4.12,

4.13 and 4.14, Arab subtitlers avoid direct reference to these sexual organs by

replacing them with a more general term, usually body or pronouns that refer to it.

These euphemisms, which stand in a whole-part relationship with their original

referents, are successful in concealing sexual connotations, and therefore mitigate or

eliminate any potential threat to the face of target viewers.

I turn now to euphemisms based on semantic misrepresentation.

4.2.4 Semantic Misrepresentation

This category, which is not derived from the literature but is introduced in this study

for the first time, is primarily defined in Chapter Three (section 3.4.3) as a process

that generates a version of the source utterance that is significantly different at the

level. In other words, semantic misrepresentation results in distorting the

semantic

semantic content of the original text, and therefore offers the target a
viewers/readers

false representation of the intended In generating euphemisms by this

meaning.

translators tend to soften the impact of the taboo words by replacing them with
process,

derived from a different semanticfield. Unlike the devices

unrelated substitutes, often
153
of euphernisationdiscussedabove, semantic misrepresentationis very specific to the

medium of translation; it can be observedin cross-linguistic communicationratherthan

in monolingual settings.

Overall, I have identified six euphemisms produced by the process

of semantic

misrepresentation in the Arabic subtitles of my corpus, three of which are discussed

below (see Appendix 1 for further examples). The extracts below clearly demonstrate

this strategy and its role in toning down the strength of some sexual references. An

obvious example can be seen in the following exchangebetween Ross and Monica

taken from the first episode, The one after Joey and Rachel kiss.

Example 4.18

Participants: Ross and Rachel. Contextual information: On their way back from

Barbadosto New York, Rachel and Joey who are involved in a secretrelationship

decide that this is the right time to tell Ross about their affair on the plane. Rossis

sitting next to Joey on the plane, praising him and being nice to him. This makes

Joey happy but he cannot tell Ross that he is involved with Rachel. Having finished

his conversation,Rosswalks with a smile on his face to the back of the plane,where

he meets Rachel. Rachel thinks that Joey has told Ross about their relationship,and

that Ross is comfortable with the situation:

Ross: Well, I'm so excited about Ross:

this. [I am so excited about this]

-ka-chel
Rachel: Really? Excited?
[Really? Excited? ]

Ross: kidding? I have had Ross: ki"4 Uý ý JA

re you -ý--.
some very dirty dreams about
[What are you kidding I have
this...
had/seen very bad dreams about
this]

154
Here, very dirty dreams clearly refers to sexual dreams. However, the
expression dirty
dreams is subtitled into Arabic as 'bad dreams', which clearly does not only

eliminate the sexual connotation of the expressionbut also communicatesto the Arab

viewers a meaning that is significantly different from the original. Needless to say, this

semantic misrepresentation of the English utterance distorts the intended meaning and

impacts negatively on viewers' understanding of the original dialogue. The target

viewers may well assume that Ross is frightened of flying, for instance, and this could

make it difficult for them to follow the progress of events, quite apart from missing the

humour of the original.

Semantic misrepresentation is also evident in the following exchange taken from the

fifth episode,The one where Rachel's sister babysits.

Example 4.19

Participants: Phoebe, Chandler and Joey (Monica is present). Contextual

information: Phoebe, who is depicted as overdressed for the occasion of celebrating

her first anniversary with her boyfriend Mike, enters Central Perk where she meets

Chandler, Joey and Monica. Phoebe is planning to celebrate her anniversary by going

to a football match:

So you must be going to Chandler: iu ýDL<, IsJ

Cý14AI3 ), '1131
Chandler: _,, LýI
fancy jua-ýU
somewhere to
[So you must be going to a
celebrate?
fancy place to celebrate]

155
Phoebe: Ub-uh. Ehm, a Nicks game. Phoebe: ; IJLI..
[Match]

Joey: Uhm... Aren't you a li Joey:

overdressed?
[Are you not a little
overdressed? ]
Phoebe: Hey, you know What, I've never Phoebe: L-4 U J-0,ýiý ;Y-33-
u;_A 1.1ý1
had a one-year anniversary i3.
1. j
SjýU
ýýI.
',, A3i
before, so no matter where we
ttyva_
-3
go, I'm wearing something Z.Wh1jL-U_-j1
fancy pants, and... I am going to [I have never had an
put on my finest jewellery and anniversary before so wherever
we are going to have sex in a I go, I will wear fancy clothes
public rest room. and will wear my best
jewellery and we will play
around in public toilets]

In Phoebe's last turn, the sentence we are going to have sex in a public rest room is

translated into Arabic as %ýx 'we will play around in public

toilets'. The subtitler opts to remove the direct reference to the act of having sex by

using a more euphemistic expression, 'C*sýx*'

'play around'. The original sexual referent

is therefore replaced with a semantically non-equivalent utterance; 'play around'

is not equivalent to 'have sex' and does not convey any sexual meaning in Arabic.

However, although this choice euphemisesthe sexual content of the original utterance

by distorting it semantically, it does not completely eliminate the threat to the face of

the target viewers, since the context in which 'play around' is used, 'playing around in

toilets', may still imply some sexual content, but to a lesser and somewhat
public

confused degree.

The euphemism 'play around', is also employed in another extract taken from

the eighth episode, The one with the late Thanksgiving, to conceal the sexual

of the phrase 'to have sex' (see appendix 1).

connotation

interesting can also be seen in the

Another very example of semantic misrepresentation

following exchange from the fourth episode, The one with the cake.

156
Example 4.20

Participants: Rachel, Joey, and Chandler (Monica Ross

and are present).Contextual
information: In this extract, Rachel is enragedafter discovering that
the bakery madea

mistake in baking the cake, which she had ordered for her daughter's first birthday.

Instead of having the picture of her daughterEmma set on a cake in

a shapeof a bunny,
the cake turns out to be in the shapeof a penis. Rachel immediately rings up the bakery

and demandsthat they correct the mistake. Everyone gathersaround the cake trying to

seewhat it actually looks like.

Rachel: Oh! Believe you me! I am going Rachel:

'Lu' j
to bring this cake back don't 0-i ts.
IA-ýj
,I
even want it in my home... L+--.h 'y
(Turns towards the cake and [Believe me I am going to
sees Joey trying to take a piece return this cake I do not want it
and yells at him) Joey, don't to stay in my house Joey don't
touch ifl! touch it]

Joey: Im
I- so confused! Joey: :- :-
" L31
L>I-ý,
[I am confused]
Rachel: (Speaking to the person on the Rachel: JU V
phone again) Yes, yes. I still Lr6
want my daughters picture, but V-4 4ý ýý-)3- ;ýI ýý
-ý"
on a bunny cake. Yellow cake, j4I
chocolate frosting with nuts! [Yes, I still want my daughter's
picture on a cake but on a cake
shapedas a bunny a yellow cake
decoratedwith chocolatewith
nuts]
L+ýý
Chandler: To be fair this one does have Chandler: L34

nuts.
[To be fair this cake actually has
nuts ]

In this extract, the subtitler translatesthe word nuts into its conventionalmeaning in

Arabic, 'ja4% meaning 'nuts'. In English, however, 'nuts' could be used as a

for testicles. This is the case in Chandler's turn, where he is

euphemism a man's

to the fact that the birthday cake is in the shapeof a penis (it has nuts). On the
referring

hand, does exist in Arabic; nuts does not stand for male
other this euphemism not

157
sexual organs in any context. The use of nuts thereforedoesnot make any logical
sense
as a sexual euphemism in Arabic. The subtitler opts for translating the source
word
literally into Arabic: by doing so, he/she avoids transferring
any sexual connotations
that may impinge on the face of target viewers. Despite the fact that this
choice

produces a different semantic version of the sourceutterance,the Arabic subtitle still

communicates a semantically acceptable representation of Chandler's turn in this

context. In other words, given that Rachel is asking for a yellow cake with chocolate

frosting and nuts, the Arabic subtitle of Chandler's turn seems to fit
perfectly as a

comment on Rachel's second turn. Once again, however, any canned laughter will

remain inexplicable to the Arab viewer.

I turn now to discuss the next process, which represents the extreme end of

euphemisation, namely omission.

4.2.5 Omission

As I argue earlier in Chapter Two (section 2.4), Brown and Levinson's five super-

strategies of politeness can be employed as a scale to measure the level of redress

(politeness) achieved by euphemisms.Basedon thesestrategies,omissionis discussed

under the fifth strategy, namely 'don't do the FTA'. As the title suggests, omission

face interlocutors by it altogether, thus

mitigates the potential threat to the of removing

level politeness. Although Brown and Levinson ignore this

achieving a maximum of

in it has linguistic manifestation in monolingual settings,

strategy their model, since no

data role in euphemising sexual face-

my analysis shows that omission plays some

in The of this strategy is interesting in the

threatening acts a translational context. use

it is to detect the elimination of potential face

context of translation, where possible

threats by comparing the source text with its target. This contrastswith monolingual

158
settings, where there is no way of identifying attempts to achieve
politeness by means

of employing the 'don't do the FTA strategy'. Given that Brown and Levinson (1987)

do not address the strategy of 'don't do the FTA' in translation,

nor indeed, in
subtitling, this section may throw new light on the applicability of politeness theory in

non-monolingual settings.

As Table 2 shows, omission is not frequent in the Arabic subtitles of Friends;

only

three instances are detected. The first example is taken from the fourth episode, The

one with the cake.

ExamPle 4.21

Participants: Monica, Chandler, Ross and Rachel. Contextual information: the

dialogue is taking place in Central Perk, where Ross and Rachel are trying hard to

convince Chandler and Monica to postpone their planned trip to Vermont so that they

can attend Emma's first birthday.

Monica: Well, I'm sorry, but Chandler Monica: L14 J ýý

LD-ý-'Lýý
and I could really use a ,.fa
You know, to JIA JL--ýýl
weekend away.
reconnect... emotionally.
[We are sorry but Chandler and I
have the chance to travel during
the weekend holiday to reconnect
emotionally]

There is this thing I really Chandler: A-i* ýw

Chandler: ý:Jlj 'J -;JJ 14TLILA
11
to do. I it in (e-ýL4)Z:" Vi A,=
want us73 read about
MaxiM [And there is something I really
want us to do, I
which read about
in Maxim's magazine
L,,ýý 'Ii
Rachel: Well, can't you just go to Rachel:
T43LD
Vermont the next day?
[Can't you go there the next
day?]

" More information aboutthis magazinecan be obtainedfrom its websiteat:

http://www. maxim.com/index.asp
159
Ross: Yeah, we want everyone to be Ross:
----------------------------
41-jjI t+4--JI
there. As much as I hate to 'ý4 elý
delay you doing weird sex stuff
to my little sister.
[Yes becausewe want everyone
to be there we want that as much
as I hate to delay you doing
weird stuff to my little sister I

In this extract, the word sex is perceived as posing a threat to the face the
of target

viewers. Therefore, the subtitler decides here to sacrifice sex in the Arabic subtitle,

opting for eliminating any potential threat that this word may trigger. Moreover,

although Chandler indirectly reveals his intention to do sexual things that he has read

about in Maxim, a very popular men's magazine featuring articles about sex and

pictures of popular actresses, singers and female models, the Arabic subtitles will

probably still manage to conceal any sexual element triggered by the reference to this

magazine, even though the title is translated literally, since it is in

rarely circulated the

Arab world. In other words, importing the term Maxim into the Arabic subtitle will not

add any sexual dimension to this dialogue, since the majority of Arab viewers are not

familiar with the magazine and its sexual content. Consequently,the combination of

rendering Maxim literally into Arabic and omitting sex produces a modified version of

the original exchange, one that is free of any direct sexual reference that may damage

the face of the Arab viewers, though of course the reference to 'weird stuff may

indirectly signal similar meanings.

Needless to say, employing omission as an extreme type of euphemism is probably the

be inappropriate or taboo utterances, as long as

safest strategy to pursued in approaching

in
the subtitles still make sense a given context.

In two other examples, the subtitler employs omission in rendering sexual references,

disrupts the flow the The target viewers here

in
but a manner that syntactic of utterance.
160
realise that certain sentencesor phrasesdo not make completesenseas they standin the

subtitles, as a result of the fact that one of the syntactic elementsof the sentence,which

is identified as a taboo, is missing, e.g. subject, verb,

etc, clearly signalling the use of
the 'don't do the FTA' strategy. The following extract from the fourth episode, The
one

with the cake, clearly illustrates this strategyof euphernisation.

Example 4.22

Participants: Ross and Rachel (Monica, Chandler, Phoebe, Joey, Judy and Jack are

present). Contextual information: the scene is Rachel and Joey's flat. Everyone is in

the flat getting ready to celebratethe first birthday of Ross and Rachel's daughter.Ross

eagerly opens the box containing the cake, which Rachel has ordered, to discover that

his daughter's picture is placed on a cake in the shape of a penis, instead of a bunny (see

example 4.20). Shocked by what he has just discovered, Ross tries to find out how this

could have possibly happened.

Ross: Uh, Rach? Does this bakery by Ross:

any chance also bake erotic
cakes? Say for bachelorette
parties? [Does this bakery by any chance
bake cakes with erotic shapes?
Let's say fo r bachelorette
parties?]
ýI U Y'd ýI U
ýjwjj
Rachel: Ross, what are you talking Rachel: -ýil 5,
0-1 Lj,

1 -.
(she I;
about? sees the cake) oh! ... LS-L--
Oh my God! They put my [Ross, what are saying? Oh my
baby's face on a penis! God they put my daughter's face
on ... ]

In translating Rachel's turn, the subtitler explicitly signals his employment of the

through using a deletion mark, three full stops. The explicit

strategy of omission

to a male sexual organ is omitted altogether rather than substituted with

reference

Needless to say, the target viewers will realise from reading the
another element.

161
subtitled version of Rachel's turn that an integral componentof the
sentenceis missing.
The subtitle could have still made sensehad the
cameraallowed us to seethe cake in
the shape of a penis. However, this information is not available
visually, neither in the

original nor subtitled version. The hurnour triggered by the referenceto penis and the

image suggestedin viewers' mind remain inaccessibleto the target

viewers, who will

not identify the reasonbehind Ross and Rachel's extreme angerafter seeingthe cake.

However, the employment of omission here certainly protects the face

of the target

viewers and savesthem from being embarrassed.

A final example of omission can be clearly identified in the following scenetaken from

the third episode, The one with Phoebe's wedding. For contextual information see

Example 4.5.

Example 4.23

Monica: Okay. (In her microphone) Monica: j3-ýillLLý ýau,1+J

-ýýl
It's zero hour. All teams Výýl
execute on my count. (to
Let's this bad boy [Okay it is zero hour all teams
all) get
work when I give a signal.
on the road.
Let's make these bad people
work]
Chandler: (To Monica) Is it okay that Chandler:
I want you to wear that [Could you wear the head set
head set in bed tonight? tonight?]

is by
In this extract, Chandler clearly turned on the head set his wife Monica is wearing,

his desiresby asking her to wear the set in bed that night. In the
and expresses sexual

subtitles, the phrase in bed is omitted. By so doing, the Arabic subtitle sacrifices a

in which sexual activities often take place, thus offering the target
sexual reference

the original utterance. In other words, Chandler's

viewers a mitigated version of

in the Arabic subtitle significantly saves the face of Arab viewers

euphernised question

162
from being threatened by this sexual
reference. Most Arab viewers are unlikely to

realise that the subtitle has beenmodified, since Chandler'squestionstill

makessensein
this context; the use of omission in this exchangewill therefore
passundetected,unless

viewers have accessto the English version of the dialogue.

4.3 Conclusion

Having discussed several examples taken from the Arabic

subtitles of Friends and

offered an analysis of how the face of Arab viewers may be threatened by the original

sitcom and the threat mitigated by the subtitler, it is now clear that euphemisation is an

important strategy that translators draw on heavily in redressing various sex-related

face-threatening acts. This conclusion is clearly supported by the relatively large

number of euphemistic sex-related items identified in Friends' Arabic translation

(thirty-eight examples).

The data analysis shows that Arab subtitlers employ a wide spectrum of euphemismsin

negotiating sexual references in Friends, ranging from subtle off-record strategies to

total omission, an extreme version of the 'don't do the FTA' strategy. Table 2 shows

that sexual euphemisms examined are generated by five semantic processes, namely

widening, implication, metonyms, semantic misrepresentation and omission. Widening

accounts for the largest number of euphemisms (seventeen examples), while

demetaphorisationand borrowing yield no examples.

I have also argued that employing certain strategies of euphemisation, such as semantic

prevents the target viewers from understanding

misrepresentation and omission, often

is in the leads to an inaccurate depiction of the original

what going scene and sometimes

if the Arabic subtitles. On the other hand, the

plot, especially viewers rely primarily on

163
 in
context which some euphemismsare employed,whether visual or verbal, may allow

Arab viewers to retrieve the euphernizedsexualreferencesuccessfully.

Having investigated the euphernisation process of various sexual referencesin the

Arabic subtitles of Friends, I will attempt, in the next chapter, to demonstrate how

euphernisation also plays a vital role in toning down the strength of various distasteful

referencesthrough a careful examinationof selectedsubtitles.

164
 Chapter Five

Euphemising References Related to Distasteful Topics

Introduction

This chapter attempts to investigate how Arab subtitlers deal with various distasteful

references when translating Friends into Arabic. More specifically, this chapter

examines the use of euphemisms as a politeness strategy in addressing such taboo

utterances. Euphemisms of distasteful references and their frequency as identified in the

data will be examined and categorised in light of the modified model of euphemisation

previously proposed in Chapter Three, as well as the main components of Brown and

Levinson's theory of politeness (1987).

Distasteful references cover a wide range of subjects that may damage interlocutors'

face and impinge on their face wants if they are discussed explicitly, such as profanity,

disease,bodily ftinctions, death and religion. Under normal circumstanceS74

, people

from making explicit reference to certain types of disease, for example,

usually refrain

they intentionally is
to be rude or offend others,thus producing what called
unless want

dysphemism (offensive language).However, what constitutesa distasteful,offensiveor

disrespectful act and how unpalatableit is may vary from to

one culture another,from

one social group to another and from one individual to another.

their role in the media (specifically

In examining the use of euphemisms and

Enright that certain goods, such as "lavatory paper, sanitary

advertising), points out

for cleaning or fixing false teeth... are perfectly

towels, contraceptives, and substances

diseasehave to be discussed
74In other contexts, such as a medical examination, topics such as
explicitly and without euphemisation.
165
respectable products, but the mention of them inspires distaste or disgust in many

people" (1985: 123). Euphemising the commercial names of such

products helps to

promote them successfully among consumers: "Durex contraceptive sheaths, Andrex

toilet rolls, Tampax sanitary tampons-that little 'x' in the suffix associatesthem all with

science, and so with emotional neutrality and cleanliness instead of uncomfortable

emotion and biological dirt" (ibid. my emphasis). As we will see shortly, tampons is

among the euphemised distasteful references identified in my data. It is listed and

discussedunder widening (seesection 5.1.2, Example 5.6).

It is worth noting at the outset that distasteful utterances may involve the use of some

sex-related terms, such as the "F-words". However, such taboo items, unlike the sexual

references discussed in the previous chapter, are often uttered to express anger or

discontent, or to provoke or insult rather than to refer specifically to sexual activities as

a theme of conversation.

5.1 Distasteful References

The analysis of my data reveals that most of the distasteful references identified in the

Friends here fall under three main categories,namely insults,

episodes of analysed

taboos (e. the of pork in a Muslim culture) and bodily functions

religious g. mention

(e.g. excretion and vomiting). Many of these taboo terms are avoided in Arabic because

decorum in Arab context; mentioning them in public therefore

they violate social an

face-threatening act. Consequently, Arab subtitlers tend to protect

constitutes a potential

by distasteful references, in
and maintain the face of their target viewers euphemising

to socially decorous equivalent in their subtitles.

an attempt produce a more

166
Table 3 below shows the number of euphemismsof distastefulreferencesidentified in

the Arabic subtitles of Friends and their distribution across the semantic processes

discussed in Chapter Three. The table suggests that Arab subtitlers employ five

processes to euphemise distasteful references, namely implication, widening, semantic

misrepresentation, demetaphorisation and omission. Borrowing, on the other hand, does

not produce any euphemisms at all in this section of the data (nor in the previous

chapter). Euphemistic expressions identified in the data and summarised in Table 3 will

be discussed below, starting with the most productive semantic process and ending with

the one that yields the least number of euphemisms.

167
 Title of Number of
Widening Implication Metonyms Demetaphorisation Semantic - -ýým-
-ission
Epi ode euphemisms Borrowin g
misrepresentation
Theone after
Joey and
3
Rachel kiss 2

The one
where Ross is
2
fine 1

Theone with
Ross'tan 3
2
Theone with
the cake I
I
The one
where
Rachel's
2 2
sister
babysits

Theone with
the home I
study

Theone with
the late
I
Thanksgiving

Theone with
the birth
2 1
mother

The one
where the 3 2
stripper cries

The one
where
Chandler gets 3 2 I
caught

Theone with
Phoebe's 3 1
wedding

Total 24 5 4 0 5

Table 3. Distasteful References and Semantic Processes in Selected Episodes of Friends and
their Arabic Subtitles.

5.1.1 Semantic misrepresentation

As Table 3 above indicates, semantic misrepresentation accounts for eight instances of

to distasteful topics in the current corpus. The

euphernisation of references related

euphemisms employed in the Arabic subtitles consist mostly of expressionsof anger

168
and damnation that minimise the weight of potential face-threatening
utterances,by
departing (sometimessignificantly) from the
semanticcontentof the sourceutterance.

In examining the euphemisms under this

strategy, a recurrent trend emerges that is

particularly specific to the medium of translation. Most of the euphemistic expressions

examined here transfer the original English utterancesinto Arabic pragmaticallybut

not
semantically. In other words, Arab subtitlers tone down the strength of some face-

threatening speech acts by rendering their pragmatic effect at the expenseof their literal

semantic meaning. It is for this particular reason that this group of euphemisms is

treated here under semantic misrepresentation, rather than any other category, such as

widening or implication. Another point which is also worth mentioning here is that these

euphemisms often incorporate a religious dimension, at times employing expressionsof

damnation, as the examples below make clear. This is due to the fact that while

swearing and profane expressions in English are often sexually oriented, in Arabic they

are mainly derived from the sphere of religion (Elarbi 1997; Farghal and Al-Khatib

2001; Mills 2009). In most Arab societies, religious expressions, especially oaths, are

routinely used in almost every aspect of Arab life, covering a wide range of

communicative functions, such as invitation, greeting, swearing, etc. These cultural

patterns are examined in Abd el-Jawad's (2000) researchon the linguistic and cultural

of swearing in Arabic. After examining a corpus of oaths used by

specificities

interlocutors in real-life situations,Abd el-Jawadconcludesthat the conversationaloath:

is a dominant feature of daily conversations and undertakings and various kinds of

in
interactions in the Arab communities general and the in Jordanian community in
It is that no conversation between two or more friends,
particular. so common
lovers, a husband and a wife, a mother and her child, a worker and his fellow
teacher and his students, or a government employee and those who
workers, a
his to have their taken care of, is without one or more oaths
come to office affairs
has made, to
taken by the participants. Thus one may swear to confirm a claim one
has given, to deny an accusation, to decline an offer or an
emphasise a promise one
invitation, or to intensify a threat or warning. (ibid.: 218)

169
Strictly speaking, damnation to hell is considered God's
as punishmentto peoplewith

unredeemedsins, and thus, in principle, the use of expressionsrelatedto damnationcan

pose a threat to other interlocutors' face in Arabic. But theseexpressionshave now all

lost their strength, as they are commonly and frequently

used as mild profane

expressions. To this extent, they can be successfully used as mitigating substitutes of

certain distasteful English references.This can be seenin the subtitlesof Precious'sturn

in the following example, taken from the first episode The one after Joey
and Rachel

kiss:

Example 5.1

Participants: Precious and Mike (Phoebe is present). Contextual information: the

is
scene taking place in Mike's flat. Mike, who has returned to his ex-girlfriend, Phoebe,

decides to meet up with his current girlfriend, Precious, to formally finish his

relationship with her. However, Precious does not show up and instead goesto Mike's

flat, where Phoebeunexpectedlyopensthe door for her. Phoebedecidesto tell Precious

that Mike is cheating on her and is planning to break up with her on her birthday.

Shocked and emotionally devastated by the news, Precious starts to cry. Phoebe feels

sorry for her and tells her is

that she an intelligent and attractive lady, and that Mike is

just not worth her tears. At this moment, Mike enters the flat to find Precious in a

hysterical state.

You're a Precious: J-1; C-61 L:p

Precious: Screw you, Mike. J J
coward and a bastard, and I hope
in hell. (She slaps him in [Damn you, Mike.
you rot
the face, Mike looks like he You are a coward and mean and I
doesn't believe what just hope you rot in hell]
happened. Precious leaves, and he
turns to Phoebe).

Phoebe: ZII.JI J
Phoebe: You're welcome!
[You are welcome]

170
The vulgar expressionscrew you, a mitigated
variant of fuck you, is treatedhere as a

serious face-threatening utterance which cannot be publicly repeatedin Arabic. The

Arabic subtitle, 'A tý', 'damn you' communicates the

pragmatic value of the original

utterance, successfully indicating that Precious is angry with Mike. However,

on the

semantic level, screw you is clearly not the same as damn you. The subtitler replacesthe

semantic units of this swearing expression with non-equivalent words derived from

another domain, namely religion. This therefore results in presenting the target audience

with a slightly different representation of the original characters and, together with other

such choices acrossthe various episodes,dilutes the 'sexual' orientationof the scenes.

Bastard is also treated as a distasteful reference in Precious' turn. Although this insult

does exist in Arabic, ý,wl%literally meaning 'a son of an illegitimate relationship',

the Arab subtitler chooses not to use it. It is a highly offensive insult, perhaps because

of the cultural and religious background of Arab societies,which prohibits having a

child outside wedlock. This does not mean of course that the expression'ýIj- ý.PV,

bastard, is not used as a swear word; Arabs do use it, but as a dysphemism,to offend

and insult other interlocutors. Against this background,bastard is renderedhere as 'J! ',

'mean', thus significantly softening the strength of the insult. The use of the euphemism

here succeeds pragmatically to some extent to convey Precious' rage and wants to

offend Mike, but it in

again, results a different representationof her characterand tones

down the sexual focus of the series.

The distasteful bastard is also toned down in another extract taken from the
utterance

fourth episode, The one with the cake:

171
Example 5.2

Participants: Phoebe (Chandler, Joey, Rachel, Ross and Monica

are present).
Contextual information: the scene takes place on the door step of Rachel and Joey's

flat. Ross and Rachel are recording themselves in the kitchen, trying to
say a few words

for their daughter's first birthday party. While recording, they are interrupted by
yelling

and screamingcoming from the hallway. They open the door of the flat to find Monica,

Chandler, Joey and Phoebe having a wind-up animal race, yelling and screaming

fanatically.

Phoebe: (Yelling at the top of her voice) Phoebe: (ý)Vi)t->J

Go, go, go Alan! Run you, hairy [Speed up, speed up, run you
bastard! damned]

Excited about winning the race, Phoebe starts shouting at her toy, addressing it

offensively as a hairy bastard. Bastard is translated here as 'ý)41% 'damned', which

(like 'J! ', 4mean', in Example 5.1 above) does not reflect the same strength of insult.

The subtitler employs semantic misrepresentation to produce a more acceptable (less

that nevertheless serves the broad pragmatic function of the

offensive) expression

original utterance.

A similar recurrent strategy can be identified in the way Arab subtitlers tend to employ

the euphemistic expression 'U', 'damn it' as a default substitute in euphemising a wide

distasteful in the data under examination. The following extract,

range of references

taken from the third episode, The one with Ross' tan, illustrates the useof this strategy:

172
Example 5.3

Participants: Ross. Contextual information: In this extract, Ross goes to a tanning

he
centre, where accidentally sprayshis face and front twice, leaving his back untanned.

Therefore, he enters a tanning booth for the second time, trying to spray his back twice

in order to get one colour (to even out the colour of his body). Once the timer of the

booth starts counting down, Ross discoversthat there are two setsof nozzlesfacing his

front and his back.

Ross: Wait a minute, there's two sets of Ross: 4-ýýI

nozzles, which one is it? (He turns "ill-JI
around frantically from side to [Wait there two setsof nozzles
side). Which which which... which is the required one? Which is
... ...
which one is it? (He then stops the required one?
turning, facing one of the nozzles,
which starts spraying in his face
and front again).

Oh! Son of a bitch! LP

[Damn it]

Ross expresses his anger here after failing to spray his back again by uttering the

insulting Son of a bitch, a phrase often used in American English to

potentially phrase

The translates this into Arabic as L'

'L. 'damn it',
express exasperation or anger. subtitler

derogatory 75. The

although a similar item does exist in Arabic as a expression

in English is thus by substituting it with a (semantically)

offensive phrase mitigated

'Lý' 'damn it'.

religious euphemism,namely

Similarly, I U.', 'damn it', is to

used mitigate another potentially o nsive utterancein

from the episode,The one where Rossisfine:

the following extract taken second

female dog.
75The only difference here is that refers to a dog generally, not necessarily a

173
Example 5.4

Participants: Frank Jr. (Phoebeand the triplets are present).Contextual information:

this encounter takes place in Central Perk, where Phoebe is shown waiting for her

brother, Frank, and his triplets. After meeting them, Phoebe tries to find
out why Frank

looks so exhausted and seems depressed.Frank starts explaining to her how hard it is to

take care of the three kids, complaining that he has not slept for a long time. After

playing around for some time, the triplets fall asleep on a coach next to Phoebe and

Frank, who start watching them admiringly.

Frank: (Looks at the triplets) Look at Frank:

them! Aw. I love you so much. V 1P
(Strokes Leslie's hair, and she [Look at them I love you a lot
moves a little. ) Oh crap, don't Damn it do not wake up do not
wake up, don't wake up! wake up]

In the Arabic subtitle, crap (which refers to the act or product of defecation) is not

translated literally by its equivalent, but as 'LP' 'damn it'. The negative connotation

attached to it is thus eliminated in the Arabic subtitle. 'U', 'damn it', is also used on

two in the data, with a similar effect (see Appendix 2, examples 4 and
another occasions

6).

in
A final example which a swearing expression related to sex is replaced by a substitute

by damnation-related utterance, appears in the

based on religion, more specifically a

following exchangetaken from the twelfth episode,The one with Phoebe'swedding:

Example 5.5

Contextual information: is
the scene set in Joey
Participants: Monica and Phoebe.

preparationsfor her
Rachel's flat. Phoebe is on the phone, trying to sort out some
and
is control. Frustrated,Phoebe thus
wedding, but discovers that everything going out of

174
asks Monica to take charge of organising the wedding again after having fired her for

being too punctual and extremely authoritarian.

Screenshot I

Monica: (Enjoying what she's seeing) Monica: -4

How's it going? [How are things going?]
Phoebe: (To Monica) Help me. Phoebe:
[Help me]
Monica: What? Monica: YU.
[What?]
Phoebe: I want you to be crazy bitch Phoebe: k4%2, J ýýJ
L;->-ii LS33ý3
again. [I want you to be the crazy
damned [woman] again]
Monica: Ok. We are back in business. Monica: I U-, L.,
LJ., X, -,
[Ok we are back to work]

The offensive utterance (dysphemism) crazy bitch is used by Phoebe to stress how

desperately she needs Monica's help. Given their very close friendship, Phoebe's

is to be insulting (a face-threatening act) by Monica. On

swearing unlikely perceived as

be interpreted here intimacy. Monica's facial

the contrary, swearing can as a signal of

following Phoebe's request, confirms that she is not offended. The above
reaction,

depicts Monica that nothing in what she has heard

screen shot smiling, which suggests

is perceived as a face threat.

175
The discussionof the above examples(5.1-5.5) showsthat Arab subtitlersoften draw
on

semantic misrepresentation in redressing potential face-threatening acts in Friends. It

also suggests that particular euphemistic expressions derived from religion are

recurrently employed in mitigating various distasteful references. Interestingly, most of

these euphemisms are religious expressions related to damnation, including '4,4

damnyou; damn it; damned,etc.

Having discussedthe processof semanticmisrepresentation,the next sectionaddresses

the second most common process of euphernisation for distasteful references, namely

widening.

5.1.2 Widening

is
Table 3 shows that widening used to mitigate five distasteful references in the Arabic

Friends. A clear example of a euphemism produced by this strategy occurs

subtitles of

in the following exchange between Monica and Frank, taken from the second episode,

The one where Ross isfine.

Example 5.6

Phoebe, Monica, Chandler, Frank Junior, his adopted triplets: Frank,

Participants:

information: Monica and Chandler are sitting in

Chandler and Leslie. Contextual

have lots brochures adoption in front of them. Phoebe

Central Perk, where they of about

is to meet her brother Frank and the

joins them later, and tells them that she expecting

Central Perk. Shortly Frank and the triplets arrive; the triplets
triplets here in afterwards,

screamand run amok in the coffee shop:

176
 Screen shot I

Monica: Oh, my goodness, they've all gotten so Monica:

big! Which one is which again?
[Oh my God, they have
grown up. Tell us their
namesagain]

Frank: Oh, that's Frank Jr. Jr. pulling the Frank:

tampons out of the lady's purse. And
that's Chandler climbing on Chandler, -3
and that's Leslie throwing bagels at j
him.
[Ok, that is small Frank
is
who pulling the stuff out
of the lady's bag and this is
Chandler who is climbing
on Chandler and this is
Leslie who is throwing
bread at him]

Tampons arguably evoke a senseof embarrassmentin English, as do their equivalents in

many other languages, due to the purpose for which they are used. In the Arabic

subtitle, the word tampons is translated as 'the stuff. The specific sense of

tampons is sacrificed, and it is replaced with a general term that stands for scores of

potential items that could be found in a lady's bag, thus eliminating any unpleasant

this The subtitle makes it almost impossible for the viewer

value associated with word.

Frank, is actually pulling out of the lady's bag and therefore

to guess what the child,

177
sacrifices the humour intended by the original use of the word. Moreover, the
on visual
level, the camera shows Frank pulling
some items out of the lady's bag, but the shot is

not close enoughto allow the viewers to recognisewhat theseitems are (seeScreenshot

2 above). This means that the use of widening here is

effective, in the senseof not
in
resulting any incoherencefor the viewer.

The third episode, The one with Phoebe's wedding, features a very interesting example

of a distasteful reference which is clearly euphemised in the Arabic subtitles for

religious reasons.

Example 5.7

Participants: Monica and Phoebe. Contextual information: the scene is Phoebe's

wedding rehearsal dinner. Phoebe explains to Ross and Chandler that none of them will

be a groomsman, since Mike, her fiance, has decided to choosehis brother and his

friends from school to be groomsmen. While she is walking away from Ross and

Chandler, Phoebe picks up a piece of food from a pot and starts chewing it, when

Monica suddenly stopsher.

Monica: (Looking at Phoebe eating Monica: 4jý Ali IýA C'-rys

L'riýl
Pheebs, spit that out, [Phoebe spit this out it has meat in
something)
that has pork in it. it]
Phoebe: Oh! I thought the pot stickers Phoebe: ý:-ý
to be [I thought the food would be
were supposed vegetarian!
vegetarian]
Monica: Yeah, I changed them. I sent you Monica:
a fax about it!
[Yes but I changed that. I sent you a
fax about this]

178
Pork is a potentially distasteful item for Arab
viewers, who are mostly Muslim. Since
eating pork is prohibited (is a sin) in IslaM76translating literally into
, pork Arabic could
be seenas a challengeto Islamic instructions
and teachings,thus constitutinga threatto
the face of many target viewers. By translating
pork into Arabic as 'meat'
(another instanceof widening), the subtitler
avoids referring to a particular type of meat

and successfully eliminates the sourceof threat in the original utterance

altogether.As
in the previous example, the visual image
posesno challengeto the subtitle in that it is

not possible to identify the meat in questionas pork and hencethere is no contradiction

betweenthe subtitle and the image.

Another example of a distasteful reference, but this time related to disease,occurs in the

following extract from the eleventh episode, The one where Chandler gets
caught.

Example 5.8

Participants: Chandler, Ross, Rachel, Monica, Joey and Phoebe. Contextual

information: this scene is a flashback to season one, the ninth episode, The one where

underdog gets away. All the characters are in the flat, away from their families and

trying to celebrate Thanksgiving. As usual, Monica is in charge of Thanksgiving dinner,

trying hard to cook a turkey and potatoes. However, she bums the turkey and ruins the

76 The Qur'an in a number of ayahs, for instance in the

clearly prohibits consuming pork
following verses (Al-Ma'idah: 3):
Prohibited to you are dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been
dedicatedto otherthan Allah, and [those animals] killed by stranglingor by a violent blow
fall by horns, those from which a wild animal has
or by a head-long or the goring of and
eaten, except what you [are able to] slaughter [before its death], and those which are
and [prohibited is] that you seek decision through divining
sacrificed on stone altars,
arrows. (Saheeh International 1997: 95).

179
potatoes, leaving the rest without a meal to celebratethe day with. Having
no other
option, they all sit around the kitchen table and start eating cheese.

Chandler: Little toast here. I know this Chandle-r: 1ý, ýT

%
isn't exactly the kind of Z"ýL
Thanksgiving that all of you tiýý ý, Cý
planned, but for me, this has J1
(LýB) 31 L. IA3 Ls3l
-ý
been really great, you know, I
think becauseit didn't involve _91
UJ 1i=I" Uý UsLJ
divorce or projectile vomiting. .
JJJýJ-3L.1
Anyway, I was just thinking, I 431-3-A
L4,.
ýDu
mean, if you'd gone to Vail, [I have a little toast this is not
if
and you guys had been with exactly the feast that you
your family, if you didn't have planned but for me it has been
syphilis and stuff, we wouldn't really great becauseit did not
be all together, you know? So I involve a divorce or projectile
guess what I'm trying to say is vomiting and if you had gone to
that I'm very thankful that all Vail or if you had beenwith
of your Thanksgivings sucked. your family or if you had not
had a diseasewe would not be
all together. I think what I am
trying to say is that I am very
thankful that your celebration
was bad.]
All: That's so sweet All:
[That is so nice]
Ross: And hey, here's to a lousy Ross: J-.J
Christmas. [This is to an unsuccessful
Christmas]
77
Rachel: And a crappy New Year. Rachel: ýa.
-9
[And to a bad New Year]

Chandler mentions a sexually transmitted disease, syphilis, which often evokes a sense

of embarrassment to interlocutors, especially when discussed in public. This distasteful

reference could pose a serious threat to Arab viewers, since the disease is normally

passedfrom one person to anotherthrough direct sexual contact (and is often associated

sex). A person who catchessyp hilis in Arab societiesis

with extramarital or premarital

is engages in sexual activities outside marriage. The

stigmatised, as anyone who

down the the original item by substituting it with a more

subtitler tones strength of

general term, namely ýj 'the disease'. 'the disease', can of course refer to
-,
illness, including transmitted disease. However, Arab viewers
many types of sexually

This distasteful reference is discussed under demetaphorisation.

180
 can hear Chandler's voice in the background
and can probably retrieve the original item

since syphilis in Arabic is referred to as 4j 1"ý 78 'syphilis' (the

, samepronunciationas
in English). Therefore, the subtitler's
efforts to mask this taboo reference are

underminedby the voice input, which the subtitler cannotpossibly

modifY79.

Finally, empty words are also used here, they

as were in euphemising sexual references
in the previous chapter, in a couple
of euphemisms that rely on widening. One such

euphemistic expression occurs in the following exchange between Mike and Monica,

taken from the third episode, The one with Phoebe's wedding.

Example 5.9

Participants: Mike and Monica (Phoebe, Joey, Chandler, Rachel are present).

Contextual information: The scene is Mike and Phoebe's rehearsal wedding. As a

strict organiser of the event, Monica, who is obsessedwith cleanliness and organisation,

is running a rehearsal wedding only to double check that everything will be running

smoothly and accurately as planned.

I ýýIAý2 ý'-Aj 4-ý 14
Mike: Do I have a minute to go to the Ross: ?j.;zLz. Lý L.
bathroom? _>J
[Do I have time to go to the
lavatory?]
Monica: You had a bathroom break at Phoebe: 2030 ýaLJ =Lz--ý- 44
-;
,ýL,,
2030. Pee on your own time,
Mike! (to Phoebe and Mike).
Now, in regard to the toast, okay, '&ýAsýDjL
you wanna keep them short, II ;ýLIJ J:I
nothing kills a rehearsal dinner
like long speeches.Okay. You
just get in, do your thing and get [You have a lavatory break at 2030.
out! You have to do that in the specified
time, Mike. At the toast your speech
has to be short nothing kills a
rehearsal dinner like long speeches.
Just get in, do your job, then get out]

18Syphilis also has another medical name in Arabic, namely

'9 Unlike subtitling, dubbing can successfully eliminate this distasteful reference.

181
In this extract, pee constitutes a distasteful
reference, one which cannot be literally

translated into Arabic without potentially offending at least some

viewers. Although
Arabic has a formal equivalent to pee, namely 'to urinate', the subtitler avoids

using it here, possibly for two reasons. First, the verb 'J y', 'to urinate' causessome
_ý-L
discomfort for at least some Arab viewers, who would normally
use various types of

euphemisms instead. Second, using this verb in the Arabic subtitle would raise the

register, and therefore result in a more formal (and rather odd) version of the original

script that does not deliver a similar humorous impact on viewers. Consequently, the

subtitler opts here to substitute pee with the empty phrase to do that. It is worth

mentioning here that Mike's use of the euphemism go to the bathroom enables the

subtitler to use the euphemistic phrase to do that successfully without significantly

disrupting the flow of the conversation; the viewers are still able to infer that this

euphemism refers to urination (or excretion, unlike pee). However, it is important to add

that euphernisation here masks the level of informality in this extract, and does not

reflect the intimate relationship between these friends.

A similar example of the use of empty words, this time by Rachel, can be seen in the

following exchange, taken from the eighth episode, The one with the late Thanksgiving.

Example 5.10

Participants: Phoebe and Rachel (Monica is present). Contextual information: the

is Joey Rachel's Phoebe is planning to convince Rachel to allow

scene and apartment.

beauty baby 80.Rachel answers Phoebe's question

her daughter Emma to enter a pageant

is
80Pageant in British English refers to a show which performed outside, by people wearing
historical But, in American English it refers to a
traditional clothing and acting out events,
in based on their beauty and other qualities.
contest which young women compete
182
below in a very sarcastic way, since Emma is too
young to be able to do anything on her

own.

Phoebe: What's Emma doing today? Phoebe:

Yý_41 LIUI
ý_ýJ
U4

[Whalt is Emma doing today?]

Rachel: Well, let's see... A... I know that - Rachel: 1,3 TL-.!
she has a meeting with her ý)j
lawyer and then she has to ju
make a very big poop. Why? [Well let's see,I know that she
has a meeting with her lawyer and
hen she has to make a big one]

Rachel's use of the phrase make a very big poop is clearly masked in the Arabic

subtitle. Despite the fact that this phrasedoes not constitutea seriousthreat to the face

of the target audience, compared to swearing and explicit sexual words, it is still

deemed socially inappropriate, and is not literally rendered into Arabic. In other words,

the subtitler seemsconsciousof and respectsthe social norms that dominatemost Arab

societies. Widening is used here in euphernising make a very bigpoop, it

replacing with
4
6S `9 make a big one' for similar reasonsand with similar effects to the

euphemisation of pee in the previous example (also managing to avoid a more formal

register). However, in this case it is almost impossible for Arab viewers to understand

what Rachel is to
referring on the basis of the subtitle. The empty word one can refer to

any number of things that Emma might possibly do. Consequently, the subtitler

succeeds in eliminating this potential face-threatening reference, but produces a

of the original script. The target

pragmatically and semantically ambiguous rendering

likely to be further confused by the canned laughter they can hear in the
viewers are

background.

As the above examples make clear, Arab subtitlers show deferenceto the face and the

face wants of their target viewers. Widening is again a common strategy of censoring

distasteful in Friends. Subtitlers persist in

and toning down the strength of utterances

183
using euphemismsto replace uncomfortable or undesirableutterances,even if this leads

to sacrificing some elements of the original script and failing to communicate the

intendedhurnour.

I now move on to discuss the third most frequently employed strategy of euphemising

distasteful references in the data, namely implication.

5.1.3 Implication

As Table 3 shows, implication is one of the more frequent strategies of euphemisation,

used four times in the data. As mentioned previously in Chapter Three (see section

3.4.3), implication denotes a logical relationship between two propositions (the

is
connection usually that to in
of antecedent a consequent) which 'if X is true, then Y is

true'. A good example of implication appears in the following exchange between

Chandler and Monica, taken from the eleventh episode, The one where the stripper

cries:

Example 5.11

Participants: Chandler, Monica and Ross. Contextual information: while Chandler

Ross telling what they have done at college, they discover that they
and are each other

have both kissed Rachel the day. Shocked by the news, Ross and Chandler
on same

flat looking for Rachel. However, Monica tells them that Rachel has left
enter Monica's

Phoebe few before their arrival. At this moment, Ross starts telling
with a moments

Chandler then him why it really mattersa lot

Monica what he has discovered,and asks

to him given that this happenedlong time ago.

184
Ross: Because...the night you kissed Ross 4-0C-*4
Rachel was the night I kissed 4-1D
Lý4-) 40 C-4 ýI U. 1
Rachel for the very first time. '.
I ;
LýJ'V -ýz
[Becausethe night you
kissedRachelwasthe
night I kissedRachelfor
the first time]
Chandler: You kissed her that night too? Chandler:
(asking Ross) [You kissedher that
night too?]
Monica: Two guys in one night? Wow, I Monica: Aic TýI
thought shebecamea slut after
shegot her nose fixed.
[Two guys in onenight I
think shebecame
immoral after shegot
her nosefixed]

In English, slut is a pejorative term for a woman who is regarded as sexually

promiscuous, but it does not have any specific religious overtones. Given that this insult

constitutes a serious threat to interlocutors' face in both English and Arabic, the

subtitler avoids rendering it literally into Arabic, as might be expected, and instead

translates it as ';U-4U%'immoral'. The chosen equivalent, 'ZLwU',is still offensive, and

interestingly has religious overtones, but not quite as offensive as slut. It is also broader

in its range of implications, and can be said of someonewho drinks alcohol or gambles,

for instance. Target viewers will still successfully conclude that Monica meant 'sexually

loose' (in this context) and will capture her sarcastic tone of speech. In other words,

infer that Rachel has committed an immoral act (sexually,

viewers will most probably

kissed two in day). The successin using implication here

since she guys one subtitler's

stemsmainly from the context in which the euphemismis used.

by implication can be found in the

Another more common euphemism generated

following extract taken from the eleventh episode,The one where the stripper cries.

185
Example 5.12

Participants: Monica (Rachel is present). Contextual information:

this is a flashback

scene to an 80's college party. Monica and Rachel are visiting Ross at his college
and
taking part in different social activities. Wearing 80s fashion, Monica
and Rachel enter

the college party venue, looking for Ross.

Monica: I can't believe we are at a real Monica: yt4JI 41-, UI ýýI V

college party! (Rachel laughs LýI
excitedly) I have to pee so [I can't believe we are at a college
bad! party. I have to go to the lavatory]

Pee is recognised here as a distasteful verb that cannot be rendered literary into Arabic

without evoking a sense of discomfort (cf. Example 5.9, under widening). The subtitler

translates it into Arabic as ýI 6go to the lavatory'. The negative value

.
attached to the act of excretion is thus lost. The implied mitigated value of this

euphemism is that if Monica is going to the lavatory, then she probably needsto urinate

or defecate (if y is true then x is probably true too). It is worth mentioning here that

Warren discusses a very similar euphemism in illustrating the process of implication,

namely go to the toilet, which replaces the implied referent "urinate and/or defecate"

(1992: 131).

31 V,
The euphemism 'o; =U-->-II, ýýIA: 6go[ing] to the lavatory' is also used on another

in the following exchange, taken from the twelfth episode, The one with
occasion,

Phoebe's wedding.

Example 5.13

Ross Phoebe(Chandler is Contextual information: Phoebe

Participants: and present).

is is to choosebetween Chandler and Ross to give

who about to get married supposed

186
her away in place of her father. Desperateto take this
role, Chandlerand Rossboth run
toward Phoebe,who hasjust come out of the toilet, to find
out what her decisionis.

Ross: So, what did you decide? Ross:

[So what did you decide?]
Phoebe: I decided to pee. Phoebe: _ ý11
Qa&"ýl Lýl Ylk ':'-j
[I decided to go to the lavatorv]

Phoebe answers Ross' question sarcastically, using the slang

verb pee, which is again

politely and euphemistically rendered into Arabic as ýI AA:

V, go[ing] to the
.
lavatory'. Needless to say, the Arab viewers will still be able to catch the
sarcastictone

of Phoebe's turn and her intention to avoid answering Ross' question regarding her

choice and deduce that she went to urinate or defecate(there is a strong association

betweenthe lavatory or toilet and the act of urination or excretion).

The focus of the euphernisation in Examples 5.12 and 5.13 is on the location rather than

the process. In other words, the euphemisms draw attention primarily to the place where

the taboo action usually takes place, and this helps to tone down any potential face-

threat.

It is worth reiterating here that in the case of implication, the relationship is one of

inference: x implies y. But in widening, the relationship is one of inclusion: x is a type

to Implication, unlike widening, involves a logical link (an inference)

or subordinate y.

between two propositions (if one is true then the second is also true). For example, the

go to the lavatory', used to replace the offensive word

euphemism

5.12 5.13 the logical assumption that if someone is

in
pee examples and above, relies on

lavatory he/she is going to urinate or defecate. On the other

going to the then probably

for instance, in example 5.7, has a looser

hand, the euphemism meat, employed

187
connection with the word it substitutes,pork, in the sensethat meat does logically
not
imply pork (Pork is rather a kind or type
of meat).

5.1.4 Demetaphorisation

Demetaphorisation generates four euphemisms in the corpus, as in

shown Table 3. This

strategy usually deconstructs the original dysphernisms, which are created by drawing a

comparison between two dissimilar entities or notions that share one important aspector

attribute. It is important to mention here that the relation between the two components

of the metaphor is figurative (see Chapter 3, section 3.4.3). However,

demetaphorisation results in mitigating the distasteful value of the source-language

dysphemism by transferring its non-metaphorical value into the target language. In

employing this process, therefore, the direction of the transfer is reversed (the subtitler

replaces the original metaphor, which constitutes a dysphemism, with its non-figurative

meaning in the target language). By doing so, the subtitler significantly tones down the

strength of the source language dysphemism, which may be used by an interlocutor to

signal strong feelings, such as anger, or in a humorous tone among intimates. In the

following extract taken from the third episode, The one with Ross' tan, two distasteful

related to sex are mitigated by the process of demetaphorisation.

references

Example 5.14

Participants: Amanda and Phoebe(Monica is present). Contextual information: this

the discussedin Example 4.9 in Chapter Four.

is
scene a continuation of exchange

England, decidesto visit her old friends, Phoebeand

Amanda, who spent a few years in

Amanda tells Monica that Phoebeonce tried to cut

Monica. While they are all chatting,

188
her out of her life. As a result, Monica becomes
angry with Phoebe,and Amanda

realisesthat shehas createda problem and regretsher words.

Amanda: Oh! Bugger". Should I not have Amanda: - ?aý J7

said that? I feel like a perfect I ý:?FI+L
ý
arse! [Damn me. Should I not have said
that?
I feel like an idiot]
Phoebe: Yeah well, in America you're Phoebe:
just an ass. [In America we just calI you a
fool]

The slang and offensive utterance arse implies that Amanda feels like a fool in this

particular context. Given that arse is often used in British English to refer to a part of

the body that evokes a senseof embarrassment,the subtitler opts here to transfer its

implied non-metaphorical meaning into Arabic, namely ',,44% 'an idiot'. Needless to

say, the use of demetaphorisation clownplays the offensive value of the word arse

significantly. Similarly, the same process of demetaphorisation is in

used translating the

word ass in Phoebe's turn; it is transferred in the subtitle as 'a fool'. The

comparison between these two unrelated entities (Amanda and ass) relies on them being

alike in one important quality, namely clumsiness or stupidity. The relation between the

conventional (euphemistic) and the is

novel meaning of ass not literal. Amanda and

Phoebe's turns would be understood easily in Arabic if they are read separately.

However, if their turns are read as part of an ongoing dialogue, which is the case here,

then the sequence makes no sense. It is to

not clear an Arab viewer why Phoebe should

tell Amanda that is

she called a fool just in America, when Amandahas alreadysaid

that she feels like idiot 82 The intended humour, which is built over a of
sequence
an .

turns, is thus lost to Arab viewers.

81The distasteful utterance bugger, which is translated into Arabic as '03 14', 'damn me', is
by (see appendix 2).
placed under euphemisms produced semantic misrepresentation

189
A further example produced by this device
occurs in the following stretch taken from

the fifth episode,The one where Rachel's sister babysits.

Example 5.15

Participants: Chandler and Monica. Contextual information: Joey, who has

convinced Chandler and Monica to write them a recommendationletter to help them to

adopt a child, is sitting in Central perk. Knowing that Joey is not good enough with

words, the couple asked him to draft a letter and show it to them before he sendsit to

the adoption agency. However, the couple are shocked when they find out that Joey has

already sent off a handwritten letter, instead of a printed one. Worried that the agency

will not like Joey's letter and therefore will decline their application, Chandler calls the

to
agency ask them to disregard the letter.

Chandler: (On the phone) Hello, this is Chandler: Lý-J

Chandler Bing. Somebody just

dropped off a handwritten
recommendation letter, and.. [Hello this is Chandler Bing.
(listens) Uh-huh... Uh-huh... Someone dropped off a
okay... thank you. Good bye. handwritten recommendation letter
(Hangs up looking very okay. Thank you, good bye]
...
confused).
Monica: Ugh, we're screwed, aren't we? Monica: TAa5041 L;,. ý,41L4v al
You know what? Just tell me on [We are finished, aren't we?]
the way to the bird store.

Monica's utterance we're screwed would be a serious face-threateningdysphemismin

an Arab context. Given that Arabs' social norms prohibit the use of such explicit sexual

the subtitler opts here to defuse the threat by conveying

utterances especially in public,

'Uj--I V, 'we finished'. Monica does

the implied meaning into Arabic, namely +V -,, are

literally they but that their efforts of adopting a baby

not mean that are screwed, rather

in British
This problem arises from using two semantically similar words: arse usually used
distinction between these two distasteful
English and ass used in American English. The
by 'in America, just an ass', is absent in the
utterances which Phoebe points to saying you are
Arabic subtitles.

190
are wasted or ruined, which will consequently affect them badly. In discussing

sex/genderas a topic of metaphor, Eckert and McConnell-Ginet suggestthat

when the
word screw is used, "there is the suggestion of force and of damage done to the

recipient of the screw-wood into which a screw is insertedis thereafter'ruined"' (2003:

220). This violent, intrusive metaphor is demetaphorised in the Arabic

subtitle by opting

for the implied meaning 'we are finished'.

Demetaphorisation is also used in the next two extracts to downplay the strength
of
distasteful references, related this time to bodily excretion (unlike the previous example,

is
which related to sex). The following exchange is taken from the eleventh episode, The

one where Chandler gets caught.

Example 5.16

Participants: Ross and Rachel (Chandler, Monica, Joey and Phoebe are present).

Contextual information: this scene is a flashback to seasonone, the ninth episode, The

one where the underdog gets away (for more contextual information see Example 5.3).

Ross: And hey, here's to a lousy Ross: J.,fti iýkw J-:? J

Iý -iia
Christmas. [This is to an unsuccessful
Christmas]
Rachel: And a crappy New Year. Rachel: Zý. -6.1ýzl, ý,j
[and to a bad New Year]

Rachel expresses her dissatisfaction by ironically proposing a toast to a crappy New

Year. Given that crappy is derived from the slang word crap, which is the
unpleasant,

transfer it literally. Instead, this distasteful reference is substituted in

subtitler opts not to

'bad'. Using demetaphorisation here

the subtitle by its implied meanin91
, namely

distaste (including the vivid picture, which is

results in eliminating any source of

intentionally evoked by describing a bad time as crappy), and thus presentingthe target

191
 viewers with a more neutral version of Rachel's turn. However, it is
worth noting here
that although the subtitle of Phoebe's turn
mitigates the offensive value of crappy, it

reflects a different representationof her characterin the

mind of the target viewers,who
would view her as a rather polite person in contrast to the
plain-talking oddball of the
English original.

Crap is also euphernisedin another instance in the data. This

occurs in the following
extract, taken from the fifth episode, The one where Rachel's sister babysits.

Example 5.17

Participants: Rachel and Joey (Amy, Rachel's sister, is present). Contextual

information: the scene takes place in Rachel and Joey's flat. Amy, who is staying in

their place, decides one day to pierce the ears of Rachel's daughter. On Rachel

discovering this, she is furious and decides to kick Amy out of the flat, asking Joey,

who also dislikes her, to take her bagsout.

Rachel: (Yelling) Joey, where are those Rachel: ýh J

; Cý,
bags? [Joey where are those bags?]

Joey: (Yelling from Rachel's room) She Joey: ýýIAUD

has a lot of crap! [She has a lot of trivial things]

Once again, the comparison between crap and Amy's bags is metaphorical not literal.

Crap is translated here into Arabic as 'trivial things'. What is lost here is the

emphatic tone of the original metaphor, which communicates anger an isrespect

towards Amy. Therefore, these emotions are seriously downplayed in the Arabic

subtitles.

192
In the above Examples (5.14-5.17), demetaphorisationis
successfullyusedto maskthe

unpleasantvalue of these offensive utterances,offering the target viewers the intended

meaning; crappy year implies that this year is bad and having lots of crap implies

having lots of worthless things.

Finally, I move on to present the last strategy of euphemisation in the data,

namely

omission.

5.1.5 Omission

Omission is identified on two occasions, as Table 3 above shows. This strategy is

integrated into the modified model of euphemisation proposed in Chapter Three (see

section 3.4.3), although it is neglected in Brown and Levinson's (monolingual) theory

of politeness. In this model, omission is treated as an extreme level of euphemisation in

which subtitlers refrain from communicating potential face-threatening acts altogether.

The following example, which illustrates the use of this strategy in the data, is taken

from the ninth episode,The one with the birth mother.

Example 5.18

Participants: Monica and Chandler (Joey, Ross, Phoebe and Rachel are present).

Contextual information: Joey, Ross, Phoebe and Rachel are sitting and chatting in

Central Perk. Monica Chandler enter the caf6, telling their friends that they are
and

leaving for an adoption interview in Ohio. The couple express their doubts about

therefore have agreed not to get their hopes up. However, their
adopting a child and

193
friends try to convince them that the lady will love them
and their application will be

successful.Monica losescontrol and suddenlybecomesvery optimistic.

Monica: Oh my God, it's gonna work! We're Monica: L

'q.
gonna make it work! I'm gonna be a --iJ-
mummy and (to Chandler) you're
gonna be a daddy! All right, I'll see
you suckers. I'm gonna get me... a
baby! (She leaves) [Oh my God it is going to
work we are going to make
it work I am going to be a
mother, and you are going
to be a dad ok, I will see
you idiots. I am going to
bring mX baby]
Chandler: Oh, screw it, I'm gonna be a daddy! Chandler: ý1
[I will becomea dad]

The slang phrase Screw it, which is often used to express extreme anger or annoyance,

is recognised as an offensive utterance that poses a serious threat to the target viewers'

face. However, since this phrase functions here as a filler unit that does not significantly

affect the overall pragmatic meaning of Chandler's turn, the subtitler choosesto refrain

from translating it into Arabic. In doing so, the in

subtitler succeeds eliminating any

threat and at the same time transferring the basic elements of the original
potential

Nonetheless, the omission of this distasteful reference results in linguistically

sentence.

Chandler's feelings that signalled by the use of screw it in

masking strong are primarily

the to his original intentions not to become too

the original script; phrase seems contrast

his new-found faith in the successof his and

optimistic about adopting a child, and

Monica's application. By saying screw it, Chandler is abandoning his original plans and

Monica's infectious The subtitler relies here

recogniseshe is succumbingto enthusiasm.

tone in transferring his excitement to the

on Chandler's facial expressions and of voice

fact are present in the medium of

target viewers. The that the voices of characters

194
subtitling, unlike other types of audiovisual translation (like dubbing, for instance),

facilitates the taste of the subtitler in transferringthe

original message.

Omission is also identified in the following extract, taken from the

seventhepisode,The

one with the homestudy.

Example 5.19

Participants: Phoebe (Mike and a receptionist are present).Contextual information:

the scene takes place in New York City Children's fund hallway. Phoebe and Mike

decide to donate the money saved for their wedding party to children and get married at

City Hall.

Phoebe: Well", Ithink you're gonna Phoebe: IýA aD liýF

-ýý
[I think you will appreciate this]
appreciate the crap out of this
one (she gives the receptionist a
cheque)

Crap is again recognised as a distasteful reference, and is omitted in the Arabic subtitle.

The translator sacrifices this word in this context, although it has previously been

euphernised on several occasions, using widening, implication and semantic

misrepresentation. This may be because, as in the case of screw it in the previous

example, crap is redundantly used by Phoebe as a filler word here, it

making easier for

the subtitler to use omission (the extreme end of euphemisation) without necessarily

distorting the basic semantic elements of the original sentence. Once again, the Arabic

the semantic messagebut distorts the characterisationof Phoebe,who

subtitle retains

ordinary, polite young woman. The target viewers are unlikely to

comes across as an

realise that the original script has been modified.

83Well is omitted in the Arabic subtitle since it is a redundant word that doesnot make any significant
to Phoebe's turn. This is a common practice in subtitling, which aims to produce a more concise
addition
and informative translation within specific spatial and temporal constraints.

195
5.2 Conclusion

In this chapter, I have investigatedthe strategiesof euphemisation

usedby subtitlersin

approaching and transferring various distasteful references in the Arabic- subtitled

version of Friends. A range of examples from the series illustrate how some

illocutionary acts could potentially damageand threatenthe face of Arab

viewers.The

analysis reveals that the proposed model of euphemisation could be successfully

employed in identifying potential face-threatening acts and the processes of

euphernisation used to mitigate them in the corpus. Unlike the previous chapter,

semantic misrepresentation appears to be the most productive strategy of

euphemisation, yielding eight examples. Omission produces the least number of

euphemisms, mitigating only two face-threatening acts relating to distasteful topics in

this chapter and three sexual references in the previous chapter. Moreover, the analysis

demonstrates that the process of demetaphorisation is effectively employed by Arab

subtitlers in mitigating four distasteful references. Images of characters shown on-

screen are helpful in facilitating the role of the subtitlers in toning down distasteful

references, particularly through omission. It is also noteworthy that hurnour, often

triggered by the use of various distasteful references, is frequently sacrificed in the

Arabic subtitles in favour of euphernisation.

In the following chapter, I conclude this study by highlighting the results and findings

from applying Brown and Levinson's theory of politeness and the proposed
obtained

to the Arabic subtitled version of Friends.

model of euphemisation

196
 Chapter Six

Conclusion

This chapter summarizes the findings of the

current study, which relate to both its
theoretical and empirical aspects.I then consider somepossible limitations
of the study
in terms of the size and design of the corpus
used, the units/methodof analysisand
further theoretical concerns arising from the discussions in Chapters Two Three.
and I

conclude with some suggestions and recommendations for future research.

6.1 Main findings

The current study set out to addressthe following overall researchquestion:

To what extent can Brown and Levinson's theory of politeness explain the use of

euphemisation as a translation strategy in the Arabic subtitles of Friends?

I have attempted to address this question by posing a number of specific questions

which arise from it. The first of these is:

LT-
how adequately does Brown and Levinson's theory treat euphemism as a politeness

strategy?

In order to answer this question, the phenomenon of linguistic politeness as discussedin

the literature investigated, paying particular attention to Brown an evinson5s

was

In Chapter Two, I introduced the main approachesto linguistic

politeness theory.

focusing the influential models. These were identified as the

politeness, on most

197
conversational-maxim view, the face-managementview, the conversational-contract

view and the pragmatic scale view. Against the backdrop of thesebroad
approaches,I
proceededto offer a more detailed account of the most influential theory of
politeness
and the one that directly informs the analysis offered in Chapters Four and Five,

namely Brown and Levinson's model, outlining its major tenets and implications and

discussingsomeof the more relevant criticisms levelled it.

at

As explained in Chapter Two, Brown and Levinson propose five super-strategies

of

politeness that each Model Person employs in dealing with a range of face-threatening

acts. In presenting these strategies, Brown and Levinson only touch very briefly and

inadequately on the phenomenon of euphemisation, offering few examples of its

possible use under negative politeness and off record strategies. They do not offer a

definition of this important strategy; they fail to suggest possible devices that might

produce various euphemistic expressions; and they do not engage with its significance

in establishingand maintaining polite interaction.

On the other hand, the main components of Brown and Levinson's theory of politeness

offer a good basis for elaborating the concept of euphernisation, as well as

its motivations and describing its mechanisms.Their notions of face,

understanding

face-threatening acts and politeness strategies (see section 2.4) are essential for

their vital role in mitigating sexual and distasteful

explaining euphemisms and

in In Brown Levinson's model, potential threatsto face can be

references subtitling. and

by five of politeness (see section 2.4).

mitigated adopting one of super strategies

Euphemisation is included strategy in the model, and the five super-

as a redressive

strategies provide a framework for elaborating the extended model of euphemisation

198
proposed in Chapter Three (see section 3.4.3). The strategiesare
used to elaboratea
continuum of euphemisation, one that reflects the varying strengths
of euphemistic

expressions and the fuzzy boundaries between euphemistic and non-euphemistic

expressions, as illustrated in Chapter Two (see Table 1). Here, the 'Do the FTA baldly

on record' strategy, which typically generatesdysphemisms, is seen as representing one

extreme end of the continuum, whereas the 'Don't do the FTA' strategy (omission)

represents the other.

To sum up, although euphemisation is recognised as an important strategy of politeness,

it is only discussed in passing in Brown and Levinson's theory. At the same time, the

theory provides an essential starting point for elaborating a detailed model of

euphemisation. The current study set out to address the gap in Brown and Levinson's

model and the available literature on euphemisation, and to offer a better understanding

of the use of euphemismsand their impact on interaction.

The secondresearchquestion is:

Can a detailed model of euphemisation as a politeness strategy be elaborated within the

overall context ofpoliteness theory?

is
This question addressedin detail in Chapter Three. I first attempt to establisha

definition Available definitions are considered(seesection3.2),

working of euphemism.

definition by Allan and Burridge (1999), which incorporatesthe basic

and the offered

Brown Levinson's theory is adopted. Euphemism is

elements of and of politeness,

in "as to a dispreferredexpression,[used] in order

understood this study an alternative

face: face through giving offence, that of

to avoid possible loss of either one's own or,

the audience,or of some third party" (ibid.: 11). This definition recogniseseuphemisms

199
as an important linguistic strategy used to maintain
and protect interlocutors' face by

mitigating various face-threatening acts. Following Brown and Levinson, this

study
assumes that, like politeness and as one aspect of it, euphernisation is a universal

phenomenon, though the extent, context and frequency of its use may vary from one

culture to another and even from one social group to another. This is so because

"societies differ with respect to the degree of tolerance shown towards

any sort of

taboo-defying behaviour. Tolerancedependson their current valuesand belief systems"

(Allan and Burridge 2006: 105).

Having identified a working definition of euphemism, I proceeded to elaborate an

extendedmodel by first identifying the topics which tend to be frequently euphemised

in interaction, drawing on available literature on euphemism. The topics discussed and

incorporated into the model are sex, religion and a range of distasteful topics that

include death, disease, bodily functions and insults (see Chapter Three, section 3.3).

The next step in elaborating the model involved identifying the semantic processesused

to generate euphemisms. Here, I draw on both Williams and Warren's models of

euphemisation (see Chapter Three, section 3.4.1 and 3.4-2) and attempt to synthesize

the two models by combining some of their overlapping categories under single

headings, such as widening and implication. Because Williams and Warren investigate

language,rather than attempt to accountfor it in a cross-

euphernisationwithin a single

it to address this limitation in the literature. A

cultural setting, was also necessary

translation-specific categories, namely, Semantic misrepresentation,

number of

demetaphorisation and omission, were thus introduced and incorporatedinto the model

in order to account for all types of euphemismsidentified in the corpus.

200
 The third researchquestion addressedin this
study is:

What types of euphemisationcan be identified in

the Arabic version of Friends?

As is evident from the analysisof the data,

a wide rangeof instancesof potentially face-
threateningacts cannot be transferredliterally into Arabic
without impinging on the face
wants of target viewers. Subtitlers were thus found to draw on
various processesof
euphemisation in an attempt to mitigate or even eliminate, whenever
possible,
potentially threatening or embarrassingutterances,and therefore protect the face
of
Arab viewers.

Chapter Four demonstrates that, as suggested in the literature,

sexual references tend

to account for the production of the largestnumber of euphemismsidentified in the data

of the current study. Thirty-eight sexual references were found to be euphemised in the

corpus under examination. As a politeness strategy, the consistent euphemisation of

sexual references suggests that Arab subtitlers are attentive to and restricted by

dominant social norms. As a result, Arab viewers are often offered a modified version

of the original plot of Friends, one which conveys an inaccurate representation of the

main characters and their interpersonal relationships. Joey, for instance, who is often

depicted as a womaniser and as somewhatobsessedwith sex in the original series,is

perceived as a more polite and innocent characterin the Arabic subtitles.Thesefindings

suggest that interlocutors' attitude towards and tolerance to explicit sexual references

vary from one culture to another and indirectly reinforce Brown and Levinson's

assessment of the universality of politeness, including the phenomenon of

euphernisation, as well as the specificity of its realisation in different cultural contexts.

201
The analysis in Chapter Four reveals that in Arabic is viewed as a particularly
sex

complex and taboo topic which cannotbe spokenof publicly without evoking
a senseof
embarrassmentand discomfort. Furthermore, the discussion of the data demonstrates

that sexual references cover a wide range of topics, including

sexual relationships (e.g.
have sex with in Example 4.7 and sleep with in Example 4.8), body
parts related to sex
(e.g. penis in Example 4.22 and balls in Example 4.12),
activities and items associated

with sex (e.g. spanking in Example 4.2 and bras in Example 4.3), and sexual

orientation (e.g. gay in appendix 2).

The second most frequently euphemised area in Friends relates to certain distasteful

topics, mainly insults, especially those drawing on sexual references, and bodily

functions. Twenty four euphemistic expressions are identified in the investigation of the

data, as illustrated in section 5.1. Most of these mitigate swear words (e.g. screw you in

Example 5.1 and son of a bitch in Example 5.3), expressions of negative evaluation

and dissatisfaction (e.g. crappy in Example 5.16 and bugger in Example 5.14),

references to sexual disease (e.g. syphilis in Example 5.8), and bodily functions (e.g.

pee in Example 5.9 and make a poop in Example 5.10). It is also evident that although

talking about death is usually considered a sensitive topic is

which often spoken of

indirectly in many cultures, including Arab societies, this issue does not arise as such in

data. This is due to the nature of Friends as a sitcom that is primarily

my perhaps

concernedwith sexual relationshipsand is humorousin tone.

The fourth researchquestion is:

be in
Whatstrategies of euphemisationcan identified the Arabic version of Friends?

202
The analysis in chapters Four and Five
shows that Arab subtitlers employ various

strategies of euphernisation in rendering taboo and sensitive

references into Arabic. The

proposed model of euphemisationproved effective in identifying these

strategiesand
their frequency in the Arabic subtitles of Friends. The following table
surnmarisesthe
use of euphemisms in the data under study and their frequency in rendering
various

sexual and distasteful references.

Euphemisation Widening Implication Metonyms Demetaphorisation Borrowing Semantic Omission

strategy misrepresentation
Sexual 17 7 5 0 0 6 3
references
Distasteful 5 4 0 5 0 8 2
references
Total 22 11 I
5 5 1 14

Table 4. Euphemismsof sexual and distasteful referencesand theirfrequency in the corpus

Widening is the most frequently used strategy in the data,84generating 22 euphemisms.

This process generates more abstract/general expressions which the viewer has to

particularise by reference to the specific context of interaction before retrieving the

intended meaning; examplesin the data include 'slaps' in Example 4.3 ;' oýA

;ý14LW)'these things' in Example 4.6; 'e-n-11',

'meat' in Example 5.7 and 'the
,
disease' in Example 5.8. This is followed by semantic misrepresentation, a new

category which I introduced and incorporatedinto the modified model of euphemisation

(see section 3.4.3). This strategy, which is specific to cross-linguistic encounters,

including translation and subtitling, involves replacing face-threatening utterances with

expressions in another language. It accounts for 14 euphemistic

semantically unrelated

expressions in my data. In Friends, semantic misrepresentation often produces a

distorted version of the original dialogue, which portrays a partly or

semantically

84 Widening is most frequently used by Arab subtitlers in toning down various face -threatening acts
because it be successfully employed without running the risk of the target viewers capturing
probably can
Unlike widening, implication may possibly communicate
the distasteful value of the original utterance.
face-threaten if Arab in drawing a logical relationship between the
the concealed act viewers succeed
(face act) and its novel equivalent (euphemism).
conventional utterance -threatening
203
significantly false representation of the characters and their interpersonal relationships.

One of the most straightforward examples of this strategy in

my data is the use of ' L-ýýI

Z!,i-2, 'bad dreams' to replacedirty dreamsin Example 4.18.

Implication, which generates 11 euphemistic expressions, allows Arab subtitlers to

mitigate potentially face-threatening utterances by offering the target viewers substitutes

that indirectly communicate the intended conventional meaning. However, there is

always the potential that target viewers might capture the concealed contextual meaning

by following a logical reasoning in which they assume that there is an antecedent-

consequent relationship between the euphemism and its taboo (e.

referent g. sexually is

AA: ýI
subtitled as 'physically' in Example 4.10 and to pee is subtitled as ' ýI --.

'to go to the lavatory' in Example 5.12.

Table 4 shows that metonyms are employed by Arab subtitlers to mitigate 5 sexual

but are not used as a means of euphemising distasteful references in the data.
references,

In the proposed model of euphemisation, this strategy is mainly adopted to refer to

that stands for another entity related to it in a whole-part

using a word or phrase

Interestingly, the analysis illustrates that metonyms are merely employed to

relationship.

defuse potential threats triggered by the use of utterancesspecifically related to sexual

(e. butt is by 'my body' in Example 4.14 and his testicles

organs g. my replaced

is replacedby 'A-J2, 'himself in Example 4.15).

demetaphorisation is used to euphemise 5 references

By contrast with metonyms,

does sexual euphemisms in my data

related to distasteful topics, and not generate any

is but differs from metaphorisation as

(see section 5.1.4). This strategy connected with

Warren is introduced as a new category in the modified

discussed by Williams and and

204
model of euphemisation used in this study. In employing this device, Arab
subtitlers
defuse certain metaphorical utterances(usually dysphemisms),
which can potentially be
perceived as face threats to the face of the target viewers, by transferring their
non-

metaphorical implied meanings into Arabic (e.g. ass is translatedas 'a fool' in

Example 5.14 and we are screwed is subtitled as 'U->.1 LI A% 6we finished' in

j:
, are
Example 5.15).

The final strategy of euphemisation identified in the data extracted from Friends is

omission, another new category I incorporated into the proposed model, based on

Brown and Levinson's account of their fifth super-strategy, namely "Don't do the

FTA". Brown and Levinson marginalise this strategic output in their theory of

politeness, arguing that the payoff for this device "is simply that S H
avoids offending at

all with this particular FTA". They argue that "there are naturally no interesting

linguistic reflexes of this last-ditch strategy" (1987: 72), an understandable comment

given that they restrict their analysis to monolingual encounters, where this strategy

leaves no visible trace in the interaction. My analysis, based on translational data,

demonstrates that omission can be captured as a euphemisation strategy in subtitling

distasteful references (see sections 4.2.5 and 5.1.5). It represents a

various sexual and

dealing of potentially face threatening utterances, but on

safe option in with a range

in the Arabic subtitles of Friends it proved problematic. It can cause

some occasions

confusion and ambiguity for target viewers when they notice some missing semantic

discrepancy between what they see on the screen and what they
elements as a result of a

in they in the subtitles and the background laughter they

read the subtitles, or what read

hear. At foregroundsthis strategy,as in the deletion of the

can times, the subtitler also

205
word penis in Example 4.22, where the strategy of omission is signalled by
the three
dots ( ) replacing the sexual referenceat the the
... end of utterance.

Finally, Table 4 shows that no instancesof borrowing identified in the dataunder

were

study, although it is introduced in the literature as a linguistic device that often

generates various euphemistic expressions in many languages. In this strategy,

interlocutors usually replace a taboo or embarrassing

word with a substitute derived

from another language, which communicates a similar meaning

and avoids any negative

value associated with the original utterance (see section 3.4). It is suggestedthat it is the

unfamiliarity of the imported term (the euphemism), which mitigates potential threats

communicated by the domestic (source-langue) utterance. It may be that this strategy is

not used in subtitling the episodes of Friends analysed in this study because it is

assumedthat target viewers will need longer to read a transcribed foreign item and

retrieve its meaning.

6.2 Issues Arising from the Analysis

In designing a politeness oriented model of euphemisation and applying it to the Arabic-

subtitled version of Friends, a number of theoretical and empirical issues proved

somewhat problematic. The discussion shows that the basic tenets of Brown and

Levinson's theory of politeness, supplemented by the available literature on

euphernisation, can be fruitfully drawn on to construct categories of euphemisation,

identify recurrent politeness strategies in subtitling and explain the motivations behind

to sex and distasteful topics. However, the analysis

modifying various references related

that instances of euphemisation cannot be easily categorised

also reveals some

to the by which they are This

generated. is a consequence
according semanticprocesses

206
of the overlap between some strategies of euphemisation, and
means that some
euphemistic expressions can be equally included in two or even more
categories. Two

processes, widening and implication, proved particularly problematic (e.g. see to have

an affair and its Arabic euphemistic counterpart 5,

ý4L, 'to have a relationship' in
Example 4.13). Another interesting example in the data illustrates this possible
which

limitation of the model is the use of 'I 'I am happy' to replace the sexual
-)x
reference I had a tiny orgasm in Example 4.4. This euphemism can arguably be

included under three categories of euphernisation, based on the relationship between the

conventional utterance (face threatening expression) and its novel referent (euphemism).

It can potentially be classified as widening (happiness is a general term, which might be

achieved through several means, including having an orgasm), as implication (if

someone has an orgasm then he/she will most probably be happy; if x is true then y is

true too), or as demetaphorisation (having an orgasm, which is used metaphorically by

Monica, is defused by transferring its literal meaning (being happy) into Arabic).

Arab subtitlers do, on occasion, successfully take advantage of the visual element

(images), particularly important in the medium of subtitling, in order to avoid

face threatening utterances in the subtitles (relying on the image in

reproducing

transferring the However,

original message). there are caseswhere the subtitler can use

successfully mask the original meaning because the

a strategy of euphemisation and

images do not clash with the euphemism employed in the subtitle. By employing the

for instance, content can be mitigated linguistically and

strategy of widening, offensive

images be to the original message.The subtitler

the visual can relied on communicate

for to distasteful value associated with the word tampons

manages, example, mask any

'the stuff in Example 5.6. The

by replacing it with a more general utterance

207
unclear shot of what little Frank is holding in his hand greatly facilitates
the subtitler's
use of 'oýl &-ýI' without running the risk of the viewers retrieving what it
-, refersto.

On the other hand, what the viewer seeson the

screencan undermineand clashwith the

euphemisms employed in the subtitles, rendering the subtitler's' attempt to mitigate

an

offensive reference futile and unconvincing. This occurs when images explicitly depict

an offensive act or item, which cannot be toned down by any linguistic modification to

the Arabic subtitles. In Example 4.6, bras is consistently replaced with these things. In

this case, although the subtitles successfully conceal the negative value of the reference,

Arab viewers can still see that these things refer to bras by watching what Joey is

attempting to take off, as illustrated in the accompanying screen shots. Although cases

of this type are flagged in

up the analysis, the model of euphemism elaboratedhere does

not systematically incorporate or account for the link between verbal euphemisms and

visual data.

A related point concerns voice input, more specifically the background laughter that

accompanies humorous exchanges and its impact on the target viewers' comprehension

of what is going on. Humour in Friends, as already mentioned, relies largely on the use

language and various expressions related to sex. Repeated attempts by the

of strong

to sexual references and strong language results in

subtitlers mitigate potential offensive

language that does not reflect the humour in the original. Arab viewers cannot
neutral

discrepancy between they read in the subtitles and the laughter they can
miss the what

hear in the background. Thus, subtitling Ross' utterance my butt is surprisingly hairy as

6 Ir, :* Lj-ý' 'I have hair on my body' in Example 4.14, completely misses the

humour of the original and hearing the canned laughter that follows this turn can only

208
confuse and frustrate the Arab viewer. Again, the
proposed model does not
systematically incorporate this type of discrepancyor attemptto
accountfor it.
Finally, the amount of data investigatedin this
study is relatively small and limited to

one cinematic genre, namely situation comedy. The data consistsof II

episodesof the
tenth seasonof the American seriesFriends and their Arabic
subtitles.However,despite
this limitation, the analysis yields interesting and consistentresults,
as outlined above,
but these need to be corroborated by findings from
other episodesof the series,for

example the previous nine seasons.

6.3 Suggestions for Future Research

A number of suggestions can be offered here for future studies in the field. These

include the following:

9 Further research examining various genres of audiovisual material, such as

films, plays and documentaries is needed to verify whether similar findings and

conclusions can be reached in relation to the phenomenon of politeness in

general, and especially the in

use of euphemisms subtitling.

* The model of euphernisationelaboratedin this study and outlined in section

3.4.3 may be applied to the investigation of euphemisms in other combinations

of languages, or to other mediums of translation, including written translations

and oral interpreting. Such applications can provide an opportunity to test the

model and elaborateit further.

Humour the use of face sexual and distasteful

9 often accompanies -threatening

topics, and future therefore investigate this phenomenon in more

research might

detail, especially the interaction between canned laughter and euphemisation in

subtitling English audiovisual materials into Arabic or vice versa, as recently

209
 investigated, for instance, in relation to the dubbing
of Friends into Italian (Dore
2008).

9 As I mentioned earlier, the study of subtitling in the Arab World has received

very little scholarly attention. There has been no attempt to investigate, for

example, how the industry operates, nor how the strategies employed by

subtitlers influence viewers' understanding of and responseto specific television

programmes. Therefore, a comprehensive study of the industry of audiovisual

translation in the Arab World, and especially - subtitling given that it is the

dominant form in the region, is urgently needed.

9 It would be particularly interesting to investigate how linguistic manifestations

of politeness other than euphemisms are rendered in the Arabic subtitles of

English audiovisual materials; and to ascertain whether cuts and shifts in

subtitling politeness markers influence the representation of different characters

for Arab viewers.

In conclusion, this study has demonstrated that euphemism as a politeness strategy plays

in promoting a smoother and friction-free form of

a vital role establishing and

interaction in the Arabic subtitles of Friends, despite its marginalisation in Brown and

Levinson's theory of politeness. The findings offer a contribution towards stimulating

translation in the Arab world, as well as research

much neededresearchon audiovisual
the treatment of euphemisation as a key
on linguistic Politeness, more specifically

strategic output of politeness.

210
 Appendix 1

Full List of Instances of Euphemisation

of Sexual
References, in the Corpus (Analysed by Semantic Process)

1- Widening

Example I The one where the stripper cries

Phoebe: Are you kidding? Phoebe: Jt

[A ou kid ing]
Rachel: We didn't know you wanted a Rachel: U->..; U
==i
stripper, so we got the phone
book and... got the first name C;ýL
1J
e. -9i
we could find [We did not know that you wanted
a dancer/ so we brought the phone
book and picked the first name we
found]

Example 2 The one where the stripper cries

Phoebe: Or you could teach stripping. Phoebe: 1'ýhA-9.. ý

'ýI-)UC)ai"JIe. 31
You know, share your gift, pass JJA
the torch. [Or you could teach dancing share
your gift/ pass the torch]

Example 3 The one after Joey and Rachel kiss

Mike: Oh, err... no, she's not here Mike: ,A

yet. You know, I think I'm

just gonna take off and break [No, she is not here yet. I think I will
up with her over the phone... leave and break up with her over the
phone]
Phoebe: Yeah, you can't do that! Oh, Phoebe: Uar-U31 4'
i3 L.ý -, U,
come on Mike, strap on a U31 ;ýLaD 1--.,
_). ýýJl
pair. Why don't you just tell &,L-ý-31 Q"All
-9
her that we got back together? [You cannot do that. That is snobbish.
You know, women appreciate Why don't you tell her that we got
honesty. We also appreciate back together. Women appreciate
gentle spanking once in a honesty. We also appreciategentle
while. Just F.Y. I. slapping from time to time for your
knowledge]

211
Example 4 The one where Ross isfine

C oll een: Everything is broken Colleen: ýYjur- 'Jý

down into categories
, 3_ ýJ ý
and then cross- _ _
referenced, and then [Everything is broken down into
colour-coded to headings and then tables
and
correspond with the references, also the colours stand for
forms in the back.
the meanings mentioned in the end]

Monica: Thank you. (To Chand-ler.) -Monica:

1 think I just had a tiny [Thanks, I think I feel happy ]
orgasm

Example 5 The one with Phoebe's wedding

Monica: Okay. (in her microphone) Monica: j_4 Jý ýýI. 14JL..,

It's zero hour. All teams -"I
ýýl
SJL, rd Lalr- J. ý
41.
execute on my count. (To "V-3AJ
all) Let's get this bad boy on [Okay, it is zero hour. All teams
the road. work when I give a signal. Let's
make these bad people work]
Chandler: (To Monica) Is it okay that I Chandler: T ;41 jaýýl
want you to wear that head [Could you wear the head set
in
set bed tonight? tonight? ]
Monica: (Checking her clipboard) I Monica: 2300 Zr-LJI UýýU 1r. 4-ý
Li . -y-
have you scheduled for [I have an appointment of
nudity at 2300 hours. excitement at 2300]
Chandler: I Oh (Monica Chandler:
yeah! walks týlj
outside) [Wonderful]

Example 6 The one with Ross'tan

Joey: I'm sorry! (He stands up) This Joey: J.A'ýý IýA ý "k. 1J
never happened to me before! Lgil J ý7ý,J *ýA Ili U1
I'm an expert at taking off A3 LW
-9
bras! I can do it with one
hand! I can do it with my eyes [I am sorry this is never happened to me
closed! One time I just looked before. I am a professional in taking off
at one, and it popped open! these things. I can take them off with one
hand. I can do it with my eyes closed. One
time I just looked at one and it opened]

Example 7 The one where the stripper cries

L+ýý ;,
ý-4 ý
Joey: In high school, I once had sex Joey: _ý121

with a girl right in the middle of [In high school I did it with a girl in
the... the middle of ... ?]

212
Example 8 The one with Ross'tan

Joey: No, I do sex things! First, I look Joey: 3..ý

deep in her eyes. Then, I kiss her.
Next I take my hand and I softly ý-J j 4-ý ji-Z-1
e:'
graze her thigh. [No I do exciting things first I look
deep in her eyes then I kiss her then I
hand and touch her softly]

Example 9 The one with Phoebe's wedding

Chandler: I am about to have the Chandler: i ý L31

-W 'AU3 ý.
most organized sex 4ý6 UA.,,ý ý)ý ý. "
anyone has ever had. [I am about to have the most
organized excitement anyonecould
get]

Example 10 The one where the stripper cries

Chandler: Totally. I had sex in High Chandler: UZ

school... ;ý-33ul aý ý:.ý
ýSi -il
[definitely I did that in high school]
Ross: Me too. I'm good at it. Ross: A3 U J4LJ J
[And me too, I am good at that]

Example 11 The one where Rachel's sister babysits

Monica: You guys do that? Chandler Monica: a4. V

won't even have sex in our [Chandler does not agree to do that
bathroom! in
even our toilet]

Example 12 The one where Chandler gets caught

Rachel: At & a4 ý 54 j %jul

Rachel: I can't believe
Chandler is screwing 11cannot believe that Chandler is doing that
this woman... with that woman]

Example 13 The one with Ross'tan

Rachel: 4-Si3L-VI ýI 11
ýIi L.-I
Rachel: Ok, let's work from the top ull Lý- .
down! (Joey nods, but then [okay let's start from the top
because he does down take it off Joey]
puzzled not
get it) Just work the bra, Joe!

213
Example 14 The one with Ross'tan

Joey: I blame your bra! Joey: U1

[I blame yours]
Rachel: It is a standard issue bra clasp! Rachel: ; ; 1j ý L,
Lptr. Aa. 4t. 01
[It is like any normal one with a
clasp]

Example 15 The one where Rachel's sister babysits

Monica: Wow! Don't you look nice? Monica: ?;ýý '11

[Don't you look beautiful?]
Phoebe: Yes, I do! Today is Mike and my Phoebe:
one-year anniversary.
[Yes, today is Mike and my first -3
anniversary.]
Rachel: Oh! What's it the anniversary of? Rachel: I JJ J,31
Your first date, your first kiss, yal
first time you had sex... [Your first date, your first kiss,
first time you did that? ]

Example 16 The one where the stripper cries

Ross: Hey, where's Rachel? Ross: YJ41-ýý,Ul

[Where is Rachel?]
IJJI
Monica: She and Phoebetook the Monica: 0-.
43 tA ý:
-ýI

stripper to the hospital. [She and Phoebetook the dancerto

the hospital]
I

2. Implication

Example I The one where Chandler gets caught

Joey: You know, I'm really sorry Joey: ýfi el,.ý

I was not more supportive
before. [I am really sorry because I
was not more supportive
before]
That is okay, we -eh--andler:
Chandler:
[It is ok. We understand]
understand.

Joey: And about this Nancy Joey:

thing... If you're not
her, should [And regarding this Nancy if
sleeping with
I? you are not in a relationship
her, should I do this?]
(Chandler gives Joey her with
business card, which he
eagerly grabs and he leaves).

214
Example 2 The one with Ross'tan

Amanda: Oh! Gosh! This is brilliant. Amanda: /týlj IýA

431jýl eýVLý 4_q4JI
Gosh, it's just like old times. j_ý&-l S_>4 LZir. L. S3ý 1.4 s ýý-
-
I'm so happy you two are [Oh my God this is wonderful. It is
friends again! like old days. I am so happy you
two are friends again]
Monica: When were we not friends? Monica: ý
Lý& LI. J
[And when were we not friends?]
Amanda: Well, it was 1992, and I Aý U1 / 1992ýIr- A3
ýimanda: L,
-i LýIS -iý
remember because that was LUý1) ý64 -s C4
eL131
A3
Lj.
ý3ý
LSi

the year I had sex with Evil P'Lls

Knievel (She starts laughing [It was in 1992 and I rememberthis
very proudly). becauseI had a relationship with
Evil Knievel]

Example 3 The one with Ross'tan

Rachel: Hi! Hey, listen, can we ask Rachel: ALI j

/111ý). 'LJ
L--J. L'6
you a question? When you LU_IL

and Monica first hooked up,

ýJLS
LJA
_'ý4ý1

was it weird going from

friends to more than that? [Wait can I ask you a question.
...
When you and Monica startedyour
relationship, was it strangegoing
from friends to more than that?]
L. J1 AA L-.
Chandler: Kind of .. you know, Chandler: ý
ý. ;ý"Ijl /UýL j
4L;
_ý

sneaking around, having to [Kind of, sneakingand hiding from

hide from you guys... you]
Rachel: No, no, no, no, I mean... Rachel: 'LzrdL.
sexually... [No, no, no, I mean physically]

Example 4 The one where the stripper cries

Ross: Dude, I was going to ask Ross: AýU1

her out. [I was going to do that]
Chandler: I said it first, bro. Chandler: ý U1
&I 1ý'14 ý.
[I said it before you, my brother]
Ross: Well, I thought it first, Ross:
Holmes. [I thought about that before you, my
friend]
Chandler: (angrily) Look, if you did... Chandler: 4ýýIj 131 t'.. Wl
[Listen, if you date her]
LA, ý631
jj:
Ross: Woha! Wait... What are we Ross:
doing? What we have is too U4 U
important to mess it up
I
over some girl. mean, we [Wait, what are we doing? What we
can get laid anytime we have is too important to messup
over a girl. We can date anytime
want.
we want]

215
Example 5 The one where Rachel's sister babysits

Phoebe: That woman at the game Phoebe:

didn't know what she was
talking about. Mike, [That woman did not know what
obviously you have balls. she was talking about Mike.
Obviously you are a man.]
Mike: But please, let's just forget Mike: L.,
the whole thing. -ý
[Pleaselet's just forget what
happened.]
I I

Example 6 The one with the birth mother

Rachel: Oh. Who is the blonde, Rachel: Z4A:?1+ýI OýAýý

'
is
she pretty. [Who is this blonde? She is pretty]
Phoebe: Oh! He is having an Phoebe:
affair. [He is having a relationship]

%I
Rachel: He is not having an affair! Rachel:
[He is not having a relationship]

Example 7 The one with the cake

Joey: What what!? It is for her hot Joey: 1ý,

% J-ji J T4 L. T4 L.
friends! [What's up with you? What's up with
I
you? am saying this to her beautiful
friends]

3- Metonyms

Example I The one with the late Thanksgiving

Rachel: Alright, enough, enough, come on. Rachel: J&-,ý uja. ý 1U.
1.1
Let's just all go in at the sametime. [Alright, let's all get in at
the sametime.]
Alright, okay. (Phoebe reachesfor the All: U.., U.
All: -I
door, and tries to open it but it's locked) [Alright, alright]
jýj,
-
Phoebe:
AJ
Phoebe: It is locked.
[It is locked]
Ross: What? Oh sure, now they lock it, but Ross: -'al
when they are having sex on the couch, -3
UA
IýSluýl
JSIL Lrý
=, Lýýl 4D-ýA.

it is like: come on in, my butt is 4 LJ.

surprisingly hairy. L5
[What? Of coursethey
locked it. When they were
playing around on the
if
couch, as they were
in
saying: come all of a
sudden I have hair on my
body. ]

216
Example 2 The one with the cake

Jack: I can't believe Emma is already one! Jack: uyl

11can't believe that Emma is

one].
Judy: (To Monica) I remember your first Judy: ý)Lý Ji I 21a.. = T
birthday! Ross was jealous of all the -,
AJ- jLS 4ý I LLý
ýLZ.
attention we were giving you. He pulled ý-,L dal
CS11
on his testicles so hard! We had to take ýJl ýI Allý
him to the emergency room! Ul: L
[I rememberyour
first birthday Ross wasjealous
of all the attention you got. He
hurt himself badly. We had to
take him to the hospital]
Ross: (Pointing the camcorder at himself) Ross: aul-9Lýaký ý C,
-4ý ýX"
There's something you didn't know about [You did not know this thing
your dad! about your dad]
I I

Example 3 The one where Rachel's sister babysits

Phoebe: But just so you know... Phoebe: J I U4:-. J J1--z1J,

elý -) ýý6
however and whenever you JýjL J-,rd J
L1..
,
decide to propose, I promise
I'll say yes. Whether...
whether, you know, it is in a
basketball game, or in sky _3A
writing, or you know, like [But you know, however and
some lame guy in a cheesy whenever you decide to proposeto me,
movie who hides it in the I promise you I will say yes. Whether
cake. (Mike's face changes in a basketball match or if you write it
from happy to sad, and he with a plane's smoke or like the lame
looks at the cake, man in that bad film who hides the
disappointed.) It's in the ring in the cake. It is in the cake, isn't
cake, isn't it? it?
Mike: (Puts on a fake smile) Where Mike:
else would lame Mr. No [And where could it be, since I hid it]
Balls hide it? (He takes the
ring from the cake, and
cleans it with a napkin)

Example 4 The one with Ross'tan

Chandler: How can you be so confident? Chandler: ý)jsý "1.6

[How can you be

confident to this extent? ]
ýLý
A. L. ULZ ýa I U1
Joey.- Well, I... I know exactly what I am Joey: .. 4ý11
to do! [I know exactly what I am
going
goin to do. ]
Chandler: "-ý'%ý ý
-0 1ý. ti,
Chandler: Really? Like you have a routine?
[Really. Do you mean it is

217
 Joey: N o, no, no, no, no. See. Each Joey: a routin e matt er?]
ýFoey
Y.
woman is different. You have to j
appreciate their uniqueness.
[No, you have to know
that each woman is
different from any other.
You have to appreciate
their uniqueness
Chandler: Really? Chandler:
[Really?]
Joey: No, I do sex things! First, I look Joey:
e-4 U1'I
deep in her eyes. Then, I kiss her. L+Lsi L+, "; J
L""u ,
Next I take my hand and I softly -
ýijj 4-"11 j 4-19J,
J-%I
graze her thigh. [No I do exciting things.
First I look deep in her
eyes. Then I kiss her.
Then I move my hand and
touch her softly]

4- Semantic Misrepresentation

Example I The one after Joey and Rachel kiss

Ross: Well, I'm so excited Ross: IýAJL, I

about this. [I am so excited about this]
Rachel: Really? Excited? Rachel:
[Really? Excited? ]
Ross: Are you kidding? I have had Ross:
some very dirty dreams
about this... [What are you kidding I have had/seen
very bad dreams about this]

Example 2 The one where Rachel's sister babysits

Phoebe: Hey, you know what, I've Phoebe: U41 U jp' ýý 1 ý

L.,.;=.
never had a one-year ý_>&U L)"Jý1-ýJL-
L. L-A31
AýSi -s
ýj ý4,, a
14
anniversary before, so no j
-J

matter where we go, I'm

wearing something fancy [I have never had an anniversary
pants, and... I am going to before, so wherever I go, I will
put on my finest jewellery wear fancy clothes and will wear
and we are going to have sex my best jewellery and we will play
in a public rest room. around in public toilets]

218
Example 3 The one with the cake

Rachel: Oh! Believe you me! I am Rachel:

going to bring this cake ,
ý31,
,i--j
1A..'Uj V

back, I don't even want it in LAII

ýýV
my home... (Turns towards [Believe me. I am going to return
the cake and sees Joey this cake. I do not want it to stay
trying to take a piece and in my house. Joey, do not touch
yells at him) Joey, don't it]
louch it!!
Joey: I'm so confused! Joey:
[I am confused]
Rachel: (Speaking to the person on Rachel: ý1ý V
L51--
the phone again) Yes, yes. I I
1-ý-)
still want my daughters Zý6-)3-
picture, but on a bunny [Yes, I still want my daughter's
cake. Yellow cake, picture on a cake but on a cake
chocolate frosting with nuts! shapedas a bunny. A yellow cake
decoratedwith chocolate with nuts]
Chandler: To be fair this one does Chandler: J14 4-,L &?Lý LDJS3
OýA U-SI
have nuts. Lý4
[To be fair this cake actually has
nuts ]

Examp le 4 The one with the late Thanksgiving

All: Alright, okay. (Phoebe reaches All: U.

-Z'
for the door, and tries to open [Alright alright]
it but it's locked)
Phoebe: It is locked. Phoebe: j5"'o
[It is locked]
Ross: What? Oh sure, now they lock Ross: ljas Ta.
it, but when they are having
sex on the couch, it is like:
come on in, my butt is [What? Of course they locked it.
surprisingly hairy. When they were playing around
on the couch, As if they were
in
saying: come all of a sudden I
have hair on my body.]

Example 5 The one after Joey and Rachel kiss

Monica: Oh, the way you crushed Mike Monica: sjý ýý 4L_ ur6 L+j
at ping pong was such a turn- T j
...
on. You wanna...? (hinting for [The way you overcame Mike in
having sex) ping pong was amazing do you
to
want ... ?]
Chandler: You know I'd love to, but I'm Chandler:
5 [I would like to but I am tired]
a little tired.

219
Example 6 The one after Joey and Rachel kiss

Mike: Oh, err... no, she'snot here yet. Mike:

You know, I think I'm just L+- :ýýA=Ll--il J-, I
ýCrý
-ý4r- U JL 131
- ý,
gonna take off and break up
with her over the phone... [No, she is not here yet. I think I
will leave and break up with her
over the phone]
Phoebe: Yeah, you can't do that! Oh, P-h
-be. V 4ý /,123LW'!Lý V
oe
come on Mike, strap on a pair. U11
US
Why don't you just tell her that
we got back together? You
know, women appreciate [You cannot do that/ that is
honesty. We also appreciate
snobbish. Why don't you tell her
gentle spanking once in a while. that we got back together? Women
Just F.Y. I. appreciatehonesty. We also
appreciategentle slapping/ from
t; M,- fr-- e for your knowledge]

5- Omission

Example I The one with the cake

Monica: Well, I'm sorry, but Monica: ýO aýi-l &-ý

Chandler and I could really zur. *L"3
qrsJ,
use a weekend away. You L114
ý- -,V!ýl
I

know, to reconnect... [We are sorry, but Chandler and I

emotionally. have the chance to travel during the
weekend holiday to reconnect
emotionally]
Chandler: There is this thing I really Chandler: 41.iý
,ýA
want us to do. I read about
it in Maxim. [And there is something, I really
want us to do, I
which read about in
Maxim's ma
Rachel: Well, can't you just go to Rachel:
Vermont the next day? [Can't you go there the next day?]
Ross: Yeah, we want everyone to Ross:
be there. As much as I hate ýt4l Lr6
to delay you doing weird Zu-)ý31
L5ý-ý
sex stuff to my little sister. [Yes, becausewe want everyone to
be there. We want that. As much as
I hate to delay you doing weird
to
stuff my little sister I

220
Example 2 The one with the cake

Ross: Uh, Rach? Does this bakery Ross: 41,;s ý7ý

ý-qL,
ý-4
by any chance also bake
erotic cakes? Say fo r
bachelorette parties? [Does this bakery by any chance bake
cakes with erotic shapes?Let's say for
bachelorette parties?]
? Aljou ýI U
L
Rachel: Ross, what are you talking Rachel: Sjj_ ýjýj _ýj'I rell
4:

C.
ý
about? (she sees the cake) ý, j
41IJI
oh! Oh my God! They put [Ross, what are saying? Oh my God
my baby's face on a penis! they put my daughter's face on
...
]

Example 3 The one with Phoebe's wedding

Monica: Okay. (In her Monica: j3-,g is Zr.ý. 1.631

U.,ý
-ýýl uala J,..]
microphone) It's zero Ujr-1
hour. All teams execute J--ý
;o,,-qA
on my count. (To all) [Okay. It is zero hour. All teams
Let's get this bad boy on work when I give a signal. Let's
the road. make these bad people work]
Chandler: (To Monica) Is it okay Chandler: T
that I want you to wear [Could you wear the head set
that head set in bed tonight?]
tonight?

221
 Appendix 2

Full Set of Instances of Euphemisation

of Distasteful
Topics, in the Corpus (Analysed by Semantic Process)

1- Semantic misrepresentation

Example I The one after Joey and Rachel kiss

Precious: Screw you, Mike. You're a coward Precious:

_9
and a bastard, and I hope you rot in
hell. (She slaps him in the face, Mike [Damn you, Mike.
looks like he doesn't believe what You are a coward and mean
just happened. Precious leaves, and and I hope you rot in hell]
he turns to Phoebe).
Phoebe: You're welcome! Phoebe:
[You are welcome]

Example 2 The one with the cake

Phoebe: (Yelling at the top of her voice) Go, Phoebe: Cwa L+'J' t-)-i tjJ
go, go Alan! Run you, hairy [Speed up, speed up, run you,
bastard! damned]

Example 3 The one with Ross'tan

Ross: Wait a minute, there's two sets of Ross., AI&

LDU...
nozzles, which one is it? (He turns
around frantically from side to side). [Wait,, there is two setsof
Which which which... which one nozzles. Which one is the
... ... is
is it? (He then stops turning, facing required? which one the
one of the nozzles, which starts required?
spraying in his face and front again).

Oh! Son of a bitch!

LL
[Damn it! ]

Example 4 The one where Ross isfine

(Looks at the triplets) Look at them! Frank: 4-J U1M-'ý

Frank:
V
Aw. I love you so much. (Strokes
Leslie's hair, little. ) [Look at them, I love you a lot.
and she moves a
Oh crap, don't wake up, don't wake up! Damn it, do not wake up, do not
wake uvI

222
Example 5 The one with Phoebe's wedding

Monica: (Enjoying what she's seeing) Monica:

How's it going? [How are things going?]
Phoebe: (To Monica) Help me.- Phoebe: L,
3ýjaa
L,
[Help me]
Monica: What? Monica: TU4
[Wliat?]
Phoebe: I want you to be crazy bitch again. Phoebe: 3-ýýJ ýýJ
L,
[I want you to be the crazy
damned woman again]
Monica: Ok. We are back in business. Monica: a
Lý, U-%aU.".
[Ok, we are back to work]

Example 6 The one where the stripper cries

Monica: Oh crap! Monica: LP

[Damn it]

Example 7 The one with Ross'tan

Amanda: Oh! Bugger. Should I not have Amanda: ?A! J,;s cr6 LP
j -)X-'II vI
said that? I feel like a perfect arse!
[Damn me. Should I not have
said that I feel like an idiot]

2- Widening

Example I The one where Ross isfine

Monica: Oh, my goodness, they've all gotten Monica:

so big! Which is
one which again?
[Oh my God, they have
grown up. Tell us their
namesagain]
Frank: Oh, that's Frank Jr. Jr. pulling the Frank:
tampons out of the lady's purse. And j
that's Chandler climbing on Chandler,
and that's Leslie throwing bagels at U-D -3-ý-ý3uz
him. A41rý
-ýýI
[Ok, that is small Frank
is
who pulling the stuff out
of the lady's bag and this is
Chandler who is climbing
on Chandler and this is
Leslie who is throwing
bread at him]

223
Example 2 The one with Phoebe's wedding

Monica: (Looking at Phoebe eating Monica: ýýj JýA

01., W1 644
something) Pheebs,spit that out, [Phoebe, spit this out. It has
that has pork in it.
meat in it]
Phoebe: Oh! I thought the pot stickers were Phoebe: Z"ýFj
supposedto be vegetarian! [I thought the food would be
vegetarian]
Monica: Yeah, I changed them. I sent you a Monica: ýj
1
j'= U. j
fax about it! IýAý)aL.16U
[Yes, but I changedthat. I sent
a fax about this]

Example 3 The one where Chandler gets caught

Chandler: Little toast here. I know this isn't Chandler: 1ý&

ý.>4
exactly the kind of Thanksgiving 4ý11
that all of you planned, but for O... U tia,
A
L-J
me, this has been really great, you L,<J El_>L"lýý J1Uýý
know, I think becauseit didn't LZ.A3
Lýl
involve divorce or projectile 1ýnlr.
Anyway, I just JJLi L. -31
I" LILýUsLJ
vomiting. was
thinking, I mean, if you'd gone to
Vail, and if you guys had been ý)Ls
with your family, if you didn't [I have a little toast. This is
have syphilis and stuff, we not exactly the celebration
wouldn't be all together, you that you planned, but for
know? So I guesswhat I'm trying me it has been really great,
to say is that I'm very thankful becauseit did not involve a
that all of your Thanksgivings divorce or projectile
sucked. vomiting and you if had
gone to Vail or if you had
been with your family or if
you had not had a disease,
we would not be all
together. I think what I am
trying to say is that I am
very thankful that your
celebration was bad. ]

Example 4 The one with Phoebe's wedding

ýI ýL ý: JA
4-ý
Mike: Do I have a minute to go to the Ross: . --AA -Aj

bathroom? [Do I have time to go to the

lavato ?]
Monica: You had a bathroom break at 2030. Phoebe: 2030 ýaLJ Li
Pee on your own time, Mike! (to lld..i ýLXI d1c.
Phoebe and Mike). Now, in regard
to the toast, okay, you wanna keep
them short, nothing kills a rehearsal
dinner like long speeches.Okay.
You just get in, do your thing and

224
 get out! [You have a lavatory break at
2030. You have to do that in the
specified time. Mike, at the toast
your speechhas to be short.
Nothing kills a rehearsaldinner
like long speeches.Just get in,
yourjob, then get out]

Example 5 The one with the late Thanksgiving

Phoebe: What's Emma doing today? Phoebe: Tý-3-PUJIjlý 13U

1
[What is Emma doing today?]
Rachel: Well, let's see... A... I know that she Rachel: Ljj-ýj ý. )C L, -.u U.
J L+ýL -i -, ýi" _;_ý jr-ý ".
ts- I
has a meeting with her lawyer and Lzý,

then she has to make a very big

poop. Why? [Well, let's see,I know that
she has a meeting with her
lawyer and then she has to
make a big one]

3- Demetaphorisation

Example I The one with Ross' tan

Amanda: Oh! Bugger. Should I not have said Amanda: J -YL",T'AL J-0
that? I feel like a perfect arse! L-?.P1+4 ýl
,
[Damn me. Should I not have
said that? I feel like an idiot]
Phoebe: Yeah well, in America you're just Phoebe:
an ass. [In America we just call you a
fool]

Example 2 The one where Chandler gets caught

Ross: J-, I
RosS: And hey, here's to a lousy Christmas.
[This is to an unsuccessful
Christmas]
Rachel: ý4. S.Iý ZL.,j
Rachel: And a crappy New Year.
[And to a bad New Year]

Example 3 The one where Rachel's sister babysits

(Yelling) Joey, where are those Rachel: aji 4-ý-

Rachel:
bags? [Joey where are those bags?]

Joey: (Yelling from Rachel's room) She Joey:

has a lot of crap! [She has a lot of trivial things]

225
Example 4 The one with the birth mother

Waiter: (The waiter arrives with their Waiter:

deserts) [Chocolate cake for the lady,
Chocolate Torte for the lady, cheesecakefor the gentleman]
cheesecakefor the gentleman.
Joey: Uh, excuse me sir, there seemsto Joey: tzý_ý'
tL"JýI Ljý.. Ju& Ij3z
be some sort of red crap on my -3-ýY
uý
cheesecake. [Excuse me, it seemsthere is
some sort of red dirt on my cake]

Example 5 The one where Rachel's sister babysits

Chandler: (On the phone) Hello, this is Chandler: LL,

Chandler Bing. Somebody just 1-)S-L
-1p
dropped off a handwritten
recommendation letter, and.. [Hello, this is Chandler Bing.
(listens) Uh-huh... Uh-huh... Someone dropped off a
okay... thank you. Good bye. handwritten recommendation letter
(hangs up looking very okay. Thank you, good bye]
...
confused). TAýS U_ýAi V dAl
Monica: Ugh, we're screwed, aren't we? Monica: L_ý4i i ri.

You know what? Just tell me on [We are finished, aren't we?]
the way to the bird store.

4- Implication

Example I The one where the stripper cries

4j-) 4A, : ýI ýU11ý)V

Ross: Because... the night you kissed Ross: C; -4 u:
J4-) 16,18 ýI ;ý11 ':-aý
Rachel was the night I kissed Rachel ý:-4 4:
for the very first time. Lý'J'jl
[Becausethe night you
kissed Rachel was the night
I kissed Rachel for the first
time]
Chandler: You kissed her that night too? Chandler:
(asking Ross) [You kissed her that night
too?]
in Wow, I Monica: ý)ýLL
Monica: Two guys one night? I
thought she became a slut after she
her fixed. [Two guys in one night? I
got nose became immoral
think she
after she got her nose fixed]

226
Example 2 The one where the stripper
cries

Monica: I can't believe we are at a real Monica: Z4ý1--%.

Zýjx-6-Zlim- UI
ýýi V
college party! (Rachel laughs ýaLa., ýI
U. 64 C. yt4ll
excitedly) I have to pee so bad! [I can't believe we are at a college
I "ný+AfII to the lavatory]

Example 3 The one with Phoebe's wedding

Ross: So,,what did you decide? Ross: 13U131

[So what did you decide?]
Phoebe: I decided to pee. Phoebe: C);3u."6JICýl
[I decided to go to the lavatory]

Example 4 The one after Joey and Rachel kiss

Chandler: She's cheating on Joey with Chandler: t- (4j-?,

) 431
ý)-$Lý
Ross! [She's cheating on Joey with
Ross]
Phoebe: Oh that tart... floozy... giant... Phoebe: ýLuul SI-).
jI ýu ý
[Oh that traitorous woman]

6- Omission

Example I The one with the birth mother

Monica: Oh my God, it's gonna work! We're Monica:

it
gonna make work! I'm gonna be a " 4bln-j1-ýJ-
ýýa JU.
mummy and (to Chandler) you're Cýýi
be daddy! All I'll see ý1
gonna a right,
you suckers. I'm gonna get me... a
baby! (sheleaves)
[Oh, my God, it is going
to work. We are going to
it
make work. am goingI
to be a mother, and you
are going to be a dad ok, I
will seeyou idiots. I am
going to bring my baby]
Chandler: ý1Cý
Chandler: Oh, screw it, I'm gonna be a daddy!
[I will become a dad]

Example 2 The one with the home study

QA
Phoebe: Well, I think you're gonna Phoebe:
it the crap out of this [I think you will appreciatethis]
appreciate
one (she gives the receptionist a
cheaue)

227
 Bibliography

Abd el-Jawad,Hassan.2000. "A Linguistic

and Sociopragmaticand Cultural Studyof
Swearing in Arabic". Language, Culture
and Curriculum. 13(2): 217-240.

Adegbija, Efurosibina. 1989. "A Comparative Study

of Politeness Phenomena in
Nigerian English, Yoruba and Ogori". Multilingua. 8: 57-80.

Agyekum, Kofi. 2002. "Menstruation

as a Verbal Taboo among the Akan of Ghana".
Journal ofAnthropological Research. 58: 367-387

Ajiboye, Tunde. 1992. "Politeness Marking in Yoruba

and Yoruba Learners of French".
Language Learning Journal. 6: 83-86.

Allan, Keith and Kate Burridge. 1991. Euphemism and Dysphemism: Language Used
as
Shield and Weapon. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

Allan, Keith and Kate Burridge. 2006. Forbidden Words.- Taboo and the Censoring
of
Language. UK: Cambridge University Press.

AI-Khatib, Mahmoud. 2001. "Audience Design Revisited in a Diglossic Speech

Community: A Case Study of Three TV Programs Addressed to Three Different
Audiences". Multilingua. - Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage
Communication. 20 (4): 393-414.

AI-Khatib, Mahmoud. 2006. "The Pragmatics of Invitation Making and Acceptance in

Jordanian Society". Journal ofLanguage and Linguistics. 5(2): 272-294.

AI-Zumor, Abdul Wahed. 2004. "Apologies in Arabic English: An Interlanguage and

Cross-cultural Study". The Aligarh Journal of English Studies, Aligarh Muslim
University, India. http: //www. lboro. ac.uk/departments/ea/politeness/apologiesinarabican
denglish. htm (accessed3 May 2006).

Antonopoulou, Eleni and Maria Sifianou. 2003. "Conversational Dynamics of Humour:

the Telephone Game in Greek". Journal ofPragmatics. 35(10-11): 1679-1710.

Arndt, Horst and Richard J. Watts. 1985. "Politeness Revisited: Cross-modal

Supportive Strategies". IRAL, International Review ofApplied Linguistics in Language
Teaching 23(4): 281-300.

228
 Aronsson, Karin and Ullabeth Satterlund-Larsson.
1987."PolitenessStrategiesand
Doctor-patient Communication: On the Social
Choreography of Collaborative
Thinking". Journal of Language
and Social PsYchology. 6: 1-27.

Arundale, R. 1999. "An Alternative Model

and Ideology of Communication for an
Alternative Politeness Theory". Pragmatics. 9: 119-53.

Atawneh, Alunad and S. Sridhar. 1993. "Arabi

c-Engli sh Bilinguals and the Directive
Speech Act". World Englishes. 12(3): 279-297.

Axia, Giovanna and Maria Rosa Baroni. 1985. "Linguistic Politeness Different
at Age
Levels". Child Development. 56: 918-927.

Baker, Mona. 1992. In Other Words.- A Coursebook

on Translation. London:
Routledge.

Bargiela, Francesca et al. 2002. "Ethnocentrism, Politeness Naming Strategies".

and
Linguistic Politeness and Context. Working Papers on the Web, 3:
volume
http: //extra. shu.ac.uk/LAMw/-Politeness/bargiela.
htm last accessed on 20 November
2006.

Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca. 2003. "Face and Politeness: New (insights) for Old
(Concepts)". Journal ofPragmatics. 35(10-11): 1453-1469.

Barnes, Colin. 1993. "Political Correctness, Language and Rights". The British Council
of Organizations ofDisabled People's Magazine 'Rights Not Charity'.

Baroni, Maria Rosa and Giovanna Axia. 1989. "Children's Meta-pragmatic Abilities
and the Identification of Polite and Impolite Requests". First Language 9: 285-297.

Baroni, Maria Rosa and Valentina D'Urso. 1984. Some Experimental Findings about
the Questions of Politeness and Women's Speech.Language in Society. 13: 67-72.

Bartolome, Ana and Gustavo Cabrera. 2005. "The Effect of Bimodal Input on Implicit
and Explicit Memory: An Investigation into the Benefits of Within-language
Subtitling". Miscelanea. - ajournal ofEnglish andAmerican Studies. 31: 89-104.

Bayraktaroglu, Arin. 1991. "Politeness and Interactional Imbalance". International

Journal of the Sociology ofLanguage. 92: 5-3 1.

229
Bean, Judith. 2000. "Critical Book Review: Politeness:
Some Universals in Language
Usage". 29 November 2005. http: //users. 1.
ev net/-aquila/chandra/brown. html

Berk-Seligson, Susan. 1988. "The Impact Politeness in Witness Testimony: The

of
Influence of the Court Interpreter". Multilingua. 7: 411-439.

Biq, Yung-O. 1984. "Indirect Speech

acts in Chinese Polite Expressions". Journal of
the Chinese Language Teachers Association. 19(3): 1-10.

Blurn-Kulka, Shoshana. 1987. "Indirectness and Politeness in Requests: Same

or
Different?". Journal ofPragmatics. I1 (1): 131-146.

Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1989. "Playing it Safe: the Role of Conventionality in

Indirectness", in Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Juliane House and Gabriele Kasper, (eds.),
Cross-cultural Pragmatics. - Requestsand Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Albex, 37-70.

Blurn-Kulka, Shoshana. 1990. "You Don't Touch Lettuce with Your Fingers: Parental
Politeness in Family Discourse". Journal ofPragmatics. 14(2): 259-288.

Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1992. "The Metapragmatics of Politeness in Israeli Society".

In: Richard J. Watts, Sachiko Ide and Konrad Ehlich, (eds.), Politeness in Language,
255-280. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1994. "Review of Politeness Phenomena in England and

Greece: A Crosscultural Perspective by Maria Sifianou". Pragmatics and Cognition.
2(2): 349-356.

Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Juliane House and Gabriele Kasper. 1989. Cross-Cultural

Pragmatics. - Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Blum-Kulka, Shoshanaand Gabriele Kasper ).

(eds. 1990. "Politeness" [Special issue].
Journal ofPragmatics. 14(2).

Boxerý Diana. 1993. "Social Distance and Speech Behavior: The Case of Indirect
Complaints". Journal ofPragmatics. 19: 103-125.

Brown, Penelope, 1980. "How and Why Some Women are More Polite: Some Evidence
from a Mayan Community", in: Sally McConnell-Ginet, Ruth Borker and Nellie

230
Furman eds., Women and Language in Literature
and Society. New York: Prager. III-
136.

Brown, Penelope and Stephen Levinson. 1978. "Universals in Language Usage:

PolitenessPhenomena",in Esther Goody (ed.), Questions
and Politeness.
- Strategiesin
Social Interaction, 56-311. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.

Brown, Penelope and Stephen Levinson. 1987. Politeness. Some Universals in

-
Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, Roger and Albert Gilman. 1989. "Politeness Theory Shakespeare'sFour

and
Major Tragedies". Language in Society. 18: 159-212.

Buck, R. A. 1997. "Towards an Extended Theory of Face Action: Analyzing Dialogue

in E.M. Foster's A Passage to India". Journal of Pragmatics. 27(l): 83-106.

Burton, Deirdre. 1980. "Dialogue and Power in E.M Foster's Howards End', in Peter
Verdonk and Jean Jacques Weber (ed.), Twentieth Century Fiction. - From Text to
Context, 63-77. London: Routledge.

Campbell, Kim. 1990. "Explanations in Negative Messages:More Insights from Speech

Act Theory". Journal ofBusiness Communication. 27(4): 357-375.

Chen, Rong. 1993. "Responding to Complaints A Contrastive Study of Politeness

Strategies between American English and Chinese Speakers". Journal of Pragmatics.
20(l): 49-75.

Cheng, Rong, 200 1. "Self-politeness: a Proposal". Journal ofPragmatics. 33: 87-106.

Cherry, Roger. 1988. "Politeness in Written Persuasion". Journal of Pragmatics.

12(l): 63-81.

Ciliberti, Anna. 1993."The Personaland the Cultural in Interactive Styles". Journal of

Pragmatics. 20(l): 1-25.

Clark, Herbert and Daleh Schunk. 1975. "Politeness Responses to Polite Requests"
Cognition. 8: 111: 143.

231
Coulmas, Florian. 1992. "Linguistic Etiquette in JapaneseSociety",
in Watts, Richard.,
Sachiko Ide and Konrad Ehlich (eds.), Politeness in Language.
- Studies in its History,
Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 299-323.

Craig, Robert, Karen Tracy, and Frances Spisak. 1986. "The Discourse Requests:
of
Assessmentof a PolitenessApproach". Human CommunicationResearch.12(4): 437-
68.

Culpeper, Jonathan. 1996. "Towards an anatomy of impoliteness". Journal

of
Pragmatics. 25(3): 349-367.

Culpeper, Jonathan. 2001. Language and Characterisation. - People in Plays and Other
texts. Harlow: Longman.

Culperer, Jonathan. 2005. "Impoliteness and Entertainment in the Television Quiz

Show:The WeakestLink". Journal of PolitenessResearch.1: 35-72.

De Ayala, Soledad Perez. 200 1. "FTAs and Erskine May: Conflicting Needs? -
Politeness in Question Time". Journal ofPragmatics. 33(2): 143-69.

De Kadt, Elizabeth. 1992. "Politeness Phenomena in South African Black English".

Pragmatics and Language Learning. 3: 103-116.

De Kadt, Elizabeth. 1998. "The Concept of Face and its Applicability to the Zulu
Language." Journal ofPragmatics. 29(2): 173-91.

DeJong, Jocelyn et. al. 2007. "Young People's Sexual and Reproductive Health in the
Middle East and North Africa". Population Reference Bureau.
http: //www. prb. org/pdf'07/MENAYouthReproductiveHealth. pd (Last accessed 05
February 2008).

DeJong, Jocelyn, Rana Jawad, Iman Mortagy, Bonnie Shepard. 2005. "The Sexual and
Reproductive Health of Young People in the Arab Countries and Iran". Reproductive
Health Matters. 13(25):49-59.

1989. "Translation Mass-Communication: Film and T. V

Delabastita, Dirk. and
Translation as Evidence Cultural Dynamics". Babel. 35(4): 193-218.
of

232
Diaz Cintas, Jorge. 2004. "Subtitling:
the Long Journey to Academic
Acknowledgement". The Journal
of Specialised Translation. 1: 50-70.

Diaz Cintas, Jorge and Aline Remael. 2007.

Audiovisual Translation.- Subtitling.
Manchester: St Jerome.

Dore, Margherita. 2008. "The Audiovisual Translation Humour:

of Dubbing the First
Series of the TV Comedy ProgrammeFriends into Italian". A PhD
thesis: Lancaster
University.

Dufon, Margaret, Gabriele Kasper, Satomi Takahashi Naoko Yoshinaga. 1994.

and
"Bibliography on Linguistic Politeness". Journal
ofPragmatics. 21(5): 527-578.

Eckert, Penelope and Sally McConnell-Ginet. 2003. Language

and Gender. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Eelen, Gino A. 2001a. "Politeness and Ideology: a Critical Review". Pragmatics. 9(l):
163-173.

Eelen, Gino. 2001b. A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome

Publishing.

Ehlich, Konrad. 1992. "On the Historicity of Politeness", in Watts, Richard, Sachiko Ide
and Konrad Ehlich (eds.), Politeness in Language.- Studies in its History, Theory and
Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 71-107.

El-Noshokaty, Amira. 2006. "Sex and the City". AI-Ahram.

http: //weekly. ahram.org. eg/2006/813/lil. htm (last accessedon 5 January 2008).

Emery, Peter. 2000. "Greeting, Congratulating and Commiserating in Omani Arabic"

Language, Culture and Curriculum. 13(2): 196-216.

Enright, Dennis. 1985. Fair of speech.- The uses of euphemism. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Ervin-Tripp, Susan, Jiansheng Guo and Martin Lampert. 1990. "Politeness and
Persuasion in Children's Control Acts". Journal of Pragmatics. 14: 307-33 1.

233
Escandell-Vidal, Victoria. 1996. "Towards
a Cognitive Approach to Politeness-.
Language Sciences.18(3/4): 629-50.

Farghal, Mohammad. 1992. "Colloquial Jordanian Arabic Tautologies".

Journal of
Pragmatics. 17: 223-240.

Farghal, Mohammed. 1995. "Euphemism in Arabic: A Gricean Interpretation".

Anthropological Linguistics. 37(3): 366-378.

Fernandez, Eliecer. 2006. "The Language of Death: Euphemism Conceptual

and
Metaphorization in Victorian Obituaries". SKYJournal of Linguistics. 19: 101-130.

Fernandez, Eliecer. 2008. "Sex-Related Euphemism and Dysphemism: An Analysis in

Terms of Conceptual Metaphor Theory". ATLANTIS, Journal of the Spanish
Association ofAnglo-American Studies. 30 (2): 5-110.

Flowerdew, John. 1991. "Pragmatic Modifications on the "Representative" Speech Act

of defining". Journal ofpragmatics. 15(3): 253-264.

Flowerdew, John. 1999. 'Face in Cross-cultural Discourse' Text. 19: 3-23.

Foster, George. 1966. "Euphemisms and Cultural Sensitivity in Tzintzuntzan".

Anthropological Quarterly. 39(2): 53-59.

Fraser, Bruce. 1975. "The Concept of Politeness". Paper presented at the 1985 NWAVE
Meeting, Georgetown University.

Fraser, Bruce. 1980. "Conversational Mitigation". Journal ofPragmatics. 4: 341-350.

Fraser, Bruce. 1990. "Perspectives on Politeness". Journal of Pragmatics. 14(2): 219-

236.

Fraser, Bruce and William Nolen. 1981. "The Association of Deference with Linguistic
Form". International Journal of the Sociology ofLanguage. 27: 76-92.

Fukada, Atsushi and Noriko Asato. 2004. "Universal Politeness Theory: Application to
Use JapaneseHonorifics". Journal ofPragmatics. 36: 1991-2002.
the of

234
Fukushima, Saeko. 2004. "Evaluation
of Politeness: The Case of Attentiveness".
Multilingua. 23: 365-387.

Gamal, Muhammad. 2008. "Egypt's Audiovisual Translation Scene". Arab Media &
Society. 5: 1-15.

Gambier, Yves (ed.). 1998. Translating for the Media. Papersftom the International
Conference,Languages & the Media, University of Turku: Centre for Translation
and
Interpreting.

Gambier, Yves (ed). 2004. Traduction audiovisuelle. Audiovisual Translation. Meta 49

M.

Garcia, Carmen. 1989. "Apologizing in English: Politeness Strategies Used by Native

and Non-native Speakers". Multilingua. 8(l): 3-20.

Garcia, Carmen. 1993. "Making a Request and Responding to it: A Case Study of
Peruvian Spanish Speakers". Journal of Pragmatics. 19: 1277152.

Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction Ritual. - Essays on Face-to-jace Behavior. New

York: Pantheon Books.

Goldschmidt, Myra. 1998. "Do me a Favour: A Descriptive Analysis of Face Favour

Asking Sequencesin American English". Journal ofPragmatics. 29(2): 129-153.

Gottlieb, Henrik. 1998. "Subtitling", in Mona Baker (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of

Translation Studies, London & New York: Routledge. 244-248.

Greene, Carole. 2000. "The Use of Euphemisms and Taboo Terms by Young Speakers
Russian and English". MA. thesis: University of Alberta.
of

Grice, Herbert. 1971. "Meaning", in Danny Steinberg and Leon Jakobovits ),

(eds.
Semantics.- An Interdisciplinary Reader, 53-9. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

in Peter Cole Jerry Morgan ),

(eds.
Grice, Herbert. 1975. "Logic and Conversation", and
Syntax and Semantics (Vol. 3), 41-58. New York: Academic Press.

235
Gu, Yueguo. 1990. "PolitenessPhenomenain Modem Chinese".Journal
ofPragmatics.
14(2): 237-257.

Guo, Ying. 2006. "A Comparative Study

on P. Grice's and Sperber / Wilson's
Approach to Euphemism". US-China Education Review. 3(3): 67-69.

Guodong, LIANG and HAN Jing. 2005. "A Contrastive Study

on Disagreement
Strategies for Politeness between American English & Mandarin Chinese". Asian ELF
Journal. 7(l): 155-166.

Habib, Samar. 2005. "The Hitorical Context and Reception of the First Arabic-Lesbian
Novel, IAm You, by Elharn Mansour". EnterText 5.3: 201-235.

Hardy, Donald. 1991. "Strategic Politeness in Hemingway's 'The Short Happy Life of
Francis Macomber"'. Poetics. 20(4): 343-362.

Harris, Sandra. 2001. "Being Politically Impolite: Extending Politeness Theory to

Adversarial Political Discourse". Discourse and Societv 12: 451-472.

Hatim, Basil and Ian Mason. 1990. Discourse and the Translator. London/New York:
Longman.

Hatim, Basil and Ian Mason. 1997. The Translator as Communicator. London/New
York: Routledge.

Haugh, Michael. 2003. "Anticipated Versus Inferred Politeness". Multilingua. 22: 397-
413.

Haugh, Michael and Carl Hinze. 2003. "A Metalinguistic Approach to Deconstructing
the Concepts of 'Face' and 'Politeness' in Chinese, English and Japanese".Journal of
Pragmatics. 35: 1581-1611.

Hickey, Leo. 2001. "Politeness in Translation between English and Spanish". Target.
12(2): 229-240.

Hill, Beverly, Sachiko Ide, Shoko Ikuta, Akiko Kawasaki and Tsunao Ogino. 1986.
"Universals of Linguistic Politeness: Quantitative Evidence from Japanese and
American English". Journal of Pragmatics. 10: 347-37 1.

236
Holmes, Janet. 1988. "Paying Compliments: A Sex-preferential
Positive Politeness
Strategy". Journal ofPragmatics. 12 (4): 455-465.

Holmes, Janet. 1993."New ZealandWomen

are Good to Talk to: An Analysis of
PolitenessStrategiesin Interaction". Journal
ofPragmatics. 20: 91-116.

Holmes, Janet. 1995. Women,Men Politeness. New York: Longman.

and

Holtgraves, Thomas. 1992. "The Linguistic Realisation

of Face Management:
Implications for Language Production and Comprehension, Person Perception,
and
Cross-Cultural Communication". Social Psychology Quarterly. 55(2): 141-159.

Hori, Motoko. 1986. "A Sociolinguistic Analysis of the JapaneseHonorifics". Journal

ofPragmatics. 10(3): 373-86.

House, Juliane. 1989. "Politeness in English and German: The Functions of "Please"
and "Bitte ..... In: ShoshanaBlum-Kulka, Juliane House and Gabriele Kasper, (eds.),
Cross-cultural Pragmatics, 96-119. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

House, Juliane. 1998. "Politeness and Translation", in Leo Hickey (ed.), The
Pragmatics of Translation, 54-71. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Huang, Yucai. 2005. "A Brief Study of the Origin, Forms and Change of English
Euphemisms". US-China Foreign Language. 3(9): 47-47.

Hyo, Sang Lee. 1999. "A Discourse-Pragmatic Analysis of the Committal -ci in
Korean: A Synthetic Approach to the Form-meaning Relation". Journal of Pragmatics.
31(2): 243-275.

Ide, Risako. 1998. "'Sorry for Your Kindness': JapaneseInteractional Ritual in Public
Discourse". Journal ofPragmatics. 29(5): 509-529.

Ivarsson, J. 1992. Subtitlingfor the Media. Stockholm: Transedit.

Jary, Mark. 1998. "Relevance Theory and the Communication of Politeness". Journal of
Pragmatics. 30(l): 1-19.

237
Ji, Shaojun. 2000. "'Face' and Polite Verbal Behaviors in ChineseCulture". Journal
of
Pragmatics. 32(7): 1059-62.

Johnson, Donna. 1992. "Compliments and Politeness in Peer-review Texts". Applied

Linguistics. 13(l): 51-71.

Johnstone, Barbara, Kathleen Ferrara and Judith Mattson Bean. 1994. "Gender,
Politeness and Discourse Management in Same-sex
and Cross-sex Opinion-poll
Interviews". Journal of Pragmatics. 18: 405-430.

Kasper, Gabriele. 1990. "Linguistic Politeness: Current Research Issues". Journal of

Pragmatics 14(2): 193-218.

Khalaf, Samir and John Gagnon. 2006. Sexuality in the Arab World. London: Saqi
Books.

Khalil, Ashraf and Jailan Zayan. 2005. "How Do You Say 'D'oh! ' in Arabic? TV:
'Simpsons' Doesn't Always Translate outside American Culture". 29 December 2005.
http: //www. wfaa. com/sharedcontent/dws/ent/stories/DNarabicsimpsons 1217gi.ART. St
ate.Edition 1.22b76c73. html

Kitagawa, Chisato. 1980. "Saying "Yes" in Japanese". Journal of Pragmatics. 4:

1055120.

Kitamura, Noriko. 2000. "Adapting Brown and Levinson's 'Politeness' Theory to the
Analysis of Casual Conversation". The 2000 Conference of the Australian Linguistic
Society.

Koike, Dale April. 1989. "Requests and the Role of Deixis in Politeness". Journal of
Pragmatics. 13 : 1877202.

Kotthoff, Helga, 1996. "Impoliteness and Conversational Joking: On Relational

Politics". Folia Linguistica XXX. 3-4: 299-327

Robin. 1973a. "The Logic of Politeness:or, Minding your P's and Q's. " In C.
Lakoff,
Corum, T. Cedric Smith-Stark, and A. Weiser (eds.), Papers ftom the 9th Regional
Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Meeting of the
292-305.

238
Lakoff, Robin. 1973b. "Language and Woman's Place". Language in Society, 3
(1), 45-
79.

Lakoff, Robin Tolmach. 1989. "The Limits of Politeness:Therapeutic Courtroom

and
Discourse". Multilingua. 8: 101-129.

Lee-Wong, Song Mei. 2000. "Politeness and Face in Chinese Culture". Bem: Peter
Lang. 2002. Contextualising Intercultural Communication
and Sociopragmatic Choices.
Multilingua. 21: 79-99.

Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles ofPragmatics. London: Longman.

Leech, Geoffrey N. 1985. Grammar, Pragmatics, and Politeness. Eigo Seinen 131:
54-60.

Lettau, Ludwig. 2000. "The Language of Infectious Disease: A Light-Hearted

Review". Clinical Infectious Diseases. 31:734-8.

Linfoot-Ham, Kerry. 2005. "The Linguistics of Euphemism: A Diachronic Study of

Euphemism Formation". Journal of Language and Linguistics. 4(2): 227: 263.

Locher, Miriam and Richard Watts. 2005. "Politeness Theory and Relational Work".
Journal ofPoliteness Research 1.1: 9-33.

McGlone, Matthew and Jennifer Batchelor. 2003. "Looking Out for Number One:
Euphemism and Face". Anthropological Quarterly. 39(2): 53-5 9.

Makin, Valerie. 2003. "Face Management and the Role of Interpersonal Politeness
Variables in Euphemism Production and Comprehension". PhD thesis, University of
Illinois.

2005. "A Potential Untapped? Why Dubbing Has Not Caught on in the
Maluf, Ramez.
TBSJournal. Available at www. tbsioumal. com/Archives/FaII05/Maluf. html.
Arab World".

Robert. 1994. "Beyond Politeness Theory: 'Face' Revisited and

Mao, LuMing
Renewed". Journal ofPragmatics. 21: 451-486.

239
Matsumoto, Yosbjko. 1988. "Reexamination
of the Universality of Face: Politeness
Phenomena in Japanese".Journal of Pragmatics. 12: 403
-426.

Meier, A. J.. 1995. "Defining Politeness: Universality in Appropriateness". Language

Sciences. 17: 345-365.

Meier, Ardith. 2004. "Has 'Politeness' Outlived its Usefulness?". Views. 13(l): 5-20.

Mills, Sara. 2002. "Rethinking Politeness, Impoliteness and Gender Identity" in Lia
Litosseliti and Jane Sunderland (eds.). Gender Identity
and Discourse Analysis,
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Mills, Sara. 2005. "Gender and Impoliteness". Journal of Politeness Research. 1: 263-
280.

Mohammed, Gamal. 2007. "Errors in English Translations of Euphemism in the Holy

Qur'an". Quranicstudies. Available online at:
http: //www. quranicstudies.com/articles/language-of-the-quran/errors-in-english-
translations-of-euphemism-in-the-holy-q uran.html (last accessedon 10 June 2008).

Muhleisen, Susanne. 2003. "Interpreting Social Roles and Interpersonal Relations: A

Cross-Cultural Perspective on Address Forms in Film Translation". Studies in
Communication Sciences. 3/2: 135-162.

Mullany, Louise. 1999. "Linguistic Politeness and Sex Differences in BBC Radio 4
Broadcast Interviews". Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics. 7: 119-142.

Muntigl, Peter and William Turnbull. 1998. "Conversational Structure and Facework in
Arguing". Journal ofPragmatics. 29(2): 225-256.

Nornes, Abe. 1999. "For an Abusive Subtitling". Film Quarterly. 52(3): 17-34.

Carole Silver. 1995. The Wordsworth Book of Euphemism. The

Nearnan, Judith and
Wordsworth Reference Series.

G. 1992. "Linguistic Politeness and Socio-cultural Variations of the

Nwoye, Onuigbo
Notion of Face". Journal of Pragmatics. 18: 309-328.

240
O'Driscoll, Jim. 1996. "About Face: A Defence
and Elaboration of Universal Dualism"
Journal of Pragmatics. 25: 1-32.

Pedlow, Robert. 2004. "Children's Production

and Comprehensionof Politeness in
Requests: Relationships to Behavioural Adjustment, Temperament
and Empathy".
Journal ofLanguage and Social Psychology.24(3): 347-367.

Penelope Julia. 1981. "Language and Communication: Syntactic Euphemism".

Papers
in Linguistics. - International Journal of Human Communication. 14 (4): 473-485.

Perez de Ayala, Soledad. 2001. "FTAs

and Erskine May: Conflicting Needs?-
Politeness in Question Time". Journal oýfPragmatics. 33: 143-169.

Pettit, Zoe. 2004. "The Audio-Visual Text: Subtitling and Dubbing Different Genres".
Meta. 49(l): 25-38.

Pizziconi, Barbara. 2003. "Re-examining Politeness, Face and the JapaneseLanguage".

Journal ofPragmatics. 35(10-11): 1471-1506.

Placencia, Maria E. 1996. "Politeness in Ecuadorian Spanish". Multilingua. 15-1: 13-34.

Racy, John. 1969. "Death in an Arab Culture". Annals q the New York Academy of
Sciences. 164 (3): 871-876.

Raman, Aneesh. 2007. "Egypt's 'Dr. Ruth': Let's Talk Sex in the Arab World". CNN.
http: //edition. cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/25/muslim. sextalk/index.html (last
accessedon 27 January 2008).

Rawson, Hugh. 1981. A Dictionary of Euphemisms and Other Doubletalk. New York:
Crown Publishers, Inc.

Ross, Alison. 1998. The Language ofHumour. London: Routledge.

Smith, Stephen. 1998. "The Language of Subtitling", in Gambier, Yves (ed.)

Translatingfor the Media. Turku: University of Turku.

241
Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2000. "Rapport Management:
A Framework for Analysis", in
Culturally Speaking, Managing Rapport
through Talk across Cultures. Helen Spencer-
Oatey (ed.). London: Continuum. 11
-46.

Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2005. "(1m)Politeness, Face Perceptions Rapport:

and of
Unpackaging their Bases and Interrelationships". Journal Politeness Research. 1: 95-
of
119.

Stewart, Devin J. 1997. "Impoliteness Formulae The Cognate Curse In Egyptian

Arabic". Journal of Semitic Studies. XLH/2 Autumn: 327-360.

Strecker, Ivo. 1993. "Cultural Variations in the Concept of 'Face"'. Multilingua. 12:
119-141.

Tagliarnonte, Sali and Chris Roberts. 2005. "So Weird; So Cool; so Innovative: The
Use of Intensifiers in the Television Series Friends". American Speech80(3): 280-300.

Terkourafi, Marina. 2005. "Beyond the Micro-level in Politeness Research". Journal of

Politeness Research. 1: 237-262.

Thomas, Jennifer. 1995. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics.

London: Longman.

Tymoczko, Maria. 1999. Translation in a Postcolonial Context. Manchester: St.

Jerome.

Usami, Mayumi. 2002. Discourse Politeness in Japanese Conversation.

- Some
Implicationsfor a Universal Theory ofPoliteness. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.

Vilkki, Liisa. 2006. "Politeness, Face and Facework: Current Issues". SKY Journal of
Linguistics (special supplement). (19): 322-332.

Walte, Inga. 2007. The American Way of Comedy. A Comprehensive Analysis of Humor
Basis US Sitcom Friends. Munich: GRIN Verlag.
on the of the

Warren, Beatrice. 1992. "What Euphemisms Tell Us about the Interpretation of Words".
Studia Linguistica. 46(2): 128-172.

242
Watts, Richard. 1989. "Relevance
and Relational Work: Linguistic Politeness as Politic
Behaviour". Multilingua. 8: 131-166.

Watts, Richard. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Whitaker, Brian. 2006. UnspeakableLove.- Ga and Lesbian Life in the Middle East.
y
Lebanon: Saqi Books.

Williams, J. 1975. Origins of the English Language. New York.

Winter, Joanne, (1993) 'Gender and the Political Interview in an Australian Context'
Journal ofPragmatics 20: 117-139.

Xie, Chaoqun. 2003. A Critique of Politeness Theories: Review of Gino Eelen,

Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 2001, viii+280 pages, paperback. BOOK REVIEW.
Journal of Pragmatics. (3 5): 811-818.

Xie, Chaoqun, Ziran He and Dajin Lin. 2005. "Politeness: Myth and Truth". Studies in
Language. 29(2): 431-461.

Yule, George. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Zajdman, Anat. 1995. "Humorous Face-threatening Acts: Humor as Strategy". Journal

ofPragmatics. 23: 325-339.

Zimmerman, Don and Candace West. 1975. "Sex Roles, Interruptions and Silences in
Conversation" in Barrie Thorne, Cheris Kramarae and Nancy Henley ),
(eds. Language,
Gender and Society, 89-10 1, Rowley MA: Newbury House.

Zitawi, Jehan. 2004. "The Translation of Disney Comics in the Arab World: A
Pragmatic Perspective". Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Manchester.

I sun,
J-ý 2006

THE
OHNRYLANr--, "
243 UNWERSITY
Ally
rl%
I ';TIW.