This week, I thought it may be interesting to focus on the very useful instructions Erasmus provides in his Copia: Foundations of the Abundant Style regarding the use of vulgar and indecent words. We touched on this in class this week when we attempted to define the vulgar.
Erasmus tells us that “vulgar words are those which will strike the hearer as rather too common for the dignity of the context”. Erasmus provides us with many examples, and effectively demonstrates how the context in which words are used helps define their vulgarity. For example, “dung and the verb to dung are not vulgar if you are talking about farming to farmers, but they are if you are making a speech on affairs of state in the presence of the ruler”. So context matters.
But consider the etymology of “vulgar”, which comes from the Latin vulgaris derived from vulgus, meaning of the common people. In today’s usage, r means lacking sophistication or good taste and can also be an explicit reference to sex or bodily functions. However, it’s original meaning was the characteristic of or belonging to ordinary people, which was closer to its Latin roots. Interestingly, Erasmus clarifies that “words derived from low trades and occupations, like bath attendant, cook, tanner, and eating-house keeper, are usually vulgar, but we must of necessity use these words if we have to discuss such subjects”. To paraphrase Erasmus, although vulgar words are “of the common people”, if we’re talking about things the common people care about we must use those words that are appropriate to the context, no matter how ‘vulgar’.
Erasmus’ definition of vulgar and warning about the contextual use of vulgar words is just as applicable to us today as it was in the sixteenth century. As technical communicators and rhetoricians, we strive to use the right word in the right context to communicate effectively with our audience, just as Erasmus suggested.
(1) Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 11th Edition Revised. Oxford University Press, 2006.
"the dignity of the context..." what a great way to describe vulgarity. Yes, makes very good sense. In fact, language use is always already situational. Good analysis here, Debbie.
ReplyDeleteInteresting analysis! The contextual use of vulgar language is certainly just as applicable today as it has been in the 16th C. In general, I think that the process of filtering vulgar language has become much more complicated, but especially for English-speaking technical communicators.
ReplyDeleteBecause of English’s status as an "international" language, American TCR practitioners must take extra considerations for a global audience. Vulgarity differs among the Englishes found in regions like the UK, Australia, India, the Philippines and Singapore. Even within the US, the use of certain words can have drastically different degrees of acceptability and vulgarity. It makes me wonder how Erasmus might add (or change) his approach and definition of vulgarity in rhetoric. Do such differences enrich English rhetoric? Would he emphasize one form of English over another, or perhaps push for a more centralized English?
Personally, I think it is fantastic that one language can be found in so many places around the world. As a formal ESL and EFL teacher, I am always interested in how English usage is influenced by local customs and cultures, whether vulgar, refined, common or highbrow. From my experience, I know am not the only one, as I find that the first few words that almost every foreigner wants to learn are often the most vulgar ones..lol
-merk