Article published In: Cognitive Linguistic Studies
Vol. 3:2 (2016) ► pp.316–346
A cognitive linguistic approach to Dholuo sexual euphemisms and dysphemisms
Published online: 3 March 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.3.2.07och
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.3.2.07och
Cognitive linguistics as a disciplinary school of thought concerns itself with investigating the relationship between human language, the mind and socio-physical experience. It sees language as embedded in the overall cognitive capacities of man, places special emphasis on topics such as the structural characteristics of natural language categorization including, but not limited to, prototypicality, systematic polysemy, cognitive models, mental imagery, and metaphor. This study examined sexual euphemisms and dysphemisms in the Kenyan Dholuo within the framework of Cognitive Linguistics, specifically anchoring itself on Conceptual Integration Theory (Fauconnier and Turner 2002). The study had two objectives: to identify and explain the sex-related dysphemistic words and phrases in Dholuo and to account for the cognitive processes in the creation of sex-related euphemisms. To achieve its objectives, the study used a descriptive design in which the researcher identified the sex-related dysphemisms by asking native Dholuo speakers to name the male and female sexual organs and sex- related physiological processes associated with both males and females. In addition, the respondents were asked to give the alternative terms that were used to refer to the sex-related dysphemistic terms mentioned. The euphemisms collected were analyzed using Conceptual Integration Theory. They were mapped into the different kinds of conceptual mappings (also known as the mental spaces). The study found out that Conceptual Integration Theory adequately and appropriately accounted for the euphemisms in Dholuo in terms of their interpretation. It provides solid tools for understanding, interpreting and accounting for the euphemisms in Dholuo. It is also demonstrated that not only is there a gendered usage of both euphemisms and dysphemisms, but also that their use is socially and culturally constrained. It is concluded that, just like in other languages, Dholuo euphemisms and dysphemisms are analyzable from a cognitive linguistics perspective
References (36)
Agyekum, K. (2002). Menstruation as a verbal taboo among the Akan of Ghana. Journal of Anthropological Research, 58(3), 367–387.
Allan, K., & Burridge, K. (2006). Forbidden words: Taboo and the censoring of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bousfield, D. (2007). Never a truer word said in jest: A pragmastylistics analysis of impoliteness as banter in Shakespeare’s Henry IV. London: Phoebus Publisher.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S.C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Burridge, K. (2004). Blooming English: Observations on the Roots, Cultivation and Hybrids of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cameron, D. (1995). Naming of parts: Gender, culture and the terms for the penis among American college students. In Terry Lovel (Ed.), Feminist cultural studies II. Cheltenham.
Coates, J. (1997). One-at-a-time: The organization of men’s talk. In S. Johnson & U.H. Meinhof (Eds.), Language and masculinity (pp. 107–129). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Dare, S.A. (2005). Sexual discourse in Niyi Osundare’s poetry: A sociolinguistic reading. African Study Monographs, 26(2), 89–97.
Domínguez, P., & Benedito, F. (2000).Lo que nunca se aprendio en clase. Eufemismos y disfemismos en el lenguaje erotico ingles. Granada: Comares.
Duda, B. (2011). Euphemisms and dysphemisms: In search of a boundary line. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación, 451, 3–19.
Esperas, M.V. (2010). Braving the waters: The ups and downs of metaphorical concepts in language learning. US-China Foreign Language Journal, 81.
Evans, V. (2006). Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(4), 491–534.
Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Farghal, M. (1995). Euphemisms in Arabic: A Gricean interpretation. A Journal of Anthropological Linguistics, 37(3), 366–378.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002).The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Fernández, E. (2008). Sex-related euphemism and dysphemism: An analysis in terms of conceptual metaphor theory. Journal of the Spanish Association of Anglo American studies, 32 (2), 95–110.
Gathigia, M. (2010). A cognitive linguistic approach in the study of euphemisms in Gĩkũyũ. Unpublished master’s thesis, Kenyatta University, Nairobi.
Grady, J.E., Oakley, T., & Coulson, S. (1999). Blending and metaphor. In R. Gibbs & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics, (pp. 101–124). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Jay, T. (2000). Why we curse: A neuro- psycho-social theory of speech. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kelinger, F.N. (1969). Research in Education. In R. Ebel, V. Noll, & R. Bauer (Eds). Encyclopedia of Educational Research (4th ed., pp. 1127–1134). New York: Macmillan.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980/ 2003). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Mugenda, O., & Mugenda, A. (1999). Research methods: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Nairobi: African Centre for Technology Studies Press.
Risch, B. (1987). Language in society. Women’s derogatory terms for men: That’s right, dirty words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Santaemilia, J. (2005). The language of sex: Saying and not saying. Dipòsito Legal: Universitat de València.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Nganga, Simon Wanjala
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
