as they might feel more comfortable . And with boys , traditionally girls swearing is considered unattractive , so they might try and swear less to seem more attractive ’. Throughout the female answers , therefore , the idea of men swearing more is fairly consistent , as is the idea that women swearing in front of other women is more comfortable than swearing in front of men .
The idea of males being the more frequent users of BLWs was also shared within the male speakers , with answers such as , ‘ I would imagine boys swear more because it ’ s quite masculine to swear and so they would swear more when it ’ s just the lads together ’. Another male speaker claimed that , ‘ it ’ s part of the lads ’ humour to swear so I would guess they swear more when they ’ re together and it would be less accepted when there ’ s both males and females ’. In some ways , their answers were not far from the results the data shows us , and support the notion that some of the BLWs used by males may be used to increase the solidarity between them . It can also give an insight as to why the females may have sworn less in a mixed-sex situation , as well as why there were no BLWs referring to the male body parts in the mixedsex interaction . When there were no males present , it may have seemed more acceptable to use such terminology , or for such
SotA Anthology 2015-16
sensitive topics to be brought up . From the evidence given from both males and females , it seems as if there is still a certain politeness factor attached to a mixedsex interaction which is not present in a single-sex interaction , despite them being just as friendly and familiar with one another .
There are at least two theories with which to approach this data : the difference and the dominance approach . Looking at it from a dominance approach , or Lakoff ’ s perspective , there are still inequalities within gender and language , even in the use of swearing . The lack of reference to male body parts but the consistent use of BLWs to describe female body parts in the mixed-sex interaction suggests it seems more acceptable to describe a female in this way than it does a male . This , combined with some of the answers given to my question , such as it being unattractive to use BLWs in front of men , gives us an insight into how the folk-view can affect lexical choices such as these in everyday interaction . The masculinity attached to swearing , as outlined by one of the male informants , further emphasises this , giving reason to believe that there are differences in the use of swearing due to inequality between the two sexes , one being more dominant than the other .
I believe , however , it is much more relevant to think of this data in relation to the difference approach . In an all-male interaction , it would be appropriate to use more non-standard vernacular forms in order to achieve solidarity within the community . This solidarity is also achieved in the all-female interaction , but they achieve this with a shared vocabulary of more standardised BLWs , emphasising their collaborative floor , and not due to their heightened sensitivity ( Trudgill , 1972 ). Both males and females use swearing as means to form a common ground and achieve solidarity within a group setting . In each different interaction , the use of BLWs was adapted to achieve maximum solidarity and a successful interaction . It seems to me it is not a question of dominance , but of difference , and the ways these differences work in tandem with each other for the sake of friendship .