Wiezerbicka discussed how the word ‘bloody’ is used in everyday Australian conversations and how it reveals Australian attitudes and beliefs. She argued that it is “the great Australian adjective”. Hong (2008) focused on how the word ‘bloody’ is perceived in different cultures, drawing from interviews that she conducted with Australians and British. Hong also focused on the Tourism Australia advertisement to show that although ‘bloody’ is common in Australia, the advertisement was controversial in Australia because of the use of the word ‘bloody’. This reinforces Wiezerbicka’s point that although the word ‘bloody’ is used frequently in Australian speech, it does not mean that the word is acceptable to everyone. I thought that it was interesting when Wiezerbicka compared the use of bloody in Australian parliament to the British parliament. In Australian parliament, it is generally acceptable to use the word ‘bloody’ except when it is a personal attack, however, in British parliament, ministers have to apologise to the council.
Hong’s study revealed that people generally felt two ways about the ad: some people argue that the statement plays on the stereotypical characteristics of Australia and others argue that it should represent more politeness in representing Australia. Hong interviewed 4 Australians and British to compare whether it was impolite to say “bloody hell” in different cultures. Australians generally felt that it was acceptable to say ‘bloody’ although one did say that it may be rude or offensive to Christians. The British speaker thought that the term ‘bloody’ was rude and impolite. Therefore, this shows how the term ‘bloody’ could be seen as a cultural symbol as it is an acceptable term to use in Australian speech but not in England.
Hong, M 2008, ‘“Where the bloody hell are you?”: Bloody hell and (im)politeness in Australian English’, Griffith Working Papers in Pragmatics and Intercultural Communication , vol.1, no.1, http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/72902/Issue1-minha-hong-bloody-hell-and-impoliteness-in-Ause.pdf
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Cindy. It is interesting how engrained the word 'bloody' has become in Australian society that politicians can get away with using the word in parliament.
ReplyDeleteWierzbicka came to realise that people use the word 'bloody' in two different ways. The first, 'bloody 1', is its use in a negative way, e.g. bloody hell, and the second, 'bloody 2', is its use in a neutral way, e.g. wonderful bloody place. I think that the swear word has become less offensive in Australia due to its frequent usage and integration into Australian culture. Wierzbicka believes the word developed from Australian pioneers and farmers, who lived out in the Australian bush. It was regarded as a mild swearword, but never seen as foul.
Even though the word is a part of Australia's cultural identity, this does not exempt Australians' use of the word in other countries. It still remains offensive to other English speaking nations. I think the $180 million advertising campaign launched in 2006 by Tourism Australia, 'So where the bloody hell are you?' was a great campaign at promoting tourism nationally. But, to use it in an international advertising campaign was not a smart idea. Apparently the campaign caused so much controversy in March 2007 that the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre in the United Kingdom banned it. The BACC would not allow the word 'bloody' in television versions of the commercial. This could be why the British in Hong's interview was against the usage of the word, claiming it was rude and impolite.