Keywords
Avoidance Speech
Taboo Topics
Hindi
Sociolinguistics
Socio-Pragmatics
How to Cite
Abstract
The study examines the linguistic strategies used by Hindi speakers in avoidance speech on the Taboo topics mainly sex, menstruation and death. Taboo topics are a universal phenomenon which have been observed to be shaped by social and cultural norms. In Hindi, there has been a theoretical gap which shows lack of empirical typology and pragmalinguistic analysis in Hindi Discourse. In this study the objective is to address this gap and identify the linguistic strategies used in avoidance speech on taboo topics. The data was collected by purposive sampling and snowball method through structured responses (Google forms) and supplemented by popular literature, mass media and social media examples. The data analysis points towards five key linguistic strategies that are euphemism, circumlocution, deictic avoidance, code-switching and agent deletion. The strategies are context- sensitive and are influenced by factors such as gender, relational distance and social context. The findings are observed to be consistent with existing theories like politeness principles and face management. The study offers a preliminary typology of taboo avoidance linguistic strategies and highlighting their cultural specificity which offers implications for discourse analysis and sociolinguistic research.
References
1. Allan, Keith, and Kate Burridge. 2006. Forbidden Words: Taboo and the Censoring of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. Anderson, William. 1967. A Journal of a Voyage to the South Seas in His Majesty’s Ship the Resolution. Edited by J. C. Beaglehole. Cambridge: Hakluyt Society.
3. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4. Cook, James. 1967. The Journals of Captain James Cook on His Voyages of Discovery. Edited by J. C. Beaglehole. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Crespo Fernández, Eliecer. 2008. “Sex-Related Euphemism and Dysphemism: An Analysis in Terms of Conceptual Metaphor Theory.” Atlantis 30 (2): 95–110.
6. Goffman, Erving. 1955. “On Face-Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction.” Psychiatry 18 (3): 213–231.
7. Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Anchor Books.
8. Issah, Samuel, Hasiyatu Abubakari, Samuel Atintono, and Sandow Atibiri. 2023. “Exploring Euphemisms as Taboo Avoidance Strategies in the Mabia Languages.” Language Matters 54.
9. Kayangula, P. M. 2018. “A Socio-Pragmatic Analysis of Taboo and Euphemism in Silozi.” PhD diss., University of Zambia.
10. Kim, Tae-Seop, and John W. Bowers. 1991. “Face and Facework: Implications for Interpersonal Communication.” Communication Quarterly 39 (1): 1–15.
11. Mwanambuyu, M. 2011. “A Socio-Pragmatic Study of Euphemisms in Silozi.” MA thesis, University of Zambia.
12. Oyeka, Nkechi. 2015. “Euphemism as a Substitute for Verbal Taboos in Igbo.” International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 5 (8): 80–87.
13. Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. 1939. “Taboo.” In Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14. Ullmann, Stephen. 1962. Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
15. Ullmann, Stephen. 1964. Language and Style. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 Harsha Bhogal, Shreya Banerjee (Author)