Euphemism: Sweet Talking or Deception?

The aim of this paper is to shed light on euphemism in two different senses: sweet talking and deception. I shall treat euphemism from two different perspectives: the usual use of euphemism, sweet talking, in which it is used to maintain one's face and the orthophemistic sense, deception, where 'torture' is referred to as "enhanced interrogation techniques". I shall analyze examples, taken from religious, cultural, political backgrounds, on each case. Moreover, I shall talk about taboo since it is usually associated with euphemism. I shall talk about the referential (semantic) and expletive (pragmatic) aspects of swearing expressions. In this essay, I shall show that euphemism can be used in two different senses: sweet talking and deception.

The Talking Neanderthals : What do Fossils, Genetics and Archeology Say?

Did Neanderthals have language? This issue has been debated back and forth for decades, without resolution. But in recent years new evidence has become available. New fossils and archeological finds cast light on relevant Neanderthal anatomy and behavior. New DNA evidence, both fossil and modern, provides clues both to the relationship between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens, and to the genetics of language. In this paper, I review and evaluate the available evidence. My conclusion is that the preponderance of the evidence supports the presence of some form of language in Neanderthals.

Materialising bodies : there is nothing more material than a socially constructed body.

Over the last one of two decades, researchers within the physical education (PE) and sport pedagogy research frequently use the concept ‘the material body’. An initial purpose of this article is to explore what a concept of a ‘material body’ might mean. What other bodies are there? Who would dispute the materiality of bodies? I suggest that the use of a concept as ‘the material body’ suggests a hesitation before the radicalism of the linguistic turn in the sense that the concept ‘discourse’ does not include a material dimension. In this way ‘the material body’ relates to an interpretation of ‘the socially (or discursively) constructed body’ as void of matter. A further purpose with the article is to re-inscribe matter in the concept of ‘discourse’. This is done by way of discussing what theorists like Michel Foucault and, in particular, Judith Butler, has to say about the materiality of the body. In their writings, discourse should not be limited to spoken and/or written language. Rather, discourse is understood in terms of actions and events that create meanings—that matters. One conclusion of the article is that it is important to problematise the mundane view of discourse as ‘verbal interchange’ because it reinforces the promise of an objective knowledge that will eventually shed light on the ‘real’ body and the mysteries of sexual difference, what its origins are, what causes it. Another conclusion is that the PE and sport pedagogy research should pay less attention to the body as an object (what it ‘is’), and pay more attention to how the body matters, and e.g. how movements make bodies matter.