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.