Monday, May 15, 2006 — French Canadian Swearing

The Catholic Church in Que­bec has sur­prised every­one with a pecu­liar pub­lic­i­ty cam­paign. They have pur­chased space on bill­boards, bus-stops, and oth­er adver­tis­ing places, in order to dis­play swear-words. This requires some expla­na­tion. French Cana­di­an swear­ing is the lamest on Earth. Don’t expect any­thing like the baroque splen­dour of Mex­i­can swear­ing, or the earthy imagery in Russ­ian curs­es, or even the repet­i­tive sex­u­al obses­sions we are famil­iar with in Eng­lish. The basic French Cana­di­an swear words are dis­tort­ed forms of the words for the arti­cles used in a mass: “taber­na­cle”, “chal­ice”, “host”, “sac­risty”.

How­ev­er, this can­not be explained by any reli­gious sen­si­tiv­i­ty. French Cana­da, espe­cial­ly in Que­bec, is one of the most sec­u­lar soci­eties on the plan­et. Church atten­dance is very low in Cana­da, but by far the low­est in Que­bec. The over­whelm­ing major­i­ty of French Cana­di­ans have lit­tle or no inter­est in orga­nized reli­gion, though many will say they have some pri­vate, per­son­al faith, unin­flu­enced by any church. Most peo­ple have no idea what­so­ev­er what any of these “swear words” mean. If you catch your fin­ger in car door, you say “tabernac’ ”, or “taber­nache”. It doesn’t call up any image. It’s just a mean­ing­less word. The aver­age per­son, if asked to explain its ori­gin, prob­a­bly wouldn’t be able to tell you. By con­trast, nobody who swears in Eng­lish is unaware of the mean­ings of the swear words.

The Catholic Church in Que­bec has appar­ent­ly come to the con­clu­sion that it might be able to regain some of its for­mer influ­ence if it can “reclaim” the sacred swear-words. Since few peo­ple even know the words have any reli­gious sig­nif­i­cance, they’ve put up adver­tise­ments with dic­tio­nary def­i­n­i­tions of them. The cam­paign has cre­at­ed a lot of amusement.

[A note to those unfa­mil­iar with the French lan­guage: Cana­di­an French dif­fers sig­nif­i­cant­ly from Euro­pean French, to approx­i­mate­ly the same degree that the Eng­lish of Chica­go does from the Eng­lish of Lon­don. None of the Cana­di­an “swear­words” are used in Europe.]

This brings to mind var­i­ous ques­tions about the mys­te­ri­ous word-mag­ic of “swear­ing”. It is very hard to come up with any log­i­cal or even coher­ent expla­na­tion of why cer­tain words are select­ed to be taboo, and assigned such absurd emo­tion­al pow­er and sig­nif­i­cance. It is as bizarre as the equal­ly irra­tional nudi­ty taboo. Most pro­posed expla­na­tions col­lapse with any shift in time and place. Eng­lish swear­ing is most­ly con­cerned with sex­u­al acts, so an anglo­phone will come up with expla­na­tions based in sex­u­al psy­chol­o­gy. But Dutch swear­ing is most­ly about dis­ease, not sex. French Cana­di­an swear­ing has vir­tu­al­ly noth­ing to do with either, though nobody has ever pro­posed that French Cana­di­ans are less inter­est­ed in sex.

In fact, the mean­ing and sub­ject mat­ter of swear­words prob­a­bly have noth­ing to do with their func­tion­ing. “Fuck” is a swear­word. “Cop­u­late” is not. “Fuck” was used with­out any sense of impro­pri­ety in ancient Anglo-Sax­on reli­gious poet­ry, but it could not be used that way today. I can write “cop­u­late” in a news­pa­per arti­cle or a sci­en­tif­ic paper, but I can’t write “fuck” in either with­out some­body get­ting upset. Why? Nobody has come up with any expla­na­tion that makes any sense, just as nobody has ever come up with any expla­na­tion of why the human body would be con­sid­ered “dirty”, and nobody has come up with any ratio­nal expla­na­tion of why Amer­i­cans elect­ed George W. Bush ― except for the sim­plest one: peo­ple are very, very, very stupid.

Leave a Comment