Typical American Families

Typical American Families Two Typical Families Sitcoms usually portray typical families that may be a bit funnier than real ones. Two sitcoms, The Cosby Show and Roseanne, are no exceptions. The two families, the Conners and the Huxtables, have much in common. They share the same socioeconomic statuses; they also face the same issues concerning relationships with each other.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Typical American Families specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Of course, there are certain differences between the two families. However, it is possible to state that these differences simply serve a background which reveals how similar the families are. It is possible to focus on three points to prove this assumption. These points are: socioeconomic status, relationships between siblings and relationships between spouses. Socioeconomic Background In the first place, it is necessary to point out that the two families pertain to middle class. T his makes them really similar as they face similar difficulties. The two families are not much concerned with making money. They are rather concerned with developing proper relationships with each other and other people. Thus, they also know how to have fun. For instance, the Huxtables arrange great Halloween party (cosbyshow3). The Conners, or rather Roseanne and her husband Dan, have a nice special evening (RoseanneConnerVideo). Apparently, they do not need to focus on ways to earn money. Relationships between Spouses The two sitcoms also depict relationships between the spouses. The two couples can be regarded as model spouses. They love each other. They are caring and supportive. There is one more thing similar in both families. Thus, each woman treats her husband as another child. They accept that their men are a little bit childish. For instance, this quality is manifested in such cases as giving advice to children in different situations. However, it is obvious that the women know that they can rely on their husbands who are the heads of their families. Relationships between Siblings Finally, relationships between siblings are some of the major focuses of the two sitcoms. Admittedly, relationships between siblings play a very important role in everyone’s life (or rather in life of those having a sibling). Seemingly, these relationships are different in the two families. For instance, Vanessa and Janise Huxtable are really friendly and help each other all the time (The Cosby Show). They support each other. On the contrary, Darlene Conner often makes fun of her sister (maskath-1). It may seem that the siblings hate each other. However, Darlene’s tricks also prove that she does love her sister and will help her whenever she needs that help. More so, such tricks show that Darlene loves her sister immensely as she can afford making fun of her as if she was the only one to have such a right justified by her love and care. Admittedly, Darlene wou ld never let anyone hurt her sister.Advertising Looking for essay on art and design? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Two Similar Families Therefore, it is possible to assume that the two families are similar even though there are some minor differences. Apparently, these families are similar in different levels, i.e. they pertain to the same socioeconomic background, they are similar in terms of relationships between members of the families. The two families are very friendly. Each member of the two families is caring and supportive. Admittedly, sitcoms usually depict typical families. Thus, it is possible to conclude that the majority of American families are like that. Hopefully, Americans still rely on basic values which are highlighted in the sitcoms. cosbyshow3. The Cosby Show Halloween. Video. YouTube, 18 June 2008. Web. maskath-1. â€Å"Biography for Darlene Conner.† IMDb, 2010. Web. RoseanneConnerVid eo. Rosseanne Inherit: The Wind. Video. YouTube, 9 July 2008. Web. â€Å"The Cosby Show.† IMDb, n.d. Web.

Definitions and Examples of Swear Words

Definitions and Examples of Swear Words A swear word is a word or phrase thats generally considered blasphemous, obscene, vulgar, or otherwise offensive. Also known as  swearing, bad word, obscene word, dirty word, and four-letter word. Swear words serve many different functions in different social contexts, notes Janet Holmes. They may express annoyance, aggression and insult, for instance, or they may express solidarity and friendliness (An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, 2013). EtymologyFrom Old English, take an oath Examples and Observations Spock: Your use of language has altered since our arrival. It is currently laced with, shall we say, more colorful metaphors, double dumbass on you and so forth.Captain Kirk: Oh, you mean the profanity?Spock: Yes.Captain Kirk: Well, thats simply the way they talk here. Nobody pays any attention to you unless you swear every other word. Youll find it in all the literature of the period.(Leonard Nimoy and William Shatner in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, 1986)Uses of Swear WordsA final puzzle about swearing is the crazy range of circumstances in which we do it. There is cathartic swearing, as when we hit our thumb with a hammer or knock over a glass of beer. There are imprecations, as when we suggest a label or offer advice to someone who has cut us off in traffic. There are vulgar terms for everyday things and activities, as when Bess Truman was asked to get the president to say fertilizer instead of manure and she replied, You have no idea how long it took me to get him to say manure . There are figures of speech that put obscene words to other uses, such as the barnyard epithet for insincerity, the army acronym snafu, and the gynecological-flagellative term for uxorial dominance. And then there are the adjective-like expletives that salt the speech and split the words of soldiers, teenagers, Australians, and others affecting a breezy speech style.(Steven Pinker, The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window Into Human Nature. Viking, 2007) Social SwearingWhy do we swear? The answer to this question depends on the approach you take. As a linguistnot a psychologist, neurologist, speech pathologist or any other -istI see swearing as meaningfully patterned verbal behaviour that readily lends itself to a functional analysis. Pragmatically, swearing can be understood in terms of the meanings it is taken to have and what it achieves in any particular circumstance. . . .Typically, a social swear word originates as one of the bad words but becomes conventionalised in a recognisably social form. Using swear words as loose intensifiers contributes to the easy-going, imprecise nature of informal talk among in-group members. . . . In sum, this is jokey, cruisy, relaxing talk in which participants oil the wheels of their connection as much by how they talk as what they talk about.(Ruth Wajnryb, Language Most Foul. Allen Unwin, 2005)Secular Swearing[I]t would appear that in Western society the major shifts in the focus of swearing h ave been from religious matters (more especially the breaching of the commandment against taking the Lords name in vain) to sexual and bodily functions, and from opprobrious insults, such as coolie and kike. Both of these trends reflect the increasing secularization of Western society.(Geoffrey Hughes, Swearing: A Social History of Foul Language, Oaths and Profanity in English. Blackwell, 1991) George Carlin on Bad WordsThere are four hundred thousand words in the English language and there are seven of them you cant say on television. What a ratio that is! Three hundred ninety three thousand nine hundred and ninety three . . . to seven! They must really be bad. Theyd have to be outrageous to be separated from a group that large. All of you over here . . . You seven, you bad words.Thats what they told us, you remember? Thats a bad word. What? There are no bad words. Bad thoughts, bad intentions, but no bad words.(George Carlin with Tony Hendra, Last Words. Simon Schuster, 2009)David Camerons Jokey, Blokey InterviewDavid Camerons jokey, blokey interview . . . on Absolute Radio this morning is a good example of what can happen when politicians attempt to be down with the kidsor in this case, with the thirtysomethings. . . .Asked why he didnt use the social networking website Twitter, the Tory leader said: The trouble with Twitter, the instantness of ittoo many twits might ma ke a twat. . . .[T]he Tory leaders aides were in defensive mode afterwards, pointing out that twat was not a swear word under radio guidelines.(Haroon Siddique, Sweary Cameron Illustrates Dangers of Informal Interview. The Guardian, July 29, 2009) S***r W***s[N]ever use asterisks, or such silliness as b-, which are just a cop out, as Charlotte Brontà « recognised: The practice of hinting by single letters those expletives with which profane and violent people are wont to garnish their discourse, strikes me as a proceeding which, however well meant, is weak and futile. I cannot tell what good it doeswhat feeling it spareswhat horror it conceals.(David Marsh and Amelia Hodsdon, Guardian Style, 3rd ed. Guardian Books, 2010)Supreme Court Rulings on Swear WordsThe Supreme Court’s last major case concerning broadcast indecency, F.C.C. v. Pacifica Foundation in 1978, upheld the commission’s determination that George Carlin’s classic seven dirty words monologue, with its deliberate, repetitive and creative use of vulgarities, was indecent. But the court left open the question of whether the use of an occasional expletive could be punished.The case decided Tuesday, Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Televisi on Stations, No. 07-582, arose from two appearances by celebrities on the Billboard Music Awards.Justice Scalia read the passages at issue from the bench, though he substituted suggestive shorthand for the dirty words.The first involved Cher, who reflected on her career in accepting an award in 2002: I’ve also had critics for the last 40 years saying I was on my way out every year. Right. So F-em. (In his opinion, Justice Scalia explained that Cher metaphorically suggested a sexual act as a means of expressing hostility to her critics.)The second passage came in an exchange between Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie in 2003 in which Ms. Richie discussed in vulgar terms the difficulties in cleaning cow manure off a Prada purse.Reversing its policy on such fleeting expletives, the commission said in 2006 that both broadcasts were indecent. It did not matter, the commission said, that some of the offensive words did not refer directly to sexual or excretory functions. Nor did it mat ter that the cursing was isolated and apparently impromptu. . . .In reversing that decision, Justice Scalia said the change in policy was rational and therefore permissible. It was certainly reasonable, he wrote, to determine that it made no sense to distinguish between literal and nonliteral uses of offensive words, requiring repetitive use to render only the latter indecent.Justice John Paul Stevens, dissenting, wrote that not every use of a swear word connoted the same thing. As any golfer who has watched his partner shank a short approach knows, Justice Stevens wrote, it would be absurd to accept the suggestion that the resultant four-letter word uttered on the golf course describes sex or excrement and is therefore indecent.It is ironic, to say the least, Justice Stevens went on, that while the F.C.C. patrols the airwaves for words that have a tenuous relationship with sex or excrement, commercials broadcast during prime-time hours frequently ask viewers whether they are battli ng erectile dysfunction or are having trouble going to the bathroom.(Adam Liptak, Supreme Court Upholds F.C.C.’s Shift to a Harder Line on Indecency on the Air. The New York Times, April 28, 2009) The Lighter Side of Swear WordsTell me, son, the anxious mother said, what did your father say when you told him youd wrecked his new Corvette?Shall I leave out the swear words? the son asked.Of course.He didnt say anything.(Steve Allen, Steve Allens Private Joke File. Three Rivers Press, 2000) Alternate Spellings: swearword, swear-word