Shota Rustaveli Institute of Georgian Literature

Irina Perianova
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS AND THE LANGUAGE OF AVOIDANCE
Key words: political correctness, avoidance language, taboo, communicative code, EU accession and Eastern
Europe, globalization, consumer capitalism, ex-nomination, mind control, accommodation, otherisation, trust
Abstract
In this paper I aim to discuss political correctness as a communicative and behavioural code. Firstly, I intend to
outline its interrelationship with the language of avoidance in general, and more specifically its specific place as its
subgroup. .Secondly, I’ll dwell on the rationale of pc in the context of R.Barthes’ theory of ex-nomination, H.Giles’
CAT theory and the philosophy of trust. Last but no least, I will attempt to analyse the gradual emergence of pc in
post-communist space - the adoption of new rules and the intercultural perspective of pc in the wake of Bulgarian
accession to the EU as well as some of its peculiarities.
Political correctness (pc) is one of the most important phenomena of the 20th century and one of the presentday
buzz words. Googling pc produces millions of entries referring to its history, philosophy and description.
Sometimes political correctness is traced back to the totalitarian regimes of Nazi Germany with its ruthless
euphemisms such as the final solution for the annihilation of the Jews, or communist Russia with its double sets of
terms for what was good “for us” and “for them”. It is such a common term that it means everything and nothing: in
one of the on-line entries Bob Dylan was described as no longer pc – meaning not popular.
Short of being described as taboo, some “objects” are now also prohibitive in their use. This is why Prince
Charles is staging a campaign for healthier, more politically correct snacks in school vending machines – fruits and
nuts, rather than candy and chips – and describes Brussels sprouts and leeks, as pc vegetables.
However it must be emphasized that although avoidance language is a hyponym of political correctness, the
latter inhabits a separate niche, with its specificity and its own areas of use. The first point I would like to make is that
the use of avoidance language is universal, and like any speech behaviour it is governed by social norms and by social
contexts. Significantly, there are culture-specific rules relating to taboo subjects. Thus, death, sex, even foods, may or
may not be taboo in certain cultures, yet these taboos are not the same in every single cultural community and will
reflect on a diversity of manifestations – from everyday rhetoric to advertising. For example, condom advertising,
which is widespread in most parts of Europe, is taboo in Vietnam and other parts of Asia. Certain nationalities or
minorities may be unmentionable, and thus made invisible. The best known example is probably the untouchables in
India, shunned at a certain time in history. Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda avoided using each others’ names, especially
after the genocide, and were referred to as “short people” and “tall people”. Soviet Jews described themselves as
“invalids of the 5th group” (the 5th item in Soviet passports was nationality). In socialist Bulgaria gypsies were often
referred to simply as “a minority”.
To throw some light on different examples of avoidance language let us, for example compare these 3
statements:
“People have just been freed. A little untidiness is not important.” (Donald Rumsfeld about looting in Iraq.)
“Where’s the restroom? I’d like to powder my nose.” (Asked by a guest at a restaurant)
“We carry medium, large and extra-large eggs.”(An announcement at a Bulgarian supermarket)
No doubt, all of these phrases are euphemisms and their meaning is implied, rather than explicit. The
pragmatic and semantic assumptions we make are based on something tangible – our knowledge of the world and the
shared codes with the interlocutor. These codes make it unnecessary or socially unacceptable to spell out everything.
Implicature, the term propounded by H.P.Grice more than 40 years ago is a very important concept for pragmatics,
discourse analysis and the ethnography of communication. It is closely related to the meta-message which can only be
interpreted correctly if one has the same “background knowledge” as one’s interlocutors. Charles Fillmore recounts
two anecdotes concerning the fixed phrase “I thought you’d never ask” illustrating different meta-messages for
speakers of British English and American English: “While in American English it is a fairly innocent teasing
expression it could be taken as insulting by people who did not know its status as a routine formula. In one case a
European man asked an American woman to join him in the dance, and she, being playful said “I thought you’d never
ask”. Her potential dancing partner withdrew his invitation in irritation. In another case a European hostess offered an
American guest something to drink when he … said “I thought you’d never ask. He was asked to leave the party for
having insulted his host.” (Fillmore, 1984)
According to Grice, for a full identification of what the speaker has said, one would need to know not only the
conventional meaning of the words used together with the identity of any references that may be involved but a) the
identity of the speaker b) the time of utterance, c) the meaning, or the particular occasion of utterance (Grice, 1999:77).
Lexical euphemisms abound in many spheres – especially business and social life. Common business avoidance
clichés are, amongst others, He is in a meeting which means “He doesn’t want to answer”; business is business, as an
excuse for something bad done in the course of transactions, or a formula used when one does not want to accept that
one has done something unethical. It is socially unacceptable for a waiter to say: “Give me my tip now because
somebody else will take over”, but the meaning is implied in the sentence: “I am leaving now”. (Findlay, 1998)
The use of euphemisms is a psychological must. In ostensibly deviating from certain conversational maxims
(see Grice, Ibid) the implicated statements become indirect and thus in many cases are related to politeness–related
116