Euphemism in laxative TV commercials: at the crossroads between politeness and persuasion

1 Introduction

Human defecation, although a normal bodily process, is surrounded by disgust, secrecy, and shame. The taboo attached to fecal elimination creates strong inhibitions against discussing defecation and related matters like constipation in public. Indeed, social and cultural conventions have traditionally banned the mentioning of bodily functions considered undignified, even degrading, like defecation or urination, not to mention burping, flatulence, or menstruation. Despite people’s reluctance to talk about excretion openly, there are communicative situations in which one cannot evade referring to the elimination of body wastes. This is the case of laxative TV commercials, a type of discourse focused on the infrequent or difficult evacuation of the bowels. Given the need to refer to constipation and defecation in a formal context, the public nature of TV broadcasting, and the impact of regulatory constraints on the language of advertising, laxative commercials constitute a breeding ground for euphemism. In fact, we depart from the basic assumption that advertisers resort to euphemism to make the product used to induce defecation attractive to consumers despite its close association with such unmentionable topics as feces and defecation; after all, as Wingate (1997: 5) argues, “constipation is a social rather than a biological disease”. It does not come as a surprise, therefore, that the taboo surrounding fecal continence compels advertisers to look for good-sounding words when trying to persuade consumers into buying laxatives.

Following politeness theory and a discourse-analytic and cognitive linguistic approach to language data, the purpose of this paper is to gain an insight into the way euphemism is used in American TV commercials advertising over-the-counter (OTC) and prescription laxatives from 2013 to 2018.^[1] As euphemism is a context-bound phenomenon, this study is not based on isolated words, but on a sample of real and contextualized language use collected from TV commercials. This task seems to be a worthy enterprise because, to the best of my knowledge, no study so far has been exclusively devoted to the way euphemism serves the purpose of providing reference to scatological phenomena in real language. Leaving aside those studies devoted to the psychological or sociological implications of “toilet taboos” like feces, urine, or flatulence (Haslam 2012), the way in which the taboo of human defecation surfaces in language has only been dealt with in general studies on linguistic interdiction (Allan and Burridge 1991: Ch. 3; Ayto 2007: 163–171; Jay 2000: Ch. 23; Keyes 2010: 102–123). The scholarly works focused on the language of TV advertising are concerned with the use of language to achieve persuasive effects (Armstrong 2010; Schmidt and Kess 1986), including the role of multimodal metaphor (Caballero 2014; Forceville 2008). However, as far as I know, there is no study focused on commercials advertising products in which taboo plays a role. The present paper is organized as follows. After dealing with the taboo of defecation and the relationships between euphemism, advertising, and persuasion, I will briefly present the corpus data, the methodology followed, and the theoretical paradigms on which this study relies. Then I will analyze the euphemistic and non-euphemistic items, both semantically and non-semantically motivated, identified in the sample of laxative commercials consulted, which constitutes the core of this paper. The conclusions and final results will be reported in the end.

2 The taboo of defecation

Kate Burridge (2004: 199) once defined taboo as something untouchable, revolting, and unmentionable. There are, indeed, few things in life – if any – more unpleasant than excrement and defecation.^[2] Although, strictly speaking, excretion is a biological process, the act of discharging waste matter from the large intestine is seen as a “private, shameful one, done behind closed doors and, except in China, never in company” (George 2008: 9). The act of defecation and, consequently, the medical condition of constipation, is surrounded by the powerful taboo of coprophobia whereby “humans are conditioned to develop an aversion to faeces” (Wingate 1997: 3) and is even associated to the fear of death (Allan and Burridge 1991: 58). Leaving aside the fetish of coprophilia, i.e., a sexual perversion consisting in deriving pleasure from the sight or smell of excrement, our extreme disgust with feces has turned the process of defecation into a potent source of repulsion and embarrassment.^[3]

The physiological process of defecation is a type of what Allan (1990: 170) refers to as a “pollution taboo” which corresponds to the “revolting bodily effluvia theory” whereby excretion (and other bodily effluvia like vomit or menstrual blood) is closely associated with dirt. In this sense, the anthropologist Mary Douglas first established a symbolic connection between dirt, disorder, and danger, which leads to the assumption that human excrement, as a dirty substance, must be eliminated in the search for purity, order and social balance “as a positive effort to reorganize the environment” (1966: 2). In the same vein, for Bücher (cited in Persels and Ganim 2004: xiv) “what is decreed impure, [and] thus execrated and condemned by a culture, is an object out of place, a cause for disorder”. In this sense, dirt is conceptualized as an entity which subverts an ideal arrangement of things in our world by virtue of the metaphor dirt is matter out of place (Lizardo 2012: 370). In fact, the experiential grounding of dirt metaphors is based on our common experiences with certain substances – like feces – that stain our body or clothes. From this perspective, the taboo of defecation is ultimately defined by culturally sensitive social norms whereby civilized people are supposed to keep away from dirt as a way to remain clean and pure.

The constraints governing defecation are reflected in language. Probably with the exception of scatological joking (Jay 2000: 200–201), people feel reluctant to deal with human excretion using straightforward terms and tend to soften the effect of what they really wish to communicate. To talk about defecation, feces, and related matters, people resort to euphemism, i.e., the process whereby the taboo is stripped of its most explicit overtones thus providing a way to speak about those experiences which are too embarrassing, disgusting, or intimate to be discussed in undeviating terms. Unlike other taboo topics like sex or death in which social censorship has progressively relaxed in contemporary societies, the act of defecation is not an easy subject to talk about in public. That this is so can be gathered from George (2008: 11):

Sex can be talked about, probably because it usually requires company. Death has once again become conversational, enough to be given starring roles in smart, prime-time TV dramas. Yet defecation remains closed behind the words, all chosen for their clean association, that we now use to keep the most animal aspect of our bodies in the backyards of our discourse where modernity has decided it belongs.

The interdictive strength of scatological-related matters helps to explain the absence of axiologically neutral (i.e., orthophemistic) words to refer to excretion in a conversational register. Pinker (2007: 351) lists three categories of defecation-related naming, namely taboo (shit), medical (bowel movement), and formal (excreta, ordure), to which words taken from children’s language (poop) can be added (see footnote 3). Curiously enough, there seem to be no neutral, conversational words for the natural activity of defecation. The references to excretion range from the objective and clinical discourse to the most explicit, gross, and socially inappropriate alternatives typical of teenage talk (Persels and Ganim 2004: xiii) or toilet humor (Haslam 2012). The taboo of defecation is therefore a candidate for euphemism: a wide range of apparently innocuous words and expressions are used to refer to the physiological process of defecation and related issues like constipation which, although a relatively common complaint for many people, is either silenced in public discourse or dealt with using discretion in order to avoid embarrassment and the violation of broadcast decency standards.

3 Euphemism, face, persuasion, and advertising

Prior to presenting the corpus data and the methodology following, it is necessary to define the concept of euphemism and its role in the persuasive discourse of advertising.^[4] Allan and Burridge (1991, 2006 define euphemism by reference to the notion of face, i.e., one’s public self-image in a given social situation, first introduced by Goffman (1967) and applied in Brown and Levinson’s (1987) well-known model of politeness. Following politeness theory, Allan and Burridge consider euphemism as polite-sounding language intended to soften the potential face affront both to the speaker (for self-presentational purposes) and to the hearers (out of concern for their sensitivities). In their words, euphemism tends to “avoid possible loss of face by the speaker, and also the hearer or some third party” (Allan and Burridge 2006: 31–32). These scholars place X-phemistic (i.e., euphemistic and dysphemistic) processes on the basis of a continuum based upon the degree of face affront caused by the X-phemistic verbal expression: from dysphemism as an overt face affront to the parties involved in communication, to euphemism as a means of preserving face, that is, from the overly harsh shit to the polite-sounding alternatives fecal matter; from the colloquial do a poo or the vulgar take a crap to the socially acceptable go to the bathroom or maintain one’s regularity.

Face concerns play a crucial role in advertising discourse. Indeed, advertisers do not use language at random: they make every effort possible to project a positive image of the brand and the company. We should not forget that the language of advertising is “purpose-oriented”: commercials are carefully constructed with a persuasive aim in mind. And euphemism is part of the advertiser’s strategy to persuade potential customers into buying the products. Euphemism responds to the advertisers’ need that the image of the laxative they sell be attractive and positively regarded by viewers while at the same time, not offending their sensitivities; in other words, euphemism serves the advertiser’s purpose to maintain the positive face of the company (the viewer’s negative face does not seem to be affected by the persuasive nature of advertising discourse).^[5] Needless to say, the social sanction that may derive from dealing with a defecation-related subject like constipation in crude terms is precisely what advertisers try to avoid through euphemism.

Euphemism, however, is not only used to avoid the breaking of a social convention. Broadcasting regulations and standards also have an effect on the use of language in laxative commercials. Advertisers avoid words such as shit or crap not only because they are socially inappropriate but also illegal: they are considered as obscene references to excretory functions that violate broadcast standards. In order to satisfy broadcasting regulations and avoid getting into trouble with the Federal Communication Commission (FCC),^[6] advertisers resort to euphemism as a safe way to refer to defecation and related issues.

Although euphemistic expressions are typically polite and intended to avoid loss of face, it is important to note that euphemism is not a unified, homogeneous phenomenon because euphemism in general – and euphemism in advertising in particular – is context-bound: the attenuating quality of a given expression depends considerably on the context in which it is used (Allan and Burridge 1991: 4). Therefore, despite the fact that euphemisms are stereotypically associated with politeness (Schlund 2014: 271), we should bear in mind that the euphemistic force of any expression ultimately depends on the speaker’s intention, the subject matter, and other contextually-related factors. To account for the communicative functions of euphemistic items in advertising, I consider the axiological categories of euphemism, initially proposed by Burridge (2012) and subsequently improved by Crespo-Fernández (2015), which correspond to the functions that euphemistic items perform in discourse: protective (avoiding offense); consolatory (coping with death and grief); provocative (attracting interest); underhand (deceiving and misrepresenting); uplifting (upgrading); cohesive (displaying in-group solidarity); complimentary (praising); dirty (sexually stimulating the partner); ludic (defusing the seriousness of taboo subjects); and derogatory (making a socially acceptable criticism). The euphemistic alternatives included in the different categories may provide the advertiser with different types of politic ^[7] (i.e., non-face-threatening) alternatives to dispreferred expressions, including both euphemistic and non-euphemistic references to constipation and related issues, as explained in Section 6.

4 Theoretical frames

Apart from the already commented on politeness theory as a pragmatic approach to euphemism, this study relies on a social theoretical model of discourse. From this perspective, a discourse is a framework for thinking and talking about reality, a set of assumptions which shapes people’s perception of the world and incorporates specific values and meanings when talking about any given concept. More specifically, I follow here Fairclough’s (2003) three-layered model of discourse, i.e., discourse as a piece of text, discourse as an instance of discursive practice, and discourse as an instance of social practice. Fairclough’s approach combines language analysis and social theory in that it tries to “transcend the division between work inspired by social theory which tends not to analyze texts, and work which focuses upon the language of texts but tends not to engage with social theoretical issues” (2003: 2–3). This socially oriented view of discourse allows linguistic analyses of specific formal features of texts as realizations of discourse practices whose characteristics are determined by the way language and communication work, that is, by the content of the text and the form it takes (Cameron 2001: 17). From this viewpoint, texts, as instances of socially situated language use, can be considered as cultural carriers of meaning. This approach to discourse facilitates the consideration of a particular discourse type like the TV commercial as a social practice, a goal-oriented text with a predominantly social and persuasive purpose that is achieved, among other textual devices, by euphemism.

Given that figurative language constitutes a potent source for X-phemism in real discourse (see Crespo-Fernández 2015; Gradečak-Erdeljić and Milić 2011; Moritz 2018), this study is also entrenched in the tradition of cognitive linguistics (Lakoff 1987, 1993) which, simply put, considers metaphor and metonymy as cognitive devices with the capacity to provide a particular understanding of the world through the correspondence between the linguistic content of metaphors and metonymies (the source domain) and what they describe (the target domain).^[8] In order to account for the communicative potential of figurative language to generate expressive, i.e., euphemistic, meanings in discourse, I follow a discourse-analytic approach to figurative language expressions, that is, a cognitively-based model inspired by Steen’s (2011) approach to discourse metaphor in which social and cultural aspects play a fundamental role. Steen argues that metaphor performs a three-fold function in discourse (linguistic, conceptual, and communicative), which allows for an understanding of the deliberate use of figurative language in communication. More particularly, the approach to metonymy followed here relies on Radden and Kövecses’ (1999) theory of metonymy, a taxonomy of metonymic mappings operating within an Idealized Cognitive Model or ICM, i.e., a conceptual domain constituted by conceptual entities (Lakoff 1987) which are based on a set of “metonymy-producing relationships” or generic principles motivating metonymic expressions.

This cognitively-based and socially-oriented view of figurative language allows us to understand the role of figurative language expressions in real-world discourse and how their axiological value and persuasive force project in communication. This discourse-analytical approach accounts for the use of metonymies and metaphors in TV commercials as cognitive devices which stand as basic means of concept and argument building and contribute to persuasion, as we will see in the course of the analysis.

5 Data and methodology

The data for the present study was taken from TV commercials advertising laxatives that are freely available for public use on the website ispot.tv (http://www.ispot.tv/), a comprehensive database of American TV commercials, promos, and movie trailers. The sample covers a time span of six years (2013–2018) and amounts to a total of 41 commercials comprising approximately 3,935 words in which 218 constipation-related references (both euphemistic and non-euphemistic) have been encountered. For the sake of minimizing variables and constructing a homogeneous sample, the study focuses on American TV commercials advertising laxatives that contain chemicals – namely emollient laxatives (e.g., Colace), osmotic laxatives (e.g., Miralax), and stimulant laxatives (e.g., Dulcolax) – as well as those advertising natural vegetable laxatives (e.g., Senokot), non-oral laxatives, i.e., enemas or medicated laxative suppositories (e.g., Fleet), and prescription medicines used to relieve constipation (e.g., Linzess). Other products used to treat and prevent constipation like probiotics or fiber supplements have not been considered.

I must admit that the present research can make no claim to being exhaustive. I have relied on small data samples, which does not allow valid conclusions to be reached in quantitative terms. However, I believe that essential principles of data compilation like the representativeness of the sample and its thematic homogeneity are ensured. Indeed, the sample of commercials meets the basic requirements for analysis in discourse studies proposed by Caballero and Ibarretxe-Antuñano (2009): it provides a sufficient (i.e., not anecdotal) number of examples from real language use and ensures that the language phenomenon under consideration is analyzed within its communicative context.

The method used to analyze the data corresponds to the adoption of a “bottom-up approach”: first, I searched the database by subject area and retrieved euphemistic and non-euphemistic words and expressions for constipation-related matters; second, I grouped these items by the specific topic euphemized and classified them in terms of their formation device; and third, I reached some conclusions regarding the role of euphemistic and non-euphemistic language in laxative commercials. The methodology used is therefore inductive: I start from the linguistic data and ask which functions euphemism fulfills in discourse. Concerning figurative language, I assigned the metonymic and metaphorical units encountered to the conceptualizations to which they give rise as a prerequisite to identify the intentions underlying the use of figurative language expressions in the sample of commercials consulted.

Before moving on to the discussion section, it is important to say that the context-dependent nature of euphemism plays a key role in the selection process of euphemism. In the first place, there are some borderline cases between euphemism and non-euphemism like uncomfortable ‘constipated᾽. Although, strictly speaking, a negatively-loaded term, it clearly fulfills a euphemistic function in (9): uncomfortable is milder than any of its possible equivalents to refer to the taboo. Similarly, the non-euphemistic metaphorical term burden is relatively close to euphemism: it is regarded as a socially acceptable alternative to refer to the taboo of constipation in (17). In addition, some of the items collected from the corpus stand halfway between two or more formation devices. For instance, hyperbole combines with metonymy (have peace of mind ‘defecate᾽) and with simile (like rocks ‘hard stools᾽) and understatement and litotes are at work in a number of metonymy-based euphemisms (irregularity ‘constipation᾽). In order to offer a whole picture of the language devices that result in the creation of the items collected, in cases like these I have included the euphemistic item in all the categories of X-phemism formation that result in its creation.

6 Analysis

As pointed out earlier, a total of 218 constipation-related terms and expressions have been encountered in the commercials that make up the corpus, 142 of which are euphemisms for defecation, which makes up almost two thirds of the total number of euphemistic units found. The remaining ones are euphemisms for constipation (n = 33) and fecal matter (n = 28). Non-euphemistic items for constipation (n = 15) are clearly less relevant in quantitative terms. Figure 1 displays the number and percentage of euphemistic and non-euphemistic items in each topic:

Figure 1:

Euphemistic and non-euphemistic items by specific taboo topic.

Figure 2 shows how the euphemistic and non-euphemistic units are distributed according to their formation devices. The most noticeable quality is that metonymy is responsible for the majority of the words and expressions used to advertise the laxatives: it records 114 occurrences, including those cases in which it combines with other devices like understatement, litotes, simile, or hyperbole. Understatement (n = 90) also plays a key role as a euphemistic mechanism in the corpus consulted, followed, at a distance, by medical jargon (n = 48). Other devices like metaphor (n = 14), litotes (n = 13), hyperbole (n = 10), simile (n = 8), underspecification (n = 4), downtoning (n = 3), and personification (n = 3) are little relevant in quantitative terms.

Figure 2:

Devices of euphemism and non-euphemism formation in the corpus.

7 Concluding remarks

The analysis of the TV commercials presented here reveals that euphemism is a common phenomenon in the language used to advertise laxatives – 203 instances in a corpus of 3,935 words – and a powerful persuasive tool in advertising discourse. Although less relevant in quantitative terms, non-euphemistic words and expressions also play an important persuasive role in laxative advertising. The relation between euphemism, politeness, and persuasion is, indeed, non-trivial: advertisers resort to politically correct alternatives to dispreferred expressions in order to mask the product’s purpose and thus preserve the company’s face, while, at the same time, enhancing the value of the product and allowing the potential buyer to understand their claims. In this way, socially appropriate or, following Watts (2003), politic, i.e., euphemistic and non-euphemistic, language responds to the advertisers’ desire to persuade viewers to see the laxative in a positive light in spite of the reference to defecation-related issues (mostly the act of defecation and, to a lesser extent, constipation, and fecal matter) which could make them feel uncomfortable and, consequently, negatively affect the image of the brand. In this way, the euphemistic and non-euphemistic items detected in the commercials collected for this study are perfect candidates for the so-called protective and provocative X-phemism, since their communicative functions are both to avoid embarrassment and to attract the interest of viewers.

The study demonstrates the euphemistic potential of metonymy versus other word formation devices: the vast majority of the euphemistic units detected are metonymy-based, most of which are instantiations of the metonymies resultant state for action (get relief), generic for specific ( pain ), and destination for purpose ( go to the bathroom ). Euphemism is also achieved via non-figurative language: understatement (relief) and medical jargon (bowel function) rank the most frequent devices, followed, at a distance, by litotes (unblock), underspecification (cases), downtoning (little) and personification (tough customer). It is worth noting that on many occasions more than one device of euphemism formation combines to refer to defecation-related issues. For instance, metonymy coexists with litotes and understatement (discomfort ‘constipation’) and also with hyperbole (have peace of mind ‘defecate’).

It is important to say that figurative language devices like metaphor and simile, based on the conceptualizations constipation is an obstacle/ a burden/ an enemy/ a nuisance customer are the vehicle for non-euphemism. In this respect, of special interest is the fact that hyperbole is used with a persuasive aim in different instances of similes (like rocks ‘hard stools’). These non-euphemistic, hyperbolic references to constipation enhance the value of the product used to induce defecation by establishing a contrast between the problem (constipation) and the solution (laxative).

The examination of the corpus of laxative commercials also reveals that not only are vulgar words (crap, shit, etc.) avoided in advertising discourse, as can naturally be expected, socially acceptable substitutes like defecation, evacuation, or excrement are also avoided. However acceptable they may be in certain situations, these words are not deemed appropriate in the social context of advertising; they are considered too explicit, tinged with negative connotations and therefore likely to arouse discomfort among viewers.

It goes without saying that the present study, limited to commercials in US television, does not claim to be exhaustive. Further research is needed on the role of euphemism in a larger collection of commercials, as provided by corpus linguistics, which could allow valid conclusions from a quantitative point of view to be reached. In addition, it would be interesting to know whether the results obtained in the present paper regarding commercials on American TV differ from those broadcast in other countries. Such a study could be extended to commercials advertising other products in which taboo plays a role, like tampons, contraceptives, or dieting pills. Also of interest would be to analyze from a multimodal perspective how the different visual and linguistic choices employed in TV commercials contribute to the euphemistic and persuasive import of taboo-related advertising.

All in all, the present paper demonstrates that advertisers employ both euphemisms and non-euphemisms in laxative commercials as a face-saving mechanism which serves the company’s self-presentational purposes and allows them to make the product used to relieve constipation more attractive to potential buyers without violating federal broadcast standards and regulations. In this way, politically correct language contributes to creating a positive image of the laxative and, in doing so, fulfills the purpose of advertising, namely to persuade the consumer, particularly well.