To answer Shakespeare’s famous rhetorical question posed by Juliet…. plenty. In today’s environment, people are more anxious than ever to hang a label on someone and categorize them accordingly. These names are often used to hurt or marginalize others. Although, sometimes they are used without malice of any kind. In other words, when it comes to language, things can be complicated – and I ain’t talking about grammar.
Language is a dynamic and ever-evolving system, continuously adapting to societal norms, cultural shifts, and historical changes. One particularly fascinating linguistic phenomenon that illustrates this adaptability is the “euphemism treadmill,” a term coined by cognitive scientist Steven Pinker.
This concept describes the cyclical process by which euphemisms, originally introduced to soften unpleasant, offensive, or sensitive terms, gradually acquire the same negative connotations as the words they replaced, necessitating the invention of new euphemisms. Unfortunately, in recent years, this topic has been hijacked by both sides of the political spectrum and used to sow division and cast aspersions. However, this article explores the euphemism treadmill purely from a linguistic perspective.
At its core, the euphemism treadmill operates due to semantic changes, a process in which the meaning of words shifts over time. This shift occurs through a mechanism called “pejoration,” where a neutral or positive word takes on a negative connotation. This phenomenon is driven by factors such as social stigma, cultural attitudes, and the psychological association between words and the people or things to which they refer.
The treadmill functions as follows:
1. Initial Taboo or Stigma: A term referring to a socially sensitive or stigmatized concept becomes unacceptable or offensive.
2. Euphemistic Substitution: A new term is introduced to replace the offensive one, often through metaphorical or indirect language.
3. Semantic Contamination: Over time, the new euphemism becomes associated with the same negative connotations as the original term.
4. Replacement and Cycle Continuation: The contaminated euphemism is abandoned in favor of a new, more socially acceptable term, and the cycle begins again.
This continuous process highlights how language has been shaped by social attitudes and how speakers usually seek ways to align their language with prevailing cultural norms. However, today the exact opposite can occur when individuals are worried about being labeled “woke.” Conversely, individuals who have good intentions of protecting the feelings and dignity of a specific group can jump to negative conclusions about anyone who doesn’t get on the treadmill quickly enough.
To illustrate my point, allow me to list some examples of the euphemism treadmill:
The term “cripple,” once a neutral description of a person with physical disabilities (think of Dickens’ character Tiny Tim), became stigmatized and was replaced by “handicapped.” Eventually, “handicapped” took on negative connotations and was replaced by “disabled.” Finally, “disabled” has more recently been replaced by terms such as “differently-abled” to avoid perceived negativity.
Terms for racial and ethnic groups frequently change as societal attitudes evolve. For instance, “negro,” once a standard term in the 19th and early 20th centuries, was replaced by “colored,” then “black,” and later “African American” in the U.S. Similar changes occurred with terms like “Indian” being replaced by “Native American” then “indigenous peoples.” The shift in terminology often reflects efforts to promote respect, dignity, and cultural identity, but the treadmill effect means that even newer terms are eventually viewed as outdated or problematic.
In addition, many job titles have undergone euphemistic changes to avoid negative connotations. For example, “janitor” became “custodian,” and “garbage collector” turned into “sanitation worker.” These shifts often aim to elevate the perceived status of the occupation, though they may also succumb to the treadmill as the new terms become associated with the original job.
While these substitutions may initially seem more polite or socially acceptable, they will eventually acquire the same connotations over time, prompting further lexical gymnastics.
The euphemism treadmill underscores the deep connection between language and social perception. However, words do not inherently carry negative connotations; rather, society assigns meaning to them. As long as the underlying concept remains stigmatized, any term associated with it will eventually take on that stigma. This demonstrates how language change is not merely about words but about shifting societal attitudes.
Ultimately, political correctness plays a crucial role in the euphemism treadmill. Well-intentioned efforts to promote inclusive and respectful language usually drive euphemistic substitutions. While some view this as a positive step toward social progress, others criticize it as an endless cycle that does not address underlying biases.
The treadmill also relates to the hypothesis, which suggests that language influences thought. By continually replacing stigmatized terms, society attempts to reshape perceptions and attitudes. As long as social attitudes evolve, the euphemism treadmill is likely to persist.
However, with a greater understanding of the euphemism treadmill, society may become more strategic in how it approaches language change, focusing on reducing stigma rather than constantly replacing terminology. Efforts to create more neutral and focused terms may slow the treadmill effect by emphasizing individual identity over stigmatized labels.
While euphemisms can serve as temporary solutions to linguistic stigma, they do not address the root causes of social attitudes. Understanding this phenomenon from a linguistic perspective allows for a more nuanced approach to language evolution, one that considers not just the words we use, but the cultural forces that shape their meaning.
