User:Jordanann1/sandbox

The neuroscience of taboo language (also referred to as profanity, swearing, cursing), while not currently a widely researched field, attempts to explain why individuals curse more than others. This is established using experimental studies, examples in clinical settings, and theoretical work.

Introduction
Timothy Jay, a prominent researcher in taboo language, defines taboo language as a category of highly emotional words, often negative in nature, which are most often defined by institutions of great authority (i.e, religion or media). Jay also defines taboo language as words which are generally prohibited from use by children, may be particular to a specific generation and culture, and can provide social or personal gain. Taboo words are also separated into 5 relatively distinct semantic categories, including:


 * Disease


 * Sexuality


 * Disfavored groups/people


 * Supernatural


 * Bodily fluids/organs

In addition to semantic categories, taboo words can be organized into 5 functional categories:


 * Abusive – to abuse or humiliate another


 * Cathartic – to relieve or communicate pain, often physical


 * Dysphemism – opposite of a euphemism, describing how negative something is


 * Emphatic – to emphasize


 * Idiomatic – to push emotional buttons

Experimental work
Little work in the area of experimental neuroscience for taboo language specifically has been completed. Research most often groups taboo language into the larger category of nonliteral language, which also includes proverbs, idioms, slang, and speech formulas. While it was widely agreed that the left hemisphere controlled language function entirely in the latter part of the 19th century, Hughlings Jackson suggested the right hemisphere was able to both process and produce automatic, emotional speech. Other prominent researchers in the field, British psychologist Critchley and Russian psychologist Luria, welcomed and fostered Hughlings Jackson’s new outlook on language.

Current fields of research using using Positron Emission Tomography (PET) and Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT) have shown no difference in brain activation of nonliteral language compared to literal, propositional language, aside from counting. In reference to taboo language specifically, a 2001 study using attentional eye-blinking while comparing patients with varying amygdala damage/resection found significant contributions of the amygdala. Bilateral amygdala lesions resulted in a deficit in the perception of taboo language. On the other hand, patients with either right or left amygdala resections suggested the left amygdala is potentially more predominant in increased perception of taboo language. Interestingly, the study found that the comprehension of the taboo words was intact, even with the evidence of no increased perception in the left amygdala resected patients.

Aphasia
Increased use of swearing is commonly reported in patients with aphasia. One of the most commonly reported patient is R.N., who suffered a massive stroke to the left hemisphere and was left with global aphasia. R.N. could say 6 words; yeah, well, yes, no, goddammit, and shit. R.N.’s use of these words was in the correct context, with appropriate prosody, and voluntarily. Aphasia occurs after a left hemispherectomy, as reported by Aaron Smith in 1966. Smith described patient E.C., a 47-year-old right-handed man who underwent a left hemispherectomy after reoccurrence of malignant tumors. E.C. struggled with majority of speech functions after the operation but was able to articulate singular swear words and emotionally-salient information of short length. Research by Chris Code in 1982, looking at utterances of British English aphasia patients, concluded that taboo language was a frequent category of utterances, articulated in 11 of 74 patients. This category did, however, come second to that of pronoun and verb utterances. These case studies suggest taboo language functions are associated with regions in the right hemisphere, outside of the typical left hemisphere language regions.

Gilles de la Tourette’s Syndrome
One of the tic-like characteristics of Tourette’s Syndrome (TS) is coprolalia, or uncontrollable use of taboo language, which is present in approximately 10-15% of cases. A 1999 review of neurolinguistics and neurobehavioral aspects of swearing by Diana Van Lancker and J.L. Cummings point to the basal ganglia as the abnormally operating brain region in TS, in addition to the dopamine system. Specific findings include a reduction of basal ganglia volume in patients with Tourette’s Syndrome, found using MRI technology. Regarding the dopamine system another study reported an increased amount of dopamine uptake sites in postmortem samples of the striatum of the basal ganglia in 3 TS patients. While these findings do not apply directly to coprolalia they indicate the basal ganglia contributes to taboo language use in some capacity. Further research is needed in this area to understand how the basal ganglia and dopamine system are implicated specifically in taboo language processing and production.

Theoretical work
In an effort to focus and clarify the expanding research in this field, Timothy Jay created the Neuropsychosocial (NPS) Theory of Taboo Language in 2000. This theory consists of 3 spectrum; one’s psychological position, social limits, and neurological state. The theory functions off the basic principle that taboo language is not without purpose of meaning.

Psychological features which impact an individual’s taboo language are age, personality, vocabulary, emotional state, and degree of religiosity. A person with a large lexicon would be more likely to use taboo words, as well as a larger variety, than someone with a smaller lexicon, or a deeply religious person would be less likely to use taboo words than someone who does not consider themselves near as religious. Of all the aspects on the psychological spectrum, it is age which contributes most to the use of taboo language. Children may use immature words like chicken or poopy and will use them more often to abuse another individual. Adults are more likely to use severe taboo words like fuck and bitch, and more often in an idiomatic or emphatic way.

Social aspects of the theory consist of, but are not limited to; gender roles, situational formality, and level of intimacy. This portion of the theory is based off social desirability, and the negative consequences or personal gain obtained from a situation. There are more negative consequences with a formal situation and a low level of intimacy, and potentially more personal gain with an informal situation and high level of intimacy. Past studies have shown a gender gap in frequency of taboo language use, with men swearing more than women. More recent publications propose the gender inequality no longer exists due to a potential egalitarian shift in society reducing the stigma surrounding women and their taboo language use.

The neurological state is the spectrum of the theory least expanded on, but at this point in time includes attributions from the right and left hemispheres, aphasia, Gilles de la Tourette’s syndrome, hemispherectomy, and emotional arousal. Using taboo language can be used to convey one’s own emotional state to another person and to soothe themselves, especially when the speaker is in pain. The theory also takes into account the different levels of emotion by assuming a taboo word with a large magnitude of potential offensiveness correlates with a large magnitude of emotion.

It is important to keep in mind this theory is designed to predict when, why, or how an individual may use taboo words. This also suggests that at any time parts of the spectrum may overlap, causing conflict or congruity in predicting a person’s taboo language use. Timothy Jay has also stated that this is a beginning theory for taboo language and would better serve being integrated with other theories of language.

Neuroscience of Taboo Language
The neuroscience of taboo language (also referred to as profanity, swearing, cursing), while not currently a widely researched field, attempts to explain why individuals curse more than others. This is established using experimental studies, examples in clinical settings, and theoretical work. Contents 1.	Introduction 2.	Experimental work 3.	Clinical work 3.1.	Gilles de la Tourette’s Syndrome 3.2.	Aphasia 4.	Theoretical work

Introduction
Timothy Jay, a prominent researcher in taboo language, defines taboo language as a category of highly emotional words, often negative in nature, which are most often defined by institutions of great authority (i.e, religion or media) (Jay, 2009). Jay also defines taboo language as words which are generally prohibited from use by children, may be particular to a specific generation and culture, and can provide social or personal gain (Jay, 2009). Taboo words are also separated into 5 relatively distinct semantic categories, including (Jay, 2009): •	Disease •	Sexuality •	Disfavored groups/people •	Supernatural •	Bodily fluids/organs In addition to semantic categories, taboo words can be organized into 5 functional categories (Jay, 2000): •	Abusive – to abuse or humiliate another •	Cathartic – to relieve or communicate pain, often physical •	Dysphemism – opposite of a euphemism, describing how negative something is •	Emphatic – to emphasize •	Idiomatic – to push emotional buttons

Experimental work
Little work in the area of experimental neuroscience for taboo language specifically has been completed. Research most often groups taboo language into the larger category of nonliteral language, which also includes proverbs, idioms, slang, and speech formulas (Van Lancker Sidtis, 2006). While it was widely agreed that the left hemisphere controlled language function entirely in the latter part of the 19th century, Hughlings Jackson suggested the right hemisphere was able to both process and produce automatic, emotional speech (Hughlings Jackson1). Other prominent researchers in the field, British psychologist Critchley and Russian psychologist Luria, welcomed and fostered Hughlings Jackson’s new outlook on language. Current fields of research using using Positron Emission Tomography (PET) and Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT) have shown no difference in brain activation of nonliteral language compared to literal, propositional language, aside from counting (Bookheimer et al., 2000; Blank et al., 2001; Blank et al., 2002; Lassen & Larsen, 1980; Ryding et al., 1987). In reference to taboo language specifically, a 2001 study using attentional eye-blinking while comparing patients with varying amygdala damage/resection found significant contributions of the amygdala (Anderson & Phelps, 2001). Bilateral amygdala lesions resulted in a deficit in the perception of taboo language. On the other hand, patients with either right or left amygdala resections suggested the left amygdala is potentially more predominant in increased perception of taboo language. Interestingly, the study found that the comprehension of the taboo words was intact, even with the evidence of no increased perception in the left amygdala resected patients.

Aphasia
Increased use of swearing is commonly reported in patients with aphasia (Van Lancker & Cummings, 1999; Jay 2000; Hughlings Jackson 1878-2). One of the most commonly reported patient is R.N., who suffered a massive stroke to the left hemisphere and was left with global aphasia (Van Lancker & Cummings, 1999). R.N. could say 6 words; yeah, well, yes, no, goddammit, and shit. R.N.’s use of these words was in the correct context, with appropriate prosody, and voluntarily. Aphasia occurs after a left hemispherectomy, as reported by Aaron Smith in 1966 (Smith, 1966). Smith described patient E.C., a 47-year-old right-handed man who underwent a left hemispherectomy after reoccurrence of malignant tumors. E.C. struggled with majority of speech functions after the operation but was able to articulate singular swear words and emotionally-salient information of short length. Research by Chris Code in 1982, looking at utterances of British English aphasia patients, concluded that taboo language was a frequent category of utterances, articulated in 11 of 74 patients. This category did, however, come second to that of pronoun and verb utterances. These case studies suggest taboo language functions are associated with regions in the right hemisphere, outside of the typical left hemisphere language regions.

Gilles de la Tourette’s Syndrome
One of the tic-like characteristics of Tourette’s Syndrome (TS) is coprolalia, or uncontrollable use of taboo language, which is present in approximately 10-15% of cases (NINDS, 2012). A 1999 review of neurolinguistics and neurobehavioral aspects of swearing by Diana Van Lancker and J.L. Cummings point to the basal ganglia as the brain region of dysfunction in TS, in addition to the dopamine system (Van Lancker & Cummings, 1999). Specific findings include a reduction of basal ganglia volume in patients with Tourette’s Syndrome, found using MRI technology (Peterson et al., 1993). Regarding the dopamine system another study reported an increased amount of dopamine uptake sites in postmortem samples of the striatum of the basal ganglia in 3 TS patients (Singer et al., 1991). While these findings do not apply directly to coprolalia they indicate the basal ganglia contributes to taboo language use in some capacity. (Drews et al., 2014). Further research is needed in this area to understand how the basal ganglia and dopamine system are implicated specifically in taboo language processing and production (Drews et al., 2014).

Theoretical work
In an effort to focus and clarify the expanding research in this field, Timothy Jay created the Neuropsychosocial (NPS) Theory of Taboo Language in 2000 (Jay, 2000). This theory consists of 3 spectrums; one’s psychological position, social limits, and neurological state. The theory functions off the basic principle that taboo language is not without purpose of meaning. Psychological features which impact an individual’s taboo language are age, personality, vocabulary, emotional state, and degree of religiosity. A person with a large lexicon would be more likely to use taboo words, as well as a larger variety, than someone with a smaller lexicon (Jay & Jay, 2015), or a deeply religious person would be less likely to use taboo words than someone who does not consider themselves near as religious (Jay, 2009). Of all the aspects on the psychological spectrum, it is age which contributes most to the use of taboo language (Jay & Jay, 2013). Children may use immature words like chicken or poopy and will use them more often to abuse another individual. Adults are more likely to use severe taboo words like fuck and bitch, and more often in an idiomatic or emphatic way. Social aspects of the theory consist of, but are not limited to; gender roles, situational formality, and level of intimacy. This portion of the theory is based off social desirability, and the negative consequences or personal gain obtained from a situation. There are more negative consequences with a formal situation and a low level of intimacy, and potentially more personal gain with an informal situation and high level of intimacy (Severens et al., 2012). Past studies have shown a gender gap in frequency of taboo language use, with men swearing more than women (Jay and Jay., 2013; Jay, 2000). More recent publications propose the gender inequality no longer exists due to a potential egalitarian shift in society reducing the stigma surrounding women and their taboo language use (Vingerhoets et al., 2013). The neurological state is the spectrum of the theory least expanded on, but at this point in time includes attributions from the right and left hemispheres, aphasia, Gilles de la Tourette’s syndrome, hemispherectomy, and emotional arousal. Using taboo language can be used to convey one’s own emotional state to another person and to soothe themselves, especially when the speaker is in pain (Stephens et al., 2009). The theory also takes into account the different levels of emotion by assuming a taboo word with a large magnitude of potential offensiveness correlates with a large magnitude of emotion. It is important to keep in mind this theory is designed to predict when, why, or how an individual may use taboo words. This also suggests that at any time parts of the spectrum may overlap, causing conflict or congruity in predicting a person’s taboo language use. Timothy Jay has also stated that this is a beginning theory for taboo language and would better serve being integrated with other theories of language (Jay, 2009).