ABSTRACT
This study explored the lived experiences of students, teachers, parents, and community members in Abuyog, Leyte, regarding the use and social meanings of profanity. While profanity is often dismissed as offensive, limited research has examined its cultural and contextual functions in Philippine communities, leaving a gap in localized sociolinguistic studies.
Guided by sociolinguistic, identity, and politeness theories, the study employed a descriptive-phenomenological design. Participants were purposively selected based on their exposure to profanity in daily interactions, and data were collected through semi-structured interviews. Using thematic analysis, five major themes emerged: profanity as emotional expression and release, a means of social bonding, a context-dependent and audience-sensitive practice, and a communicative tool with both constructive and harmful effects.
The findings reveal that profanity serves dual purposes: it can provide stress relief and strengthen camaraderie, but may also erode perceptions of discipline, respect, and credibility. These results suggest that profanity functions as a flexible linguistic resource shaped by emotion, intention, and cultural expectations.
This study contributes to localized scholarship by addressing the research gap in Philippine sociolinguistics and offers practical implications for education, parenting, and community engagement to promote responsible yet realistic approaches to informal language practices.
Keywords: Profanity, Sociolinguistics, Emotional Expression, Social Bonding, Language Norms, Philippine Communication
INTRODUCTION
Profanity, commonly defined as socially offensive, impolite, or taboo language, has long been viewed through a lens of negativity, often associated with disrespect or lack of discipline (Stapleton, 2010; Mullins, 2020). Traditionally discouraged in formal and public settings, swearing continues to carry strong cultural and moral implications. However, contemporary research suggests that profanity is not merely verbal misconduct but a complex and meaningful tool of human expression (Jay, 2009; Baruch & Jenkins, 2007; Vingerhoets, Bylsma, & de Vlam, 2013).
In various social settings including schools, homes, workplaces, and communities’ people of all ages encounter and engage with profanity in ways that serve emotional, social, and communicative functions (Jay & Janschewitz, 2008) Among college students in particular, profanity is often used to express frustration, relieve stress, build camaraderie, or assert identity within peer groups. However, these functions are not limited to youth. Adults, parents, professionals, and other members of the community also interpret and respond to profanity based on cultural norms, generational beliefs, and contextual appropriateness. The use and perception of profanity are deeply context dependent. Factors such as the relationship between speakers, the setting (private vs. public), and the intention behind the language all influence how profanity is received. A casual expletive may promote bonding among friends, yet the same word could be perceived as aggressive or offensive in another setting.
This highlights the pragmatic nature of profanity; it is not just about the words used, but how, when, and why they are Research has even begun to explore profanity in formal contexts, such as classrooms and professional environments. Studies show that when used sparingly and appropriately, swearing by educators or leaders can enhance relatability, authenticity, and emotional engagement (Mullins, 2020). Meanwhile, in broader social and community contexts, profanity may reflect underlying tensions, solidarity, or shifts in cultural values. These complexities underscore the importance of understanding profanity not only from a linguistic standpoint but as a reflection of social norms, emotional expression, and interpersonal dynamics.
Despite growing global interest in the functions of profanity, there remains a significant gap in localized research—particularly in Philippine contexts. Cultural beliefs, religious influences, respect for authority, and regional languages all shape how profanity is used and perceived by different groups. In rural and community-based institutions such as Abuyog Community College, these factors may play a unique role in shaping language practices.
This study aims to explore the social norms and functions of profanity across multiple stakeholders—students, parents, professionals, and community members—to understand its usage, impact, and meaning in everyday communication. By focusing on the lived experiences and perspectives of these groups, the research will investigate how profanity is used to express emotions, build relationships, assert identity, or navigate social hierarchies. Additionally, the study will examine how setting, audience, and perceived appropriateness influence the use of profanity in different social environments—such as homes, classrooms, peer groups, public spaces, and professional contexts.
Through this comprehensive approach, the study seeks to contribute to a deeper and more inclusive understanding of profanity as a social phenomenon. It also aims to provide insights for educators, parents, and community leaders to foster communication that is context-sensitive, respectful, and responsive to evolving social realities.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
This study aimed to explore the social and communicative functions of profanity as experienced by college students and community members, particularly in relation to its impact on values, relationships, and self-expression. Specifically, it sought to answer the following questions:
1. How does the use of profanity affect individuals’ daily life, both emotionally and socially?
2. What are the main social purposes or functions of using profanity in everyday communication?
3. How does profanity use vary across different settings, such as private, semi-public, and public contexts?
4. In what ways does the use of profanity affect perceptions of an individual’s credibility, trustworthiness, and social intelligence?
5. What emotional or psychological effects does profanity produce on both the speaker and the listener?
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
This study used a descriptive phenomenological approach to explore college students' experiences with profanity and how its use functioned as a form of self-expression in their daily interactions. This qualitative method focused on describing the essence of their lived experiences without interpretation, allowing researchers to capture how students perceived and used profanity in communicating emotions, expressing identity, and navigating social relationships.
Research Instrument
This study made use of semi-structured interviews as the primary tool for data gathering. Guided by open-ended questions, the interviews were carried out to capture in-depth accounts of students’ experiences and perspectives on the use of profanity in their daily communication.
Validation of Research Instrument
To establish the face validity of the instrument, the interview questions were designed in line with the study’s objectives on profanity use. In addition, the research adviser evaluated the instrument to determine whether the items were suitable and effective for eliciting meaningful insights into students’ experiences with profanity.
Locale of the Study
The research was conducted in Abuyog, Leyte. The area was chosen as the study site since the researchers are studying in the locality, which made reaching participants more accessible and practical.
Participants’ Selection and Sampling
This paper employed a descriptive-phenomenological design to capture the lived experiences and perspectives surrounding the use and meanings of profanity.
Moreover, the snowball type of Purposive Sampling was utilized to select participants with significant knowledge and firsthand encounters with the phenomenon.
A total of eight individuals from Abuyog, Leyte, were chosen to ensure diverse and balanced perspectives across age, role, and social context. These included two first-year college students, two parents, two elementary teachers, and two Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) community members.
This sampling strategy ensured that participants represented varied social roles and experiences, thereby providing a broader and more comprehensive understanding of profanity as a social and communicative phenomenon.
Data Analysis
The data were analyzed using thematic analysis, a qualitative method suited for identifying patterns across participants’ narratives. The interview transcripts were read and reviewed multiple times to gain familiarity with the content. Significant statements were then extracted, meanings were derived, and these were organized into categories that reflected recurring ideas and insights. These categories were further synthesized into overarching themes, which captured the essence of participants’ lived experiences.
Data Collection Process.
Before the interviews, each participant signed an informed consent form, affirming their voluntary participation and acknowledging that they fully understood the study's objectives, purpose, and their rights as participants. The interviews were conducted in a one-on-one setting that prioritized privacy, respect, and comfort. Each session lasted approximately 20 to 30 minutes. To ensure confidentiality and ethical integrity, all responses were audio-recorded with permission, securely stored in an encrypted platform, and made accessible only to the researchers.
Ethical considerations
The study was guided by ethical principles to protect the rights and welfare of all participants. Before any data were gathered, participants were clearly informed about the purpose of the study, the process involved, and any possible risks or benefits. Written consent was obtained to confirm their voluntary participation, and they were assured that they could withdraw at any point without consequences. The research instruments and procedures were carefully reviewed by the adviser for approval. To maintain trust, confidentiality and anonymity were strictly observed, with all information kept secure and used solely for academic purposes in accordance with the Data Privacy Act of 2012.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Employing Thematic Analysis on this study yielded several interconnected themes as follow:
Profanity as Emotional Expression and Release.
For most of the participants, swearing became a natural response to frustration, anger, or sadness, allowing them to cope with stress and convey their emotions more openly. Participant 3 shared, “Usahay la gud, pag naiinis ako, diri ko na mapugngan nga makasiring ako hin ‘yawa!’ kay amo man la it nakakapagpagawas han akon kasubo ngan kasina. Pero para ha akon, diri la ito bastos—para la ito pakagawas hin gibati.” (“Sometimes, when I get annoyed, I can’t help but say ‘yawa!’ because it’s the only way I can release my sadness and anger. But for me, it’s not just being rude—it’s more of a release of feelings.”)
Similarly, Participant 4 expressed, “Kun nasisina ako, nakakasiring la ako hin "lintian!’ kay makapahuway it akon pamati. Diri man gud permi kay para la ito pakagawas hin akon inaabat.” (“When I get angry, I just say ‘lintian!’ because it eases what I feel. It’s not always meant to be offensive—it’s just a way to let out what I’m going through.”)
These accounts illustrate that profanity functions as a coping mechanism, providing psychological relief while also serving as a communicative tool for expressing strong emotions. Suppressing such feelings, as some participants noted, often led to more stress and disconnection. This aligns with Jay’s (2009) perspective that profanity serves as an emotional release mechanism, while also resonating with Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory, which views language as a psychological tool that allows individuals to externalize inner states.
Situations and Social Contexts Shape Profanity Use
Participants noted that their use of profanity often depended on the situation and the people around them. Some shared that profanity naturally slips out during moments of strong emotion, while others admitted it becomes more frequent in casual settings with peers. Participant 2 expressed, “Pag upod ko ha barkada, mas nakakasiring ako hin mga pulong nga bastos, kay para la ha amon normal la ito, diri man la seryoso.” (“When I’m with my friends, I say curse words more often because for us it’s just normal, not really something serious.”) Another participant emphasized context, saying, “Pero kun ada ako ha balay o ha klase, ginpipugngan ko an akon dila, kay diri man gud angay magsiring hin sugad didto.” (“But when I’m at home or in class, I hold my tongue, because it’s not appropriate to say those words there.”)
These behaviors align with Crystal’s (2004) observation that the use of profanity is a natural part of language variation, often shaped by social setting and interpersonal dynamics. The findings also support Stapleton’s (2010) claim that swearing frequently arises as an expressive resource, used to release emotions or establish solidarity among peers.
Profanity as Social Bonding
The study revealed that the way individuals use profanity is often tied to social context and peer dynamics, shaping how they communicate and relate to others as Participant 6 shared, “Ha barkadahan, natural la parang bonding namon. (“Among friends, it feels natural to use curse words because that’s how we talk—it’s like our bonding.”) Others, like Participant 7, emphasized the importance of context, saying, “Pero ha pamilya, diri ko ginagamit an sugad nga mga pulong, kay diri angay ngan nakakapasakit hira.” (“But with family, I don’t use those kinds of words, because it’s not appropriate and it nga magyawyaw hin mga pulong nga bastos, kay amo ito an amon pakig-istorya—might hurt them.”)This reflects the implications drawn by Baruch and Jenkins (2021), who observed that the use of profanity is deeply influenced by social dynamics and relational contexts, shaping how individuals negotiate identity and belonging. In line with Sociolinguistic Theory, the findings suggest that profanity functions as a flexible linguistic resource—appropriate in peer groups where it strengthens solidarity yet restrained in family settings where respect and sensitivity are prioritized. In summary, the findings affirm that profanity use is socially aligned, and context driven. Among friends, it fosters bonding and shared identity, but within formal or familial spaces, restraint becomes necessary to maintain harmony and respect.
Profanity as a Reflection of Credibility and Social Image.
Participants highlighted how profanity directly influences how others perceive their credibility, respectability, and self-discipline. Participant 1 admitted that swearing during a youth meeting negatively affected how both parents and youth viewed him, stating: “Bisan usa la nga pulong, makakadaot hin dako ha relasyon ngan respeto han iba ha imo.”(“Even just one word can greatly damage your relationships and the respect others have for you.”) Similarly, Participant 2 emphasized that a person who frequently swears loses credibility, as it becomes a sign of lack of discipline: “An tawo nga pirmi nagmumura, nawawad-an hin credibility ngan respeto.” (“A person who constantly swears loses credibility and respect.”) Teachers and parents reinforced this view, explaining that children often imitate the language of adults, which creates negative role models.
The finding resonates with Politeness Theory (Brown & Levinson, 1987), which argues that language choices can either protect or threaten an individual’s social face. Frequent profanity was perceived as a face-threatening act that diminishes social respect and undermines authority, especially in formal or intergenerational contexts. At the same time, it aligns with Symbolic Interactionism (Blumer, 1969), as individuals construct meaning about one’s credibility and social image based on repeated language behaviors. Thus, swearing was not simply “bad language” but a symbol that shaped others’ judgments of trustworthiness and character.
Profanity as Context-Dependent and Audience-Sensitive
Another recurring theme was that the use and acceptability of profanity largely depended on the social setting and audience. Respondents consistently explained that profanity was more frequent in private spaces, casual peer groups, or among close friends, but heavily restrained in public or professional environments. As Participant 8 noted: “With my friends, nga mga close ko gud, we swear all the time. Pero ha older people, or in formal situations, dapat magrespeto gud. The context is everything.” (“With my close friends, we swear all the time. But with older people, or in formal situations, we should really show respect. The context is everything.”)
Likewise, both teachers and student participants emphasized that profanity is avoided when elders, teachers, or officials are present, out of respect for authority and fear of negative judgment: “Kun barkada la, medyo balewala. Pero kun elders or professors an nakadungog, dako gud nga epekto ngan pwede makaapekto ha respeto ngan reputasyon.” (“Among friends, it’s not taken seriously. But when elders or professors hear it, the effect is serious and can damage respect and reputation.”)
This supports Symbolic Interactionism, which emphasizes that individuals adjust their language as they interpret meanings in social interactions. Profanity becomes a flexible tool that can signal solidarity in peer groups but disrespect in hierarchical or formal relationships.
CONCLUSION
The results of this study reveal that profanity serves dual purposes in everyday communication. On one hand, it functions as an emotional outlet, allowing individuals to release tension, frustration, or stress. On the other hand, it also acts as a social tool that fosters solidarity and camaraderie, particularly in informal peer interactions. However, the study also underscores the context-dependent nature of profanity: while it may promote bonding and authenticity in certain settings, it can also undermine perceptions of respect, discipline, and credibility in more formal or familial environments. Overall, profanity emerges as a flexible linguistic resource shaped by emotion, intention, and social norms.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on these findings, it is recommended that educators, parents, and community leaders take proactive roles in fostering critical awareness of language use. Schools and organizations may create programs, workshops, and safe spaces where students and community members can openly discuss the role of profanity in communication, reflecting on both its constructive and harmful effects. By encouraging respectful, context-sensitive, and responsible language practices, such initiatives can promote healthier self-expression, emotional regulation, and stronger community relationships, while still acknowledging the realities of informal communication in everyday life.
Future research may expand this study by including larger and more diverse participant groups across different regions of the Philippines, or by combining qualitative and quantitative methods to provide broader generalizability
REFERENCES
Alvarez, J. (2019). Profanity and classroom discourse in Philippine higher education. Philippine Journal of Language Studies, 12(2), 45–60.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2004). Language and identity. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 369–394). Blackwell.
Dela Cruz, A., Santos, M., & Lopez, R. (2018). Profanity as a marker of peer solidarity among Filipino youth. Asian Sociolinguistics Journal, 3(1), 88–105.
Mullins, R. (2020). Swearing in professional contexts: Functions and perceptions. Journal of Pragmatics, 158, 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.08.007
O’Driscoll, J. (2020). Pragmatics and the social meaning of swearing. Language & Communication, 73, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2020.04.001
Olmos-Vega, F. M., Stalmeijer, R. E., & Varpio, L. (2023). A practical guide to reflexivity in qualitative research: AMEE Guide No. 149. Medical Teacher, 45(2), 136–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2022.2149161
Stapleton, K. (2010). Swearing. In M. Locher & S. Graham (Eds.), Interpersonal pragmatics (pp. 289–306). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214338.289
Stephens, R., Robertson, O., & MacPherson, A. (2017). Swearing as a response to pain: Effectiveness and perceived appropriateness. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 523. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00523
DOI 10.5281/zenodo.17479610
