Rozghon, I., & Bilous, A.
(2024).
Food euphemisms: Psychological and social aspects.
International Journal of Philology,
15(3),
83-95.
https://doi.org/10.31548/philolog/3.2024.83
The article drawed attention to the importance of studying euphemisms that are actively used in the production and processing of livestock products to conceal or mitigate information that may cause negative associations among consumers. The purpose of the study was to investigate the psychological and social aspects of the use of euphemisms in the field of production and consumption. The study used descriptive-analytical, comparative, lexical-semantic and discourse methods to analyse euphemisms in the context of their structural, functional, cultural and communicative features. The article focused on how euphemistic language influences consumers' perception of products, promotes the formation of positive associations and allows avoiding ethical and moral issues related to production processes. The mechanisms of influence of euphemisms on psychological comfort, risk perception and decision-making were described. The social factors that contribute to the spread of euphemisms in marketing communication, including social norms and the desire for emotional protection, were analysed. The article described approaches that include linguistic analysis, cognitive and socio-psychological methods that allow to study the role of euphemisms in shaping consumer perception and decision-making. Particular attention was paid to the methods of corpus analysis of texts, experimental surveys and analysis of consumer behavioural reactions to certain euphemistic expressions, such as “ecological”, “useful”, “recycling” and “premium”. The article highlighted the role of euphemisms as a tool for manipulating and influencing consumer decisions, as well as their impact on the ethical responsibility of producerswho are both directly and indirectly involved in concealing ethical and environmental problems related to production. An analysis of the effectiveness of these language strategies and their impact on consumer perceptions of food products is proposed, which is of practical importance for improving communications in the field of production and marketing
behaviour; correctness; manipulation; roundabout expressions; interpretation; association
[1] Allan, K., & Burridge, K. (2007). Forbidden words: Taboo and the censoring of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.4000/lexis.1633.
[2] Burridge, K. (2012). Euphemism and language change: The sixth and seventh ages. Lexis, 7, 57-78. doi: 10.4000/lexis.355.
[3] Bandura, A. (2011). Moral disengagement. In The encyclopaedia of peace psychology. Wiley: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. doi: 10.1002/9780470672532.wbepp165.
[4] Enright, D.J. (1985). Fair of speech: The use of euphemisms. London: Oxford University Press.
[5] Farrow, K. (2021). Let’s call a spade a spade, not a gardening tool: How euphemisms shape moral judgement in corporate social responsibility domains. Journal of Business Research, 131, 254-267. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.002.
[6] Felt, Ch., & Riloff, E. (2020). Recognizing euphemisms and dysphemisms using sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the second workshop on figurative language processing (pp. 136-145). Stroudsburg: Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2020.figlang-1.20.
[7] Huang, L (2019). Revisit euphemisms from the perspective of intentionality. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 1(1), 102-111. doi: 10.18063/fls.v1i1.1084.
[8] Holder, R.W. (2008). How not to say what you mean: Dictionary of euphemisms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[9] Kunst, J.R., & Hohle, S.M. (2016). Meat eaters by dissociation: How we present, prepare and talk about meat increases willingness to eat meat by reducing empathy and disgust. Appetite, 105, 758-774. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2016.02.019.
[10] Kunch, Z. (2018). Euphemisms in modern English: An analytical study. Journal of Linguistic Studies, 15(2), 112-130.
[11] Kunch, Z. (2022). The evolution of euphemisms in response to social change. Journal of Sociolinguistic Studies, 19(4), 221-238.
[12] Lazer, D.M.J., et al. (2018). The science of fake news: Addressing fake news requires a multidisciplinary effort. Science, 359(6380), 1094-1096. doi: 10.1126/science. aao2998.
[13] Marino, L. (2017). Thinking chickens: A review of cognition, emotion, and behavior in the domestic chicken. Animal Cognition, 20(2), 127-147. doi: 10.1007/s10071-016-1064-4.
[14] Merriam-Webster. (2023). Retrieved from https://surl.li/wvazgu.
[15] Naumenko, S., & Kryvonis, M. (2023). Linguistic means of forming euphemisms in the modern Chinese language. International Online Scholary Journal of V.N. Karazin University, Cognition, Communication, Discourse, 27, 44-55. doi: 10.26565/2218-2926-2023-27-03.
[16] Kravchenko, N., & Shanaieva-Tsymbal, L. (2023). Multimodal Ukrainian brand narrative: Semiotics, structure, archetypes. Alfred Nobel University Journal of Philology, 2(26/2), 27-44. doi: 10.32342/2523-4463-2023-2-26/2-16.
[17] Sztompka, P. (2008). Trust: A sociological theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[18] Velykoroda, V.B. (2017). Mechanisms for enriching euphemistic vocabulary. Scientific Bulletin of National Pedagogical Drahomanov University, 4, 212-217.
[19] Tsai, F.S., & Wen, X.W. (2021). Editorial: The psychology of food safety and consumption. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, article number 767212. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.767212.
[20] van Dijk, T.A. (2008). Cognitive linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
[21] Walker, A., Turnip, N., Meyers, E., & Stolz. J., (2021). Controlling the narrative: Euphemistic language affects judgments of actions while avoiding perceptions of dishonesty. International Journal of Cognitive Science: Cognition, 211, article number 104633. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104633.
[22] Yelovska, Yu. (2017). Taboo in the speech practice of Ukrainians. (PhD thesis, Kryvyi Rih National University, Kryvyi Rih, Ukraine).