Not <i>mates</i> , not <i>bastards</i> : the ethnopragmatics of <i>cunt</i> in Australian English
Abstract This paper discusses three senses of cunt in Anglo-Australian English, showing that what is elsewhere a highly offensive swear word can be used to much different effect in Australia. The first is a pejorative with wider potential for use than is seen in other Englishes. The second, which is used both referentially and descriptively, has a non-pejorative meaning which varies from socially neutral to positive. Additional examples from Irish and Scottish English help illustrate the mechanism behind such variation. The third sense is used as a congenial vocative between men to signify positive social relations. Vocative use is especially unique to Anglo-Australian English linguaculture, and is shown to be rich in culturally significant meaning. Analysis of each sense is conducted using ethnopragmatics and the Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM) approach, with a view to dissecting them in a universally accessible and non-ethnocentric manner, while preserving the components of meaning which make them so unique. Despite their relationships with other, highly offensive meanings of cunt , the semantic contents of these senses are shown to embody values and attitudes which are, in various ways and to various degrees, characteristically (Anglo-)Australian. It is argued that this is especially true for the third sense, the meaning of which differs notably to two other “classic” Australian vocatives: mate and bastard . As a study of culture-specific meanings, this paper reaffirms the need for a unified semantic-pragmatic methodology, which is manifested in the combined techniques of NSM and ethnopragmatic analysis.
Authors
- Henry Carls (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0006-2670-5887)
Institutions
- Australian National University (AU)
Publication Details
- Journal
- Intercultural Pragmatics
- Published
- 2026-05-22
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2026-0037
- Primary Topic
- Swearing, Euphemism, Multilingualism
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 0.00