Luận văn AN INVESTIGATION INTO ENGLISH - VIETNAMESE TRANSLATION OF EUPHEMISM ppt

1

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
UNIVERSITY OF DANANG



PHAN THỊ THU THỦY



AN INVESTIGATION
INTO ENGLISH - VIETNAMESE
TRANSLATION OF EUPHEMISM




Subject Area : The English Language
Code : 60.22.15



M.A. THESIS IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE





Supervisor: TRẦN ĐÌNH NGUYÊN, M.A.

DANANG - 2011
i
DECLARATION

Except where reference is made in the text of the thesis, this thesis
contains no material published elsewhere or extracted in whole or in part from
a thesis by which I have qualified for or been awarded another degree or
diploma.
No other person’s work has been used without due acknowledgement in
the thesis.
This thesis has not been submitted for the award of any degree or
diploma in any other tertiary institution.

Danang - 2011


Phan Thị Thu Thủy







ii
ABSTRACT

This thesis has been done in an effort to investigate how euphemism is

translated from English into Vietnamese in translated works as well as to
find out what are the main approaches taken by translators in translating
euphemism from English into Vietnamese. A collection of samples taken
from literary works written in English and their Vietnamese versions have
been analyzed to explore ways in which euphemisms are transferred.
Besides, quantitative analyses have also been carried out to show
distribution of ways of translating, on the basis of which to identify
preferences. The findings, it is hoped, will help to put forward some
suggestions for the translation as a profession and for the teaching and
learning of English to overcome the misunderstandings and barriers during
the cross-cultural communication.







iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page
DECLARATION i
ABSTRACT ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
LIST OF FIGURES vi
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Rationale 1
1.2. Signification of the Study 2

1.3. Scope of the Study 2
1.4. Research Questions 2
1.5. Definition of Terms 2
1.6. Organisation of the Study 3
CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL
BACKGROUND 4
2.1. A Review of Previous Studies 4
2.2. Theoretical Background 5
2.2.1. Theory of Translation 5
2.2.1.1. Definitions of Translation 5
2.2.1.2. Language and Culture 7
2.2.1.3. Translation Equivalence 9
2.2.1.4. Translation Methods 11
2.2.1.5. Communicative Translation and Semantic Translation 14
2.2.2. Euphemisms 16
2.2.2.1. Concepts and Definitions of Euphemisms 16
2.2.2.2. Characteristic Features of Euphemisms 19
2.2.2.3. Euphemisms and Other Linguistic Units 21
iv
2.2.3. Semantic Characteristics of English Words 25
2.2.3.1. Word Meaning 25
2.2.3.2. Sense Relations 27
2.2.3.3. Componential Analysis in Translation 28
2.2.4. Classification of Euphemisms and Theorists’ Ways for
Translation of Euphemisms 29
2.2.4.1. Classification of Euphemisms 29
2.2.4.2. Theorists’ Ways for Translations of Euphemisms 31
CHAPTER 3 - METHOD AND PROCEDURE 34
3.1. Aims and Objectives 34
3.1.1. Aims 34

3.1.2. Objectives 34
3.2. Research Design 34
3.3. Method of Research 35
3.4. Data Collection and Description 35
3.5. Research Procedures 36
CHAPTER 4 - DISCUSSIONS OF FINDINGS 37
4.1. The Ways of English-Vietnamese Translation of Euphemisms as
Manifested in Translated Works 37
4.1.1. Translation of Euphemisms expressing Death 37
4.1.2. Translation of Euphemisms expressing Sex 49
4.1.3. Translation of Euphemisms expressing Pregnancy 63
4.1.4. Translation of Euphemisms expressing Childbirth 71
4.2. Three main Approaches to Translation of Euphemism 79
4.2.1. Translation of Euphemism into an Equivalent Euphemism by
Finding the Exact Counterpart in the TL text 79
v
4.2.2. Translation of Euphemism into a Non-equivalent Euphemism by
Translating the Euphemistic Meaning of the SL text or by
Adding Footnotes and Explanatory Words in the TL text 81
4.2.3. Translation of Euphemism into a direct form in the TL text 82
CHAPTER 5 – CONCLUSIONS 83
5.1. Summary of the Findings 83
5.2. Implications for Translation 85
5.3. Implications for Language Teaching and Learning 85
5.4. Some Limitations of the Study 86
5.5. Some Suggestions for Further Research 87
REFERENCES 88
QUYẾT ĐỊNH GIAO ĐỀ TÀI

vi
LIST OF FIGURES

Title Page
Figure 4.1. Proportion of Distribution of Euphemism expressing
Death in the SL Text Transferred into the TL Text
Figure 4.2. Proportion of Distribution of Euphemism expressing
Sex in the SL Text Transferred into the TL Text
Figure 4.3. Proportion of Distribution of Euphemism expressing
Pregnancy in the SL Text Transferred into the TL Text

Figure 4.4. Proportion of Distribution of Euphemism expressing
Childbirth in the SL Text Transferred into the TL Text


49

62

70

78
















1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1. RATIONALE
It is well known that human culture, social behavior and thinking
cannot exist without languages. Being a social and national identity and a
means of human communication, languages cannot help bearing imprints of
ethnic and cultural values as well as the norms of behavior of a given
language community. Obviously, ideas, notions and feelings are actually
universal but the way we describe them in different languages is very unique.
Therefore, translation plays a crucial role in enhancing better understanding

each other, transmitting information, exchanging experiences and getting
knowledge. However, translating from one language into another is no easy
task. Translation must take into account a number of constraints, including the
context, the rules of grammar of the two languages, their writing conventions,
and their idioms. The most important idea is that translators have to be honest
in relaying the meaning, especially from one culture to another. It can be said
that one of the greatest difficulties that challenges translators are translating
figures of speech in general and euphemism in particular. Euphemism, a very
important culture-loaded figure of speech, is often employed in
communication and reflects the historical, political, economic and ideological
situations of a nation with its own characteristics. The translation of
euphemism has become more and more important with the development of
the inter-cultural communication.
This thesis attempts to study the figures of speech on the aspect of
translation to give some considerations and propose methods in translating
these figures of speech in general and euphemism in particular.

2
1.2. SIGNIFICATION OF THE STUDY
We hope this study will offer some help to the translators when doing
the translation of euphemism and assist them to overcome the
misunderstandings and barriers during the cross-cultural communication.
1.3. SCOPE OF THE STUDY
This study investigates the ways used in translating euphemism from
English into Vietnamese. The investigation will focus on works of English
literature and their Vietnamese versions.


1.4. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The research has attempted to answer the following questions:

1. How euphemism is translated from English into Vietnamese as seen
in examples taken from works of literature?
2. What are the main approaches taken by translators in translating
euphemism from English into Vietnamese?
1.5. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS
- “Source language” is the language in which a text was originally
written.
- “Target language” is the language in which a text is translated.
- “Euphemism” is a figure of speech. It is used as an alternative to an
expression, in order to avoid possible loss of face: either one’s own face or
through giving offense, that of the audience, or of some third party.
- “Semantic approach” is an approach to translation which has these
features:
 SL bias
 Keeping semantic and syntactic structures as closely as possible
 Author- centered
- “Communicative approach” is an approach which has these features:
 TL bias
3
 Keeping effect as closely as possible
 Second reader-centered.
1.6. ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY
This research paper consists of five chapters:
Chapter one: Introduction
In this chapter we would present the statements of the problem, the
justification for the study, the scope of the study, the organization, as well as
definitions of terms.
Chapter two: Literature Review
The chapter covers a review of literature on translation of euphemism.
Prior studies on the problems are reviewed for the groundwork of the

research. This chapter also introduces some theoretical preliminaries on the
translation theory, the definitions and classification of euphemism and the
area of semantics.
Chapter three: Method and Procedures
This chapter provides the aims and objectives of the study, the research
methods used in order to achieve these aims. Next comes the research
procedures which include the research questions, the hypothesis, data
collection and analysis.
Chapter four: Finding and Discussions
This chapter presents the findings and discussion of ways used in
translating euphemism from English into Vietnamese. The discussion also
covers the main approaches taken by translators in translating euphemism
from English into Vietnamese.
Chapter five: Conclusions
This chapter consists of the conclusion of the whole study, the
implications for the translation and for the teaching and learning. Limitations
in doing the research and suggestions for further studies are also mentioned in
this chapter.
4
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL
BACKGROUND
2.1. A REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES
Translation is a complex process where fragile balance is achieved
between the equivalence of the text translated and the linguistic means
chosen. In reality, translation of euphemism from one language into another
language is a complex work which poses great difficulties to the translator so
there are many researchers dealing with euphemism translation in different
aspects. They can be seen in the following studies:
In “Introduction to Semantics and Translation” (1990), Barnwell [23,

p. 62-64] introduces some features of euphemism and also presents some
notes on translating euphemisms.
In “Euphemism and Dysphemism - Language Used as Shield and
Weapon” (1990), Allan and Burridge [21] mentions about the development,
the classification of English euphemisms and the differences among
euphemism, slang, dysphemism and taboo.
D.J. Enright [30] in “Fair of Speech” (1986), introduces euphemisms
and sex, death, politics, the media, the law and many others as well as
mentioned about the uses of euphemism.
In “Stylistics” (1977), Galperin [31] gives a definition of euphemism
and also divides them into several groups according to their spheres of
application: 1) religious, 2) moral, 3) medical, 4) parliamentary.
In Vietnamese, euphemisms have been discussed by some linguists:
Bằng Giang [1] in “Tiếng Việt phong phú” (1997), investigates over
1,000 variants of the word death with illustrations.
5
In “Phong cách học Tiếng Việt” (2001), Đinh Trọng Lạc [4, p.126]
puts forward the basic theoretical background of euphemisms in the
Vietnamese language. He assumes that euphemism is the delicate expression
in communicative situation in which the addresser feels uncomfortable to talk
about taboo topics because he is afraid that it will hurt or offend the addressee
“Uyển ngữ là phương thức diễn ñạt tế nhị trong hoàn cảnh giao tiếp mà
người nói không tiện nói ra vì sợ quá phũ phàng hoặc sợ xúc phạm ñến người
nghe”.
Trương Viên [19] (2003; Ph.D. Thesis) focuses on the linguistic
features of euphemisms by analyzing their formation by syntactic, phonetic,
lexical and stylistic means. With the contrastive analysis, the author also
pointes out some features related to the method of translation.
Nguyễn Thị Lê [15] (2006; M.A thesis) focuses on the study on
commonly-used euphemisms in English and Vietnamese newspapers in three

aspects: syntax, semantics and pragmatics.
On doing this research, we have followed the viewpoint of linguistics
in doing an investigation into common ways for translating euphemism from
English into Vietnamese and found out the main approaches taken by
translators in translating euphemism from English into Vietnamese.
2.2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.2.1 Theory of Translation
2.2.1.1 Definitions of Translation
Translation, by dictionary definition, consists of changing from one
form to another, to turn into one 'own or another' language (The Merriam -
Webster Dictionary, 1974). Some authors have given the following different
definitions of translation:
6
In the book “A Linguistic Theory of Translation”, Catford [25] defines
that translation is not a dangerous technique in itself provided its nature is
understood, and its use is carefully controlled and translation is in itself a
valuable skill to be imparted to students. Furthermore, translation is an
operation performed in languages and also a process of substituting a text in
one language for a text in another. More specifically, translation is the
replacement of textual material in one language (SL) by equivalent textual
material in another language (TL).
Benjamin [61] states that translation goes beyond enriching the
language and culture of a country which it contributes to, beyond renewing
and maturing the life of the original text, beyond expressing and analyzing the
most intimate relationships of languages with each other and becomes a way
of entry into a universal language.
Other researchers, Meetham and Hudsan [45, p.53] mention that
translation is the replacement of a presentation of a text in one language by a
presentation of equivalent text in a second language.
According to B. Hatim & I. Mason [32, p.3], translation is a process,

involving the negotiation of meaning between producers and receivers of
texts. In other words, the resulting translated text is to be seen as the evidence
of a transaction, a means of retracting the pathways of the translator’s
decision-makings.
Another author, Nguyễn Hồng Cổn [11] mentions that the activity of
translation is still a language activity and language plays core and basic roles.
However, he says that together with the attention to linguistic problem,
translators also need to pay attention to the problems relating to the SL and
TL such as social environment, culture and religion.
7
Furthermore, Vũ Văn Đại [20] claims that there is an unequivalence in
culture of translators and original texts, so in order to become good
translators, it is very necessary to enrich the cultural and national knowledge
of the TL.
Peter Newmark’s theory [48] is different from the point of view of
above mentioned authors. He defines that translation is rendering the meaning
of a text into another language in the way that the author intended the text.
Briefly, the starting point of translation is a message. This message is
expressed in a specific language, which is called the SL. When doing
translation, we aim to re-express that message in another language (TL). We
have already known that the form of each language is unique. Thus,
translation will involve some changes of form. This does not matter provided
that that the meaning of the message is retained unchanged. Moreover,
translation not only involves understanding the general meaning of the
communication but also calls upon the ability to understand the culture of the
communication. Before we can translate a message, we must understand the
total meaning of the message within its own cultural context.
2.2.1.2. Language and Culture
Dealing with language and culture, Whorf who endorsed Sapir’s
theory declares firmly that “No language can exist unless it is steeped in the

context of culture; and no culture of natural language.” [24, p.14]. Language,
then, is the heart within the body of culture, and it is the interaction between
the two that results in the continuation of life energy. In the same way that the
surgeon, operating on the heart, cannot neglect the body that surrounds it, so
the translator treats the text in isolation from the culture at his peril.
According to Claire Kramsch [41, p.37], language is the principle
means whereby we conduct our social lives. When it is used in contexts of
8
communication, it is bound up with culture in multiple and complex ways.
“Language expresses cultural reality” as the words people utter refer to
common experience. They express facts, ideas or events that are
communicable because they refer to a stock of knowledge about the world
that other people share. “Language embodies cultural reality through all its
verbal and nonverbal aspects”. People also create experience through
language. They give meaning to it through the medium they choose to
communicate with one other, for example, speaking on the telephone or face-
to-face, writing a letter or sending an email message. The way they use
spoken, written, or visual medium itself creates meanings that are
understandable to the group they belong. Language is a system of signs that is
seen that having itself a cultural value. “Language symbolizes cultural
reality” as speakers identify themselves and other through their use of
language; they use their language as a symbol of their social identity.
Edward Sapir claims that “language is a guide to social reality” and
that human beings are at the mercy of the language that has become the
medium of expression for their society. Experience, he asserts, is largely
determined by the language habits of the community, and each separate
structure represents a separate reality. He also affirms that “no two languages
are ever sufficiently similar to be considered as representing the same social
reality. The worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not
merely the same world, with different labels attached.” [24, p.13]

Peter Newmark [49, p.94] indicates that culture is the way of life and
its manifestations that are peculiar to a community that uses a particular
language as its means of expression. Frequently, where there is cultural focus,
there is a translation problem due to the cultural “gap” or “distance” between
the SL and TL.
9
2.2.1.3. Translation Equivalence
Equivalence can be said to be the central issue in translation although
its definition, relevance, and applicability within the field of translation theory
have caused heated controversy, and many different theories of the concept of
equivalence have been elaborated within this problem. Translation
equivalence occurs when a SL and a TL text or item are relatable to (at least
some of) the same features of substance. The greater the number of situational
features common to the contextual meanings of both SL and TL texts, the
“better” the translation.
According to Peter Newmark, translation equivalence is an unwritten
rule about translation which people know and which influences the form of
translating exchange. “Translation equivalence will not be achieved word for
word, collocation for collocation, clause for clause, sentence for sentence, but
possibly only paragraph for paragraph, or, rarely, text for text. For this
reason, translation equivalence, like the term ‘unit of translation’, is
sometimes a useful operational concept, but it can be only roughly and
approximately indicated for a stretch of language.” [49, p.123]
Mentioning translation equivalence, Eugene Nida [51, p.26]
distinguishes two types of equivalence: formal equivalence and dynamic
equivalence. Formal equivalence focuses attention on the message itself, in
both form (poetry to poetry, sentence to sentence, concept and concept) and
content (gloss translation, aim to allow the reader to understand as much of
the SL context as possible). However, dynamic equivalence is based on the
principle of equivalent effect, i.e. that the relationship between receiver and

message should aim at being the same as that between the original receivers
and the SL message.

10
J.C. Catford [25, p. 47] claims that SL and TL texts or items are
translation equivalents when they are interchangeable in a given situation.
Catford's approach to translation equivalence clearly differs from that adopted
by Nida since Catford had a preference for a more linguistic-based approach
to translation and this approach is based on the linguistic work of Firth and
Halliday. Catford proposed very broad types of translation in terms of three
criteria: the extent of translation (full translation vs. partial translation); the
grammatical rank at which the translation equivalence is established (rank-
bound translation vs. unbounded translation); the levels of language involved
in translation (total translation vs. restricted translation).
Moreover, Popovic [23, p.25]

distinguishes translation equivalence
into four types:
(1) Linguistic equivalence, where there is homogeneity on the linguistic
level of both SL and TL texts, i.e. word for word translation.
(2) Paradigmatic equivalence, where there is equivalence of the
elements of a paradigmatic expressive axis, i.e. elements of grammar, which
Popovic sees as being a higher category than lexical equivalence.
(3) Stylistic (translational) equivalence, where there is “functional
equivalence of elements in both original and translation aiming at an
expressive identity with an invariant of identical meaning”.
(4) Textual (syntagmatic) equivalence, where there is equivalence of
the syntagmatic structuring of a text, i.e. equivalence of form and shape.
In trying to solve the problem of translation equivalence, Newbert [47]
postulates that translation equivalence must be considered a semiotic category

consisting of the components (syntactic, semantic and pragmatic). These
components are arranged in a hierarchical relationship, where semantic
equivalence takes priority over syntactic equivalence and pragmatic
11
equivalence conditions and modifies both the other elements. Equivalence
overall results from the relation between signs themselves, the relationship
between signs what they stand for and those who use them.
In general, to achieve translation equivalence requires translators to
produce the same effect (or one as close as possible) on the readership of the
translation as was obtained on the readership of the original. The translation
equivalence is showed in some rules and principles which are very useful for
the translators. The focus is to assure the equivalence in translation of
participants for translating to take place smoothly and effectively. These
principles help people best achieve their goals not only in communication but
also in translating: exchanging information and establishing and maintaining
social relations.
2.2.1.4. Translation Methods
In order to have a good translated version, the translator should have
knowledge about translation theory. When we mention translation, we also
refer to a process which involves the negotiation of meaning between
producers and receivers of texts. Translation plays such an important role in
life that there have been many researchers who mention it with many different
methods.
Peter Newmark [49, p.24] mentions the difference between translation
methods and translations. He indicates that, "While translation methods relate
to whole texts, translations are used for sentences and the smaller units of
language". He goes on to refer to the following methods of translation:
(1) Word-for-word translation: is the process the SL word order is
preserved and the words translated singly by their most common meanings,
out of context.

12
(2) Literal translation: is the process the SL grammatical constructions
are converted to their nearest TL equivalents, but the lexical words are again
translated singly, out of context.
(3) Faithful translation: it attempts to produce the precise contextual
meaning of the original within the constraints of the TL grammatical
structures.
(4) Semantic translation: differs from “faithful translation” only in as
far as it must take more account of the aesthetic value of the SL texts.
(5) Adaptation: is the freest form of translation, and is used mainly for
plays (comedies) and poetry; the themes, characters, plots are usually
preserved, the SL culture is converted to the TL culture and the text is
rewritten.
(6) Free translation: it produces the TL texts without the style, form, or
content of the original.
(7) Idiomatic translation: it reproduces the “message” of the original
but tends to distort nuances of meaning by preferring colloquialisms and
idioms where these do not exist in the original.
(8) Communicative translation: it attempts to render the exact
contextual meaning of the original in such a way that both content and
language are readily acceptable and comprehensible to the readership.
Mentioning linguistic aspects of translation, Roman Jakobson [38, p.
232-239] distinguishes three types of translation:
(1) Intralingual translation, or rewording (an interpretation of verbal
signs by means of other signs in the same language)
(2) Interlingual translation or translation proper (an interpretation of
verbal signs by means of some other language)
13
(3) Intersemiotic translation or transmutation (an interpretation of
verbal signs by means of nonverbal sign systems.)

The translation in these three types properly describes the process of
transferring from the SL to the TL. He goes on immediately to point to the
central problem in all types: while messages may serve as adequate
interpretations of code units or messages, there is ordinarily no full
equivalence through translation.
Engene Nida [51] provides the model of the translation process
consisting of the following stages:
SL TL
TEXT


TRANSLATION

Analysis Restructuring

Transfer
For example:
SL TL
HELLO

ÇA VA?

Friendly greeting on arrival Decision to distinguish between forms
of greeting available

Transfer

Firth [24, p. 22] defines meaning as “a complex of relations of various
kinds between the component terms of a context of situation”. He points out
that, in determining what to use in English, the translators must:

14
(1) Accept the untranslatability of the SL phrase in the TL phrase on
the linguistic level.
(2) Accept the lack of a similar cultural convention in the TL.
(3) Consider the range of the TL phrases available, having regard to the
presentation of class, status, age, sex of the speaker, his relation to the
listeners and the context of their meaning in the SL.
(4) Consider the significance of the phrase in its particular context- i.e.
as a moment of high tension in the dramatic text.
(5) Replace in the TL the invariant core of the SL phrase in its two
referential systems (the particular system of the text and the system of culture
out of which the text has sprung).
Moreover, dealing with translation methods, Levy [24, p. 22], the great
Czech translation scholar, insists that any contracting or omitting of difficult
expressions in translating was immoral. The translator, he believes, had the
responsibility of finding a solution to the most daunting of problems, and he
declares that the functional view must be adopted with regard not only to
meaning but also to style and form. The translator cannot be the author of the
SL texts, but as the author of the TL texts has a clear moral responsibility to
the TL readers.
In brief, there are different methods of translation and each method has
its own strong and weak points. A good translator, then, is a person who
flexibly applies the suitable method or effectively combines these methods in
his or her texts.
2.2.1.5. Communicative Translation and Semantic Translation
Differently from other authors, basing on the points of view of reader,
Peter Newmark [48, p. 39] makes a distinction between two kinds of
translation; semantic and communicative.
15
Source Language (Bias) Target Language (Bias)

Literal Free

Faithful Idiomatic

Semantic Communicative
He admires that all of the translation versions in some degree contain
the both semantic and communicative, social and individual. According to
Peter Newmark [48], in communicative translation approach, the only part of
the meaning of the SL which is translated is the part which fits the TL
reader’s understanding of the identical message. In this translation, the
translator has the right to modify, correct and improve the translation version,
but the translator has to consider what extents of the SL should be suitable to
the knowledge, intelligence of the TL readers. Communicative translation
addresses itself solely to the second reader, who does not anticipate
difficulties or obscurities, and would expect a generous transfer of foreign
elements into his own culture as well as his language where necessary.
Communicative translation is likely to be smoother, simpler, clearer, more
direct and more conventional, conforming to a particular register of language.
Communicative translation emphasizes “the force” rather than the content of
the message.
Semantic translation, in contrast, is a translation in which the translator
is loyal to the author of the SL. It means that he has to translate the meaning
of the SL material into the TL text. However, if the text is not updated, the
translation version has to be put into modern language. Semantic translation
attempts to render, as closely as the semantic and syntactic structures of the
16
second language, the exact contextual meaning of the original. Semantic
translation remains within the original culture and assists the readers only in
its connotations if they constitute the essential human (non-ethnic) message of

the text. Semantic translation would be more informative but less effective.
Semantic translation tends to be more complex, more awkward, more
detailed, more concrete and pursues the thought-processes rather than the
intention of the transmitter. It tends to overtranslate, to be more specific than
the original and to include more meanings in its search for one nuance of
meaning.
In summary, a translator who wants to be successful in his translation
needs to know how to combine these two methods fluently because there are
often sections in one text that require both semantic and communicative
translation. Moreover, if we use only one method, the translation might be
rigid and less flexible. So, accuracy, clarity and flexibility are highly needed
in the language transfer. For this reason, the translators tend to combine
communicative and semantic methods appropriately, sensibly in their
translation process.


2.2.2. Euphemisms
2.2.2.1. Concepts and Definitions of Euphemisms
It is obviously that euphemism is one language performance form
which people seek in the social communication. It is created for ideal
communication effect because of its powerful abilities. Together with
increasingly enhancement of social civilization, speech skill and good
interpersonal relationship also profoundly affect our life, thus, more and more
euphemisms will be produced in the language. Euphemism has been always
played an important part in English and especially it is chiefly the core point
17
in our daily communication. Therefore, there have been a lot of researches
about English euphemism because of its importance and prominence.
In “Introduction to Semantics and Translation”, Katherine Barnwell
gives a definition that “A euphemism is the use of an expression which has a

meaning quite different from its apparent surface meaning. It is an indirect
way of saying something, usually used in order to avoid being offensive”. [23,
p. 98]
Allan and Burridge [21, p. 57] define euphemism as “an alternative to
a dispreferred expression, in order to avoid possible loss of face: either one’s
own face or, through giving offense, that of the audience, or of some third
party”. The dispreferred expression may be taboo, fearsome, distasteful, or
some expressions with negative connotations.
According to Galperin [31, p. 76], "Euphemism is a word or phrase
used to replace an unpleasant word or expression by a conventionally
acceptable one". The origin of the term “euphemism” discloses the aim of the
device very clearly, i.e. speaking well (from Greek - eu = well + pheme =
speaking). He also shows that euphemism is sometimes figuratively called "a
whitewashing device". According to him, euphemisms may be divided into
several groups according to their spheres of application. The most recognized
spheres are the following: 1) religious, 2) moral, 3) medical, 4) parliamentary.
In “Style Guide”, Pam [55, p. 620] defines euphemisms as “the fine-
sounding words and phrases we used for things which are not so fine or
beautiful. The word itself goes back to the Greeks and Greek civilization,
suggesting that they had found the need for inoffensive expressions to refer to
what was unpalatable, unacceptable and unmentionable in their culture".
Moreover, Geoffrey Leech [43, p. 102] insists that “euphemism is the
practice of referring to something offensive or delicate in terms that make it
18
sound more pleasant or becoming than it really is”. Therefore, people use
euphemisms to get rid of the negative meaning or connotation the word or
topic.
Euphemistic expressions occur at all levels of society, but throughout
the history people have found certain areas to be more uncomfortable and
unpleasant to discuss than others. These include sex, death, killing, crime,

diseases and different functions of the human body.
Mentioning euphemism, Crystal [26, p. 61] claims that “euphemisms
are the use of a vague or indirect expression in place of one which is thought
to be unpleasant, embarrassing or offensive. Euphemisms are typically used
to replace expressions to do with death, sexual activities and other bodily
functions”.
In Vietnamese, Trương Viên proposes a definition of euphemism in his
doctoral dissertation “uyển ngữ (euphemism) là một từ hay một ngữ cố ñịnh
ñược cấu tạo lại, diễn ñạt lại một nội dung ñã có ñể thể hiện một cách thích
hợp, tế nhị, thẩm mỹ; là lời nói ñược sử dụng trong những tình huống hay văn
bản giao tiếp lịch sự, sang trọng, ñầy tri thức văn hóa, liên quan ñến cái ñẹp
trong việc dùng từ ngữ.”. [19]
Đinh Trọng Lạc [3, p. 18] mentions that “uyển ngữ (euphemism) là
hình ảnh tu từ trong ñó người ta thay tên gọi một ñối tượng (hoặc một hiện
tượng) bằng sự miêu tả những dấu hiệu cơ bản của nó, hoặc bằng việc nêu
lên những nét ñặc biệt của nó, tạo hình cho lời nói vì nó không chỉ tạo nên ñối
tượng mà còn miêu tả ñối tượng nhã ngữ”.
He also distinguishes between “uyển ngữ” and “nhã ngữ”. However, he
finally concludes that “nhã ngữ” is a variant of “uyển ngữ”, in which pleasant
and decent words are used to replace for impolite, harsh or unacceptable ones