Language and ageing
- Published: Monday, 01 August 2016 13:49
Euphemisms: the building blocks of aged care homes
There are certain things in life we’d rather not conjure up too vividly and growing old has become one of these — probably not surprisingly, given the end of the ageing process is death (even those of us with strong religious beliefs aren’t usually in a hurry to meet our maker). And those who are lucky enough to linger a little longer often have to face some unpleasant consequences of reaching a ripe old age.
So how do we talk about the business of “growing old” if it’s such a sensitive subject?
The answer of course is euphemism — the linguistic strategy that provides us with verbal escape hatches for all sorts of things that go bump in the night. To throw some light on this particular taboo, we set about analyzing the naming practices of “aged care facilities” (itself a nice euphemism) in the Melbourne region. We wanted to see what these names revealed about our current attitudes to ageing and how these attitudes have shifted in the past few decades.
|Putting a good spin on aged care facilities|
We collected names from 2013 and compared them to those that were around in 1987. Our impression was that the reliance on euphemism was increasing with time — and we were right.
The 2013 sample showed a far greater range of euphemistic strategies compared to the 1987 sample. For a start, nearly a third (63%) of the institutional names omitted any reference to their actual function. Instead, they employed a wide selection of uplifting metaphors that suggested the facility had nothing to do with aged care at all.
Many used terms that often appear in the names of significant family residences (implying a life of comfort and luxury), as in the case of manor (e.g. Casey Manor), hall (e.g. Benetas Broughton Hall) or house (e.g. Darley House). There was also a handful of lodges (e.g. Elswick Lodge). The usual sense of lodge is that of temporary (typically holiday) accommodation, such as a ski or hunting lodge. So it’s a vacation scenario that’s being evoked here.
Many names referred to gardens (e.g. Monash Gardens), parks (e.g. Eliza Park), lakes (e.g. Waterford Valley Lakes) or views (e.g. Princeton View). So they focused on a secondary aspect of the facility (its location), and consequently backgrounded the function of the residential facility itself. Of course, things located in gardens or parks are often rather lavish too. Think of the world-famous Kew Gardens in London (and Kew Gardens also appeared in our sample).
Other names (e.g., Glenhuntly Terrace, Goodwin Close) also focused on location. Words such as terrace and close are common descriptors in (typically well-to-do) street nomenclature — and once again the function is absent.
There’s nothing like a lexical exotic to blur disagreeable reality and foreign languages have been providing English with euphemisms for centuries. Two that stick out in our data are Casa Serena and Embracia. Perhaps the motivation is again a holiday scenario, but notice also the near-identical phonology — both names call to mind English words with positive concepts (serenity in the case of Casa Serena, and embrace in Embracia).
The golden age of the nursing home
By comparison, the 1987 names had a far less appealing ring to them. A whopping 82% of the facilities were depicted as nursing homes (e.g. Woodleigh Nursing Home). At this time home would have been euphemistic (bringing to mind the comfort of a permanent place shared by family), and it also featured in a handful of other names (e.g. Life Long Homes, Olivet Aged Persons Home).
But time typically blows the cover of any euphemistic disguise. As expressions become sullied by the concepts they designate, so the negative associations reassert themselves and undermine the euphemistic quality of the word. Home is now well and truly tarnished. These days any home suffers from the image of “a last resort for the aged” (as Garvin and Burger put it in Where They Go to Die: The Tragedy of America's Aged, 1968).
So it’s hardly surprising that nursing homes have all but gone (only 10.2% retained the term in 2013). Nursing might have had a compassionate ring to it in the 1980s, but these days what comes to mind are ill or incapacitated people in a hospitalized setting (earlier discredited practices of the nursing home industry haven’t helped the image either). The 1997 Aged Care Act of Australia dropped nursing home altogether, opting instead for the more euphemistic-sounding high level and low-level care — care is very general (which is what you want in a euphemism), and evokes more positive associations — such as affection and warmth — than nursing home.
Only 7% of the 1987 names used the euphemistic strategy of full omission (i.e., not mentioning the function of the facility in their name. So there’s a hint that euphemism-generating strategies were starting back in 1987, but clearly the naming practices were far less euphemistic than today (recall the 67% in 2013). A tiny percentage employed common nouns such as lodge, house, gardens, park and grange to uplift the concept of an aged care residence. And there were a few retirement villages, retirement communities, and even one retirement lodge (nicely shifting the focus to the general withdrawal from some career or employment).
The “longevity revolution”
Given our death-denying culture, it’s not surprising to see that aged care facilities tune down the negative characteristics of ageing with their strong hints of retirement, lifestyle choices, friendships, leisure and the like. Recent naming practices place the negative associations of old age (such as decrepitude, dependence and loneliness) into the background, and focus instead on the traits that are associated with what’s now known as “successful ageing” — such as emotional well-being, active lifestyle, and social and community involvement.
Newly minted expressions like gerontolescence (< gerontology + adolescence), zuppies (< zestful upscale person in their prime) and zoomers (< boomer + zip, and playing on zoom) also help feed the image of the “successful ager”.
So will these expressions be tarnished by the taboo and eventually fall victim to the euphemistic treadmill (and thus need replacement) — or are they evidence of a real change in how we think about old age and ageing? Time will tell. By Kate Burridge, Professor of Linguistics, Monash University, and Reka Benczes, Research Fellow, Monash University.
If you’re interested in reading more about this study, have a look at:
Réka Benczes and Kate Burridge 2015. Current attitudes to ageing as reflected in the names of Australian aged care facilities, Names — a Journal of Onomastics Vol. 63 (No. 2): 96–114
And if you’ve got 10 minutes and would like to complete a questionnaire on ageing and stereotypes in Australian English, please visit this link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/5X9BRGZ.
The details of the Monash study “The Cultural Model of Ageing in Australian English” do please visit: http://artsonline.monash.edu.au/lsc/the-cultural-model-of-ageing-the-australian-conceptualisation-of-the-third-age/.