Euphemism in the Podcasting Sphere: A Pragmatic Analysis of Gender and Cultural Discourse

Euphemism in the Podcasting Sphere: A Pragmatic Analysis of Gender and Cultural Discourse

¹Muhammad Hareez Zaharin, ^2*Pavithran Ravinthra Nath, ³John Helvy Akam, ⁴Hairul Azhar Mohamad, ⁵Amir Lukman Abd Rahman, ⁶Muhammad Haziq Abd Rashid, ⁷Muhammad Luthfi Mohaini, ⁸Mohd Eddren Fadzilah

^2*,4,5,6,7Akademi Pengajian Bahasa, University Technology MARA, MALAYSIA.

³SIDMA College Sarawak, MALAYSIA.

⁸Taylor’s University, MALAYSIA.

*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.909000535

Received: 10 September 2025; Accepted: 16 September 2025; Published: 17 October 2025

ABSTRACT

The proliferation of podcasts as a primary platform for intercultural dialogue necessitates a deeper understanding of the pragmatic strategies speakers use to navigate sensitive topics. While euphemism is a key tool for such navigation, its use as shaped by the intersecting variables of gender and culture within this medium remains under-researched. This article addresses this gap by analyzing how a male (Middle Eastern) and a female (American) podcaster employ euphemisms when discussing the same highly charged cultural content: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The research objectives were to identify the types and frequencies of euphemisms used by each speaker and to compare their usage to understand how their respective backgrounds shape their pragmatic choices. The study, which employed a comparative analysis grounded in Politeness Theory and Speech Act Theory, revealed that both speakers favored topic-driven and risk-avoidant strategies, although their approaches differed. The female speaker employed a broader range of euphemistic strategies, including Positive Politeness and Indirect Euphemism, indicating a more relationally-oriented style. Meanwhile, the male speaker utilized a more focused, direct, but softened approach. These findings show that while the seriousness of a topic can lead to shared pragmatic choices, gendered communication patterns remain a major differentiating factor in digital intercultural discourse.

Keywords: euphemism, politeness theory, podcasting, intercultural communication, gendered language

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, podcasts have become a popular tool for discussing a wide array of topics, including those related to culture. Their accessibility makes them an impactful channel in disseminating ideas and information to listeners of all age groups (Bonini, 2022). According to Euritt et al., (2021), podcasts offer an ecosystem where speakers and listeners can discuss and explore diverse cultural experiences. Tomyu et al. (2021) pointed out that podcasts’ versatility to reach a global audience help transform them into a meaningful avenue that enriches global and cultural discussions. However, the environment that podcasts create poses a significant pragmatic challenge. When individuals from different cultures interact, sensitivity and politeness are instrumental because they influence people’s interpretation of values and norms. This is especially crucial when people engage in emotionally charged subjects, which have become common in today’s global interactions (Fauziati, 2015). Therefore, speakers have to carefully balance the delivery of their intended message and sensitivity to the emotional comfort of their unknown and diverse audience. Failure to uphold the balance can hamper meaningful intercultural communication, and negatively impact the delivery of the message (Awang et al., 2017).

Different linguistic strategies are employed by speakers to help them deal with risks that arise in sensitive discussions. Jing-Schmidt (2021) states that the role of euphemism is to maintain politeness, as it allows the speakers to express offensive ideas in milder forms that do not offend the listeners. When a speaker employs this strategy, it tones down the statements that may threaten other parties. As such, they show respect to other opinions and are friendly to the discussion. These qualities allow for a more effective intercultural communication, which makes the content acceptable to a diverse audience.

As Putri et al. (2022) claim, there is evidence that podcasters resort to euphemism when they are addressing sensitive issues, as this helps them retain their audience. Other studies have explored the difference in applying euphemism based on gender (Zaiets, 2018) or cultural background (Maimaitituoheti et al., 2022). Nonetheless, very limited research has been done to evaluate the intersection between gender and cultural background and how euphemisms are used by male and female podcasters when reporting on a similar culturally sensitive topic. This paper aims to address this gap by examining the use of euphemisms by a male podcaster of Middle-Eastern origin and a female podcaster of American origin when talking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Accordingly, the objectives are:

• To identify the types and frequencies of euphemisms used by each speaker
• To compare their usage to understand how gender and cultural context shape pragmatic strategies in digital intercultural discourse.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Conceptualizing Euphemism

The use of soft language in navigating delicate matters is common in human relations since it reflects the need to establish a balance between information clarity and social agreement. Euphemism helps preserve this balance because it prevents people from discussing a topic abrasively. In most instances, euphemism is viewed as a politeness strategy, but scholars recognize it as a strategic tool useful for language and communication. The application of euphemism shows how speakers perceive social risk, enabling them to manage interpersonal relationships and negotiate meaning.

The Sociolinguistic Functions of Euphemism

According to Jing-Schmidt (2021), the term euphemism is derived from the Greek word for speaking favorably, using mild words and expressions instead of blunt or harsh words. It functions as a risk avoidance tool by allowing a speaker to address an issue or topic without being insensitive. In this light, euphemisms are linguistic choices that speakers make when they are navigating with sensitive topics that have a negative impact on the emotions of the listeners. These choices offer a means for exploring uncomfortable and complex topics like death, politics, and culture. With euphemisms, discussions and debates progress without directness, which pushes people away.

While euphemisms serve as a beneficial risk avoidance, they form a tension between politeness and truth. Allan and Burridge (2006) argue that euphemisms are used to uphold social harmony, but they also distort reality because they conceal the intensity of situations. Since euphemism is a double-edged sword, it is crucial to examine the significance of context when one is analysing a euphemistic speech. When a speaker decides to employ euphemism, it reflects a compromise between the need to manage risk and the need for clarity, which is a central dynamic to the study’s investigation.

Euphemism as a Politeness Strategy

Euphemism is linked to the notion of politeness in pragmatics, and plays a critical role in how social interactions are handled. With the politeness theory in mind, euphemisms serve as mitigation strategies for utterances and expressions that may harm the social self-image of the speakers and listeners. They are expressions that make painful conversations more tolerable. Euphemisms help speakers in saving face when delivering an offensive message, thereby keeping their relationship with the audience intact and ensuring social harmony. This key aspect of euphemisms is used by speakers to bridge discomfort and embarrassment gaps during cross-cultural interactions (Jing-Schmidt, 2019). With euphemisms, people from diverse cultures can engage in discussion without being disrespectful to one another.

Additionally, euphemisms go beyond interpersonal strategy because they also reflect and support the larger social power structure. Mabaquiao (2018) contends that when conducting a euphemism analysis, one can identify the power dynamics in people’s language. When someone chooses to use indirect language, it is a way of showing respect to those in authoritative positions. For instance, a speaker can use euphemism to criticise a corrupt politician, but instead chooses to use softer language. Therefore, when speakers are discussing a topic involving authority, they are in a negotiation state since they have to respect power and uphold politeness (Sharma & Albarakati, 2019). Euphemism is insightful because it not only influences language but impacts social relations.

Key Variables Influencing Euphemistic Expression

While the functions of euphemism are broadly understood, its specific application is not universal. The decision to use a euphemism is largely shaped by a speaker’s social and personal context. Among the most significant of these contextual factors are the speaker’s cultural background and gender.

The Influence of Cultural Context

Euphemisms vary significantly across cultures, reflecting how different societies define and respond to taboo or sensitive topics. Indeed, what one culture might see as inappropriate or sensitive, another might openly discuss, resulting in a wide array of euphemistic expressions (Maimaitituoheti et al., 2022). As cultures change, so do their linguistic habits. As Jing-Schmidt (2021) exemplifies, the secularization of society because of modernization has shifted people’s attitude towards taboo subjects such as swearing, which impacts how these are, or rather are no longer, euphemized.

Beyond their role in navigating taboos, euphemism serves an important function in maintaining politeness, especially in intercultural communication. Euphemism, as a tool of “risk avoidance”, helps speakers minimize potential embarrassment or discomfort in cross-cultural interactions. Al-Khasawneh (2018) supports this view, noting that euphemisms are often employed to express politeness when cultural differences might otherwise cause misunderstanding or offence. In this way, euphemistic language contributes to smoother interpersonal communication across cultures.

In addition to politeness, the use of euphemisms can also reflect the social hierarchy embedded within a community’s language practices. In many cultures, speakers tend to use more indirect or respectful expressions when communicating with someone of higher status, such as elders or authority figures. This shows that euphemistic choices are not only shaped by sensitivity to the subjects but also by sensitivity to power relations, which aligns with the notion of underlying power structures embedded within a culture’s linguistic norms (Mabiquiao, 2018). Therefore, euphemisms may reveal how language reinforces social roles and expectations, making them a window into the deeper structures of status and authority within a culture.

The Role of Gender in Linguistic Choice

Gender is another factor that impacts the patterns of politeness among speakers. Zaeits (2018) conducted a study and found that male and female speakers use euphemisms differently in terms of frequency, purpose, and type of euphemisms, pointing out that gender affects pragmatic decisions. The study notably revealed that male speakers use direct language more than female speakers. Conversely, female speakers are more polite because they are mindful of their speakers.

Moreover, research has attempted to explain why males and females have different communication styles. Findings from Al-Khasawneh (2018) indicate that female speakers are more inclined to use indirect and polite linguistic strategies because they focus on mitigating potential conflict. Female speakers tend to promote social harmony, hence they avoid direct expression compared to their male counterparts. Al-Khasawneh (2018) builds on this by asserting that speakers’ communication styles are linked to differing societal expectations and cultural values, where less direct forms of speech are perceived as more appropriate for women. These explanations are rooted in stereotypes and are not universally applicable to everyone. However, they offer a lens for understanding the existence of gendered patterns in the use of euphemism. Gender has been noted as a significant variable that calls for a comprehensive study of euphemistic language since it can help in understanding the use of euphemism among speakers.

Euphemism in the Contemporary Podcasting Arena

With technological advancement, new debate platforms have emerged, one of which is podcasting, which offers an arena for cultural and political dialogue. Unlike ephemeral broadcasts, podcasts offer an accessible and durable format where speakers can archive their conversation and reach a global audience. As a result, it allows them to amplify their impact since they spread information to a diverse audience (Bonini, 2022). Podcasts are a unique blend of public broadcasting and conversational style, which promotes a strong relationship between hosts and listeners. Podcasts allow hosts to engage listeners in complex and controversial topics that other speakers avoid (Euritt et al., 2021). Due to their nature, podcasts establish a communicative context in which the hosts are in control of their linguistic decision-making in order to preserve connection and authority with unknown audience.

Recent research on podcasts has revealed that speakers employ politeness strategies to establish rapport with the audience while reducing the offensiveness of the subject matter. It is one of the functions accompanied by euphemistic language. Language is also useful when a speaker has a delicate subject to discuss, since it ensures that the speaker communicates to listeners without hurting them. Pramaidana and Gunawan’s (2022) observation found that speakers use politeness to upsetting content to make it less threatening by placing it in the context of concern for the listener’s needs and the presumption that the listener will cooperate. This is a strategy of mitigation and indirectness, which can be done with euphemism, since this softens the impact when talking about sensitive topics. According to Wanda et al. (2023), another approach that a speaker can use when talking about taboo topics is humour. Jokes are forms of euphemisms as they allow a speaker to address a sensitive topic indirectly without offending the audience.

Mitigation stems from the use of euphemisms since it allows speakers to use thoughtful words. Purti et al. (2020) add to this by stating that speakers would benefit from using euphemistic language through the use of metaphors, abbreviations, and foreign words. The mitigations make topics interesting because they do not make the audience uncomfortable. The literature is informative because it demonstrates how the application of euphemistic language enables speakers to accomplish the pragmatic objective of softening uncomfortable issues and fostering unity. This shows that euphemism in podcasting is a useful politeness tool for handling interpersonal relationships.

Theoretical Underpinning

This study employs Politeness Theory (Brown & Levinson, 1987) and Speech Act Theory (Austin, 1962; Searle, 1969) as its theoretical framework. These theories were chosen for their capacity to facilitate a comprehensive analysis of euphemism. Together, they help in exploring the mechanisms and the reasons behind euphemism use in connection with gender and culture, thereby supporting the objectives of the study.

Brown and Levinson’s (1987) Politeness Theory serves as the main framework for examining the social functions of euphemism. The theory posits that individuals in interaction seek to maintain “face”, of which there are two types: positive face, related to the need to be liked; and the negative face, referring to the need for autonomy. Euphemisms are employed to mitigate the aforementioned FTAs. The rationale for adopting this framework lies in its capacity to analyze politeness strategies employed in euphemistic language. Specifically, the study investigates whether euphemisms function as an expression of Negative Politeness (e.g., to soften a criticism) or Positive Politeness (e.g., to build solidarity). These dimensions are operationalized as key analytical codes in the methodological framework, allowing for a systematic comparison of how speakers with differing gender and cultural backgrounds negotiate social harmony through euphemistic communication.

Complementing this social function is Speech Act Theory, which offers a functional perspective for analyzing the communicative intent behind euphemistic expressions. The theory posits that a complete speech act is categorized into three components: the locutionary act (the literal meaning of the utterance), the illocutionary act (the speaker’s intention), and the perlocutionary act (the effect on the listener). This current study focuses on the illocutionary act, as euphemisms are often used to obscure or soften the speaker’s intent, particularly in face-sensitive or intercultural contexts. The euphemisms are then analyzed for their directness to provide a deeper layer for understanding differences in communicative style. Accordingly, euphemisms are categorized as either Direct Euphemisms (DE), where the illocutionary force is clear despite softened language, or Indirect Euphemisms (IE), where the intent is more ambiguous.

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

This study employs a qualitative content analysis within a comparative research design, and it is guided by the interpretivist paradigm, which views social reality as shaped by individual experiences and meanings. From this perspective, language is best understood by examining how speakers make choices within their specific contexts.

The comparative approach forms the core of this study’s research strategy. It involves analysing two distinct cases: one male podcaster from a Middle Eastern background and one female podcaster from an American background. This approach was chosen because it allows for a focused examination of how gender and cultural background influence the use of euphemisms when discussing a culturally sensitive topic. By comparing speakers who differ in these two variables, but within a similar discourse, the study can isolate the influence of these variables and examine how they shape each speaker’s use of euphemism.

Within this comparative framework, the study adopts qualitative content analysis as its primary method of analysis. This approach allows for the identification of explicit euphemistic expressions and the interpretation of their underlying social and pragmatic functions. In this study, content analysis enables the rigorous identification, coding, and interpretation of euphemisms according to the theoretical framework, making it the ideal tool to execute the goals of the comparative design.

Data and Analytical Procedure

The data for this study were selected via purposive sampling to ensure the cases aligned with the comparative design. The selected data are:

• Podcast A (Male Speaker): Utterances from guest speaker Mossab Hassan Yousef (Middle-Eastern background) on the Jordan Syatt podcast episode, “Son of Hamas’ Gives Unbelievable Interview on The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict” (December 1, 2023).
• Podcast B (Female Speaker): Utterances from guest speaker Ana Kasparian (American background) on the PBD Podcast episode, “Ana Kasparian | PBD Podcast | Ep. 320” (October 26, 2023).

Both speakers were chosen for their in-depth discussion of the same highly sensitive topic: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict following the events of 7^th October 2023.

The analytical procedure was conducted in four stages. First, relevant sections from both podcasts were transcribed verbatim to create the primary dataset. Second, the transcripts were meticulously reviewed to identify all instances of euphemistic language, defined as expressions used to substitute a potentially harsh or face-threatening term. Third, each identified euphemism was systematically coded according to the analytical framework outlined in Table 1, which operationalizes the key concepts from Politeness Theory and Speech Act Theory.

Table 1 Coding Scheme for Euphemism Analysis

Finally, the coded data were analyzed both quantitatively to compare frequencies and qualitatively to interpret the function and strategic purpose of the euphemisms within their specific conversational context. This comparative analysis forms the basis of the results presented in the following section.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This section presents the findings from the comparative analysis of euphemisms used by the male speaker, Mossab Hassan Yousef, and the female speaker, Ana Kasparian. The analysis first identifies the specific types and frequencies of euphemistic strategies employed by each speaker, then moves to a comparative discussion, synthesizing these findings with the theoretical framework and existing literature to interpret how gender, cultural context, and the high-stakes nature of the topic shape their respective pragmatic choices.

Types and Frequencies of Euphemism

To address the first research objective, the analysis began by systematically identifying and categorizing the euphemisms used by each speaker. The following sections detail these findings, presenting the quantitative frequencies and qualitative examples for both the male and female podcasters to establish a clear baseline for the subsequent comparative discussion.

Euphemistic Strategies of the Male Speaker

Analysis of the male speaker’s utterances revealed a total of 8 euphemisms falling into two distinct types: Direct Euphemism (DE) and those functioning as a Negative Politeness (NP) strategy. Negative Politeness was the dominant approach, accounting for 6 of the 8 instances, indicating a communicative style that prioritizes mitigating the impact of potentially face-threatening or harsh statements. A comprehensive summary of the identified euphemisms is presented in Table 2.

Table 2 Euphemisms used by the male speaker

The data in Table 2 reveal a consistent and focused pattern. The speaker repeatedly employed Negative Politeness to manage difficult subject matter. For instance, instead of using blunt terms to describe perceived wrongdoing, he opted for softened alternatives like “misguide” instead of “deceive,” or “trap” instead of “coerce.” This strategy allows him to convey strong criticism while maintaining a degree of moderation, thereby avoiding overly aggressive FTAs.

Furthermore, his use of Direct Euphemism is always paired with a Negative Politeness function. Phrases like “my life would never be the same” and “break free from such a delusion” are direct in their illocutionary force—the listener understands the intended meaning of profound change or falsehood—but their phrasing is chosen to soften the delivery.

In summary, the male speaker’s euphemistic profile is characterized by a focused reliance on direct-but-softened expressions and Negative Politeness. He did not utilize the full spectrum of euphemistic strategies, such as those geared towards ambiguity (IE) or solidarity (PP). This establishes a clear baseline of a pragmatic style that values risk avoidance in the face of harsh topics yet maintains a high degree of clarity in its communicative intent.

Euphemistic Strategies of the Female Speaker

In contrast to the male speaker, the analysis of the female speaker’s utterances revealed a broader and more varied application of euphemistic strategies. A total of 10 euphemisms were identified, spanning all four coded types: Negative Politeness (NP), Direct Euphemism (DE), Positive Politeness (PP), and Indirect Euphemism (IE). While Negative Politeness was still the most frequent strategy (4 instances), her deployment of a wider pragmatic toolkit suggests a more multifaceted approach to navigating the sensitive discussion. A comprehensive summary of her euphemism use is presented in Table 3.

Table 3 Euphemisms used by the female speaker

The data in Table 3 clearly demonstrate a more diverse pragmatic approach. Unlike the male speaker, the female speaker utilized Indirect Euphemism (IE) to signal disagreement subtly, as seen in her framing of her view as “a little more nuanced.” In doing so, she approached the discussion with caution, acknowledging the conversational floor before introducing a view that may challenge the current direction.

Most notably, she used Positive Politeness (PP), which helped her lead with agreement before pivoting into dissent. For instance, by saying “Israel has the right to defend themselves, but…” or “there is a way to support Israel… without justifying…”, she built common ground and validated the opposing perspective before introducing her critique. This “yes, but…” structure is a rhetorical strategy that allows her to challenge the other side while maintaining a degree of rapport with her audience.

In summary, the female speaker’s euphemistic tendencies are varied. She used all four coded strategies, particularly those associated with Positive Politeness and indirectness, even though it is observed that she leaned more heavily on Negative Politeness to soften FTAs. What emerges is a flexible and multifaceted pragmatic style, thus allowing her to manage the sensitive topic by not only softening negativity but also actively building rapport and signaling complex viewpoints with nuance.

Comparative Analysis of Gender, Culture, and Pragmatic Strategy

Having identified the distinct types and frequencies of euphemisms used by both the male and female speakers, the analysis now moves to a direct comparison of these patterns, aiming to interpret how gender, cultural background, and the shared sensitivity of the topic shape their euphemism choices. This move from identification to interpretation aligns with the second research objective.

Comparative Analysis of Euphemism Variety and Frequency

One of the most immediate findings from the comparative analysis is the contrast not just in frequency, but in the range of euphemistic strategies used. The female speaker utilized a higher number of euphemisms overall (10 vs. 8) and, more importantly, her examples showed a broader repertoire of types in which all four coded strategies were used. This includes Positive Politeness (PP) and Indirect Euphemism (IE), two approaches that were absent from the male speaker’s speech. This pattern suggests that gender plays a significant role in influencing communicative choices, a point that aligns with well-established sociolinguistic research.

These results support previous claims that female speakers often rely more on indirectness and politeness strategies than their male counterparts (Zaeits, 2018). This strategy functions to soften potential conflict by signaling disagreement cautiously rather than stating it bluntly, a strategic choice that Al-Khasawneh (2018) identifies as more common in female speech as a means of avoiding direct aggression. Similarly, her Positive Politeness strategies, such as affirming an opponent’s rights before issuing a disagreement (“Israel has the right…but…”), demonstrate a conscious attempt to build rapport and maintain social harmony, even in the midst of disagreement. Altogether, this multifaceted approach reflects a pragmatic style focused on maintaining relational balance.

Conversely, the male speaker’s more limited euphemism repertoire reflects a different, yet equally strategic, communicative orientation. His reliance on Direct Euphemisms (DE) and Negative Politeness (NP) reflects a preference for clarity and directness, softened only slightly. This aligns with Al-Khasawneh (2018), who notes that male speakers may favor a more direct and instrumental manner of communication. His euphemisms, such as “my life would never be the same,” do not obscure his intended meaning but simply soften its harshness. This direct-but-softened approach can be understood as risk avoidance (Jing-Schmidt, 2021), where the primary risk being managed is not related to social harmony, but more towards avoiding sounding aggressive or alarming. In this context, politeness serves as a tool to soften directness, rather than to reshape the interaction by prioritizing rapport. This, therefore, shows a clear contrast to the female speaker’s more varied and relationship-focused approach.

Shared Dominance of Negative Politeness as a Topic-Driven Strategy

Despite the clear differences in their pragmatic toolkits, a striking similarity emerged from the analysis: both speakers predominantly used euphemisms that functioned as a Negative Politeness (NP) strategy. For both the male and female speakers, the primary function of euphemism was not to build in-group solidarity (Positive Politeness) but to mitigate potential Face-Threatening Acts (FTAs) by softening criticism, showing deference, and avoiding direct imposition. The male speaker employed NP in 75% of his euphemisms (6 of 8), while the female speaker, despite her wider variety, still used it in 90% of hers (9 of 10, including those paired with other functions). This shared pattern strongly suggests that the conversational context—specifically, the highly sensitive nature of the topic—exerted a powerful and unifying influence on their linguistic choices, overriding some of the distinctions typically associated with gender.

This finding underscores the theoretical argument that euphemism is fundamentally a tool for risk avoidance (Jing-Schmidt, 2021). When discussing a topic as politically charged and emotionally laden as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the pragmatic risks are exceptionally high. Any statement can be interpreted as an attack, a dismissal, or an oversimplification, thus threatening the face of the speaker, the audience, and the subjects of the discussion. In such a high-stakes environment, the primary goal for any responsible speaker shifts toward minimizing offense and navigating difficult truths with caution. The data show both speakers achieving this by consistently opting for Negative Politeness, the most robust strategy for risk mitigation.

Framed within Brown and Levinson’s (1987) Politeness Theory, this shared dominance of Negative Politeness is a logical outcome of the communicative situation. The topic itself is inherently face-threatening, elevating the potential for FTAs in nearly every utterance. Consequently, Negative Politeness, the strategy of non-imposition, deference, and softening, becomes the most necessary and effective tool. Whether it was the male speaker, moderating a personal trauma (“my life would never be the same”), or the female speaker, softening a political critique (“shows the bad faith”), both speakers relied on NP to navigate the conversational minefield. This demonstrates that while gender may influence the variety of tools a speaker brings, the gravity of the topic can dictate which tool is used most often.

Nuances of Culture, Profession, and Medium

While gendered patterns provide a compelling primary framework for understanding the differences in the speakers’ strategies, a complete analysis requires acknowledging that pragmatic choices are never shaped by a single factor alone. The speakers’ distinct cultural backgrounds, professional roles, and the nature of the podcasting medium itself introduce further layers of interpretation that add nuance to the findings.

The influence of cultural context is particularly complex. Although both American and Middle-Eastern cultures can value direct communication, the way politeness is encoded within that directness often differs significantly, a point reinforced by studies on cross-cultural pragmatics (Al-Duleimi et al., 2016).  The female speaker’s use of Positive Politeness to create a ‘balanced’ view (“there is a way to support… without justifying…”) can be seen as reflecting a Western journalistic style of managing controversial topics. In contrast, the male speaker’s more focused, testimonial style, which employs euphemisms to soften the directness of his personal thoughts, reflects his unique position as a speaker with lived experience of the conflict he is describing. His communication choices reflect not only general cultural influences but also the personal weight of his experience.

Their choice of euphemism can be further explained by their professional roles within the podcast. The female speaker, who is a journalist, requires a more careful and strategic style of communication to maintain neutrality and build rapport with a diverse audience. Her varied use of euphemism aligns with the findings of Pramaidana and Gunawan (2022), who noted that podcasters often prioritize courtesy to manage interactions respectfully. Her wide array of euphemistic tools allows her to maintain objectivity while still voicing her personal stance. Conversely, the male speaker’s role is that of a direct witness to the conflict, not a neutral commentator. Therefore, his primary goal is not audience management but rather to convey his experience and conviction. His language reflects the straightforward style of a personal testimony, albeit softened.

Ultimately, both speakers are linguistically adept at using euphemism to show communicative sophistication in podcasting. As Bonini (2022) notes, podcasts exist as a hybrid form that blends intimate, personal conversation with the scrutiny of a public broadcast, and this demands a nuanced communicative style, aptly demonstrated by the speakers’ careful, strategic use of euphemism. They are simultaneously engaging in a personal dialogue while managing their face before a vast, unseen global audience, making their use of euphemism a critical tool for successful communication.

In conclusion, the euphemism used is not the result of a single influence, but it emerges from the interactions between multiple forces such as identity, topic, medium, and context. Clear differences in the variety and frequency of strategies align with established research on gendered communication patterns, with the female speaker employing a broader, more relationally-oriented strategy and the male speaker employing a more direct approach.  However, both speakers leaned on Negative Politeness, meaning that the sensitive subject of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict had a strong unifying effect on their linguistic strategies, overriding their individual style, and pushing both toward a strategy of risk avoidance. These primary patterns are further nuanced by the speakers’ professional roles, which inform their specific approaches to managing the sensitive discourse, showing that pragmatic choices are not just stylistic, but also situated. Ultimately, the findings demonstrate that pragmatic choices in the digital public sphere are not dictated by a single variable but emerge from a dynamic negotiation between gender, topic, culture, and the unique demands of the medium itself.

CONCLUSION

This study investigated the use of euphemisms by a male and a female podcaster discussing the same sensitive cultural topic. The analysis revealed distinct yet overlapping pragmatic strategies. The female speaker employed euphemisms more often and more diversely, drawing on the entire range of coded strategies (Direct, Indirect, Positive, and Negative Politeness), which aligns with existing sociolinguistic theory, particularly those that associate female speakers with a more relational, face-saving communication style. In contrast, the male speaker was more selective, primarily relying on Negative Politeness and a direct-but-softened tone, consistent with a more instrumental way of communicating. Despite these differences, both speakers predominantly relied on Negative Politeness, suggesting that the topic’s sensitivity influenced both speakers, pushing them to a shared strategy of risk avoidance to mitigate FTAs.

These findings, in turn, offer several key implications for scholarship and practice. For the fields of pragmatics and linguistics, this study supports established theoretical models but in a modern context, i.e., podcasting; thus demonstrating that classical frameworks are still relevant and applicable when examining digital, unscripted conversation. For intercultural communication studies, the findings suggest a significant opportunity for pragmatic convergence in high-stakes situations. This is evidenced by the observation that both speakers, despite differing cultural backgrounds, converged on Negative Politeness as a primary strategy for the mitigation of risk when discussing a mutually sensitive topic.

Furthermore, the implications for media practitioners and podcasters are equally significant, suggesting shifts in strategic and ethical awareness. For media practitioners, a primary implication is that politeness strategies must be mastered as a professional skill for the purpose of audience retention. The study’s finding that both speakers predominantly relied on Negative Politeness for the mitigation of FTAs supports this, such as the use of hedging (“I think it is wrong…”), expressing deference (“my view on this topic is a little more nuanced”), and softening criticism (“shows the bad faith”), as such a strategy functions to maintain non-hostile conversations and prevent listener disengagement. For content creators specifically, the findings suggest that a speaker’s gender should be recognized as a strategic factor in the framing of a narrative. This was highlighted by the identification of distinct, gender-aligned repertoires, like a more “relationally-oriented style” for female speakers and a “more focused, direct, but softened approach” by male speaker, whereby different pragmatic styles can significantly influence subsequent audience perception. Finally, the analysis implies that both practitioners and media consumers must exercise greater vigilance regarding the dual function of euphemism. While the study shows its utility, this is accompanied by an ethical tension, manifested in the application of terms like “a very dark day for humanity” (instead of a more graphic descriptions) and “levelled” (instead of “destroyed”) to discuss traumatic events, which carry an inherent risk of obscuring the severity of the events they describe, as noted by Allan and Burridge (2006).

While the implications are significant, it is important to acknowledge that this study’s conclusions are bound by certain limitations, which in turn open avenues for future research. The primary limitation is the small sample size, consisting of only two speakers in a single conversational context. The findings, therefore, are illustrative rather than generalizable. Future research could expand upon this study by employing a larger and more diverse sample of speakers from varied cultural backgrounds to test whether these patterns remain consistent. Additionally, future studies could also compare euphemism use in lower-stakes conversations to explore whether topic sensitivity might influence the degree of politeness strategies used. Finally, incorporating audience reception studies could provide a more holistic understanding of the perlocutionary effect of these euphemistic strategies, moving beyond speaker intent to measure listener interpretation.

Ultimately, addressing these limitations through future work will only deepen our understanding of this study’s core lesson. In an increasingly polarized global and digitally mediated world, the ability to communicate across differences in effective and respectful ways is more critical than ever. This study reaffirms that the ancient art of “sweet talking” remains a vital component of modern discourse. The strategic use of euphemism, as demonstrated by the podcasters, is not a sign of evasion but a sophisticated act of social navigation. It highlights a fundamental truth of communication: that how something is said is often just as important as what is said. Understanding the complex interplay of gender, culture, and context in shaping these polite and careful linguistic choices is essential for fostering more nuanced and respectful dialogue in our interconnected world.

REFERENCES

1. Al-Duleimi, H. Y., Rashid, S. M., & Abdullah, A. N. (2016). A critical review of prominent theories of politeness. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 7(6). https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.7n.6p.262
2. Al-Khasawneh, F. (2018). An intercultural study of euphemistic strategies used in Saudi Arabic and American English. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v8i1.11466
3. Allan, K., & Burridge, K. (2006). Forbidden words: Taboo and the censoring of language. Cambridge University Press.
4. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford University Press.
5. Awang, S., Wan Zakaria, W. N. F., & Razak, S. S. (2017). Variation of politeness strategies employed by second language learners in role-play tasks. World Applied Sciences Journal, 35(12), 2630–2642. https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.wasj.2017.2630.2642
6. Bonini, T. (2022). Podcasting as a hybrid cultural form between old and new media. In M. Lindgren & J. Loviglio (Eds.), The Routledge companion to radio and podcast studies. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003002185-4
7. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085
8. Euritt, A., Korfmacher, A., & Llinares, D. (2021). Introduction: Podcasting’s listening publics. Participations – Journal of Audience & Reception Studies, 18(1), 317–322. https://www.participations.org/volume-18-issue-1/
9. Fauziati, E. (2015). A state of the art of communicative competence theory. Ahmad Dahlan Journal of English Studies, 2(2), 78–86. https://doi.org/10.26555/adjes.v2i2.3991
10. Jing-Schmidt, Z. (2019). Cursing, taboo and euphemism. In C.-R. Huang, Z. Jing-Schmidt, & B. Meisterernst (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Chinese Applied Linguistics (pp. 391–406). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315625157-26
11. Jing-Schmidt, Z. (2022). Euphemism. In J.-O. Östman & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics: 24th Annual Installment (Vol. 24, pp. 125–145). John Benjamins Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/hop.24.eup1
12. Jordan Syatt. (2023, December 1). “Son of Hamas” gives unbelievable interview on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and exposes Hamas [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q-DIKOcmTI
13. Mabaquiao, N. M., Jr. (2018). Speech Act Theory: From Austin to Searle. Augustinian: A Journal for Humanities, Social Sciences, Business, and Education, 19(1), 35–45. https://ejournals.ph/article.php?id=14718
14. Maimaitituoheti, A., Yong, Y., & Xiaochao, F. (2022). A prompt based approach for euphemism detection. Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Figurative Language Processing (FLP), 8–12. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.flp-1.2
15. PBD Podcast. (2023, October 26). Ana Kasparian | PBD Podcast | Ep. 320 [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKxElFQHYzs
16. Pramaidana, I. A., & Gunawan, H. (2022). Positive Politeness Strategies used in “H3 Podcast#7” YouTube Video A Pragmatic Study. Ethical Lingua, 9(2), 553–561. https://doi.org/10.30605/25409190.465
17. Putri, E. N., Rahmawati, L. E., Prayitno, H. J., & Huda, M. (2022). Euphemism and Dysphemism on Deddy Corbuzier’s podcast as teaching material for discussion text. Proceedings of the International Conference of Learning on Advance Education (ICOLAE 2021), 459–468. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.220503.044
18. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438
19. Sharma, P. K., & Albarakati, M. (2019). Euphemism and Hegemony: Discursive power of communication across cultures. English Linguistics Research, 8(1), 55–65. https://doi.org/10.5430/elr.v8n1p55
20. Tomyuk, O. N., Diachkova, A. V., Kerimov, A. A., & Dudchik, A. Y. (2021). The educational potential of podcasts in the context of formation human legal culture: A new format and new opportunities media sphere. Perspektivy Nauki I Obrazovania – Perspectives of Science and Education, 54(6), 443–459. https://doi.org/10.32744/pse.2021.6.30
21. Wanda, I. A. M., Muhaimi, L., & Isnaini, M. (2023). Politeness Strategies in Zach Sang Show with Ariana Grande: A Sociolingustic Study [S1 Thesis]. Universitas Mataram. https://eprints.unram.ac.id/37644/
22. Zaiets, O. (2018). Relationship between gender and euphemisms by Chinese students: Empirical study. Евразийский Союз Ученых (ЕСУ), 11(56). https://doi.org/10.31618/ESU.2413-9335.2018.5.56.10-15