It has been shown that this [taboo] language is a key feature of English, but it is not dealt with formally with ESL/EFL students. This neglect is attributable to a range of ethical and practical reasons, most usually because teachers and administrators feel the offensive nature of this language excludes it from classroom situations. But it has also been shown that by neglecting to address Taboo English, students are ultimately put at a disadvantage. By not permitting them to gain an understanding of the language they are not being sufficiently prepared as empowered communicators in their target language.

My review of related literature has indicated that there is significant discussion on the area of Taboo English and taboo lexicon of other languages. The writers of these texts and articles reinforce the critical role this vocabulary plays in most languages even though it is taboo. Whilst limited research is available on the question of Taboo English in the ESL/EFL classroom, the writers who have conducted studies on this area, and practicing teachers who have voiced concerns about this issue, have emphasized the importance of addressing this language for the ultimate benefit of the students.

Whilst it had been established that many individuals see the value in conducting classes in Taboo English with ESL/EFL students, it was felt that study needed to be conducted into their opinions about and reactions to such classes. Using an Action Research approach, it was felt that this new area of teaching could be introduced and assessed as the lessons progressed. A course covering a wide range of Taboo English was developed, and students in an Intensive English Program were invited to attended these single-gender classes. They were asked to submit responses to a series of questions concerning the classes and their content which were posed before and after the series of lessons. From the questionnaire data and attendance records, conclusions could be drawn as to the suitability and effectiveness of the Taboo English classes, and therefore assist in the researcher in the conducting of further courses in this area of language.

Whilst not all students opted to participate in the classes, the majority indicated strong support and enthusiasm for the sessions on Taboo English. They perceived the lessons to be valuable and interesting and they approved of the manner in which the classes were taught, and endorsed the material used in teaching the language. The majority also felt the language was best addressed in separate-gender classes, and that students should be able to elect whether or not they attend sessions on Taboo English. The responses also showed that, handled carefully, this area of language can be offered to ESL/EFL in a manner that will bring them satisfaction and enhance their abilities as effective communicators.

'Closeness'
A factor of concern in the study was that the students were close to the staff with whom the study was conducted. This familiarity might have lead to the subjects providing positive and uncritical assessment of the process for the sake of pleasing the staff. It was made clear to the students from the introduction that this was the researcher's personal project, and there may have been 'interference' from the students wanting to see it being a positive experience with positive results. They may not have wanted to express any negativity as part of the process. But results indicated they were fairly open in their assessment, and were prepared to acknowledge when they felt the language or the topics were inappropriate. Their constructive criticism along with their continuing attendance at the classes seemed to indicate a general satisfaction in the course.

This concern also extended to the separate gender classes, in which the researcher's colleague, Rachel, taught the female subjects. The perception that this was not her project may have lead to students not being as committed to the project as the students who attended the researcher's class. This may have manifested itself in the fact that the researcher experienced a lower drop-out rate than Rachel did in her classes, although this could have resulted from a number of other factors. Still, there were always fewer students in her class than in the male group, so absences in Rachel's class were more noticeable than in the researcher's group.

Scale
Another limitation was in the pool of subjects available for the project. As the research was conducted in one campus of an ELICOS center, there were only three classes from which to choose, with a total of 31 students from which to draw. Additionally, these students were from only a small number of countries, all of them Asian nations. These students all fell within a limited age range (18 to 36), and they were all in Australia for short periods of time, either for future study purposes or for short-term language acquisition. As a result, their responses might simply reflect their backgrounds or interest levels, and the data might not represent the feelings of non-native speaking students of English in general. The results from such a small sample meant that broad generalizations could not be drawn.

Instrumentation Questionnaire Design
A major concern in the research was the questionnaire and its design, which often proved to be difficult for the students. Even though the questionnaires were checked before they were put into place, and both Rachel and the researcher were present to help students with any confusions they might have with the questions, the students still had a good deal of difficulty answering some items in the questionnaires.

In the pre-course questionnaire, some students were confused by the pair of questions 'Do you think there are things that should be covered that aren't covered?' and 'Do you think there were things that are covered that shouldn't be covered?' By asking these questions, the researcher had hoped that the students would suggest topics for exploration in the class and alert him to topics that were too sensitive for them. Similar questions were also asked in the post-course questionnaire in order for the researcher to discover which topics the students had appreciated and which they felt were inappropriate. However, some of the responses were confusing and did not bear valuable materials for later discussion.

Finally, in two subsequent questions there was also some confusion. The researcher asked 'Which class/session do you think will be the most valuable for you?' and 'Which class/session do you think will be the most interesting for you?' The intention was to discover if there was a difference between what they saw as valuable and interesting, and to check where those differences existed. Two students misunderstood the question and gave irrelevant answers ("Elective class/Elective class"; "If someone want to study to University in the feature in my opinion EAP, ESP it important/EAP").

After seeing the problems with the pre-course questionnaire, the post-course question-naire was revised, but students continued to have difficulty. This was seen in particular with the question which asked the students to rank the classes in terms of their usefulness and value to them. In that case the students did not follow the instructions and did not rank the eight lesson topics in any order, instead ascribing 'values' to them, without ranking order. The data supplied as result of this question was not particularly useful.

In general, some students simply misunderstood questions, or did not have time to follow the instructions about which questions to answer, and which ones to omit. Even with the presence of Rachel and the researcher during the questionnaire completion, students still continued to answer questions as they thought appropriate.

For all these criticisms a good deal of valuable information was garnered through the questionnaires. This information allowed the researcher to make considerable conclusions.

Time to complete the questionnaires
It is also felt that there was insufficient time for the students to compete the question-naire. Both consent forms and the pre-course questionnaire were completed in 45 minutes during the first session. It may have been better to have allowed the students to take home the questionnaires and reflect on the questions without having to answer them so quickly. The speed with which they had to complete the questionnaire may have lead to brief (and shallow!) responses to certain questions, and more time could have been allowed for greater reflection, possibly resulting in more complete answers.

However, giving the students 'take home' questionnaires was not considered to be a valid possibility. The feeling of Rachel and the researcher was that questionnaire-completion should be supervised to clarify any misunderstandings.

Despite these concerns, the researcher feels that the basic problems associated with a questionnaire-based survey were faced. There was a high return rate because the questionnaires were conducted in the classroom.

Interviews
When the research was planned, interviews were to be an integral part of the investigation process. In the early stages of designing the project, there were to be structured interviews, rather than questionnaires, before and after the course of lessons. The modified plan was to conduct interviews with the students after the course of lessons. However, these discussions did not eventuate due a number of factors. Firstly, only 50 percent of the post-course respondents identified themselves as being interested in involved in the interviews. Secondly, the course of lessons was run at the end of a school term, shortly before the Christmas and summer break. Many of the students returned to their home countries soon after the class ended. On their return, they did not resume residence at the phone numbers they supplied. Another factor was that the branch of the language center in which the research was done was in the process of closing down, and the time and opportunity to survey the students was limited. As a result, these individual interviews did not occur.

Taping and Videoing
One final consideration concerns the use of taping and/or videoing of the sessions. Even though notes were kept of student participation during the course of lessons, the 'Action Researcher' is usually actively involved in the teaching of the classes, and must wait until a time after the session has finished to write up these details. Therefore, it was difficult to maintain a verbatim record of all the comments and interchanges that occurred through the Taboo English sessions. It would have been interesting to use another recording medium to document the exact questions, remarks and reactions the students had through the sessions for later analysis. Undoubtedly, this recording device would have been somewhat intrusive, and as is usually the case with the students when such instruments are present, the participants may have had 'performance anxiety' or they may have been more inhibited to discuss the sensitive topics of the Taboo English classes.

Conclusions
It is clear that the student participants had distinct interest in and enthusiasm for the Taboo English program. Most saw the sessions as valuable and useful to both their acquisition of English and their ability to comprehend and take part in interactions with native speakers. In addition, they saw the Taboo English classes and the language offered within them as broadening their under-standing and appreciation of the host culture. Even though their knowledge of this language was expanded, they were more sensitive to the use of Taboo English and the non-taboo alternatives.

Their comments were also quite positive and supportive of the classes in their current form. They felt that being able to elect to take part in the classes was a suitable option, along with having the classes conducted in single-gender classes.

They also supported the idea of Taboo English materials being available in the ILC for self-study.

However, they were clear in support for certain topics in the course of lessons, focusing on an aspect like 'Double Meanings' as being the most important area for discussion. There was also some suggestion that the course could have been conducted beyond the four sessions that were offered, provide more detail and more time to explain and absorb the language, and perhaps expand upon the content.

If the number of classes had been extended, some of Claire's other suggestions (1990, pp. xi-xii), such as using movies and other media containing Taboo English, or perhaps having students discuss taboos in their native languages, could have been covered. Some of the more current and pressing issues raised in the latest edition (Claire 1998), for example, "Sexual Harassment" (pp. 48-49) and "The New Taboo: Politically Incorrect Words" (pp. 70-76) could also broaden the students' understanding.

It was also clear from some of the responses and the general attendance that this was not a class that suited all students. This fact reinforced the need for the Taboo English classes to be run as an Elective, and for the students to be able to opt out of the classes if they became uncomfortable with the content. In addition, it appears from the data that the students would approve of Taboo English materials in the ILC and would use them if they were available. The researcher can also add that along with published materials, like Dangerous English! and Bleep!, there should be Taboo English materials that reflect the regional dialect in which the classes are taught, in this case, Australian English.

It appears that there is ample room for a text of Taboo Australian English to be published for non-native speakers of English who study here.

However, the research indicates that for all the hesitancy teachers and administrators have had in introducing Taboo English into a language program for adult non-native speaking students of English, there can be substantial support for such classes from the students themselves. It also indicates that many students, without having to be told, are aware of the importance of the language, and are clear that a knowledge and understanding of the words and phrases makes them more adept in English-speaking environments.

Implications
Notwithstanding this support, if a teacher is going to teach Taboo English to non-native speaking students of the language, great caution has to be observed. The teacher should give strict consideration to the guidelines that are outlined in Dangerous English! (1998, pp. x-xii; 1998a pp. 196-200) which were also followed throughout the research. Making Taboo English classes a voluntary exercise in a single-gender, non-threatening environment would be the best option to maximize student interest and participation, and therefore assist in their understanding of the words and phrases and their place in English.

As in the research, the students should be informed fully as to the nature of a Taboo English program. However, it might also be wise to survey the students ahead of time whether they want Taboo English classes as part of their program. They may feel that their Elective class time might be better suited to the examination of other topics or language issues. Simply because the students in this research showed interest in the Taboo English classes and supported it as part of the Elective program, it does not follow that all student groups would be interested in such a series of lessons. They could be given the opportunity to simply pursue knowledge of the language through ILC materials.

The teachers should also be confident that they could manage to teach this area without being self-conscious of the language and topics that need to be addressed. The students, it is felt, need to know that the teacher is comfortable with the material to get full value from the lessons. There should be a matching-gender teacher for each of the two single-gender classes. Having to assign two teachers for one language subject might raise timetabling and economic issues for the administration. However, at least both teachers could go in with basically the same lesson materials, although there would inevitably be a certain gender-bias towards materials for the students of each class, and some changes in content would have to be made for the male and female classes.

The language center itself would also have to identify where it stands morally and ethically on the issue of presenting Taboo English language and topics. Some centers may not feel that it is their policy, even with the prevalence of taboo language in today's society, to deliver the language in the classroom. Their staff may also have objections to the delivery of Taboo English in the center, even if they are not actively involved in the teaching of the sessions. In addition, if the center is part of a larger academic institution, further permission may have to be sought to get approval to run such a class.

In short, teachers and language centers wishing to formally address Taboo English need to give this issue a good deal of consideration before conducting the classes. They should realize that whilst the classes can be taught effectively, without compromising educational and ethical standards or intimidating their students, it is still a sensitive area and must be approached as such.

The Abstract
Taboo language is an undeniable reality of English language usage, but is rarely addressed in the ESL/EFL classroom. By ignoring this area of language, teachers are denying their non-native speaking students an insight into a critical feature of English. In being ignorant of the power and the implications of the use of taboo forms, these students are, in turn, in a less empowered position when it comes to communicating in their target language. However, this being such a sensitive area of language, concern is expressed about how to introduce and teach a series of classes examining these words and phrases. Using an Action Research framework, research was conducted to gauge how a group of ESL students would react to Taboo English classes being conducted as part of their IEP (Intensive English Program). The investigation took place at an ELICOS (English Language Intensive Courses for Overseas Students) center located within a university in the inner suburbs of Melbourne, Australia, and the participants were Asian, non-native speaking students of English. The students were invited to attend four, 90 minute Taboo English classes which were conducted over a three week period. The classes were taught in gender-separated classes by the researcher and female co-teacher, and covered a range of taboo forms in English, drawing material from two texts specializing in this area of language for non-native speakers, namely Dangerous English! (Claire 1990) and Bleep! (Burke 1993).

Attendance records were kept, and the students were surveyed on a number of points prior to the course beginning, and at the end of the course. The majority of students eligible for the classes elected to attend the Taboo English sessions and maintained consistent attendance over the four classes. They also provided feedback that supported the running of the Taboo English course, and expressed a considerable level of satisfaction with the content and delivery of the sessions. The respondents also acknowledged the importance, value and usefulness of this language to their overall acquisition of English, and how knowledge of the nuances of the language contributed to their understanding of the host culture and its speakers.