Offensive language: Taboo, offence and social control is split into four parts. The first outlines what offensive language is, and why it matters. The second considers the theoretical notion of taboo language, exploring various ways in which language is tabooed. The third analyses case studies of offensive language, making links to issues of social control. The last consists of the author's reflections on the complex issues of responsibility for taboo language use and freedom of speech.

I consider the first half of the book to be its strongest. In chapter 2, O'Driscoll provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of taboo and offensive language research. He also writes with authority on the relevance of (socio)pragmatic and politeness theories. In both chapters 2 and 3, he provides a thorough yet fair critique of the lack of encompassing definitions of taboo language, and the tendency for terminology to be used too interchangeably.

This motivates O'Driscoll to outline his own taxonomy of taboo language: taboo words (particular sequences of sounds or letters whose very production is taboo), taboo references (entire meanings which are taboo), or taboo predications (entire propositions which are taboo regardless of whether they contain taboo words or references). Chapters 4 to 6 are devoted to each category in turn, and I found this discussion very valuable. I did wonder whether O'Driscoll's taboo words are truly distinct from his taboo references, as the examples of taboo words given in chapter 4 tended to have at least one taboo reference. I therefore considered that specific words might be tabooed because their taboo references remain salient, rather than because the word itself is tabooed. However, this is itself a valuable insight, and the distinction O'Driscoll makes between taboo references and taboo predications is also extremely useful.

The second half of the book moves on to analyse a range of case studies. The majority of these are varied and contemporary examples of taboo language in use, although several come from the higher education sector and the author's own experiences. Throughout his analysis, O'Driscoll provides useful insights on instrumental and organisational power (81; sections 8.1, 8.2, and 9.2). I felt the analysis lacked discussion of other power struggles, most importantly hegemony and marginalisation, which was particularly problematic for the discussions of slurs (38; section 11.2), threats of violence against women (sections 8.4 and 9.1), and harmful cultural stereotyping (sections 8.3 and 11.1). This makes some of O'Driscoll's broader arguments less convincing, primarily that ‘ism-condemnation’ (145)—the negative labelling of utterances as racist or sexist, for example—is used to dismiss instances of taboo language use out of turn (10, 109, 163), and that this represents an imposition on free speech and critical analysis (10; chapter 12). Such claims necessitate greater engagement with the relationship of such taboo language to systems of marginalisation and oppression.

Overall, I consider that the particular strengths of this book for taboo language scholars lie in its discussions of and original contributions to taboo language theory.