Avoidance Speech
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Oddly, this is basically the same way I approach swearing with my kids: our position is that there is no such thing as a "bad" word but that they won't be able, as kids, to predict how adults will respond to the use of those words. Because some will react very badly, they should probably just not use them at all until they're older and more able to evaluate the social context. But they can say whatever they want in front of me.
When I was a kid I got mad at my brother and was going to call him a "dumbshit" or something like that, but halfway through the word I realized my mom was listening and tried to slur it into gibberish. The "shit" part came out as something like "shlut" and really shocked my mom - "where did you learn that word?" - and I had no idea what she was talking about. I'd never heard the word "slut" before.
I haven’t met other parents who openly take this approach, but even so, my sense is that words are simply words. Intent and consequence are what truly matter and should be considered. Have kids look at it this way and they might be more critical of all language, not just a handful of words.
Or so we can hope, haha.
For example, I have friends I can call a b&%@h and it will be a good laugh. If I said that to many others it would be an insult. Learning that subtle nuance with kids takes some time and they have to develop to a certain level to get it. When kids are young and can't understand that level of context, yet, I have words they just aren't allowed to use. Just so they don't accidentally say something hurtful they don't mean to.
I tend to favour my friends’ policy about swearing with their kids: everybody feels differently about it, so you have to be careful about swearing around other people until you know whether it’s okay with them. At home? Probably fine. At school? Probably need to be more careful about it.
It’s much more realistic to teach nuance than to outright forbid the behavior imo.
( Although I suppose we should probably acknowledge - 1) these are not our kids, and 2) every kid is different. Some kids appreciate the value of choosing your words to fit your audience, some adults never learned. )
My point is this isn't even a bad thing. As long as they learn to not swear around certain people (like dad), then that's what you want
Dad (probably) doesn't care, dad just doesn't want to be called to school by teacher when his kid repeats few swear-words.
I've been called by a school about my kids' swearing. I told them I don't see what the fucking problem is.
As a former child myself, that's exactly how it goes; the purpose of the exercise is not to forbid them to swear, it's to learn when it's appropriate.
This was more of an individual thing than cultural though. My family is stereotypical North American Protestant, of Northern European descent. And neither of my siblings showed the same restraint in using "foul" language around my parents that I did.
swear words are exclamatories, meant to indicate extreme emotion. so using a lot of swear words is like shouting all the time, or using all caps all the time in writing. it washes away the richness of expression and makes the swearer seem unable to properly contextualize and express their emotions. our brains are attuned to wash out sameness and pick out differences, especially sharp ones. that's also why selective swearing is very effective, and constant swearing is ineffective.
there's certainly much more to it than just that, but that should be the core contextualization of swearing for kids. let them experiment on their own but just like shouting all the time, let them know it won't be tolerated in most situations until they can effectively and appropriately wield this grammatical tool. don't impose some indirect, off-the-cuff age cut-off, which they'll surely understand as being arbitrary and therefore easily (and rightfully) dismissed.
My house, my rules?
It has stuck with me as a reminder that you should be able to express your thoughts on whatever is going on with wisdom and nuance. (IMHO, "bad words" are sometimes appropriate.)
First approach used sparingly is good, it expands range of expression without making communication longer, second, well, "poverty of language" is a good name for it.
"OK, which of you bastards called this bastard a bastard?"
Natural Language is not explicitly constructed, no matter how confidently your favorite dictionary likes to pretend it to be. Natural Language is full of ambiguity, and we resolve that ambiguity with context.
Noam Chomsky famously recognized this categorization as "context dependent grammar". In that same vein, he categorized what we write software in as "context free grammar". He then proved mathematically that we cannot write computer programs in context dependent grammar.
Are you children computers or humans? Why should you constrain their language to a lower category?
But we also told him early on that swearing was like being naked -- there's nothing wrong with it, but it makes some people uncomfortable, so you should only do it in our home and only around family.
It worked perfectly. He swore like a drunken sailor at home, and outside the house he would correct us if we ever swore. After a while swearing got boring for him, and as a teenager he doesn't do it much. My plan exactly, playing for the long term :)
Whats up with this sentence? it reads like it's been rewritten multiple times to be more accurate, but someone dropped the ball along the way. Maybe it is meant as an example of avoidance speech in modern English?
- Typically, there is an avoidance relationship between a man and his mother-in-law
- usually, between a woman and her father-in-law
- sometimes, between any person and their same-sex parent-in-law
Agreed it is written a bit awkwardly.
Unrelated to the visual breakdown, there's also confusion (for me, at least) as to whether the first and second points have equal prominence, or if the second point should be of intermediate prominence; the word "usually" shouldn't be introduced except to slightly diminish, but I consider it to be a synonym of "typically"... are we to think the first is 90% and the second is 90%^2?
###
Typically, there is an avoidance relationship
- between a man and his mother-in-law
- usually between a woman and her father-in-law
- sometimes between any person and their same-sex parent-in-law
###
So the first point is simply typical, the second point is usually typical, and the third point is sometimes typical. The issue I have is not knowing whether the usually+typical construction is redundant or compounding.
(man + MIL) > (woman + FIL) > (MIL + MIL or FIL + FIL)
I don't know still whether it's hinting to this, or simply a figure of speech
E.g. "Should I call you, or you me?" <== from "or [should] you [call] me"
So the sentence is actually:
* Typically there is an avoidance relationship between a man and his mother-in-law,
* usually [there is an avoidance relationship] between a woman and her father-in-law,
* and sometimes [there is an avoidance relationship] between any person and their same-sex parent-in-law.
The three parts are in parallel and connected by a comma/and list structure. It's confusing because the structuring and words create some ambiguity, though the sentence is valid overall.
If I were trying to reduce confusing-ness, I would reduce the extent of ellipsis, break up the parts into two sentences, use semicolons, switch to plural 'relationships', or directly number the parts:
* There is typically an avoidance relationship between a man and his mother-in-law, and usually one between a woman and her father-in-law. Sometimes, there is one between any person and their same-sex parent-in-law.
* Avoidance relationships exist (1) typically between a man and his mother-in-law; (2) usually between a man and his mother-in-law; and (3) sometimes between a woman and her father-in-law.
It feels like refactoring in programming!
Let's try it with a zip() function on two lists! This is better, right?
"There is an avoidance relationship between a man and his mother-in-law, a woman and her father-in-law, and any person and their same-sex parent, typically, usually, and sometimes, respectively."
* Avoidance relationships (1) typically exist between a man and his mother-in-law; (2) usually exist between a woman and her father-in-law; and (3) sometimes exist between any person and their same-sex parent-in-law.
other fun minced oaths: “cor, blimey”, “zounds!”, “doggone”, “gadzooks”, and most other things that sound vaguely like they would belong in 1930s radio dramas.
Sheesh (Jeesh)
My initial speculation was that it was a way of clearly avoiding any hint of flirtation or sexual interest (sort of like an extreme form of boundary-setting).
This is suggested as a reason in relation to Australian Aboriginal languages the final paragraph of this article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/world/what-in-the-world/a...
If so, "to name it is to call it" might be one possible "why".
It’s a fairly complex sub-language - there’s a different set of words that get used only for the avoidance register or are very generic terms from standard speech, and the grammar is simplified. The pronunciation is also shifted a bit, iirc (I want to say it uses creaky voice, but I’m not sure).
This NYT article - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/world/what-in-the-world/a... - makes a stab at it in the last graf:
"Why did the custom of avoidance speech arise? Some experts on its use in Africa and India see it as a way to reinforce the inferior status of daughters-in-law. In Australia, the prohibitions might have been intended to reduce the chance of sexual relations between in-laws."
I also wonder if it reduces the marriage appeal for people whose parents' names start with particularly common letters/syllables.
Among the Dyirbal traditionally there was a strong avoidance taboo with certain relatives:
> The overarching feature of all Australian Aboriginal societies is the classificatory kinship system. By applying a series of principles, each person is in a relationship to every other person. Mother’s sisters’ and father’s brothers’ children (‘parallel cousins’) are regarded as equivalent to one’s own siblings. In contrast, ‘cross-cousins’, the children of father’s sisters and mother’s brothers, have a quite different status. They must never be directly addressed and, if talking in their presence, a special speech style called Jalnguy has to be employed. [1]
Lizards are an important source of protein for the indigenous Australians.
Verbs of motion were similarly taboo among the Dyirbal, just as specifying a specific type of lizard in front of your MIL.
In most cultures, the mother of a possible wife has a significant say over whether the marriage will happen. In many cultures, a demonstration or contribution of wealth or ability to provide may be required of one or both potential spouses. In nomadic hunter-gathering cultures, men's social status is often tightly linked to hunting prowess. And indeed:
> [...] until the boy had proved himself to be a good provider. When he brought home a carcass, the choicest portion would be ostentatiously presented to waymin, the potential mother-in-law, as a hint that she might soon consider him to be ready for the marriage. [1]
I will now speculate wildly. If you're looking for a why, assuming there might be one, look at the effect. It leaves the man unable to talk about his hunting activities in front of his in-laws. He can't easily brag. He can't easily plan a hunting trip with his father-in-law.
Preventing such close cross-family links outside of ritual interactions with a go-between, may prevent a single family from gaining disproportionate influence or power. It may also help preserve the expected degree of distance between the son and mother-in-law. A (potential) son breaks many social taboos by discussing his ability to provide for his (future) wife or if he tries to coordinate economically with her family, outside of the appropriate channels.
[1] p. 5; R. M. W Dixon; Edible Gender, Mother-in-Law Style, and Other Grammatical Wonders: Studies in Dyirbal, Yidiñ, and Warrgamay https://academic.oup.com/book/27709
> "Each clan is identified with a special totem (sacred animal) passed down from the Dreamtime by successive headmen or lore keepers. The totem differs according to where the clan lives. As descendents of the ancestral Gunyunggalinglung beings (that the Aboriginal people believe made the world), to intentionally injure, kill or eat one’s clan totem animal brings great misfortune on your all your extended family."
https://www.jenolancaves.org.au/visitor-info/aboriginal-cult...
E.g. if a Protestant family had a marriage relationship with a Catholic family, they might not discuss certain rituals or topics specific to their tradition at large inter-family gatherings.
The systemic trope of “mother in law bad” alone is aggravating.
Painting with a rather broad brush there.
One of the examples of this is in the Old English name Beowulf, which literally translates to "bee-hunter," i.e., a bear. To this day in Germanic languages (English included), the word for "bear" derives from "brown," a bear just being "the brown one."
My SO uses it addressing my mother because a few years ago she asked about this and got the response that the formal term is preferred. In the meantime we became parents and it's becoming increasingly awkward.
Rather, the defining feature seems to be that avoidance speech reflects an actual and specific social taboo rather than a simple difference in status.
Politically correct speech? Precision pronouns?
"Person of color" is one striking contortion.
My trans friend insists on the royal "we" and "they".
It a linguistic reaction to an emotion.
It's a kind of built-up language. It's got layers.
Like Germanic agglutination, except in a different dimension.
---
What, we can put the Australians and Africans under the microscope but not us?
See, being from the blood gang the gentleman would not use the letter C in their speech hence the absurd pronunciation of a common ice cream… Kinda hilarious and fascinating but it’s real…
If you use the term “person of color” only in the presence of people of color and you use a different word when they’re not around- that sounds like something else.
or as most folks would phrase it: "not being an asshole"
"Avoidance speech is a group of sociolinguistic phenomena in which a special restricted speech style must be used in the presence of or in reference to certain relatives."
So that could fit the bill right?