Avoidance Speech(en.wikipedia.org)
en.wikipedia.org
Avoidance Speech
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avoidance_speech
103 comments
Nice. I swore around my son flagrantly, and taught him to swear on purpose. One of his first five words was "fuck." One time when he was two, he came out of his bedroom in diapers late one night, saying, "God dammit, I forgot my fucking water bottle in the living room." Perhaps the funniest thing I've ever seen.
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 :)
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 :)
My brother's rule for his kids regarding swearing and other NSFW words is: "You'll probably hear adults use these words from time to time, but you can't repeat these words until you start paying taxes."
Soooooo I’m guessing your nieces and nephews swear whenever they want, they’re just careful not to do it when dad is around to hear it.
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. )
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. )
Except isn't them learning that there are certain people (like dad) to not swear around the whole goal?
"You can be your honest self except near the parents" is kinda bad thing to teach imo.
Dad (probably) doesn't care, dad just doesn't want to be called to school by teacher when his kid repeats few swear-words.
Dad (probably) doesn't care, dad just doesn't want to be called to school by teacher when his kid repeats few swear-words.
>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.
I've been called by a school about my kids' swearing. I told them I don't see what the fucking problem is.
I mean if the language is not appropriate at school, then the school should educate them. There's plenty other behaviours expected at a school - that the school teaches them - that isn't expected at the home or other places.
I'm not sure which comment you're reading, but the person you're replying to is talking about their friend's policy which explicitly states that there exist some people who you probably shouldn't swear around. It just isn't dad
> Soooooo I’m guessing your nieces and nephews swear whenever they want, they’re just careful not to do it when dad is around to hear it.
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
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
> Soooooo I’m guessing your nieces and nephews swear whenever they want, they’re just careful not to do it when dad is around to hear it.
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.
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.
I'm 38 and I still won't swear when my parents are around (maybe it's a cultural difference because I also can't imagine what a "they can say whatever they want in front of me" household would look like).
I was 30s before I could let myself swear in front of my parents. Who did I learn curse words from? My father, of course.
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.
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.
My kids don't routinely swear in front of me. 10yo tries it out occasionally but then feels silly and stops. So our household is probably not too different from most when it comes to language use at home. But they don't get in trouble if they do, and I don't personally care - I try to emphasize the importance of thinking about what they're going to say to achieve their longer term goals. I'm more bothered by "you're stupid" than "fuck you", for instance, as the latter is more clearly just shorthand for "I'm angry at you". Though I try to get them to verbalize the latter if they can.
[deleted]
Same here. I'm guessing the taxes protocol is hugely culture dependent
adults really shouldn't pregurgitate spurious reasoning like this for children, no matter how well-meaning. instead, we should tell them the direct truth, perhaps only eliding nuance and detail for the appropriate maturity.
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.
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.
>adults really shouldn't pregurgitate spurious reasoning like this for children, no matter how well-meaning.
My house, my rules?
My house, my rules?
If they have money, they probably pay sales tax or VAT.
It’s reassuring to read this; I take the exact same approach and reasoning with my kids.
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.
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.
In the same vein, I've always loved this line that eloquently shows the difference between Australian and English attitudes to swearing:
"OK, which of you bastards called this bastard a bastard?"
(From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Jardine)
"OK, which of you bastards called this bastard a bastard?"
(From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Jardine)
When I was 8, my grandfather told me, "You can use swear words, but you will sound like a fucking idiot."
One time when I swore around my grandfather he said: "vulgarity is the poverty of language."
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.)
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.)
Well, there is huge difference between using vulgar worlds to accentuate just how thoroughly fucked something is, and using them like a fucking inter-fucking punction every bloody third fucking word.
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.
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.
They’re the gaudy golden toilets of language. Sometimes it makes sense to emphasize just how ridiculously rich and powerful the king is, but usually they should have just gone with a boring porcelain shitter like everyone else.
Whenever my kids would swear I would ask them for a definition of the word. If they didn't have one I would suggest that it was perhaps unwise to use words whose meanings one did not know and leave it at that.
The general utility of swear words is that they don't.
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?
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?
While I would agree there isn't a "bad" word there are phrases and words that have meaning in context. I try to teach my kids to know the context and to not tear others down.
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.
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.
As long as they can spell it, they can say it.
So no speaking until they learn to read? Series of grunts until school starts?
Who said "if they can't spell it, they can't say it"?
That's the obvious implication.
Obviously not, given the apparent issue of their kids not speaking until elementary school.
[deleted]
Maybe better taken as a warning (to the parent) than permission (for the kid).
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.
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.
My 3 y/o daughter asked her pre-school teacher what "F-U-C-K" spelled. I'd taken to spelling it rather than saying it, but it inadvertently became a spelling lesson.
Oh that's a nice idea, I'm gonna do that too!
Typically, there is an avoidance relationship between a man and his mother-in-law, usually between a woman and her father-in-law, and sometimes between any person and their same-sex parent-in-law.
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?
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?
This is an example of linguistic ellipsis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsis_(linguistics)
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.
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.
It seems... fine? Not sure how I would word this to be more clear without a dramatic break in style e.g. your bullet point list.
The confusing-ness comes from a few factors: (1) the fact that commas are very commonly used to mark an appositive phrase, so the second part initially looks like it's an appositive (meaning that it elaborates on the first part); (2) ellipsis of this extent is not so common in modern writing, so less experienced readers will get confused; and (3) it isn't so common to put more than two full clauses in a comma/and list.
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!
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!
Oops, typo, I meant:
* 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.
* 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.
> 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."
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."
I think it's just this:
- 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.
- 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.
[deleted]
You need to move the first "between" into the first bullet point, lest the second and third points have "between" twice.
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?
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?
Thanks, edited to move the between.
Oops, maybe I wasn't clear, sorry! This is what I was going for...
###
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.
###
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.
so rates of instances of avoidance
(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
(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
[deleted]
On the related "Minced Oath" page, I learned that "Gosh" is the minced version of "God". Also that "poppycock" comes from the Dutch for "soft dung" (pappe kak).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minced_oath
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minced_oath
In Barbados, we used to say "cheese on toast" instead of "Jesus Christ" as kids. My parents still got mad at me.
“cheese and crackers”, “jezzum crow”, and others are variants on the idea.
other fun minced oaths: “cor, blimey”, “zounds!”, “doggone”, “gadzooks”, and most other things that sound vaguely like they would belong in 1930s radio dramas.
other fun minced oaths: “cor, blimey”, “zounds!”, “doggone”, “gadzooks”, and most other things that sound vaguely like they would belong in 1930s radio dramas.
"Jiminy Cricket" is another, right?
yes, which makes disney’s Pinocchio character a little bit, uh, on the nose.
Jeepers Creepers
Sheesh (Jeesh)
Sheesh (Jeesh)
Ah ‘poppycock’ I didn’t know that one - so it’s basically saying “that’s shit” which is a pretty familiar expression. I always thought ‘poppy cock’ sounded like it meant ‘ridiculous’ in a ‘flashy and silly’ kind of a way - but actually it means ‘worthless and revolting’ in a ‘ diarrhea’ sort of way
I get the not-saying-someone's-name taboo, but why would anyone use a special word for a bunch of different lizards in front of their mother-in-law? Just... Why?
For all the technical details given in the Wikipedia article, it doesn't really explain what this is or what function it serves, does it?
To be fair, it might not be possible for us to know why they did it with much certainty.
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...
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...
Is it possible this is an example? https://xkcd.com/2381/
If so, "to name it is to call it" might be one possible "why".
If so, "to name it is to call it" might be one possible "why".
Yeah I read the whole thing and still didn't quite get it. It's almost like the article was written by someone trying to be meta about avoidance speech, trying to avoid explaining it in any clear manner.
Maybe their mother-in-law's name starts with a key linguistic or sociological term that it can't be explained without using.
I’m somewhat familiar with how the avoidance register works in Walpiri, and the switch is solely based on the social relationship, not the names involved.
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).
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).
I had the same complaint.
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.
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.
bypassing the paywall: https://archive.is/U1Jsf
There's not necessarily a rational explanation for every human behavior. Most interpersonal interactions rely on long-established and very obscure traditions. It shapes society because it unites people sharing the same culture while excluding foreigners. It gives a sense of community, etc. etc.
I don't think you will find a satisfying answer. But some random jumbled thoughts that come to my mind:
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
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
It all stems from the incident of that lizard and that mother-in-law, whom I shall not name.
Probably has something to do with clan-animal-totem relationships.
> "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.
> "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.
We humans are frustratingly obtuse. This sounds like the sort of thing that would drive me up the wall if it was present in my language.
The systemic trope of “mother in law bad” alone is aggravating.
The systemic trope of “mother in law bad” alone is aggravating.
It's not about mothers in law being bad, it's social tech to regulate / suppress the relationship between men and their mothers in law, for whatever reason.
[deleted]
> We humans are frustratingly obtuse.
Painting with a rather broad brush there.
Painting with a rather broad brush there.
This reply is pretty obtuse.
Reminds me of Verlan from French: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verlan
A related naming taboo I recently came across has to do with bears. All across the northern hemisphere cultures had a special reverence for bears and tended not to refer to them directly (perhaps because naming it might make it appear).
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."
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."
When "we don't talk about Bruno" becomes specially encoded in your language.
This is not visible in English where the (historically) formal "you" is the default, but in languages that have clear separation between familiar and formal ways of addressing someone, people tend to use impersonal forms when it isn't obvious how one would wish to be addressed - if I'm reading the definition correctly this is a form of avoidance speech.
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.
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.
I don't think personal/formal (tu/vous) forms of addressing count as avoidance speech, and neither does the normal switching between casual and formal registers depending on who is addressed, because so many languages make that distinction, whereas according to the article, avoidance speech is a rare phenomenon. Even Japanese, which has an exceedingly complex system of reflecting social hierarchy in speech, doesn't seem to count has having it.
Rather, the defining feature seems to be that avoidance speech reflects an actual and specific social taboo rather than a simple difference in status.
Rather, the defining feature seems to be that avoidance speech reflects an actual and specific social taboo rather than a simple difference in status.
So does labeling things as "unacceptable" as a means of avoiding responsibility for one's trauma/untended grief/judgments count as avoidance language? I asked someone yesterday if, when labeling police killing people as being "unacceptable," they meant they reject the act and judge it as unacceptable. They got very angry over being asked this question and said yes, that was the case. I'm guessing acknowledging one's own judgments and/or having them pointed out is taboo in judgmental society?
A bit like FEDspeak
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedspeak
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedspeak
hgsgm(1)
What are some modern, western examples?
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?
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?
I have an example for you: this is a story from a friend that worked in a baskin robins during high school…it was in “the hood” and a gentleman belonging to Blood gang ordered cookies and cream but like so; “boobies and bream”.
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…
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…
Sounds about as ridiculous as ‘freedom fries’
[deleted]
Getting people to say things the way you want then to is generally a way of exerting power over others. It's more like a kind of colonialism than the avoidance discussed in the article.
The common thread in the Wikipedia article is that the words one uses change depending on whether you’re in the presence of a particular relation.
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.
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.
because this is not avoidance speech. Implicit in your assumption here that "person of color" is avoiding saying, I dunno, a racial epithet? It isn't the same thing and this isn't an intelligent point that you think you're making.
In what way is that not avoidance speech?
Per the wikipedia article listed in this topic:
"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."
"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 it is avoidance speech by that definition
I'm not sure that you read what I posted. It's specifically in the familial context, not the large socio-economic one you're thinking of. Sorry, no matter how hard you want it to be, avoiding using the n word or whatever pejorative you can imagine is not some weird phenomenon, it's basic decency. What this article references is a unique sociological phenomenon outside the context of this conversation.
[deleted]
Basically any swearing like "gosh darn" is to prevent from taking the lord's name in vain.
So that could fit the bill right?
So that could fit the bill right?
Formal and informal "you"s in French and Spanish (and presumably other European languages). Using title-plus-surname versus first name in English.
I don't know if it's the same, but I definitely clean-up my language when my mother in law is around
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.