Comment, please?
============================================================================

The relationship between language and culture is deep, and exists on many
levels. Social relationships can affect language and its use, occasionally
in interesting ways.

One such is the phenomenon of the 'avoidance language' or 'mother-in-law
language'. While the formal definition is quite a bit narrower (and more
rigorous) than I use here, it's not entirely inaccurate to describe the
phenomenon as a language (or vocabulary within a language) that allows
communication between social groups that may not otherwise be permitted to
interact 'normally'. Some examples of this phenomenon - and possibly
related ones:

* Among certain tribal societies, most notably Australian aboriginals and
  some North American tribes, it is forbidden for a person ('ego', in such
  discussions) to talk to (or in some cases, even look at) ego's spouse's
  parent of the opposite sex. In such cases, communication between ego and
  the taboo person, may be done through such a language. (This is the
  origin of the term 'mother-in-law language'.) Most examples of this type
  of avoidance language have features such as reduced vocabulary and
  circumlocutive phrasing (usually because of the reduced vocabulary).

* In discussions of Japanese culture prior to extensive contact with the
  West, it is often said (with accuracy unknown to me) that one would use
  different vocabulary when speaking to someone of higher social status, of
equal social status, and of lower social status - and that similar
  differences of vocabulary applied when men and women spoke to each other.
The social-status difference also appeared in Robert A. Heinlein's novel
  _Farnham's Freehold_.

* A less-extreme example of a similar phenomenon can be seen in
  hierarchical business/government environments, where the way an idea is
  expressed changes depending on who is the speaker and who the listener -
  for example, when something must be done and can only be done by one
  person, a hierarchical superior may simply say "John, frabulate the
  potrzebie", whereas the subordinate will say "Mr Jones, it looks like the
potrzebie needs to be frabulated, and you're the only one that can do it.
Would it be possible to get it done soon?".

* In the German medieval and renaissance periods, it has been suggested
  that nobles never gave orders directly to their servants. Instead, they
  would address others in the room, or even inanimate objects, and simply
  describe what the servant was required to do, e.g., 'She will bring
  brandy', 'He will bring the carriage to the door', 'She will escort the
  guest to her (the guest's) room', and so on. (It has been suggested that
  this is more of a case of simply never addressing the servant directly,
  not even to look at, rather than specifically addressing others (or
  inanimate objects) with the orders for the servant). Similarly, in some
  literary portrayals set in preindustrial (or early industrial) England,
  the master of the house never addresses most servants directly, even if
  the servant in question is in the same room; rather, the order is
  directed to the majordomo, butler, or valet, who then directs the
  appropriate servant.

Another way that social relationships can affect language is in the
phenomenon of "code-switching". This term is used, perhaps not entirely
properly, in at least three different ways:

* Most commonly, it is when two people are speaking together, where both
  are bilingual in the same two languages, and words or phrases from one
  language are injected into the middle of phrases, sentences, or
  paragraphs in the other. Several reasons have been given for this,
  including (but not necessarily limited to) the lack of a good word of
  phrase in the "main" language to express a concept that exists and has
  the phrase or word in the other language, the use of clichés, to signal
  membership in an 'in group', or merely as a show of 'prestige' knowledge.

* The phrase has also been used to describe the situation where two people
  are both knowlegeable in the same pair of languages, but each is more
  fluent in one of them - not the one that the other is fluent in - and
  uses that language to talk to the other. This was at one time (and may
  still be today) seen in immigrant households or communities in the United
States, where the older generation speak the language of the 'old
  country', but the young speak English.

* It also appears to be used to describe the situation where the same
  person may use different dialects, languages, or speech patterns in
  different contexts:

  * For example, the pastor of a church in a poor neighborhood of an
    inner-city will tend to use the same dialect or speech patterns as his
    congregants when speaking to them - but if he goes to speak on behalf
    of his congregants and their community needs to a city councillor/
    alderman/etc. who uses a "more proper" form of the language and sees
    the congregants' dialect as 'less educated/literate', the pastor will
    conform to that 'proper' usage.

  * An immigrant who works in an environment where the expectation is
    that everyone will be conversant in the local dominant or official
    language will use that language in the work environment, but may speak
    to a spouse in the language of their country-of-origin.

®Traveller is a registered trademark of
Far Future Enterprises, 1977-2018. Use of
the trademark in this notice and in the
referenced materials is not intended to
infringe or devalue the trademark.

--
Jeff Zeitlin, Editor
Freelance Traveller
    The Electronic Fan-Supported Traveller® Resource
xxxxxx@freelancetraveller.com
http://www.freelancetraveller.com

Freelance Traveller extends its thanks to the following
enterprises for hosting services:

onCloud/CyberWeb Enterprises (http://www.oncloud.io)
The Traveller Downport (http://www.downport.com)