Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   The Dread Slender Gnome (gnomeshatecheese@spinster.xyz)'s status on Sunday, 08-Feb-2026 07:48:42 JST The Dread Slender Gnome

   in reply to

   • Flick ??

   @Flick (disclaimer: didn't read the article because the original was behind a paywall and archive.ph doesn't work for me anymore, so going by the quoted bit)

   Warning: research/hypothesis geekery ahead

   Students of linguistics, since elderspeak was first identified in 1981, generally regard it as a linguistic power play...

   Ok, this has become one of my peeves of late.
   So much in sociolinguistics is explained by the catch-all idea of "power", and when that happens, alternative explanations are rarely suggested.

   Just off the top of my head, I could suggest an alternative hypothesis of nurturing impulses. The variety appears to be similar to way adults speak to small children, so might not the presence of an old person, quite possibly of some frailty, trigger similar nurture-coded language? Perhaps purely by mental association to nurturing behaviours towards children?
   Mind you, I'm not saying this is the case, obviously. Just pointing out that alternative hypothesis are perfectly possible. And it irks me that they so often aren't explored, when "power play" is an easily available one.

   The power explanation also doesn't explain why elderly people in specific would be the targets. Presumably medical professionals would have reason to attempt power plays on patients of all ages, if they think it helps them to gain compliance. Why not try that on a recalcitrant middle-aged woman, who isn't in the mood for taking her meds?
   On that note, how much is the prevalence of elderspeak affected by medical professionald dealing proportionately more with old people, especially in institutions? Has that been taken into account?

   • KeepTakingTheSoma likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Flick ?? (flick@spinster.xyz)'s status on Sunday, 08-Feb-2026 07:48:43 JST Flick ??

     https://spectator.com/article/the-doctor-will-patronise-you-now/

     The prize, for the moment, for the ludicrously infantile goes to the doctor dealing with an elderly but utterly compos mentis friend. He was suffering from an ill–fitting catheter, which was causing a constant and painful intimate irritation. ‘So!’ the doctor began. ‘We’re having a little bit of trouble with our lower tummy, are we?’ ‘I wanted to ask,’ my friend said, ‘is that the bit of the lower tummy that daddies put into mummies when they love them very, very much?’

     There has been some interest among students of linguistics for many years about the revoltingly patronising ways in which medical professionals speak to perfectly capable old people; it even has its own technical label, ‘elderspeak’. Related to the babytalk or ‘motherese’ with which adults address tiny children, elderspeak has been found to indulge in excessive use of the first-person plural; to address perfect strangers with inappropriately intimate vocatives such as ‘sweetheart’; to avoid ordinary instructions in the form of the imperative; constantly to use question tags at the end of sentences; a sing-song tone and a raised voice, irrespective of hearing capacity; and to relish a markedly infantilised choice of words. Students of linguistics, since elderspeak was first identified in 1981, generally regard it as a linguistic power play, putting capable people in a position of subordination and removing choice. To an equal, you might say: ‘Stand up now, please.’ Translated into elderspeak, you would say: ‘Let’s see if we can stand up, you lovely man, let’s have a peep at your tootsies, shall we?’

     https://archive.ph/GDj3M