You also make the very valid observation that the time/place is equally important to language use. I agree with your description of taking one’s audience and abilities into consideration. What I take issue with is automatically defaulting to a particular method because it’s “easier.” My position is that we need to think more about the language we use, not necessarily make it more complex just because we can.

2nd Comment: Ditto.

@Shannon: Accents present an interesting path for this topic. It opens the door to the question of dialects and slang. As I’m sure you’ve found in your work experience, certain language, and even specific words, is called for depending on the audience. These actions require thought to weight what’s most appropriate in a given situation, which to me, is the whole point I was trying to get at with this post. Don’t take the safest route just because it requires little thought. Take the best route to most effectively communicate.

*I am aggressive for my own defense and safety
*I am a biker, you are in a one-ton box of metal.
*Lets make eye contact so we know we’ve seen each other.
*Don’t ‘F’ with me, you could seriously hurt me.

…bikers have a responsibility to communicate effectively and act quickly, for drivers’ sanity, and for their own safety.

This lesson learned in an after school job has served me well through my career. My current work involves research, sales/marketing, product manufacturing, and quality control. Each of thee areas has its own set of standards for language and not all will overlap well, so you have to choose your words appropriately and wisely to avoid ostracizing colleagues.

You mention the lack of challenge, for instance, when CEO’s speak. Thing is, they don’t want to challenge you. They’re basically not allowed. They use simple, soft, and to the point language for a reason, even speaking indirectly to soften the blow of bad news (they deliver bad news more often than not) Also, their time is too precious to challenge others (except when they’re making money doing it, i.e. Steve Jobs)

Politicians, too, are not out to challenge. They may use rhetoric as if they wish to do so, but they won’t do it either. If the general population was challenged they would lose interest, or feel threatened. They are much like CEO’s in that they may not challenge the language in our minds.

When I work with Aboriginal clients (or any client for that matter), I have to pick my challenges very carefully – and do so in the softest way. Furthermore, I need to keep language direct and simple – their level of education does not allow for complex terminology – and I would come off as challenging and self-serving. So that’s where a language crash CAN come in for me, working with those particular clients, as much as I like to come off as ‘intelligent’ and ‘well-versed’.

Talking with many friends, especially in my university days, we thrived on big language and boggling nomenclature. When I get into any intense discussion, I will on occasion bust out a large word, but I’d say these days I’m leaving that behind me. Depending on who I’m talking to of course, the best communication and understanding comes from the use of words in the right place, not from a higher place.

Long comment, eh?