@RUTGERS.ARPA:ALDERSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA (05/08/85)
From: Rich Alderson <ALDERSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA> From: milford!bill@topaz.arpa (bill) >I feel that it is different from Vance's _Languages_of_Pao_ or >Watson's _Embeddings_ in that not only is the environment changed by >the change in language but the psyche of the users. That's why I >mentioned Chomsky et al, who I thought maintained that language >structures mirror structures in the human psyche (brain?). So a >woman's language would imply a different built-in structures(?). It >reminded me rather more of James Tiptree's "The Women That Men Don't >See" in which women just trade one alien environment for another. >A whole raft of tangents can be set off of from this, which might >belong in other groups like net.nlang or net.women. This can certainly move to other lists; unfortunately, I have no access to Usenet, so will miss any further discussion. Therefore, I will put in my own last two cents' worth, and let it go. Anyone who wishes to correspond directly is welcome! Chomsky's theory was (he's changed his mind in recent years) that the underlying structure of human language was due to an innate device in the brain (NB: NOT psyche). Since "brains is brains," there would be no difference in said structure among ANY human languages. Differences in SUPERFICIAL structure are of interest to linguists because they provide further evidence for the nature of the underlying structures, known as linguistic universals, common to all human languages. The Whorf Hypothesis is the thing that says that world-view is created by the language learned--psychological molding of the type you seem to be discussing. (I am at a disadvantage here--I haven't read _Native Tongue_ yet, though I have read Ms. Elgin's earlier _Communipath Worlds_.) This was PRECISELY the point of Vance's book--warriors learned a language heavily based on fighting meta- phors, so that they were BETTER warriors, and so on. I think this is a little turgid, but I hope everyone sees the point I am trying to make. Thank you for your indulgence. Rich Alderson@Score -------