Aswad -> RE: Third speak... (5/31/2007 9:49:39 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: livenlearn Speaking in third person is a way of making sure that a submissive/slave remembers their place. It's a way of forcing them to acknowledge that they are 'subservient'. I don't think so. Try doing it for yourself a little while. You will find that the way the mind works is to make a habit of it, kind of like learning a new dialect. According to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, language affects cognition, and is inseperably tied to it, as is the case for language patterns. By extension, and adding information about the difficulties faced by Japanese women in managerial positions, we can deduce that changing the language or speech patterns sufficiently can change cognitions and thought patterns. Third person speech does not achieve this, however, as it is a language already mastered, and frequently the native language of that person, meaning it is processed in the primary language centres. It is what the person puts into it that does the job, not the mangling (my opinion, as a reader and listener) of the language. If one desires to achieve the goals you stated or, more fundamentally, the ones I gave (changing the thought patterns), then a better choice would be to make a fundamental alteration to the speech patterns, or learn a language that has status embedded as a part of language. With regard to the former, I will start by illustrating the common pattern, using an example from this thread: "This poster recognizes that both these examples are irrelevant to the thread, but he couldn't resist sharing them." As you can see, this is simple substitution, not an altered pattern. The unsubstituted version would be: "I recognize that both these examples are irrelevant to the thread, but I couldn't resist sharing them." Not a big difference. A change in the pattern would be to say: "Both these examples are irrelevant to the thread, but they are included here for your consideration." That's a different mode of speech, and a different pattern. Instead of changing the form of self-reference, eliminate self-reference. Write and talk about the world without including yourself as a topic. That requires a lot more work to get into the habit of, and it is a habit that will gradually shift thought patterns away from "self". Similarly, rather than changing "Should I get you a cup of tea?" to "Should this one get you a cup of tea?", it would be better to change it to "Do you want some tea?". As to the other approach, learning another language, I frequently mention Japanese, for the simple reason that it has every feature required to eliminate the person speaking from what is being said, and because it has relative social standing as an important part of the language. A woman (in Japan; we might substitute "submissive" instead in a BDSM context, that's a cultural legacy thing) will use more humble and deferential forms of the language, while a man (again, we could substitute "dominant") may, depending on status, go so far as to use a harsh imperative. Women pronounce the vowel "u" at the end of words, and elsewhere, most of the time; men often drop it. Waga-hai, watakushi, watashi, boku, or ore could be used by a man to denote "I", depending on the setting and status. Women would not use boku or ore, but would add atashi to that list. Similarly, for "you", it is not common for women to use "omae" in addressing a man (IIRC). Wives address their husbands with the formal "anata". It wouldn't be hard to construct a specific sociolect for use in BDSM, although the effort involved with that would be less amortized than the cost of the other approach. quote:
Actually, it really has nothing at all to do with being Gorean; it started in chat rooms as a way of identifying who was slave and who was not. It appears to be more common among Goreans, however. Of course, I could have been exposed to an unrepresentative sample. It is a thing from the books, though. The whole "speak like a slave!" thing...
|
|
|
|