Láadan Language Materials....
From A First Dictionary and Grammar of
Láadan: Second Edition
Edited by Diane Martin
SF3 1988, pp. 3-6.
"Introduction: The Construction of Láadan"
In the fall of 1981, I was involved in several
seemingly unrelated activities. I had been asked to write a scholarly
review of the book Women and Men Speaking, by Cheris Kramarae;
I was working on a speech for the WisCon science fiction convention
scheduled for March 1982...and I was reading -- and re-reading
-- Douglas Hofstadter's Goedel, Escher, Bach. I had also
been reading a series of papers by Cecil Brown and his associates
on the subject of lexicalization -- that is, the giving of names
(words, in most cases, or parts of words) to units of meaning
in human languages. Out of this serendipitous mix came a number
(1) I became aware, through Kramarae's book,
of the feminist hypothesis that existing human languages are inadequate
to express the perceptions of women. This intrigued me because
it had a built-in paradox: if it is true, the only mechanism available
to women for discussing the problem is the very same language(s)
alleged to be inadequate for the purpose.
(2) There occurred to me an interesting possibility
within the framework of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (briefly, that
language structures perceptions): if women had a language adequate
to express their perceptions, it might reflect a quite different
reality than that perceived by men. This idea was reinforced for
me by the papers of Brown et al., in which there was constant
reference to various phenomena of lexicalization as the only natural
and self-evident possibilities. I kept thinking that women would
have done it differently, and that what was being called the "natural"
way to create words seemed to me to be instead the male
way to create words.
(3)I read in Goedel, Escher, Bach a
reformulation of Goedel's Theorem, in which Hofstadter proposed
that for every record player there were records it could not play
because they would lead to its indirect self-destruction. And
it struck me that if you squared this you would get a hypothesis
that for every language there were perceptions it would not express
because they would lead to its indirect self-destruction. Furthermore,
if you cubed it, you would get a hypothesis that for every culture
there were languages it could not use because they would
lead to its indirect self-destruction. This made me wonder: what
would happen to American culture if women did have and did use
a language that expressed their perceptions? Would it self-destruct?
(4) I focused my Guest of Honor speech for
WisCon on the question of why women portraying new realities in
science fiction had, so far as I know, dealt only with Matriarchy
and Androgyny, and never with the third alternative based on the
hypothesis that women are not superior to men (Matriarchy) or
interchangeable with and equal to men (Androgyny) but rather entirely
different from men. I proposed that it was at least possible that
this was because the only language available to women excluded the third reality. ...
Somewhere along the way, this all fell together
for me, and I found myself with a cognitive brew much too fascinating
to ignore. ... I...chose as medium the writing of a science fiction
novel about a future America in which the woman-language had been
constructed and was in use. That book, called Native Tongue,
was published in 1984.
In order to write the book, I felt obligated
to at least try to construct the language. I'm not an engineer,
and when I write about engines I make no attempt to pretend that
I know how engines are put together or how they function. But
I am a linguist, and knowing how languages work is supposed
to be my home territory. I didn't feel that I could ethically
just fake the woman-language, or just insert a handful of hypothetical
words and phrases to represent it. I needed at least the basic
grammar and a modest vocabulary, and I needed to experience what
such a project would be like. I therefore began, on June
28, 1982, the construction of the language that became Láadan....
My original goal was to reach a vocabulary
of 1,000 words -- enough, if well chosen, for ordinary conversation
and informal writing. I passed that goal early on, and in the
fall of 1982 the journal Women and Language News published
the first writing in the language, a Nativity story written from
Mary's point of view.
[Note: The very first tiny Láadan dictionary,
before the one published by SF3, was prepared and illustrated
by artist Karen Jollie. It hasn't been available for decades.]
From "Another Plea for Quality Control,"
Lingustics & Science Fiction 17:6, July/August 1998, pp.
Recently I was sent a review copy of a book
by linguist Anne Pauwels titled Women Changing Language,
published by Addison Wesley Longman. On pp. 104-105, Pauwels writes:
"A radical example of the creation of a woman-centered language
is the work by science fiction writer and linguist, Suzette Haden
Elgin. She created the language Láadan 'for the specific
purpose of expressing the perceptions of women' (Elgin 1988;1).
Her science fiction novel Native Tongue (Elgin 1984) described
the process of developing Láadan by women and dispersing
it through the community of women... Examining the vocabulary
of Láadan, [Julia] Penelope (1990; 227) points out that
it does succeed in presenting a woman's perspective better than
English but it is still too patriarchal."
The degree to which a language expresses the
perceptions of women (or of anyone else) cannot be determined
by looking at its vocabulary. Láadan is short by at least
600,000 words of matching the vocabulary of English. However,
(like every natural human language) it has all the resources
necessary for adding new words, and I have made it very clear
that people are entirely free to use those word-coining resources
and that I encourage them to do so. Many features of Láadan
that are only coincidentally linked to vocabulary were included
specifically to make the expression of women's perceptions less
difficult and time-consuming. Because the accusation that women
"go on and on and never get to the point" is one of
the major barriers to such expression, that was important to me.
Those features include, among other things: (a) the use of obligatory
evidence markers on sentences, making the "Oh, you ARE not!"
and "Oh, you DID not!" response patterns gramatically
irrational as well as incorrect; (b) mechanisms for expressing
in words a great deal of what must in English be expressed in
body language, especially intonation and tone of voice; (c) sets
of affixes specifically designed to reduce many common "going
on and on and never getting to the point" sequences to a
syllable or two; (d) grammatical devices specifically designed
to make it difficult to control conversation with such patterns
as "But all I SAID was..." and "Hey, I was ONly
kidding AROUND!" and the like.
Copyright © 2002 by Suzette Haden Elgin