ing paths in the same way. These core symbols are like the large cities, to
which everyone can make reference without ambiguity. (Incidentally, the
fact that cities are localized entities should in no way be taken as indicative
that symbols in a brain are small, almost point-like entities. They are merely
symbolized in that manner in a network.)
The fact is that a large proportion of every human's network of
symbols is universal. We simply take what is common to all of us so much for
granted that it is hard to see how much we have in common with other
people. It takes the conscious effort of imagining how much-or how
little-we have in common with other types of entities, such as stones, cars,
restaurants, ants, and so forth, to make evident the large amount of overlap
that we have with randomly chosen people. What we notice about another
person immediately is not the standard overlap, because that is taken for
granted as soon as we recognize the humanity of the other person; rather,
we look beyond the standard overlap and generally find some major differ-
ences, as well as some unexpected, additional overlap.
Occasionally, you find that another person is missing some of what you
thought was the standard, minimal core-as if Chicago were missing from
their ASU, which is almost unimaginable. For instance, someone might not
know what an elephant is, or who is President, or that the earth is round. In
such cases, their symbolic network is likely to be so fundamentally different
from your own that significant communication will be difficult. On the
other hand, perhaps this same person will share some specialized kind of
knowledge with you-such as expertise in the game of dominoes-so that
you can communicate well in a limited domain. This would be like meeting
someone who comes from the very same rural area of North Dakota as you
do, so that your two ASU's coincide iII great detail over a very small region,
which allows you to describe how to get from one place to another very
fluently.
How Much Do language and Culture Channel Thought?
If we now go back to comparing our own symbol network with those of a
Frenchman and a German, we can say that we expect them to have the
standard core of class symbols, despite the fact of different native lan-
guages. We do not expect to share highly specialized networks with them,
but we do not expect such sharing with a randomly chosen person who
shares our native language, either. The triggering patterns of people with
other languages will be somewhat different from our own, but still the
major class symbols, and the major routes between them, will be universally
available, so that more minor routes can be described with reference to
them.
Now each of our three people may in addition have some command of
the languages of the other two. What is it that marks the difference
between true fluency, and a mere ability to communicate? First of all,
someone fluent in English uses most words at roughly their regular fre-
quencies. A non-native speaker will have picked up some words from(^376) Minds and Thoughts