I think I first came across this idea in Francis Schaeffer's writings.

There's no doubt that language contains value judgements, but those can change from generation to generation. Are there also images hidden in the infrastructure of language?--i.e., can Jung's archetypes can be accounted for? If archetypes are recorded in language and are truly universal among humans, then they must reside in the deep structure of language and we are in Chomsky territory. Otherwise, different language groups would have different "archetypes", and the richest languages, such as English, would give those language groups a particularly rich collective unconscious. (Moreover, in this case the archetypes Jung identified are not really universal--just common to Western culture, or something.)

What I like about this idea is that it demands no mysticism. Language is passed on along with the rest of culture in perfectly ordinary ways. I find it entirely credible that a host of hidden information may be carried with it that we absorb unconsciously and which could inform a hypothetical common but unconscious set of images and ideas.

Neville B