- ([info]entangledbank) wrote,
@ 2004-08-20 23:59:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Pirahã
The press have got hold of some garbled nonsense about the absence of number in the Brazilian language Pirahã. Their account is worthless, not because of how they garble it in this case, but because of how it falls short of the extraordinary strangeness of the language. Here's an article by Daniel Everett on Cultural Constraints on Grammar and Cognition in Pirahã [warning! .pdf], in which he claims that their grammar is strongly shaped by their cultural habit of only referring to direct or reported direct experience. So he claims they have virtually no abstraction: no colour terms, no embedding or relativization, the simplest kinship system, no number or quantification, and they can't or don't or won't learn foreign languages or systems of thought that express these cultural violations.

As a description of a language it's extraordinary and alien, but as ethnography or game theory I find myself disbelieving it. A culture that has no sense of measuring value in an exchange? Is this Everett some sort of Margaret Mead dupe? The whole thing reads like a deliberate Borgesian fantasy about some impossible Uqbarian society that violates the rules of human thought. Well yes it would. Because that's what he's claiming they are. Fascinating -- dubious -- needs further study.

Bai baina. Mark Liberman in Language Log assures me Everett is pretty sound as a linguist. And I find his description of Wari' in The Handbook of Morphology eminently sensible and sober, so it looks like I have to get used to my eyes bugging out over Pirahã, which is about to get very famous indeed, even in the Muggle world.

Ez bakarrik. Language Hat points out it also contains a completely new sound, despite having the simplest phoneme inventory known. And Everett thinks they didn't use it in front of him for many years before because they knew it was strange and didn't want to be laughed at. This is scary too: because the culture is so fascinating we need lots of people studying it, but would it destroy it if we finally did convince them to learn Portuguese and arithmetic? Thankfully they seem robust against intrusion.



(Post a new comment)


[info]concordantnexus
2004-08-20 04:16 pm UTC (link)
Funny that, I was just reading an Economist.com article about the Pirahã.

"In a paper just published in Science, Peter Gordon of Columbia University uses his study of the Pirahã and their counting system to try to answer a tricky linguistic question."

Apparently, he's found that their culture's lacking the concept of abstract numbers translates into their having trouble successfully carrying out math tests.

http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3104346

[goes back into hiding since he suspects that his English is not precise, pure or pristine enough for [info]entangledbank's tastes]

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]entangledbank
2004-08-20 11:18 pm UTC (link)
Pure? Pristine? From this little black duck? Xurely you zhest.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]lallabelle
2004-08-20 04:27 pm UTC (link)
I have a hard time believing these claims. When I studied Hixkaryana (a neighbor of Piraha), there were always answers. It's like taking shortcuts in a way.

(Reply to this)


[info]foxfour
2004-08-20 05:20 pm UTC (link)
have you read understanding the ur-bororo by will self? it's a little uqbarian, but rather wonderful - it's about a small tribe in the amazon who are found to be the most boring people on earth. check it out if you've not read it. it's a quick read. it's in the quantity theory of insanity and other stories, by self.

(Reply to this)


[info]foxfour
2004-08-20 05:22 pm UTC (link)
oh, and i'm glad to see this entry of yours, and your comments on the post in [info]conlangs. the article bothered me - i was sure that there was some important information not making it past the journalist-barrier, and was hesitant to believe the claims. glad i'm not alone - and yours is an opinion i trust.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]several_bees
2004-08-20 06:56 pm UTC (link)
Mm, hoorah for this post - I was reading the New Scientist version of the story earlier, somewhat doubtfully, unconvinced both that the experiments they described established what they were said to and that the claims were a fair representation of the original research, but I hadn't found the original paper. Which, yes, crikey. Maybe he's made it all up in order to make some arcane point about research standards.

The Will Self story sounds interesting, incidentally - I shall have to keep an eye out for it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Like! Thank you!
(Anonymous)
2007-12-19 02:50 pm UTC (link)
I is pleasantly amazed! Thank!!!
http://unikont.com
I wish you health!

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…