Linguistics question

[Skeptic Ginger]

This depends on what you define as a language. It is commonly thought that any language can express everything that other languages can. They might lack the appropriate vocabulary at some point, but then they extend their vocabulary by importing words from other languages.

On the other hand, it seems that just like cultures have formed the languages, the languages can also restrain the culture, and there are examples where speakers of certain languages have great difficulty adjusting to new concepts, simply because their language lacks the structure for it. By structure I now mean to signify something that goes beyond the vocabulary.

There is for example the language of the Pirahã people in the Brazilian rainforest.This language is special because it has no tenses: no past and no future, only the now, and there is no concept for numbers bigger than 2!

Professor Daniel L Everett originally came to the Pirahãs as a missionary, but he was utterly unable to convert the Pirahãs, simply because their culture is completely impenetrable for this kind of nonsense. Because the Pirahãs have no concept for the past, they cannot relate to a Jesus Christ that lived 2000 years ago, and because they have no concept for the future, they cannot be frightened with tales of eternal Hell.

When told about JC, the Pirahãs would ask "do you know this man?", or "do you know somebody who knows this man?" (not "have you met somebody who has met this man?", because that would be impossible for them to conceive of), and the missionary had to answer "no", and the discussion had ended.

As far as I can gather, the Bible has never been translated into Pirahã (for obvious reasons).

From an article in The Spiegel:


It should be noted that Pirahãs can learn Portuguese, but they still have difficulty adjusting to the concepts of past and future, although numbers larger than 2 seem easier to grasp.

That's fascinating. I find this whole subject fascinating.

There are some interesting things revealed just looking at common languages. For example in Spanish, things get lost or broken without a person being involved. In English people lose things and break them. This isn't an absolute difference but it is a significant difference.

 

[steenkh]

I find this very difficult to believe and I would seriously question the scholarship involved. Don't these people have dead parents, grandparents that they remember?

Of course they have, but culturally, they do not think about the past, so it is not important to speak about the past. Although I know nothing of this language, I am quite sure, that if they wanted, they would be able to express past tense, even if it in a roundabout fashion. Many languages have no future tense, but people can still talk about the future.

Sorry, that appears to me to be a lot of sophistry. A man cut his finger, he wakes up the next day with the wound. Does he not remember it was yesterday? His language is so impoverished that he cannot conceive of yesterday because his culture has no creation myth?

First of all, I am quite sure that the Pirahã language is not impoverished, because it can certainly express anything that the Pirahã people need. I am also sure that they can think about the past that influences the "now" that is important for them. If a man has been wounded by touching something, he can of course remember it, and avoid being wounded again, or they would not be able to survive.

"Pirahã has one of the simplest sound systems known. Yet it possesses such a complex array of tones, stresses, and syllable lengths that its speakers can dispense with their vowels and consonants altogether and sing, hum, or whistle conversations."

Yes, I wondered at this quote too. How on Earth can they claim that the language has one of the simplest sound systems known, and at the same time explain that it has "a complex array of tones, stresses, and syllable lengths"? Surely we have a cultural prejudice at work here!

It is likely that such a system, so foreign to Everett, was beyond his grasp.

It may be that Everett cannot grasp the Pirahã culture, but we know he can speak the language, so surely the sound system was not beyond his grasp.

 

[steenkh]

The blog entry makes the proposition that the oft-repeated phrase, "music is a universal language", is a myth.

It most definitely is a myth! Just think of how people tend to regard the music of other cultures as "noise", or "screaming". Reading a book of music history, I was fascinated by how European "explorers" described African natives as having no sense of music, and they could not understand why when natives collected stones for percussion, they selected stones with a "dull" sound, when there were other stones around with a "beautiful" sound.

It is a rather modern phenomenon that people respect and even like the music of other cultures.

 

[steenkh]

This sounds similar to the Saphir-Whorf hypothesis that was mentioned in another post. It is by no means universally accepted among linguists or anthropologists.

I think I expressed something akin to the weak version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and according to the Wikipedia article, it is not regarded as discredited, unlike the strong version.

 

[steenkh]

There are some interesting things revealed just looking at common languages. For example in Spanish, things get lost or broken without a person being involved. In English people lose things and break them. This isn't an absolute difference but it is a significant difference.

Did you also read the recent article in Scientific American? I found it very interesting, and this was one of several examples of how our mindset is influenced by linguistics.

 

[aggle-rithm]

That's fascinating. I find this whole subject fascinating.

There are some interesting things revealed just looking at common languages. For example in Spanish, things get lost or broken without a person being involved. In English people lose things and break them. This isn't an absolute difference but it is a significant difference.

It seems to me that, although syntax is supposed to be a mechanism for semantics, it sometimes seems to shape semantics to a certain extent. I've heard that learning some Eastern languages is more that just learning vocabulary and syntax, you must learn to "think" differently.

I find it fascinating that you so often hear, "there isn't really a good English translation for this phrase, but it means something like..." followed by two or three phrases that seem to mean completely different things.

But, again, I'm only an "armchair" linguist (if that), and can only comment on my limited experience with the subject.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Pirahã does have past and future. You can see their places in a categorized list of different things conveyed by its rather elaborate verb conjugation system (which apparently can include up to eight suffixes at a time) on Wikipedia's page about the language.

I'm reminded of The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, where Douglas Adams described the new grammar that had to be invented to accommodate time travel. Trying to parse sentences with phrases like "am going to would have been" seems like it would be problematic.

Which brings us to some of the modern scientific concepts that our languages can just barely describe...and in some cases cannot describe at all without mathematics. The whole idea that there might be spatial dimensions that are too small to see, for instance, is something I just haven't been able to wrap my brain around, even when explained with dumbed-down analogies.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I don't understand how you progress from not understanding a question to lacking self-identity. Maybe they simply don't understand the question.

It actually wasn't my conclusion. The study was described in Restak's The Brain, where he was discussing the fact that we don't know what consciousness is. As one example, he cited the study, which (he felt) showed that consciousness could be different things to different people.

I think there are more clear cut examples though to be found in technical languages (I certainly wouldn't expect a tribesman to understand what an indefinite integral is).

But I for one would be much more interested in the kinds of concepts that these lowly tribesmen came up with that us advanced Westerners have difficulty with than the other way around.

I would also find that interesting. It would be analagous to a symphonic composer who doesn't have the "knack" to communicate something simple, like a pop song.

 

[Perpetual Student]

First of all, I am quite sure that the Pirahã language is not impoverished, because it can certainly express anything that the Pirahã people need. I am also sure that they can think about the past that influences the "now" that is important for them. If a man has been wounded by touching something, he can of course remember it, and avoid being wounded again, or they would not be able to survive.

And he can communicate his experience to others. Surely the language can do that and that is the point. It does not matter how they may express the past, be it a phrase marker, pitch, whistle, conjugation, agglutination, augment, grunt, whatever. Unless we are willing to postulate that the Pirahã people are sub-human, Everett missed it!

 

[steenkh]

And he can communicate his experience to others. Surely the language can do that and that is the point. It does not matter how they may express the past, be it a phrase marker, pitch, whistle, conjugation, agglutination, augment, grunt, whatever. Unless we are willing to postulate that the Pirahã people are sub-human, Everett missed it!

As I said, everything can be expressed in all languages. But sometimes it has be expressed in a roundabout way. The point is that the Pirahã have a culture where the past is rarely touched upon, and we may well speculate that the lack of a past tense in the language is not helping this mindset, even if it is created by this mindset in the first place.

I do not see how you can claim that Everett missed anything given the scant information you have.

 

[Perpetual Student]

As I said, everything can be expressed in all languages. But sometimes it has be expressed in a roundabout way. The point is that the Pirahã have a culture where the past is rarely touched upon, and we may well speculate that the lack of a past tense in the language is not helping this mindset, even if it is created by this mindset in the first place.

I do not see how you can claim that Everett missed anything given the scant information you have.

In spite of my "scant information," I know that the very continuity of any culture is based on recognizing the past and communicating it. Perhaps I am missing something. Was it not Everett who asserted that they cannot express the past? As I already mentioned, it does not matter how it is done (e.g., a hand gesture), communicating the past is fundamental to being part of any human clan that survives as a clan.

 

[steenkh]

In spite of my "scant information," I know that the very continuity of any culture is based on recognizing the past and communicating it. Perhaps I am missing something. Was it not Everett who asserted that they cannot express the past?

I believe he said they do not have a past tense in their language. And I do not think that your idea of how a culture survives need to pertain to a culture in the Amazon rain forest. Other primates than humans seem to be surviving quite well without having stories or needing to communicate about the past.

As I already mentioned, it does not matter how it is done (e.g., a hand gesture), communicating the past is fundamental to being part of any human clan that survives as a clan.

And I think you are wrong in principle. I have no idea if the Pirahã really have no conception of the past or not.

I am reminded of the similar cases of Australian aborigines, who do not speak much about the past, even though they do have a past tense in their language. Some tribes never speaks about dead people, and they insist of getting rid of everything that reminds them of dead people, such as photographs. They are literally obliterating their past, and they have no stories of their ancestors. I think it is quite similar, even if the Australian aborigines certainly have stories about gods, and creation.

 

[EHocking]

I believe he said they do not have a past tense in their language. And I do not think that your idea of how a culture survives need to pertain to a culture in the Amazon rain forest. Other primates than humans seem to be surviving quite well without having stories or needing to communicate about the past.


And I think you are wrong in principle. I have no idea if the Pirahã really have no conception of the past or not.

I am reminded of the similar cases of Australian aborigines, who do not speak much about the past, even though they do have a past tense in their language. Some tribes never speaks about dead people, and they insist of getting rid of everything that reminds them of dead people, such as photographs.

A not quite accurate description of the practice and I don't think the correct interpretation of what is happening. This "avoidance practice" is only out of respect for the deceased and to ease the grief of their families. They still talk about the person, they just do not use their name.

They are literally obliterating their past, and they have no stories of their ancestors.

Look up Dreaming and First People for the literal take on your their reference to their ancestors.

If you are merely talking about immediate predecessors, again, you are not quite correct. They are merely not referred to directly, or by name, out of respect.

I think it is quite similar, even if the Australian aborigines certainly have stories about gods, and creation.

Their "gods" are, in fact, their ancestors.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I believe he said they do not have a past tense in their language.

It does not matter how they might express the past; whatever method, no matter how obscure or convoluted, would constitute a "past tense" and is part of their language. My point here has been that "past tense" does not necessarily mean some conjugation or other marker that is easy for us to deal with. Everett must have just missed it.

 

[Perpetual Student]

It does not matter how they might express the past; whatever method, no matter how obscure or convoluted, would constitute a "past tense" and is part of their language. My point here has been that "past tense" does not necessarily mean some conjugation or other marker that is easy for us to deal with. Everett must have just missed it.

For clarification, if someone were to ask you, "who ate the pie?" and your response were to simply point to someone, that is part of language. Pointing may not fit in any grammatical category, but it certainly is clear and precise communication, and part of how we communicate and consequently part of our language, just as much as saying, "Mary."
So, somehow these people can communicate that something happened earlier this morning. Whatever that method constitutes a "past tense."

 

[Kaylee]

There are replies and a rebuttal in the article.

http://llc.illinoisstate.edu/dlevere/docs/currentanthroarticle.web.pdf

Here is an argument agaist Everrt's arguments.

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~nevins/npr09.pdf

Thanks for the links DA, I'll probably read them over the weekend.

It looks like it is not that the Piraha can't talk about the past or the future. They can. It seems they just aren't very concerned with precision or anything outside their close experience.

I thought the most interesting thing was the experiment with laying out spools and asking “How many?”

Sounds like hoi' could mean "two or a few." I was also wondering if in the Piraha language inflection or tones carries more meaning than Everett picked up on, especially since some of the posts said that the Piraha can converse in whistles. So hoi inflected one way could mean two, inflected another way could mean a few more than two. (Your links to the 70 plus pages might answer that question. I can usually skim quickly, but some days it takes me a long time to get through something on an Adobe Reader. My laptop can be fickle. Anyone wanna buy me a kindle? )

 

[Kaylee]

There are replies and a rebuttal in the article.

http://llc.illinoisstate.edu/dlevere/docs/currentanthroarticle.web.pdf

Here is an argument agaist Everrt's arguments.

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~nevins/npr09.pdf

Thanks for the links DA, I'll probably read them over the weekend.

It looks like it is not that the Piraha can't talk about the past or the future. They can. It seems they just aren't very concerned with precision or anything outside their close experience.

I thought the most interesting thing was the experiment with laying out spools and asking “How many?”

Sounds like hoi' could mean "two or a few." I was also wondering if in the Piraha language inflection or tones carries more meaning than Everett picked up on, especially since some of the posts said that the Piraha can converse in whistles. So .. hoi' inflected one way could mean "two", inflected another way it could mean "two plus a few more." (Your links to the 70 plus pages might answer that question. I can usually skim quickly, but some days it takes me a long time to get through something on an Adobe Reader. My laptop can be fickle. Anyone wanna buy me a kindle? )

 

[BrianX]

It's kind of worth noting that some Indo-European languages tend to treat verb tense as optional, prefering to use aspect for most things...

 

[steenkh]

A not quite accurate description of the practice and I don't think the correct interpretation of what is happening. This "avoidance practice" is only out of respect for the deceased and to ease the grief of their families. They still talk about the person, they just do not use their name. Look up Dreaming and First People for the literal take on your their reference to their ancestors.

I see I used a bad example. thank you for pointing it out.

 

[steenkh]

Everett must have just missed it.

Or he just used the term "past tense" in the linguistic sense. It is amazing how you can criticise somebody you hardly know anything about.