Study of obscure Amazon tribe sheds new light on how language affects perception (fwd)

[Jan Tucker]

I read the previous highly technical descriptive linguistic explanation of
Piraha language, and had the same reaction to the article. It would be
extreemly helpful to any readers unfamiliar with descriptive linguistics
jargon to have a translation of this into language that other academics can
understand as well. I've been following the dialogue and would very much
like to understand the explanation in non-jargon terms. I haven't yet looked
at the articles you provided. Thanks

Jan Tucker
Applied Cultural Anthropologist

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Lewis" <coyotez at DARKWING.UOREGON.EDU>
To: <ILAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 2:28 PM
Subject: Re: Study of obscure Amazon tribe sheds new light on how language
affects perception (fwd)


Translation please.
Excuse me, for those native people on the list who are working on issues
of their own language survival, what does the below article mean, in
non-cryptic english please? This is a significant issue in the areas of
anthropology and linguistics, the lack of pratical applicability of the
theoretical notions of scientists to issues of native language survival
within native communities. I think there needs to be a supreme attempt
to explain these theories and other notions at the community level so
that we all can benefit. Otherwise the critiques of Vine Deloria Jr. are
proven true (big heads talking with each other). I also think this is a
significant issue that needs discussion on this listserve as technology
and the application of technology within the struggle for native
language survival, should be at some level accessible to the native
communities who are at the forefront of this struggle. Not that Jess in
particular is unaware of this issue, but simply a wakeup call for him
and other linguists on the listserve.
Thanks,
David Lewis
University of Oregon
Department of Anthropology

jess tauber wrote:

>Dan Everett, whose work was ultimately the basis for this report, posted
this (see below my contribution) a few days ago on LINGUIST- I suggest that
readers take a look particularly at the paper link on his website:
Cultural constraints on
grammar(http://ling.man.ac.uk/info/staff/DE/cultgram.pdf)
>
>My own take is that the Piraha~ situation is symptomatic only of its
morphosyntactic/phonological status, which prevents deep
hierarchicalization- in its syntax, in its morphology, in its phonology, and
in parallel with cultural knowledge organization (complexity of tools, depth
of generational knowledge of kin, myth, etc.). This status may in fact be a
normal fact of life in the morphosyntactic cycle when heavily polysythetic
languages with a lot of morphological fusion break down towards the
isolating/analytical type again. One sees in various parts of this phase of
the cycle languages with low numerical specification, tendency towards
borrowing pronouns (either from external sources or from internal ones such
as distance demonstratives), lack of syntactic embedding, perhaps a trend
towards serialization, and ultimately monosyllabification, which helps to
re-complexify the phonology and also may give rise to tonal and/or vocalic
register, and in extreme cases, clicks.
>
>Grammatical complexity in such languages is completely overshadowed by
complexity in the pragmatic side of the coin, and possibly also in dominance
of prototypically right-brain processes over left-, prosody over
segmentality phonologically, and so on.
>
>Piraha~ is in the early-mid stages of such breakdown, if my hypothesis is
correct. Information in such a language is radically distributed over the
entire discourse, and also not limited mostly to the speech channel, and
thus one would expect a great deal of paralinguistic effect to accompany it.
Nothing in Everett's paper (and see also the story text:
http://ling.man.ac.uk/info/staff/DE/panther.pdf) really seems to contradict
such an analysis.
>
>One symptom to look for in languages in this part of the cycle (grossly) is
a strong tendency towards phonological monosegmentality of morphology, as
well as incorporation of adverbial and higher level materials into it (the
residue of former polysynthesis).
>
>Jess Tauber
>
>
>Message 1: Piraha numbers, counting, and culture
>Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:09:10 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Daniel Everett <dan.everett at man.ac.uk>
>Subject: Piraha numbers, counting, and culture
>
>Many readers of this list may have seen today's CNN report on the
>Science article which was published yesterday on Piraha
>(http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/08/19/science.counting.reut/index.htm
l).
>The Science article reports on research carried out by Peter Gordon,
>along with me and my wife, Keren, several years ago to test my view
>that Piraha had no counting. Gordon confirmed that indeed Pirahas have
>no concept of counting and further refined my original ideas on the
>matter.
>
>Gordon's conclusion in Science is that Piraha offers support for the
>Whorf hypothesis. While I believe that this is plausible, my own view
>is that the lack of counting must be seen in the larger cultural
>context and that when thus viewed in conjunction with the lack of
>color words, the lack of embedding, the simplest kinship system ever
>documented, and various other characteristics, a different,
>non-Whorfian picture emerges. The basic conclusion I reach is that
>culture constrains grammar in ways many of us have not previously
>imagined. I take this to be an argument against, for example,
>Universal Grammar, at least the more widely-accepted versions of it.
>
>Anyone interested in reading on this further (and the Piraha case does
>seem to be getting a lot of attention from various countries, based on
>my email folder this morning), my paper "Cultural Constraints on
>Grammar in Piraha", currently under review, is available from my
>University of Manchester website: at
>http://ling.man.ac.uk/info/staff/DE/DEHome.html
>
>
>