Language

[DHodges]

Does language determine what we are capable of thinking?

[Ryan Rudolph]

Intriguing article, it questions some of the highest regarded theories in Linguistics. However, I would say that Noam Chomsky’s theories still holds some value because almost all of the societies in the world do have some basic underlying semantic similarities.

But this article does post an interesting challenge. Is subtlety of thought a function of brain capacity or a function of language complexity? And I suspect that there is an intimate link between the two.

So the development of language is important to foster more complicated types of comprehension later in life.

These tribesmen were probably too old to learn anything new, however, the children of the community could probably easily learn the basics of numbers given a bit of time.

[Cory Duchesne]

Eventually Everett came up with a surprising explanation for the peculiarities of the Pirahã idiom. "The language is created by the culture," says the linguist. He explains the core of Pirahã culture with a simple formula: "Live here and now." The only thing of importance that is worth communicating to others is what is being experienced at that very moment.

I would think that if they wanted to kill the researcher in order to gain something they wanted, then their language would have to communicate a past event, the past would have to become a consensus among tribesman, as they apparently wanted to use the past event to justify a plan to make a particular outcome manifest in the future (to Murder, and then get rewarded with whiskey)

It's certainly not that the jungle people are too dumb. "Their thinking isn't any slower than the average college freshman," Everett says. Besides, the Pirahãs don't exactly live in genetic isolation -- they also mix with people from the surrounding populations. In that sense, their intellectual capacities must be equal to those of their neighbors.

If the genes from the outside get imported in, its curious that the more advanced concepts wouldn't likewise (or concomitantly) get imported in. You would think that if a non-Piraha individual (equiped with the concepts for numbers and subordinate clauses) made his way into a Pirahã culture becoming a father or a mother, then that individual would not only contribute his/her outsider genes, but would speak to his or her children using numbers or even introduce subordinate clauses. I can't imagine it would be very natural to do away with the concept for numbers. It would make communicating to the kids easier, and the children you'd think would catch on quick. But then again, I wonder if there are severe punishments dealt upon those who deviate from the norm.

Overall, I find the article interesting, but more work I guess needs to be done on correlating the Pirahas behaviors with their language.

For instance, the article mentioned how the Piraha had no means of communicating or even thinking in terms of numbers. However, they must have words for 'ammounts' like small, medium and large. How could they ever produce a large stock of arrows, or know how much to cook?

[Cory Duchesne]

These tribesmen were probably too old to learn anything new, however, the children of the community could probably easily learn the basics of numbers given a bit of time.

True, but it's worth noting that the article mentions members of a similar tribe, the Warlpiri, who were capable of leaning to count numerically. Why the Warlpiri and the Paraha were differentiated in this regard would be interesting to find out.

To quote from the article:

The Warlpiri -- a group of Australian aborigines whose language, like that of the Pirahã, only has a "one-two-many," system of counting -- had no difficulties counting farther than three in English.

But the Pirahãs proved to be completely different. Years ago, Everett attempted to teach them to learn to count. Over a period of eight months, he tried in vain to teach them the Portuguese numbers used by the Brazilians -- um, dois, tres. "In the end, not a single person could count to ten," the researcher says.

[sschaula]

Cory,

I would think that if they wanted to kill the researcher in order to gain something they wanted, then their language would have to communicate a past event, the past would have to become a consensus among tribesman, as they apparently wanted to use the past event to justify a plan to make a particular outcome manifest in the future (to Murder, and then get rewarded with whiskey)

I was wondering about that as well.

For instance, the article mentioned how the Piraha had no means of communicating or even thinking in terms of numbers. However, they must have words for 'ammounts' like small, medium and large. How could they ever produce a large stock of arrows, or know how much to cook?

The article mentioned they had words for "more", and also "smaller than". To answer the question specifically: just eyeing it up would do the trick. If a person is intelligent enough there's no need to speak or comprehend words in order to get by.

[Cory Duchesne]

Scott,

The article mentioned they had words for "more", and also "smaller than".

Glad you mentioned that. I gave the article another read - and realized something peculiar.

The article actually said they didn't have a word for more. However, a few sentences later the article then mentioned they had a word for small. And so something is not right here! It's logically impossibe for the concept of small to exist without the concept of large.

Here is what the article said:

Equally perplexing: In their everyday lives, the Pirahãs appear to have no need for numbers. During the time he spent with them, Everett never once heard words like "all," "every," and "more" from the Pirahãs.

Ok, so above you can see that they are claiming the paraha's have no word for 'more'.

There is one word, "hói," which does come close to the numeral 1. But it can also mean "small" or describe a relatively small amount -- like two small fish as opposed to one big fish, for example.

Ok, so they don't have a word for more, but they have a word for small? Surely they must have a word for more, or at least large. If they didnt, then the word they reportedly have for small would be meaningless. It couldnt possibly exist as meaningful to them.

To answer the question specifically: just eyeing it up would do the trick. If a person is intelligent enough there's no need to speak or comprehend words in order to get by.

But I guess I'm just curious how they get by collectively, how they cooperate and agree on what needs to be done. It seems to me that Large and small, more and less would have to be established as spoken concepts in order for there to be the sort of cooperation neccesary to run a family and village.

[Cory Duchesne]

Hodges opened up the thread asking, 'Does language determine what we are capable of thinking?'

What I'm wondering:

Does 'the quality of exposure impinged upon our senses' determine what we are capable of concieving? I would say that is the case, and from there it seems our conceptions determine our language.

The following is an excerpt from an article by anthropologist COLIN M. TURNBULL who studied an african forest tribe called the BaMbuti.

The logic of the observations depicted in the article seem to be implying that we can't be conscious of an event without a concept for what that event means in relation to all other known events. (Which I say is an absolute truth)

Distance- and Size-Perception

At the end of a particularly long and tiring period of treking through the forest from one hunting group to another, I found myself on the eastern edge, on a high hill which had been cleared of trees by a missionary station. There was a distant view over the last few miles of forest to the Ruwenzori Mountains: in the middle of the Ituri Forest such views are seldom if ever encountered. With me was a Pygmy youth, named Kenge, who always accompanied me and served, amongst other capacities, as a valid introduction to BaMbuti groups where I was not known. Kenge was then about 22 yr. old, and had never before seen a view such as this. He asked me what the "things" before us were (referring to the mountains). "Were they hills? Were they clouds? Just what were they?" I said that they were hills bigger than any in his forest, and that if he liked we would leave the forest and go and see them and have a rest there. He was not too sure about this, but the BaMbuti are an incorrigibly curious people and he finally agreed. We drove by automobile in a violent thunderstorm which did not clear until we entered the Ishango National Park at the foot of the mountains and on the edge of Lake Edward. Up to that moment from the time we had left the edge of the forest, near Beni, visibility had been about 100 yd.

As we drove through the park the rain stopped and the sky cleared, and that rare moment came when the Ruwenzori Mountains were completely free of cloud and stood up in the late afternoon sky, their snow-capped peaks shining in the sun. I stopped the car and Kenge very unwillingly got out. His first remark was to reiterate, what he had been saying ever since the rain stopped and we could see around us, that this was a very bad country, there were no trees. Then he looked up at the mountains and was completely unable to express any ideas–quite possibly because his language had no suitable terms, being limited to the experience of a strictly forest people. The snow fascinated him, he thought it must be some kind of rock. More important, however, was the next observation.

As we turned to get back in the car, Kenge looked over the plains and down to where a herd of about a hundred buffalo were grazing some miles away. He asked me what kind of insects they were, and I told him they were buffalo, twice as big as the forest buffalo known to him. He laughed loudly and told me not to tell such stupid stories, and asked me again what kind of insects they were. He then talked to himself, for want of more intelligent company, and tried to liken the buffalo to the various beetles and ants with which he was familiar.

He was still doing this when we got into the car and drove down to where the animals were grazing. He watched them getting larger and larger, and though he was as courageous as any Pygmy, he moved over and sat close to me and muttered that it was witchcraft. (Witchcraft, incidentally, is known to the BaMbuti only through association with the Bantu. They have no similar concept of the supernormal.) Finally when he realized that they were real buffalo he was no longer afraid, but what puzzled him still was why they had been so small, and whether they really had been small and had suddenly grown larger, or whether it had been some kind of trickery.

As we came over the crest of the last low hill, Lake Edward stretched out into the distance beyond, losing itself in a hazy horizon. Kenge had never seen any expanse of water wider than the Ituri river, a few hundred yards across. This was another new experience difficult for him to comprehend. He again had the same difficulty of believing that a fishing boat a couple of miles out contained several human beings. "But, it’s just a piece of wood," he protested. I reminded him of the buffalo, and he nodded unbelievingly.

Later we went all over the National Park with one of the African guides. He and Kenge conversed in KiNgwana, the lingua franca of the area, and Kenge was constantly looking out for animals and trying to guess at what they were. He was no longer afraid or unbelieving; he was trying to adapt himself, and succeeding, to a totally new environment and new experience.

The next day he asked to be taken back to the forest. He reverted to his original argument. "This is bad country, there are no trees."

[Ryan Rudolph]

Cory wrote:

The following is an excerpt from an article by anthropologist COLIN M. TURNBULL who studied an african forest tribe called the BaMbuti.

The logic of the observations depicted in the article seem to be implying that we can't be conscious of an event without a concept for what that event means in relation to all other known events. (Which I say is an absolute truth)

This is an interesting article too. Yes, the tribe member has crude conceptions of his local forest environment, and he cleaves to this knowledge, as he is afraid to learn how the new environment relates to his native forest community. And his reluctance to see the relationship between the new and the old prevents any deeper type of comprehension. By the end of the article, he blocks out much of what he observes, and reverts back to his original position. Namely that the mountainous area is bad because it makes him feel uncomfortable due to its unfamiliarity, so he dismisses the new environment as inferior simply because it lacks the familiar qualities of his forest community.

Also the article depicts how he keeps interpreting new identities through the language of familiar identities from his naïve forest. So his lack of experience is the reason for his inability to label things as they are.

So subtlety of understanding has a relationship to subtlety of language, which has a relationship to diversity of exposure or diversity of experience.

However, this type is of deeper comprehension is only possible in inquisitive fearless personalities that that are not easily contented with their present level of understanding.

[sschaula]

Cory posted the article which contained this:

As we turned to get back in the car, Kenge looked over the plains and down to where a herd of about a hundred buffalo were grazing some miles away. He asked me what kind of insects they were, and I told him they were buffalo, twice as big as the forest buffalo known to him. He laughed loudly and told me not to tell such stupid stories, and asked me again what kind of insects they were. He then talked to himself, for want of more intelligent company, and tried to liken the buffalo to the various beetles and ants with which he was familiar.

Haha! That's interesting!

"I'm squishing your head!"

[DHodges]

Ever think that maybe these indigenous peoples just really like messing with the minds of anthropologists? I think it would be just about irresistible. "Let's pretend we don't know we have feet."

I think there would be some sort of feedback loop - when people are repeatedly exposed to a certain phenomenon, they will eventually make up a word for it. At first you don't have a word, so you would just say "that" and point when it came around.

I can't imagine not being able to count. It seems like such an incredibly basic thing, that would be useful in any environment. Talking about things you might do later on seems pretty basic, too. It seems to me that the Pirahã have various workarounds for the limitations of their language.

Anyway, if you are going out to the jungle to visit a remote tribe, it is definitely a good idea to take a shed with you that you can lock. I would not have thought of that. I'm not sure how you would get it there, though.

[MindExpansion]

I haven't read anything, besides the title on this thread, mind you, I do have a few things to add:

"Does language determine what we are capable of thinking?"

Hmmm...I've pondered that one (who's Helen Keller?). I think the more in tune one is with language, the more eloquently they express their thoughts, increasing understanding, self-fulfillment, and deluding others....

There's a problem, people do not think in words, they think in patterns, pictures, symbols...Knowing more words/meanings increases brain stimulation off sorts. Although, a lame thought dressed in many three- syllable words may come across as sounding intelligent. So does the thought reflect the words, used or vice versa?...One 'large' word has the capability to explain a few sentences, therefore saving time, but who knows what was thought by the speaker....

Words to me are like empty shells, the meaning behind is what matters, but cannot be accurately seen by the receiver (person who is listening/reading). It's like looks -"Oh, guys look at the tits on that broad"....lol

[MindExpansion]

I haven't read anything, besides the title on this thread, mind you, I do have a few things to add:

"Does language determine what we are capable of thinking?"

Hmmm...I've pondered that one (who's Helen Keller?). I think the more in tune one is with language, the more eloquently they express their thoughts, increasing understanding, self-fulfillment, and deluding others....

There's a problem, people do not think in words, they think in patterns, pictures, symbols...Knowing more words/meanings increases brain stimulation off sorts. Although, a lame thought dressed in many three- syllable words may come across as sounding intelligent. So does the thought reflect the words, used or vice versa?...One 'large' word has the capability to explain a few sentences, therefore saving time, but who knows what was thought by the speaker....

Words to me are like empty shells, the meaning behind is what matters, but cannot be accurately seen by the receiver (person who is listening/reading). It's like looks -"Oh, guys look at the tits on that broad"....lol

[MindExpansion]

I'll use Ryan R, as an example and inturn he can lower himself to my level and have himself a good old merry field day

Let me first state the obvious Ryan is eloquent:

Intriguing article, it questions some of the highest regarded theories in Linguistics. However, I would say that Noam Chomsky’s theories still holds some value because almost all of the societies in the world do have some basic underlying semantic similarities.

.

Yes it is, due tell us ol' chap. Oh, it questions some of the highest regarded theories in Linguistics! Ooo, I beg thee to pray! That absolutely takes my breath away; Really? Language was created inorder for people to understand each other!!!
(Did you know bees cannot speak, but to express themselve they do a little dance)

--We have come a long way to be able to conprehend the meaning of language, thank-you for the insight

But this article does post an interesting challenge. Is subtlety of thought a function of brain capacity or a function of language complexity? And I suspect that there is an intimate link between the two.

No interesting challenge? *sign* We have a god amongst us!

* Yes, there is a relation, the only way we were to evolve in language, was because we evolved in brain capacity. The the chicken come fisrt, or was it the egg??

So the development of language is important to foster more complicated types of comprehension later in life.

Does the mind influence the brain, or is it the brain influencing the mind, please tell, Oh great one?

These tribesmen were probably too old to learn anything new, however, the children of the community could probably easily learn the basics of numbers given a bit of time.

It's a scam! what do you think would happen if we adopted a newborn baby and put it though our educational system?

Remember: "you can't teach an old dog, new tricks"

Thanks man you've been a great sport:)!

[Ryan Rudolph]

Mind Expansion wrote:

* Yes, there is a relation, the only way we were to evolve in language, was because we evolved in brain capacity. The the chicken come fisrt, or was it the egg??

In an evolutionary context, perhaps brain capacity increased as the complexity of language progressed. However, there would need to be an initial burst of neocortex growth for the first words to be spoken.

Mind Expansion wrote:

Does the mind influence the brain, or is it the brain influencing the mind, please tell, Oh great one?

It is dangerous to make the division, but I will for arguments sake. The brain prevents the functioning of mind. The brain is chattering, it is restless disorganized thoughts rooted in confusion, emotion and anxiety. Thought in the confused mind is usually always fear or painful rememberance. This is why through insights and realizations, one pushes the brain to its absolute limit as a means to fall into a state of unknowing emptiness; this is mind, but it not a state that one is aware of because there is ‘nothing’ intrinsically there to be aware. There is no "I" that ever emerges and says: "I am experiencing mind now", it is not an experience that can be experienced by the ego.

So there is no mind, but there is mind. If that makes any sense. Making the division is dangerous because it gives the egotistical center something to run with, and then we have the whole messy business of attachment to knowledge occurring.

[MindExpansion]

First of all I'd like to take a moment and acknowledge the way you handled yourself, you did not get riled up for a stupid reason and I really respect that:)

It is dangerous to make the division

I don't get it?

Do you see the mind as a separate self? I view humans as animals who gained consciousness (contemplation, reasoning -those type) through evolution. Our mind is a self aware software. What do you think?

[/quote]The brain prevents the functioning of mind. The brain is chattering, it is restless disorganized thoughts rooted in confusion, emotion and anxiety. Thought in the confused mind is usually always fear or painful rememberance. This is why through insights and realizations, one pushes the brain to its absolute limit as a means to fall into a state of unknowing emptiness; this is mind, but it not a state that one is aware of because there is ‘nothing’ intrinsically there to be aware. There is no "I" that ever emerges and says: "I am experiencing mind now", it is not an experience that can be experienced by the ego.

I don't understand that either. The brain enables the functioning of the brain. I believe when our brain dies, we're DEAD; just like animals. Why does a mind get confused, isn't it easy to understand?

This is why through insights and realizations, one pushes the brain to its absolute limit as a means to fall into a state of unknowing emptiness; this is mind, but it not a state that one is aware of because there is ‘nothing’ intrinsically there to be aware.

The above I understand through my own common daily experiences...Whats beyond the absolute limit? I am aware of my depression, that's what hurts. It feels like a maze of puzzles that I must work through in orther to achieve joy, or better understanding...Do you think something is wrong with me?

I believe the explanation of mind in different religions is actually the soul...

[Ryan Rudolph]

MindExpansion,

how old are you? Are you still in high school?

[MindExpansion]

I'm turning 20 this year and I'll be graduating and going on to University late next year:)

So, y didn't you answer my questions. You seem to know everything, yet you cannot answer my questions; How can I understand what you mean? Come on give it a try?

[MindExpansion]

What's the point of answering, if you're not capable of understanding?

[Ryan Rudolph]

Mind Expansion,

Our mind is a self aware software.

Not by default. The brain is quite disorganized, incoherent, and fearful by default. The human being is highly governed by biological conditioning, and one must go beyond all that to find greater rationality. However, such a journey requires immense seriousness and the courage to suffer, as insights into the nature of the psyche actually reveal ones imperfections.

Why does a mind get confused, isn't it easy to understand?

Confusion is a quagmire because if the psyche is in a state of confusion, it has a difficult time perceiving this due to the fact that the confusion blocks any deeper insight. For instance: if one suggests that we are programmed to seek out a sexual partner, and to negate that biological urge is actually freedom, most people will disagree because they believe they are in control, they don’t realize that they are conditioned or programmed to seek out a mate. The truth is usually quite difficult to come to grips with.

It feels like a maze of puzzles that I must work through in orther to achieve joy, or better understanding...Do you think something is wrong with me?

Depression is quite typical, but it is rather unfortunate to feel that way. Sometimes depression is genetic and it is difficult to shake, but sometimes it is the result of wrong thinking, and so if one shakes the wrong thinking then the depression falls away naturally. For instance: many times depression is the result of striving to achieve something that we think we want, and not acheiving it. For instance the desire to be famous, or the desire to appear as something great in the eyes of others.

Also, the very pursuit of joy can result in depression. The striving for greater pleasures can leave one exhausted and in a state of despair. Ones pleasure can be the cause of ones pain.

I believe when our brain dies, we're DEAD; just like animals. (then you said): I believe the explanation of mind in different religions is actually the soul...

These two statements are at odds with each other. I would say that we begin our journey as irrational, and we can achieve rationality, but one cannot be certain whether rationality is mortal or immortal, and it is irrelevant anyhow.

[DHodges]

In an evolutionary context, perhaps brain capacity increased as the complexity of language progressed. However, there would need to be an initial burst of neocortex growth for the first words to be spoken.

Before there were words, there were barks, shrieks, groans, whines and so on. Words are not something that suddenly came into being, but gradually evolved out of more primative, and less specific, vocalizations.

Communication between non-human animals is pretty common. Many animals do at least as well with physical gestures as with vocalizations - besides barking or whining, a dog expresses itself by wagging its tail, baring its teeth, assuming a playful pose, and so on.

Language is a matter of degree.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Dhodges wrote:

Before there were words, there were barks, shrieks, groans, whines and so on. Words are not something that suddenly came into being, but gradually evolved out of more primitive, and less specific, vocalizations.

Yes, but the gradual evolution of noises into words also has a relationship to increasing brain size over time. The neocortex has grown significantly since the barks, groans and shrieks.

let me rephrase my original statement: However, there would need to be a significant growth in the neocortex for complicated sentences/understanding to take place.