[lit-ideas] One too many [was One, Two, Many]
- From: "Mike Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 12:43:46 -0500
I heard Peter Gordon being interviewed on Science Friday yesterday and I was
at a loss as to why this was news. "No word, no concept" has always seemed
a no-brainer to me. Aren't words just symbols of concepts? If there's no
symbol, it's a pretty safe bet there's no concept. The intriguing question
then is how do concepts arise within a culture. Apparently not through
language (but note the "apparently"). Language always only mirrors. Of
course there are carnival mirrors that warp and distort our concepts into
new realities -- literature is often such a mirror, so too is most of what
goes under the rubric "Liberal Arts and Humanities". Wherever language is
the major tool of the trade, you'll find distortion mirrors mirroring
distortion mirrors. And that's all wonderful fun. I love it though I don't
ply any of the trades myself.
But how do concepts enter a culture? Why, in other words, should humanity
have ever thought of naming units? Or even thinking "units." What are the
units of sky? They're there for astronomers and navigators (I would guess),
but for me there's only sky. Well, my guess is because distinguishing units
became important for astrological / sociological reasons. "If we just had
some way of tracking how many full moons there are between seasonal changes,
maybe then we could know when to sow and when to harvest. Some kind of
database, that's what we're after. Who here knows how to count?"
Concepts, I conjecture, arise out of cultural need primarily, and
secondarily out of play. This post, for instance, is just play. Certainly
no need for it and certainly I've distorted reality, and you in your part
will distort what I've said to fit your own game or you'll snort and pass
by: "One too many posts from that guy." The Praha, on the other hand, could
never think such a thing.
Mike Geary
Memphis
now back to work
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andreas Ramos" <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Lit-Ideas" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 11:02 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] One, Two, Many
> Language may shape human thought
>
> (NewScientist.com news service) Language may shape human thought -
suggests a counting study
> in a Brazilian tribe whose language does not define numbers above two.
>
> Hunter-gatherers from the Pirahã tribe, whose language only contains words
for the numbers
> one and two, were unable to reliably tell the difference between four
objects placed in a
> row and five in the same configuration, revealed the study.
>
> Experts agree that the startling result provides the strongest support yet
for the
> controversial hypothesis that the language available to humans defines our
thoughts.
> So-called "linguistic determinism" was first proposed in 1950 but has been
hotly debated
> ever since.
>
> "It is a very surprising and very important result," says Lisa Feigenson,
a developmental
> psychologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, US, who
has tested babies'
> abilities to distinguish between different numerical quantities. "Whether
language actually
> allows you to have new thoughts is a very controversial issue."
>
> Peter Gordon, the psychologist at Columbia University in New York City who
carried out the
> experiment, does not claim that his finding holds for all kinds of
thought. "There are
> certainly things that we can think about that we cannot talk about. But
for numbers I have
> shown that a limitation in language affects cognition," he says.
>
> "One, two, many"
>
> The language, Pirahã, is known as a "one, two, many" language because it
only contains words
> for "one" and "two"-for all other numbers, a single word for "many" is
used. "There are not
> really occasions in their daily lives where the Pirahã need to count,"
explains Gordon.
>
> In order to test if this prevented members of the tribe from perceiving
higher numbers,
> Gordon set seven Pirahã a variety of tasks. In the simplest, he sat
opposite an individual
> and laid out a random number of familiar objects, including batteries,
sticks and nuts, in a
> row. The Pirahã were supposed to respond by laying out the same number of
objects from their
> own pile.
>
> For one, two and three objects, members of the tribe consistently matched
Gordon's pile
> correctly. But for four and five and up to ten, they could only match it
approximately,
> deviating more from the correct number as the row got longer.
>
> The Pirahã also failed to remember whether a box they had been shown
seconds ago had four or
> five fish drawn on the top. When Gordon's colleagues tapped on the floor
three times, the
> Pirahã were able to imitate this precisely, but failed to mimic strings of
four of five
> taps.
>
> Babies and animals
>
> Gordon says this is the first convincing evidence that a language lacking
words for certain
> concepts could actually prevent speakers of the language from
understanding those concepts.
>
> Previous experiments show that while babies and intelligent animals, such
as rats, pigeons
> and monkeys, are capable of precisely counting small quantities, they can
only approximately
> distinguish between clusters consisting of larger numbers. However, in
these studies it was
> unclear whether an inability to articulate numbers was the reason for
this.
>
> The Pirahã results provide a much stronger case for linguistic
determinism, says Gordon,
> because, aside from their language, they are otherwise similar to other
adult humans,
> whereas there are many more factors that separate babies and animals from
adult humans.
>
> However, scientists are far from a consensus. Feigenson points out that
there could be other
> reasons, aside from pure language, why the Pirahã could not distinguish
accurately for
> higher numbers including not being used to dealing with large numbers or
set such tasks.
>
> "The question remains highly controversial," says psychologist Randy
Gallistel of Rutgers
> University in Piscataway, New Jersey. "But this work will spark a great
deal of discussion."
>
> Journal reference: Science Express (19 August 2004/ Page 1/
10.1126/science.1094492)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] One too many [was One, Two, Many]
