One, Two, Many - Language Shapes Thought 919
Chuck1318 writes "The Piraha tribe in the Amazon has only three words used in counting, that mean one, two, and many. A psychologist testing them has found that they are unable to accurately perform tasks involving quantities as few as four or five. He says that this shows that, at least for numbers, language shapes and limits how people can think." I can't help but be reminded of the gully dwarves from Dragonlance when reading this.
Where have I heard this before? (Score:4, Informative)
[ George Gamow, "One, Two, Three...Infinity" 1953 ]
Re:Where have I heard this before? (Score:5, Informative)
Well yes, but if you read the article, it's not claiming to be a new theory, simply *proof* of an existing theory. From the article:
Babel-17 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Babel-17 (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems to me, as a layman and parent of two children, that the thoughts and ideas occur anyway regardless of the ability to express them in a language that can convey meaning to others.
Now, to throw another sci-fi reference into the mix, I seem to recall that Caesar, the ape that lead the revolution in the Planet of the Apes mythology, got his start with a single word: No.
Re:Babel-17 (Score:3, Insightful)
That makes sense. Most children probably hear that word more frequently than any other word, so they pick it up quicker.
Child about to stick fork into light socket. Parent yells "no".
Child about to feed oatmeal to VCR. Parent tells them "no".
Child wants another piece of candy. Parent tells them "no" or maybe "yes", but commonly "no".
Child punches dog in the face. Parent tells the child "no", and maybe dog bites.
Any number of other scenarios i
Re:Babel-17 (Score:5, Insightful)
My 11 month old can understand a lot of words and commands, though she doesn't speak yet.
I have a two and a half year old who can tell you what she wants, and can understand nearly anything you might tell her. She can even express some abstract ideas "That's amazing", "This is fun".
It seems to me as a layman, that the only thoughts that occur naturally to children are "Feed me" and "make me comfortable again" (change diaper, make me warm, stop the thing that's hurting me). Everything else seems to be environmentally induced (most of the play I see in the 2.5 year old is mimicry of adult actions).
But evenso, I find it hard to grasp the concept of a language that goes to anything less than five-- because that's how many fingers you have and it seems to me that someone would want to count them sometime.
Also, personally, if I see a group of things, and it is five or less, I just know how many it is-- I don't have to consciously count them. Six though, I have to count. I do that by making two groups of three, so it's nearly instantaneous, but it is definitely not just "known".
On the other hand-- you only have two hands, so you'll rarely if ever manipulate more than two things at a time, so maybe that's it-- one, two, too many to do things with right now.
But for people who gather fruit and nuts... it seems like it would be a survival necessity to be able to tell the differnce between 4 cashews (I'm going to need to eat more) and 400 (I'm going to be so full).
And I think they can tell the difference. It seems, based on the article, that they just approximate volume. Because there is no need to tell the difference between 350 cashews and 400-- both of them will give a few people a snack. Similarly, who cares whether you have five avacodoes or six? That's a lot of avacadoes to eat.
Someone has to... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, I really do understand it. I just can't explain what it means. :)
In all seriousness, I would disagree in some cases (perhaps these are only exceptions...) where someone can conceive what is happening but either is not good enough at communicating, or is a horrid teacher, and so can not articulate.
I [think I] know this because I had a number of professors that suffered from this very affliction.
Re:Someone has to... (Score:4, Insightful)
"There are various patterns that crop up that I have a knowlege of, but I have no words that describe the system, because I dont think in that manner."
"And knowing how to move the stuff around without messing up a peice is something that I have in physical memory."
What you are articulating, and using, is a concrete application of abstract algebra, at a level deep and fundamental enough that the algebraists don't really have the vocabulary. There is a thin thread between the concepts and the language. It stretches, well out of sight, but it does not go forever.
You can take a cube apart and flip one piece on an edge so the cube cannot be put back together. I'd guess you would know it couldn't be put back fairly quickly without moving anything. That would be using language even if it is just to yourself.
Probably the best evidence of the influence of language is the nearly simultaneous discoveries of major inventions, like calculus. It seems also that the practical is often far in advance of the theoretical.
Re:Chicken and Egg. (Score:4, Interesting)
What a load of crap.
What happens is you have an understanding of something that you are unable to put into words.
Re:Chicken and Egg. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Chicken and Egg. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but that's just not the case. This happens to be my field - language is far more complicated than you might imagine. Linguistics, psycholinguistics, and visual cognition are not trivial just because you don't understand them on a serious level.
Re:Chicken and Egg. (Score:4, Insightful)
As a behavioral scientist (read: psychology), I have to absolutely disagree that "it's all pretty much been wanking". What a sorry attitude.
I do agree that many lay persons are capable of contributing meaningful insight to some of these problems, but in my own area of specialty, I encounter a lot of situations where people really have no clue what I am talking about, but think that they do. (FWIW, I am a grad student doing my thesis on Hedonic Prediction (in particular), and Motivation/Judgment-Decision Making in particular: I find that it takes at least 15 minutes to explain what these are really about to most people, and why they are related to industrial psychology).
As far as linguistics are concerned, having lived in a foreign country and REALLY learned the language, I know that language is a very deep area of research.
Re:Chicken and Egg. (Score:3, Insightful)
My life changed when my fifth grade teacher said the same words to me ~mmm mmm~ years ago. I immediately understood the basic truth of that statement and have never wavered in my belief of it.
More directly topical, I have studied three non-western languages (heavily influenced by Sanskrit, Bali, and/or Chinese) and find the mindsets of native speakers to be so shaped by their language
Re:How do you describe love? Fear? Anger? (Score:4, Insightful)
But they can't tell me how to do it. They can tell me what I did wrong (You used to much heat there), but they can tell me what it is that lets them know that (You just learn it).
Language is how we convey and obtaing information and instructions. If Joe can't tell you how to weld or why a weldment is bad, does that mean that he doesn't really know how or understand the process (which it would seem like at first), or does it just mean that the bridge to convey his knowledge and understanding is broken?
Re:Babel-17 (Score:3, Insightful)
As I recall from my undergrad days, such a language actually exists. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it is the language of a Native American group (Hopi?). Obviously the people speaking this language have ways of expressing negatives, for example by simply making a contrary statement that expresses their wishes. "Should we go to the store?" instead of "No, we shouldn't." reply "We sh
Re:Babel-17 (Score:5, Interesting)
It's an "it" to the French, too. It's not that the table 'has' gender - it's that the word belongs to a certain class of words that behave like it - that is, they're preceded by "la", "une", etc. In French, it's not "table", it's "la table" - the article is linked to the word itself (much like in English the infinitive is two words, but one idea).
In truth, it has nothing to do with the object itself. The French don't know why it's "la table" and not "le table", other than to tell you that it doesn't sound right as "le table".
The problem really comes because teachers like to teach it as if it really is confusing, and massively different from English, so you have to start seeing the gender in things. That's crazy. It's not different. It's just something you have to memorize, just like they have to memorize which adjectives you use "more", "most" with, and not "-er", "-est".
In truth, you can see the obvious bias in the study, as well. If your society has no language for counting above "two", then it likely has no need for counting above two, and so when presented with a situation where they need to count above two, they will be confused, because it's something they haven't done before. After all, when you're taught numbers, you're taught to count! So is it linguistic? I doubt it. I think the reverse is more true - thought (and society) shapes language.
I'd have to find out more about the study, but it seems really weak. You'd need a very careful control - that is, someone who lived in the same society as the Piraha, but spoke a different language that contained numbers higher than 2, and even that would be touchy because, as I said before, learning numbers above 2 means you were taught to count. But anyway, obviously no one like that exists, and I find it ludicrous that the psychologist made the leap "language directs thought" rather than "society directs language".
Re:Babel-17 (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Where have I heard this before? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Where have I heard this before? Whorf-Sapir ... (Score:5, Informative)
It has been discredited many times, as believable as it sounds. It is however a fascinating story; B.L. Whorf was an amateur linguist who was professionally a insurance claims inspector specialising in fire-related claims. He noticed that several fires where started when workers through cigarette butts into drums that in English we call "empty", even though they contained invisible and explosive fumes. Whorf realised that the workers knew this technically, but he wondered if being forced to think of the drums as "empty" changed their view of the drum. He did lots of research on languages of central america, and came up with interesting theories because many of these languages (eg Hopi) appear to have very different verb tenses; Whorf proposed that this gave their speakers almost-Einstein-like views of time and space.
A numbers of tests have been down over the years. Some languages have only a few words for color, for example. However, experiments show that this does not impair speakers of these languages from differentiating different shades of colors.
Re:Where have I heard this before? Whorf-Sapir ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I assume this is the same thing. Nomadic tribes don't deal with a lot of things, because everything they have they have to carry. So there's no need to count above two. If suddenly you ask a guy to keep track of four things, he's gonna have trouble: not because he doesn't have a word for it, but because he's going to have difficulty differentiating between the four things. It's no different than if I moved from driving a car to driving a semi trailer with no training. I'd get some of it, but important, non-intuitive concepts would be lost on me, and I'd probably crash. It's not because I don't have a word for them.
This is like the Inuit people and their umpteen words for snow. We outsiders can recognize the different types of snow with only a little practice, but since we don't get snow 8 months of the year, there's no need for it. English speakers understand foreign concepts like "esprit d'escalier" (the french term for all the cool things you wish you would have said when you leave somebody's house) or "bokeh" (the japanese term for the photographic effect that occurs with large aperatures in which the foreground is in sharp focus and the background is out of focus and fuzzy, thus drawing the eye towards the focus), even if we don't know what to call them.
It's experience that drives language, not vica versa -- althought the part of the brain that employees language is also responsible for the most critical human activity: symbolic logic.
Re:Where have I heard this before? Whorf-Sapir ... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think there is definitely some validity to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, but it's more subtle than is characterized in this article and in previous posts. Here's an example:
As a native speaker of American English I perceive a distinction between a pidgeon and a dove. I have a word each, after all. I would eat a dove. I would not eat a pidgeon.
To the best of my knowledge, German makes no such distinction. There is one word for both: Taube*. The Germans that I have spoken to about this perceive pidgeons and
Re:Where have I heard this before? Whorf-Sapir ... (Score:3, Insightful)
In English, we only have one word for "duck," despite the fact that there are many kinds of ducks. They all have different sizes, temperments and flavors, but we call them all "duck." Which leads to some pretty depressed diners, who like one sort of duck meat an
Re:Where have I heard this before? Whorf-Sapir ... (Score:3, Insightful)
If your claim is that language has no influence on the thought of its speakers, I disagree. I think the influence is subtle, but it's there. Language and culture have an influence on each other.
I'll bet you're right that Germans don't care which is which. The distinction is culturally unimportant. The culture influenced the language. However, since there is no distinction in the language spoken by the general non-bird-watching German public, they are less inclined to perceive a distinction than a speaker o
Exactly! (Score:3, Funny)
That's why I'm figuring, you know, maybe these Amazon fuckers are just bad at math. If you're that bad at math, so bad that using the fingers to count doesn't help, you really don
Re:Where have I heard this before? Whorf-Sapir ... (Score:4, Funny)
Irconceivable!!
Re:MOD PARENT UP (Score:5, Funny)
Re:MOD PARENT UP (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Where have I heard this before? (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems reasonable that someone who has never needed to count beyond 2 is unable to do so. It also wouldn't suprise me if that same person didn't have a word for 3 or 4 or any way to express any number beyond 2.
Why would we assume from this that the language develops before the ability? Why couldn't it be the case t
Re:Where have I heard this before? (Score:5, Interesting)
Which makes them smarter than Hottentot tribesmen....
Re:Where have I heard this before? (Score:4, Interesting)
A crow given a hook made of metal wire used it to fish a snail out of its shell. A second crow allowed to watch, but given only a straight piece of wire almost immediately grabbed it, put it under one foot and using the other bent it into a hook, then used it to eat the snail it was given.
Personally, I think maybe congress should outlaw testing on crows. If a few of them get ahold of cell phones for instance, it's difficult to say just what kind of trouble we'd be in for...
Re:Where have I heard this before? (Score:5, Funny)
nope, it's easy...with crows, it'd be murder!
Re:Where have I heard this before? (Score:3, Funny)
We'd soon see posts in slashdot about welcoming our new crow overlords?
Re:Where have I heard this before? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Where have I heard this before? (Score:5, Interesting)
As a one-time owner of an African Grey, I can testify to this. I got my bird, Caesar, for my 11th birthday, and hand-fed him. Anyway, these days he lives with my grandparents (who have another African Grey) since it was too hard to keep him in a small New York apartment when my family moved here when I was 15 (I'm 25 now, so the bird is about 14 years old now, still a kid by Grey standards - they often live 50-60 years or even longer in captivity, sometimes as long as 70 or 80, barring illness. In fact, I'm pretty sure he'll outlive my grandparents and I'll end up with him again some day.
In any case, he had a vocabulary of at least 60-80 words when he was 3 or 4 years old. He exhibited exactly the kind of word combination that you reference - often semi-sensical, sometimes very amusing, sometimes scarily accurate and meaningful. They are fast to pick up on words or phrases, often times without a clear idea of what the words or phrases mean, but just as often they clearly DO associate meaning. "Caesar good boy", "Caesar good bird" or just "good bird" were often cooed out when he was feeling mellow after a meal. He seemed to take delight in yelling my name from across the apartment in my mother's voice to get my attention (they definitely learn names and associate them with people).
Interestingly, Greys have long memories - Caesar recognized my mother when she visited my grandparents in Florida recently even though he hadn't seen her in at least 3 or 4 years. The first thing he tried to do was regurgitate some food for her (yuck, but that's just their way of showing love).
I actually did a prize-winning middle school science project on Caesar, working on teaching him object differentiation skills, by color and shape, and associating them with words. He was pretty decent at simple object differentiation and fetching tasks administered verbally when you could get him to cooperate (he was less good at wanting to cooperate).
These birds can have AMAZINGLY strong personalities, be very willful and sometimes even nasty. Caesar was prone to losing his temper (okay, now I'm definitely ascribing human traits here, but he would have these fits of anger) and biting my fingers and ears. My fingers still bear the scars to this day. He was always timid or downright scared around strangers and could get nasty with even other less-favored family members who he saw every day, despite having been hand raised, lovingly treated, well fed and so on. He could also be very sweet and loving, desired affection, petting and human contact.
But Greys are the only animals I've ever seen capable of what I can only label "deceit". When a dog comes up to you and licks you, he wants to be petted, and if you pet him, he'll be happy. Caesar would sometimes play a nasty trick on people where he'd say "Rub my head" and cock his head like he wanted the attention. Somebody would slowly approach and gently extend their fingers to rub his head, then he's suddenly turn his head and take a big nip at their finger, usually accompanied by "OW! Stop That!" or "Bad bird!". I think it was mostly a way of getting more attention, which they do crave, but the effect was downright spooky coming from an animal.
Counting vs. biggest conceivable number (Score:3, Informative)
If you want to know what's the biggest number you can conceive of, use flash cards with differenct numbers of dots. Flash them for a tenth of a
Counting Crows!?! (Score:3, Funny)
yeah well, (Score:4, Funny)
funny but missing the point (Score:5, Interesting)
If this tribe calculated 0, 1, 2, many, many 1, many 2 or something like it there would be no trouble. Just confusing for base 10 users.
But it seems this tribe doesn't have/need the concept of higher numbers.
What I would like to know if they understand the concept of zero. The invention of 0 is a usually considered a pretty big step in western culture and one arabs like to claim as their contribution to the world. If this tribe wich can only count to 2 understands 0 then it would make an intresting find.
They may not have a need to count higher numbers but me thinks it is very important to know the difference between 1 fish and 0 fish.
What may also be intresting is that if you need language to count and animals can count does that mean that all animals that can count have a language. And not just a language of "food" "danger" "sex" but a language with "1" "2" "3" etc?
Re:funny but missing the point (Score:4, Insightful)
That seems obvious. But then again humanity survived quite a long time without the 0 and when the Arabs finally invented it and later brought it to Europe, it for quite some time was heavily objected against in certain circles as being something devilish and all that.
There is a major mental difference between "I have no fish" and "I have a number of fish, but it just so happens that this number is 0." That is through even without speaking of performing arithmetic in base X and understanding the special role of that 0 thing in that context.
Re:funny but missing the point (Score:4, Informative)
Re:funny but missing the point (Score:4, Informative)
I'm sorry but that statement is misleading. The 0 is generally accepted to have been invented in the Dravido-Indic cultures, what is currently Southern India. See following URL: Google Cache of Invention of 0 [64.233.167.104] This was then spread through the Persian/Arab (Islamic) scientists and eventually to Europe.
Re:funny but missing the point (Score:5, Informative)
Could it be? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Could it be? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Could it be? (Score:5, Funny)
I would have thought it was more along the lines of
"In the land of the only-to-2-counting, the 3-counter is burnt at the stake for being a witch."
Discworld... (Score:3, Funny)
Of course as soon as I saw the title all I could think about was Detritus the Troll.
Re:Discworld... (Score:4, Informative)
In fact, trolls traditionally count like this: one, two, three... many, and people assume this means they can have no grasp of higher numbers. They don't realize that many can be a number. As in: one, two, three, many, many-one, many-two, many-three, many many, many-many-one, many-many-two, many-many-three, many many many, many-many-many-one, many-many-many-two, many-many-many-three, LOTS.
- Men at Arms
Re:Discworld... (Score:3, Funny)
ARTHUR: Right! One!... Two!... Five! GALAHAD: Three, sir! ARTHUR: Three!
Does this mean anything? (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps they are not used to takss involving more than 3 items because usually it goes like this:
Hunt
Kill
Eat
Bang over head
Shag it
Sleep
Now I think some of thier ways of going about business is even more refined than ours.
Re:Flamebait?? (Score:3, Funny)
I wanna be a "researcher" too. (Score:3, Insightful)
Why does that not surprise me.
It's not so much that language shapes thought, it's entirely the other way around. If you and your tribe have never discovered mathematics, it's only natural that you have no words to express them. These people are making it sound like if we recite a list of number names we will become genius mathematicians.
Re:I wanna be a "researcher" too. (Score:5, Informative)
were tested for practical skills involving
quantities of items or events larger than 3.
Actually, it is surprising (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Actually, it is surprising (Score:5, Interesting)
Without counting, or saying any number to yourself, or using a word to describe the concept of quantity, or referring to your fingers, tell me how many X's are on the next line:
X X X X X X
Think about it. You want to count them up to six, then remember "Six" and not remember " X X X X X X". This is the problem with the study. Language is, by definition, symbolic. That' the whole point of it, to not have to remember each experience in its totality, but to be able to share it symbolically with someone, so it is a) easier to remember and b) easier to transfer. Otherwise you'd be telling stories with models and pantomime. Now then, back to our experiment. How many were there? Draw it. See? Much harder than just saying "Six. I see Six X's" (you might have said "two groups of 3 X's", which you HAVE words for, but still, harder than "Six". The problem is that, as describe above, not that language affects how we think, but our vocabulary affects how we are able to recall and describe the world. You can still tell the difference between five X's and six X's... and you may even be able to build up "groupings" by using your own words for things. Does it mean you're not as smart as people who can describe "six"? No, you just are less able to recall and describe parts of the world you don't have words for.
I'm sure some day, aliens will come down and say to us "Electrons do not orbit nuclei, fools! Slithy toves gyre and gimbol in the wabe!" and then laugh into their tentacle-sleeves at us. (apologies to David Gribbin)
Re:I wanna be a "researcher" too. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I wanna be a "researcher" too. (Score:3, Insightful)
After all, I would have thought that surroundings have a great deal of importance in how a group of peoples thought process is shaped, and the need for pattern recognition, which is more what the researchers are testing here.
Re:I wanna be a "researcher" too. (Score:3, Informative)
One of the tests where to lay out a pile of nuts, and
the people in question were supposed to lay out an
equal number of nuts in front of them. With 1,2 and 3 nuts
they were perfectly able to do that.
With more than 3 nuts, they were not.
So, LISP programmers are dumb? (Score:3, Funny)
Inca's and Zero (Score:3, Interesting)
There are 0 spoons
Re:Inca's and Zero (Score:5, Funny)
INDIA (was Re:Inca's and Zero) (Score:4, Informative)
You see, in American English, you have only one word for Indians, unlike in other languages where they can actually tell the difference between Native Americans and the people who invented the decimal system, grammar, and many other useful things, like "Karma".
Re:INDIA (was Re:Inca's and Zero) (Score:3, Informative)
http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTo
Re:INDIA (was Re:Inca's and Zero) (Score:5, Funny)
Re:INDIA (was Re:Inca's and Zero) (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Inca's and Zero (Score:3, Interesting)
I am afraid not.Indian mathematicians were the first to postulate Zero [wikipedia.org]
Infact the first person to discuss this was Brahmagupta [wikipedia.org]
What are commonly known as Arabic numerals were infact Indian Numerals.About 6th century A.D. saw the advent of tradesman in the arab peninsula.Relying on the monsoon winds they would often travel to India,where they found and started using the Indian numeral system.
When the crusades took place ,European scholars came in contact with the numeral system in use by the Arabs.
Re:Inca's and Zero (Score:3, Insightful)
All depends on your point of view. http://www.oberlin.edu/external/EOG/OYTT-images/El ishaGray.htm [oberlin.edu]
Too Many replies (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Too Many replies (Score:4, Funny)
Sapir-Whorf (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Sapir-Whorf (Score:5, Interesting)
Oddly enough, that's pretty much how the word "Dutch" got into English: it's a corruption of "Deutsch" (one of the things Germans call themselves) -- the assumption at the time being all non-French continentals were the same people.
Back on topic, you can't take the "one -- two -- many" thing too far: almost every language shows at some stage of its development a "one two many" noun declension. Old English had specific dual endings; as did all the Germanic languages; dual was present in Proto Indo European and survived into most of the child languages.
Many semitic languages show vestiges of a 1 2 many number system (Arabic and Hebrew still retain a dual declension for some nouns). Swahili retains a separate noun class entirely for objects that come naturally in pairs (maono rather than *nyono, for instance).
I think all this points towards the fact that the distinction between one and two, and the distinction between two and many, is simply more important to people than the distinctions among various numbers greater than two, and that "one two many" is a natural linguistic response to the conditions of human life throughout most of human history -- people only develop more complex plural systems when agriculture and trade make it neccessary to develop them.
Obligatory discworld reference (Score:5, Funny)
"In fact, trolls traditionally count like this: one, two, three...many, and people assume this means they can have no grasp of higher numbers. They don't realize that many can be a number. As in: one, two, three, many, many-one, many-two, many-three, many many, many-many-one, many-many-two, many-many-three, many many many, many-many-many-one, many-many-many-two, many-many-many-three, LOTS.
This proves nothing (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously, this should be self-evident. Sadly, it seems this is not the case.
Language is key (Score:5, Insightful)
I can only imagine that one in a completely different society would have a very different thought pattern. The common roots of Western languages indicates a similarity in thought, and people who learn foreign languages are far more adept at understanding and integrating with that society.
Similarily, in computer languages different grammatical structures lead different programmers to analyze and solve problems differently: i.e. functional vs imperative. Add the context-sensitive nature of human languages, and this becomes substantially more complex.
Ok, thats longer than my normal post, but this is a really interesting topic
Re:Language is key (Score:4, Interesting)
No, I can learn how to make a gun, plow a field, fetch water from a well from an Asian person with whom I have no common language - almost as easily as I could with an English speaking person.
I posted previously to this topic that it's all about the willingness of the people to learn,and the access to information that they are willing to subject themselves to is what forms thought and intelligence.
psych 101 (Score:5, Interesting)
No Orwell references? (Score:4, Insightful)
=Smidge=
Re: No Orwell references? (Score:3, Informative)
> I'm surprised nobody's made the "reduced language = reduced ability to form mental concepts" link with Orwell's '1984'. This seems like some strong evidence that it might actually work.
When politicians try spin control via calling something what it ain't, does it ever convince anyone who didn't already want to be convinced?
superior language implies superiour thoughts? (Score:4, Interesting)
This makes one wonder if a another language would give us the ability to better reason about other things. Would we be smarter if we had a better language in which to think?
There is an artifical language called lojban (http://www.lojban.org/ [lojban.org]) based on predicate logic but which is meant to be used as other "real" languages (compare with eg. esperanto, interlingua and swahili). The question is, would native speakers of lojban be better a rational thought? As far as I know there are no native speakers of lojban but what would happend if I raised my (hypothethical) children to speak if from birth?
Mathias
Re:superior language implies superiour thoughts? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's the problem with this psychologist's study--it doesn't say whether or not they learned larger numbers and applied them effectively.
Re:superior language implies superiour thoughts? (Score:4, Insightful)
I find this really interesting, but is it that they can't tell the difference, or they don't care? I mean, there's the whole thing about Eskimos having 5 million words (I'm exaggerating 'cause I don't remember the real number) to describe snow. The rest of us who grew up in snowy climates, we could tell you that there are different kinds of snow, fluffier and less fluffy. The fact that I don't have good words to explain doesn't mean I don't perceive the difference. It's just that, when it's snowing, I don't necessarily care what kind of snow it is, and so to me, it's just snow.
I mean, the fact that the words exist mean someone was thinking about things that they had no good words for, and they invented the words. It seems to me very likely that the proper conclusion is that the life you live shapes both human thought and speech. If the tribe lead lives that needed a number "3", I'd guess they'd come up with it themselves, no problem.
Personality depends on language, too (Score:5, Interesting)
Many fluently multilingual people will tell you that they are a slightly different person when they speak a different language.
I'm fluent in English and Japanese, and I can attest to this. In fact, there have been occasions when I was out of touch from Japanese speakers for a long time, and I began to miss my "Japanese self" because it hadn't had a chance to surface for so long.
Re:Personality depends on language, too (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, no. I am bilingual (German/English) and live in the US. On business trips to Europe, I wa ssurprised to notice that my presentation style is very different, depending on the language I give it in. Even if I walk into the auditorium not knowing which langage I am giving it in in advance. That happens occasionally when I speak in front of a group in a German speaking country and realize that non-German speakers are part of the audience.
Even weirder, I have to keep myself from lapsing back into English when I talk about my work to Germans. This never happens when I talk about anything else. Seems like my work is intimately associated with English.
So? (Score:5, Insightful)
But, even knowing that, is anything so dramatic going on? "Western" people with the proper training and experience could tell the difference at a glance between a screen full of C programming and a screen full of FORTRAN. My grandmother would struggle with that task. It would just all look like gibberish to her. Likewise, someone experienced in wine tasting can describe in detail the differences between two wines most of the rest us couldn't even tell apart.
A lot of what's necessary (or at least very helpful) in learning about programming or wines is the specialized language. When I'm told that the difference between two wines is that one is "fruitier" than the other, I've got something to look for. The nebulous and complex experience of tasting wine is brought into my understanding a little because I can now use a word to identify a part of what I'm sensing.
My point is, the idea that language affects how we think and what we perceive is not really all that novel.
Language and concepts are tightly integrated (Score:4, Insightful)
One of my favourite examples, as a Norwegian stranded in the UK, a country where people simply does not get the concept of candy with ammonium chloride [finnishfood.net], is how to talk about it.
In the UK, the word "candy" has mostly gone out of use, and usually refers to brown sugar or alt least "old fashioned" sweets based on brown sugar. Instead you'd refer to the different types of confectionary directly, with most of the sugar based confectionary grouped under "sweets".
Now, ammonium chloride based candy is most definitively not sweets. Though it is always fun to trick Brits into chewing Turkish Pepper or some other Scandinavian ammoium chloride based candy... :)
The word "confectionary" similarly doesn't really cut it - it's recognised as a grouping, and if you asked people if thy wanted any confectionary they'd wonder what kind you were talking about.
Scandinavian languages on the other hands have words for this, since it's an integral part of our culture. In Norwegian you'd talk about "godt" or "smaagodt", referring to small sweets, bits of licorice, small chocolate pieces or candy full of ammonium chloride, as well as assorted sour stuff.
But what would a usable equivalent be in the UK? I usually end up resorting to candy, but Brits then tend to assume that since I'm foreign I'm probably resorting to US English, and talking about sweets...
There are also a lot of findings to the contrary (Score:5, Informative)
Example #1: Different languages divide up the color space differently. For example, Russian divides the color space covered by the English word "blue" into two separate color terms. However, language doesn't appear to affect the way people perceive color. For example, when researchers ask informants to judge color chips as "same" or "different," there appears to be no effect at all from the division of color space in the informant's native language.
Example #2: Chinese doesn't have a way of marking counterfactual or hypothetical statements as some languages do. One researcher (Bloom) had speakers of English and of Chinese read the same story in their respective native languages, and the speakers of Chinese did in fact have trouble answering whether such-and-such really happened. Bloom took this as evidence that language strongly affects thought. But another researcher said that the problem was just a bad translation into Chinese, and repeated the experiment with a better translation. Now the Chinese speakers had no difficulty saying "Of course such-and-such didn't happen."
On the other hand, the tense/aspect system of Russian does appear to have an effect on the way that speakers evaluate the temporal relationships in non-linguistic pictures of events. So it is occasionally possible to tease out a case where language does seem to have an effect on non-linguistic thought.
In sum, a blanket statement that "language determines thought" is much too strong. Even if the finding of the article mentioned above is accurate, the weight of the evidence seems to be that these cases are the exception, not the rule.
BTW: I'm sure that somewhere in this discussion, someone is going to bring up the idea that the Inuit (Eskimos) have some huge number of words for snow. That claim almost always gets trotted out in this kind of context. This is a kind of academic urban legend that just won't die. The linguist Geoff Pullum thoroughly debunked this whole fable some time back, and traced the series of misunderstandings and exaggerations which had given rise to it. In fact, it appears that Inuktitut has just two words for snow.
Sapir-Whorf refuted (Score:5, Interesting)
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, however, even though long proven wrong, has shaped the thinking of a whole generation of people, including those in the feminist movement, proposing "politically correct" words (female forms e.g.) hoping that they would induce a new thinking.
Language may be a result of knowledge and cultural concepts, thus reflect it. But it does not shape it, because - and that's known as de Saussure's work - the word is not equal to the concept. Whether you call something a small feline animal or a cat, it's still the same entity that you are thinking of. Whether you call someone a nigger, an african american, a 'brother', a black person -- the name does force us to change our thinking. (It may prompt us to think about misconceptions, of course!)
Steven Pinker's book "The Language Instinct" is a good read.
Haven't read Feigenson's original article. But it seems painfully obvious to me that given all the other linguistic evidence, the Brazilian tribe might simply have established a culture of arithmetics that doesn't allow you to count more than two things.
Russian colors (Score:5, Interesting)
So what I know is that in Polish there are also two words for blue: niebieski and blekitni. (Okay so I had to strip-off the accents because slashcode did not like them.) They are light-blue and dark-blue respectively. (Really niebieski is related to the word for sky so you might think of this word as sky-blue, I do and that is what I meant earlier about learning Polish from a linguist probably was different from a native Polish speakers experience.)
Now you might think this is simple, well not really. Here is a translation of what happens in practice with some regularity. My wife says, "Bring me the blue one," where blue is the word for either light-blue or dark-blue depending on the color of the object. I oblige but then hear a response of, "No I said the blue one not the green one." Bizarre because notice I wrote blue and green. It is not like she said light-blue and I brought the dark-blue widget. Sometimes she claims I brought the purple thing instead. These exchanges are entirely in Polish because this what we speak predominantly at home.
Okay now I am not color-blind. For my work I need to pass a test every two years and in the report I always pass all of the tests, even those for which a certain percentage of people that are not typically considered color-blind would not pass. I can clearly distinguish between a wide spectrum of colors.
After a while of this my mother noticed it once so we did a little test with the family. My mother, father, uncle, aunt, and grandmother were all part of it. All of them had spent the majority of their lives in Poland and almost without fail they would agree with the colors that my wife gave to objects. Then we repeated the test with my brother and his girlfriend who except for a vacation had not spent any time in Poland. They agreed with me the majority of the time.
Now this test was not scientific in any way and it did involve alcohol because it happened during a family get-together, but I still think that native Polish speakers vs English speakers think of colors as different because of their languages. What I mean is that there are many shades of colors that are sort of between green and blue and others that are between green and purple and given a proper ambiguous color such as this Polish speakers will tend to identify it differently than English speakers.
So what I am trying to say after all of this is that the example of the Russian language having two words for blue is sort of a red herring. It is irrelevant to the real issues. In fact given two people that are not color blind, one a Russian and one an English speaker, they should not have any extra difficulty in being able to distinguish between color chips as being different or not. What I am saying is that they will think of the same color chip as a different color in their minds. Now this is subtle, and I tend to agree with the parent poster that it is a special case, but definitely an example of how language influences understanding and meaning. Here is a final true story to illustrate this idea.
My wife's favorite color is light-blue. Once I bought her a gift that was a light blue dress. When she got it she said that the dress was nice, but that, "Don't you know by now that I do not like the way I look in green?" Think about intend and effect in that example and you will see what I mean about language being important.
Gully Dwarves (Score:5, Informative)
Junk Science? (Score:3, Interesting)
"Science Express" has its own paraphrasal of the paper at its website [sciencemag.org] but you have to pay for the full text. There is also a link to "supporting online material" that includes a free document describing some of the methds and results.
Subject to the caveat that I did not fork over the $$$ for the full article, I'd say the conclusions appear unremarkable. Humans raised in cultures that lack counting can't count beyond 3, and also can't express the concept. I see no experiment that indicates causality between what I consider two aspects of the same phenomenon.
Blackadder (Score:3, Funny)
BALDRICK: Some beans.
BLACKADDER: Yes... and no. Let's try again, shall we? I have two beans, then I add two more beans. What does that make?
BALDRICK: A very small casserole.
BLACKADDER: Baldrick, the ape creatures of the Indus have mastered this. Now try again. One, two, three, four. So, how many are there?
BALDRICK: Three.
BLACKADDER: What?
BALDRICK: And that one.
BLACKADDER: Three... and that one. So, if I add that one to the three, what will I have?
BALDRICK: Oh! Some beans.
And then... (Score:3, Insightful)
I ran a similar experiment once (Score:5, Funny)
Detritus from Diskworld (Score:3, Funny)
one, two, many, many-one, many-two, many-many, many-many-one, many-many-two, lots...
uncertainty prinssipuls (Score:3, Interesting)
Evaluate the Study (Score:5, Insightful)
To contrast, let us imagine that the Pirahã are conducting a similar study on a member of another culture. As this site is of the
Additionally, the Pirahã have a phrase in their language which indicates a degree of certainty, usually applied at the end of a sentence:
My point here should be fairly obvious. We cannot assume that we know the critical details of the study based upon a web article which, between two columns of advertisements, still only takes two pages (on my monitor, at least).
Second, and more breifly, the assumption that counting capacity defines intelligence is inherently flawed. The Pirahã have no need for counting; this is not to say they are not capable of it. Most Americans don't need to know what a coral snake looks like or that touching the little yellow-and-black frog is a bad thing. This doesn't mean they couldn't learn.
In summary, while the study definitely presents an interesting idea, one must evaluate it critically before accepting it as fact. Mistakes can be made.
That was a lot more than I meant to type. Thanks for the time.
Not linguistic, cultural (Score:3, Interesting)
Damn, that's confusing. Sorry.
Re: Troll (Score:5, Funny)
> Or the trolls in Terry Pratchett's Discworld books
Finally, a
Re:Get those research grants! (Score:5, Funny)
2. Leave aformentioned slashdot poster in amazonian jungle with same level of technology as amazonian tribe s/he ridiculed.
3. Wait for slashdot poster to die in hostile environment which ridiculed tribe thrives in
4. Collect his/her life insurance
5. Profit!!
Re:Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems like no-one takes the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis serious these days, but I always thought it makes sense.
Why? It seems to me that all manner of spontaneous word creation (and outright theft from other languages) is hobbled if it were true. I mean, if thoughts of 0 or 3+ things were important to these people, they would have that thought long before they came up with a clean word to express it. As another poster joked, a computer isn't hobbled by only having 0 and 1 at its disposal. I think it is more correct to say that these people are not Turing-complete (for whatever reason) rather than blaming the language.