Quoi de neuf ?

Bienvenue sur Psychonaut.fr !

Le forum des amateurs de drogues et des explorateurs de l'esprit

Amazonian tribe has no word to express 'one,' other numbers

  • Auteur de la discussion Auteur de la discussion st.bot.32
  • Date de début Date de début

st.bot.32

Holofractale de l'hypervérité
Inscrit
5/10/07
Messages
3 886
Previously thought they just counted one, two, many. Apparently they don't have words that represent numbers at all, just few, and many.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/language-0624.html

MIT-led team finds language without numbers
Amazonian tribe has no word to express 'one,' other numbers

An Amazonian language with only 300 speakers has no word to express the concept of "one" or any other specific number, according to a new study from an MIT-led team.

The team, led by MIT professor of brain and cognitive sciences Edward Gibson, found that members of the Piraha tribe in remote northwestern Brazil use language to express relative quantities such as "some" and "more," but not precise numbers.

It is often assumed that counting is an innate part of human cognition, said Gibson, "but here is a group that does not count. They could learn, but it's not useful in their culture, so they've never picked it up."

The study, which appeared in the June 10 online edition of the journal Cognition, offers evidence that number words are a concept invented by human cultures as they are needed, and not an inherent part of language, Gibson said.

The work builds on a study published in 2004, which found that the Piraha had words to express the quantities "one," "two," and "many." The MIT researchers observed the same phenomenon when they asked Piraha speakers to describe sets of objects as they were added, from one to 10.

However, the MIT team decided to add a new twist--they started with 10 objects and asked the tribe members to count down. In that experiment, the tribe members used the word previously thought to mean "two" when as many as five or six objects were present, and they used the word for "one" for any quantity between one and four.

This indicates that "these aren't counting numbers at all," said Gibson. "They're signifying relative quantities."

He said this type of counting strategy has never been observed before, although it may also be found in other languages believed to have "one," "two," and "many" counting words.

The paper is part of a larger project that investigates the relationship between Piraha culture and their cognition and language, testing some claims by Daniel Everett, a linguist at Illinois State University, in a 2005 issue of Current Anthropology.

One other discovery of the project is that the Piraha can perform exact matching tasks as long as there is no memory component to them, but once there is a memory component, they approximate their matches. This suggests that language is a cognitive technology that aids humans in memory tasks.

Lead author of the paper is Michael Frank, a graduate student in Gibson's lab. Other authors are Evelina Fedorenko, a postdoctoral associate at the McGovern Institute for Brain Research at MIT, and Everett.
 
We studied this in Cultural Anthropology class.

Apparently this culture also has no words for 'colors' instead things are described in terms of relativity, I guess. For example a 'red flower' would be a 'blood flower', or a 'green frog' is really a 'leaf frog'.

They also have no concept of 'past' and 'future', for if you cannot see such things -- how can they truly exist?

Materialistic possessions also have practically no value.

Very interesting culture indeed.
 
They also have no concept of 'past' and 'future', for if you cannot see such things -- how can they truly exist?

They must be one enlightened culture as they are only living in the now. I find it very interesting that they do not address every individual in the culture as seperate from everyone else, rather as a whole; at least this is what I am interperting from their way of numbering.

Apparently this culture also has no words for 'colors' instead things are described in terms of relativity, I guess. For example a 'red flower' would be a 'blood flower', or a 'green frog' is really a 'leaf frog'.

This is interesting also. Have you ever thought of language and the way it address' objects? There way of adreesing a 'green frog' is 'leaf frog' because a leaf is green. Really what they are doing is applying metaphors for their language. It is like one big metaphoric world of words. I'm not sure how to describe this, but when I really think of language, it seems like words do not do justice to what the object actually is. It seems like we have just made up some words to describe that object and therefore classified everything else under that catogery. For example, the colour green; it can be used in so many different ways, but when you look at a leaf, what is it truly? To see beyhond those cultural and lingustic views, what does it actually stand for? Can you only experience what it is? Because 'leaf' or 'green' is something the human race has made up and carried on, its not something direct from the tree. What would the 'leaf' be if we took away all language and cultural influences? I'm not sure if I have made any sense, and I think I have went a little off topic, but this has always been a thought in my mind.

PEACE & LOVE
 
In fact it doesn't matter which sound you use, as long as the sound is recognised and linked to the actual reference within a community it'll work out.

user_1919 a dit:
[What would the 'leaf' be if we took away all language and cultural influences?

I'm trying a shot...

I think from the very first beginning when humans could just produce noises, one started making a specific noise everytime he saw a leaf.

After repeated encounters and the repeated production of the same noise, the onset of noise recognision by others became a fact. So everytime the specific noise was produced by someone, others their brains recognised the reference to the leaf.

Everytime someone would see a leaf, he'd just have to make that specific noise. Which is in fact from there on, a gained word with a meaning.
 
Very intresting.. I just picked up a book somewhat related to this, called Quantum Psychology. I have only read like 5 chapters, and it describes all that stuff about language being a 'filter' through wich we interpret reallity.
 
When I was studying history we discussed this in class.
The teacher asked why these people did not have counting numbers.

My answer: because they have no personal possessions.

The teacher agreed.
 
masta_g3 a dit:
Very intresting.. I just picked up a book somewhat related to this, called Quantum Psychology. I have only read like 5 chapters, and it describes all that stuff about language being a 'filter' through wich we interpret reallity.

:thumbsup:

This book is okay.
 
Years ago I started studying at university a subject called natural speech processing. It's effectively the combination of computer science, syntax and semantics of natural speech. Although parts of it are really theoretical, the part where it goes into semantics and the understanding of human language, and why we understand what others say - and why we cannot figure out how to teach a computer to understand it the same way... that part dives really deep into philosophy and the understanding of human communication.
I only did that for a year and a half without too much success, but I'm still very interested in the subject because it's very psychonautic in my opinion.

As far as I can remember it's a fact that people can only think as far as their languages go. If your language doesn't have a future tense, you cannot even think about the future. Maybe in a different way, but certainly not in the same way you could if your language had a future tense.
 
tryptonaut a dit:
As far as I can remember it's a fact that people can only think as far as their languages go.

Yes I thought about this in my 5 grams trip. I came to the conclusion that learning new languages was kinda expanding consciousness.
 
learning new languages can be conciousness expaning, but you can also think the other way around. you can only understand new languages if you are able to think otherwise.
where do the words come from ? where do they are born, apart from shakespeare ?
 
Retour
Haut