and different is not what you are looking for

[ironymaiden]

i read an article about linguistics on the bus today. part of it is a discussion of the intersection of brain structure and culture in the formation of language. Noam Chomsky thinks there is a generative grammar, an underlying structure to every language that comes out of the way the human brain works. but this language in the article, Pirahã, doesn't fit the theory.

because Chomsky's work is so widely accepted, one of the knee-jerk reactions to the anomalous findings is that the researcher must think that the Pirahã people are too stupid to form a proper human grammar. the other reaction is that the Pirahã people really are stupid.

the researcher in question appears to respect them and believe in their intelligence. they're not inbred or handicapped in any way, yet they definitely do not communicate the way we do. they live in a permanent and concrete present, they have no colors, they have no numbers.

the article is illuminating.* when i meet someone online, my entire opinion of them is formed by their facility with language. someone who doesn't communicate clearly in writing will make a poor impression. absent face to face interaction, a poor writer can't fit into my "theory" and therefore must be deficient.

unless my theory is wrong.

i suppose i'm a social network snob. i like livejournal because it makes people write. it sorts in favor of people who have a modicum of communication skill (and their fans). the structure allows for a rich, layered interaction. i've grown to appreciate the hybrid of openness and little (sometimes big) confidences. i'm used to the mob enforcement of clarity and bite in seattle.

so: posited proof of Pirahã intelligence comes from their abilities as hunters and gatherers and their societal structure. how do we get an accurate impression of someone if we can't see them active in their native environment and we have already established a failure to communicate?**






*tangentially, i think it's important reading for anyone who wants to write fiction about aliens.

**mostly rhetorical. but part of me wants an answer.

Comments

[kijjohnson.livejournal.com]

I found that article really interesting, too.

[refractednotion.livejournal.com]

I've known quite a few bright people who were absolutely miserable with the written word. I try not to hold it against them, in much the same way that I make allowances for people who don't do well with science or math.

[e-bourne.livejournal.com]

I don't know if this fits in with the article (which I haven't read) but we stress (as people who supposedly are communication experts) that people do not learn the same way, and therefore do not communicate the same way.

We've become a society that values the written word, but it hasn't always been so. In fact, for most of our human existence we didn't communicate as we do now, and those methods are still hard-wired into us. Unfortunately, those people who depend upon other measures to get by have sunk below the curve for most of us. They are invisible.

I see them as part of my work, and they are certainly intelligent, but they don't think like I do, and they certainly don't communicate well or write clearly.

Are they like the Piraha? Probably not, but they are probably more like them than I am.

We've adapted to our specific needs. the Piraha, I suspect, have adapted to theirs.

Humans are nearly infinitely flexible, from what I've seen. We can learn almost anything, survive almost anything, having jelly brains has been good for us. It's a shame the opinions that cone out of our jelly brains are frequently more rigid than the matter that imagined them.

Wow, I went on and on. Sorry about that. And I could be absolutely freakishly off base, since I didn't read the article, so if so, tell me I'm blowing smoke and ignore me.

[textualdeviance.livejournal.com]

when i meet someone online, my entire opinion of them is formed by their facility with language. someone who doesn't communicate clearly in writing will make a poor impression. absent face to face interaction, a poor writer can't fit into my "theory" and therefore must be deficient.

unless my theory is wrong.

I don't think you're wrong. I think it's just a matter of context.

I'm not much of a fan of cultural relativism, because it's usually used as an excuse from asshats who say we shouldn't get involved in ending oppression.*

However, when it comes to language skills, I think it's important to think about culture when figuring out whether a given person is "deficient."

I'm not going to knock the language skills of someone who comes from a culture that has other ways of communication, or doesn't have the same emphasis on communication.

I also am generally tolerant of people whose proficiency is in other forms of reasoning. M, for instance, can barely string together a coherent sentence in English, but he lives and breathes about six different programming languages, so I'm not about to argue. Sometimes the verbal part of people's brains just is grossly overridden by other parts.

However, I'm a lot less tolerant of people who are born into and raised in cultures in which language is valued, who have easy access to education and who don't show signs of other kinds of proficiency who can't be bothered to use apostrophes correctly.

I feel quite comfortable judging people who are obviously intellectually lazy or have a disdain for education.

*My argument to them is usually something along the lines of: If the oppressed people aren't participating in their culture because they have no power, then we can't assume they're consenting to their oppression just because said oppression is common in that culture.

[steve98052.livejournal.com]

Fascinating article! I wonder whether the core of the language is in the prosody, and the phonemes are customary ways of adding connotation and detail. In European-origin languages, words and larger constructs are collections of phonemes, and tone adds information that aids comprehension, but isn't strictly necessary to communicate.

As for the question of why it is that Pirahã breaks Chomsky's rules, one possible explanation that preserves Chomsky is that the universal grammar exists, but the places where Pirahã diverge from it are learned behaviors. By analogy, in many languages, double negatives are emphasis (Spanish for example), but in some languages, double negatives are positives (English for example). One might hypothesize that "double negatives are emphasis" is present in brain grammar, but it's easy to learn "double negatives are positives" as a learned behavior. So, in most languages, recursion is present because it's part of brain grammar, but the Pirahã language disregards it because it doesn't fit into Pirahã culture.

[buhrger]

i remember reading the article when it came out. i've briefly discussed it with the element of kirchnergross who's a linguist, but can't honestly remember the meat of what he said (i think it came down to "there are a number of different opinions on that, and it's not my area of research").

one of the knee-jerk reactions to the anomalous findings is that the researcher must think that the Pirahã people are too stupid to form a proper human grammar. the other reaction is that the Pirahã people really are stupid.
another is that the researcher is stupid misunderstanding his data, and that their language actually does fit chomsky's theories....

they live in a permanent and concrete present
<zen>so do we :-)</zen>

i think it's important reading for anyone who wants to write fiction about aliens.
shall i pass it on to peter w? heck, i think he blew far past it in blindsight.

when i meet someone online, my entire opinion of them is formed by their facility with language.
at least on sites like LJ, this is unavoidable and necessary: our entire interaction here is mediated by our use of language .html-augmented language. (well, that and our clever choice of userpics.)
it might work differently on Second Life or WoW, i suppose. on WoW your opinion would be formed by how well the other performs in combat farms yak livers or whatever it is they spend so much time doing there.

how do we get an accurate impression of someone if we can't see them active in their native environment and we have already established a failure to communicate?
i don't think we do. failure to communicate kinda implicitly dooms get an accurate impression. an accurate impression requires information transfer, i.e. communication. well, at least one-way communication. i guess the best answer i can come up with is to pay attention to as much information about the other as possible, and view all theories based on that information as contingent. this is difficult.

[ironymaiden]

i remember reading the article when it came out.
kijjohnson passed me The Best American Scientific and Nature Writing 2008, so i'll be reading year-old articles for a while.

yeah, i think Peter W already gets this. i was fascinated that the structure of the language is remarkably similar to the way the professional witness speaks in Stranger In a Strange Land.

[buhrger]

i was fascinated that the structure of the language is remarkably similar to the way the professional witness speaks
just skimmed and reread the relevant bits. yes, there is a resemblance. it's an attitude which it might be good to emulate a little more often.

Never seen that userpic

[andrew-the-oga.livejournal.com]

Isn't that image from an old Larry Niven cover? There's a memory tickling the back of my scalp, but I think I'm losing some of my faculties.

Re: Never seen that userpic

[ironymaiden]

yup. Neutron Star.

Neutron Star

[andrew-the-oga.livejournal.com]

So it is. Neutron Star.

"If you seen 'em, Lieutenant, they weren't apaches."

[andrew-the-oga.livejournal.com]

i suppose i'm a social network snob.

Probably true. Just online, d'you mean, or in corporeal life as well? Do you consider this a strength, or a weakness, of your character-- or, perhaps more precisely, are you proud or ashamed of it?

i like livejournal because it makes people write. it sorts in favor of people who have a modicum of communication skill

Okay too. Like many modes journalistic, LJ does sort more by facility with form, than by value of content. Value, of course, is a very relative and personal thing, and content is hard to measure or judge. Although it's not as easy to critique content as to critique style, it's sometimes important too.

[H]ow do we get an accurate impression of someone if...we have already established a failure to communicate?

Given the above, I doubt there'd be insurmountable problems-- only because people really interested in understanding these latest linguistic Ongadongas, or space aliens, or whatever unfamiliar group, probably aren't social network snobs. Those that are probably get weeded out when this "interest" is revealed as no more than casual. Anyone who's been ordered to show up in business casual for a high-stakes game of bafa-bafa knows that one.

"And remember, act professional."

Re: "If you seen 'em, Lieutenant, they weren't apaches."

[ironymaiden]

online. i can't be much of a corporeal snob without being a corporeal hypocrite, which i try to avoid. i love good food and good tea and good alcohol; i also really love kraft dinner and sometimes a cold white zinfandel. in spite of the username, i'm not into "ironic" appreciation - either i like something or i don't.

i'm confounded about whether to be proud or ashamed. i poke at it, like sticking my tongue in a sore tooth.

only because people really interested in understanding these latest linguistic Ongadongas, or space aliens, or whatever unfamiliar group, probably aren't social network snobs
true. which is why some of the people i only encounter online will remain a cipher to me. i just occasionally wonder what i'm missing.

[ivy]

I like LiveJournal for the same reason; I'm interested in intellectual stimulation, and in new thoughts, and that most often comes through for me in middling-to-long swatches of text. Pictures and video clips are nice, but they're rarely as thought-provoking for me as a well-written entry. I don't assume that people who don't write well are stupid, but I do find them rather more annoying in text-centric media, and I often will preferentially interact with good writers. I feel a little bit mean about this, but not very.