![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ironymaideni 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![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
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.
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.
