Discussion Details
| Title: | Response to McGinnis on Mundurucu/Piraha counting |
| Submitter: | Daniel Everett |
| Description: | Martha writes:
"I've been following the published debate with interest, and I must say that this doesn't strike me as a fair response to Pica et al.'s paper. Even if there are differences between the linguistic representations of number in Piraha and Munduruku, the fact that Munduruku lacks words for numbers above 5 makes it a reasonable object for comparison with Piraha. The claim that numeracy is affected by a lack of words for numbers does predict that a lack of words for numbers above 5 will affect numeracy with respect to amounts above 5. Indeed, this prediction is supported by the Pica et al. study." I was not responding directly to Pica's paper. I was responding to the claim that their research cast doubt on the Piraha analysis that I proposed, namely, that culture plays a crucial role as one of many determining factors in the architecture of the grammar. For this reason, numeracy is a small part of my paper, which also includes studies of kinship, lack of embedding, lack of quantification words, lack of color words, etc. It is the conjunction of these facts which, I argue, is in need of a unifying explanation. I argue that culture, not innate knowledge, provides this. Martha's reply ignores this point. But it is crucial. It is the particular constellation of properties in Piraha culture and grammar that give the Piraha case its force. And that particular set of properties is not found in Mundurucu, at least it hasn't been shown that they do. So the Pica, et. al. paper, while very interesting for studies of numeracy, is pretty much irrelevant to the claim in my paper that culture can exercise an architectonic effect on grammar, affecting even the so-called core grammar. By the way, the most comprehensive study of numbers and counting in Amazonian languages that I am aware of is by Diana Green and is, I believe, available though the SIL Brazil website. My paper addresses the genetic factor as well. Martha appears not to have read that paper. What the paper says is that there are many cases of Piraha raising children of Brazilian fathers. There is no difference in their behavior relative to numeracy or any of the other facts I discuss in my paper. This shows that genetics is highly unlikely to play a role in the matter. Moreover, in a recent field visit, Keren Everett was able to design some more culturally appropriate counting experiments and these preliminary studies do show that some Piraha adults seem to be able to learn to count. This is predicted by my cultural account (among others), but not by the Whorfian account in any clear way. Rochel Gelman (Rutgers Psychology) has agreed to help me design additional experiments to test numeracy among the Pirahas. Ted Gibson (MIT Brain and Cognitive Sciences) has also agreed to discuss experiment design for testing my claims on the lack of embedding. So additional studies are planned. I agree strongly that Whorfian relativity plays no explanatory role in the Piraha facts. In fact, my proposal that it is culture affecting language is exactly the opposite of a Whorfian account. Dan Everett Daniel L. Everett Professor of Phonetics & Phonology Linguistics and English Language University of Manchester http://ling.man.ac.uk/info/staff/DE/DEHome.html |
| Date Posted: | 06-Nov-2004 |
| Linguistic Field(s): |
Language Documentation
Linguistic Theories Cognitive Science |
| LL Issue: | 15.3121 |
| Posted: | 06-Nov-2004 |
