Studies of Amazonian languages challenge linguistic theories

Toasté   Fri Aug 05, 2005 1:49 pm GMT
Interesting...

Contact: Carrie Olivia Adams
coa@press.uchicago.edu
773-834-0386
University of Chicago Press Journals

Studies of Amazonian languages challenge linguistic theories

Two studies that appear in the August/October 2005 issue of Current Anthropology challenge established linguistic theories regarding the language families of Amazonia.


New research by Dan Everett (University of Manchester) into the language of the Pirahã people of Amazonas, Brazil disputes two prominent linguistic ideas regarding grammar and translation. The Pirahã are intelligent, highly skilled hunters and fishers who speak a language remarkable for the complexity of its verb and sound systems. Yet, the Pirahã language and culture has several features that not known to exist in any other in the world and lacks features that have been assumed to be found in all human groups. The language does not have color words or grammatical devices for putting phrases inside other phrases. They do not have fiction or creation myths, and they have a lack of numbers and counting. Despite 200 years of contact, they have steadfastly refused to learn Portuguese or any other outside language. The unifying feature behind all of these characteristics is a cultural restriction against talking about things that extend beyond personal experience. This restriction counters claims of linguists, such as Noam Chomsky, that grammar is genetically driven system with universal features. Despite the absence of these allegedly universal features, the Pirahã communicate effectively with one another and coordinate simple tasks. Moreover, Pirahã suggests that it is not always possible to translate from one language to another.

In addition, Alf Hornborg's (Lund University) research into the Arawak language family counters the common interpretation that the geographical distribution of languages in Amazonia reflects the past migrations of the inhabitants. At the time of Christopher Columbus, the Arawak language family ranged from Cuba to Bolivia. Yet, geneticists have been unable to find significant correlations between genes and languages in the Amazonia. Moreover, Arawakan languages spoken in different areas show more similarities to their non-Arawakan neighbors than to each other, suggesting that they may derive from an early trade language. As well, Arawak languages are distributed along major rivers and coastlines that served as trade routes, and Arawak societies were dedicated to trade and intermarriage with other groups. But, the dispersed network of Arawak-speaking societies may have caused ethnic wedges between other, more consolidated language families with which they would have engaged in trade and warfare. Finally, there is increased evidence that language shifts were common occurrences among the peoples of Amazonia and were used as a way to signal a change in identity, particularly when entering into alliances, rather than migratory movement.

****

Sponsored by the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, Current Anthropology is a transnational journal devoted to research on humankind, encompassing the full range of anthropological scholarship on human cultures and on the human and other primate species. Communicating across the subfields, the journal features papers in a wide variety of areas, including social, cultural, and physical anthropology as well as ethnology and ethnohistory, archaeology and prehistory, folklore, and linguistics. For more information, please see our website: www.journals.uchicago.edu/CA
greg   Mon Aug 08, 2005 5:56 am GMT
Les idées politiques de Noam Chomsky sont peut-être mieux étayées que certaines de ses théories linguistiques autour de la grammaire générative transformationnelle. La plupart des trouvailles de Chomsky sont issues de généralisations hâtives basées sur un nombre (très) limité de mots.

Par ailleurs Chomsky et ses disciples ont postulé l'existence, en anglais, de "syllabes lourdes" ou "groupes forts" ou "noyau lourd" basés sur des voyelles "explicitement" tendues ou dont la tension était "sous-jacente". Cette approche a été rejetée par Lionel Guierre (Paris VII) : celui-ci a articulé ses travaux sur le nombre de consonnes préfinales, c'est-à-dire le nombre de consonnes (phonétiques) entre la dernière et l'avant-dernière voyelle (phonétiques) des mots anglais (après élimination des affixes éligibles).

Si les thèses chomskyennes relatives à la langue anglaise peuvent être contestées, alors rien n'interdit de remettre en question les vues de Chomsky sur l'universalité de certains caractères linguistiques.

L'exemple proposé par Toasté vient confirmer cette possibilité.
Brennus   Mon Aug 08, 2005 9:46 pm GMT
I've always believed in the Whorf hypothesis that the language that a people speaks reflects the way they think, feel and view the world around them. I'm sure that the lexicons and grammatical structures of Amazonian languages only reinforce that notion.

Generally speaking, Arawakan genes and languages probably correspond to each other but American Indian tribes often raided other tribes and took captives and slaves. So, some Arawakan speaking Indian populations could easily be partly composed of non-Arawakan Indian genes. Similar things certainly happened in Europe too. Who knows how much Greek, Thracian, Carthaginian and Arab slavery from the Roman period is in the modern Italian and / or Spanish populations?
Xatufan   Thu Sep 08, 2005 10:08 pm GMT
I remember talking about that here: http://www.antimoon.com/forum/2004/6182.htm
Fredrik from Norway   Thu Sep 15, 2005 1:24 am GMT
Wow!
But rather typical that people are busy with petty nationalist quarrels instead of discussing this!
Phil   Fri Sep 23, 2005 12:41 am GMT
So what are peoples opinion on Chomsky's universal grammar theory. I myself have always been a little suspicious of the claim that the knowledge of language is "ingrained" in our DNA
greg   Sun Sep 25, 2005 1:09 am GMT
Chomsky paraît dépassé sur beaucoup de points.
Fredrik from Norway   Tue Sep 27, 2005 2:03 pm GMT
I agree with Chomsky about humans having a very developed sense of language ingrained in us, but "language" in a very wide sense of the word. I don't think grammar necessairly is ingrained in us.
greg   Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:32 am GMT
Je suis d'accord avec Fredrik from Norway. Les humains (et les animaux) ont une prédisposition quasi-innée à communiquer (utiliser un langage). Mais pensent-ils tous ? Et puis la simple existence de l'appareil phonatoire propre aux humains n'implique pas nécessairement le surgissement de la langue : l'homme n'a peut-être pas toujours articulé des sons pour communiquer. Il est possible, à l'aube de l'humanité, qu'il se soit contenté d'en produire une infinie variété (langage vocal, mais absence de langue). Le propre des langues humaines "modernes" est de recourir à un système de double articulation : avec un système fixe et limité de graphèmes (langue écrite) ou de phonèmes (langue orale), les hommes peuvent exprimer une infinité de discours. Ce qui n'était peut-être pas avec le langage vocal.