Daniel Everett and the Pirahã

Enkidu

I thought some here might find this interesting. Daniel Everett is a linguistic who has spent a significant fraction of his life dealing with the Pirahã people of the Maici River in Western Brazil.

Everett has some interesting things to say about the Pirahã, in particular how their evidence based world-view and language makes it almost impossible to articulate the idea of a God to them. (The language possess evidence ranking verb suffixes and over all any given verb can have 2^16 forms, compared with the 20 of typical Indo-European languages like English)

A very good talk by Everett is available here:
http://fora.tv/2009/03/20/Daniel_Everett_Endangered_Languages_and_Lost_Knowledge

Dades

I think there was a thread about this guy before. But you've reminded me that I still need to read that book!

Enkidu

Dades wrote: »

I think there was a thread about this guy before. But you've reminded me that I still need to read that book!

Indeed there was, by Jernal three years ago:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=63378185

Everett has recently gone back to the Pirahã to prove some of the claims he made about them, particularly the claims that go against some of Chomsky's theories.

Undergod

I've heard linguists give out about Everett's dodgy methodology... no-one else is able to work with them and his analysis of their language is the only one.

I don't really know anything about linguistics though, so I'm not sure what weight to give their objections.

It is interesting that they have no concept of God - this must be near-unique. I wonder do they lack other concepts we might have thought ubiquitous?

18AD

He has a new book out which I'm yet to read.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2012/04/24/151310809/culture-not-biology-shapes-language

The earlier book Don't Sleep, There are Snakes is great! What struck me most was the cultural norms rather than the linguistic aspect. Although the linguistic stuff is still fascinating. It's also a really interesting and scary biographical account of his living there.

Great book!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7Spzjh9QgA

robindch

Enkidu wrote: »

Everett has some interesting things to say about the Pirahã, in particular how their evidence based world-view and language makes it almost impossible to articulate the idea of a God to them.

It's not that it's impossible to articulate the idea of a deity to them, but it's impossible to articulate the evidence in a way that's convincing.

It's been four/five years since I read the book and the details are dim, but so far as I remember, here's what happens:

English: And on the third day, Jesus rose from the dead
Pirahã: A man told a man who told a man ... who told me that on the third day, Jesus rose from the dead.

ie, when indicating an action carried out by a third party, you've got to include a modifier which (a) defines how you know that the action was carried out, and (b) how you know that the third party knows the action was carried out.

The second modifier, or one related to it, indicates the distance between the teller and the actor, causing anything that happened in anything beyond the time of one's grandparents/great-grandparents is effectively "mythical" time, when nobody alive knows any of the original actors, and is unable, therefore, to known with any certainty that the action took place.

So when a preacher turns up and says that something happened 2,000 years ago, back through 80 generations, a Pirahã will say their equivalent of "yeah, go pull the other one".

A great book.

recedite

It seems these guys live their lives in the present moment. Religions tend to have great stories about heroes and/or miracles that happened a long time ago. And great benefits that will accrue to you in the afterlife. But nothing impressive to show right now.

fisgon

Undergod wrote: »

It is interesting that they have no concept of God - this must be near-unique. I wonder do they lack other concepts we might have thought ubiquitous?

From what I remember, they have no real concept of number, they can't grasp the idea of counting. they have 'one' and 'many'.

Also, the key part about this story which hasn't been mentioned is that Everett went to the Pirahã to convert them, he was a Christian missionary. What ended up happening, of course, was that his experiences in the Amazon destroyed his faith, and he is now an atheist. To me that was the most telling part of a fascinating book.

Skrynesaver

Interesting read alright, though for a linguist his writing style is a bit awkward, the content however is fascinating. I believe he visited them as part of a christian organisation that attempts to publish the bible in every language, believing that exposure to the holy book will instantly convert the heathens.

Enkidu

robindch wrote: »

English: And on the third day, Jesus rose from the dead
Pirahã: A man told a man who told a man ... who told me that on the third day, Jesus rose from the dead.

They don't have recursion, so you can't even say "A man told a man who told a man....", since the "who" involves" recursion. I think it's even stronger than this, more like:

Pirahã: A man rose from the dead (-verb modifier: I didn't learn this from anybody with any direct experience)

It's not that it's impossible to articulate the idea of a deity to them, but it's impossible to articulate the evidence in a way that's convincing.

Well Everett reports that they never got beyond the point of thinking that Jesus was a guy quite different from them. They thought Everett himself might have been immortal since he didn't really age as far as they were concerned. I don't think the really got the idea of a "God".

goose2005

I don't think anyone else has really studied the Piraha, so nothing Everett says can be taken for granted. Not to mention that they could be lying to him.

recedite

Enkidu wrote: »

Well Everett reports that they never got beyond the point of thinking that Jesus was a guy quite different from them. I don't think they really got the idea of a "God".

A bit like myself then.
Its not like they didn't understand what he was preaching, they just didn't buy it. Especially when he said that he'd never actually seen or met this god himself.

goose2005 wrote: »

I don't think anyone else has really studied the Piraha, so nothing Everett says can be taken for granted. Not to mention that they could be lying to him.

You don't like the message in this story, therefore you assume someone is lying.
I think that's called "shooting the messenger".

Undergod

recedite wrote: »

You don't like the message in this story, therefore you assume someone is lying.
I think that's called "shooting the messenger".

Ah now, he just said it was a possibility. The point about no-one else having studied them is important as well.

Enkidu

goose2005 wrote: »

I don't think anyone else has really studied the Piraha, so nothing Everett says can be taken for granted. Not to mention that they could be lying to him.

For the linguistic aspects, this is correct. All of Everett's claims cannot be taken for granted, especially about the grammar.

However several missionaries over the last three hundred years have tried to convert them and found that they just don't listen. Viewing religious stories as the same as saying that there is a flying boar in the jungle, i.e. sure maybe, but why should I believe that?

There present-focused worldview and lack of religious thought has been reported by people besides Everett, including a few Brazilian anthropologists.

Enkidu

recedite wrote: »

A bit like myself then.
Its not like they didn't understand what he was preaching, they just didn't buy it.

Well I'm not saying they didn't understand it, rather that you can never build your way up to God because they stop you half way there, i.e. Everett never really got beyond telling them that Jesus was a somewhat magic guy, because even that had too much fantastic claims without evidence. So it is almost impossible to articulate the idea of God to them because the halfway steps there are too much for them.

For me this is even stronger than if they'd seen the whole jigsaw puzzle of ideas that make up the idea of a Deity and rejected it. Rather they look at one piece, see no evidential reason to bother with and forget about the whole thing.

recedite

I don't think they stopped him. They may have decided among themselves that his religious stories were not credible, but they would have let him rant on just out of politeness, and for the entertainment value.

Maybe his big mistake as a missionary was trying to introduce Jesus as his "personal saviour", rather than trying to sell the idea of an abstract god.
Although it was stated that they have no creation myth, I'm guessing their ancestors were exposed to one at some time in the past. The Mayans and others were floating around South America for a long time.
I'm guessing that at some point in Piraya history, when the guy whose job it was to peddle the myths was speaking, someone just stood up and ridiculed him, and that was the end of it. Or maybe they fled deep into the jungle from some nutty tribe who wanted to use them as human sacrifices, and remained religious sceptics ever since.

I have my doubts that the Piraya are constrained by their language from understanding the concept of "God". It seems they are constrained more by their value system. They value stuff that is useful to them in the here and now. So they apparently know the names of every species of tree in their jungle, because that is useful to a hunter gatherer. By contrast, some Muslims and Buddhists apparently spend years learning their holy books off by heart. They Piraya would not see any value in that. It has always been a problem for holy men in primitive societies, and they usually tried to invent a practical use for themselves. Shamans, Witchdoctors and the Celtic Druids doubled up as doctors, inventing magic cures when they ran out of real ones. Mayan pyramids had some astronomical function, as did Newgrange, which allowed the them to regulate their calendar which was useful to agricultural societies when it came to planting and harvesting (the Piraya are not agricultural) From there it was a small step for the priests to bedazzling people with their predictions of eclipses, and then later on, claiming to be the cause of the eclipses, the rising of the sun, the seasons, and everything.

jhegarty

robindch wrote: »

It's not that it's impossible to articulate the idea of a deity to them, but it's impossible to articulate the evidence in a way that's convincing.

It's been four/five years since I read the book and the details are dim, but so far as I remember, here's what happens:

English: And on the third day, Jesus rose from the dead
Pirahã: A man told a man who told a man ... who told me that on the third day, Jesus rose from the dead.

ie, when indicating an action carried out by a third party, you've got to include a modifier which (a) defines how you know that the action was carried out, and (b) how you know that the third party knows the action was carried out.

The second modifier, or one related to it, indicates the distance between the teller and the actor, causing anything that happened in anything beyond the time of one's grandparents/great-grandparents is effectively "mythical" time, when nobody alive knows any of the original actors, and is unable, therefore, to known with any certainty that the action took place.

So when a preacher turns up and says that something happened 2,000 years ago, back through 80 generations, a Pirahã will say their equivalent of "yeah, go pull the other one".

A great book.

Interesting.


How would it be different from convincing them of the existence of undisputed historical figure like Julius Caesar ?

robindch

jhegarty wrote: »

How would it be different from convincing them of the existence of undisputed historical figure like Julius Caesar ?

It wouldn't. But then again, people don't, for example, indoctrinate children or threaten them with hellfire if they don't believe that Julius Ceasar exists.

Enkidu

recedite wrote: »

I don't think they stopped him. They may have decided among themselves that his religious stories were not credible, but they would have let him rant on just out of politeness, and for the entertainment value.

Perhaps I read his reports incorrectly, I got the impression that they never got past the point of Jesus doing vague magical stuff and being one of the "outsider" spirits like Everett himself.

I have my doubts that the Piraya are constrained by their language from understanding the concept of "God". It seems they are constrained more by their value system.

I didn't know anybody who claimed that their language prevented them from understanding a God, in his book Everett says it is their culture. Do you have any references to people saying this, I'd be very interested even if it's probably not true.

joseph brand

Enkidu wrote: »

I thought some here might find this interesting. Daniel Everett is a linguistic who has spent a significant fraction of his life dealing with the Pirahã people of the Maici River in Western Brazil.

Everett has some interesting things to say about the Pirahã, in particular how their evidence based world-view and language makes it almost impossible to articulate the idea of a God to them. (The language possess evidence ranking verb suffixes and over all any given verb can have 2^16 forms, compared with the 20 of typical Indo-European languages like English)

A very good talk by Everett is available here:
http://fora.tv/2009/03/20/Daniel_Everett_Endangered_Languages_and_Lost_Knowledge

About 27 mins in, Everett mentions that he was a missionary and he told the Pirahã about Jesus.

Pirahã: "Was he brown like us or white like you?"

Everett: "I don't know, I haven't seen him".

Pirahã: "Your Dad must have seen him".

Everett: "No, my Dad never saw him".

Pirahã: "Well then your friends must have saw him?"

Everett: "I don't know anybody who saw him".

Pirahã: "Well why are you telling us about him?"



Very interesting talk. I didn't know about Everett of that site fora.tv until today.